The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: JRowe on April 01, 2020, 02:04:08 AM
-
My philosophy on scientific theory is simple: it is a house of cards. There's the natural to urge to want to focus in one some small aspect of a model in discussion and exclusively talk about that, but that has very limited use because no part of a model ever stands alone. Every statement has prerequisites and consequences. The way to analyze a model is to look at how it all comes together. You look at the assumptions, you look at the consequences, and most importantly you look at what is held as reasonable. If those developing the model consider as reasonable an absurdity, those are sufficient grounds to question the rigidity of whatever framework they use.
So let's look at black holes, specifically microscopic black holes. Technically speaking much of these are theory, but it is a well-respected theory, so we can certainly use it to examine the character of mainstream RE scientists.
As most of us probably know, black holes are formed by incredibly dense masses, where mass exerts gravity, and the mass is within such a small volume that there is a radius around it where the gravity is so extreme that not even light can escape from it. They are inescapable.
It is also commonly held that these black holes do indeed collapse. That is, energy escapes them.
The astute among you will notice that this seems contradictory. If nothing can escape a black hole, then how does it run out of mass, how does the gravitational force run down?
The answer to this is is Hawking radiation. However, examination of what this entails will unearth a contradiction, but bear with me for a moment as I explain the concept for those unaware of it. Hawking radiation relies upon so-called 'virtual-particles,' which are posited as a particle and anti-particle pair that come into existence spontaneously, and annihilate each other in an instant, thus meaning no new mass is created and the laws of physics are followed. That, broadly speaking, is the theory. (I'm assuming a basic understanding of anti-matter). This ties to quantum theory, that any energy is ultimately composed of quanta, so any energy on a quantum level is composed of these particle/anti-particle pairs appearing and annihilating each other to produce said energy. It's complicated, but the basics are there.
Now, at a black hole, should a particle/anti-particle pair appear on the event horizon, the border between being able to escape a black hole and being trapped, they would be separated. That is, one particle would be drawn into the black hole, and one would be sent outwards. They would not come into contact and not annihilate each other, and the black hole will seem to emit radiation in the form of that half-pair. This is Hawking Radiation.
The claim is that this essentially acts as a black hole emitting its energy, and thus weakening.
Except... it isn't, is it? The virtual particles are the source of the radiation, not the mass within the black hole. So why, then is it so commonly held that this would work?
Let's look at the easy answers.
One is the claim that the virtual particles are just the manifestation of the energy contained within the black hole's gravitational field. Thus, the virtual particle being lost and not becoming energy will in fact weaken the gravitational pull, and thus ultimately shrink the event horizon until the black hole is no more. This, however, does not make sense. The mass in the black hole is not changing, that is source of the gravitational pull, it isn't being 'used up,' it isn't being teleported out to the event horizon. What this idea says is that mass will end up existing without exerting any gravitational pull, because when the black hole collapse, the superdense mass will still be there, unaffected by the virtual particles. This is fundamentally at odds with the laws of physics this model relies upon. Even somehow involving odd quantum phenomena like entanglement doesn't resolve this precisely because the lost particle is by definition not being destroyed.
One might then ask about the particle that goes into the black hole. If anything you would expect it to gain mass, not lose it. Some of you might have argued that the anti-particle is what is to blame, annihilating the matter inside the black hole particle by particle, until it is just energy captured and there's no mass to sustain the event horizon. This too is illogical. Statistically, it is equally likely that a particle will be the half of the pair to go inwards, as opposed to the anti-particle. The mass annihilated by any anti-particle would be replenished by a particle, and vice versa. The mass stays constant.
In conclusion, the central mass of a black hole is unaffected by whatever virtual particles do at the event horizon, and yet we are supposed to believe its gravitational pull will diminish just because.
True, we are in the realms of more theoretical science here, but these are the respected thinkers, these are the ones pushing frontiers. Why is such absurdity even considered?
Well, because it follows from believed statements, and that a black hole is needed to decay because if it doesn't the model would predict mass being generated by nothing, something too unreasonable. It demonstrates a willingness to bend the rules by supposed respected figures, and indicates the model is held together by string and hope when these are the things that are actually considered, actually studied, rather than be expected to develop to a worthwhile level.
It's like a paper cut. It's small, seemingly insignificant, but if you get a lot of them, the effect can be rather more worrying indeed. There are countless tiny flaws, things you look at and assume it's nothing, but all together they paint a worrying picture indeed about the state of RET.
-
What you described is called pseudoscience. Astronomy is a pseudoscience. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience)
Sciences based on observation and interpretation were largely abolished during the Enlightenment and preceding Renaissance. The number one lesson learned that it is incredibly weak to observe and interpret. Human logic is fallible. We must test things. The Scientific Method of empirical experimentation brought us to better truths. Huge swaths of 'logical' sciences that came before were thrown away.
Unfortunately Astronomy is one of those sciences in which experimentation is impractical. Rather than throwing it away, we just kept it and continue on with the ancient pseudoscience, piling one interpretation and hypothesis upon the next like a house of cards. As long as you can imagine an explanation it's good enough.
The only other choice to the charade is to admit that you don't know anything and that your science based on interpretation is invalid, just as we decided those sciences were invalid at the birth of the Modern Science and the Era of Enlightenment.
-
What you described is called pseudoscience. Astronomy is a pseudoscience. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience)
Nice try, but no.
Science is about making a hypothesis, then trying your hypothesis. Of course for a very long time, before the Space Age, astronomical hypothesis could only be tried through observation. But even that way, you can try your hypothesis and see if it gives you a better understanding of how the world works.
And you know what? In the case of astronomy, it does. Astronomers gradually built a better and more precise description of what we see in the skies. For example, eclipse predictions got more accurate as astronomical knowledge progressed. The existence of Neptune was postulated in the 19th century based on calculations of the other planets' orbit, and then confirmed through observation. This is what science is about. Building models and see if they work. Astronomical models work pretty damn well, and they did long before we even launched our first rocket.
On the other hand, Flat Earth offers us several models, incompatible with each other, and these models don't give us any answer or prediction, just more questions on how they are supposed to work. The existence of several models allows flat earthers to cherry pick an explanation for anything. Where is the pseudoscience?
-
Tom;
From the Wiki - "What type of experiment do astronomers perform?" - even if we accept that the astronomers have done "None", that still leaves a continuous history of space flight since 1957, with Sputnik 1.
Explorations to; the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars and the other outer planets, with at least one craft heading out of our solar system, and still operating.
So whilst you might attempt to discard the observations of astronomers since the first use of the telescope, it's clear that many of their early, mid and late observations have subsequently been confirmed by physical means.
-
On the other hand, Flat Earth offers us several models, incompatible with each other, and these models don't give us any answer or prediction, just more questions on how they are supposed to work. The existence of several models allows flat earthers to cherry pick an explanation for anything. Where is the pseudoscience?
That is how science should be done. FEers don't cherrypick answers from whatever model is convenient, every FEer has their own model that they hold to and can answer the questions for, some choose to be more representative when they answer newbies and people that seem ignorant of that, but they don't switch between models when convenient. I can tell you what model I subscribe to, just as Tom Bishop could tell you which he favors, and many others could do the same.
This is preferrable to the tradition-based system of RET where a model gains traction simply because it's been around longer, and you have to take on faith that people a century ago with the resources of a century ago didn't make a mistake, because your system is incapable of replacing something established. It only appends and tweaks small changes, or adds things, but never goes back, never questions. Fundamental claims like relativity, dark matter, those should have been the call to go back and re-examine earlier discoveries and claims in light of it, instead they were added to a model assumed to be accurate rather than re-verified, creating this ever-unstable pile of hypotheses that cracks keep opening up in.
Prediction does not matter. Explanatory power does. Demanding a model make new predictions, while it can be sufficient, only serves to further the tradition-over-logic approach of RET. If you have two theories, A is established, B is new and competing, and an experiment was performed a decade ago because it was predicted by theory A, if theory B also predicts the same, then all that sets the theory apart is which came first. If someone was to go back in time and suggest B before A, and perform the same experiment, suddenly A would be the one that needs to make a new prediction. The predictive model of scientific theory does nothing but favor what has already been suggested, and thus prefers the models that were designed when less was understood. It is one of the many fundamental errors with the RE approach.
RET does raise many questions, such as the one I raised in the OP. The difference between RET and FET is that we ask the questions. You are taking your own refusal to question as evidence there are no flaws, when if anything it means the opposite. A true scientific approach is one where there are questions, where nothing is ever taken as complete or fully settled, and those questions are actually asked rather than conveniently ignored.
Further, claiming eclipse predictions grew more accurate with understanding is simply false. This is one of many crucial misunderstandings the predictive approach takes. You think because you can more accurately describe something in terms of a model, that it means the model has more evidence behind it. Instead, eclipses are by definition a predictable phenomenon, repeating completely after each saros cycle, the equations that govern them were once filled with unknowns, and then filled with values from past recorded eclipses. To say our understanding made eclipses more predictable is to confuse cause and effect, it was the predictability of eclipses that led to the equations that supposedly describe them, simply because you can make a formula for anything predictable.
-
Prediction does not matter. Explanatory power does. Demanding a model make new predictions, while it can be sufficient, only serves to further the tradition-over-logic approach of RET. If you have two theories, A is established, B is new and competing, and an experiment was performed a decade ago because it was predicted by theory A, if theory B also predicts the same, then all that sets the theory apart is which came first. If someone was to go back in time and suggest B before A, and perform the same experiment, suddenly A would be the one that needs to make a new prediction. The predictive model of scientific theory does nothing but favor what has already been suggested, and thus prefers the models that were designed when less was understood. It is one of the many fundamental errors with the RE approach.
Prediction is the ONLY thing that matters. If your theory can't explain how things work, then exactly what is it good for? How do you verify a theory is true without testing it, and how can you test it if you don't make predictions with it?
The whole idea behind science is to explain what we can observe. It's done a pretty good job, wouldn't you say? We have airplanes and cell phones, we decoded our own DNA, we can take apart atoms and make computers out of parts so small that light itself is too big to view them. This is all the result of science, of theories that predict how things should work, and once we know how something should work we can then build it.
We build bridges based on science and math because we want to know if they will hold up BEFORE we make them. If someone had an 'alternate bridge theory' but it couldn't be used to tell if a bridge will work or not, what is the point of arguing over using it instead of engineering and science?
As for your A and B example, if two theories A and B both equally and accurately predict something, well that does happen all the time. Things can be explained in more than one way, and if both WORK then we use whichever fits the current problem best. Eventually more evidence will be uncovered, more experiments done and one will be shown to be more accurate and we will use it when that accuracy is needed. See Einstein and Newton for examples of this.
We use what WORKS. Why? Because using anything else would be silly now, wouldn't it?
Maybe the world IS flat, and there is some crazy branch of physics that hides it from us by making all our measurements and observations and travels LOOK like the world is round. But if that is so, until flat earth theory can actually do something useful, until it can show us a faster way to get from New York to London, or shows us how to build a subway around the bottom of the disk, until then we will continue to behave as if the earth is a globe because it WORKS, and flat earth doesn't.
-
Prediction does not matter. Explanatory power does.
Prediction is the ONLY thing that matters. If your theory can't explain how things work, then exactly what is it good for?
You might find you get better results in discussion if you don't completely ignore what the other person said. Prediction and explanation are not the same thing. Every theory must be able to explain all we can observe, that's not in question, that's explanatory power, prediction is saying that in addition to that it must also be able to predict the result of a yet-to-be-performed experiment. True, that can have value, but requiring it is to slant science towards tradition, not logic, as I went over.
Maybe the world IS flat, and there is some crazy branch of physics that hides it from us by making all our measurements and observations and travels LOOK like the world is round. But if that is so, until flat earth theory can actually do something useful, until it can show us a faster way to get from New York to London, or shows us how to build a subway around the bottom of the disk, until then we will continue to behave as if the earth is a globe because it WORKS, and flat earth doesn't.
It doesn't make the world look round, it makes the world look flat under a working model. You are again showing the bias towards tradition. How do you know what 'looks flat' or 'looks round' if you are not comparing models? The models are what matters. RET does not do anything useful, practicality solved all those problems, real experiments, real tests, with tweaks any time the experiment was at odds with prediction, RET didn't invent the plane, inventors and years of trial and error did. RET didn't tell you that if you start in New York, heading that way will get you to London, explorers did. Accepting that the world is flat won't stop planes working. You are saying you are happy to hold to a lie just because it's been nipped and tucked to bring what we observe in line with it, even when, as demonstrated in the OP, those tweaks have become exceedingly tenuous at best.
And again, you show the tradition-based leanings by demanding something prove itself by doing more. That approach is going to hit a wall sooner or later, indeed I suspect it already has, because it cannot allow for error. This goes beyond FET and RET, the scientific community is fundamentally broken. Forget FET, if you are only concerned with practical results, that is something you should be concerned with.
-
Prediction does not matter. Explanatory power does.
Prediction is the ONLY thing that matters. If your theory can't explain how things work, then exactly what is it good for?
You might find you get better results in discussion if you don't completely ignore what the other person said. Prediction and explanation are not the same thing. Every theory must be able to explain all we can observe, that's not in question, that's explanatory power, prediction is saying that in addition to that it must also be able to predict the result of a yet-to-be-performed experiment. True, that can have value, but requiring it is to slant science towards tradition, not logic, as I went over.
I'm not ignoring, I'm trying to understand. Can you explain to me what "explanatory power" is and why it doesn't require prediction and testing to be considered true?
How exactly do you determine that an explanation is correct if you aren't willing or able to test it?
-
I'm not ignoring, I'm trying to understand. Can you explain to me what "explanatory power" is and why it doesn't require prediction and testing to be considered true?
How exactly do you determine that an explanation is correct if you aren't willing or able to test it?
How on earth are you getting 'not willing to test it' from 'explain all we can observe?'
I am objecting to the claim that the only valid test is a new one. Trillions of tests and observations have been taken throughout human history, countless observations, countless facts. Now, not all of those were reliable, there are errors, mistakes in experimentation, things not accounted for, but all that is data, all that is raw information that can be examined, and all of it must be accounted for, even if some of that accounting is 'yeah, the Piltdown Man was a hoax.' Test, use experiments, use data, use everything you can find out. I've never even said 'don't make predictions,' so claiming I'm somehow not willing to test is even more unfounded.
What I am saying, is that something does not need to reveal something new about the world in order to be true. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we already have plenty of observations, plenty is already known. If it can explain the same thing as a competing theory, and it does so better (ie: fewer assumptions, fewer contradictions), then it is better, and does not need to predict the result of an unperformed experiment for the weight of that evidence to mean anything.
Prediction and explanation are not the same thing. Explanation is working with the tools you have, prediction is inventing new ones. Prediction favors tradition, because the more time passes, the less room there is for new experiments with any degree of significance.
-
What I am saying, is that something does not need to reveal something new about the world in order to be true. If it does, great. If it doesn't, we already have plenty of observations, plenty is already known. If it can explain the same thing as a competing theory, and it does so better (ie: fewer assumptions, fewer contradictions), then it is better, and does not need to predict the result of an unperformed experiment for the weight of that evidence to mean anything.
Prediction and explanation are not the same thing. Explanation is working with the tools you have, prediction is inventing new ones. Prediction favors tradition, because the more time passes, the less room there is for new experiments with any degree of significance.
I have to disagree, that's not how the scientific method works.
