Jump to content

The Scientific Method -- is there such a thing?


Reg Prescott

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

 

Not sure whether this is directed at me or not. Is it? I don't believe I've attacked science or scientists.

All I'm doing is try to get science right. Isn't that what we all want?

Is that all you have to say?

 

I agreed with your opening proposition and offered my thoughts in relation to your later question concerning a better definition.

 

Why not move forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. There are some common general principles, but they may manifest themselves in different ways depending on the phenomenon. Such as repeatability — some take this as a requirement that you have to be able to do something in a lab under carefully controlled conditions, which would make e.g. astronomy and cosmology, which have a lot of one-off events, unscientific. But the approach they take makes those fields scientific — you can make observations of multiple events, even if they aren't identical.

 

No arguments with that...thanks.

3 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

"All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth."

-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 17, "The Non-Revolution of Thomas Kuhn")
 

Like I said, if the models and theories align with any objective truth [if it happens to exist at all] the all well and good. eg: We know GR is closer to the truth then Newtonian, yet we use Newtonian every day including near all space endeavours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. There are some common general principles, but they may manifest themselves in different ways depending on the phenomenon. Such as repeatability — some take this as a requirement that you have to be able to do something in a lab under carefully controlled conditions, which would make e.g. astronomy and cosmology, which have a lot of one-off events, unscientific. But the approach they take makes those fields scientific — you can make observations of multiple events, even if they aren't identical.

 

Yes indeed one off events.

 

I tried to discuss this with the OP in his previous thread, but he refused to consider it.

What is the exact breaking load of a specific piece of timber?

There is only one way to find out; that is to break it and measure the load.
but once you have broken it you cannot do it again.

If the thread and attempted discussion I am remembering was due to someone else I apologise in advance, but it was recent.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1719.pdf

The Scientific Method 

May 28, 2018

Abstract

The nature of the scientific method is controversial with claims that a single scientific method does not even exist. However the scientific method does exist. It is the building of logical and self consistent models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new observations and interesting phenomena. Observations do not prove models correct or falsify them but rather provide a means to rank models: models with more ability to predict observations are ranked higher. The observations must be carefully done and reproducible to minimize errors. They exist independent of the models but acquire their meaning from their context within a model. Model assumptions that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary. Both observations and models should be peer reviewed for error control. Consistency with observation and reason places constraints on all claims to knowledge including religious.

 

6 Conclusion

The scientific method is the building of logical and self consistent models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new observations and interesting phenomena. Observations usually do not prove or falsify models but rather provide a means to rank models. The observations exist independent of the models but acquire their meaning from their context within a model. Observations must be carefully done and reproducible to minimize errors. Models assumptions that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary. The alternate understandings of science and epistemology have been proposed at various times in human history. As argued in the previous section many of these can be considered as approximations to the current understanding valid for a limited range of situations, much like classical mechanics can be considered an approximation to quantum mechanics. Among the rejected pretenders are appeal to authority, scientific induction, falsification, paradigm shifts, natural explanations, methodological naturalism and anything goes. The present description of science should also be considered tentative and approximate. The scientific method does not lead to sure and certain knowledge but rather to approximate and tentative, but never-the-less useful, knowledge. This is the best that can be done: General epistemological arguments, dating back to the ancient Greeks and amplified at various times since, eliminate all claims to nontrivial sure and certain knowledge. In all areas of knowledge, testing against observations is a powerful filter especially when coupled with predictive power. This filter is particularly useful in eliminating superstition, pseudo-science and bogus claims of divine revelation. 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

Still no comment on the above.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

Like I said, if the models and theories align with any objective truth [if it happens to exist at all] the all well and good. eg: We know GR is closer to the truth then Newtonian, yet we use Newtonian every day including near all space endeavours. 

 

We do? Whoops, me and my big mouth. (Let's save this one for another time -- it's been a long hard day, eh?)

 

But just as a tantalizing teaser: There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics, but closer to truth? It's a position I wouldn't like to have to defend myself.

 

Now, when you mention truth, we have to bring in the ontology -- the architecture and furniture -- of the theories in question.

 

And it's far from obvious how a 4-d spacetime manifold is "closer to truth" than absolute space and absolute time. Or how gravity construed as the curvature of spacetime is "closer to truth" than gravity construed as an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance.

 

The ontologies are logically incompatible (or so it seems to me). If Einstein's ontology is right; Newton's is wrong. 

 

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Might be fun to debate this another time...

 

 

Looks like an interesting paper you've posted there, beecee. I'll take a look closely when I have more time.

