Scientific Method Mega Thread - Page 8 - Orbiter-Forum

**Urwumpe** · 06-01-2011, 03:42 PM

Science has NEVER been democratic. Don't fool yourself there. Science only cares about "works out" and "does not work out". If the majority believes in a wrong model, like it had been with the polar shift hypothesis, despite the existence of a better model, like plate tectonics, then the wrong hypothesis will not find supporting evidence and fail to predict future discoveries.

Science is pluralistic. Everyone can contribute to it, everyone can have his own hypotheses and theories.

Science offers equal opportunity. Even if you are an illiterate, you can do science. There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong.

Science is self-correcting: Wrong perceptions will eventually be discovered and corrected. For example the existence of a planet past Neptune. Which was not Pluto.

There is also the problem with the "subjective perception" hypothesis that some propagate here. Subjective perception does only exist in social sciences. Natural sciences are completely devoid of it. Nobody can go around and publish a paper saying "I feel like this object moved." He will have to document his experiment so other people can understand what he saw. He will have to measure the motion, so he knows the object moved.

Lets say, your personal reality tells you that gravity acceleration is just 8 m/s². Could then somebody in your personal reality disagree with you seriously? He would, in your reality, measure the same things as you. If he would have contradicting measurements, who of you is wrong then? That means you have again science there. Maybe you can replicate your 8 m/s² and he can not?

RichWall · 06-01-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

Science has NEVER been democratic. Don't fool yourself there. Science only cares about "works out" and "does not work out". If the majority believes in a wrong model, like it had been with the polar shift hypothesis, despite the existence of a better model, like plate tectonics, then the wrong hypothesis will not find supporting evidence and fail to predict future discoveries.

Science is pluralistic. Everyone can contribute to it, everyone can have his own hypotheses and theories.

Science offers equal opportunity. Even if you are an illiterate, you can do science. There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong.

Science is self-correcting: Wrong perceptions will eventually be discovered and corrected. For example the existence of a planet past Neptune. Which was not Pluto.

There does tend to be a 'General Consensus' that most agree on at a given moment, while some theories, being correct need proof yet, are often linked to the advancement of technology to be established. Your example of Plate Techtonics is a good one. Relativity as well. I do agree that some theories are considered fringe always exist next to more widely accepted ones until that proof comes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

There is also the problem with the "subjective perception" hypothesis that some propagate here. Subjective perception does only exist in social sciences. Natural sciences are completely devoid of it. Nobody can go around and publish a paper saying "I feel like this object moved." He will have to document his experiment so other people can understand what he saw. He will have to measure the motion, so he knows the object moved.

I do read and try to understand if I am wrong on a concept or if it is a matter of interpretation of the same concept from another vantage point.

My point here is that peer review is a required step in progressing the understanding of reality and the subjectiveness comes in due to the limited nature of our sensory perception.

If all people were deaf it would have taken man a lot longer to have figured out the Doppler effect. A color blind person would need the input of others to understand Red shift.

Who can guess at the deeper understanding of the nature of the universe we could have, if we had sensory perception beyond the 5 we have now. Yes, technology fills in this gap nicely from time to time, but there was a time science had to begin somewhere without this technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

Lets say, your personal reality tells you that gravity acceleration is just 8 m/s². Could then somebody in your personal reality disagree with you seriously? He would, in your reality, measure the same things as you. If he would have contradicting measurements, who of you is wrong then? That means you have again science there. Maybe you can replicate your 8 m/s² and he can not?

I think I was very clear on a standard of measurement being the 1st step to avoiding the above.

**Urwumpe** · 06-01-2011, 06:09 PM

Science only advances as fast as the measurement technology. Simple fact.

Hearing is nice, yes... but for properly discovering the Doppler effect, you actually needed somebody measuring the frequency and making accurate measurements.

