Scientific Method Mega Thread

[RichWall]

And if someone can present actual evidence to support gravity being something other than 9.8m/s^2, I'm sure the scientific community will happily have an "open and free discussion" on the matter.

"It might be something different" or "everything is subjective, so you're wrong" are not scientifically supportable evidence.

Perception is subjective, but I think we can come to a consensus that an "open and free discussion" will help to objectify that fact.:tiphat:

 

[Rtyh-12]

And if someone can present actual evidence to support gravity being something other than 9.8m/s^2, I'm sure the scientific community will happily have an "open and free discussion" on the matter.

"It might be something different" or "everything is subjective, so you're wrong" are not scientifically supportable evidence.

OK, let's see... if I understand it correctly, then it goes like this...

Maybe gravity really IS 8 m/s^2, and everyone else in this world is lying to me about it. Maybe you are all having this argument so that I believe that it's 9.8m/s^2. I haven't tested it myself. Sure, the chances are very very low, but you can't deny it...

OK, by this I don't mean that I believe gravity is 8 m/s^2. I just believe that there is a chance of 1 in a googolplexian (I mean really small) of it happening.

P.S.: This is a googolplexian

P.P.S: Just to clarify, the statement in my original post was made in class.

 

[jedidia]

It seems to me your view is in conflict with democracy

I did not refer to our interpretation of reality. As I said, everyone has the liberty (and to some degree even the obligation) to doubt that. But if you want to abolish reality itself in order to have a "total" democracy, it indeed ends up in what Hielor pointed out: Let's have a vote on what the earths acceleration actualy is. We can do that of course, and if it gets accepted we can change all our material on the subject, but reality won't care in the end.

Also, while I stated above that doubt, to some degree, is even an obligation, that does not mean to just doubt and to nurish that doubt. It means actively doing something to reduce that doubt to a minimum possible. I.e. doing measurements and experiments by yourself to see if your doubt has any substance, or if it was just a weird Idea.

What it comes down to, in the end, is this: Do you believe in an objective reality, or not? I'm not refering to what we can practically know thereof. If it exists, our understanding of it can only be an aproximation of what it is and how it works, and we can never be fully certain. Still it makes a difference wheather or not I believe that it is there, because if I believe that, I also believe that there are interpretations that are closer to it than others, although we cannot always tell which ones those are. If you don't believe in the existance of an objective reality in the first place, any assumption has the same weight, because every assumption in the end is meaningless, because there's nothing to actually make assumptions about. You'll be getting a real problem with explaining the whole phenomenon of existance, though.

You say that as long as those in power agree with YOU, all is fine.

First of all, let's be honest here, everyone feels better if the government agrees with his oppinion, simply because it means that we won't have any trouble with it. It's also all what democracy is about in the end: Everyone votes for the guy that agrees with him the most.
But while that is comforting, it isn't my goal. If a government thinks it can change reality by the pure force of its authority, it is utterly insane, and I wouldn't want it even if they happened to agree with a few ideas of mine. For all you know, they'll declare themselfes God next.

Obviously I am talking about both, since they are inter-connected and since I've already said it was the comments about firing her (the teacher this topic is really about) from her job that got me into this thread in the first place.

And as I said, it depends heavily on the situation. In this specific situation, as I said, it would be a total overreaction. If you, on the other hand, would not have a problem with a physics teacher teaching such things, then I can officially declare that we disagree.

"Educate yourself!". That is such a good statement
That's what people should do

It's what I'm trying to do a lot, actually.

 

[RichWall]

OK, let's see... if I understand it correctly, then it goes like this...

Hielor is correct when he says...

And if someone can present actual evidence to support gravity being something other than 9.8m/s^2, I'm sure the scientific community will happily have an "open and free discussion" on the matter.

"It might be something different" or "everything is subjective, so you're wrong" are not scientifically supportable evidence.

Gravity could be measured at sea level at 8 m/s^2 if one is using a different length of meter or a different rate measurement of time.

Once the two agree to a convention of standard measurements you can go on to step two.

