cladking Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. Plenty of theory has disagreed with experiment. It's nature that can't be wrong. If "theory" doesn't agree with experiment then it's no longer theory. I would be highly disinclined to put any constraints whatsoever on nature; not so much because I consider it blasphemous which I do, but because so little of nature/ reality is known that it's presumptuous to believe it must be right or that it always behaves the same way. I think that for all practical purposes we must consider established theory to explain observation and we must always be vigilant to see where observation differs from that reality. By the same token I believe we should assume a perspective from outside of our knowledge and understanding of theory to better attend to these anomalies. I believe this perspective, metaphysics, and observation should be taught from a very young age to all students who are predisposed to science and who are naturally skeptical. To each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 If "theory" doesn't agree with experiment then it's no longer theory. Sure it is. It's just wrong. Otherwise this is just a version of the "No true Scotsman" equivocation fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Sure it is. It's just wrong. Otherwise this is just a version of the "No true Scotsman" equivocation fallacy. I nearly didn't respond at all because we are so close to a semantical argument. But "theory" by definition requires experiment agree with it. It seems you're much closer to agreeing with the alien than I am. If the alien presented you with empirical evidence that scientific theory is wrong you'd change your mind whereas I'd simply assume he was using his "magic" to fool me. It would be impossible for me to accept the idea science is wrong without completely reorganizing everything I know. It would require a great deal of proof and then some time before I had an opinion about anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 But "theory" by definition requires experiment agree with it.This is incorrect. You must be using a different definition of this word than everyone else. Quick example: Newton's theory of gravity is useful and largely accurate, but cannot account for the retrograde motion of Mercury. In short, it disagrees with experiments in some specific contexts yet remains a valid scientific theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 You must be using a different definition of this word than everyone else. This would hardly be unusual. To me "theory" is akin to "human knowledge" or "state of the art". Of course, neither of these terms presupposes accuracy or correctness in my mind especially as the subject (specific art) drifts off toward the soft sciences. State of the art knowledge is far more likely to be wrong where premises are more poorly defined and more assumptions exist in foundational beliefs. But in the hard sciences, especially those which can be manipulated mathematically, state of the art (theory) is the sum total of all experiment and (proper) observation. This state of the art is unassailable in its entirety even though every single piece is always open to being rewritten. It's hardly impossible it's all wrong and reality isn't reflected in experiment or even that all experiment is misinterpreted but this might be no more likely than stepping into a vacuum on your evening stroll. Frankly, I probably have less confidence in any given fact than almost anyone but I have no doubt at all about the scientific method and its applicability to understanding nature. It's also ironic that it's only the second best science but I'll save this to when it's more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 This would hardly be unusual. Within the scientific community it would. No point in paying attention to what you say, if what you mean is unclear because you feel you can redefine terms any time you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) . I think this thread with its ' hypothetical question ' is a good test for our thinking . That is, as to how we would present ourself to a way far advanced intelligent life form . Most 20th/ 21st century films illustrate our not handling the meeting at all well. Sci - fi books often make a better picture. "2001 - 2010 a space oddesy " was quite good , origin Arthur c Clark .. " Contact ". Origin , the writer of Cosmos . Carl Sagan Good Books Foundation , foundation and empire, second foundation , writer Isaac Asimov. Good etc However , they usually always show or illustrate that current scientific understanding ,is far removed from what ' could be ' understanding of the universe in the far future . ' Maybe this is why ? One of the amazing attributes of the human mind is :- IMAGINATION . Personally , I think we should prepare ourselves , to ask the right questions, without arrogance . Or too set , preconceived ideas. Have an open mind ! Mike Ps tonight on BBC TV was one of the " transformer " series . A representative of the CIA. Or some spokesperson for earth was on a 75 meter high platform , having a conversation with the face of one of the " transformer " beings . Needless to say , he ' screwed up' . And these particular ' transformer beings' , were here to save Earth , from the bad guys !I think this thread with its ' hypothetical question ' is a good test for our thinking . That is, as to how we would present ourself to a way far advanced intelligent life form . Edited June 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 This would hardly be unusual.No, it's definitely not. It comes up here. A lot. Too often, really. In fact, again just like 5 weeks ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88591-theory-and-its-synonyms/?hl=theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) . I think we could easily face a ' differential problem ' if and/or when contact is experienced. ( with this Alien Scientist ) . What I have noticed , while considering this issue over the last few days is :- My dog of an evening , about 9 pm , not set, comes and sits in front of me , and barks, shakes a bit in excitement/ anticipation. I have been trying to interpret this activity. She is trying to communicate some request. Is it an evening dog biscuit? Is it a door open to pop out into the garden for a leak? No I have come to the conclusion it is an anticipated, prolonged, walk in the park. Now this different species, lesser intelligent, yet close, still finds it difficult to communicate what quite, precisely, she wants, of me, or for equally me to understand. A species, well removed, in size and intelligence , say an ANT . I go no where near, do not even try to communicate, would not have a clue ( apart from leaving a trail of treacle to a venue ) . There is very little link in communication. Only a fellow human , or close domesticated animal is even a poor communication possible . So let us say our visiting alien is far more intelligent to us, difference in size similar ratio as us to an ant . Surely we will reach the same difficulties