N_Molson · 06-01-2011, 07:33 PM

'General Consensus' can be dangerous. It often led science on false ways, sometimes for decades or centuries. Aristotle physics has been the 'General Consensus' in Europe for almost 2000 years. Fundamental science made little advances during the middle ages, and nothing really moved before the 17th century.

**Urwumpe** · 06-01-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Molson

Fundamental science made little advances during the middle ages, and nothing really moved before the 17th century.

That is wrong. actually science did progress pretty well. Just look how fast Gothic cathedrals evolved and how many technologies had been invented there in just 20 years.

It had been just technology that won't get mentioned in Discovery Channel.

Weapon technology in Europe had gone through a much faster evolution as for example in Japan. In Japan they arrived in 50 years of testing at the Katana and kept it for centuries. In Europe, Armor and weapons had ALWAYS been in a constant race. Tactics changed quickly. Medicine made big advances during the so-called dark ages. Farming was revolutionized around 1000 AD, permitting a strong population growth in Central Europe. Ships saw GREAT changes in the so-called dark ages. The precursor of the EU already formed and caused trouble. Printing books was revolutionized.

And the world was never a disk in the middle ages, except in the opinion of just two monks who lived between 600 and 800 AD.

The renaissance was the rediscovery of lost technology and inclusion of new one... but a lot of this technology was actually never really lost, but replaced by other technologies.

RichWall · 06-01-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Molson

'General Consensus' can be dangerous. It often led science on false ways, sometimes for decades or centuries.

You make my point wonderfully.

The more open to the possibilities one is, the best chance of discovering something new in science....That actually is science.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

That is wrong. actually science did progress pretty well. Just look how fast Gothic cathedrals evolved and how many technologies had been invented there in just 20 years.

It had been just technology that won't get mentioned in Discovery Channel.

Weapon technology in Europe had gone through a much faster evolution as for example in Japan. In Japan they arrived in 50 years of testing at the Katana and kept it for centuries. In Europe, Armor and weapons had ALWAYS been in a constant race. Tactics changed quickly. Medicine made big advances during the so-called dark ages. Farming was revolutionized around 1000 AD, permitting a strong population growth in Central Europe. Ships saw GREAT changes in the so-called dark ages. The precursor of the EU already formed and caused trouble. Printing books was revolutionized.

And the world was never a disk in the middle ages, except in the opinion of just two monks who lived between 600 and 800 AD.

The renaissance was the rediscovery of lost technology and inclusion of new one... but a lot of this technology was actually never really lost, but replaced by other technologies.

Maybe what is happening here is, progress of applied science and analytical science needs to leap frog each other step by step.

**Urwumpe** · 06-01-2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichWall

Maybe what is happening here is, progress of applied science and analytical science needs to leap frog each other step by step.

maybe. Maybe it is also a perception issue. Which 18th century writer who declared the dark ages had been over had been aware of the work of the "little people"?

The big changes for building huge cathedrals and castles for example, happened at the craftsmen. People learned how to apply the Pythagorean theorem without knowing algebra at a time, when nobody knew anymore that Pythagoras discovered it.

It is pretty likely, that a lot of scientific advancement happened just oral, and was told from master to apprentice, without people making many notes. A Trebuchet for example had no blueprints. There had been just a scientific book at that time with standard patterns around about such craftsmanship. The people who build such weapons designed the Trebuchet around the available trees, a real art, compared to just buying what you need today.

Today only few real masters know about wood good enough to work that way.

RichWall · 06-01-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

maybe. Maybe it is also a perception issue.

Thanks.

Maybe a lack of knowledge issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

Which 18th century writer who declared the dark ages had been over had been aware of the work of the "little people"?

My first guess was Voltaire, then John Locke. But only guesses.

DaVinci was 15th century, so, I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

The big changes for building huge cathedrals and castles for example, happened at the craftsmen. People learned how to apply the Pythagorean theorem without knowing algebra at a time, when nobody knew anymore that Pythagoras discovered it.

