Things I learned in physics class by BadgersHat

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Things I learned in physics class

POSTED BY: BADGERSHAT
UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2005 05:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16842
PAGE 3 of 3

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:14 AM

EDIT: Post deleted by author, since it added nothing to the discussion. Question answered by another poster while I was composing it...

v/r,
-zed

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:23 AM

QBEAM

Quote:
But what about this is unscientific? just because something has yet to be proven, doesn't mean that the hypothesis is unscientific. The development of the numerous hypotheses is based on purely scientific grounds (under normal circumstances). You make assumptions based on previous scientific evidence. There is a logical train of thought that leads you to new hypotheses. Yes, there are surely many hypotheses that can lead from a single experiment, and there are many different ones to investigate. The choice is "generally" made from a plausibility argument, (i.e., which hypothesis is more liekyl to prove true), but not necessarily. Sometimes you look at what you think would be more interesting, sometimes you look into what you think is more fun. Is this what you mean by unscientific? Because the hyptothesis is still completely scientifically sound. The decision on what to investigate needs to be made sure, and I'll admit, one doesn't always need to use the scientific method to chose the one to look at, but that doesn't make it unscientific in my opinion.

Sure enough, it does appear we've just been talking past each other.

If I understand you correctly, now, you are using the term "based on science" to include any reasonable thinking that draws on scientific knowledge. That's a perfectly fair use of the term--perhaps better than mine. But it's not what I meant.

As I said in my last post, when I say that decisions are made that are not "based on science," I mean they are not themselves the result of the rigorous applicaiton of the scientific method--that is, that they are not scientific conclusions.

The early debates about QM are, I think, I fine illustration of the principle I've been trying to get at, so I'll raise them again, here. Einstein's response to QM is reputed to have been, "God does not play dice with the universe." That is patently a non-scientific reaction to a scientific theory. The fact that many people reacted that way is all one needs to know, to know that the progess of QM theory was not "entirely based on science," i.e., was not the result of scientific analysis. Of course, in the case of QM, enough people believed in it to continue collecting data. But this doesn't prove that scientific thinking always drives the progress of science. Firstly, those who championed QM did so for their own unscientific reasons. Secondly, things don't always work out as they appear to have done in this case. The sorry state of environmental science is a fine illustration. (This may be a bad example, though, since the ultimate hypotheses of environmental science are not testable, and therefore outside the realm of science entirely.)

Leaving that aside, for the moment, there is one other point I think deserves attention. As I said before, it's peculiar to me that, in our culture, the scientific method is generally regarded as the only valid epistemology. So, while I think it's crucial to notice the differece between the opinions of scientists, on the one hand, and scientific knowledge, on the other, the last think I want to do is suggest that all non-scientific thinking is unreasonable! But the historical reason that the scientific method got to it's present singular position in our culture is that its about the only epistemology that is truly immune to unreasonableness. Indeed, that's exactly why I think it's so important to notice the difference between what science tells us, on the one hand, and what scientists tell us, on the other. Many scientists have unreasonable opinions, and our culture is prone to granting them the presumption of reasonableness that scientific methodology merits, in the mistaken assumption that people who do science always think scientifically, or that they even usually do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:44 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by QBeam:

For example, I know that physicists have an emotional attachment to the concept of elegance. (I do to! I'm not pointing fingers...) Theories that propose elegant solutions are presumed to be more likely to be correct. And yet, its doubtful that the concept of elegance could even be operationalized, much less tested scientifically.

To be fair, this isn't exactly something that is just emotion. Most (if not all; excluding applied) physical theories to date are elegant. So, it stands to reason that future theories will be elegant as well. ie It is actually a concequence of science not emotion. Although the latter is a consequence of the former. So, this concept is scientifically derived.

