Scientific theories and reality:

[Aqueous Id]

GR did accurately account for all bodies in the solar system, but when you take a scale larger than the solar system GR becomes inaccurate, hence the dark matter problem. It cannot explain the motions of the galaxies, but professionals still loosely state that it is an accurate depiction of the very large. Then why do so many people trust it so much when it breaks down just outside of our solar system? It should be appallingly obvious that it is insufficient due to the limitations on observations when the theory was developed.

Huh? The motion of the planets was explained by Kepler, using what Newton would discover was the Law of Universal Gravitation, and based entirely on the painstaking charts of the "motion of the bodies of the solar system" compiled by Tycho Brahe. What in the world does it have to do with GR?

You don't seem to have any idea how gravity is applied to the study of galaxies. You will continue to spout crank anti-science nonsense as long as you remain ignorant of the subject matter. You really need a freshman course in physics to even be qualified to begin to speak on physics.

But the stupidest thing you can post is your crank opinions against the state of science. So what's really going on? You're a Creationist or your just flunked out of school?

There might have been something meaningful that could have come of this post, if you had merely mentioned the current state of the science concerning gravity and dark energy (that's what I think you meant, not dark matter, which is said to exist almost exclusively by application of the Law of Universal Gravitation.) :bugeye:

But you just can't get that chip off your shoulder, can you? Oh, here's a question: do you have school age kids or grand kids? So what do you tell them - that everything they're teaching in school is OK (like: It isn't not It ain't) - BUT - all the science teachers are liars. I mean: how do you actually function in the real world, which is entirely entrenched in the technologies brought to you by the "appallingly obvious breakdowns" that incite you to attack what you don't understand?

Bad Creationists. :spank: Bad flunkouts. :spank: Good students, scholars and professionals. :bravo:

 

[forrest noble]

That's the biggest bunch of crank nonsense since the likes of chinglu, Farsight, Reality Check, Reiku, and ... wellwisher. (And apologies to the crank wannabe's who didn't leave a lasting impression on me.)

You obviously never had a decent education. Too bad about that. But the purpose of this board isn't to glorify ignorance. Maybe you should try taking your insights to a Creationist site. I'm sure they would be glad to accommodate you. I'm sure they need fresh bullshit and who but you to shovel it?

I suggest that the next time you post on a SciForums science thread that you bring EVIDENCE instead of this endless rant that you seem to think is the same as substance.

I won't bother responding to the content of your post since it's so stupid, other than to tell you it really sucks. Go get some facts if you intend to post here and save all the bullshit for your creationist friends.

We've talked together on numerous occasions on this forum, just not very often so that you don't remember me. After all, having no cool avatar like yours (cool!) can be very forgettable; I understand.

Below you will see my latest scientific paper and related press release, and realize that I am an active alternative theorist, not a Creationist crank like your impression of me

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463
http://www.send2press.com/newswire/...robably-Does-Not-Exist_2014-03-0307-001.shtml

 

[quantum_wave]

...

So the bottom line is whether we should trust science. IMO the answer is absolutely yes. I think we should not trust theories in general for the reasons that I gave above, but we should trust the scientific method involving international efforts, better future observations, interpretations, experiments and insights, to eventually get it right

Nice post, and interesting comments. I didn't see any "creationist" code words in there, but you can bet there are a few who see someone saying "God did it" behind every burning bush.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Nice post, and interesting comments. I didn't see any "creationist" code words in there, but you can bet there are a few who see someone saying "God did it" behind every burning bush.

The mistrust of something you never bothered to study (and desire to discredit the work) is patently creationist. So, yeah, like the pesto guy said "It's in there!"

 

[Aqueous Id]

We've talked together on numerous occasions on this forum, just not very often so that you don't remember me. After all, having no cool avatar like yours (cool!) can be very forgettable; I understand.

Below you will see my latest scientific paper and related press release, and realize that I am an active alternative theorist, not a Creationist crank like your impression of me

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/32603/19463
http://www.send2press.com/newswire/...robably-Does-Not-Exist_2014-03-0307-001.shtml

In any case you're posting crank nonsense. You obviously never took the classes.

 

[brucep]

In any case you're posting crank nonsense. You obviously never took the classes.

The paper is crank nonsense.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

NOTE FROM A MODERATOR

While I too am skeptical of Forrest's claims, I did not see any hint of creationist bullshit in his papers. So on behalf of the moderator staff, I ask you to stop lumping him in with the creationsts. There is no greater insult.