It is pretty likely, that a lot of scientific advancement happened just oral, and was told from master to apprentice, without people making many notes. A Trebuchet for example had no blueprints. There had been just a scientific book at that time with standard patterns around about such craftsmanship. The people who build such weapons designed the Trebuchet around the available trees, a real art, compared to just buying what you need today.

Today only few real masters know about wood good enough to work that way.

Trebuchet, the art of Hurling.

http://www.trebuchet.com/

I know of another art of Hurling, but I won't elaborate here.

JEL · 06-02-2011, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

What it comes down to, in the end, is this: Do you believe in an objective reality, or not? I'm not refering to what we can practically know thereof. If it exists, our understanding of it can only be an aproximation of what it is and how it works, and we can never be fully certain. Still it makes a difference wheather or not I believe that it is there, because if I believe that, I also believe that there are interpretations that are closer to it than others, although we cannot always tell which ones those are. If you don't believe in the existance of an objective reality in the first place, any assumption has the same weight, because every assumption in the end is meaningless, because there's nothing to actually make assumptions about. You'll be getting a real problem with explaining the whole phenomenon of existance, though.

I agree. That is exactly what it comes down to; what you believe

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

It's what I'm trying to do a lot, actually.

That makes 2 of us then

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong.

I agree. Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. But!... Those holding power in society... do discriminate!
And IMO it is just as bad when people discriminate in the name of 'holy mother science' as when they do it in the name of 'holy mother church'.

That's all

jedidia · 06-02-2011, 05:36 AM

Quote:

I agree. That is exactly what it comes down to; what you believe

Yes, but as I said, you'll have a real problem explaining existance in general then. I don't mean to offend anyone (but probably will none the less), but I consider anyone that denies the existance of an objective reality per se as at least moderately mental.

RichWall · 06-02-2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

Yes, but as I said, you'll have a real problem explaining existence in general then. I don't mean to offend anyone (but probably will none the less), but I consider anyone that denies the existence of an objective reality per se as at least moderately mental.

Be brave my friend, be brave.....

YouTube - ‪Great Minds: Richard Feynman - The Uncertainty Of Knowledge‬&rlm;

I am pretty sure no one is denying the existence of an objective reality...We humans just don't know everything yet.

jedidia · 06-02-2011, 06:06 AM

Until this thread, that's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure anymore...

RichWall · 06-02-2011, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidia

Until this thread, that's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure anymore...

I also wouldn't let this destroy your faith, after all, it is a discussion about the Scientific Method.

But, "Question Authority" is a good way to approach most, if not all, fields of thought, IMO.

**Urwumpe** · 06-02-2011, 06:54 AM

Yeah, authority is pretty much speaking against peer review. You should be testing everything, if you want to. Even if 1+1 is really 2.

RichWall · 06-02-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urwumpe

Yeah, authority is pretty much speaking against peer review. You should be testing everything, if you want to. Even if 1+1 is really 2.

No it isn't.

It's speaking against the discrimination that us fallible Humans tend toward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEL

I agree. Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. But!... Those holding power in society... do discriminate!
And IMO it is just as bad when people discriminate in the name of 'holy mother science' as when they do it in the name of 'holy mother church'.

That's all

It also speaks to being careful not to let arrogance get us stuck in a rut.

Understanding that adding to the total sum of Human Knowledge is an ever changing and dynamic process.

To be open to the possibility that a new theory or thought could very well rock the very foundation of our current beliefs, as Relativity did to our basic preconception of what time was.

The central part of my argument was the requirement of peer review.

Trust me Urwumpe, I am quite OK with 1+1=2. However, there was a time in my life, I had to learn this for the first time as well.

