A Common Language for the Forum

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/experiment

ex·per·i·ment
[n. ik-sper-uh-muhnt; v. ek-sper-uh-ment]
noun

1.
a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.

2.
the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that is the result of long experiment.

3.
Obsolete . experience.

I guess you are referring to 'an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown'. I think the issue then is what is the unknown thing discovered by a simulation? No actual proteins are folded by the simulation, so we aren't learning anything new about proteins. You could suggest that the act of calculating things is an experiment, but then computer is constantly experimenting. The definition becomes rather pointless.

But if you have used a simulation (artificial means) to obtain a result, you cannot be sure that you are discovering anything until it is validated with practical experimentation.  At best, a simulation can give you a hypothesis, therefore it is not an experiment.

Again, experiments can take place in simulations. The validity of the experiments is another story.

If I go around testing the flammability of different objects in Minecraft it cannot be denied that I'm experimenting with the flammability of different objects.

Whether pigs will really burst into flames when shot with a flaming arrow is another story. In Minecraft they do. Therefore the experiment tells me that pigs are flammable in Minecraft.

I guess you are referring to 'an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown'. I think the issue then is what is the unknown thing discovered by a simulation? No actual proteins are folded by the simulation, so we aren't learning anything new about proteins. You could suggest that the act of calculating things is an experiment, but then computer is constantly experimenting. The definition becomes rather pointless.

Yes, the act of calculating things is an experiment. When you perform a test or trial to answer a question, it's an experiment.

Quote from: Moon squirter on September 21, 2011, 08:44:32 AM

But if you have used a simulation (artificial means) to obtain a result, you cannot be sure that you are discovering anything until it is validated with practical experimentation.  At best, a simulation can give you a hypothesis, therefore it is not an experiment.

Again, experiments can take place in simulations. The validity of the experiments is another story.

If I go around testing the flammability of different objects in Minecraft it cannot be denied that I'm experimenting with the flammability of different objects.

Whether pigs will really burst into flames when shot with a flaming arrow is another story. In Minecraft they do. Therefore the experiment tells me that pigs are flammable in Minecraft.

What you do in computer games is in your own mind and the mind of the programmer.

In the real world, you are not doing anything apart from running a computer program/simulation.  Within the simulation all manner of things are happening, but these are in the mind of the programmer and operator and are therefore irrelevant until they have been confirmed in the real world using experiments.

Quote from: General Disarray on September 20, 2011, 10:46:51 PM

Tom, you claim that the Folding@home experiments are zetetic in nature, do you know for certain that the experiments themselves were not preceded by a hypothesis?

The goal of the folding at home project is to simulate all possible folds for a protein. They want to see what works, what sort of works, and what doesn't work.

The purpose is not to prove any one protein fold combination or any particular hypothesis true.

It is also possible that the whole folding@home project is part of the information gathering part of the second step of the scientific method. Without seeing a full write-up of the project as a whole, I can't say for sure, and neither can you.

Hey James, FYI, I'd still like to hear back from you on this one:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1243988#msg1243988

Hey James, FYI, I'd still like to hear back from you on this one:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50588.msg1243988#msg1243988

FYI, James has been inactive for almost a week now.

Thanks for the update...just making sure he didn't miss my reply.  I'm sure he'll get to it when he does...

I have been conducting important research in Scotland and have been unable to access a computer in order to evade detection by the globularist conspiracy. This is why I have been unable to answer the charges levelled against me, whatever they are. I shall address all concerns promptly.

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.

No, by "simplifying" my post, you have obscured my meaning to the extent that you are able to put words in my mouth.  I mean exactly what I say in my original post, and it is a substantive criticism of the intellectual climate in which the thread is expected to be conducted.  The fact that you disavow any knowledge of Karl Popper does not mitigate the fact that your constraints are Popperian, if anything it demonstrates their insidious nature as a backdrop of contemporary globular science.

The core fallacy of Popperian Globular Fundamentalism is the falsification thesis, which I reject. Popper's Falsification thesis is concisely imputed in this passage:

Correctness
Here is how a theory is properly tested for correctness:
* Search for observations that the theory DOES NOT predict correctly.  If such an observation is found, the theory is false, and must be rejected or modified to again correctly predict all known corresponding observations.

That is, a theory can never be proven true.  It can only be shown to be more likely to be true by attempting and failing to prove it false.