My problem with him is his casual dismissal of virtually all of modern cosmology--both macrocosmology (e.g., the expanding universe) and microcosmology (e.g., quarks and leptons), if I read correctly.

This is not how science works. Scientists build upon each other's work; they don't knock over the entire canon of a scientific discipline and start over.

Forrest seems to think he's the next Einstein. If he were, he would be considerably more humble about it.

 

[quantum_wave]

Being as how the thread is Science Theories and Reality, we should expect that there would be posts that address science theories and attempt to explore what makes them something less than reality, and Forrest's post did that. Why not agrue against the points he made specifically instead of attacking the person.

Which of the theories that he argued against, actually represents correct and complete reality in your opinion? Or is science by its nature tentative; the best we know at any time, but open to new discoveries, new observations and experiments? I don't know of any of the theories that he mentioned that are consider reality, unless you believe that a consensus is all that is need to establish reality.

 

[Michael]

I think the word Science is often confused with the word Epistemology

"The eventual demarcation of philosophy from science was made possible by the notion that philosophy's core was "theory of knowledge," a theory distinct from the sciences because it was their foundation… Without this idea of a "theory of knowledge," it is hard to imagine what "philosophy" could have been in the age of modern science.”
— Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

Even scientific Laws (let alone Theories and Hypotheses) are based on logical fallacies vis-à-vis the problem of induction. We probably evolved such a strong cognitive bias towards favouring causal relationships that most of us simply cannot imagine thinking any other way. See: David Hume.

Science is a process to develop models of reality, and this is not necessary to bring about knowledge. As a matter of fact, one could argue the models provide no knowledge at all, but do a damn fine job of empirically modelling reality. Or, maybe they do? I'm not convinced they do.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Being as how the thread is Science Theories and Reality, we should expect that there would be posts that address science theories and attempt to explore what makes them something less than reality, and Forrest's post did that. Why not agrue against the points he made specifically instead of attacking the person.

Yes, it is a point-by-point list of pretty much everything he doesn't like about existing theories, but it was too long, vague and cranky; it just doesn't deserve a point-by-point debunking anywhere, much less here. In order to properly debunk him, we'd first have to teach him all of those subjects because pretty much everything he says about them is wrong. It just isn't worth the effort and is outside the scope of this thread.

Which of the theories that he argued against, actually represents correct and complete reality in your opinion?

That question is purposely a mess: it is cranky question. It is intended to deride science by misleading about what it is and how it works. But at least it is philosophically on point:

Which of the theories that he argued against, actually represents correct and complete reality in your opinion?
By definition, no theory can ever completly correctly represent reality - you know that since you said it in the next line. All theories are, by definition, tentative and incomplete. So the question is pointless. Better (more accurate and useful) questions would be: Which of the theories that he argued against have known flaws in the areas he described? The answer is none. And: Which of the theories he argues agains accurately describe what they claim to describe? The answer is: all of them. He's (laughably) arguing against the most successful theories science has ever produced.

Or is science by its nature tentative; the best we know at any time, but open to new discoveries, new observations and experiments?

I suppose by asking that you mean to imply we should be open to forrest noble's nonsense. No, we shouldn't. A short read shows that he doesn't understand the theories that he's arguing against, so there is no need to bother continuing on to his new "theory". If the premise of his argument is flawed, there is no reason to read and critique the argument itself; it can't possible be correct/useful.

I don't know of any of the theories that he mentioned that are consider reality....

Again, that's a purposely misleading statement intended to deride established science: All of the theories he argued against are correct representations of reality within the scope of what they claim.

...unless you believe that a consensus is all that is need to establish reality.

And one more time: that's a purposely misleading statement intended to deride established science: Science is not a popularity contest. Or, rather, popoularity doesn't come capriciously, it is based on the fact that the theories work. So putting the two corrected statements together: Existing theories are accepted by consensus as accurate representations of reality because the claims they make are verified by experiment/observation to be accurate.

The mistrust of something you never bothered to study (and desire to discredit the work) is patently creationist. so, yea, like the pesto guy said "It's in there!"

You're confusing category and subcategory: Creationism is a type of crackpottery, not a synonym for crackpottery. So all creationists are crackpots, but not all crackpots are creationists.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Being as how the thread is Science Theories and Reality, we should expect that there would be posts that address science theories and attempt to explore what makes them something less than reality, and Forrest's post did that. Why not argue against the points he made specifically instead of attacking the person.

I think Russ answered that very well in post #30. As for me "attacking the person," I was attacking his attitude about science, just one component of his personality. I'm sure that on the balance he's a perfectly nice fellow and I'd be happy to have him over to play Scrabble.