There is something mathematical illustrating why physical theories exhibit elegance that has something to do with renormalization group flow. But, this is something that is a fair bit away from the wife's area and she must look it up; if is able to find it at all. Since you have degrees in physics perhaps you might have some luck with finding it.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:53 AM

FOURSKYS

Ok, so I think I'm begining to understand your point, so correct me if I'm wrong. But what you're saying is that one cannot make decisions solely based on scientific principles or the scientific method. I'll grant that. There's always a level of gut, instinct, and feeling involved. You're example about QM is quite appropriate then. Einstein went to his death bed disbelieving in QM. But I think there is a big difference in the science between believing in something and the research that is done on it. While Einstein may not have believed it was true, he did still make some startling and appropriate advances to QM. He thoroughly helped the development of the science (much to his chagrin, I'm sure). So, I think this emphasizes your later point quite well in the difference between scientific reasoning and the belief of scientists.

I completely agree that too many people put far to much credibility of things, just because a scientist says so. Look at TV comericals for things when they have "Doctors" in lab coats who simply state the advertising campaign slogan. It helps sell the product to people who simply think "well, he's a doctor and he's smart, so he must know what's good".

So, my argument about your hypothesis is that, while there are certainly prejudices and biases within the scientific community, and while some people are surely going to try their darnedest to disprove something that they just "feel" is false, there are other who'll be doing exactly the same. So, on the individual level, I'll agree that there is a significant amount of "non-scientific" pressure on what avenues to persue, but on the global scale, those are, I think, averaged out. Now, those individual pressure can often lead to something new (e.g., Lagrangian Mechanics was sought after in seach of a "God principle" or some such...).

I suppose, that in that way, you would label "creativity" and "inspiration" as non-scientific? If that's the case, I completely agree that there are some non-scientific reasonings out there. But in the end, the ones that prove to be false are discarded and the "correct" (I use the term loosely) ones are kept. That's pretty much the scientific method in a nutshell right there, only flowing from our genetic consciousness (That last part was pretty much of a joke with a hit tipped to Dune, BTW.)

FourSkys

P.S. - This is whole discussion is a pretty good example of Hegelian dielctic, if I do say so myself. Thesis - Antithesis, Synthesis. Just wanted to point that out. Carry on. :-)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:59 AM

QBEAM

Quote:
To be fair, this isn't exactly something that is just emotion. Most (if not all; excluding applied) physical theories to date are elegant. So, it stands to reason that future theories will be elegant as well. ie It is actually a concequence of science not emotion. Although the latter is a consequence of the former. So, this concept is scientifically derived.

This is exactly the kind of unscientific thinking I was talking about--confusing a "general trend" that we think we have discerned with something that has been scientifically tested.

It is an entirely natural reaction, but it is not scientific. As I said, the concept of elegance probably cannot be operationalized, much less tested. I know for a fact that it has not been, in fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:03 AM

SIGMANUNKI

QBeam wrote:
"""
As I said in my last post, when I say that decisions are made that are not "based on science," I mean they are not themselves the result of the rigorous applicaiton of the scientific method--that is, that they are not scientific conclusions.
"""
So, basically what you're saying is that these things are not scientific (whether they are scientifically based or not) because they aren't conclusions?

QBeam wrote:
"""
The early debates about QM are, I think, I fine illustration of the principle I've been trying to get at, so I'll raise them again, here. Einstein's response to QM is reputed to have been, "God does not play dice with the universe." That is patently a non-scientific reaction to a scientific theory. The fact that many people reacted that way is all one needs to know, to know that the progess of QM theory was not "entirely based on science," i.e., was not the result of scientific analysis.
"""
Um, that actually proves the opposite. ie The theory was developed despite the personal opinions of the authors. Nobody liked it, it was extremely counter intuitive, yet people went where the science lead them; not where there unscientific opinions/emotions/etc would have lead them.

QBeam wrote:
"""
Firstly, those who championed QM did so for their own unscientific reasons.
"""
Given examples of physicists that went along with QM for unscientific reasons. You cannot just state things.

