On the supposed failings of science

[swansont]

I`m not at all sure, but maybe he`s reffering to this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225771.800

 

this is the Only article I`m aware of that May loosely fit, I dug it out a few years ago here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26259

 

I don't think so. Gravity Probe B was a well-known recent experiment testing a prediction of general relativity. elas's objection sounds like they were things that were rejected by the mainstream.

 

However, given the recent history of elas misreading article summaries and abstracts, I have to see firsthand what the articles are actually claiming.

[Klaynos]

As good as the administrators are, are they well know academics or just people who have a general interesting in running some science forums?

 

Despite what they might say, they're not gods....

[lucaspa]

Mathematicians need experiments to build mathematical theories that make predictions.

Scientists carry this a stage further, they want to know how things occur and why they occur: science is mathematics plus explanation.

 

Elas, you are trying to define "science" to suit yourself. There is no single definition of science, and yours certainly contradicts a number of generally acceptable definitions.

 

In broad terms, science is the study of the physical universe. Yes, we may want to know why things occur, but that isn't necessary to doing science. Testing whether a phenomenon exists -- without explanation as to cause -- is also science. For instance, when Linde tested whether citrus prevented scurvy, he had no "why". When Copernicus proposed that the sun was the center of the solar system, he had no "why". Both were doing science.

 

In terms of mathematics, testing determines whether the mathematics accurately describe the physical universe. You can come up with all types of mathematical models (as Kepler did for the orbits of the planets), but then you have to test them against observation. The mathematical models must predict what is observed.

 

So, the only criteria on which we judge theories is whether they predict observations. NOT on whether they can tell us "why". You don't like QM because it doesn't answer your personal desire to have a "why" that you like. Too bad. Does QM accurately predict observation? To unprecedented accuracy. That's all science cares about.

 

It is worth noting that Quantum physics is the only field where mathematics are considered to be the solution, in all other sciences mathematics is a tool used to find a solution.

 

This isn't true. The mathematics is a tool to predict behavior of quantum particles. It works. In terms of "solution", QM has provided the solution to both the Casimir effect and how black holes can radiate.

 

Elas, to do science you must learn to accept the data. You can't let your personal likes, dislikes, or philosophy interfere with that. The universe is what it is,and if that "is" doesn't provide you with a "why" that you like, too bad for you.

[elas]

lucaspa

 

I am not expressing my own views but the views of leading academics:

 

“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

"Beyond measure" by Jim Baggott(2003)

 

Charles Seife puts it this way:

On one level, the weirdness of quantum theory isn't a problem at all. The mathematical framework is sound and describes all these bizarre phenomena well. If we humans can't imagine a physical reality that corresponds to our equations, so what? That attitude has been called the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of quantum mechanics. But to others, our difficulties in wrapping our heads around quantum theory hint at greater truths yet to be understood.

 

In "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" Richard Morris takes a different approach:

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

Elas, to do science you must learn to accept the data

 

A glance at Table 1 will show that I accept the data in total; whereas in order to fit QT predictions the PDG selects a number of results and then finds the average of the selected results. Each 'result' is referred to as "our average".

 

On a more general note, there seems to be more interest that I thought in this debate so I will try and reply to other points as time permits.

[Klaynos]

You don't think then that humans are too stupid to under stand the concepts? Imagine a 5D world... you can't because conceptually humans don't have that ability... it's inbuilt we expect things to act like they do in the every day world... but they don't....

 

And I see we're back to selecting data, this has been discussed time and time again, have a look through some search results there are GOOD reasons why we don't use all data gathered by experiments...

[swansont]

lucaspa

 

I am not expressing my own views but the views of leading academics:

 

“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

"Beyond measure" by Jim Baggott(2003)

 

Opinions aren't facts

 

 

Charles Seife puts it this way:

On one level, the weirdness of quantum theory isn't a problem at all. The mathematical framework is sound and describes all these bizarre phenomena well. If we humans can't imagine a physical reality that corresponds to our equations, so what? That attitude has been called the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of quantum mechanics. But to others, our difficulties in wrapping our heads around quantum theory hint at greater truths yet to be understood.

 

This one I actually agree with. The fact that some people can't wrap their heads around a particular theory and be able to picture what the math is telling them doesn't invalidate the theory.

 

In "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" Richard Morris takes a different approach:

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

 

And that opinion does nothing to invalidate the rest of physics from being science. Science is incomplete. That's why we still have scientists doing basic research.

[Mr Skeptic]

Elas, may I suggest that the universe is only a few hundred of kilometers wide? I can't comprehend distances as vast as a lightyear, and I know for a fact that I can see stars so they should make sense to me.

[elas]

swansont

 

Opinions aren't facts

 

Lucaspa wrote “Elas, you are trying to define "science" to suit yourself”. I do not think either of us was referring to ‘facts’.

 

This one I actually agree with. The fact that some people can't wrap their heads around a particular theory and be able to picture what the math is telling them doesn't invalidate the theory.

 

Now who is expressing an opinion, should I say ‘stick to the facts’; I think not.

Both of us agree with Seife; I have never said that QT or ST is wrong; I am at one with those who say that without an explanation in words, both theory and model are incomplete.

2+3=5 is mathematics.

2 apples + 3 pears = 5 pieces of fruit, is science.

The fact that we can "wrap our heads" around both, does not alter the need for words.

 

And that opinion does nothing to invalidate the rest of physics from being science. Science is incomplete. That's why we still have scientists doing basic research.

 

So who is to decide what science is? The experts on the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge define Quantum Theory as a philosophy.

 

Klaynos

 

And I see we're back to selecting data, this has been discussed time and time again, have a look through some search results there are GOOD reasons why we don't use all data gathered by experiments.