If you come up with an alternate theory for something, and it explains all previous tests and data just as well as the current theory then your theory is just as correct. But now we have two separate theories, and both can't be right.
However you don't pick which theory is better based on which is more elegant or is better worded. You examine both theories, you find the places where they disagree, and you devise an experiment so it's result will verify one or the other.
That is why we test new things. Not just because it's tradition, but when you need to decide between two theories the best way is to explore their differences and test it. Maybe some data already exists that can do it, but if not you need to do something else.
Then you have indeed, revealed something new.
-
That is why we test new things. Not just because it's tradition, but when you need to decide between two theories the best way is to explore their differences and test it. Maybe some data already exists that can do it, but if not you need to do something else.
That's a way of doing it. It isn't the only one. One could look at assumptions, or the parts of a model that are more loosely explained, areas such as the one I went over in the OP and seems to have been totally ignored, existing areas of the subject where one model lacks an answer. Existing data serves just as well if holes can be seen, or unnecessary assumptions are required. It is always going to be possible to tweak the existing model to answer basically any objection, it's just that doing so requires more and more assumptions, oddities, things that should have been noticed long since or that need special pleading, are at odds with past parts of it... The current method of perpetually appending rather than replacing is focused on maintaining tradition, not true scientific analysis.
Insisting that a prediction is the only way serves just to put the status quo on a pedestal and say that it is above reproach, that there are no flaws in it to be examined, nothing to compare. That is not remotely scientific, but it is what the current mainstream scientific community relies upon.
-
On the other hand, Flat Earth offers us several models, incompatible with each other, and these models don't give us any answer or prediction, just more questions on how they are supposed to work. The existence of several models allows flat earthers to cherry pick an explanation for anything. Where is the pseudoscience?
That is how science should be done. FEers don't cherrypick answers from whatever model is convenient, every FEer has their own model that they hold to and can answer the questions for, some choose to be more representative when they answer newbies and people that seem ignorant of that, but they don't switch between models when convenient. I can tell you what model I subscribe to, just as Tom Bishop could tell you which he favors, and many others could do the same.
They do. Tom did post very recently that he favored a bipolar earth model, but still tried to argue something based on a monopole model. Cherrypicking, as blatant as possible. And a common answer to any question seems to be "it really depends on the model".
This is preferrable to the tradition-based system of RET where a model gains traction simply because it's been around longer, and you have to take on faith that people a century ago with the resources of a century ago didn't make a mistake, because your system is incapable of replacing something established. It only appends and tweaks small changes, or adds things, but never goes back, never questions. Fundamental claims like relativity, dark matter, those should have been the call to go back and re-examine earlier discoveries and claims in light of it, instead they were added to a model assumed to be accurate rather than re-verified, creating this ever-unstable pile of hypotheses that cracks keep opening up in.
Do you mean that, for example, the discovery of quantum physics and relativity did not lead to re-examination of what we knew? That the Copernician model did not supersede the geocentric Ptolemaic model? The Copernician model or relativity didn't gain traction because it'd been around longer: it gained traction because it works better than previous models.
Prediction does not matter. Explanatory power does. Demanding a model make new predictions, while it can be sufficient, only serves to further the tradition-over-logic approach of RET. If you have two theories, A is established, B is new and competing, and an experiment was performed a decade ago because it was predicted by theory A, if theory B also predicts the same, then all that sets the theory apart is which came first. If someone was to go back in time and suggest B before A, and perform the same experiment, suddenly A would be the one that needs to make a new prediction. The predictive model of scientific theory does nothing but favor what has already been suggested, and thus prefers the models that were designed when less was understood. It is one of the many fundamental errors with the RE approach.
Prediction matters a lot. If you hold a theory to be true, then you should be able to make predictions based on this theory, that you can test and that will fail if the theory is wrong. That's what falsifiability is about. If there is no way to make an observation that could prove your theory wrong, then it is not falsifiable and has little or no scientific value.
Also, if two theories predict the same thing, then they are not really competing.
RET does raise many questions, such as the one I raised in the OP. The difference between RET and FET is that we ask the questions. You are taking your own refusal to question as evidence there are no flaws, when if anything it means the opposite. A true scientific approach is one where there are questions, where nothing is ever taken as complete or fully settled, and those questions are actually asked rather than conveniently ignored.
FET asks questions that have been answered long ago.
Further, claiming eclipse predictions grew more accurate with understanding is simply false. This is one of many crucial misunderstandings the predictive approach takes. You think because you can more accurately describe something in terms of a model, that it means the model has more evidence behind it. Instead, eclipses are by definition a predictable phenomenon, repeating completely after each saros cycle, the equations that govern them were once filled with unknowns, and then filled with values from past recorded eclipses. To say our understanding made eclipses more predictable is to confuse cause and effect, it was the predictability of eclipses that led to the equations that supposedly describe them, simply because you can make a formula for anything predictable.
Saros cycles are not enough, by far, to accurately predict the specific time and location of an eclipse. You are rewriting history. Halley made his precise prediction of an eclipse in 1715 thanks to the equations of Newton's laws of gravity. These formulas did not come out of nowhere. Newton made a hypothesis. People tried his hypothesis and saw it worked. They used it to make predictions, and these predictions were accurate. Newton wasn't looking for a way to predict eclipses.
Then centuries later, Einstein made a hypothesis that was mostly compatible with Newton's, but filled the gaps where Newton's failed. Einstein showed Newtonian physics' limits. But within these limits, it still applies, and still is in use today.
If tomorrow someone comes with a new theory that updates Einstein's relativity, it will have to be compatible with all the many cases that relativity correctly predicts, just like relativity had to be compatible with all the cases that work with Newtonian mechanics.
-
That's a way of doing it. It isn't the only one. One could look at assumptions, or the parts of a model that are more loosely explained, areas such as the one I went over in the OP and seems to have been totally ignored, existing areas of the subject where one model lacks an answer. Existing data serves just as well if holes can be seen, or unnecessary assumptions are required. It is always going to be possible to tweak the existing model to answer basically any objection, it's just that doing so requires more and more assumptions, oddities, things that should have been noticed long since or that need special pleading, are at odds with past parts of it... The current method of perpetually appending rather than replacing is focused on maintaining tradition, not true scientific analysis.
Insisting that a prediction is the only way serves just to put the status quo on a pedestal and say that it is above reproach, that there are no flaws in it to be examined, nothing to compare. That is not remotely scientific, but it is what the current mainstream scientific community relies upon.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Science does all of that, looking at theories, trying to find holes, judging them, fixing them when found or replacing them with new ones. You can read thousands upon thousands of papers simply arguing one theory over another. (Flat Earthers have NOTHING on the string theory guys when it comes to arguing against mainstream physicists.) And yes, coming up with new experiments is part of that process. I still fail to understand why this is a PROBLEM. It's the core idea of science. Argue about a theory, and when you find something nobody can agree on, design experiments and test it.
It's gotten us the high tech world we live in. Personally I'm pretty happy with how science has progressed. What exactly is science failing to do that you are so upset about all the experimenting going on?
I'm not sure why you hate the idea of coming up with new experiments so much. There is only so much you can argue over a theory before you are just arguing in circles. Prediction, experimenting, testing, that's all basic science. If you think it's better to stop doing all these new experiments and stop collecting data, well, I'll just have to disagree there.
If you want to throw out everything we know and replace it all with something new and better, go for it. You won't be the only one trying to work out a brand new Theory of Everything. It's the holy grail of science, and every theory, experiment and observation is another step along the way.
-
And a common answer to any question seems to be "it really depends on the model".
So the fact that models are different and so the answers would depend on the model is... somehow an example of cherrypicking rather than just true? REers seem to struggle with the idea of understanding other viewpoints. One doesn't have to believe in a model to give the answer it would contain. Sometimes it's easier to do so, either because a thread is on that topic, or the answer you believe in requires much more in the way of required knowledge than you're willing to explain on a dime. It happens.
Do you mean that, for example, the discovery of quantum physics and relativity did not lead to re-examination of what we knew? That the Copernician model did not supersede the geocentric Ptolemaic model? The Copernician model or relativity didn't gain traction because it'd been around longer: it gained traction because it works better than previous models.
They really didn't work the way you are claiming, and when you have to go back almost five hundred years to give an example, it's very clear that isn't remotely representative of the current climate.
Quantum physics and relativity did not lead to any re-examination. They added to what was considered known, but nothing was actually changed, they were only ever used to look at things already considered question marks, not to look at what reasonable consequences would have been for things previously believed. The scientific community was happy to leave those unquestioned on the basis of tradition, expanding ever-outward and never looking inward.
I remind you again of the OP. That is an example of what re-examining actually looks like. When a new discovery is made, you find something in a related field that already has a supposed explanation, and you see if there would be any knock-on effects from the newly discovered theory. Science however is not concerned with that, it never discards, just tweaks, just appends, relativity is only used to add, not take away. QFT is only used to add, not take away. Everything is founded upon the religious belief that all that is known is fact and beyond question, no matter what major new discoveries there are that ought to have effects.
As you put it:
"If tomorrow someone comes with a new theory that updates Einstein's relativity, it will have to be compatible with all the many cases that relativity correctly predicts, just like relativity had to be compatible with all the cases that work with Newtonian mechanics."
Just add. Never re-examine.
You are working under the false premise that accurate calculations means truth. As I said, that isn't how it works. Yes, Newtonian physics were used to create equations to predict eclipses. That didn't happen in a vacuum. It would not have happened without recorded facts and figures from how often eclipses occur. Those are what predicted the eclipses. If it hadn't worked, they'd have tweaked the values until it did. All that can actually be read from this is that at best they mostly knew what the variables were, ie the relative speed of the moon and Sun. Big deal.
I liken it to cosmological constants. Under RET, there are a handful of numbers that govern everything in the universe. If any one of them is tweaked a little, stars won't form, or matter would collapse, any number of things like that, life wouldn't exist. But if all of them were changed at random, rather than altering one just slightly, and you'll be able to find a completely different set-up that still allows for life. I believe Victor Stenger wrote on that.
The scientific community is geared towards only allowing small changes. If you try to build to something larger, you'd fail, small oddities get swallowed up by some other hypothesis and by the time you want to build upon that small tweak, it's considered part and parcel of the mainstream and nothing to build from. It is categorically impossible for the scientific community to change consensus in any significant fashion without major overhaul.
What exactly is science failing to do that you are so upset about all the experimenting going on?
I'm not upset. I was answering an idle question of yours on an offhand remark while waiting for someone to actually address my OP, which now looks like it's just never going to happen because all REers are apparently physically capable of doing is ignoring what I said and lying about it.
I said several times over I'm fine with experiments, and encouraged doing so. My objection was only the belief that it was the only way to compare models, when you can also compare quality and quantity of assumptions. A fact you, as ever, ignored. You are lying to my face again, and it is genuinely disgusting the ease with which you do it.
-
This is genuinely absurd.
If I said that magnetic attraction was the result of tiny invisible pixies, and put that alongside the electromagnetic explanation, are you truly saying that your only recourse for comparing the likelihood of those explanations is more experiments?
I'm not saying an experiment wouldn't work, I've never said that, I've said several times over they do add to evidence, they're where evidence comes from, but you are saying that so long as I said the fairies acted in the same way as the electromagnetic spectrum, according to you these would be equivalent theories.
Personally speaking I think that's utter rubbish, but whatever.
This is what you have been arguing over and distracting the thread over. I hope you're proud.
-
This is genuinely absurd.
If I said that magnetic attraction was the result of tiny invisible pixies, and put that alongside the electromagnetic explanation, are you truly saying that your only recourse for comparing the likelihood of those explanations is more experiments?
I'm not saying an experiment wouldn't work, I've never said that, I've said several times over they do add to evidence, they're where evidence comes from, but you are saying that so long as I said the fairies acted in the same way as the electromagnetic spectrum, according to you these would be equivalent theories.
Personally speaking I think that's utter rubbish, but whatever.
This is what you have been arguing over and distracting the thread over. I hope you're proud.
If your theory works exactly the same way, with the same equations, and the same causes result in the same consequences, they are actually equivalent theories: they will give the same predictions, and experiments will give the same results.
The part that differ, the invisible pixies, is unfalsifiable. See Russell's teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It cannot be tested and therefore cannot be part of a scientific theory. I can't prove the invisible pixies don't exist, but I don't mind: no one can prove they exist either, and I have no need of that hypothesis.
-
If your theory works exactly the same way, with the same equations, and the same causes result in the same consequences, they are actually equivalent theories: they will give the same predictions, and experiments will give the same results.
For the love of god, no one is saying there are no tests, that predictions cannot be made, I am getting utterly sick of repeating that, and 'the equations and causes are identical!' is something you just pulled out of your ass.
I am saying that there are ways to see whether a theory functions better than a competitor solely on how well it explains facts that are already known. If there are unnecessary assumptions, special pleading, oversights, contradictions... those are flaws.
Are you objecting to that, or agreeing? Stop this endless pointless run-around over nothing.
And why are we still on this distraction? Do you feel capable of saying anything relevant to the OP rather than an offhand remark I made about the motive behind it?
-
What exactly is science failing to do that you are so upset about all the experimenting going on?
I'm not upset. I was answering an idle question of yours on an offhand remark while waiting for someone to actually address my OP, which now looks like it's just never going to happen because all REers are apparently physically capable of doing is ignoring what I said and lying about it.
I said several times over I'm fine with experiments, and encouraged doing so. My objection was only the belief that it was the only way to compare models, when you can also compare quality and quantity of assumptions. A fact you, as ever, ignored. You are lying to my face again, and it is genuinely disgusting the ease with which you do it.
Accusing me of lying isn't going to help anything.
What got me to reply was this quote of yours: "Prediction does not matter."
And yes, I do believe that experiments and predictions ARE the final say when comparing competing models. You say we should compare the quality and quantity of assumptions? How do you decide quality? Why are more or less assumptions better or worse? More details is good or bad? Your post had a lot of talk about Hawking radiation, but also a lot of talk about how science is being done wrong with too many experiments, and that's what most replies are focusing on. You can't pretend your post wasn't equally an attack on science as it was on Hawking radiation.
In the end, what is a theory for? It is to describe the world we observe. The only way to validate it is to test it. It's been said before in this thread, a theory you can't test is no theory at all.
I don't deny that there is a lot of good in comparing and discussing and debating theories, but in the end, you HAVE to test it or it's just a lot of math. That's not useless, it's how discoveries are made.
Back to your question in the original post, since you are right, the subject has been ignored, so I'll tackle it. There is a distinction between applied and theoretical physics. There are plenty of untestable theories out there, Hawking radiation is one. It's an interesting theory, it might be right, it might be wrong, we simply don't know. Not until we can create mini-black holes and observe them anyway. You will find as many professors arguing that Hawking is right as there are that he was wrong. That debate started the moment he presented his paper, and will continue until we are one day able to test it and see what happens. You should post what you said on a physics board, I'm sure you would get a lot of healthy debate, there are plenty who would agree with you that Hawking radiation has problems and would be happy to hear your ideas and any alternative explanations for what we can observe.
-
And yes, I do believe that experiments and predictions ARE the final say when comparing competing models. You say we should compare the quality and quantity of assumptions? How do you decide quality? Why are more or less assumptions better or worse? More details is good or bad? Your post had a lot of talk about Hawking radiation, but also a lot of talk about how science is being done wrong with too many experiments, and that's what most replies are focusing on. You can't pretend your post wasn't equally an attack on science as it was on Hawking radiation.