Step two is measuring the rate of acceleration of two different size metal balls dropped off a tower. The rate of acceleration is the same each time and this data verified by the two people, A standard Model is created. The rate of acceleration is established at 9.8m/s^2.

Now this same experiment is done on top of Mt. Everest. The rate of acceleration is a hair lower than 9.8m/s^2, enough to determine the inverse square law.

Now a new Standard Model is created.

But if the two people won't/cannot talk to each other or one will not accept the findings from Mt. Everest. Science does not advance, at least for now.

 

[Nazban]

OK, let's see... if I understand it correctly, then it goes like this...

Maybe gravity really IS 8 m/s^2, and everyone else in this world is lying to me about it. Maybe you are all having this argument so that I believe that it's 9.8m/s^2. I haven't tested it myself. Sure, the chances are very very low, but you can't deny it...

OK, by this I don't mean that I believe gravity is 8 m/s^2. I just believe that there is a chance of 1 in a googolplexian (I mean really small) of it happening.

P.S.: This is a googolplexian

P.P.S: Just to clarify, the statement in my original post was made in class.

lol just did a lab class to show that gravity is 9.8m/s^2, cant fool me :lol:

and umm........ isn't this is slightly going off topic?

 

[Urwumpe]

Science has NEVER been democratic. Don't fool yourself there. Science only cares about "works out" and "does not work out". If the majority believes in a wrong model, like it had been with the polar shift hypothesis, despite the existence of a better model, like plate tectonics, then the wrong hypothesis will not find supporting evidence and fail to predict future discoveries.

Science is pluralistic. Everyone can contribute to it, everyone can have his own hypotheses and theories.

Science offers equal opportunity. Even if you are an illiterate, you can do science. There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong.

Science is self-correcting: Wrong perceptions will eventually be discovered and corrected. For example the existence of a planet past Neptune. Which was not Pluto.

There is also the problem with the "subjective perception" hypothesis that some propagate here. Subjective perception does only exist in social sciences. Natural sciences are completely devoid of it. Nobody can go around and publish a paper saying "I feel like this object moved." He will have to document his experiment so other people can understand what he saw. He will have to measure the motion, so he knows the object moved.

Lets say, your personal reality tells you that gravity acceleration is just 8 m/s². Could then somebody in your personal reality disagree with you seriously? He would, in your reality, measure the same things as you. If he would have contradicting measurements, who of you is wrong then? That means you have again science there. Maybe you can replicate your 8 m/s² and he can not?

 

[RichWall]

Science has NEVER been democratic. Don't fool yourself there. Science only cares about "works out" and "does not work out". If the majority believes in a wrong model, like it had been with the polar shift hypothesis, despite the existence of a better model, like plate tectonics, then the wrong hypothesis will not find supporting evidence and fail to predict future discoveries.

Science is pluralistic. Everyone can contribute to it, everyone can have his own hypotheses and theories.

Science offers equal opportunity. Even if you are an illiterate, you can do science. There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong.

Science is self-correcting: Wrong perceptions will eventually be discovered and corrected. For example the existence of a planet past Neptune. Which was not Pluto.

There does tend to be a 'General Consensus' that most agree on at a given moment, while some theories, being correct need proof yet, are often linked to the advancement of technology to be established. Your example of Plate Techtonics is a good one. Relativity as well. I do agree that some theories are considered fringe always exist next to more widely accepted ones until that proof comes.

There is also the problem with the "subjective perception" hypothesis that some propagate here. Subjective perception does only exist in social sciences. Natural sciences are completely devoid of it. Nobody can go around and publish a paper saying "I feel like this object moved." He will have to document his experiment so other people can understand what he saw. He will have to measure the motion, so he knows the object moved.

I do read and try to understand if I am wrong on a concept or if it is a matter of interpretation of the same concept from another vantage point.

My point here is that peer review is a required step in progressing the understanding of reality and the subjectiveness comes in due to the limited nature of our sensory perception.

If all people were deaf it would have taken man a lot longer to have figured out the Doppler effect. A color blind person would need the input of others to understand Red shift.