as me and my dog . ( what quite do we want ? The alien will need to work out , what in our activity is the equivalent of a wagging tail or bark will be very difficult . ) the intellectual gap might produce difficulties, will it not ? Do WE really bother that an ant does not know what we want or communicate . Yet it could be argued, " yes but we are streets above lower species. " but it could also be argued " ants are doing some pretty clever things, the way they build up their civilisations , housing , food provision etc " Are they already here , in a different form, in the clouds, in the sky , on the moon , in the sun , at the centre of our Galaxy , in a black hole , .. invisible? ' why not '? Streets ahead of us , yet still perplexed what we want ? ( bit like me with the dog , not certain what it wants ) After all we are going around rather strangely killing each other, and a few other nonsensical things ? Mike Edited June 24, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Ask him to express their wrongness on a scale from 0 to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Ask for data and how to get it, replicate it, publish it. Also try to capture the alien and keep it away from cats. Even that could be biased. The alien already knows the results of each experiment provided, and may keep opposing evidence hidden. You could avoid this by asking why—Why are your/our theories right/wrong?—then design your own experiments. Don't be fooled by crafty alien deception. Assume the alien wants to screw you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Within the scientific community it would. No point in paying attention to what you say, if what you mean is unclear because you feel you can redefine terms any time you want. My theory is that everyone should try to grasp theory whether the subject is factual or theoretical. Miscommunication is pervasive everywhere and is never the fault of one party. It takes two to miscommunicate. Indeed, if an alien tells you that scientific theory is all wrong then there's a fair chance he isn't expressing himself well or you misundersrtand him. Perhaps he's stating the case well enough and you aren't following the conversation. Of course, it's usually going to be a combination of both when aliens say science is all wrong. Or it's going to be an incomprehensible joke or it will be a different perspective. One thing it's not is literally true from a scientific perspective. Facts are facts whether you grew up on earth or Alpha Centari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 My theory is that everyone should try to grasp theory whether the subject is factual or theoretical. Miscommunication is pervasive everywhere and is never the fault of one party. It takes two to miscommunicate. Scientific papers often address ambiguity beforehand. It would be their fault if they failed to clarify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 My theory is that everyone should try to grasp theory whether the subject is factual or theoretical. Miscommunication is pervasive everywhere and is never the fault of one party. It takes two to miscommunicate. That's rather convenient, and also lazy. You remove responsibility from yourself to learn terminology or what a theory actually states, and lay blame elsewhere. If you can't be bothered to learn something, then the fault lies with you, not with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 That's rather convenient, and also lazy. You remove responsibility from yourself to learn terminology or what a theory actually states, and lay blame elsewhere. If you can't be bothered to learn something, then the fault lies with you, not with someone else. This specific miscommunication was principally my fault. I should have made it clear that one party can be chiefly responsible. However, I've used the word "theory" to mean human scientific knowledge so many times that I believed this would be apparent to readers. More importantly, I believe this is the only meaning that fit logically in the sentence so in my opinion is the apparent meaning. I'm involved on one side or another of a great deal of miscommunication so I never assume it's the other guy's fault. But then I've also observed two individuals having a conversation about two different subjects and neither noticing it. I know for a fact that there's a great deal of miscommunication going on and I believe I'm more sensitive to it than most. I may well cause more than most, as well. If I ever meet an alien I almost expect him to tell me everything I believe is wrong. He'd have no way of knowing I don't believe much of anything. I might even find his comment humorous even if it wasn't a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) . On the other hand , they could look identical to us, ( or make themselves look identical, to us ) . It has been said , " some , unbeknown to themselves , have entertained Angels " . As the word 'Angel ' basically means " messenger" , may be some have walked amongst us , and we did not even notice them? Maybe they slipped a message or idea to someone , then quietly vanished? How would you know , if it was another human being , or a messenger ? Link Wikipedia ' angel ' :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel Mike Edited June 26, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Well yes, sure they could probably compete or even be considered superior in scientific knowledge and they could likely teach the caveman some useful stuff. But [accepting that people who build interstellar spaceships have interesting things to say about science] was not the question, the question is if they can be trusted on everything they claim knowledge of. Actually, the question literally was that if an alien lands in my backyard and told my that some of (or maybe even all of - it's not really specified) the scientific theories I believe in are wrong, "what would my reaction be?". And my statement was that I would be interested to know more, because I assume someone who builds interstellar spaceships will have something interesting to say. It's a bit like assuming a scientist may know something about science, and not asking for evidence of every statement in a discussion (even though it does not rule out this in key parts - since evidence is a process in which the theory is relevant it also helps the understanding process). The rather extreme interpretation of this as "trusting everything" or considering an alien all-knowing or infallible was not really what I meant. I admittedly did imply some mockery about "an alien with a spaceship does not impress me"-attitudes, though. Especially in the light of seldomly seeing physics professors whose students ask for evidence of their teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Actually, the question literally was that if an alien lands in my backyard and told my that some of (or maybe even all of - it's not really specified) the scientific theories I believe in are wrong, "what would my reaction be?". And my statement was that I would be interested to know more, because I assume someone who builds interstellar spaceships will have something interesting to say. It's a bit like assuming a scientist may know something about science, and not asking for evidence of every statement in a discussion (even though it does not rule out this in key parts - since evidence is a process in which the theory is relevant it also helps the understanding process). The rather extreme interpretation of this as "trusting everything" or considering an alien all-knowing or infallible was not really what I meant. I admittedly did imply some mockery about "an alien with a spaceship does not impress me"-attitudes, though. Especially in the light of seldomly seeing physics professors whose students ask for evidence of their teachings. Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Squared Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 While that is a refreshing change from the common claims in Speculations that all science is wrong, it is obviously not true. Science is often wrong. Scientists are wrong more often than the scientific method itself. . On the other hand , they could look identical to us, ( or make themselves look identical, to us ) . It has been said , " some , unbeknown to themselves , have entertained Angels " . As the word 'Angel ' basically means " messenger" , may be some have walked amongst us , and we did not even notice them? Maybe they slipped a message or idea to someone , then quietly vanished? How would you know , if it was another human being , or a messenger ? Link Wikipedia ' angel ' :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel Mike Good point, in modern society aliens have filled the void left by fanciful creatures of old. The notion of an alien spacecraft magically appearing in somebody's backyard is just as unlikely as a leprechaun showing up in the same location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Scientists are wrong more often than the scientific method itself. As the scientific method is a way of testing whether an idea is correct or not (and scientists are not omniscient beings able to come up with the correct hypothesis first time) I guess that must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Scientists are wrong more often than the scientific method itself. Yes, they are. Part of the scientific method is the error correction of other scientists weighing in and pointing out problems. Many erroneous ideas are identified even before that point. Depending on the problem, the idea or approach is either modified or discarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Many erroneous ideas are identified even before that point. That is often a problem with people posting their personal theories: even if they are not irredeemable cranks (i.e. the ones who will never be convinced they are wrong) they often don't take the time (or don't have the knowledge / skills) to do a basic sanity check. A lot of ideas are posted where it is quite easy to do a rough calculation and show it is totally implausible (or maybe, even, that it is plausible). <cough>space based power generation<cough> I'm sure scientists (and engineers) must often come up with ideas that they have to discard after some small amount of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'm sure scientists (and engineers) must often come up with ideas that they have to discard after some small amount of work. Happens all the time, and at least in my experience (YMMV), with very little ego involved. Pointing out a flaw in someone's idea, or finding it in your own, means time is not wasted pursuing something that will not work. There is no barrier to floating an idea — calling it out as wrong is not misinterpreted as a personal attack, or mockery, and you WANT people to find a flaw if it's there. But the lack of a barrier is also because nobody is going float an idea that is obviously wrong; they tend to hold themselves to high standards of rigor. (For "pie in the sky" ideas that are fatally flawed, the person generally self-identifies the problems. Sometimes you offer that up anyway, in terms of asking if there are any ways to solve those issues.) It's not uncommon for the conversation to start with "Why wouldn't this work?" In the end, everybody learns something by hashing through the details, which is the coin of the geek realm. And occasionally there are the ideas with actual merit. Maybe the fact that crackpots are immune to this is tied in with "I've spent my whole life on this" — there are no milestones or deadlines involved. Wasted time is not valued the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cladking Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Maybe the fact that crackpots are immune to this is tied in with "I've spent my whole life on this" — there are no milestones or deadlines involved. Wasted time is not valued the same. It would seem the alien might be representative of a species that didn't waste its time much. Who's to say what things set their species and their science apart from our own? If he said everything we believe is wrong then it might be trying to teach us something. Even as a non-alien I can agree with the sentiment if he means all "belief" is wrong even when it's based on known science. Science doesn't show reality but the effects of reality. We are trying to come to know reality through its effects on experiment. We might be coming to understand the forces and processes by which nature operates but that doesn't mean our "belief" in scientific theory or its applicability to the real world is "true" or correct. ...Or one man's waste of time can be another's search for reality. One species' "truth" can be another's detour. All "science" might not even be the same but every tool (specific science) determines the type and amount of knowledge that can be gained. It's not the knowledge gained that can be at issue so much as the effectiveness and applicability to the real world. Real knowledge is often misapplied even without errors of logic. The misapplication is usually the result of unknown or ignored variables. Without talking to the alien, asking for definitions and evidence, it will be impossible to understand his meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Squared Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 That is often a problem with people posting their personal theories: even if they are not irredeemable cranks (i.e. the ones who will never be convinced they are wrong) they often don't take the time (or don't have the knowledge / skills) to do a basic sanity check. A lot of ideas are posted where it is quite easy to do a rough calculation and show it is totally implausible (or maybe, even, that it is plausible). <cough>space based power generation<cough> I'm sure scientists (and engineers) must often come up with ideas that they have to discard after some small amount of work. More outlandish and expensive plans have been repeatedly foisted upon a gullible public. You should get that cough looked at, might be tuberculosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now