QBeam wrote:
"""
Secondly, things don't always work out as they appear to have done in this case. The sorry state of environmental science is a fine illustration. (This may be a bad example, though, since the ultimate hypotheses of environmental science are not testable, and therefore outside the realm of science entirely.)
"""
And what is/are the hypotheses of environmential science? One must also recongnize that the environment is by its very nature a chaotic system and thus will be out of our reach for some time. It is an immature science and cannot be held to the same standards as say, Physics.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:10 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by QBeam:

This is exactly the kind of unscientific thinking I was talking about--confusing a "general trend" that we think we have discerned with something that has been scientifically tested.

It is an entirely natural reaction, but it is not scientific. As I said, the concept of elegance probably cannot be operationalized, much less tested. I know for a fact that it has not been, in fact.

That may very well be, but what about a comment on that next paragraph I wrote. Rather interesting that you didn't comment on that since it points to a mathematical foundation for elegance.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:18 AM

QBEAM

Quote:
That may very well be, but what about a comment on that next paragraph I wrote. Rather interesting that you didn't comment on that since it points to a mathematical foundation for elegance.

I didn't comment because I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you can provide some more information.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2005 6:05 AM

SKYDANCE

Quote:
The trouble is, the scientific method is horribly constrained. Human beings simply cannot get by in this world, without accepting many, many things without insisting on scientific verification. Its an interesting thought-problem. How many things do you take on faith each day, before you even make it into the lab (or whereever you go to do your job)?

We're having semantic issues. Faith, as it pertains to religion, is about believing things which can't be shown to others. It has to do with things you experience inside your heart.

Unless I totally misunderstand the point of the quote above, QBEAM is talking about the "faith" that everyone will stop at the red light, and no one will jump out of the bushes at you, and the car will start. That's not based on something you felt in your heart; it's based on years of observation (and tempered with the awareness that each of these things could happen, but you have made appropriate preparations should the extremely rare circumstance arise).

As far as "scientists are every bit as prone to irrational assumptions and emotional attachment to ideas as anyone else" ... well. We're human, eh? That's why we insist on the Scientific Method: to eliminate those personal attachments from the results. However, they still limit the theories we're able to conceive, and that does put a bit of a brake on how quickly we can grow.

Quote:
the idea that science is all about deductive reasoning is a fiction that results from ...

Hogwash. It doesn't result from anything except people looking at effect and confusing it with cause.

"Deductive reasoning" is a smokescreen. People don't follow logical chains to arrive at conclusions! They leap forward and see possible conclusions, then they weed out the bad conclusions from the good ones by seeing which have a chain of deductive reasoning that leads to them. You always know the answer before you find the chain of logic that gets you there.

No, I'm not engaging in a scientific debate on the topic -- I don't want to waste all that time typing things out. Consider this one my personal opinion, and spend some time looking around. You'll quickly find that people get a "hunch" about what's happening, and then work out the explanation based on the hunch (not vice-versa).

However, this doesn't invalidate the scientific method. In fact, it validates it: (1) theorize (2) devise tests (3) observe results. It's the same way humans do everything else, but formalizing it as the scientific method ensures we don't skip any steps. I think QBEAM is getting into trouble by equating "scientific" with the body of published journals & peer review. The scientific method itself only requires one person.

Quote:
My understanding is that QM predicts the probabilities that an investigated particle will be found to possess certain properties (i.e., position or momentum, spin, et cetera). Correct thus far? QM then predicts the odds that the particle will be found in a specific configuration. (How'm I doing?)

For the record: this is close, but there's a subtle point missing. QM does predict the odds that it will be found in one or the other state when it is observed, but to really wrap your head around QM, you have to realize that QM says it exists in both states until it has been observed.

Keep in mind that everything in the universe is "observed" by bouncing a particle off of it: either a photon, or an electron, or some other bit of fluff.