06-01-2011, 05:57 PM	#107
RichWall Sage Brush	Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe Science has NEVER been democratic. Don't fool yourself there. Science only cares about "works out" and "does not work out". If the majority believes in a wrong model, like it had been with the polar shift hypothesis, despite the existence of a better model, like plate tectonics, then the wrong hypothesis will not find supporting evidence and fail to predict future discoveries. Science is pluralistic. Everyone can contribute to it, everyone can have his own hypotheses and theories. Science offers equal opportunity. Even if you are an illiterate, you can do science. There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong. Science is self-correcting: Wrong perceptions will eventually be discovered and corrected. For example the existence of a planet past Neptune. Which was not Pluto. There does tend to be a 'General Consensus' that most agree on at a given moment, while some theories, being correct need proof yet, are often linked to the advancement of technology to be established. Your example of Plate Techtonics is a good one. Relativity as well. I do agree that some theories are considered fringe always exist next to more widely accepted ones until that proof comes. Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe There is also the problem with the "subjective perception" hypothesis that some propagate here. Subjective perception does only exist in social sciences. Natural sciences are completely devoid of it. Nobody can go around and publish a paper saying "I feel like this object moved." He will have to document his experiment so other people can understand what he saw. He will have to measure the motion, so he knows the object moved. I do read and try to understand if I am wrong on a concept or if it is a matter of interpretation of the same concept from another vantage point. My point here is that peer review is a required step in progressing the understanding of reality and the subjectiveness comes in due to the limited nature of our sensory perception. If all people were deaf it would have taken man a lot longer to have figured out the Doppler effect. A color blind person would need the input of others to understand Red shift. Who can guess at the deeper understanding of the nature of the universe we could have, if we had sensory perception beyond the 5 we have now. Yes, technology fills in this gap nicely from time to time, but there was a time science had to begin somewhere without this technology. Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe Lets say, your personal reality tells you that gravity acceleration is just 8 m/s². Could then somebody in your personal reality disagree with you seriously? He would, in your reality, measure the same things as you. If he would have contradicting measurements, who of you is wrong then? That means you have again science there. Maybe you can replicate your 8 m/s² and he can not? I think I was very clear on a standard of measurement being the 1st step to avoiding the above. Last edited by RichWall; 06-01-2011 at 07:29 PM.

06-01-2011, 07:58 PM	#110
Urwumpe Donator	Quote: Originally Posted by N_Molson Fundamental science made little advances during the middle ages, and nothing really moved before the 17th century. That is wrong. actually science did progress pretty well. Just look how fast Gothic cathedrals evolved and how many technologies had been invented there in just 20 years. It had been just technology that won't get mentioned in Discovery Channel. Weapon technology in Europe had gone through a much faster evolution as for example in Japan. In Japan they arrived in 50 years of testing at the Katana and kept it for centuries. In Europe, Armor and weapons had ALWAYS been in a constant race. Tactics changed quickly. Medicine made big advances during the so-called dark ages. Farming was revolutionized around 1000 AD, permitting a strong population growth in Central Europe. Ships saw GREAT changes in the so-called dark ages. The precursor of the EU already formed and caused trouble. Printing books was revolutionized. And the world was never a disk in the middle ages, except in the opinion of just two monks who lived between 600 and 800 AD. The renaissance was the rediscovery of lost technology and inclusion of new one... but a lot of this technology was actually never really lost, but replaced by other technologies. Last edited by Urwumpe; 06-01-2011 at 08:04 PM.

06-01-2011, 08:08 PM	#111
RichWall Sage Brush	Quote: Originally Posted by N_Molson 'General Consensus' can be dangerous. It often led science on false ways, sometimes for decades or centuries. You make my point wonderfully. The more open to the possibilities one is, the best chance of discovering something new in science....That actually is science. ---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ---------- Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe That is wrong. actually science did progress pretty well. Just look how fast Gothic cathedrals evolved and how many technologies had been invented there in just 20 years. It had been just technology that won't get mentioned in Discovery Channel. Weapon technology in Europe had gone through a much faster evolution as for example in Japan. In Japan they arrived in 50 years of testing at the Katana and kept it for centuries. In Europe, Armor and weapons had ALWAYS been in a constant race. Tactics changed quickly. Medicine made big advances during the so-called dark ages. Farming was revolutionized around 1000 AD, permitting a strong population growth in Central Europe. Ships saw GREAT changes in the so-called dark ages. The precursor of the EU already formed and caused trouble. Printing books was revolutionized. And the world was never a disk in the middle ages, except in the opinion of just two monks who lived between 600 and 800 AD. The renaissance was the rediscovery of lost technology and inclusion of new one... but a lot of this technology was actually never really lost, but replaced by other technologies. Maybe what is happening here is, progress of applied science and analytical science needs to leap frog each other step by step. Last edited by RichWall; 06-01-2011 at 08:15 PM.

