[mtnman]

Very exciting observation! Although I'm sure some here will pass it off as just another expansion of the vast conspiracy.

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/10/16/scientists-make-first-detection-neutron-star-collision

[Tom Bishop]

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

[Rama Set]

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers.  You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.

[Tom Bishop]

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers.  You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.

Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:



Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.

[Revel]

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers.  You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.

Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:



Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.

If you follow the entire structure of the Scientific Method, then sure. But you don't have to have a controlled experiment every single time you want to prove a point. The structure of the Scientific Method is not necessary to think logically and conjure results. I know that my teacher is credible enough to be accurate when she said that Force = Mass*Acceleration. I trust that I wouldn't have to experiment something that seems too troublesome to lie about. And for the record, theories do not have to be recognized through the scientific method. You don't have to compare a finding if you can reason with it using another method. Go preach about the Scientific Method where it is relevant.

[garygreen]

what experiments

virtually all experiments in astronomy measure one of two things: 1) how bright an object appears across all wavelengths of light, and 2) how bright an object appears at specific wavelengths of light.

the op is also an experiment, but it measures distance between two points on earth.

[Rama Set]

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers.  You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.

Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:



Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.

Nice try. Observation, not experimentation is what is important. Observation is tested for sources of error and one way to do this is through laboratory experimentation. It is by no means the only way as you seem to insist.

[gizmo910]

Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.

[Rama Set]

Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.

By Tom's lights, only chemistry and physics (but not astrophysics) are sciences.

[devils advocate]

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

And this from the man who claims garlic cures cancer, where's your proof there Tom? One article? Or the man who believes the sun is 3,000 miles above us and yet still enables the sun sets/rises we observe to occur based on perspective "of the sun"?! You argue against the entire field of astronomy and their collective findings based on collaborative research using top of the range equipment with this? I asked you about seeing different constellations from different regions on earth, you claim the stars are closer than we are led to believe and direct me to " learn more flat earth" as an answer....you offer NOTHING anywhere close to the rational, impartial deductions of astronomy. You ignore it because you can not comprehend it. What scientific experiment would you suggest they carry out to add further proof too the mutually supporting raft of evidence astronomy provides! Stephen Hawkins V Tom Bishop.........good luck

[3DGeek]

Tom's problem is whether an "observation" counts as an "experiment".    If it does, then astronomers are scientists - if it doesn't then Tom is right and they aren't scientists.

So - here is my hypothesis:  Water boils at 100 degC.   My experiment is to set up a thermometer in a container of water that's gradually heating up.  When I see that the water is boiling - I look at the thermometer and write down the temperature.

That is (without doubt) an experiment.

But if we break it down, I designed some apparatus that I hoped would produce the desired effect - then I observed the reading given back to me by the equipment.

This is precisely what the LIGO people did.  They hypothesised that there are gravity waves.   They designed a piece of equipment (like my thermometer) that would measure those waves.   They waited for something to happen - and they observed the results given back to them by the apparatus.

There really is ALMOST no difference between my water boiling experiment and their gravity wave observation.

The only real difference is that I caused the heat to be applied to the water in order to make it boil rather than simply waiting around for some natural source of boiling water.

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

I think Tom wants the LIGO people to deliberately crash to neutron stars together and look at the results.   That's obviously not going to be possible - so Tom feels free to tell us that their results are junk.

So it all comes down to the precise definition of the word "experiment".

The dictionary definition of the word "experiment" is:

* Dictionary.com:  A test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.
* Merriam Webster: An operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.
* Oxford English Dictionary: A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
* Cambridge English Dictionary: A test done in order to learn something or to discover whether something works or is true.
* Collins: A scientific test done in order to discover what happens to something in particular conditions.

So some of these are circular definitions "A scientific test" is a terrible definition if "science" is defined by the need to do experiments!  So scrap the OED and Collins definitions!

The definitions in Cambridge and Dictionary.com clearly allow astronomical observations to be classed as "Experiments".

Merriam Webster's definition brings forth an interesting question though.  It demands that experiments are "carried out under controlled conditions" - and that's a tough bar for Astronomy to meet.   You can't very well point one gravity wave detector someplace where there is no gravity wave - and another where there is - and prove that there is a difference...right?   That would be a controlled experiment.

BUT...AHA!

Gotcha!

That's precisely what LIGO does.   It has TWO gravity wave detectors at right angles to one another...AND another pair called VIRGO at a second site.   If just one one of these detectors picks up a wobble - then it's ignored.   If both arms of LIGO detect the same exact wobble and VIRGO doesn't - then it's something nearby and it's ignored.