And finally, Wikipedia to the rescue ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group_flow ) ... sort of. While it gives a great starting-point for research into RNG, the math is much too advanced for me.
__________________________
"They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2005 5:00 AM

QBEAM

Quote:
We're having semantic issues. Faith, as it pertains to religion, is about believing things which can't be shown to others. It has to do with things you experience inside your heart.

Unless I totally misunderstand the point of the quote above, QBEAM is talking about the "faith" that everyone will stop at the red light, and no one will jump out of the bushes at you, and the car will start. That's not based on something you felt in your heart; it's based on years of observation (and tempered with the awareness that each of these things could happen, but you have made appropriate preparations should the extremely rare circumstance arise).

Perhaps you want to create more than two categories of things we believe. That might be useful for some purposes, but here, the discussion is scientific knowledge vs. everything else, so I don't mean to restrict "faith" to religious faith. So, yes, I do mean things like faith that everyone else will stop at the red light. Yes, these things are based on observation, but science requires more than mere observation. Superstitions and prejudices are based on observations, too.

Quote:
As far as "scientists are every bit as prone to irrational assumptions and emotional attachment to ideas as anyone else" ... well. We're human, eh? That's why we insist on the Scientific Method: to eliminate those personal attachments from the results. However, they still limit the theories we're able to conceive, and that does put a bit of a brake on how quickly we can grow.

A good point (and one of the principle examples I've been advancing). But the problem of our inherently irrational natures is more of a brake on pure science than even you're accounting for. The trouble is, even once you're devising and running experiments, our irrational side causes us to interpret the results, or, often times, to reject them outright.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the idea that science is all about deductive reasoning is a fiction that results from ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hogwash. It doesn't result from anything except people looking at effect and confusing it with cause.

"Deductive reasoning" is a smokescreen. People don't follow logical chains to arrive at conclusions! They leap forward and see possible conclusions, then they weed out the bad conclusions from the good ones by seeing which have a chain of deductive reasoning that leads to them. You always know the answer before you find the chain of logic that gets you there.

Hmmm...I think "hogwash" is an inappropriately strong term. Frankly, you've mostly made my point for me, though I think you've greatly overstated the case. I can think of numerous times when I use deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion before I know the answer. The trouble is, the situations in which I can do so are the very simplest of problems--like those "Sudaka" math puzzles, or whatever they're called. Real world problems are almost always too complex for anything but inductive reasoning double-checked by imperical methods.

Quote:
However, this doesn't invalidate the scientific method. In fact, it validates it: (1) theorize (2) devise tests (3) observe results. It's the same way humans do everything else, but formalizing it as the scientific method ensures we don't skip any steps. I think QBEAM is getting into trouble by equating "scientific" with the body of published journals & peer review. The scientific method itself only requires one person.

Heh... my intent has never been to "invalidate" the scientific method. Rather, I merely mean to point out its limitations--which are far more fundamental than the average lay person (and more than a few scientists) credits.

The beauty of science, as Hobbes first observed, is that it provides a means for those who sincerely disagree to reach agreement, if both parties will honestly employ that method. In light of the political environment of his time, this made "the method of natural philosophy" vastly superior to all other epistemological methods. Unfortunately, our civilization has, over the centuries, developed that sound observation into a mistaken faith, that it is the only sound epistemology: we know what we know through science, and the rest is fairy stories. That, in turn, systematically induces people to try to convince themselves, and others, that what they believe is justified by the scientific method, though, in fact, it almost never can be. It also has the unfortunate effect of lending an unjustified, priest-like gravity to the unscientific opinions of scientists, e.g. Carl Sagan's political views.

So, my immediate purpose is to encourage people to be more rigorous in identifying what is truly scientific conclusion, and what is some other kind of opinion. The ultimate purpose that animates that immediate one is to dispell the inappropriate fixation on scientific method as the ONLY valid epistemological method. Restricing ourselves that way is analogous to deliberately walking around with our ears plugged, because we've noticed that our eyes are usually more reliable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE