A Common Language for the Forum

  • 124 Replies
  • 14784 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2011, 07:42:28 PM »
Since my mum's hip replacement surgery helped her immensely, I'm going to dismiss all your other claims too.

There's a difference between replacing a hip and repairing the back or the joint of a knee.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2011, 07:53:43 PM »
Since my mum's hip replacement surgery helped her immensely, I'm going to dismiss all your other claims too.

There's a difference between replacing a hip and repairing the back or the joint of a knee.
Oh I see,

It hasn't. People still think that cough syrup stops coughs, flouride is good for you, antibiotics help ear infections, back and some specific joint surgeries work, and that beta blockers prevent heart attacks.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28085.0
fix'd.

Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Omnipinion

  • 57
  • Truth is interesting. Propaganda is boring.
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2011, 10:25:59 PM »
Starting Fresh
I'd like to try to make this discussion much simpler.  Let's forget all of the methods people have come up with...forget the "scientific method", "zetetic method", or any other method.  Forget how science or other thinking was or is done in practice.  None of that matters.  Let's throw all that out.

We start fresh.  The only thing we come into this with is the rules of logic.  If anyone disagrees with any aspect of logic, then please share specifically what you disagree with, and why.

Some Rules, Perhaps?
In fact, let's put down some rules, just for this thread:
1.  No discussing the scientific method, zetetic method or any other method that was created outside this thread.
2.  No discussing how theory making and testing has historically been done in practice.
3.  Every statement of disagreement should come with an explanation of why, and should follow logic correctly.
Can we stick to these rules?

The Goal
Our goal is to find the correct set of theories on a given topic (a random example being, say, "the shape of the earth" ;) ).

I say "set of theories", because we have to leave open the possibility that more than one theory could be correct.

Thought Experiment and Unavoidable Steps
For the graphically minded, let's start with a thought experiment.  Imagine a rectangle.  Every coordinate position inside that rectangle represents a distinct theory on the topic.  Thus, the rectangle contains a set of theories on that topic.

Forget how we arrived at these theories - it doesn't matter.  All we require is that we have a set of theories which, at this point, have not been proven incorrect.

An observation is made (within the scope of that topic, of course, which means that each theory in the rectangle will make a prediction).  Each of those theories (i.e. coordinate positions) will either predict that observation correctly, or incorrectly.  Now we draw a shape within the rectangle that encloses only those theories that correctly predict the observation, and those that incorrectly predict the observation are outside the shape.

Now another observation is made, and the process is repeated.  Some theories will lie within both shapes, because they predicted both observations correctly.  Some will fall inside one shape and outside the other, because the theory was correct with one observation, but not the other.  Other theories will lie outside both shapes, because they failed to predict both observations.

We can continue this process with each new observation.

Notice that I haven't said anything about how we arrive at the set of correct theories.  I haven't chosen any method.  I've only said that, given a starting set of theories, at some point we make observations, and we compare those to predictions made by each theory in the set.  Any method we conceive will need to do this.  If you disagree with this, please illustrate how this is possible by creating and describing an example method that does not do these steps in some manner.

In Search of a Method
Now, how can we reach our goal, that is, to find the set of theories that are correct?

First we need to define what a correct theory is.  A correct theory is one whose predictions match the corresponding observations FOR ALL OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE.  If you disagree with that definition, then share your revised definition.

This has some implications.  To demonstrate that a theory is correct, i.e. to prove it is correct, one must demonstrate that there are no observations that can ever be made that the theory will predict incorrectly.  This amounts to drawing a shape for every observation that could ever be made, and KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO.  Until you have done that, you have not proven the theory correct.

Exactly how can you know that you have checked every possible observation?  I say you can't.  Hence, you can never prove a theory correct.  If you disagree with that, I ask that you explain specifically and in detail how you would check every possible observation, and know that you have done so in practice.

Even if one could somehow succeed at this, there would remain the possibility that other theories exist that ALSO predict everything correctly, in which case more than one theory is correct.  So even if you could prove a theory correct in this manner, you have said nothing about the correctness of any other theory.

Alternatively, proving incorrectness is far easier, because only one incorrect prediction is required, at which point that theory can be rejected and no longer needs to be considered.  This amounts to drawing the shape for the first observation, rejecting every theory that doesn't lie within that shape, and then repeating with other observations on only the theories that remain within ALL of the shapes from preceeding observations.  By doing so, the set of theories under consideration is reduced with each observation to a smaller and smaller set.  In this way, you converge to the set of correct theories.