The belief that the only litmus of truth is falsity (a naturally absurd contradiction) is a mainstay of globularist science, and encourages scientists to dare one another to prove their outlandish theory false, rather than to work together to discover what is true. It makes science into a process of "making up and challenging to prove false" rather than "investigating and trying to see what is true". If we were to accept this stipulation as read in the thread, the argument would already be half won by the globularist.

Quote from: Omnipinion on September 15, 2011, 08:18:32 PM

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.

No, by "simplifying" my post, you have obscured my meaning to the extent that you are able to put words in my mouth.  I mean exactly what I say in my original post, and it is a substantive criticism of the intellectual climate in which the thread is expected to be conducted.  The fact that you disavow any knowledge of Karl Popper does not mitigate the fact that your constraints are Popperian, if anything it demonstrates their insidious nature as a backdrop of contemporary globular science.

The core fallacy of Popperian Globular Fundamentalism is the falsification thesis, which I reject. Popper's Falsification thesis is concisely imputed in this passage:

Get specific.  What in my rewording is not correct.

Lot's of "I reject blah" or "I accept blah", surrounded by flowery statements of history and conspiracy.  Boring...

You know what?  I would LOVE someone to prove the earth is flat...it'd be more impactful than quantum theory was on physics in the early 20th century...which made physics FAR more interesting.

Quote from: Omnipinion on September 15, 2011, 08:18:32 PM

Correctness
Here is how a theory is properly tested for correctness:
* Search for observations that the theory DOES NOT predict correctly.  If such an observation is found, the theory is false, and must be rejected or modified to again correctly predict all known corresponding observations.

That is, a theory can never be proven true.  It can only be shown to be more likely to be true by attempting and failing to prove it false.

The belief that the only litmus of truth is falsity (a naturally absurd contradiction) is a mainstay of globularist science, and encourages scientists to dare one another to prove their outlandish theory false, rather than to work together to discover what is true. It makes science into a process of "making up and challenging to prove false" rather than "investigating and trying to see what is true". If we were to accept this stipulation as read in the thread, the argument would already be half won by the globularist.

To clarify, I am talking about proof.  Proof, meaning 100% guaranteed correct.

If "Theory A was tested with a billion observations" and "Theory B was tested with 5 observations", and neither have failed to predict correctly, its reasonable to say that Theory A is better than Theory B...that's fine.  But neither has been proven correct.

It's sad to see you talking in terms of "us vs. them".  I am doubtful that you goal is to know the correct answer, no matter what that is.

Best of luck to you, but I don't think we're speaking the same language, so I really don't have anything more to add...

Of course, I could respond James-esque:
"Your failure to recognize, let alone internalize, the undeniable truth that proof in the affirmative is impossible, is astounding.  Logic, which was meticulously forged throughout the ages, and carefully poured over by countless scholars from the distant corners of the earth strikes me as exceedingly arrogant.  Who are you, one man, to stand up against the combined thoughts of myriads of people before you, many of whom sought true in earnest, armed with whimsical language and thin thinking.  Are your senses that keen, and your intellect that superior?"

Zetetic theory is clearly flawed.  It fails to be correct.  It flies in the face of everything that is sensible.  Whereas the scientific method is "battle-hardened".  It has yet to be successfully challeneged.  Go us!  Down with them!  Yes we are...  No you're not...  Yes we are...  No you're not...  Yes we are...  No you're not...  Yes we are...  No you're not...  Yes we are...  No you're not...  Yes we are...  No you're not..........................................

Do you see my point yet?  Boring.

@James
Oh yeah, and you failed to tell me which constraint you disagreed with, and why.  I think I'll just wait for a specific answer to that...then we can move this discussion out of the 4-year-old yes/no debate and on to something meaningful...

It is impossible to discover truth, we can only prove falsity. By eliminating all that is false, we are left with truth. In this way the zetetic method is sorely lacking. Using Zeteticism we are left with hundreds upon hundreds (A different one for every person) of possible theories that cannot be proved or disproved. This is far worse than the scientific method which allows us to narrow down the number of possible theories down to a few, and those are falsifiable which means that our understanding is constantly improving.

Jraffield1, that is the doctrine of Popperian falsificationism whose constraining influence I reject.

Jraffield1, that is the doctrine of Popperian falsificationism whose constraining influence I reject.

I'm well aware. The methodology for proving something false is straight-forward and easy to carry out. How do you suppose we go about proving something true?

