Scientific theories and reality:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Jul 6, 2014.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Leopold:
    This is half the problem with trying to discuss anything with you. Look at what Aqueous ID actually said:
    Try responding to what people are actually saying to you rather than reacting to what you think they're saying to you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you either believe what was printed or you don't.
    you can't have it both ways trippy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    There is no disagreement that the math of physics is the most important part of its application. But formulations can be derived with great effort based upon a history of observations without any justification or understanding why the resultant formulations should be valid, and possibly no guess as to what circumstances they may not be valid. Verbal logic is what "theory" is all about. Theory can explain every aspect of reality with accuracy and understanding so that the human mind could understand everything about everything, in principle, without math. The problem is that no quantitative predictions can be made without mathematics or statistics of some kind, and this exactness and precision is a requirement for the application of most theories.

    Russ, I do not understand what you are stating or questioning in the above quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    It's not about belief, it's about understanding and context, both of which you have failed at.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what is so hard about understanding the conclusion?
    except the fact it doesn't fit with the so called "mainstream".
    what's so hard about understanding what dr. ayala said, except maybe it doesn't fit either.

    there is nothing to indicate dr. ayala even contacted the source but yet he contacts authors of personal websites.
    yeah, uh huh.
    go for it.
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    As I have said at least 6 times now, your error is that you are claiming that Gould is not covered in the curriculum. It is, therefore your arguments are moot and these remarks are false and irrelevant. Speak to the issue: Gould is in the curriculum.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    ok, now what?
    this doesn't resolve what was printed in the article.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The trick is to resolve your misconception of what is in the curriculum (the mainstream). Once you accept that science teaches Gould's theory, what's left for you to complain about?
     
  12. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Explanations are verbal, mathematics and statistics are calculated statements without explanatory power.

    "Explanation" defined: A statement of reason or justification given for an action or belief.

    It was emboldened to show that a theory cannot exist by definition without statements of explanation.

    I deleted the emboldened emphasis of "supported by a vast body of evidence" because I though the emphasis might be misunderstood as to my meaning of it. My meaning was that Quantum Mechanics has no vast body of evidence to justify the derivation of its equations and the application of the statistics that it uses. The body of evidence was the history of observations used to derive its equations, but was not a justification for the resultant formulations or why they should be valid.
     
  13. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    again...
    the justifications and validations are,
    what is produced from QM
    simple.
    math is a language, it's very explanatory powered

    agian,
    maybe actually learning and understanding quantum physics and what is produced from QM will help ?
    it appears the lack of comprehension of what is read is the problem here,
    as the continuous incorrect (as obvious as it can be) post shows that's the problem

    it also appears that it is not realized how this post (#131 and 149) contradicts it's self.

    just because one individual has a problem understanding , makes this a non theory ?


    so the problem is you are talking in code instead of using the actual meaning of these words ?
     
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That ignores/discounts scholarship, which is just plain stupid. It certainly leaves you at the bottom of the heap you are disparaging.

    Valid logic underpins all valid science. How illogical of you to disparage it.

    Name one theory that does that.

    So math is used to create problems rather than to solve them?

    Explain how this applies to Darwin, Mendel, Newton, Maxwell, Carnot, Balmer or Lorentz (just to pick a few at random)
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the ayala quote for one thing.
    after reviewing your link, i'm more confident than ever that he did indeed say what was printed.
    think about that aqueous and tell me you don't have a problem with this issue.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The link teaches Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium to students of evolution. What controversy remains? If students get this in their curriculum, then it proves that the mainstream embraces Gould's theory. Therefore you no longer have any reason to say that you reject evolution based on your belief that the mainstream rejected Gould, since you now see that your premise was incorrect.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Besides the personal PM's you sent me, I have recently reviewed some older Evolution threads going back 12 months and more...
    The logical assumptions from your general postings going back over the last couple of years is certainly that you have Creationists tendencies and sympathies.
    Nothing wrong with that per se, but when that obvious agenda, effects one's ability to observe the logical data that shows that Evolution is as factual as one would want it to be, and forces you to ignore the larger overall aspect of life and Evolution, then you need to do a serious rethink.
    As I have pointed out to you previously, even the Catholic church recognise that fact, and you retort back in obvious anger, "who gives a flying f%#@ what the Catholic church does" [or words conveying that effect] again show your sympathetic tendencies towards some form of Creationism.

    It would be far more honest to just be up front and come out from the closet so to speak.
     
  18. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    You are hedging. You are trying to begrudgingly acknowledge QM's success while still claiming it isn't relevant/important ("application" vs "theory"). Again: the math is the theory.
    The justification comes from the later experimental confirmation, which then also establish the domain of applicability. Newton's theory of gravity worked that way.
    No. You cannot have a theory in physics without math. The best you can hope for is math simple enough to say in words (force equals mass times acceleration), but that's just a verbalization of the math. The math is the theory.

    And even your idea -- ludicrous as it is -- works that way.
    Application and construction of the theory. Right: that's why a theory in physics must be made of math.
    Your explanation of cosmological redshift is that matter is shrinking due to electrons getting closer to their nuclei, right? You haven't made any attempt to explore the implications of that idea on how atoms and molecules function, right?
    The justification - the reason why it should be valid as formulated - is that the math has produced successful predictions. Your idea, on the other hand, makes no predictions. It is therefore not a theory.

    Some of your own links explicitly say that theories in physics are formulated with math - you just choose to ignore them:
    Since math is a language, your attempt to separate math from theory by claiming theories must be linguistic is a null claim.

    Galileo said the same:
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647





    Oh the Irony of it all!
    I certainly smell hypocrisy in the air.
     
  20. forrest noble Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Maybe some say that math is a language but I go by scientific dictionaries which define language as:

    "the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."

    No, but if no one understands it then it probably is not a theory. But primarily it does not meet the definition of a theory.
    Here are quotes from Richard Feynman:

    "If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"

    "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

    http://ontheshouldersofscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/if-you-think-you-understand-quantum.html
     
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    So you're going to continue writing down irrelevant bullshit? Not surprising based on what you've shown us.
     
  22. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    once again, it has been made clear ,
    there is a lack of comprehension here.

    then there's also another lack of comprehension with the quotes,
    then taken out of their correct context .
    as this is obviously shown.

    it has now been resorted to cheap shenanigans that are not even amusing.
    but what was amusing was the meaningless, insignificant to anything link.

    feynman also said,
    the first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
    which is exactly and clearly what is occurring here.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    in my opinion you are being willfully blind and are skirting the issue.
    you don't want the truth aqueous.
    i seriously doubt if you are in any way interested in maintaining the integrity of science.
     

Share This Page