 

Just from a quick scan, though, you do see that the writer's characterization of The Scientific Method is in conflict with just about every other Tom, Dick, and Harry who has written on the topic.

 

Again we're confronted with the question: Which one of them, if any, nailed it?

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

I tried to discuss this with the OP in his previous thread, but he refused to consider it.

If the thread and attempted discussion I am remembering was due to someone else I apologise in advance, but it was recent.

Not guilty. Wasn't me.

Edited by Reg Prescott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Reg Prescott said:

 

We do? Whoops, me and my big mouth. (Let's save this one for another time -- it's been a long hard day, eh?)

Yes we do. Or is this the beginning of the possible revelation of a possible agenda you are harboring?

Quote

But just as a tantalizing teaser: There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics, but closer to truth? It's a position I wouldn't like to have to defend myself.

Easily defended I suggest...Spacetime geometry influenced by matter/energy. Lense Thirring effect, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves.

 

Quote

And it's far from obvious how a 4-d spacetime manifold is "closer to truth" than absolute space and absolute time. Or how gravity construed as the curvature of spacetime is "closer to truth" than gravity construed as an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance.

Obvious to anyone that has some knowledge on Lense Thirring effect, grvitational lensing, gravitational waves, cosmological redshift, gravitational redshift, Time Dilation, Length Contraction, and the evidence and observations that support all those SR/GR concepts.

Quote

The ontologies are logically incompatible (or so it seems to me). If Einstein's ontology is right; Newton's is wrong. 

Not at all. Both are correct within eaches own zones of applicability. GR of course has wider parameter applications and is more acurate, but that same accuracy is not needed in our every day Earthly endeavours and even space shots. eg: Think of a carpenter using a Vernier caliper to fit a door or window frame.

Quote

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Might be fun to debate this another time...

Not much really to debate. It is all accepted evidenced based science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Not guilty. Wasn't me.

 

36 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is that all you have to say?

 

I agreed with your opening proposition and offered my thoughts in relation to your later question concerning a better definition.

 

Why not move forward?

 

So you refuse to have a discussion about your stated objective.

 

Then to hell with you.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add the invariant nature of the speed of light, and of course the consistency in the laws of physics in all non accelerating frames of references. Scientific theories again may never be certain [to their credit] but SR, GR, the BB, are overwhelmingly supported and just a rung or two below  the near certainty of theory of the evolution of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ beecee

 

Ah, that was easy, eh?

 

Well, if you've ever taken a course in the philosophy of language (God forbid!) you'll know that the first sixty years are spent examining the statement "The present king of France is bald".

 

Now, there is disagreement over whether the statement should be assigned a value of false (Russell, etc), or whether it is neither true nor false (Strawson, etc). 

 

What is not in dispute, however, is that the statement cannot possibly be true. Nothing true can be said of a non-existent entity, except perhaps that it doesn't exist.

 

Now, beecee, do you believe there exists an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance (i.e. Newtonian gravity)? Do you believe space and time are absolute, as per Newtonian physics?

 

If the answer is no, do you believe anything true can be said of Newtonian gravity? (cf. "The present king of France is bald")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1719.pdf

The Scientific Method 

May 28, 2018

Abstract

The nature of the scientific method is controversial with claims that a single scientific method does not even exist. However the scientific method does exist. It is the building of logical and self consistent models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new observations and interesting phenomena. Observations do not prove models correct or falsify them but rather provide a means to rank models: models with more ability to predict observations are ranked higher. The observations must be carefully done and reproducible to minimize errors. They exist independent of the models but acquire their meaning from their context within a model. Model assumptions that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary. Both observations and models should be peer reviewed for error control. Consistency with observation and reason places constraints on all claims to knowledge including religious.

 

6 Conclusion

The scientific method is the building of logical and self consistent models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new observations and interesting phenomena. Observations usually do not prove or falsify models but rather provide a means to rank models. The observations exist independent of the models but acquire their meaning from their context within a model. Observations must be carefully done and reproducible to minimize errors. Models assumptions that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary. The alternate understandings of science and epistemology have been proposed at various times in human history. As argued in the previous section many of these can be considered as approximations to the current understanding valid for a limited range of situations, much like classical mechanics can be considered an approximation to quantum mechanics. Among the rejected pretenders are appeal to authority, scientific induction, falsification, paradigm shifts, natural explanations, methodological naturalism and anything goes. The present description of science should also be considered tentative and approximate. The scientific method does not lead to sure and certain knowledge but rather to approximate and tentative, but never-the-less useful, knowledge. This is the best that can be done: General epistemological arguments, dating back to the ancient Greeks and amplified at various times since, eliminate all claims to nontrivial sure and certain knowledge. In all areas of knowledge, testing against observations is a powerful filter especially when coupled with predictive power. This filter is particularly useful in eliminating superstition, pseudo-science and bogus claims of divine revelation. 