 

Actually you use 0.004% of the results gathered and no reason is given on the PDG site for the exclusion of the 99.006% that is rejected by a computer selection program without examination. Some of the 0.004% is dismissed with the blunt statement "we do not use" and the average of the remainder is, or is close to; the predicted figure (Eureka!).

Thus QT is one (averaging) stage removed from being truly ‘empirical’ or two stages removed if the computer selection stage is included. My proposal is truly empirical or just one stage removed if the data (rejected at the computer selection stage) that I have no access to is taken into account.

[Klaynos]

Don't they release the data to the 'public domain' after x amount of time? I know lots of astrophysics experiments do that, mainly because there is too much data for the groups involved to deal with it all...

[swansont]

swansont

 

Opinions aren't facts

 

Lucaspa wrote “Elas, you are trying to define "science" to suit yourself”. I do not think either of us was referring to ‘facts’.

 

That's what you appear to be doing. It's an observation.

 

 

This one I actually agree with. The fact that some people can't wrap their heads around a particular theory and be able to picture what the math is telling them doesn't invalidate the theory.

 

Now who is expressing an opinion, should I say ‘stick to the facts’; I think not.

Both of us agree with Seife; I have never said that QT or ST is wrong; I am at one with those who say that without an explanation in words, both theory and model are incomplete.

2+3=5 is mathematics.

2 apples + 3 pears = 5 pieces of fruit, is science.

The fact that we can "wrap our heads" around both, does not alter the need for words.

 

But that doesn't seem to be the same complaint you have given elsewhere. I thought you didn't like that the standard model didn't explain why things are the way they are. That's not the same as being able to explain some phenomena in words.

 

If I say that the fruit is in a superposition of being an apple and a pear and you don't understand what that means, it doesn't make the science wrong or even incomplete.

 

And that opinion does nothing to invalidate the rest of physics from being science. Science is incomplete. That's why we still have scientists doing basic research.

 

So who is to decide what science is? The experts on the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge define Quantum Theory as a philosophy.

 

And why should appeal to authority hold any sway here, especially coming from sociologists (i.e. nonscientists), which means it may be appeal to false authority?

 

 

Klaynos

 

And I see we're back to selecting data, this has been discussed time and time again, have a look through some search results there are GOOD reasons why we don't use all data gathered by experiments.

 

Actually you use 0.004% of the results gathered and no reason is given on the PDG site for the exclusion of the 99.006% that is rejected by a computer selection program without examination. Some of the 0.004% is dismissed with the blunt statement "we do not use" and the average of the remainder is, or is close to; the predicted figure (Eureka!).

Thus QT is one (averaging) stage removed from being truly ‘empirical’ or two stages removed if the computer selection stage is included. My proposal is truly empirical or just one stage removed if the data (rejected at the computer selection stage) that I have no access to is taken into account.

 

First of all, quantum theory != particle physics

 

Second of all, in most (all?) experiments you don't take all the data that exists. That's unreasonable, and certainly not restricted to quantum physics.

[insane_alien]

that 99.006% of the dat discarded is usually noise, or not the phenomenon you are trying to examine.

 

in particle collisions there are a myriad of particles forming an decaying. if you are looking for a certain type of event within the experiment and know at least most of the interactions occuring then you can write a program to discard the known interactions to find the one your looking for. some of the data that is analysed but not used might have been detected on a wierd angle, might nopt have the necessary resolution(or whatever) to form meaningful results.

 

if you want to analyse the rare red balls that are found in a sea of green balls(which have been well studied already) you don't go analysing ALL of the sea. you just select the red balls and analyse those.

 

or another analytical method where most of the data is discarded automatically, if you want to analyse the isotopes of argon in the atmosphere you'll take a sample of air and run it through a mass spectrometer without separating anything. the peaks for oxygen, nitrogen, CO2 etc etc. will be discarded as they have no bearing on what you are trying to find. you will only take peaks corresponding the the argon isotopes.

 

it would be silly to analyse the isotopes of the other elements there if you are only interested in the argon.

 

i recommend elas takes an introductory science course with some data analysing aspect and he'll see why some data is discarded.

[abskebabs]

that 99.006% of the dat discarded is usually noise, or not the phenomenon you are trying to examine.

I'm sorry to be a pedant here:D , but isn't that 99.996%? I'm just surprised you repeated his error tbh.

[insane_alien]

is it? i was just using his numbers. i was unaware of the true values as my course doesn't really go deep into the realm of particle physics and our experiments have a much higher acceptance rate, 99% of data will get accepted, then again, we do not generate as much data or as much noise(well, data noise anyway, bloody pumps are loud enough to make even the heaviest of rockers wear ear protection).

[swansont]

I'm not convinced of the the validity of the claim in the first place — I don't know where the number comes from. There are a number of classes of experiments that require e.g. a coincidence measurement, in which you would reject all events that did not satisfy the coincidence trigger. Nobody would go out of their way to explain this, because anybody with a passing understanding wouldn't be at all surprised. Similarly, if you're screening for a particular reaction, you would screen data that won't include that reaction.

[abskebabs]

is it? i was just using his numbers. i was unaware of the true values as my course doesn't really go deep into the realm of particle physics and our experiments have a much higher acceptance rate, 99% of data will get accepted, then again, we do not generate as much data or as much noise(well, data noise anyway, bloody pumps are loud enough to make even the heaviest of rockers wear ear protection).

My comment was irrelevant to whether the initial figures he obtained were correct. I was simply stating(pedantically) that 100-0.004=99.996; not 99.006. Honestly, my lecturers love me:-p .

 

I haven't a clue if the initial figures are correct.