James, I'm curious what a Zetetic experiment would look like.  Unless you have someone handing truths out the only way I know to get closer to the truth is to find out what isn't true. I admit that only having one method can seem very limiting but I'm just having a very hard time grasping at how one would design an experiment to find the truth instead of finding something close to the truth.  More specifically, how does one know that one has arrived at the truth and not just a close approximation? 


Omnipinion, I really like the original post.  However, if you actually read and understood the link to Chapter one of Zetetic Astronomy posted way back you would see that in Zetetic thinking, there is no place for theories or any revisiting of truths.  This means that there is very little room for common ground. Like Tom's model posted earlier, you ask a question, get an answer and you're done.  You move on.  This is very easily summed up by

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

To me this shows that the major difference is in the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.  Both start out with a question; for the sake of example, I'll use one which many here are passionate about, What shape is the earth? Now both the scientist and the Zetetic will measure say, a six mile stretch of river and acquire data.  The Zetetic will now say, "the shape of the Earth is (fill in your preferred shape here)" where as the scientist will then form a hypothesis from the preliminary data and perform further experiments to attempt to prove himself wrong.  If the scientist can not prove himself wrong then he gives the theories to others and then asks them to prove him wrong.  If anyone has a different interpretation I would love to see it.  My only request is that it both is in plain terms and is something more than a "you're wrong you retard."

Now that I've sufficiently aided to the massive derailing of your topic. To address the original post, I feel that defining theories in ranks is a really great idea.  The only thing I would add is an additional ranking system to identify competing theories.  For example if you have two class four theories but one is much simpler you could add on an A designation to it and a B designation to a more complicated theory.  I'm not entirely sure how to designate complication though, whether to go more of a conceptual route or a mathematical route.  I know this is a bit redundant due to Occam's Razor but I feel that due to the about of time various competing theories are revisited it would be helpful.

Please excuse my butchering of the English language, geography, science, and math as I am a fat, lazy American.

"...in Zetetic thinking, there is no place for theories or any revisiting of truths."

If this is in fact true, that zetetic methods don't allow revision, then zetetic had better not make a mistake, because once they make a conclusion, they can't change it!  And the only way to ensure no mistakes is to observer, literally, everything that can and ever will be observed...again we are back to requirements that are impossible...

Thanks for the reply.

ITT: Pedantic arguing about what experiments are, ad homenim about varous scientists throughout history, and a hilarious Zetic chart made by Tom bishop.

This is the actual difference between Science and the FES pseudo science:

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe? 

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe? 

Universal accelerator theory, bendy light theory, flat earth theory, etc. Which side are you on again?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2011, 04:26:59 PM

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe? 

Universal accelerator theory, bendy light theory, flat earth theory, etc. Which side are you on again?

A theory doesn't help you understand the universe. A theory is a theory, a possible explanation for how things are. How does a possible explanation help you understand anything?

That aside, in the illustration is all wrong.

Scientific Method is

Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)

The Zetetic Method is

Ask a question -> Perform a series of experiments to test and compare known possible results -> Conclusion

The Zetetic Method is clearly superior, as you are testing contradicting possibilities rather than a single possibility and drawing a conclusion the first time you get a positive result. The Scientific Method leads you to half-truths and bad science.

If this is in fact true, that zetetic methods don't allow revision, then zetetic had better not make a mistake, because once they make a conclusion, they can't change it!  And the only way to ensure no mistakes is to observer, literally, everything that can and ever will be observed...again we are back to requirements that are impossible...

Thanks for the reply.

Omnipinion, no problem.  I thought it sounded pretty silly myself so I'm hoping someone with more knowledge of the Zetetic method can correct me where I went wrong.

How can you use a "theory" to better understand the universe? 

Tom Bishop, To add a few more to flat_earth_really?'s list: theory of wave particle duality, theory of evoloution,  theory of energy quanta, valence bond theory, and molecular orbital theory just to cover a few of the more major ones.
To answer your second post, scientific theories aren't just possible explanations, they're the most probable explanations that we can come up with at the time.  The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.  This gives us a working basis for moving forward and helping us understand the universe around us.

The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.

That kind of thinking is why the scientific method and modern science is full of crap. "Prove me wrong" isn't a valid argument. In politer circles anyone arguing for the existence of ghosts with "prove me wrong" would get laughed out of the room. You have to prove yourself right.

Quote from: effigyofchaos on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 PM

The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.