Put a different way, if I take a set of theories, and I observe that they all predict an observation correctly, what have I learned?  Not much.  The entire set of theories are still possibly correct, just as they were when I started.

If, however, I see that some theories in that set fail to predict an observation correctly, I have learned that those theories are incorrect, and I've made progress in that I've reduced the set of theories that I need to continue to consider.

So I ask, what would you do?  Attempt to prove correctness, and thus meet all of the requirements it implies?  Or attempt to prove incorrectness to converge to the subset of correct theories?

Or would you do something else?  If so, explain exactly how you would proceed, using the same definitions I've used above to help with clarity.

Finally, if you feel the urge to comment about how you disagree with something above or think something is wrong, but you aren't willing/able to explain why with specifics, please don't bother responding.  Your energy would be better spent cheering for your favorite sports team, or getting into a "yes-no" argument with a 4-year old.  :P

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2011, 10:45:23 PM »
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right.

Incorrect. Scientists don't spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong.

But other scientists would spend years on research to prove Newton wrong. And guess what happened...

Incorrect. They spent years on their own research that happened to prove Newton wrong. There is a large difference.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2011, 04:18:16 AM »
Quote
And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?
It hasn't.
Don't make it seem like the scientific method never works. The computer you are typing on could not have been possible without the scientific method. If you dislike the scientific method so much, try living without coming in contact with cars, medicine, plastic, toothpaste, anything electronic, etc. You'll be loving the scientific method soon enough.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #35 on: September 15, 2011, 05:38:30 AM »
...

In Search of a Method
Now, how can we reach our goal, that is, to find the set of theories that are correct?

First we need to define what a correct theory is.  A correct theory is one whose predictions match the corresponding observations FOR ALL OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE.  If you disagree with that definition, then share your revised definition.

...

I would add to this definition. The problem is any hypothesis can be made correct. Add enough extra forces and effects, and any model could be made to fit with a set of observations. I feel there needs to be another criteria for defining the 'correctness' of a hypothesis. Perhaps something like how easy it is to calculate predictions from, or how many things it needs to assume exist to work.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2011, 08:08:20 AM »
Quote
And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?
It hasn't.
Don't make it seem like the scientific method never works. The computer you are typing on could not have been possible without the scientific method. If you dislike the scientific method so much, try living without coming in contact with cars, medicine, plastic, toothpaste, anything electronic, etc. You'll be loving the scientific method soon enough.

You're assuming that all of those things were made through the scientific method. They were not. It was the Wright Brother who said -- "Science Theory held us up for years. When we threw out the science and started from experiment to experience, then we invented the airplane."

The Wright Brithers were Zetetics. They started from inquiry, not hypothesis. They did not "build on the shoulders of giants" like a disreputable scientician. They did their own experiments and let reality do the talking.

Many inventors are Zetetics. They do not start off by creating a hypothesis and then try to prove it true. They do not build their work off of the card house theories of others. They start off by inquiry, doing a series of basic experiments to explore all possibilities until they discover what is true and what is false.

This is Zeteticiscm. It is superior to the scientific method because it brings us to the certain truth rather than just a truth. For more information please read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared" --

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm#page_1
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 11:09:50 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2011, 08:52:51 AM »
It was the Wright Brother who said -- "Science Theory held us up for years. When we threw out the science and started from experiment to experience, then we invented the airplane."

Can we please have the source of the much-quoted quote from the Wright Brothers.

Many inventors are Zetetics. ...

Which inventors?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 08:55:15 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2011, 08:59:32 AM »
The scientific method starts from inquiry. Its first step is "Ask a question".
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2011, 09:11:33 AM »
I reject the Popperian constraints which Omnipinion is attempting to enforce on the discussion, because by accepting Popper's falsificationism thesis (sketched in the section entitled "In Search of a Method" of Omnipinion's large post).