06-01-2011, 11:40 PM	#113
RichWall Sage Brush	Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe maybe. Maybe it is also a perception issue. Thanks. Maybe a lack of knowledge issue. Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe Which 18th century writer who declared the dark ages had been over had been aware of the work of the "little people"? My first guess was Voltaire, then John Locke. But only guesses. DaVinci was 15th century, so, I don't know. Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe The big changes for building huge cathedrals and castles for example, happened at the craftsmen. People learned how to apply the Pythagorean theorem without knowing algebra at a time, when nobody knew anymore that Pythagoras discovered it. It is pretty likely, that a lot of scientific advancement happened just oral, and was told from master to apprentice, without people making many notes. A Trebuchet for example had no blueprints. There had been just a scientific book at that time with standard patterns around about such craftsmanship. The people who build such weapons designed the Trebuchet around the available trees, a real art, compared to just buying what you need today. Today only few real masters know about wood good enough to work that way. Trebuchet, the art of Hurling. http://www.trebuchet.com/ I know of another art of Hurling, but I won't elaborate here. Last edited by RichWall; 06-01-2011 at 11:55 PM.

06-02-2011, 01:21 PM	#120
RichWall Sage Brush	Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe Yeah, authority is pretty much speaking against peer review. You should be testing everything, if you want to. Even if 1+1 is really 2. No it isn't. It's speaking against the discrimination that us fallible Humans tend toward. Quote: Originally Posted by JEL I agree. Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. But!... Those holding power in society... do discriminate! And IMO it is just as bad when people discriminate in the name of 'holy mother science' as when they do it in the name of 'holy mother church'. That's all It also speaks to being careful not to let arrogance get us stuck in a rut. Understanding that adding to the total sum of Human Knowledge is an ever changing and dynamic process. To be open to the possibility that a new theory or thought could very well rock the very foundation of our current beliefs, as Relativity did to our basic preconception of what time was. The central part of my argument was the requirement of peer review. Trust me Urwumpe, I am quite OK with 1+1=2. However, there was a time in my life, I had to learn this for the first time as well. Last edited by RichWall; 06-02-2011 at 04:08 PM.

06-01-2011, 03:42 PM	#106
Urwumpe Donator	Science has NEVER been democratic. Don't fool yourself there. Science only cares about "works out" and "does not work out". If the majority believes in a wrong model, like it had been with the polar shift hypothesis, despite the existence of a better model, like plate tectonics, then the wrong hypothesis will not find supporting evidence and fail to predict future discoveries. Science is pluralistic. Everyone can contribute to it, everyone can have his own hypotheses and theories. Science offers equal opportunity. Even if you are an illiterate, you can do science. There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong. Science is self-correcting: Wrong perceptions will eventually be discovered and corrected. For example the existence of a planet past Neptune. Which was not Pluto. There is also the problem with the "subjective perception" hypothesis that some propagate here. Subjective perception does only exist in social sciences. Natural sciences are completely devoid of it. Nobody can go around and publish a paper saying "I feel like this object moved." He will have to document his experiment so other people can understand what he saw. He will have to measure the motion, so he knows the object moved. Lets say, your personal reality tells you that gravity acceleration is just 8 m/s². Could then somebody in your personal reality disagree with you seriously? He would, in your reality, measure the same things as you. If he would have contradicting measurements, who of you is wrong then? That means you have again science there. Maybe you can replicate your 8 m/s² and he can not?