I wasn't attacking Hawking radiation, I don't care one way or the other about it. An attack on science, no, but an attack on the community that allows such things to be propagated? Yes, absolutely.
Why? Because it's founded entirely in bias. Look at what you are now defending, even after clarification.
If I put a shoebox in front of you and told you that inside it was either a phone or a baby dragon, you are saying you would need to open it in order to work out it wasn't a dragon. The rest of us already know dragons don't exist. That wasn't arrived at by experiment, you can't prove a negative, but most people are aware of why you don't pile up unnecessary assumptions.
And you're asking why more assumptions are worse.
And again, you are ignoring me. You are using implicitly the idea that the only tests that can be performed are new ones, rather than simply using the vast amount of knowledge that already exists. You are wholesale inventing a claim about a 'theory that you can't test' when what I've been talking about is the opposite, a theory that is tested, compared to known tests, known results, found to suffice, and found to need fewer assumptions than its competitors.
You are saying to reject that theory simply because it was discovered second. If we were to flip things around, have that theory be discovered first so the last test performed would be a new one, it would then be favored for no measurable reason. That is the definition of relying on tradition. That is what I object to, insisting that the only way anything can be examined is not by existing knowledge, but by fallacy.
If you disagree please, tell me, what is the qualitative difference between the theory discovered first and the theory discovered second? All I can see is that the latter is made better informed, which ought to make it more trustworthy, not less.
Back to your question in the original post, since you are right, the subject has been ignored, so I'll tackle it. There is a distinction between applied and theoretical physics. There are plenty of untestable theories out there, Hawking radiation is one. It's an interesting theory, it might be right, it might be wrong, we simply don't know. Not until we can create mini-black holes and observe them anyway. You will find as many professors arguing that Hawking is right as there are that he was wrong. That debate started the moment he presented his paper, and will continue until we are one day able to test it and see what happens. You should post what you said on a physics board, I'm sure you would get a lot of healthy debate, there are plenty who would agree with you that Hawking radiation has problems and would be happy to hear your ideas and any alternative explanations for what we can observe.
It doesn't matter if it's testable. The problem is not that Hawking radiation does or doesn't exist, the problem is the contradiction within it. It is the attitude indicated by a community that will champion something they haven't thought about to any significant extent.
I think you'll find far more professors arguing in favor of something as mainstream as this.
-
Why? Because it's founded entirely in bias. Look at what you are now defending, even after clarification.
If I put a shoebox in front of you and told you that inside it was either a phone or a baby dragon, you are saying you would need to open it in order to work out it wasn't a dragon. The rest of us already know dragons don't exist. That wasn't arrived at by experiment, you can't prove a negative, but most people are aware of why you don't pile up unnecessary assumptions.
And you're asking why more assumptions are worse.
Of course I'd open the box. If you told me there was a baby dragon inside, and I said their wasn't, and you said there was, and I said no that's impossible, and you said I'm wrong... we could argue back and forth all day.
I could say dragons don't exist, I could say that a fire breathing baby couldn't be held in a cardboard box, I'd say if it was a baby dragon where is the mother and why aren't we running for our lives? I'd say why isn't it making any baby dragon noises? You could come up with counter arguments for all of those, that you lined the inside with asbestos, that you shot the mother with a tranquilizer dart and she's being held captive in your basement, that you muzzled the baby dragon. (How mean!)
The point here isn't that I'd believe you, of course I wouldn't. The point is that if arguing logically with you about it fails, then the only solution is to open the box!
And again, you are ignoring me. You are using implicitly the idea that the only tests that can be performed are new ones, rather than simply using the vast amount of knowledge that already exists. You are wholesale inventing a claim about a 'theory that you can't test' when what I've been talking about is the opposite, a theory that is tested, compared to known tests, known results, found to suffice, and found to need fewer assumptions than its competitors.
You are saying to reject that theory simply because it was discovered second. If we were to flip things around, have that theory be discovered first so the last test performed would be a new one, it would then be favored for no measurable reason. That is the definition of relying on tradition. That is what I object to, insisting that the only way anything can be examined is not by existing knowledge, but by fallacy.
If you disagree please, tell me, what is the qualitative difference between the theory discovered first and the theory discovered second? All I can see is that the latter is made better informed, which ought to make it more trustworthy, not less.
I never said you can ONLY use new tests. But if you have a new theory that competes with an old one, of course most tests you come up with will be new, because before that new theory existed nobody would have thought of performing any of those tests. You can't just use old test data to compare a new theory that has brand new implications. We tested gravitational lensing with new experiments to prove that Einstein was right and Newton wasn't. Why didn't we use old data? Because before Einstein nobody ever tired to see if mass bent light because of mass, so there was no old data to test. If there was, we certainly would have used it.
I also never said anything about early theories being better or worse than later ones. In pretty much every case we scrap older theories in favor of newer ones. As mentioned before, Newton's laws of gravity are now superseded by Einstein's theories. I would agree in most cases that yes, later theories are better than earlier ones. We know more. We have more data. We have better methods of testing them.
So to clear things up, when a theory was introduced has no bearing on if it's true or not, only the data does. And if old data and tests can prove a new or old theory wrong, there is no need to make a new test, other than curiosity.
It doesn't matter if it's testable. The problem is not that Hawking radiation does or doesn't exist, the problem is the contradiction within it. It is the attitude indicated by a community that will champion something they haven't thought about to any significant extent.
I think you'll find far more professors arguing in favor of something as mainstream as this.
Again, Hawking radiation is an idea in theoretical physics to try and imagine what happens around black holes based on what we know. If you can prove it has contradictions, please share your views on an astrophysics board. I'm being serious here, pretty much everything about black holes is argued about, they are the poster child for some of the craziest physics out there and so there are a lot of people fascinated by them and trying to figure out what they would be like. They would happily read your arguments and ideas. Inspiration can come from unlikely sources.
(PS. Also, I'd open the box even if you eventually admitted it was empty because... well... what if it was a baby dragon? I want to pet it! Part of being human is dreaming after all, and I can want something to be true even though I know it isn't.)
-
The point here isn't that I'd believe you, of course I wouldn't. The point is that if arguing logically with you about it fails, then the only solution is to open the box!
Except it's not about convincing me, it's about arriving at a conclusion, don't move the goalposts.
I never said you can ONLY use new tests.
Then we're in agreement and this was all utterly pointless given I made it very clear time and again my objection was saying a new prediction was necessary, as opposed to simply a better and more complete model for older.
-
I said several times over I'm fine with experiments, and encouraged doing so. My objection was only the belief that it was the only way to compare models, when you can also compare quality and quantity of assumptions.
I've seen the same experiment repeated over and over, and done the experiment myself. The conclusion from the experiment is
that the Earth is decidedly Not Flat.
It's not a question of comparing "models", it's simply a case of applying simple, school-level geometry to the observation, and finding that that geometry, if we presume the surface to be flat, does not fit with the observation.
The only assumption that needs to be made is that Pythagoras was correct with his theorem of right-angle triangles.
-
The point here isn't that I'd believe you, of course I wouldn't. The point is that if arguing logically with you about it fails, then the only solution is to open the box!
Except it's not about convincing me, it's about arriving at a conclusion, don't move the goalposts.
We were discussing how to decide between two competing theories, you brought the baby dragon into it.
I'd still open the box. Science would open the box. Part of the scientific method is to verify everything. There is no scientist in the world who if you asked them to prove there was no baby dragon in a box, wouldn't just open it. It's a super easy experiment, why waste time arguing when you can just look?
To me your example proves my point, an experiment is far better than any kind of logic or arguing or endless discussion. Nothing beats actual data, actual observations. It doesn't matter how many facts I can bring up about dragons being imaginary if I open the box and there is a baby dragon inside. That would falsify every argument I could possibly give.
I never said you can ONLY use new tests.
Then we're in agreement and this was all utterly pointless given I made it very clear time and again my objection was saying a new prediction was necessary, as opposed to simply a better and more complete model for older.
It's not ALWAYS necessary but in most cases is, as you wouldn't be proposing a new theory unless you were trying to explain a flaw or failure or limitation in an older one, and in that case you likely wouldn't have the data to prove it one way or another if it's a truly new idea.
We also do new experiments just because we are curious, and as technology evolves, we can make better and better ones. We recently launched spinning spheres into space to actually test if space-time twists around spinning objects. Why? Everyone was sure they would show the effect, but everyone was excited to verify it, and even more excited at the idea it might show something ELSE, which would be new and point the way to unknown physics. When we can create black holes, assuming they exist, you can be damn sure we will and run every test we can think of, and even more after we see what happens with the first ones.
-
I'd still open the box. Science would open the box. Part of the scientific method is to verify everything. There is no scientist in the world who if you asked them to prove there was no baby dragon in a box, wouldn't just open it. It's a super easy experiment, why waste time arguing when you can just look?
It really is amazing how much dancing around you'll do to avoid giving a straight answer. You'd believe dragons are equally likely to exist as a phone just because I said so? Is that really what you believe?
No one is saying to not test things, that's your straw man and it's one you know is bs by now given how many times I've pointed it out. If you don't like it when I can you a liar, try not to be so blatant at least. Experiment, learn all you can, that's great! But if you are arguing that new experiments are the only possible way to learn anythingm, you're blinkered beyond belief, you've literally started defending the existence of dragons because of it.
It's not ALWAYS necessary but in most cases is, as you wouldn't be proposing a new theory unless you were trying to explain a flaw or failure or limitation in an older one, and in that case you likely wouldn't have the data to prove it one way or another if it's a truly new idea.
And that again shows the blinkere dphilosophy I'm criticizing. You are working under the assumption new observations are needed because the current model must be perfect, must be above reproach, you aren't even considering the possibility that it is already flawed, despite the fact the OP gives an example of flaws in what is held as accurate all at once already. You don't need new data if existing data is enough, and your only reason for believing existing data won't be enough is that you've adopted the fundamentally illogical position that the status quo is above reproach and that it does successfully explain all known experiments and observations perfectly, and that shouldn't be questioned.
The problem, of course, as the OP went into and as plenty of people have been into, it doesn't.
It's not a question of comparing "models", it's simply a case of applying simple, school-level geometry to the observation, and finding that that geometry, if we presume the surface to be flat, does not fit with the observation.
Really? How are you making any claim about what is or isn't possible under FET if you aren't using any FE models?
Oh, wait, your idea of a model is 'everything functions exactly as it does under RET only on a disc,' something no actual FEer believes, but that's all you're capable of arguing against because you're still blindnly following RET. That's why comparing models help. It makes you not look like a joke.
-
Really? How are you making any claim about what is or isn't possible under FET if you aren't using any FE models?
Oh, wait, your idea of a model is 'everything functions exactly as it does under RET only on a disc,'
I didn't say anything about a disc. Please don't put words into my mouth. Respond to what I say, not what you want me to say, nor what you think I'm not saying.
something no actual FEer believes, but that's all you're capable of arguing against because you're still blindly following RET. That's why comparing models help. It makes you not look like a joke.
If the underlying plane of the Earth, upon which heights and levels are based, is anything other than a straight line, we cannot be talking about a Flat Earth anymore. If it has a convex or concave aspect, when considered in a side view, it ain't flat.
So, in consideration of ANY Flat Earth model, the starting point is a straight line on a piece of paper or computer screen, is it not?
This applies whether it's a discworld or not.
-
So, in consideration of ANY Flat Earth model
*in consideration of the barebones straw man you imagine FET is with no bearing on what FEers actually believe.
Really, you're getting hung up on the word 'disc?' That was shorthand, it doesn't matter. What you're actually saying is 'in applictaion to all FE models where the underlying physics I am appealing to are as I imagine them to be, ie the RE model.'
Models matter. You cannot make any claim about a theory if you aren't appealing to some model under that theory. The only reason you tried to ignore models is because you're denying the existence of any beyond the RE mainstream. The only reason you think FET fails is because, rather than examining FET, you're refusing to see past RET and jamming it into some unholy frankenstein's monster of a model no one actually believes, but you somehow think is relevant.
-
Really, you're getting hung up on the word 'disc?'
I'm not. You introduced at as though I spoke of it, and I said I did not. How is that ME getting "hung up" on it?
What you're actually saying is 'in applictaion to all FE models where the underlying physics I am appealing to are as I imagine them to be, ie the RE model.'
No, I didn't say that all, I specifically asked you not to do this. Don't put words into my mouth. Address what I'm actually saying, not what you think I want to say.
In consideration of ANY type of Flat Earth model, the starting point is a straight line on a piece of paper or computer screen, is it not? Y/N
-
I'm not. You introduced at as though I spoke of it, and I said I did not. How is that ME getting "hung up" on it?
Because you act as though it was at all significant to what I said. It wasn't. I said 'disc' because it is an easy shorthand, what I said was true for all flat surfaces, but you opted to play cheap tricks and claim a point, dishonest tactics to put on the illusion of superiority, and you're still arguing about it despite the fact you know it's irrelevant. I introduced nothing, we're talking about an arbitrary flat Earth, though only one of us seems to know what that even means.
No, I didn't say that all, I specifically asked you not to do this. Don't put words into my mouth. Address what I'm actually saying, not what you think I want to say.
In consideration of ANY type of Flat Earth model, the starting point is a straight line on a piece of paper or computer screen, is it not? Y/N
Oh lose the pathetic tricks. I am addressing what you are saying. It isn't what you want to be saying, but it is all that actually follows from what you have presented.
All that connects every FE model is that the Earth and the Earth alone, when viewed from some ultimate standpoint, lacks curvature on anything but a local scale. So, yes, you could view a drawn straight line as a foundational point.
-
.... yes, you could view a drawn straight line as a foundational point.
So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?
-
I'd still open the box. Science would open the box. Part of the scientific method is to verify everything. There is no scientist in the world who if you asked them to prove there was no baby dragon in a box, wouldn't just open it. It's a super easy experiment, why waste time arguing when you can just look?
It really is amazing how much dancing around you'll do to avoid giving a straight answer. You'd believe dragons are equally likely to exist as a phone just because I said so? Is that really what you believe?
No one is saying to not test things, that's your straw man and it's one you know is bs by now given how many times I've pointed it out. If you don't like it when I can you a liar, try not to be so blatant at least. Experiment, learn all you can, that's great! But if you are arguing that new experiments are the only possible way to learn anythingm, you're blinkered beyond belief, you've literally started defending the existence of dragons because of it.
It's not ALWAYS necessary but in most cases is, as you wouldn't be proposing a new theory unless you were trying to explain a flaw or failure or limitation in an older one, and in that case you likely wouldn't have the data to prove it one way or another if it's a truly new idea.
And that again shows the blinkere dphilosophy I'm criticizing. You are working under the assumption new observations are needed because the current model must be perfect, must be above reproach, you aren't even considering the possibility that it is already flawed, despite the fact the OP gives an example of flaws in what is held as accurate all at once already. You don't need new data if existing data is enough, and your only reason for believing existing data won't be enough is that you've adopted the fundamentally illogical position that the status quo is above reproach and that it does successfully explain all known experiments and observations perfectly, and that shouldn't be questioned.
The problem, of course, as the OP went into and as plenty of people have been into, it doesn't.
To be honest I have no idea what you're going on about with accusing me of lying. I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing about here. What kind of answer were you looking for that I didn't provide? Something about dragons in boxes? I said I'd open the box. I said any scientist would open the box. I said any scientist would demand the box be opened. How am I not answering the question? I even said that no, I don't believe there is a dragon in the box but the only way to PROVE it is to open it. What more do you want? Where am I lying?