Popper, an avowed globularist, developed a philosophy of science which merely pandered to existing scientific conceits. The current "scientific method" is falsificationist, and this is a major problem with it. It turns the mode of theory presentation towards a "dare to prove me wrong" attitude in which other scientists must falsify each other's theories, when really they should be working towards what is true, not what is false. Zetetic enquiry better apprehends the truth because it discourages its practitioners from making bold claims and then challenging people to prove them wrong (a mainstay of Popperian falsificationism).
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2011, 09:39:33 AM »
I reject the Popperian constraints which Omnipinion is attempting to enforce on the discussion, because by accepting Popper's falsificationism thesis (sketched in the section entitled "In Search of a Method" of Omnipinion's large post).

Popper, an avowed globularist, developed a philosophy of science which merely pandered to existing scientific conceits. The current "scientific method" is falsificationist, and this is a major problem with it. It turns the mode of theory presentation towards a "dare to prove me wrong" attitude in which other scientists must falsify each other's theories, when really they should be working towards what is true, not what is false. Zetetic enquiry better apprehends the truth because it discourages its practitioners from making bold claims and then challenging people to prove them wrong (a mainstay of Popperian falsificationism).

Scientists do work towards the truth, advancing previous work and refining it (for example chemistry, medicine or quantum theory).  Peer review and rejection is an important part of choosing the most reliable path of enquiry.  How can you work towards what is true without openly discarding what is false?

Attempting to build absolute-truth upon absolute-truth is the biggest "house of cards" I can possibly think of.   It is not self-correcting (unlike science).

Look at ENaG.  It is not been advanced in 150 years and, yes, even you should admit it needs revising.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2011, 11:19:45 AM »
Can we please have the source of the much-quoted quote from the Wright Brothers.

I gave you the source. The source is the Wright Brothers.

Quote
Which inventors?

There are too many to list. Many inventors and scientists use the Zetetic Method, but they do not know it. They start by trial and error, performing trials of all types until they find out what works and what does not work.

See the Folding At Home project, for example. It tests each and every possibility methodically to find a suitable result. The system is not based on using current Protein Folding Theory to find the answer. It's a basic trial and error to find what works and what does not.

When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after.

Following the scientific method leads one down dead ends and half-truths. The scientific method does not ask scientists to conduct trials in attempt to prove themselves wrong. This is why it is is an inferior method.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 11:37:12 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2011, 11:35:39 AM »
I gave you the source. The source is the Wright Brothers.

How about a link to documented proof the Wright brothers said that.


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 11:59:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2011, 12:00:19 PM »
Look at ENaG.  It is not been advanced in 150 years and, yes, even you should admit it needs revising.

You are incorrect, in fact, the fields of Zetetic paleontology, Zetetic lunarology, and Ice Wall studies have all progressed immensely in the last 150 years, to name but a few examples.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901


?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2011, 12:15:53 PM »
Look at ENaG.  It is not been advanced in 150 years and, yes, even you should admit it needs revising.

You are incorrect, in fact, the fields of Zetetic paleontology, Zetetic lunarology, and Ice Wall studies have all progressed immensely in the last 150 years, to name but a few examples.
Are mods allowed to treat the site like a joke? 'Cause James does.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2011, 01:13:17 PM »
The fact that a professional troll like James is accepted as a believer and a moderator is perhaps the biggest hit to this site's credibility.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

fenterb

  • 135
  • Part of the conspiracy
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #48 on: September 15, 2011, 01:17:18 PM »
Is it? How many scientists spend years on research that will prove their theories wrong? That is right, they don't.

Agreed. A perfect example of why the scientific method, and theoretical science in general, is bunk.
His "example" isn't an example. Scientists research to see if they are wrong or right. And how come the scientific method has worked for the last 300 years or so?

Really? I seeing thousands of failed experiments and theories due to the scientific method, and probably thousands more that we have never heard of. It does not surprise me that a small percent of the theories have come true. Take enough shots in the dark and every once in a while you might hit something.

If the scientific method was so praise worthy, surely using this method would create correct conclusions every time, but it doesn't! Must I cite the numerous times that NASA has claimed to have found evidence of bacteria of meteors, or that DNA can be created using Arsenic? They all derived their conclusions using the "scientific" method, yet they were dead wrong each time!

The scientific method is about slowly gaining confidence in things.  You find some evidence, you propose a theory that describes what it means, then over time it is either disproven or more evidence is gathered supporting the hypothesis.  Nothing is ever really 'proven' except in the field of mathematics.  Scientists have thought they have found life in meteors, but have then been discredited.  So what?  That's part of the scientific method.  These are fringe subjects.  The shape of the earth has been on the table for far longer and has staggering amounts of evidence supporting round earth.  Do we know with 100% confidence it is true? No, but we can say we have enough confidence in the fact to not consider any alternative hypothesis

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2011, 01:30:34 PM »
Look at ENaG.  It is not been advanced in 150 years and, yes, even you should admit it needs revising.