But if the exact SAME wobble is detected on the SAME arms of BOTH detectors - and there is an appropriate speed-of-light delay between the two...then the only explanation is a passing gravity wave.

And in THIS case - they were able to figure out the direction to the source - and to get people with optical telescopes to go look in the exact same spot in the sky...and there was a new source of intense light at that exact spot.

This is VERY good science.   It's reproducible in two ways (VIRGO and optical telescopes)...it's controlled.   It is an "EXPERIMENT" by any dictionary definition of the word.

(Actually, there is another contraption called "AURIGA" which can detect gravity waves - and they've collaborated with LIGO too).

What's more - it's getting better, there are at least six more gravity wave observatories being planned...and following these successes, more LIGO-like detectors are at the funding stage in India and...I forget the other place.

[Tom Bishop]

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

[Rama Set]

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question. 

[Tom Bishop]

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.

Dipping four thermometers into the bubbling alien liquid does not constitute a controlled experiment.

[Rama Set]

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.

Dipping four thermometers into the bubbling alien liquid does not constitute a controlled experiment.

I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make, but there is nothing alien about light and gravity.

[Tom Bishop]

I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

but there is nothing alien about light and gravity

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

[Rama Set]

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method.

Only if you are the one defining the scientific method.

Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

Good thing that is not what astronomy does.

[Revel]

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

No, Astrology and Astronomy are two different areas of science: the former is a pseudoscience, the latter is actually considered a real science. Here, let me analyze it for you, Bishop:
*The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment* is Google's definition of science. The scientists who discovered gamma rays across the Earth from the Neutron pair's collision had used a device constructed specifically for the purpose of detecting waves from space. They had conducted science through discovery. Sure, it was a discovery. But why do you need to experiment? To prove that they were gamma rays? Experiments are irrelevant here. Astronomy encompasses both physics and chemistry, two subjects that are used to explain why something is true, why something happens. Equations used thereof, to describe phenomena discovered by astronomers through observation, have been proven through practical means of experiment; the acceleration of the Earth has been proven by experiment. From this, we get the gravitational force of the Earth, and therefore, an equation for gravitational force that can be used for the rest of the universe. We used experiments to derive equations. That is how such equations become laws and sometimes theories (even theories have to be proven with observation AND experiment). So the experimental function of astronomy as a science has been established. From then on, observations are explained respectively. When an unexplainable observation has arisen, experiments will be conducted to legitimize its existence.

The Scientific Method is such an obvious strategy to prove that something is true, without the hypotheses and communication. Of course you are going to observe it first and of course you are going to prove that it works under certain conditions. Stop using the Scientific Method so strictly. It makes you sound like a middle schooler that doesn't know why the Scientific Method makes sense, just that "my teacher said so."

[garygreen]

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

as rama rightly points out, the scientific method does not require laboratories.  they're useful for conducting experiments, but they're not fundamental to the method.

it's worth noting that the bedford level experiment is methodologically identical to the practice astronomy; the experiment does nothing more than record the brightness of an object.  in this case the brightness observation is binary (did we collect any light from the bridge or didn't we?), but the method is fundamentally the same as observing stars.  you didn't put the bedford level in a giant laboratory.  nor the surface of the earth.  surely you don't think those observations worthless, do you?

an old analogy, but i'm here, so fuck it: suppose i'm a taxonomist.  i've studied the biology, physiology, and anatomy of all manner of plants and animals, and my field is obviously based on empirical laboratory and field research.

now let's suppose two odd things: 1) suppose that i've never seen a racoon before.  never even heard of one.  i have no idea that they exist.  2) suppose that someone could somehow take a photo of 100,000 different raccoons at a particular instant in time and give it to me on a flash drive.  so now i'm a taxonomist who has never seen a raccoon before, and i have 100,000 images of different raccoons all at different stages of life and death.  some are infants.  some are dead and rotting.  some are giving birth.  some are eating.  some are banging, jumping, running, fighting, hunting, scavenging, etc.  you get the idea.

having never handled a raccoon before, i could nevertheless tell you a lot of true things about raccoons by relating what i see to the animals and plants that i have studied.  i could correctly classify them as mammals, describe their internal structure, fit them on the tree of life, and tell you a shitload else about their characteristics. 

sure, there are plenty of questions that will be difficult to answer without getting my hands on a raccoon, but i'm still doing good science just by collecting photons.

[devils advocate]

If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

Where are you getting the "alien" from?? 3D wrote about measuring the water in natural hot springs. These exist on earth, which is not an alien world. And we know they are water and it would be very easy to take a sample and have this proved. Seriously how do you get away from Junkers wagging finger with your derailments?