You don't believe in dragons? Fine, I don't either. But science doesn't CARE what you or I believe, it only cares about facts and if the question is what's in the box, the answer is to open it. Test it. You personally don't believe in dragons, and don't need to open the box to disprove it, but that's not the scientific method.
And you keep putting words in MY mouth. Right there you are saying I am claiming that the status quo is above reproach. Where did I ever say that? I'm saying the exact opposite. The status quo is that dragons don't exist, yet I still say open the box. Because again, science isn't about what you think is right or what you want to be right, it's about observations. So if you open the box and a baby dragon says hi, science will throw out the other "dragons don't exist theory" and adopt a new one.
Science says there is no evidence that dragons exist. It doesn't say they CAN'T exist. Because science doesn't work that way, it only speaks about what you can see.
You are seriously confusing me. You keep claiming that you are not anti-testing but keep insisting, as you said above, that testing and experimenting is not the only way to 'learn' things. I'm saying that's wrong, testing is the ONLY way to prove a theory, you HAVE to propose experiments, do them, and see if they are right to prove a new scientific theory. That's how science works. If you are not doing that, then you are doing something other than science which is fine, but don't call it science.
You keep saying that you're not claiming experiments are not needed, but then you always end up saying things like "You don't need new data if existing data is enough" and "Prediction does not matter" and "That's a way of doing it. It isn't the only one." and "my objection was saying a new prediction was necessary" all of which are saying that you don't always need to experiment. Yes, you do. Always. If you have a new theory then you need to test whatever new predictions it makes.
-
So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?
Yes, on large scales.
And you keep putting words in MY mouth. Right there you are saying I am claiming that the status quo is above reproach. Where did I ever say that? I'm saying the exact opposite. The status quo is that dragons don't exist, yet I still say open the box. Because again, science isn't about what you think is right or what you want to be right, it's about observations. So if you open the box and a baby dragon says hi, science will throw out the other "dragons don't exist theory" and adopt a new one.
And there we go, conflating half a dozen points into one mishmash to avoid a clear answer. I'll break that down in a sec, but first:
I called you a liar because you persist in the claim that I am saying to not test. I have said several times over explicitly that that is not what I am saying, that it is fine to run tests, and I've encouraged it. There's no ambiguity ther,e no misinterpretation, I've said that it's a good thing to run new tests. And yet every post you're acting as though I'm objecting to the concept of tests. What else would you call that if not a lie? I am not going to dance around and let you get away with that, the number of cheap tricks people use on this forum is beyond a joke and I've no interest in allowing it. You even do it in your last post. I am not 'anti-test,' I've been talking about the results of tests and how they are crucial in every single post. You are lying again even right after you are being caught out. This isn't ambiguous.
But the breakdown. Okay.
You know everything you do now. You have a life experience, countless observations and tests that you already know. Then I come up to you with a shoebox. I tell you that inside is either a dragon or a phone.
You are saying that those two claims have equal merit. I am saying that, because I have lived in a world with no sign of dragons, in a world where the typical description of a dragon would seem to defy the laws of physics when it comes to heavy flying lizards that breathe fire, I am saying that because of all the tests that have already been done, I think that the phone is a considerably more likely possibility. I am saying that I don't need to open the box to draw a conclusion.
I am not saying to not open the box, I am saying that I would form an opinion before looking inside because enough tests have already been done that I am reasonably confident I do not live in a world with dragons. I am saying that I do not view the possibility of a dragon and the possibility of a phone to be of equal value, and that I do not need to look into the box to reach that conclusion, and that reaching that conclusion is entirely logical because it is based on past 'tests' and observations. Do you agree or disagree?
Next, okay, we open the box. No one's saying you can't, just that it's possible to reach an informed conclusion without doing so.
Suppose by some miracle there is a dragon. I'm saying that's fine, it's something to account for in future experiences, and I'm saying this in no way invalidates the logic that led me to the opposite conclusion before opening the box because, and here's the key, that isn't how science works. Science is the process, not the conclusion. You can do everything right and still come to a wrong answer, that just means your premises were flawed, not the method.
Because that's clearly something you seem to have an issue with. You have been implicitly combining 'come to a scientific conclusion' and 'proof,' but science isn't about certainty, the moment you start talking about certainty you've crossed from science to religion. Several times over you rely on the premise that 'the existing scientific model is accurate,' you rely on that by claiming further tests must be run to draw any conclusion. But that's not how it works, and nor should it be, there's always the possibility of some error. We could get onto simulation theory, for example, allowing every test to have given manipulated and inaccurate results, like you say it can't be proven that's not happening. But how often is that allowed for when running tests, does every scientific paper add the note 'there's always the possibility some guiding hand made the results inaccurate or misleading,' or do they make the rational decision, as I did with the dragon, to not unnecessarily assume the existence of an entity when there is no need to?
Now if some day something like that does get proven, so be it, they can calculate in terms of it, but it is fundamental to science to limit the assumptions to just what is presented, minimizing as many as possible, because otherwise science falls apart on a fundamental level. It becomes impossible to determine anything.
I said I would be 'reasonably confident' before opening the box, and that's key because that is the goal of science. There is not one test you can run where there isn't some wild idea that could mean it points to something completely different, science is never going to stamp those possibilities out. It just discounts all the options that, until some later point, lack evidence for their assumptions.
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it coudln't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
In conclusion:
1. It is possible to draw conclusions from existing knowledge.
2. Running tests is still a good thing. I'm going to keep repeating that until you stop lying about it.
3. Running tests that have not previously been performed is still a good thing and can lead to new discoveries. It is however not the sole way of finding new discoveries.
4. No part of science is or should be above question, errors may always arise (and most likely arise in the interaction of separate conclusions as they were never meant to fit together).
5. Assuming something for the purpose of making a model work is something that should be done as little as possible.
Which of these do you object to?
-
You know everything you do now. You have a life experience, countless observations and tests that you already know. Then I come up to you with a shoebox. I tell you that inside is either a dragon or a phone.
You are saying that those two claims have equal merit. I am saying that, because I have lived in a world with no sign of dragons, in a world where the typical description of a dragon would seem to defy the laws of physics when it comes to heavy flying lizards that breathe fire, I am saying that because of all the tests that have already been done, I think that the phone is a considerably more likely possibility. I am saying that I don't need to open the box to draw a conclusion.
I am not saying to not open the box, I am saying that I would form an opinion before looking inside because enough tests have already been done that I am reasonably confident I do not live in a world with dragons. I am saying that I do not view the possibility of a dragon and the possibility of a phone to be of equal value, and that I do not need to look into the box to reach that conclusion, and that reaching that conclusion is entirely logical because it is based on past 'tests' and observations. Do you agree or disagree?
I do not, and never said that dragon or no dragon have equal probability. I said before that I would agree, there is no dragon in the box.
But you are mixing up two things, your personal belief, and the scientific method. You can believe whatever you want and use whatever methods you want. We all do and take shortcuts, otherwise nothing would ever get done.
But actual science is very, very, very simple. If you claim if you do A then B happens, you have to actually do A and record the results. No B, then your theory is false. Science doesn't care what A, B or C are. It's simply a method of trying to describe and predict the world.
So if your 'theory' was that all shoeboxes have baby dragons inside, you have to open shoeboxes until you find one, or admit the theory is unproven. Science will never say you can't find a baby dragon, science doesn't care about what you can't prove or what might be true. It cares about what you observe. That's all. If you can't observe it or test it, it's irrelevant to science.
In conclusion:
1. It is possible to draw conclusions from existing knowledge.
2. Running tests is still a good thing. I'm going to keep repeating that until you stop lying about it.
3. Running tests that have not previously been performed is still a good thing and can lead to new discoveries. It is however not the sole way of finding new discoveries.
4. No part of science is or should be above question, errors may always arise (and most likely arise in the interaction of separate conclusions as they were never meant to fit together).
5. Assuming something for the purpose of making a model work is something that should be done as little as possible.
Which of these do you object to?
The end of number 3.
What does 'discoveries' mean to you. Lets be precise here. What I have been talking about is the scientific method.
Observe. Hypothesize. Test.
You can't skip any of those. Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.
If you're just arguing that you personally don't need to test if there is a dragon in the box, then we can stop here and agree. I do not think there is a baby dragon in the box. It's just clearly, and obviously wrong. I have no need to test it to prove to myself it's not a baby dragon, I just know it to be true.
If you say that the scientific method can prove new theories right without verifying them, that you can skip the Test part of my list, then we still have a problem. Any valid theory MUST have some kind of predictive ability, or it's not a theory. An example: "Invisible undetectable baby dragons exist in all boxes" is not a theory, it's not falsifiable. It's just a claim, and science has nothing to say over it being true or false.
-
So you would agree that the surfaces of the seas and oceans can be regarded as following this foundational straight line?
Yes, on large scales.
OK, so you go to the water's edge and construct a tower of 100 metre height, which you can climb and look out from atop it.
Out on the sea, you construct another tower, also 100m high.
Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?
Y/N
-
You can't skip any of those. Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.
How often are you going to lie about this?
Use tests. Not every test is a new one. It's that simple. Everything I've said is in line with the scientific method, I am saying to use tests, you are just ignoring it every single time because apparently you just can't bear the fact a FEer is talking sense.
You can test the validity of a claim with reference to tests. I notice you ignored basically all of my explanation to continue peddling this straw man, notably when I pointed out the reason people disbelieve in dragons is because the description is physically impossible and not just 'they haven't been seen,' not to mention every other question beyond this one you misrepresented.
When you feel like actually being even the slightest bit honest, I'll be here.
You are arguing for a narrow view of silence that favors tradition and religious belief in what has already been established. You have ignored it every single time that is pointed out to you, you don't even acknowledge it, focusing instead on lying about what I am saying (and lying explicitly, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you) and ignoring everything beyond that one very blatant lie.
Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?
Y/N
Not inherently. You're assuming an awful lot there about the properties of space and light. Like I said, you're just bringing the RET model into FET and complaining that they aren't the same.
-
Tumeni asks - Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?
Y/N
Not inherently. You're assuming an awful lot there about the properties of space and light. Like I said, you're just bringing the RET model into FET and complaining that they aren't the same.
It's got nothing to do with RET. Base presumption is that the surface of the water is flat, and that the two towers are perpendicular to it.
Regardless of distance between, how can the geometry of the situation allow the sightline between the tops to be anything other than a straight line, parallel to the base level?
What properties do you think I'm making assumptions about?
-
Tumeni asks - Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?
Y/N
Not inherently. You're assuming an awful lot there about the properties of space and light. Like I said, you're just bringing the RET model into FET and complaining that they aren't the same.
It's got nothing to do with RET. Base presumption is that the surface of the water is flat, and that the two towers are perpendicular to it.
Regardless of distance between, how can the geometry of the situation allow the sightline between the tops to be anything other than a straight line, parallel to the base level?
What properties do you think I'm making assumptions about?
I told you. Space and light. It has everything to do with RET, you're just refusing to see it, you are working under the assumption that the way you see the world is the only way. If, for example, space is not a uniform field, than two straight lines that are parallel at one point may not be parallel at every point, the distance between them would increase or reduce without them moving to be further or closer, thus no rectangle. Light would deal more with the measurement of the situation you've set up, and that would concern itself more with how parallel the sightlines seem, but that's as crucial a step as any.
Instead of repeating 'it has nothing to do with RET' and ignoring every time it is pointed out to you how it is, I'd suggest you stop assumimng I have to be wrong just because I'm a FEer. That makes discussion on this site utterly tedious. Your hypothetical situation is completely reliant on the model on the world and physics that you've been taught, once you step outside those bounds you have evidence of nothing.
-
You can't skip any of those. Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.
How often are you going to lie about this?
Use tests. Not every test is a new one. It's that simple. Everything I've said is in line with the scientific method, I am saying to use tests, you are just ignoring it every single time because apparently you just can't bear the fact a FEer is talking sense.
You can test the validity of a claim with reference to tests. I notice you ignored basically all of my explanation to continue peddling this straw man, notably when I pointed out the reason people disbelieve in dragons is because the description is physically impossible and not just 'they haven't been seen,' not to mention every other question beyond this one you misrepresented.
When you feel like actually being even the slightest bit honest, I'll be here.
You are arguing for a narrow view of silence that favors tradition and religious belief in what has already been established. You have ignored it every single time that is pointed out to you, you don't even acknowledge it, focusing instead on lying about what I am saying (and lying explicitly, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you) and ignoring everything beyond that one very blatant lie.
You keep accusing me of lying and that is getting both tiring and insulting. You said new tests are not ALWAYS needed and I say they are ALWAYS required. Quit claiming otherwise. I'm not saying you said to NEVER use tests, but please consider the words ALWAYS and SOMETIMES to see where we differ.
Let's try and make this simple.
My claim: Every new theory requires new tests. Every one. That is how science works: Observe. Hypothesize. Test.
You gave an example of a theory: There is a baby dragon in your box.
Now, what existing tests are there that are related to your box and it's contents of a baby dragon? What scientific paper can you reference to prove that there is indeed a baby dragon is in your box?
The answer obviously is none. Nobody has written a paper about what you keep in your shoe box. So your NEW theory requires a NEW test, open the box. Unless you can find me a scientific paper that describes opening your box.
That is what I am saying. You can NOT prove you have a baby dragon without TESTING it. Sure, I can come up with 1,000 reasons why there isn't one in there, and you could come up with 1,000 reasons to say it is. Science only deals with things we can observe, and if an observation contradicts an existing theory, then that theory is replaced with a new one that takes the new observation into account. The only way to disprove your theory is to open the box. Until then, science doesn't "say" there is or isn't a dragon in there, it doesn't say anything at all.
You keep getting confused about your personal beliefs, as shown by you saying "people disbelieve in dragons because the description is physically impossible" above. Sure, that's what people believe, but science doesn't say dragons can't exist. It just says there is no evidence of them existing. You have to separate your own beliefs from scientific facts, and quit confusing science with your own ideas of what is or is not possible. Science doesn't care WHAT you're claiming, only that your claim is backed up by evidence. If that evidence has already been collected then fine, but in this example there is none, so you have to test. Open the dang box.
Science has encountered physically impossible things all the time. Science discovered things that existing theories claim should be impossible ALL THE TIME. So science doesn't claim a thing is impossible, just if any evidence of it exists.
So just to make things extra clear, how can you prove there is a baby dragon in the box without performing a new test, opening the box? Simple question.
Do you agree that the flat plane of the sea, the two towers of the same height, and the sightline from top of one to the other form a perfect rectangle, with the sightline parallel to the surface of the sea?
Y/N
( Also, please quit responding to multiple people in the same post without correctly attributing the authors. I have nothing to do with your flat sea and towers discussion, and this is not the first time you have done this. Thank you. )
-
Your hypothetical situation is completely reliant on the model on the world and physics that you've been taught, once you step outside those bounds you have evidence of nothing.
This is truly ridiculous.
You're refusing to discuss a simple geometry in open space, on the basis of "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply?"
If I'd shown you a chemical equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply"
If I'd shown you a quadratic equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of maths didn't apply"
If I'd suggested that 9+2 = 11, you'd likely say "What if we weren't using base 10 arithmetic"
Honestly, can't you see this is just goalpost-shifting on your part. Someone points out that the ball has gone in the goal, you say "What if the goalposts aren't really where you think they are?"
-
You keep accusing me of lying and that is getting both tiring and insulting. You said new tests are not ALWAYS needed and I say they are ALWAYS required. Quit claiming otherwise. I'm not saying you said to NEVER use tests, but please consider the words ALWAYS and SOMETIMES to see where we differ.
I assure you it is far more tiring and insulkting to see you so blatantly using the tactics I have seen time and time again. You ignored 90% of my post to focus exclusively on the parts you could straw man, ignored questions you were asked explicitly, and misrepresented the ones you did answer. Like here, you act like you made this distinction, but you didn't, you simplify to just 'tests,' implicitly all tests, at every single opportunity, and fail to justify why new ones are ever required. You just repeat ad nauseam and ignore any reasoning or explanation I provide.
For example:
So just to make things extra clear, how can you prove there is a baby dragon in the box without performing a new test, opening the box? Simple question.
Completely switching the question. To show it exists, yes, opening the box would be the most practical test, but that wasn't the claim I was asking about. There is a reason, as you well know, it was phrased the other way around; dragons not existing is not personal belief, as I have said in two posts now, the common conception of a dragon is physically impossible. That is a scientific claim and one justified by past tests, to say nothing of the basic physics of fitting something that big into a shoebox. A massive hulking lizard is going to need more than just wings if it's to fly, breathing fire in the fashion described is just nonsense, these are statements of scientific fact, and hold unless our understanding on physics is fundamentally flawed. So, yes, it would be entirely reasonable to draw the opposite conclusion without opening the box, I'm not going to believe dragons exist just because someone tells me, and when your entire argument is based solely upon the fact that in this particular analogy the test is trivial, you know you don't have a leg to stand on. There's a reason you're avoiding every single point I make.
And further, like I pointed out before:
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
( Also, please quit responding to multiple people in the same post without correctly attributing the authors. I have nothing to do with your flat sea and towers discussion, and this is not the first time you have done this. Thank you. )
I leave spaces to clearly separate the two discussions. There's only two going on, it's not exactly hard to keep track. Stop with this pathetic grandstanding, I am trying to have a discussion, if all you're interested in is these meta-tactics I've seen dozens of times before, you can piss off.
This is truly ridiculous.
You're refusing to discuss a simple geometry in open space, on the basis of "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply?"
If I'd shown you a chemical equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of geometry and light didn't apply"
If I'd shown you a quadratic equation, your response would likely be "What if the normal rules of maths didn't apply"
If I'd suggested that 9+2 = 11, you'd likely say "What if we weren't using base 10 arithmetic"
Honestly, can't you see this is just goalpost-shifting on your part. Someone points out that the ball has gone in the goal, you say "What if the goalposts aren't really where you think they are?"
See? You cannot think outside your normal. You view it as proven 100%, which is scientific rubbish, science does not function like that. You are assuming no mistake was made.
If I said that about math, you'd be able to show the proof of any claim you made, that's how math works. That's how science should work. But instead you fly off the handle and declare the basic concept of questioning 'ridiculous.'
I'm not shifting the goalposts. I'm answering your question the exact same way I told you I'd be answering when you started this diversion. You are refusing to consider any possibility beyond RET and you think that they are wrong just because they're different. That's not scientific. That's the opposite of science, and that's half of why the modern scientific community is fundamentally flawed, they all think like you.
-
You are refusing to consider any possibility beyond RET and you think that they are wrong just because they're different. That's not scientific. That's the opposite of science, and that's half of why the modern scientific community is fundamentally flawed, they all think like you.
It's simple geometry of rectangles (two pairs of parallel sides, all perpendicular to each other) and pythagorean theory of right-angle triangles (square of hypotenuse = sum of squares of other sides). Nothing to do with RET. These would apply regardless of whether Earth flat or not flat.
You've given no good reason for these to be non-applicable to the example I cited.
-
You are refusing to consider any possibility beyond RET and you think that they are wrong just because they're different. That's not scientific. That's the opposite of science, and that's half of why the modern scientific community is fundamentally flawed, they all think like you.
It's simple geometry of rectangles (two pairs of parallel sides, all perpendicular to each other) and pythagorean theory of right-angle triangles (square of hypotenuse = sum of squares of other sides). Nothing to do with RET. These would apply regardless of whether Earth flat or not flat.
You've given no good reason for these to be non-applicable to the example I cited.
It's only geometry when you aren't talking about real-world situations.
Even then, it's geometry under certain assumptions. Euclidean space is the obvious one, by definition you need that to be the case for the pythagorean theorem to hold, but as soon as you stop talking about abstract geometry and start talking about practical reality which is never so smooth or clear-cut, you have to account for other options. Learn the difference between geometry and reality. The things you are appealing to are not true universally, they are only true in specific situations, you are just insisting that we are in one of those situations without any kind of evidence.
You're the one claiming they are applicable. You don't get to switch tacks just because your argument failed. Like I said, you are assuming your worldview must be accurate in order to justify your argument, but RET is not the default. If it is true, then that should be justifiable. You are actively avoiding justifying it.
-
One might then ask about the particle that goes into the black hole. If anything you would expect it to gain mass, not lose it. Some of you might have argued that the anti-particle is what is to blame, annihilating the matter inside the black hole particle by particle, until it is just energy captured and there's no mass to sustain the event horizon. This too is illogical. Statistically, it is equally likely that a particle will be the half of the pair to go inwards, as opposed to the anti-particle. The mass annihilated by any anti-particle would be replenished by a particle, and vice versa. The mass stays constant.
In conclusion, the central mass of a black hole is unaffected by whatever virtual particles do at the event horizon, and yet we are supposed to believe its gravitational pull will diminish just because.
From my understanding, the virtual particle/anti-particle pairs that are created, one has negative energy and the other positive energy, but both the particle or anti-particle can become negative. Since negative energy particles are forbidden in the universe then its always the negative particle that falls into the black hole, leaving the positive particle to escape to infinity. In the process, the blackhole gains energy = (-1) and outside the event horizon gains energy = (1). Thus energy is conserved and the blackhole's mass/energy decreases.
-
So just to make things extra clear, how can you prove there is a baby dragon in the box without performing a new test, opening the box? Simple question.
Completely switching the question. To show it exists, yes, opening the box would be the most practical test, but that wasn't the claim I was asking about. There is a reason, as you well know, it was phrased the other way around; dragons not existing is not personal belief, as I have said in two posts now, the common conception of a dragon is physically impossible. That is a scientific claim and one justified by past tests, to say nothing of the basic physics of fitting something that big into a shoebox. A massive hulking lizard is going to need more than just wings if it's to fly, breathing fire in the fashion described is just nonsense, these are statements of scientific fact, and hold unless our understanding on physics is fundamentally flawed. So, yes, it would be entirely reasonable to draw the opposite conclusion without opening the box, I'm not going to believe dragons exist just because someone tells me, and when your entire argument is based solely upon the fact that in this particular analogy the test is trivial, you know you don't have a leg to stand on. There's a reason you're avoiding every single point I make.
And further, like I pointed out before:
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
You are yet again completely misunderstanding how science works. I switched the question around because what you are asking makes no sense and is impossible to answer.
You are claiming to have a baby dragon in a box and demanding I PROVE that it doesn't exist. Science doesn't do that! Let me repeat that, science can NOT prove you don't have a baby dragon in your box, or an invisible pink unicorn living in your bedroom. It explains what we can see, it does not prove or disprove that things we can't see exist or not. That's not science, it's philosophy or religion.
From the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative)
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
This is something science does do. Your example is a perfect example of asking someone to prove a negative.
Again, you are confusing your own personal beliefs for how science works. You keep saying things like "I'm not going to believe dragons exist" which is fine, you can believe anything you want, but that's not science. A scientific theory has rules and limits what it can prove to what we can see. The two are not the same. Please try and keep them straight, maybe read up on the scientific method.
-
( Also, please quit responding to multiple people in the same post without correctly attributing the authors. I have nothing to do with your flat sea and towers discussion, and this is not the first time you have done this. Thank you. )
I leave spaces to clearly separate the two discussions. There's only two going on, it's not exactly hard to keep track. Stop with this pathetic grandstanding, I am trying to have a discussion, if all you're interested in is these meta-tactics I've seen dozens of times before, you can piss off.
Yes, the very common "adding extra spaces" when combining two separate conversations involving multiple people without attribution technique. We have message threads and proper quoting tools for a reason you know.
No need to be so angry or result to personal insults just because you're frustrated. I'm not grandstanding because I ask you to properly quote me. It literally takes 5 seconds of your time, all you have to do is copy and paste the quote BB code from each person. Or better yet, why not reply to each person separately? All that takes is pressing a button. You're doing extra work to mix up two entirely separate conversations, don't pretend this is normal.
I also find it especially childish that after I asked you to quote everyone correctly, you both refused and went and additionally removed the attributes from the quote tag from your reply. That took extra work just for that bit of passive aggressiveness. Very petty, immature and disappointing.
If you're having trouble understanding why indicating who you are replying to is important, try reading this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Attribution_lines
-
You are claiming to have a baby dragon in a box and demanding I PROVE that it doesn't exist.
And you wonder why I call you a liar. Where the hell have I done that?!
You aren't even being subtle any more. I've not expected you to prove a damn thing. I've asked straightforward yes or no questions, none of which making any claim about proof, you've avoided half of them and lied about the rest, and you're still doing it.
I also find it especially childish that after I asked you to quote everyone correctly, you both refused and went and additionally removed the attributes from the quote tag from your reply. That took extra work just for that bit of passive aggressiveness. Very petty, immature and disappointing.
Oh grow up. It depends how I write the posts, sometimes I quote, sometimes I open a blank reply in another window and paste the bits I'm responding to over there, which means it comes without the attribution. It doesn't matter. Anyone reading the thread can follow the conversation, and I'm assuming you have more than a ten second memory to know what we're talking about. I'm not wasting time on your vanity.
But of course we end up here. We always do. I don't know why I bother trying to talk to you people. You have one tactic and one tactic alone, you know most of the world agrees with you, you know most readers will agree with you, so you have no hesitation whatsoever in lying outright, misrepresenting, ignoring half the subject of discussion (I notice you again completely evaded an explicit question, even after having your evasion brought to your attention), provoking, and then playing the victim over either being called out on your behavior or on stupid trivialities like this, to the point of wholesale inventing a conspiracy where I painstakingly go back through my posts to remove attribution. And you do that just because, well, you're a REer, most readers are going to believe your side of events even when you're being this stupid. Poor REer, the FEer must be the one evading, must be the one getting annoyed over nothing, because it's not like the big champion of truth and justice or whatever could be utterly incapable of engaging in remotely honest discussion or answering a simple point blank question without lying their ass off.
From my understanding, the virtual particle/anti-particle pairs that are created, one has negative energy and the other positive energy, but both the particle or anti-particle can become negative. Since negative energy particles are forbidden in the universe then its always the negative particle that falls into the black hole, leaving the positive particle to escape to infinity. In the process, the blackhole gains energy = (-1) and outside the event horizon gains energy = (1). Thus energy is conserved and the blackhole's mass/energy decreases.
Saying negative energy particles is forbidden in the universe seems a mischaractization: after all, with phenomenon such as the Casimir effect, virtual particles do exist in reality, meaning the negative particles must exist, even if normally for an infinitessimal amount of time. What acts to keep the negative particles out so selectively?
-
You can't skip any of those. Especially testing, it's the core of what science is.
How often are you going to lie about this?
Use tests. Not every test is a new one. It's that simple. Everything I've said is in line with the scientific method, I am saying to use tests, you are just ignoring it every single time because apparently you just can't bear the fact a FEer is talking sense.
You can test the validity of a claim with reference to tests. I notice you ignored basically all of my explanation to continue peddling this straw man, notably when I pointed out the reason people disbelieve in dragons is because the description is physically impossible and not just 'they haven't been seen,' not to mention every other question beyond this one you misrepresented.
What's physically impossible? Let's assume a dragon is a large flying reptile that breathes fire, which I guess is the most common definition. A large flying reptile once existed: the pterosaur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur). Sure, it didn't breathe fire, and no known animal species do. But is it physically impossible? The bombardier beetle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle) is probably the closest we have in the real world: it spits a boiling chemical spray (https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/could-any-creature-evolve-to-breathe-fire-like-a-dragon/). Renown paleontologist Henry Gee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gee) even offered a theory of how a dragon could breathe fire (https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-science-behind-mythical-dragons).
So, while I'm pretty certain dragons don't exist and we'll never see one... A dragon is much less physically impossible than a flat Earth. And after all, the platypus was first believed to be a hoax: weird animals do really exist.
-
You are claiming to have a baby dragon in a box and demanding I PROVE that it doesn't exist.
And you wonder why I call you a liar. Where the hell have I done that?!
You aren't even being subtle any more. I've not expected you to prove a damn thing. I've asked straightforward yes or no questions, none of which making any claim about proof, you've avoided half of them and lied about the rest, and you're still doing it.
"Are you still beating your wife?" That's a straight-forward yes or no answer that demonstrates why they are so often setups you can't answer.
I've answered how I would prove if there is a baby dragon, I've answered how you can't prove there isn't. That's both sides of the question. Can you explain, simply what you are asking with your baby dragon example? I'll answer a direct question about it. Why don't we start over and try again.
You claim to have a baby dragon in a box. How would you like me to respond to this? What question would you like me to answer?
-
Saying negative energy particles is forbidden in the universe seems a mischaractization: after all, with phenomenon such as the Casimir effect, virtual particles do exist in reality, meaning the negative particles must exist, even if normally for an infinitessimal amount of time. What acts to keep the negative particles out so selectively?
From what i can gather, according to the 'uncertainty principle' the pair of virtual particles can only exist for a time less than h/E before annihilation. And upon separation, energy will be conserved only when the negative particle falls into the blackhole.
This article explains it better:
http://carlip.physics.ucdavis.edu/#Hawkrad
Now, finally, here's a way to understand Hawking radiation. Picture a virtual pair created outside a black hole event horizon. One of the particles will have a positive energy E, the other a negative energy -E, with energy defined in terms of a time coordinate outside the horizon. As long as both particles stay outside the horizon, they have to recombine in a time less than h/E. Suppose, though, that in this time the negative-energy particle crosses the horizon. The criterion for it to continue to exist as a real particle is now that it must have positive energy relative to the timelike coordinate inside the horizon, i.e., that it must be moving radially inward. This can occur regardless of its energy relative to an external time coordinate.
So the black hole can absorb the negative-energy particle from a vacuum fluctuation without violating the uncertainty principle, leaving its positive-energy partner free to escape to infinity. The effect on the energy of the black hole, as seen from the outside (that is, relative to an external timelike coordinate) is that it decreases by an amount equal to the energy carried off to infinity by the positive-energy particle. Total energy is conserved, because it always was, throughout the process -- the net energy of the particle-antiparticle pair was zero.
-
It's only geometry when you aren't talking about real-world situations.
Really? Geometry doesn't apply to 3D objects that I can handle or touch?
Why? Because you say so?
Even then, it's geometry under certain assumptions. Euclidean space is the obvious one ... you have to account for other options.
Like what?
-
So, while I'm pretty certain dragons don't exist and we'll never see one... A dragon is much less physically impossible than a flat Earth. And after all, the platypus was first believed to be a hoax: weird animals do really exist.