You are incorrect, in fact, the fields of Zetetic paleontology, Zetetic lunarology, and Ice Wall studies have all progressed immensely in the last 150 years, to name but a few examples.

Zetetic palaeontology :  Dinosaur sea navigation hypothesis
Zetetic lunarology :  Self-illumination hypothesis
Ice Wall : Other hypothesis

OK, these are suggested theories, but non of them expand upon or improve the Robotham-specific areas of perceptive and astronomy; Two of the weakest parts of the book because they directly challenge what we see with the sun, moon and heavens (the dome of the heavens supports a RE, whether you like it or not).

I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2011, 02:21:42 PM »
Do we know with 100% confidence it is true? No, but we can say we have enough confidence in the fact to not consider any alternative hypothesis

Your honesty is commendable. Not many scientists (or scientific applauders) are willing to say this. However I feel this is where Poppers stance on the method could be of use...what if there is a FE explanation for everything explained by RET, wouldn't it make it easier to accept if science had considered it... would save allot of humiliation.

I think Poppers approach to the scientific method is great in that it leaves egocentrism  out of the challenge of others theories, as ones own theories are encouraged to be seen as potential/temporary understandings and not beliefs to be defended.   
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 02:39:31 PM by Ryan Onessence »
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2011, 02:40:26 PM »
Can we please have the source of the much-quoted quote from the Wright Brothers.

I gave you the source. The source is the Wright Brothers.

Quote
Which inventors?

There are too many to list. Many inventors and scientists use the Zetetic Method, but they do not know it. They start by trial and error, performing trials of all types until they find out what works and what does not work.

See the Folding At Home project, for example. It tests each and every possibility methodically to find a suitable result. The system is not based on using current Protein Folding Theory to find the answer. It's a basic trial and error to find what works and what does not.

When you want results you start with the experiment stage first, conclusions after.

The folding@home project is a simulation, not an experiment.  In the best traditions of science it is attempting to understand (in theory) how diseases develop using pre-defined rules and established models.
 
Following the scientific method leads one down dead ends and half-truths. The scientific method does not ask scientists to conduct trials in attempt to prove themselves wrong. This is why it is is an inferior method.

No - a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The scientist's experiments must test the theory and attempt to falsify it, otherwise they are not true experiments  (unlike zetetic experiments).  Other scientists are invited to successful falsify the theory and thereby increase their reputation.  Only this way can we move forward with any certainty.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Omnipinion

  • 57
  • Truth is interesting. Propaganda is boring.
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2011, 08:18:32 PM »
I can tell many people who've posted after my last post didn't read my post, or chose to ignore it for whatever reason...which is fine.  I'm guessing length had something to do with it...  Here are responses to those two people that addressed it directly:


...

In Search of a Method
Now, how can we reach our goal, that is, to find the set of theories that are correct?

First we need to define what a correct theory is.  A correct theory is one whose predictions match the corresponding observations FOR ALL OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE.  If you disagree with that definition, then share your revised definition.

...

I would add to this definition. The problem is any hypothesis can be made correct. Add enough extra forces and effects, and any model could be made to fit with a set of observations. I feel there needs to be another criteria for defining the 'correctness' of a hypothesis. Perhaps something like how easy it is to calculate predictions from, or how many things it needs to assume exist to work.

Great point.  There are two things to deal with here I think.

The first is to address morphing theories.  I think the cleanest way to handle this is as follows:  If someone takes an existing theory and adds to or modifies it at all, then you call it a new theory.  The original theory can then be rejected, and the new theory can be considered among the others. 

The second, which is more to your point, is comparing two or more theories that correctly predict all observations so far.  Here I remind myself that the theory is just a description of what is.  So in terms of correctness, any theory, FE or otherwise, that really can accurately predict all observations so far serves the purpose of a theory's existence, and cannot be called incorrect, regardless of it's complexity. 

