swansont

But that’s not the topic under discussion here, remember? The qualia depends on the individual, making it subjective, but you could measure reactions from a large number of people and quantify the reaction; e.g. a color known to suppress aggressiveness, and this has been measured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Miller_pink Qualia, not quality “the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.”

You can’t “erase” a radio broadcast; there’s nothing that can catch up to the signal once it’s sent. But really, it’s not necessary, since the 1/r^2 attenuation will effectively do it for you. That signal that’s 1 watt a kilometer away from the tower drops to 10^-13 watts a light year away (and that ignores the issue of your radio tower probably being a dipole emitter, meant to maximize horizontal signals, and being smaller as it becomes vertical)

I didn’t say anything about physicalism, but if you contend that something “beyond” it is not beyond science, how do you measure such things? If they can’t be measured, you are requiring a change to science, which means you are being dismissive of it. What evidence? You still haven’t presented any. Views are not evidence. They are conclusions or opinions. That doesn’t make them correct. The evidence is e.g. that JA and ethylene signals respond to the attacks by pathogenic fungi. That’s something that is measured. It seems to me that this is an objective observation, and this discussion is supposed to be about objectivity. Plants having intelligence is an hypothesis, is labeled as such in the paper, and you admit that an hypothesis is distinct from the evidence supporting it. That there are ~70 definitions of intelligence suggests that this is not an objective issue. It sounds more like equivocation - using a word with more than one definition and using it interchangeably in situations where different definitions would apply

Then what’s the point of bringing it up? “Science strives to be objective” isn’t exactly a controversial position. “Does true objectivity exist in science?” is a leading question that (along with your arguments) suggests that any lack of objectivity is a flaw in science. i.e. that it’s not truly objective, and that you’re free to dismiss it unless it is. Yes, as science aims to be objective. But you extended that when you speak of Where did you hear that falling short of being objective is a flaw of science, as opposed to the people practicing science? Perhaps you should consider if, it’s beyond the objective realm, maybe it’s not science. Also not influenced by feelings or opinions. Do you understand what constitutes scientific evidence? (opinion is not evidence) How is this not the ad populum fallacy? (that if several people believe something, it must be true, aka the bandwagon fallacy) Scientific evidence is empirical rather than anecdotal. Details depend on branch of science, but it’s usually something that can be quantified and subject to statistical analysis, from experiment or controlled observation. I’d have to know what you thought was evidence before I could say what disqualifies it.

By raising this issue, you are indeed requesting it. ”science” is a very vague reference. Where, specifically, does this impression come from? Seriously? If the world were purely objective, cro-magnon man would have understood quantum mechanics? What is your definition of objective? You aren’t being careful enough. At the very least you are repeating the error of extrapolating a tiny sliver of science to science as a whole, and you fail to present any evidence. Your vague dissatisfaction isn’t evidence. You can take this script and say you think there are ghosts, or that bigfoot exists, or aliens walk among us. If you have no evidence, don’t bring it up. It’s required.

To require complete objectivity is to demand an ideal system. What is the connection to objectivity?

Two problems here. 1. iNow posted after your statement, so you cannot have had that post in mind when you made your claim. 2. It’s clear from the context that iNow interpreted it to mean “are there examples of science being objective” and gave some. i.e. objectivity exists. But the tone of your posts is that objectivity isn’t universal, i.e. there are examples where objectivity is lacking. There’s no conflict between these positions.

This was what I said, but you said you disagreed with it. You added a post specifically to say so.

So perfect objectivity is not an ideal system? What improvement beyond perfection is required in order for it to be ideal? I thought we covered this in a previous thread. We can deal with subjectivity in certain cases, as had been discussed So far as science is concerned, no. When you have evidence that science fails* owing to these assumptions it could be revisited. But you persist in not presenting evidence that would cause us to question it. * not having an answer yet is not a failure of science. There is no credible claim that science has answered everything. That’s no evidence at all. If you contend that “the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity” you’d better be able to present examples of this, and also make the case that they are representative of the problem and not isolated exceptions.

Which part? That you’re demanding an ideal system (which is what perfect implies) or that it’s not what happens in the real world?

If you shoot a million shots and get one bullseye, that’s not “accurate”

Michael McMahon has been banned for repeated spamming of science-free takes on various topics.

Uncertainty is inherent and is not evidence that objectivity is lacking. Noise exists. The uncertainty principle exists. You’re demanding an ideal system, and that’s not what happens in the real world Can you give an example of science where you have divergent worldviews?

You appear to be missing the connection between 1 and 2 And this is where you need to present evidence, rather just make an assertion I don’t see where iNow has said that the “pure form” of objectivity exists One of the unsatisfying aspects of this presentation is the lack of specifics. Which experiments are being referenced here? What measurements? What apparatus? One approach to this “bootstrapping” problem is to have standards used as calibrations. Another elements is the recognition of experimental uncertainty, which is why you see error bars on the results. But without detail, it’s a guessing game as to what they are referring to. What kind of expertise does a sociologist of science have in this regard? Rebutting such a vague assertion is hard, but one glaring omission here is the fact that other scientists will try to replicate experiments, and/or other experiments will rely on the measurements. The focus on one scientist is wrong. I will reiterate the need for evidence rather than quote mining. This is something that got you in trouble before, and you’re not fixing it.

Is there any science that supports this claim?

Ironic that a post on objectivity is a compilation of some quotes from people have similar thoughts, which is a subjective view. This is a shortcoming of your earlier posts. Opinions aren’t evidence. The question is moot; as with any endeavor of humans, it will not be perfect, so examples will exist of failures of objectivity, and the real question is (or should be) whether objectivity is a goal, which it is. Asking if true objectivity exists is like asking if frictionless surfaces exist in physics. The answer is trivially “no” but that’s not (IMO) the interesting question Who are these some? What might be interesting here is to examine these other models that, the author implies, are valid, but haven’t been selected by this consensus, and how the consensus model was not objectively chosen. I’d be very interested to know about them.

The answer to your question is in the link. “The three expeditions travelled to the Crimea in the Russian Empire to observe the eclipse of 21 August. However, the First World War started in July of that year, and Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August. The German astronomers were either forced to return home or were taken prisoner by the Russians.” So they didn’t set out during WWI, but they were traveling when war was declared. (WWII has nothing to do with this. Did you misread “WWI”?) As I mentioned, the war hadn’t started yet. No connection.

ITRB has been banned for incessant spamming

Answered already. Stop spamming. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134542-many-iranian-user-replaced-owning-accounts/#comment-1274061

We have no control over what other sites do. Complaining here is inappropriate and will not accomplish anything Again, what happens on other forums is not within our control. However, if you keep spamming us with posts complaining about them, you will be banned.

The result is real, but your interpretation of it is not. Relativity is far from useless. I am well aware of this. But what is used is Einstein’s theory, not yours Are we moving with respect to this frame, or at rest with it? How can we measure this?

You mean “Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject?” Because you hijacked a thread to bring up your personal take on the topic, which does not reflect mainstream physics. Forum rules dictate that the discussion take place in speculations.

But in the muon’s frame it is not, so this is not a physical change of the muon. It can’t be. There is no absolute frame of reference that dictates properties like time and length