Leaving aside the cheap point-scoring, that demonstrates my point perfectly. You need very clear workarounds for the end result. Rather than emitting fire, a flammable gas. Rather than flying, floating like a balloon; pterosaurs were significantly smaller than the typical dragon cliche, and further existed in a totally different atmosphere theorized to make it easier for them to exist. When those are what's resorted to, my claim is very clearly justified.
"Are you still beating your wife?" That's a straight-forward yes or no answer that demonstrates why they are so often setups you can't answer.
I've answered how I would prove if there is a baby dragon, I've answered how you can't prove there isn't. That's both sides of the question. Can you explain, simply what you are asking with your baby dragon example? I'll answer a direct question about it. Why don't we start over and try again.
You claim to have a baby dragon in a box. How would you like me to respond to this? What question would you like me to answer?
And with that set up you can still point out the flaws in the question rather than ignore outright.
'Both sides of the question' is meaningless, science is not symmetrical, it does not care equally about proving a claim vs disproving a claim, and even if it did the methods for each are totally different, talking about 'both sides' just betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of any kind of scientific logic.
The dragon-in-a-box demonstrated how one might draw conclusions without running further tests, based purely on known facts. Your response has been to misrepresent, evade, lie, before ultimately clinging to the fact that in the analogy presented the test is trivial and may as well be performed, while ignoring every detail of relevance. If I were to tweak the analogy so that I'm saying the box is on the moon you can no longer do that, but it's still perfectly falsifiable is I specify where the box is, it's still perfectly testable, but no scientist in the world is going to give you the funding to see if the claim is accurate because they've already drawn a conclusion.
And as you keep ignoring, the corollary:
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
ie, the trivial fact that a child could tell you, but you were arguing against for no reason except that it exposed the tradition-centric model of mainstream science, it is possible to draw new conclusions based on pre-existing knowledge and tests without needing to perform any new ones. You can still perform new tests, but you can also still draw new conclusions from old knowledge.
And that's leaving aside the other issues I pointed out with the mainstream approach that also went ignored.
From what i can gather, according to the 'uncertainty principle' the pair of virtual particles can only exist for a time less than h/E before annihilation. And upon separation, energy will be conserved only when the negative particle falls into the blackhole.
This is the issue with a lot of science when we get to this area. You can tell me what must happen for the model to make logical sense, I don't contest that, but the problem is saying why it happens. I'm aware of how virtual particles work, they have a net energy of zero and so violate no laws, but the antiparticle flying outwards and annihilating something outside the black hole would also conserve energy as the mass of the black hole would increase by the equal amount of the mass lost. It would be as though the black hole drew in some portion of that mass (as indeed it likely would be if the mass was close), just as Hawking radiation appears to the outside would to be emitted particles.
Really? Geometry doesn't apply to 3D objects that I can handle or touch?
No. Geometry is strictly theoretical, it deals with abstracts in an idealized environment. If you're talking about 3-D objects you can handle and touch, you might want to look more at physics. There's overlap, sure, but reducing a real world situation to a strictly geometrical one isn't going to guarantee you an accurate model of anything.
Like what?
Already mentioned when you posed the hypothetical.
-
(Tumeni said) - Really? Geometry doesn't apply to 3D objects that I can handle or touch?
No. Geometry is strictly theoretical, it deals with abstracts in an idealized environment. If you're talking about 3-D objects you can handle and touch, you might want to look more at physics.
https://www.teach-nology.com/teachers/subject_matter/math/geometry/
"In real life, geometry has a lot of practical uses, from the most basic to the most advanced phenomena in life. Even the very basic concept of area can be a huge factor in how you do your daily business. For example, space is a huge issue when planning various construction projects. For instance, the size or area of a specific appliance or tool can greatly affect how it will fit in to your home or workplace, and can affect how the other parts of your home would fit around it. This is why it is essential to take account of areas, both of your space, and the item that you are about to integrate in there. In addition, geometry plays a role in basic engineering projects. For example, using the concept of perimeter, you can compute the amount of material (ex.: paint, fencing material, etc) that you need to use for your project. Also, designing professions such as interior design and architecture uses 3 dimensional figures. A thorough knowledge of geometry is going to help them a lot in determining the proper style (and more importantly, optimize its function) of a specific house, building, or vehicle. Those are some of the more basic uses of geometry, but it doesn't end there. "
... reducing a real world situation to a strictly geometrical one isn't going to guarantee you an accurate model of anything.
Why not? Because you say so?
-
( A bunch of stuff from four different messages and three people with no indication of who said what, plus ignoring my very simple question. )
Do you not understand how message boards work? Do you write combined emails to friends and co-workers? Is it really too hard for you to click the reply button twice or do you just need help explaining how to quote correctly?
You claim to have a baby dragon in a box. How would you like me to respond to this? What question would you like me to answer?
And with that set up you can still point out the flaws in the question rather than ignore outright.
Why did you bother bringing up an example if you can't even ask me a simple, direct question about it?
If I were to tweak the analogy so that I'm saying the box is on the moon you can no longer do that, but it's still perfectly falsifiable is I specify where the box is, it's still perfectly testable, but no scientist in the world is going to give you the funding to see if the claim is accurate because they've already drawn a conclusion.
Once more you completely seem to misunderstand how science works, getting it confused with your own personal beliefs. Again, and again, and again.
You say no scientist will fund a study to see if a baby dragon lives in a box on the moon. because they don't believe it. Correct. They as a person reject it. But that's not a scientific proof! They have not proven there is no baby dragon on the moon, just claimed they don't believe it. They wouldn't fund it but would not write a paper disproving it either because it would get rejected immediately for not being science. Maybe they would write an editorial, but not a peer reviewed paper.
I'm not sure what you can't understand here. Science doesn't care what you claim or what you believe, it only cares about what has been observed. If you can't observe it, you can't disprove it. Can't meaning either impossible, too expensive or any other reason.
Please take some time to understand this. People (you included, and even baby dragons) are free to believe whatever they want for whatever reasons they want, but a scientific proof has much higher standards. You can't mix the two of them up and have any chance of having a rational argument.
I am going to repeat myself just to make sure I'm being clear. I am discussing the scientific method. Scientific proofs. Not what is 'common sense' or what is popular or what looks obvious or your opinion. Proof. That's a word with meaning, please pay attention.
-
Why not? Because you say so?
Because of all the reasons I went into and you conveniently cut out from your message.
You cannot describe anything in the physical world to any degree of accuracy without accounting for, y'know, physics, physical sciences. I cannot believe you need me to keep repeating that.
Do you not understand how message boards work?
It really is pathetic how you need to rely on these meta distractions. I don't care about whatever pointless niceties you want, my posts are separated, writing multiple posts just to appease your ego is not something I'm interested in doing. It's easier to write posts like this and I separate all the users. The only reason you care is because you get to grandstand like this and claim victory based on dishonesty as opposed to actually engaging with a debate.
Why did you bother bringing up an example if you can't even ask me a simple, direct question about it?
What are you on about? I asked you the question.
Oh, I get it, you do creative quoting to cut out the fact I was pointing out the flaw with your dishonest reformulation of the question, misrepresenting it to look like I was objection to the analogy in general, and then completely ignoring the questions you were asked. More meta tactics, more lies, more 'look at me, the big smart REer defeating the big bad FEer.' Same song as ever.
I am going to repeat myself just to make sure I'm being clear. I am discussing the scientific method. Scientific proofs. Not what is 'common sense' or what is popular or what looks obvious or your opinion. Proof. That's a word with meaning, please pay attention.
You pay attention. You act like that hasn't been addressed.
1. 'Scientific proof' is a misnomer, that is again a side-effect of your religious view of the scientific method. Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome.
2. No one asked you to write a paper on how dragons don't exist.
3. The box is immaterial to the discussion, you are blindly fixating on it to the exclusion of every other thing I have said, such as the fact the typical description of a dragon is impossible and that you can reach that conclusion without opening the box. You are ignoring that completely to bang on about one aspect of an analogy that doesn't matter no matter how many times this gets pointed out to you. My whole point has been that you don't need to open the box because nothing can be that large and flight-capable, breathe fire as described...
4. Stop fucking ignoring this straight question that I have repeated a ridiculous number of times by now:
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
-
Do you not understand how message boards work?
It really is pathetic how you need to rely on these meta distractions. I don't care about whatever pointless niceties you want, my posts are separated, writing multiple posts just to appease your ego is not something I'm interested in doing. It's easier to write posts like this and I separate all the users. The only reason you care is because you get to grandstand like this and claim victory based on dishonesty as opposed to actually engaging with a debate.
As a reader/spectator it would be really quite nice if you quoted properly where one can see who said what. Just putting spaces between doesn't help contextually. I'm not sure why you are resistant to doing so, it's just a quick copy and paste and would be really helpful trying to follow along and get where various individuals are coming from.
4. Stop fucking ignoring this straight question that I have repeated a ridiculous number of times by now:
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
They are kind of two different things: Could something exist versus Does something exist. One could stop at the 'could' and just expound upon that notion showing that, yes, a dragon could exist. Another may take it a step further to try and find out if there are any dragons in existence. If you found one, well that would certainly confirm that one could exist. If you don't and find no evidence of one ever existing (fossil record perhaps) then your still at the 'could exist' stage.
-
As a reader/spectator it would be really quite nice if you quoted properly where one can see who said what. Just putting spaces between doesn't help contextually. I'm not sure why you are resistant to doing so, it's just a quick copy and paste and would be really helpful trying to follow along and get where various individuals are coming from.
It's not how I write posts. If there's just one thing to quote then I can quote, if there's multiple people to reply to I open another window and copy/paste text over rather than messing around and going through a post line by line or faffing around continually changing what's on my clipboard for something that ought to be clear if you were reading through the thread. One thing I don't do is have the same conversation with two people, if the two of them started saying similar things I'd just reply to one to avoid repeating myself. Plus there's just the normal tendency I've seen, quoting the whole post can make a lot of people comment on each line they object to, which is inevitably most of it. Doing this ensures my posts have focus.
I'd also point out that if I made multiple posts, as was also suggested, I'd get hounded for inflating my post count by likely the same person, it's happened. I'm 'resistant' because I'm not interested in changing what's easiest for me for the benefit of someone who doesn't care about improving things for readers, but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary, there's nothing I could do they wouldn't complain about.
They are kind of two different things: Could something exist versus Does something exist. One could stop at the 'could' and just expound upon that notion showing that, yes, a dragon could exist. Another may take it a step further to try and find out if there are any dragons in existence. If you found one, well that would certainly confirm that one could exist. If you don't and find no evidence of one ever existing (fossil record perhaps) then your still at the 'could exist' stage.
Could exist is still a different claim to 'is physically impossible,' hence my point. All this is literally because they object to the concept of arriving at a new conclusion based upon past tests, whether by alternate thinking or locating flaws.
-
As a reader/spectator it would be really quite nice if you quoted properly where one can see who said what. Just putting spaces between doesn't help contextually. I'm not sure why you are resistant to doing so, it's just a quick copy and paste and would be really helpful trying to follow along and get where various individuals are coming from.
It's not how I write posts. If there's just one thing to quote then I can quote, if there's multiple people to reply to I open another window and copy/paste text over rather than messing around and going through a post line by line or faffing around continually changing what's on my clipboard for something that ought to be clear if you were reading through the thread. One thing I don't do is have the same conversation with two people, if the two of them started saying similar things I'd just reply to one to avoid repeating myself. Plus there's just the normal tendency I've seen, quoting the whole post can make a lot of people comment on each line they object to, which is inevitably most of it. Doing this ensures my posts have focus.
I'd also point out that if I made multiple posts, as was also suggested, I'd get hounded for inflating my post count by likely the same person, it's happened. I'm 'resistant' because I'm not interested in changing what's easiest for me for the benefit of someone who doesn't care about improving things for readers, but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary, there's nothing I could do they wouldn't complain about.
If it works for you, great. It is just a suggestion. You're the only one around here who does it this way so it's not something people are used to. That's all. Why you rush to "...but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary..." is beyond me. There's no scoreboard. We're just suggesting something that most people are used to. Another suggestion, lighten up Francis.
They are kind of two different things: Could something exist versus Does something exist. One could stop at the 'could' and just expound upon that notion showing that, yes, a dragon could exist. Another may take it a step further to try and find out if there are any dragons in existence. If you found one, well that would certainly confirm that one could exist. If you don't and find no evidence of one ever existing (fossil record perhaps) then your still at the 'could exist' stage.
Could exist is still a different claim to 'is physically impossible,' hence my point. All this is literally because they object to the concept of arriving at a new conclusion based upon past tests, whether by alternate thinking or locating flaws.
I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Is it that you believe that science only builds on top of what is already "known" and never challenges the existing laws, rules, theorems science has derived/applied to the physical world? Is that what this is all about?
-
Why you rush to "...but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary..." is beyond me. There's no scoreboard. We're just suggesting something that most people are used to. Another suggestion, lighten up Francis.
Because in this context, and too often, it is just that. People who want to appear superior and so nitpick or spend a while talking about inane things, with how often basic questions were evaded and how often called-out lies were repeated, I'm not going to entertain a charitable reading of the situation when it comes to him. I'll 'lighten up' when he's not using the same tired old tactics I've seen hundreds of times before. It's just boring and I'm not going to pretend it's somehow interesting to deal with.
I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Is it that you believe that science only builds on top of what is already "known" and never challenges the existing laws, rules, theorems science has derived/applied to the physical world? Is that what this is all about?
Oh believe me, I would love it if we were talking about something like that, I could talk for a while about some of the flaws with the modern scientific establishment, and the nuances thereof, and it could make for an interesting discussion (at least with interesting people). But, no, unfortunately we are stuck on him claiming that a prediction and previously unperformed test is critical to justify every single claim, and that it isn't possible to draw a conclusion just from previously performed tests, whether those tests are being looked at together, whether there's an alternate way of thinking that makes more sense from them, or there was a flaw in their premises. Yeah, it's that basic, but he's insisting on kicking up a fuss rather than discussing anything interesting.
At best this discussion is tangential to how modern scientific institutions tend to have a bias in favor of traditional models, past approaches, lending weight to things simply because they came first, but all that side of the discussion and those flaws went ignored so he could go on and on about this, so here we are.
-
Why you rush to "...but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary..." is beyond me. There's no scoreboard. We're just suggesting something that most people are used to. Another suggestion, lighten up Francis.
Because in this context, and too often, it is just that. People who want to appear superior and so nitpick or spend a while talking about inane things, with how often basic questions were evaded and how often called-out lies were repeated, I'm not going to entertain a charitable reading of the situation when it comes to him. I'll 'lighten up' when he's not using the same tired old tactics I've seen hundreds of times before. It's just boring and I'm not going to pretend it's somehow interesting to deal with.
It's not a superiority thing or nitpicking, it's literally a readability issue, ease of use, and comprehension. You're the only person who does this. It doesn't seem like it's asking too much of you, but if you think it is, then fine. It seems like you're carrying over some PTSD from other encounters to here.
I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Is it that you believe that science only builds on top of what is already "known" and never challenges the existing laws, rules, theorems science has derived/applied to the physical world? Is that what this is all about?
Oh believe me, I would love it if we were talking about something like that, I could talk for a while about some of the flaws with the modern scientific establishment, and the nuances thereof, and it could make for an interesting discussion (at least with interesting people). But, no, unfortunately we are stuck on him claiming that a prediction and previously unperformed test is critical to justify every single claim, and that it isn't possible to draw a conclusion just from previously performed tests, whether those tests are being looked at together, whether there's an alternate way of thinking that makes more sense from them, or there was a flaw in their premises. Yeah, it's that basic, but he's insisting on kicking up a fuss rather than discussing anything interesting.