 

Still waiting for a comment on the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Still waiting for a comment on the above.

I commented above (some of my replies were merged). Here's what I said again:

 

Looks like an interesting paper you've posted there, beecee. I'll take a look closely when I have more time.

 

Just from a quick scan, though, you do see that the writer's characterization of The Scientific Method is in conflict with just about every other Tom, Dick, and Harry who has written on the topic.

 

Again we're confronted with the question: Which one of them, if any, nailed it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, beecee, do you believe there exists an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance (i.e. Newtonian gravity)? Do you believe space and time are absolute, as per Newtonian physics?

 

If the answer is no, do you believe anything true can be said of Newtonian gravity? (cf. "The present king of France is bald")

 Both models give accepted correct answers within their zones of applicabilty. The parameters of GR are more extensive but still give the same answers as Newtonian albeit far more accurately. Space and time are not abso;ute and that is why GR is a far more accurate theory/model, despite as I just said, giving the same answers as Newtonian. Seems more and more light is being shone on this still undefined agenda. :P

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Just from a quick scan, though, you do see that the writer's characterization of The Scientific Method is in conflict with just about every other Tom, Dick, and Harry who has written on the topic.

Whatever agenda it is that you are hiding behind, is affecting your askew interpretation I suggest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 But just as a tantalizing teaser: There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics, but closer to truth? It's a position I wouldn't like to have to defend myself.

Depends by what you mean by truth. Truth about the behavior of the universe? Yup. Because that's what we do — try and model the behavior of the universe. Something you can measure, and compare experiment with theory.

But if you mean they tell you what reality is, then no. Science doesn't do that. There's no way to test it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beecee said:

 Both models give accepted correct answers within their zones of applicabilty. The parameters of GR are more extensive but still give the same answers as Newtonian albeit far more accurately. Space and time are not abso;ute and that is why GR is a far more accurate theory/model, despite as I just said, giving the same answers as Newtonian. Seems more and more light is being shone on this still undefined agenda. :P

 

As I said above: "There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics". (that's what you're saying above, mainly)

 

The problems begin with that dang T-word. If Einstein's ontology is correct, then Newton's is false.

 

Even supposing Einstein has got everything right (which I doubt given the ephemeral nature of scientific theories), then what we have is "Newton's theory is false; Einstein's theory is true" -- hardly what would normally be described as an approach to truth, or getting closer to truth.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Depends by what you mean by truth. Truth about the behavior of the universe? Yup. Because that's what we do — try and model the behavior of the universe. Something you can measure, and compare experiment with theory.

But if you mean they tell you what reality is, then no. Science doesn't do that. There's no way to test it.

 

Ah, another one of these blanket statements...

 

Many scientists share your opinion on this, swansont; many others do not. (Did you see the Weinberg quote I posted, for example?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The problems begin with that dang T-word. If Einstein's ontology is correct, then Newton's is false.

Even supposing Einstein has got everything right (which I doubt given the ephemeral nature of scientific theories), then what we have is "Newton's theory is false; Einstein's theory is true" -- hardly what would normally be described as an approach to truth, or getting closer to truth.

Not at all, and the overwhelming evidence showing both are correct [despite different descriptive scenarios] is that GR gives the same results as Newtonian albeit far more accurately. And of course anyone actually disputing that obvious and correct summation, would need to explain why if Newtonian was incorrect, that we use it to obtain correct results.

So far in your short time here, you have taken me to task for dare criticising religious fanatics, disputed that which is the basis of science, the scientific methodology  foundations, and now making some obscure claim that either Newtonian or GR is wrong, with obviously not good intentions and reflecting on an agenda,  and despite the usage of both with giving correct results. I can see your stay with us is going to be fun.  :P:rolleyes:

19 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Even supposing Einstein has got everything right (which I doubt given the ephemeral nature of scientific theories), then what we have is "Newton's theory is false; Einstein's theory is true" -- hardly what would normally be described as an approach to truth, or getting closer to truth.

One appears to give a far better description of the universe we inhabit and the successful predictions it makes, and which you seem to have skipped over, but both are correct within their respective zones of applicability [another fact you skip over] 

I'm actually anxious to the exact nature of this supposed "truth or reality" you keep banging on about.:P  

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not at all, and the overwhelming evidence showing both are correct [despite different descriptive scenarios] is that GR gives the same results as Newtonian albeit far more accurately. And of course anyone actually disputing that obvious and correct summation, would need to explain why if Newtonian was incorrect, that we use it to obtain correct results.