Which of the theories that he argued against, actually represents correct and complete reality in your opinion?

You don't seem to understand science very well either. All scientific theories evolved from hypotheses that were proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. This means, literally, that any of them could be wrong. They are not absolutely true, like mathematical theories, which are derived from abstractions instead of observation of the real world.

Occasionally the discovery of new evidence disproves one, but this doesn't happen often enough for us to start doubting the scientific method. What's more common is that new technology allows us to search for evidence whose existence could not have been imagined in the past, and even then, what usually happens is that the existing theory is merely elaborated, rather than thrown away. The most well-known example is Einstein's adjustments to Newton's Laws of Motion. The evidence he discovered could not possibly have been made available in Newton's era, before electronic instruments were invented. In any case these elaborations are irrelevant to laymen, since we will spend our entire lives at the bottom of a planet's gravity well, never traveling at more than a few hundred-thousandths of the speed of light. We can continue to teach Newton's Laws to our children without worrying that one of them will fall off the planet in a freak accident due to his ignorance.

Or is science by its nature tentative; the best we know at any time, but open to new discoveries, new observations and experiments? I don't know of any of the theories that he mentioned that are consider reality, unless you believe that a consensus is all that is need to establish reality.

Back to your original question about which theories represent correct and complete reality... When it comes to cosmology, I'd say very few at the most, and quite possibly none.

This is not my specialty so I'm not qualified to give a more precise answer, sorry. I'm a software engineer and we don't usually get into that stuff. Although I'm also a rock'n'roll musician, and sometimes we do.

Some canonical scientific theories are so well supported by evidence that we can be forgiven for telling laymen that they are absolutely true beyond any doubt. Evolution falls into this category because it is supported by evidence from three unrelated sciences: paleontology, genetics and medical research: bacteria can go through a thousand generations in one year and we can observe the changes in their DNA in response to our medications. I suspect that plate tectonics is also well beyond the likelihood of refutation.

But the Big Bang? Dark matter? The current analysis of t=0, in which the space-time continuum, the laws of nature, the principles of arithmetic and the rules of logic came into existence at the same instant, so to ask "what existed before the Big Bang" is meaningless? No, guys. This is not yet a scientific theory. It is merely a promising hypothesis.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes, it is a point-by-point list of pretty much everything he doesn't like about existing theories, but it was too long, vague and cranky; it just doesn't deserve a point-by-point debunking anywhere, much less here. In order to properly debunk him, we'd first have to teach him all of those subjects because pretty much everything he says about them is wrong. It just isn't worth the effort and is outside the scope of this thread.

That question is purposely a mess: it is cranky question. It is intended to deride science by misleading about what it is and how it works. But at least it is philosophically on point:

Which of the theories that he argued against, actually represents correct and complete reality in your opinion?
By definition, no theory can ever completly correctly represent reality - you know that since you said it in the next line. All theories are, by definition, tentative and incomplete. So the question is pointless. Better (more accurate and useful) questions would be: Which of the theories that he argued against have known flaws in the areas he described? The answer is none. And: Which of the theories he argues agains accurately describe what they claim to describe? The answer is: all of them. He's (laughably) arguing against the most successful theories science has ever produced.

I suppose by asking that you mean to imply we should be open to forrest noble's nonsense. No, we shouldn't. A short read shows that he doesn't understand the theories that he's arguing against, so there is no need to bother continuing on to his new "theory". If the premise of his argument is flawed, there is no reason to read and critique the argument itself; it can't possible be correct/useful.

Again, that's a purposely misleading statement intended to deride established science: All of the theories he argued against are correct representations of reality within the scope of what they claim.

And one more time: that's a purposely misleading statement intended to deride established science: Science is not a popularity contest. Or, rather, popoularity doesn't come capriciously, it is based on the fact that the theories work. So putting the two corrected statements together: Existing theories are accepted by consensus as accurate representations of reality because the claims they make are verified by experiment/observation to be accurate.

You're confusing category and subcategory: Creationism is a type of crackpottery, not a synonym for crackpottery. So all creationists are crackpots, but not all crackpots are creationists.

What I get out of that is it boils down to you don't feel motivated to present anything that would qualify as an argument against anything Forrest Noble said, but you bluster about intentions and motives which are based on your faulty intuition and seemingly intentional straw men to misrepresent what I said, though you generally expressed agreement with me.

Would you participate on topic if we start point by point. Getting things straightened out as to what is false and why it is false would be what I would call "on topic" in response to his post.