Who can guess at the deeper understanding of the nature of the universe we could have, if we had sensory perception beyond the 5 we have now. Yes, technology fills in this gap nicely from time to time, but there was a time science had to begin somewhere without this technology.

Lets say, your personal reality tells you that gravity acceleration is just 8 m/s². Could then somebody in your personal reality disagree with you seriously? He would, in your reality, measure the same things as you. If he would have contradicting measurements, who of you is wrong then? That means you have again science there. Maybe you can replicate your 8 m/s² and he can not?

I think I was very clear on a standard of measurement being the 1st step to avoiding the above.

 

[Urwumpe]

Science only advances as fast as the measurement technology. Simple fact.

Hearing is nice, yes... but for properly discovering the Doppler effect, you actually needed somebody measuring the frequency and making accurate measurements.

 

[N_Molson]

'General Consensus' can be dangerous. It often led science on false ways, sometimes for decades or centuries. Aristotle physics has been the 'General Consensus' in Europe for almost 2000 years. Fundamental science made little advances during the middle ages, and nothing really moved before the 17th century.

 

[Urwumpe]

Fundamental science made little advances during the middle ages, and nothing really moved before the 17th century.

That is wrong. actually science did progress pretty well. Just look how fast Gothic cathedrals evolved and how many technologies had been invented there in just 20 years.

It had been just technology that won't get mentioned in Discovery Channel.

Weapon technology in Europe had gone through a much faster evolution as for example in Japan. In Japan they arrived in 50 years of testing at the Katana and kept it for centuries. In Europe, Armor and weapons had ALWAYS been in a constant race. Tactics changed quickly. Medicine made big advances during the so-called dark ages. Farming was revolutionized around 1000 AD, permitting a strong population growth in Central Europe. Ships saw GREAT changes in the so-called dark ages. The precursor of the EU already formed and caused trouble. Printing books was revolutionized.

And the world was never a disk in the middle ages, except in the opinion of just two monks who lived between 600 and 800 AD.

The renaissance was the rediscovery of lost technology and inclusion of new one... but a lot of this technology was actually never really lost, but replaced by other technologies.

 

[RichWall]

'General Consensus' can be dangerous. It often led science on false ways, sometimes for decades or centuries.

You make my point wonderfully.

The more open to the possibilities one is, the best chance of discovering something new in science....That actually is science.:tiphat:

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

That is wrong. actually science did progress pretty well. Just look how fast Gothic cathedrals evolved and how many technologies had been invented there in just 20 years.

It had been just technology that won't get mentioned in Discovery Channel.

Weapon technology in Europe had gone through a much faster evolution as for example in Japan. In Japan they arrived in 50 years of testing at the Katana and kept it for centuries. In Europe, Armor and weapons had ALWAYS been in a constant race. Tactics changed quickly. Medicine made big advances during the so-called dark ages. Farming was revolutionized around 1000 AD, permitting a strong population growth in Central Europe. Ships saw GREAT changes in the so-called dark ages. The precursor of the EU already formed and caused trouble. Printing books was revolutionized.

And the world was never a disk in the middle ages, except in the opinion of just two monks who lived between 600 and 800 AD.

The renaissance was the rediscovery of lost technology and inclusion of new one... but a lot of this technology was actually never really lost, but replaced by other technologies.

Maybe what is happening here is, progress of applied science and analytical science needs to leap frog each other step by step.

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe what is happening here is, progress of applied science and analytical science needs to leap frog each other step by step.

maybe. Maybe it is also a perception issue. Which 18th century writer who declared the dark ages had been over had been aware of the work of the "little people"?

The big changes for building huge cathedrals and castles for example, happened at the craftsmen. People learned how to apply the Pythagorean theorem without knowing algebra at a time, when nobody knew anymore that Pythagoras discovered it.

It is pretty likely, that a lot of scientific advancement happened just oral, and was told from master to apprentice, without people making many notes. A Trebuchet for example had no blueprints. There had been just a scientific book at that time with standard patterns around about such craftsmanship. The people who build such weapons designed the Trebuchet around the available trees, a real art, compared to just buying what you need today.