At best this discussion is tangential to how modern scientific institutions tend to have a bias in favor of traditional models, past approaches, lending weight to things simply because they came first, but all that side of the discussion and those flaws went ignored so he could go on and on about this, so here we are.
It seems that someone else has a different POV than yours. Do you want someone to simply agree with you?
My personal sense about this is a combination of the two. Conclusions can be drawn by existing data, but to further cement those conclusions, predictive experimentation/observation is crucial on and ongoing basis. It's why, for example, to this day folks still perform atomic clock tests to suss out a tenet of Special Relativity - Times change, more info is available, instruments/tools get better, smarter, more accurate. I'm not sure wherein lies the problem you're wrestling with.
-
Do you not understand how message boards work?
It really is pathetic how you need to rely on these meta distractions. I don't care about whatever pointless niceties you want, my posts are separated, writing multiple posts just to appease your ego is not something I'm interested in doing. It's easier to write posts like this and I separate all the users. The only reason you care is because you get to grandstand like this and claim victory based on dishonesty as opposed to actually engaging with a debate.
You're just going to have to understand that how you combine messages and deliberately remove attributions is unusual, weird, breaks the threading flow and makes it look like you don't understand how to do something as simple as reply to posts which is something else everyone else seems to have mastered. If you insist on writing confusing posts, you will have to deal with the consequences of being called out on them.
You pay attention. You act like that hasn't been addressed.
1. 'Scientific proof' is a misnomer, that is again a side-effect of your religious view of the scientific method. Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome.
Again and again, I have to repeat that words have meaning. Look up 'scientific proof' and 'theory' and 'hypothesis' and you will find for the scientific method they are all very well defined. 'Theory' has a very different meaning for the layman than when used in scientific papers, as does proof. You are throwing them around and mixing them up with other concepts.
Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"? Source please?
4. Stop fucking ignoring this straight question that I have repeated a ridiculous number of times by now:
And finally, suppose I am wrong about the dragon. It then follows that my knowledge must be wrong and there must be some way for a dragon to exist, with all the bizarre traits ascribed to it, that all the supposed proof I knew about how a heavy dragon wouldn't be able to fly, about how it couldn't breathe fire, all that was wrong.
Suppose instead of the boxes, I was just toying around with numbers and possibilities and I found out that the proof was wrong and that a dragon was hypothetically possible, all just looking at things I knew already. Would I need to go out and find a dragon for that to mean something, or would that error be relevant even without any new test?
I understand you're frustrated, I can't even imagine what it's like to have the whole world reject your ideas and beliefs. But swearing won't help anything but show how angry you are. It won't change any facts.
That's not even close to a straight question, but you keep repeating it so I will try and deal with it. It's in fact such a vague and meandering question I've not bothered answering it because I'm not even sure what the question is. I'm going to try and break what you wrote down to make sense of it, and hopefully explain to you why your questions are hard to answer.
1. "I found out that the proof was wrong"
What proof? Proof that dragons don't exist? Proof that dragons can't exist? There is no such thing, unless you can point me to a published paper that supplies a proof that dragons can't or don't exist. Science doesn't go around disproving invisible unicorns or baby dragons. So for starters, your question is invalid as it's assuming that "dragons don't exist" is a scientific proof, which it isn't.
2. "for that to mean something" and "would that error be relevant"
These again are meaningless statements. Mean something? Mean what, to who? Relevant? To what? Pretend we don't know whats going on in your head, and state all the facts, even if they are obvious to you.
You want me to answer "What if the proof was wrong, would that mean something and be relevant?"
Once more, that question is full of you mixing up your personal feelings and beliefs with how science operates. I think I know what you're trying to ask, but what you are writing is very vague and open to many interpretations. You have to be more precise.
Let me try and rephrase your question. "If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested. Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.
Now, I think I have an inkling what you are getting at. You are confusing a hypothesis with a theory. A hypothesis is an idea. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested successfully. Both can "mean something" if that's what you are asking.
-
It seems that someone else has a different POV than yours. Do you want someone to simply agree with you?
My personal sense about this is a combination of the two. Conclusions can be drawn by existing data, but to further cement those conclusions, predictive experimentation/observation is crucial on and ongoing basis. It's why, for example, to this day folks still perform atomic clock tests to suss out a tenet of Special Relativity - Times change, more info is available, instruments/tools get better, smarter, more accurate. I'm not sure wherein lies the problem you're wrestling with.
Some things aren't a matter of opinion.
I agree with you, new experiments can and should be performed, I just think it's also possible to draw conclusions from existing data. He's saying it's categorically impossible despite being given multiple chances to back out. That's not a matter of PoV, that's just someone digging themselves deeper because they don't want to admit they agree with a point a FEer made.
Again and again, I have to repeat that words have meaning. Look up 'scientific proof' and 'theory' and 'hypothesis' and you will find for the scientific method they are all very well defined. 'Theory' has a very different meaning for the layman than when used in scientific papers, as does proof. You are throwing them around and mixing them up with other concepts.
Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"? Source please?
I am aware. You are not, the context in which you use those words become clear. You have already been called out on treating established science as gospel, as if it were proven mathematically and not justified scientifically. You're just, as ever, wholesale inventing things so you can act superior.
Are you claiming science isn't concerned with the most likely outcome? That seems pretty basic to me. Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible. It'd be far, far weirder if science wanted you to accept the least likely possibility.
It's in fact such a vague and meandering question I've not bothered answering it because I'm not even sure what the question is.
Then ask rather than very blatantly evading it. If you were honest about not understanding the question then you'd have said so before now and specified what wasn't clear, instead you pretended you weren't asked it time and time again, and then turned into a petulant toddler when responding inventing flaws that anyone who tried could see through.
A child could see through your tactics right now. Condescension, acting superior, provoking and then playing victim when I act provoked. It's disgusting.
We have been over all of this many, many times. Science has disproven the typical model of a dragon. Claiming science doesn't care about disproofs, yes, is true, but it is also true that some things are not in line with scientific understanding. Science has not 'disproven,' by your logic, an apple shooting straight up into the sky whenever I let go of it, but if that happened it would certainly contradict scientific understanding. Thus, assuming the current model is accurate (which is after all vital when discussing the world and not adding to a theory), we can assume a giant lizard is not going to be able to fly, something like that is not going to be able to breathe... facts I keep saying, are hardly ambiguous, and yet you have not acknowledged once because doing so has inevitably blown a hole in your points. It's almost like there's a pattern to your tactics.
And then we get truly absurd:
2. "for that to mean something" and "would that error be relevant"
These again are meaningless statements. Mean something? Mean what, to who? Relevant? To what? Pretend we don't know whats going on in your head, and state all the facts, even if they are obvious to you.
You may think you're being smart but I assure you, you're not. Cheap tactics as ever, acting as if you have a point when you're just misrepresenting the blatantly obvious. Things have meaning. When one is in a discussion about science, then something can be relevant to that discussion. This isn't hard.
So:
1. The idea of a dragon is scientifically impossible.
2. There is logic and implication from past tests that leads to that conclusion.
Simple, basic, set-up. You can disagree but at this point it's palpably clear your disagreement would just be yet more whinging and evasion and more often than not a blatant lie.
3. Looking at these tests, we might find that a test was performed poorly, or failed to account for certain possibilities.
4. This would then show the claim in 1 does not follow.
Again, simple, basic, no meandering.
You're saying this is logically untenable for no reason except you made a stupid claim way back and are too deep in now to want to back down. You're saying you'd need to run a test to acknowledge the existence of a poorly done test. That's stupid.
"If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested. Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.
You do realize that isn't an answer, right? You even almost get the quetsion right, but you still can't respond with more than 'because I say so!'
Why? What's gained by the extra test?
Forget everything, let's simplify this even more, brute abstracts so you don't get any more of your god-awful tedious run-around.
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run.
That is what you are saying. You are certifiable at this point.
-
Quoting example/tutorial;
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text reply
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text reply
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
Big block of text
I'm not interested in changing what's easiest for me for the benefit of someone who doesn't care about improving things for readers, but just cheap point scoring by whatever means necessary, there's nothing I could do they wouldn't complain about.
JRowe;
Surely you can appreciate that for anyone coming to the thread, whether new reader or previous contributor, that it's far clearer to have the attributions on the quotes than not?
-
You cannot describe anything in the physical world to any degree of accuracy without accounting for, y'know, physics, physical sciences.
Back to my post at #32 for those who want to see what we're referring to;
All we need to know is the height of the towers, and optionally the distance between. Don't need to know what the towers are made of. Don't need to know their properties, in terms of strength, malleability, etc.
All we need know is the height of each, and optionally the distance between.
No?
-
Surely you can appreciate that for anyone coming to the thread, whether new reader or previous contributor, that it's far clearer to have the attributions on the quotes than not?
Not to the degree that would justify all the fuss that's being made over it. Attribution doesn't matter nearly so much as content. If they're reading the thread there are, what, one or two posts between each of mine? And quoted in order, clearly separated. It shouldn't be hard for anyone that's not just trying to find something to complain about to sort between. The subjects are distinct so there shouldn't be any confusion.
All we need to know is the height of the towers, and optionally the distance between. Don't need to know what the towers are made of. Don't need to know their properties, in terms of strength, malleability, etc.
All we need know is the height of each, and optionally the distance between.
No?
And, again, how space functions, how the means by which we're measuring that distance functions... Did you really think I'd forget about that? Same as I said before, pretending I didn't helps no one. No one's ever been talking about what the towers were made of, that's just a particularly blatant straw man from you to try and evade what I did bring up.
You are doing the same thing I pointed out. You are acting as though the only variables are the things that would be variables under the fixed model of RET. That is a completely useless standpoint to take when you are trying to make a claim that applies to other models. If we followed your logic science would be mired even more in tradition than it is because you'd never be able to look at anything new, you'd just stick with what's established.
Let's even keep this to RET. The speed at which you travelled from one tower to the other would affect the distance you travelled, if you reached relativistic speeds. How do you account for that from merely building the towers? And that's your own model still, we aren't talking whole other systems of physics, your argument is based on far, far too many assumptions about what does and doesn't matter. If space isn't uniform, has properties that depend on location, if light or whatever means you use to measure doesn't travel in as straight a line as you think... what will you do then?
Science functions by testing claims, not just assuming some things don't matter. You have a whole host more testing to allow for before you'd have any reliable way to gauge what's even beginning to happen between the towers, and you're refusing to do any of it. That's not science.
-
Also, where does it say that science merely concerns itself with "the most likely outcome"? Source please?
I am aware. You are not, the context in which you use those words become clear. You have already been called out on treating established science as gospel, as if it were proven mathematically and not justified scientifically. You're just, as ever, wholesale inventing things so you can act superior.
Are you claiming science isn't concerned with the most likely outcome? That seems pretty basic to me. Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible. It'd be far, far weirder if science wanted you to accept the least likely possibility.
This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things. Lets look at what you actually said.
Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome.
Look at my question I asked in response to that, I'm asking you to clarify this statement. A simple, direct question. I even quoted your exact words.
Your reaction is to put words into my mouth, claiming I'm saying something I didn't, then you spend the rest of your reply arguing about the thing I never said. This is called a straw man argument.
This is the scientific method:
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
You claimed science concerns itself with "merely the most likely outcome" which is not any of those. So I ask again. Show your source.
You do the same thing later.
"If I discovered, just by thinking and looking at old data that dragons could exist, would I need to find one to be accepted as scientific proof that they exist?" Yes. Yes you would. Otherwise, it's just a hypothesis. It's not a theory until it can be tested. Doesn't matter if you're right. If you can't write a proof about it, it's not a valid scientific theory.
You do realize that isn't an answer, right? You even almost get the quetsion right, but you still can't respond with more than 'because I say so!'
Why? What's gained by the extra test?
No, it's not because I say so, it's because that is how the scientific method is defined and used. You were taught this in high school. If you went to college you were taught it again there. Don't pretend I'm just making it up. Did you not understand my point about a hypothesis and a theory?
Please show me you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. I'm using these terms the way science defines them, just to be clear.
Forget everything, let's simplify this even more, brute abstracts so you don't get any more of your god-awful tedious run-around.
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run.
That is what you are saying. You are certifiable at this point.
No that is NOT what I am saying. Once again you are putting words into my mouth, then using those to argue against. I never said that. Quote it if I did.
Let me tell you what I actually would say to those three things.
"Scientific theory A predicts B."
Ok, this is how science works. A scientific Theory predicts something. That is what makes it a Theory and not a Hypothesis. Correct.
"If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold. "
This is also true, it is how science works. If you show a counter example to a prediction, it disproves the Theory. This is how Theories are tested. Correct.
"If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that would not suffice and a new test would have to be run."
This is incorrect, and I do not agree with it. What would happen is this. I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
From there I have a few options. If I'm confident my theory is right I can re-run those older tests to make sure they are correct. If I still get the same results then I sulk and will be forced to abandon or fix my new theory. Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time. Theories are trashed constantly. Science is not a single belief, nothing is ever accepted as absolute and eternal proof. Theories can always be disproved given the right evidence. Nothing is beyond questioning, but you have to follow the evidence.
-
(Tumeni said) All we need to know is the height of the towers, and optionally the distance between. Don't need to know what the towers are made of. Don't need to know their properties, in terms of strength, malleability, etc. All we need know is the height of each, and optionally the distance between.
No?
No one's ever been talking about what the towers were made of, that's just a particularly blatant straw man from you to try and evade what I did bring up.
All you brought up was the "physics" of the situation, so I made my best guess at what you meant by that. What DID you mean by it? The relationship between the two is governed by their geometry.
You are doing the same thing I pointed out. You are acting as though the only variables are the things that would be variables under the fixed model of RET.
It's got nothing to do with RET, there's no reason that simple Pythagorean geometry should vary between FET and RET
The speed at which you travelled from one tower to the other would affect the distance you travelled, if you reached relativistic speeds. How do you account for that from merely building the towers?
I don't need to, since travel between the towers does not form part of an observation from one to the other. You seem to be keen to introduce this as a straw man.
If space isn't uniform, has properties that depend on location, if light or whatever means you use to measure doesn't travel in as straight a line as you think... what will you do then?
First prove to us that space is not "uniform", etc. to the extent that the observation would be affected
Science functions by testing claims, not just assuming some things don't matter. You have a whole host more testing to allow for before you'd have any reliable way to gauge what's even beginning to happen between the towers, and you're refusing to do any of it. That's not science.
If all that you can come up with for "what happens between the towers" is to appeal to as-yet-undocumented factors in a big "What if...", then why should I be expected to account for them?
-
This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.
What are you talking about? You want a source? For what, the scientific method? The strength of science isn't that it's true because some bloke said it, it's true because it can be demonstrably shown to be so. I didn't provide a source because that was a stupid question as you have to know, what kind of thing do you expect for a source of the scientific method? There's no Bible of science, that's the whole point of it, instead there are explanations of why it holds. That's what I gave because that's all science should need.
As I pointed out:
"Something is considered justified by evidence, on scientific grounds, if of all the possibilities it a) explains the results of tests performed, b) requires as few unverified inventions as possible."
ie, a hypothesis is backed up by experiments, and by the step you keep omitting of actually analysing how much of the hypothesis has been tested.