 

 I'm afraid you keep failing to see the distinction I'm making. This is standard grist-for-the-mill in the scientific realism vs antirealism debate. (and antirealism does not equate to anti-science, I hasten to add)

 

It is not in dispute that "GR gives the same results as Newtonian albeit far more accurately".

 

We can say, therefore, that GR enjoys a higher degree of empirical adequacy than Newtonian physics. 

 

Truth is another matter. For a theory/hypothesis to be true, it must not only be empirically adequate (i.e, gets observable reality right), but the ontology of the theory must be veridical too (i.e. it gets the behind-the-scenes stuff right too).

 

"... would need to explain why if Newtonian was incorrect, that we use it to obtain correct results."

 

Because true predictions can be derived from false, as well as true, theories. Try navigating around the world using Plotemaic cosmology. You'll be just fine, I guarantee.

 

Is Ptolemaic cosmology a true theory? You tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

As I said above: "There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics". (that's what you're saying above, mainly)

 

The problems begin with that dang T-word. If Einstein's ontology is correct, then Newton's is false.

Ontology is an interpretation of reality, but not necessarily truth, if you are drawing a distinction between them, as I had outlined. And what is Newton's ontology? I was unaware there was any attached to his equation.

Quote

Even supposing Einstein has got everything right (which I doubt given the ephemeral nature of scientific theories), then what we have is "Newton's theory is false; Einstein's theory is true" -- hardly what would normally be described as an approach to truth, or getting closer to truth.

It's not a matter of true vs false. Newton's model is less wrong than Einstein's, which is another way of saying the Einstein is closer to the truth about how the universe behaves.

Quote

Ah, another one of these blanket statements...

 

Many scientists share your opinion on this, swansont; many others do not. (Did you see the Weinberg quote I posted, for example?)

Weinberg said truth, not reality. 

5 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Truth is another matter. For a theory/hypothesis to be true, it must not only be empirically adequate (i.e, gets observable reality right), but the ontology of the theory must be veridical too (i.e. it gets the behind-the-scenes stuff right too).

Then you are equating truth with reality. And I don't think they are the same thing.

 

But we were discussion the scientific method(s)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 I'm afraid you keep failing to see the distinction I'm making. This is standard grist-for-the-mill in the scientific realism vs antirealism debate. (and antirealism does not equate to anti-science, I hasten to add)

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. Again both theories despite different descriptions, are correct with the more accurate one giving the same results as the less accurate one.

Quote

 

t is not in dispute that "GR gives the same results as Newtonian albeit far more accurately".

 

We can say, therefore, that GR enjoys a higher degree of empirical adequacy than Newtonian physics. 

 

And of course that both give the same correct results within their zones of applicability.

Quote

Truth is another matter. For a theory/hypothesis to be true, it must not only be empirically adequate (i.e, gets observable reality right), but the ontology of the theory must be veridical too (i.e. it gets the behind-the-scenes stuff right too).

Both give correct results...what behind the scenes stuff are you on about? What is this truth or reality?

 

Quote

Because true predictions can be derived from false, as well as true, theories. Try navigating around the world using Plotemaic cosmology. You'll be just fine, I guarantee.

 

Quote

Is Ptolemaic cosmology a true theory? You tell me.

Of course the very basis of the Plotemaic model was the influence and power of the church and mythical biblical texts.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then you are equating truth with reality. And I don't think they are the same thing.

 

No, on one fairly standard understanding of truth (the correspondence theory), a statement, or proposition to be more precise, is true if the statement corresponds with what is the case in reality.

 

The statement "the cat is on the mat" is true if and only if said moggy is indeed on the mat, and false otherwise.

 

The statement "Unicorns are sexy", granting me that unicorns do not exist, is false. And if we accept that there does not exist an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance, then likewise, nothing true can be said of Newtonian gravity.

 

Statements can be true or false. Reality... well, just is.

 

(The correspondence theory of truth is not the only one, needless to say. Ah, these things are never simple, eh?)

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

Weinberg said truth, not reality. 

 Weinberg, unlike yourself (as far as I can discern), is a scientific realist -- one of the staunchest.