Beyond correctness, when one considers multiple theories that have so far predicted correctly all observations made, one can then debate a) the likelihood that each theory will be found incorrect with a future observation, and b) which theory is superior over the others given the current state of knowledge.  For the former, the assessment of these likelihoods is mostly a matter of intuition and feeling, and is ultimately arbitrary.  For the latter, the criteria for "superior" needs to be defined.  As a practical matter, since the purpose of the theory is to describe what is accurately, there is value in having a simpler theory, because it will be easier to apply.  So in this case, using simplicity as a criteria is justifiable as a practical matter.  But, regardless, that doesn't make either theory any more or less correct.

I had to rewrite my response to your comment three times as I thought about it more and more.  Again, great point.  Thank you for pointing this out.

I reject the Popperian constraints which Omnipinion is attempting to enforce on the discussion, because by accepting Popper's falsificationism thesis (sketched in the section entitled "In Search of a Method" of Omnipinion's large post).

Popper, an avowed globularist, developed a philosophy of science which merely pandered to existing scientific conceits. The current "scientific method" is falsificationist, and this is a major problem with it. It turns the mode of theory presentation towards a "dare to prove me wrong" attitude in which other scientists must falsify each other's theories, when really they should be working towards what is true, not what is false. Zetetic enquiry better apprehends the truth because it discourages its practitioners from making bold claims and then challenging people to prove them wrong (a mainstay of Popperian falsificationism).

James, thank you for reading my post.  You have quite a vocabulary.  You present yourself as being very knowledgeable, given your word choices, and references to various topics.

With all due respect, I think the message you are trying to communicate is being obscured.  Your mix of vocabulary, frequent use of labels, and references to various topics, without delving down to the next level of detail, is interfering with your communicating a clear message.

Let me illustrate.  Here is a version of your passage, as I understood it, where i've simplified the language:
I reject Omnipinion's constraints.  I will label those constraints "Popperian".  I will say that I reject them "...because..." but then the reason is not clear because the sentence is incomplete.  I will then tell you historical information relating to my label, that is, about Popper.  I will tell you how he is a globularist who was on the side of the "scientific method", and therefore on the wrong team.  Zetetic enquiry is a better approach.

Much clearer.  When you clean it up, however, it's more obvious that you didn't add any content to move the discussion forward.  Your debate technique is fine...you took the "I am going to label your statements, and then discredit the label" approach.  Then you followed it up by just saying, "Scientific method bad, zetetic enquiry good".

There are no why's.  No application of logic to facts in order to reach a conclusion.  Just a label, a historical recount relating to that label, and a cheer for your team.

Let's make this clear - I'm not Popper.  I don't know who he was, and I don't want to.  I didn't appeal to anything he (nor anyone else) did in my most recent post, so you should be able to easily leave him (and everyone else) out of the discussion in your response to my suggested constraints, and still communicate your message.

James, I would love to see you address the content of my post in a specific, logical, complete, and clear manner.  Regardless of your conclusions.  I'm open to considering and accepting new ideas.

So let's take the next step in a productive discussion.  Specifically, which constraints are you rejecting?  Here they are again:
1.  No discussing the scientific method, zetetic method or any other method that was created outside this thread.
2.  No discussing how theory making and testing has historically been done in practice.
3.  Every statement of disagreement should come with an explanation of why, and should follow logic correctly.
So which of these do you disagree with, and Why?

Also, have you noticed, James, that I haven't indicated whether or not I have an opinion on RE vs FE, and in the case that I do, what that opinion is?  I haven't put forth opinions on zetetic vs. scientific vs whatever.  All I did was start with simple facts, and walk through straightforward logic.  That is why my post is so long...because I didn't shortcut anything.

And that's an important point.  The existence and identity of a correct theory does not depend on what some guy did a couple hundred years ago.  It won't depend on the existence of a conspiracy, or the attitudes of the established methods, or whatever.  It will only depend on facts and logic.

So why not make it easier...let's dispense with all the noise of history, attitudes, pandering, conceit, bold claims, blah blah blah, that we KNOW won't help us get to the correct answer.  If there is a correct answer, we MUST be able to get there without all of that junk.  We just have to roll up your sleeves, put in some hard work, and have the self-discipline to stay within the realm of only facts and logic.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 08:37:32 PM by Omnipinion »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2011, 02:52:13 PM »
@home project is a simulation, not an experiment.

What? No. The Folding at Home project is an experiment, just as a computer crunching numbers until it found the answer to an obscure unsolvable mathematical problem would be an experiment. Just because it's digital doesn't make it not an experiment.