Paddoboy's friend said "If Scientific Theories keep changing, then how can we [lay people] trust science?"

...
Believing that most theories in modern physics are conceptually wrong,

This statement is "wrong headed" and pisses everyone off, but if he believes that, he should say why, which he does. So let's address the why, starting with:

I would say that we are not trusting in the theories themselves, or the scientists in those fields necessarily, we are trusting in the "scientific method."

This is a bit general, but it takes the issue up to a "methods" level, and I see nothing wrong with him starting there.

That in time science is self correcting in that new observations, experiments, and insights keep coming in. Of course the scientific method can vary depending upon how it is applied, and different individuals and groups can come up with opposite conclusions from the same data and observations. Science does not always advance in its concepts either. Sometimes one step backwards is taken before two steps forward can be taken. But since the Renaissance, considering intervals of about 200 years, science in general has always advanced.

I don't see anything in that to make a huge issue about, and I think it sounds supportive of the scientific community, and the scientific method.

Concepts are different from the math of a theory. Most-often the math/physics of a theory has been derived from a long history of observations. The concepts and theories might completely change over many decades, or in one swoop, while the math could remain the same or change little.

I think this is true. Who disagrees, and why?

The prime example IMO of mostly wrong theory and concepts is Quantum Mechanics. Quantum theory, like the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many-Worlds interpretation and many other quantum interpretations, are counter-intuitive and I believe nearly completely wrong. On the other hand an interpretation such as the De Broglie-Bohm hypothesis (Pilot-wave theory) is intuitive, and totally logical. All of these theorems propose nearly all the same math, called Quantum Mechanics so why are there so many followers of illogical interpretations?

Let's just go this far into his post, and address your concerns to this point.

Does anyone agree or disagree with something he said about QM. I know there is a lot of support for the Copenhagen Interpretation, and generally very little support for Many Worlds, unless my read is wrong. He says that the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation is totally logical. Who agrees or disagrees with any of the various interpretations of QM mentioned, and why? Or is what he said OK so far?

 

[Russ_Watters]

What I get out of that is it boils down to you don't feel motivated to present anything that would qualify as an argument against anything Forrest Noble said....

Let's turn it around: Why do you think he deserves that?

Would you participate on topic if we start point by point. Getting things straightened out as to what is false and why it is false would be what I would call "on topic" in response to his post.

This isn't his thread, so no it would not be on topic.

I will give an example later though...

...but you bluster about intentions and motives which are based on your faulty intuition and...

Nowhere in my post did I mention your or his motives. I responded to you point-by-point: if my post was bluster, then it was bluster responding to bluster.

... seemingly intentional straw men to misrepresent what I said...

No: I was correcting what you said, not misrepresenting it. I understand and I accurately explained exactly what you were saying before making the corrections.

...though you generally expressed agreement with me.

That was my point, yes: you worded the questions so they had to be agreed with even while painting an inaccurate picture of science.

Let's just go this far into his post, and address you concerns to this point.

He says QM is "nearly completely wrong". That is ridiculous. QM is generally regarded the most tested and successful theory in the history of science. Then he goes on about not liking the multiple different interpretations - which all uses nearly the same math. This demonstrates that he doesn't know what science is. The math (and the observations the math describe) is the science of QM and it is "nearly completely" correct as far as we can tell.

Beyond that, the post is far too vague and pointless for a useful point-by-point debunking. I have a better idea: The press release he linked gives a quick bullet-point premise for his "paper". Let's look at that:

....there were at least two unstated assumptions being made. [in analysis of type 1a supernovae]
The first well-accepted assumption then and now was that space is expanding...

The authors of this paper say that if either or both of those assumptions were wrong, then dark energy could be an invalid hypothesis...

It is technically true that any starting premise for an hypothesis has to logically be considered an assumption. So what he's trying to do here by calling it an assumption is to create a false equivalence between that assumption and his assumption that space isn't expanding. This belies the fact that expanding space is actually itself an observational theory. So you can't just discard it without redoing the whole foundation of modern cosmology first.

Since we already know based on this wrong approach that it is likely the entire paper is written about the wrong thing, there is no need to read it.

The question in the OP was about trust in science. So now we have a twist: Why trust in forrest noble instead of in science?

 

[Aqueous Id]

You're confusing category and subcategory: Creationism is a type of crackpottery, not a synonym for crackpottery. So all creationists are crackpots, but not all crackpots are creationists.