 

That is to say, roughly, he holds something like the following: the aim of science is to produce true theories, that is, to produce theories that accurately describe reality (both observable and unobservable)

 

Your own position, swansont, as far as I can tell (apologies if I've misread you) inclines towards that of the antirealist, i.e., science aims to produce theories that are empirically adequate; theories that get observable reality right. As for what goes on behind the scenes... well, depends what kind of antirealist you are. Some say nothing. Some say "don't ask". Some say "shut up and calculate", etc, etc. 

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ontology is an interpretation of reality, but not necessarily truth, if you are drawing a distinction between them, as I had outlined. And what is Newton's ontology? I was unaware there was any attached to his equation.

 Newton's ontology includes absolute space, absolute time, and gravity, the latter of which he explicitly states to be real in the Principia (I believe), though he self-confessedly failed in his attempts to specify its precise nature. (I could track down quotes, but it would take a little time).

 

Now, if you so choose, you can merely use his equations for their instrumental value, as many do, ignoring questions of the theory's truth. That would put you in the antirealist or non-realist camp.

 

 

From the Principia, General Scholium...

Quote

"And it is enough that gravity really exists and acts according to the laws that we have set forth, and is sufficient to explain all the motions of the heavenly bodies and of our sea."

 

Edited by Reg Prescott
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

That is to say, roughly, he holds something like the following: the aim of science is to produce true theories, that is, to produce theories that accurately describe reality (both observable and unobservable)

 

Your own position, swansont, as far as I can tell (apologies if I've misread you) inclines towards that of the antirealist, i.e., science aims to produce theories that are empirically adequate; theories that get observable reality right. As for what goes on behind the scenes... well, depends what kind of antirealist you are. Some say nothing. Some say "don't ask". Some say "shut up and calculate", etc, etc. 

What use does it serve to agonize over the unknowable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What use does it serve to agonize over the unknowable?

Well, this is precisely what the scientific realist denies. The scientific realist -- like Weinberg, say, and the later Einstein -- holds that science can yield knowledge (i.e. we can know), at least in some cases, of unobservable reality.

Edited by Reg Prescott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

No, on one fairly standard understanding of truth (the correspondence theory), a statement, or proposition to be more precise, is true if the statement corresponds with what is the case in reality.

 

The statement "the cat is on the mat" is true if and only if said moggy is indeed on the mat, and false otherwise.

You have chosen an example using things that physically exist, and for which such certainty exists. But this is physics. What if this is applied to things that are somewhat less tangible?

Is a concept part of reality? 

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The statement "Unicorns are sexy", granting me that unicorns do not exist, is false.

Like this. Unicorns can indeed be sexy, if we are talking about a concept stemming from a mythology. In fact, one could define such a creature as being sexy, since the concept is unfettered by the constraint of having to physically exist.

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

And if we accept that there does not exist an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance, then likewise, nothing true can be said of Newtonian gravity.

And yet it is very useful.

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Statements can be true or false. Reality... well, just is.

Thank you for confirming that truth and reality or not the same thing.

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

(The correspondence theory of truth is not the only one, needless to say. Ah, these things are never simple, eh?)

 Weinberg, unlike yourself (as far as I can discern), is a scientific realist -- one of the staunchest.

He is entitled to his opinions.

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

That is to say, roughly, he holds something like the following: the aim of science is to produce true theories, that is, to produce theories that accurately describe reality (both observable and unobservable)

If it's truly unobservable then it is not measurable in any way. There's no way to test it. It's not part of science. It lies outside of the scientific methods.

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Your own position, swansont, as far as I can tell (apologies if I've misread you) inclines towards that of the antirealist, i.e., science aims to produce theories that are empirically adequate; theories that get observable reality right. As for what goes on behind the scenes... well, depends what kind of antirealist you are. Some say nothing. Some say "don't ask". Some say "shut up and calculate", etc, etc. 

In my limited observation, there seems to be a strong correlation of "shut up and calculate" with experimentalists, and the opposite view with theorists (especially ones who ponder foundational issues) and insist that we must wrestle with these philosophical issues in order to do physics. But I have yet to have anyone tell me how the philosophical issues will help me align mirrors in my experiment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

how the philosophical issues will help me align mirrors in my experiment.

Well, in my experience it is a tactic used by students to avoid having to redo the alignment. "I mean, what is a baseline anyway?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Nothing true can be said of a non-existent entity, except perhaps that it doesn't exist.

Rubbish, there are plenty of useful statements that can be made about something non existent.

If it doesn't exist it has exactly zero mass (or does it, wait and see)

Does a hole exist?

What is the temperature of a hole?

What colour is a hole?

What is the value of the centrifugal force due to the Earth's rotation,  in London?

Use your(scientific imagination)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.