Quote from: Moon squirter
No - a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The scientist's experiments must test the theory and attempt to falsify it, otherwise they are not true experiments  (unlike zetetic experiments).  Other scientists are invited to successful falsify the theory and thereby increase their reputation.  Only this way can we move forward with any certainty.

Scientists make up unfalsifiable crap all the time. Gravitons. Dark Matter. Dark Energy. You name it.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:51:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #54 on: September 17, 2011, 03:26:43 PM »
@home project is a simulation, not an experiment.

What? No. The Folding at Home project is an experiment, just as a computer crunching numbers until it found the answer to an obscure unsolvable mathematical problem would be an experiment. Just because it's digital doesn't make it not an experiment.

It's not an experiment. If it was an experiment, they would be folding the actual proteins to test how they behave. What they are actually doing is using our current theories on how proteins behave to fold a number of virtual molecules, in the hope of encountering something that, according to our current theories, might be beneficial.


Quote
Scientists make up unfalsifiable crap all the time. Gravitons. Dark Matter. Dark Energy. You name it.

And? They have to come up with some new ideas, otherwise we're never going to progress. They make it clear that these things are currently little more than ideas by saying that they are hypothetical answers to the observed phenomena.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2011, 07:52:29 PM »
Quote from: NTheGreat
It's not an experiment. If it was an experiment, they would be folding the actual proteins to test how they behave. What they are actually doing is using our current theories on how proteins behave to fold a number of virtual molecules, in the hope of encountering something that, according to our current theories, might be beneficial.

That's an experiment.

Quote from: NTheGreat
Quote
Scientists make up unfalsifiable crap all the time. Gravitons. Dark Matter. Dark Energy. You name it.

And?

And... it totally invalidates Moon Squirter's point that science theories are falsifiable.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2011, 08:02:40 PM »
And? They have to come up with some new ideas, otherwise we're never going to progress. They make it clear that these things are currently little more than ideas by saying that they are hypothetical answers to the observed phenomena.

Just as we have freely admitted that "Dark Energy", et al is only a place-holder name and a hypothetical answer to observed phenomena.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2011, 11:52:00 PM »
@home project is a simulation, not an experiment.

What? No. The Folding at Home project is an experiment, just as a computer crunching numbers until it found the answer to an obscure unsolvable mathematical problem would be an experiment. Just because it's digital doesn't make it not an experiment.

Are you claiming that this experiment was not preceded by the first 3 steps of the scientific method?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #58 on: September 18, 2011, 12:38:47 AM »
Quote from: NTheGreat
It's not an experiment. If it was an experiment, they would be folding the actual proteins to test how they behave. What they are actually doing is using our current theories on how proteins behave to fold a number of virtual molecules, in the hope of encountering something that, according to our current theories, might be beneficial.

That's an experiment.

Tom,  "doing stuff" is not necessarily and experiment.  Simulations need demonstrating to be accurate by using real-life experiments.  A simulation helps form a hypnosis. 

Also, a computer crunching numbers until it found the answer to an obscure unsolvable mathematical problem is mathematics, not science.

A pseudoscientist typically calls anything "practical" an experiment, when most of the time he means "observation".
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« Reply #59 on: September 18, 2011, 01:26:32 AM »
Quote from: Moon Squirter
Tom,  "doing stuff" is not necessarily and experiment.  Simulations need demonstrating to be accurate by using real-life experiments.  A simulation helps form a hypnosis. 

If you're folding proteins in a computer simulation it's an experiment.

If I'm testing the flammability of different materials in Minecraft I'm performing an experiment.

Experiments do not have to be physical to be experiments. If I don't know what will happen when I try to set leaves and brush on fire in Minecraft, then when I conduct a trial I am performing an experiment.

Quote from: Moon Squirter
Also, a computer crunching numbers until it found the answer to an obscure unsolvable mathematical problem is mathematics, not science.

That sentence  makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about experiments. Yes, experiments can involve math. Any child of five knows that.

If a computer is performing different math equations and crunching numbers in different ways in an attempt to solve an obscure mathematical problem, the computer is performing an experiment. You have given no coherent reason why it's not.

The computer is going through a series of trials and assessing the result. That's experimentation. The computer is experimenting with different numbers and performing different calculations to solve the obscure mathematical problem.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 10:03:03 PM by Tom Bishop »