You seem to be relying on the flawed idea that a test can only support one hypothesis. That seems to be underlying a lot of your claims, and it's obviously unjustifiable. Let's talk, say, wave interference patterns, you have the existing theory of how water waves that pass through two slits will interfere with each other for strictly physical reasons, and the out-there theory that actually invisible fairies will get in the way whenever the waves cross. perform the experiments, send the waves through the slits, the result will be in line with both theories.
However, the fairy portion of the latter theory has not been tested or verified at all, so it is not considered to be equal with the former theory. There's a reason we don't believe in fairies. Thus, we favor the most likely of the two theories.
That is all I have ever been saying. Stop getting mad just because you don't like the fact I'm the one saying it.
I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
You assume everything established is right. You assume that every thing submitted is above question, that no one could ever have made an oversight, thus if something gets published it must have passed the test and no publisher could ever have slipped up.
Beyond that, 'no new test would be needed to reject it.' So you actually agree with what I'm saying, you're just throwing a tantrum for no reason.
The relationship between the two is governed by their geometry.
It would be really, really great if you could stop completely ignoring every post I have made to just obstinately repeat this.
I don't need to, since travel between the towers does not form part of an observation from one to the other.
You originally talked about the distance between the towers so, er, yeah, travel between them seems pretty important as far as distance goes. But, sure, it isn't strictly relevant, that is why it was only brought up as an illustration, very clearly, you just ignored the actual intent so you could claim straw man and avoid admitting your thought experiment was flawed.
First prove to us that space is not "uniform", etc. to the extent that the observation would be affected
Why? You're the one making a claim here, if you can't account for alternatives then your situation seems to be lacking.
I'd be more than happy to have this discussion, but not while you are dishonestly peddling this thought experiment as if it actually proves something rather than assuming its own conclusion.
If all that you can come up with for "what happens between the towers" is to appeal to as-yet-undocumented factors in a big "What if...", then why should I be expected to account for them?
When your whole purpose in bringing up the towers is to criticise 'a big what if...' then the contents of that what if would seem to be very relevant indeed. Everything outside of RET is 'undocumented' from your standpoint, so again, the case you are making is entirely circular.
Yes, if you only pay attention to the mainstream RE view of the world and the limited readings of experiments made, RET will be the only logical conclusion. You're not going to find anyone who'd disagree, but it also doesn't prove all that much. If RET is true, the RET is true. That's your premise and that's your conclusion. Why are you surprised a FEer takes issue with your premise?
-
This is a perfect example of deflecting and avoiding answering questions. I asked for a source of your statement, and you mis-represent what you claimed and refuse to back it up, and then start making up things.
What are you talking about? You want a source? For what, the scientific method? The strength of science isn't that it's true because some bloke said it, it's true because it can be demonstrably shown to be so. I didn't provide a source because that was a stupid question as you have to know, what kind of thing do you expect for a source of the scientific method? There's no Bible of science, that's the whole point of it, instead there are explanations of why it holds. That's what I gave because that's all science should need.
You said and I quote: "Science does not concern itself with proof, merely the most likely outcome."
That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome. You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.
Maybe that's not what you meant, but that''s what you said. You said that science is only concerned with one thing, and that's probability. Which is wrong.
I submit a paper proposing Theory A. During peer review, it's found that a previous paper published results that contradict my Theory. My paper will be rejected, the publisher will not need to to any new tests to reject it. This is how science works.
You assume everything established is right. You assume that every thing submitted is above question, that no one could ever have made an oversight, thus if something gets published it must have passed the test and no publisher could ever have slipped up.
Beyond that, 'no new test would be needed to reject it.' So you actually agree with what I'm saying, you're just throwing a tantrum for no reason.
First, I said no new test would be needed to reject the paper. The author is then free to decide to run more tests or accept the rejection.
Second, wow. Just wow. Did you just go on a rant about something I literally covered in the next paragraph you decided to not quote? How can you claim I am "assuming everything established is right" when I said the opposite RIGHT BELOW the quote you cut off?
From there I have a few options. If I'm confident my theory is right I can re-run those older tests to make sure they are correct. If I still get the same results then I sulk and will be forced to abandon or fix my new theory. Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time. Theories are trashed constantly. Science is not a single belief, nothing is ever accepted as absolute and eternal proof. Theories can always be disproved given the right evidence. Nothing is beyond questioning, but you have to follow the evidence.
Really. Read that again. I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".
I'm truly confused here, did you simply not notice that paragraph? Did you intentionally ignore it? I would really like you to explain how you interpreted that, and please, quite telling me what I think.
-
That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome. You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.
I haven't 'repeatedly refused to discuss it,' I've answered it twice now, you just didn't want to hear it. Everything's about probability. You can't prove that you're not a brain in a vat being made to hallucinate various vivid things, it's just impossible to test for and you need to reject it as, not impossible, but sufficiently improbable to not need to constantly footnote every claim with that possibility. Instead of telling me what I said, how about reading?
Rejecting the absurd is focusing only on the most likely options. You can't have one without the other. I notice you again completely refused to engage with that.
Really. Read that again. I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".
Because of the way you reframed my question. Read what I said and look at the actual context. You assumed that by the time something was published in a journal, automatically, it would have been compared to past tests already and that there would not have been a single oversight, a single missed opportunity. You completely changed the question, flipped it around, so that you could insist that it was compared and instead you started talking about the validity of the test and not the scientific community. So, yes, you assumed the system worked from the start, exactly as I accused you of, something you have made incredibly clear twice now by refusing to engaging with even the possibility that peer review, performed by humans and not Gods, might have missed some obscure little test.
You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes, you just shift around where that divine guidance is depending on your mood. Why else would you consistently avoid answering the question you were actually asked?
-
That is a statement that says science merely concerns itself with the most likely outcome. You then have repeatedly refused to discuss this statement, instead going on a tangent every time. Science isn't only concerned with probability, that's the Bayesian interpretation of probability you might be thinking of.
I haven't 'repeatedly refused to discuss it,' I've answered it twice now, you just didn't want to hear it. Everything's about probability. You can't prove that you're not a brain in a vat being made to hallucinate various vivid things, it's just impossible to test for and you need to reject it as, not impossible, but sufficiently improbable to not need to constantly footnote every claim with that possibility. Instead of telling me what I said, how about reading?
Rejecting the absurd is focusing only on the most likely options. You can't have one without the other. I notice you again completely refused to engage with that.
Because sigh, you're again ignoring the question but I can see I'm getting nowere with this so I'm going to drop it.
Really. Read that again. I assume everything is right? Holy cow, I said the opposite ten times! I repeated it over and over JUST to make sure the point got across but you completely ignored it. What part of "Nothing is beyond questioning" made you think I said "every thing submitted is above question".
Because of the way you reframed my question. Read what I said and look at the actual context. You assumed that by the time something was published in a journal, automatically, it would have been compared to past tests already and that there would not have been a single oversight, a single missed opportunity. You completely changed the question, flipped it around, so that you could insist that it was compared and instead you started talking about the validity of the test and not the scientific community. So, yes, you assumed the system worked from the start, exactly as I accused you of, something you have made incredibly clear twice now by refusing to engaging with even the possibility that peer review, performed by humans and not Gods, might have missed some obscure little test.
You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes, you just shift around where that divine guidance is depending on your mood. Why else would you consistently avoid answering the question you were actually asked?
I'm not even sure what to make of this. Let me go back and read it again, just like I did before I wrote my response.
Ok. I read it again and still don't see what you're getting at. You just keep yelling about, something? Now I'm claiming reviewers are perfect? What? Where did I ever say that?
I'm getting tired of responding to you when you keep making up stuff I'm saying, and when I call you on it you just make up more stuff. I am asking you again nicely to QUIT making up things that I said. Nearly all of my replies are asking you to QUOTE me instead of making up stuff. You have yet to do so.
Look at what you just said: "You are plainly basing everything on the notion that the scientific community does not make mistakes"
How did you miss when I said this MORE THAN ONCE: "From there I have a few options. If I'm confident my theory is right I can re-run those older tests to make sure they are correct. If I still get the same results then I sulk and will be forced to abandon or fix my new theory. Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time. Theories are trashed constantly. Science is not a single belief, nothing is ever accepted as absolute and eternal proof. Theories can always be disproved given the right evidence. Nothing is beyond questioning, but you have to follow the evidence."
How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?
At this point I have no idea what you're even asking me anymore. I've answered your scenarios half a dozen times now, but clearly, you are not reading them.
-
Because sigh, you're again ignoring the question but I can see I'm getting nowere with this so I'm going to drop it.
I answered the damn thing, it just wasn't the answer you wanted. get over yourself. What would you call 'rejecting the absurd possibilities' if not 'ignoring the highly unlikely options?'
How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?
Because, as ever, you changed the question so that rather than being asked about what happens when the peer review process makes a mistake, you assumed it would never do such a thing and started ranting about something completely disconnected to what you were actually asked and started throwing a temper tantrum and are refusing to even consider the possibility that I might dare question your Holy Scientific Community. Like I pointed out in the last post. And the one before that.
-
I said:
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice
You started rambling about what would happen if you submitted A as a paper and it got reviewed and they looked over every stray experiment and paper made over the last few centuries and found the old test and...
How can you with any kind of straight face even pretend you were addressing what I said when you were very clearly inventing your own scenario entirely?
-
How are you POSSIBLY misreading my posts so badly you think I'm saying science never makes mistakes and is god-like in it's accuracy?
Because, as ever, you changed the question so that rather than being asked about what happens when the peer review process makes a mistake, you assumed it would never do such a thing and started ranting about something completely disconnected to what you were actually asked and started throwing a temper tantrum and are refusing to even consider the possibility that I might dare question your Holy Scientific Community. Like I pointed out in the last post. And the one before that.
You keep saying I changed the question but I still have no idea what you're talking about.
Where did I EVER say that the peer review process couldn't make a mistake? Where? Can you point me to where I said that?
Let me repeat for the third, or fourth time, I'mm losing count: "Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time."
So how exactly do you think papers with mistakes get published without the peer review.. making a mistake?
You seem to somehow think I'm claiming science is perfect and never make mistakes and no matter how many times I say otherwise, you just keep coming up with new ways to say it.
Every response of yours is just another claim that I believe this, or I believe that and never quote where I said it. Just like the last post, and the post before that, and this one.
Please, for the sake of all that is just, quote where I said ANY of this nonsense. Or quit saying that I did.
Holy Scientific Community? Who do you think you are talking to right now, because I'm pretty sure I never claimed to belong to some kind of science cult.
-
I said:
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice
You started rambling about what would happen if you submitted A as a paper and it got reviewed and they looked over every stray experiment and paper made over the last few centuries and found the old test and...
How can you with any kind of straight face even pretend you were addressing what I said when you were very clearly inventing your own scenario entirely?
So let me get this straight, you won't accept anything more than a YES or NO to your questions?
If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?
I took your question and tried to explain in reality how it would play out. I'm sorry if all the detail confused you.
-
Where did I EVER say that the peer review process couldn't make a mistake? Where? Can you point me to where I said that?
AGAIN, you refused to engage with the situation actually presented where it would have made a mistake, instead taking as a premise that an error was caught in the peer review process and the situation I described just didn't exist.
How many times are you going to need that repeated before you pay the slightest bit of attention?
'Say' otherwise all you want, but the way you act means far more than empty words. You have, over the course of this thread, been pathologically incapable of paying any more than lip service to the ideas of there being flaws in the scientific community, and when pushed you always fall back on the premise that it works, that there will never be any flaws, that the approach you describe is the best approach, not for any reason, just because it is. No one ever says they're in a cult, but the way they act can sure as hell tell you. The amount of times you've needed to just straight-up lie to deny the existence of the answers to questions you can't afford to have answered is staggering.
You can repeat "Old papers are not always right, mistakes are found all the time," all you want, but that doesn't mean you're factoring that into any of your reasoning.
If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?
Once more: when you completely invent a new situation that has nothing to do with what you are asked, when you don't explain your reasoning as to your response to the situation but rather invent a whole other question, you are rambling.
"explain in reality how it would play out."
Same as ever. 'in reality' it is unthinkable to you that a mistake would be made, you keep saying, oh, no, mistakes might be made, there might be oversights, but when you were actually asked a question about what would happen, your step one was 'the peer review process caught all the flaws! Don't question it!'
So for the umpteenth bloody time as apparently I need to repeat things this often for it to sink in:
I asked you about how we can expose the flaws in a currently stated theory, whether a new test would be necessary or we could rely on an old
Your view of what would happen 'in reality' was that it would never become a theory, and here's how we would redo an old test.
Are you seriously going to pretend those are at all the same?
-
If I try and explain my reasoning, I'm rambling?
Once more: when you completely invent a new situation that has nothing to do with what you are asked, when you don't explain your reasoning as to your response to the situation but rather invent a whole other question, you are rambling.
"explain in reality how it would play out."
Same as ever. 'in reality' it is unthinkable to you that a mistake would be made, you keep saying, oh, no, mistakes might be made, there might be oversights, but when you were actually asked a question about what would happen, your step one was 'the peer review process caught all the flaws! Don't question it!'
So for the umpteenth bloody time as apparently I need to repeat things this often for it to sink in:
I asked you about how we can expose the flaws in a currently stated theory, whether a new test would be necessary or we could rely on an old
Your view of what would happen 'in reality' was that it would never become a theory, and here's how we would redo an old test.
Are you seriously going to pretend those are at all the same?
Holy crap.
Is all of this because in my example I imagined a reviewer catching a mistake instead of the mistake being caught after publishing like you were imagining?
Pages and pages of nonsense because of THAT detail? Which changes nothing anyway.
Note that ALL you said was this:
Scientific theory A predicts B.
If a new test found not B, that would suffice to show that A could not hold.
If an old test that hadn't been considered at the time implied not B, that [should] suffice
Sorry but that's really vague. I was trying to turn it into an actual scenario by describing how a paper gets published, and what happens if there are mistakes. And you got all angry because I chose the mistake to be found before publishing instead of after?
If it will make you feel better, lets let the mistake play out the way you want.
I publish a paper about theory A that predicts B.
It's peer reviewed and passes.
Later someone discovers it failed to reference paper X that proves B is wrong.
Now, your question is: Do new tests need to be run?
How the hell should I know in this made-up example. If paper X is solid and has been repeated and paper A has not, then nobody will run any new tests. If paper X is just a one-of experiment that's never been done before, then they will likely try and run it again.
Or more mistakes could be made and not be uncovered for years, or ever. Science isn't perfect. Is that what you want to hear?
Can we put this to rest now?
-
Pages and pages of nonsense because of THAT detail?
It's been like half a dozen posts, don't overreact. And, well, yes, it was kind of crucial to the whole discussion. You've done this before. If I'm asking what it would take to catch a flaw in a claim, deciding you don't want to talk about claims and instead shifting the whole topic to something else is not a minor 'detail.' You exchange cause and effect and act like they're somehow symmetrical. That's bs.
And 'vague,' really? It's generally applicable. That tends to be rather important when we're talking about anything wide-reaching. Stop with this goddamn incessant point-scoring. if you don't want to actually discuss anything, piss off.
How the hell should I know in this made-up example.
Ergo, it doesn't all go one way, hence my point. If you can't make a clear answer then clearly on some occasions old tests alone must suffice.
Can we put this to rest now?
I would really fucking hope so. How many times have I pointed out you literally agreed with me, and you still wanted to throw a temper tantrum anyway because you couldn't bear the fact an FEer made a point you had to agree with?