So true. However, I've been able to infer only one possible reason for trashing science other than fundamentalist angst. And that is, the dummy flunked out of school and has been emotionally damaged by it. I do think drug-induced psychopathy (to include alcohol) and/or brain damage and/or mental health issues resulting in clinical psychopathy could be a possible explanation. It just doesn't seem too likely that those folks would pester us here. And I'm pretty sure that quite a few religious nuts are posting incognito.

 

[leopold]

And I'm pretty sure that quite a few religious nuts are posting incognito.

religious nuts . . . the balls of god !
har har har har har har !

 

[Aqueous Id]

I am an active alternative theorist, not a Creationist crank like your impression of me

You may be labeled as such on this board, as a convenience to the mods, as an allowance by them for mitigating circumstances, and esp. to keep crank nonsense out of the main threads.

But you only think of yourself as an alternative theorist. You have no actual theories, and they can not properly be called alternative since they are just absurd nonsense. They have no place at all in science. You might as well call your theories wet dreams, or nightmares, or whatever. That's all they are. You're simply grossly in error and too far behind the curve to understand why. You seem to be suffering from an acute case of narcissistic naivete.

Besides, what you are posting begins with the assumption that Science is fundamentally broken, which is just plain stupid. You are posting on an infrastructure which obviously works, which has behind it every one of the principles of Science which you consider broken. So from the get-go, you are disproven. You might as well have posted "Hey look, the internet is fundamentally broken, so I can't post!"

But go right ahead projecting yourself as a science-illiterate crank. I just think the site really needs to put "dunce hats" up as your (pl.) avatars.

 

[Aqueous Id]

religious nuts . . . the balls of god !
har har har har har har !

speaking of posting incognito?

. . . but what heresy.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

He says QM is "nearly completely wrong". That is ridiculous. QM is generally regarded the most tested and successful theory in the history of science.

In the same category as evolution and plate tectonics.

It is technically true that any starting premise for an hypothesis has to logically be considered an assumption.

Although a reasonable assumption, based on evidence, logic, and in many cases experimentation. This is what distinguishes science from crackpottery.

So what he's trying to do here by calling it an assumption is to create a false equivalence between that assumption and his assumption that space isn't expanding. This belies the fact that expanding space is actually itself an observational theory. So you can't just discard it without redoing the whole foundation of modern cosmology first.

He has failed on two counts:

• 1. He gainsays a canonical theory without the mountain of evidence and chorus of peer reviews that are reasonably expected to accompany a challenge to a canonical theory--which has been elevated to canonical status by its own mountain of evidence and chorus of peer reviews.
• 2. He then fails to offer a cogent alternative. All he's got is a hard-on for 21st century macrocosmology, a clever hypothesis that challenges merely one aspect of it, and... Well wait. He hasn't got anything else.

Since we already know based on this wrong approach that it is likely the entire paper is written about the wrong thing, there is no need to read it.

If he indeed has the respect of a certain contingent of the scientific community, then it would be reasonable for somebody to read it and look for the errors. But at this point the Rule of Laplace is invoked: An extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat it with respect.

Where, pray tell, is the extraordinary evidence? Without it, there is no need for the entire community to read it--either SciForums or the entire community of scientists.

The question in the OP was about trust in science. So now we have a twist: Why trust in forrest noble instead of in science?

This is a little too snarky, considering that we're all complaining about too much snark on SciForums.

A more reasonable complaint is: Why trust in Forrest Noble instead of science, when the science he challenges is properly supported by the elements of the scientific method (empirical observation, from which a hypothesis is logically derived, using experimentation when appropriate, and peer-review) whereas his hypothesis appears to be light on evidence and heavy on arm-waving.

 

[leopold]

speaking of posting incognito?

. . . but what heresy.

oh my, you think i'm an "undercover creationists"?
you've got it bad brother!

ah, this must be the "woo" i dabble in.
you are crazier than a whole frikken flock of loons dude.

 

[brucep]

Being as how the thread is Science Theories and Reality, we should expect that there would be posts that address science theories and attempt to explore what makes them something less than reality, and Forrest's post did that. Why not agrue against the points he made specifically instead of attacking the person.

Which of the theories that he argued against, actually represents correct and complete reality in your opinion? Or is science by its nature tentative; the best we know at any time, but open to new discoveries, new observations and experiments? I don't know of any of the theories that he mentioned that are consider reality, unless you believe that a consensus is all that is need to establish reality.

Why? You think science doesn't understand our universe isn't a steady state universe that requires the addition of more matter as it evolves? I'm pretty sure his juvenile equation isn't going to replace Hubbles Law. His model is garbage in garbage out.