Today only few real masters know about wood good enough to work that way.

 

[RichWall]

maybe. Maybe it is also a perception issue.

Thanks. :shifty: Maybe a lack of knowledge issue.

Which 18th century writer who declared the dark ages had been over had been aware of the work of the "little people"?

My first guess was Voltaire, then John Locke. But only guesses.

DaVinci was 15th century, so, I don't know.

The big changes for building huge cathedrals and castles for example, happened at the craftsmen. People learned how to apply the Pythagorean theorem without knowing algebra at a time, when nobody knew anymore that Pythagoras discovered it.

It is pretty likely, that a lot of scientific advancement happened just oral, and was told from master to apprentice, without people making many notes. A Trebuchet for example had no blueprints. There had been just a scientific book at that time with standard patterns around about such craftsmanship. The people who build such weapons designed the Trebuchet around the available trees, a real art, compared to just buying what you need today.

Today only few real masters know about wood good enough to work that way.

Trebuchet, the art of Hurling.

http://www.trebuchet.com/

I know of another art of Hurling, but I won't elaborate here.

 

[JEL]

What it comes down to, in the end, is this: Do you believe in an objective reality, or not? I'm not refering to what we can practically know thereof. If it exists, our understanding of it can only be an aproximation of what it is and how it works, and we can never be fully certain. Still it makes a difference wheather or not I believe that it is there, because if I believe that, I also believe that there are interpretations that are closer to it than others, although we cannot always tell which ones those are. If you don't believe in the existance of an objective reality in the first place, any assumption has the same weight, because every assumption in the end is meaningless, because there's nothing to actually make assumptions about. You'll be getting a real problem with explaining the whole phenomenon of existance, though.

I agree. That is exactly what it comes down to; what you believe

It's what I'm trying to do a lot, actually.

That makes 2 of us then

There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong.

I agree. Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. But!... Those holding power in society... do discriminate!
And IMO it is just as bad when people discriminate in the name of 'holy mother science' as when they do it in the name of 'holy mother church'.

That's all

 

[jedidia]

I agree. That is exactly what it comes down to; what you believe

Yes, but as I said, you'll have a real problem explaining existance in general then. I don't mean to offend anyone (but probably will none the less), but I consider anyone that denies the existance of an objective reality per se as at least moderately mental.

 

[RichWall]

Yes, but as I said, you'll have a real problem explaining existence in general then. I don't mean to offend anyone (but probably will none the less), but I consider anyone that denies the existence of an objective reality per se as at least moderately mental.

Be brave my friend, be brave.....:yes:

I am pretty sure no one is denying the existence of an objective reality...We humans just don't know everything yet.

 

[jedidia]

Until this thread, that's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure anymore...

 

[RichWall]

Until this thread, that's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure anymore...

I also wouldn't let this destroy your faith, after all, it is a discussion about the Scientific Method.

But, "Question Authority" is a good way to approach most, if not all, fields of thought, IMO.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, authority is pretty much speaking against peer review. You should be testing everything, if you want to. Even if 1+1 is really 2.

 

[RichWall]

Yeah, authority is pretty much speaking against peer review. You should be testing everything, if you want to. Even if 1+1 is really 2.

No it isn't.

It's speaking against the discrimination that us fallible Humans tend toward.

I agree. Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. But!... Those holding power in society... do discriminate!
And IMO it is just as bad when people discriminate in the name of 'holy mother science' as when they do it in the name of 'holy mother church'.

That's all

It also speaks to being careful not to let arrogance get us stuck in a rut.

Understanding that adding to the total sum of Human Knowledge is an ever changing and dynamic process.

To be open to the possibility that a new theory or thought could very well rock the very foundation of our current beliefs, as Relativity did to our basic preconception of what time was.

The central part of my argument was the requirement of peer review.

Trust me Urwumpe, I am quite OK with 1+1=2. However, there was a time in my life, I had to learn this for the first time as well.