06-01-2011, 06:09 PM	#108
Urwumpe Donator	Science only advances as fast as the measurement technology. Simple fact. Hearing is nice, yes... but for properly discovering the Doppler effect, you actually needed somebody measuring the frequency and making accurate measurements.

06-01-2011, 07:33 PM	#109
N_Molson Addon Developer	'General Consensus' can be dangerous. It often led science on false ways, sometimes for decades or centuries. Aristotle physics has been the 'General Consensus' in Europe for almost 2000 years. Fundamental science made little advances during the middle ages, and nothing really moved before the 17th century.

06-01-2011, 08:23 PM	#112
Urwumpe Donator	Quote: Originally Posted by RichWall Maybe what is happening here is, progress of applied science and analytical science needs to leap frog each other step by step. maybe. Maybe it is also a perception issue. Which 18th century writer who declared the dark ages had been over had been aware of the work of the "little people"? The big changes for building huge cathedrals and castles for example, happened at the craftsmen. People learned how to apply the Pythagorean theorem without knowing algebra at a time, when nobody knew anymore that Pythagoras discovered it. It is pretty likely, that a lot of scientific advancement happened just oral, and was told from master to apprentice, without people making many notes. A Trebuchet for example had no blueprints. There had been just a scientific book at that time with standard patterns around about such craftsmanship. The people who build such weapons designed the Trebuchet around the available trees, a real art, compared to just buying what you need today. Today only few real masters know about wood good enough to work that way.

06-02-2011, 02:34 AM	#114
JEL Addon Developer	Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia What it comes down to, in the end, is this: Do you believe in an objective reality, or not? I'm not refering to what we can practically know thereof. If it exists, our understanding of it can only be an aproximation of what it is and how it works, and we can never be fully certain. Still it makes a difference wheather or not I believe that it is there, because if I believe that, I also believe that there are interpretations that are closer to it than others, although we cannot always tell which ones those are. If you don't believe in the existance of an objective reality in the first place, any assumption has the same weight, because every assumption in the end is meaningless, because there's nothing to actually make assumptions about. You'll be getting a real problem with explaining the whole phenomenon of existance, though. I agree. That is exactly what it comes down to; what you believe Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia It's what I'm trying to do a lot, actually. That makes 2 of us then Quote: Originally Posted by Urwumpe There is no authority in science. No great beard somewhere will decide what is right or what is wrong. I agree. Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. But!... Those holding power in society... do discriminate! And IMO it is just as bad when people discriminate in the name of 'holy mother science' as when they do it in the name of 'holy mother church'. That's all

06-02-2011, 05:36 AM	#115
jedidia shoemaker without legs	Quote: I agree. That is exactly what it comes down to; what you believe Yes, but as I said, you'll have a real problem explaining existance in general then. I don't mean to offend anyone (but probably will none the less), but I consider anyone that denies the existance of an objective reality per se as at least moderately mental.

06-02-2011, 06:06 AM	#117
jedidia shoemaker without legs	Until this thread, that's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure anymore...

06-02-2011, 06:21 AM	#118
RichWall Sage Brush	Quote: Originally Posted by jedidia Until this thread, that's what I thought. Now I'm not so sure anymore... I also wouldn't let this destroy your faith, after all, it is a discussion about the Scientific Method. But, "Question Authority" is a good way to approach most, if not all, fields of thought, IMO.

06-02-2011, 06:54 AM	#119
Urwumpe Donator	Yeah, authority is pretty much speaking against peer review. You should be testing everything, if you want to. Even if 1+1 is really 2.

Quick Links	Need Help?
About Us Register to Participate Orbiter Website Orbiter Download Projects Recommended Addons Orbit Hangar Mods Photo Gallery Social Groups External Links	Did you forget your password? Rules & Guidelines Frequently Asked Questions Orbiter F.A.Q. Orbiter Tutorials Orbiter IRC Chat Search Forum Site Map Contact Us Mark Forums Read