That kind of thinking is why the scientific method and modern science is full of crap. "Prove me wrong" isn't a valid argument. In politer circles anyone arguing for the existence of ghosts with "prove me wrong" would get laughed out of the room. You have to prove yourself right.

Tom Bishop, I never said that, "a theory is any idea that can't be proven wrong."  I was explaining how theories change and evolve.  Theories only get to the "prove me wrong" stage after being verified by experiment.  If you need a better definition I feel that in the context of science this is a pretty good one.

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Note the "plausible or acceptable" part.  In science this is usually shown by consistently using the theory to successfully predict future events. For example, I can use Kepler's theories of planetary motion along with Newton's theories of motion and gravity to get a very good approximation of where a celestial body should be.   I apologize for not giving you enough context previously so that you may understand what a theory is. 

Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)

Incorrect.

How can you still not understand the scientific method after having it explained to you so many times?

The difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method (at least in the way FEers use it) is that when scientists create a theory and it's proved wrong, it'll be re-evaluated - while on the other hand if the FEers create a theory and it's proved wrong, this proof is either ignored or explained away by some other half-assed theory that in itself may somewhat answer the question, but as a whole it may contradict FET altogether. This contradiction would also be ignored.

Quote from: effigyofchaos on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 PM

The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.

That kind of thinking is why the scientific method and modern science is full of crap. "Prove me wrong" isn't a valid argument. In politer circles anyone arguing for the existence of ghosts with "prove me wrong" would get laughed out of the room. You have to prove yourself right.

Wrong. If you test the ghost theory, your test will fail and your theory goes away.

You cannot "prove" a theory right. You can provide corroborating evidence that suggests that your theory works. Multiple theories will give rise to the same results of an experiment. By doing more experiments to distinguish between two theories, you can take away theories (even theories unknown.)

For example, let {A₁,A₂,...A_n} be the set of all potential theories about of a phenomena that satisfy known data. You say "I think theory A₁ is the correct theory. Other people's theories range from {A₂,...A_m} (m<n). I will perform experiments whose results will be able to confirm A₁ as the correct theory." So you then produce results that say A₁ predicts much better than any theory in {A₂,...A_m}, refuting {A₂,...A_m} along the way. According to a zetetic, A₁ would be "true" (it matches all observed values).

However, there are other, unknown, theories in the range {A_m+1,...A_n}. It is easily possible, and even likely, that one of these unknown theories is correct. However, If A₁ predicts the same results as the "true" theory, A_true, under all previous testing conditions, you could never know that A₁ is not the correct theory, even though it is zetetically correct.

However, the scientific method recognizes this inability to declare something "100% true". That is why theories must be tested in more and newer ways. Because once someone (by chance) runs into an experiment where A₁ gives a different result than A_true, we know that A₁ is not the correct, (or at least not the complete), theory. Then, a competing group of theories {A_m+1,...A_p} (m<p<n) can be formed and tested, starting the cycle over again. Thus, according to science, A₁ would only be the "best theory we have right now."

Quote from: effigyofchaos on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 PM

The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.

That kind of thinking is why the scientific method and modern science is full of crap. "Prove me wrong" isn't a valid argument. In politer circles anyone arguing for the existence of ghosts with "prove me wrong" would get laughed out of the room. You have to prove yourself right.

"Prove me wrong" is perfectly valid. 
"I've proved this is always true so don't even bother trying to prove me wrong" is a silly argument that would kill the conversation at dinner parties.

P.S. We don't absolutely definitely know that ghosts don't exist, but we can make a valid judgement they don't, based on the current lack of strong evidence.

P.P.S. Aren't you, Tom Bishop, inviting us to "prove you wrong" about a conspiracy?  Just like ghosts, you have no hard evidence and (by your own reasoning) would be laughed out of polite circles.

ITT: Pedantic arguing about what experiments are, ad homenim about varous scientists throughout history, and a hilarious Zetic chart made by Tom bishop.

This is the actual difference between Science and the FES pseudo science:

Thanks for the flow chars.  The Zetetic one seems right on to me.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2011, 09:56:59 PM

Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.

(Note that in the scientific method you never attempt to prove your hypothesis false or competing hypothesis' true)

Incorrect.

How can you still not understand the scientific method after having it explained to you so many times?

How many scientists do you see spending years trying to prove their theories wrong or competing theories right?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2011, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: effigyofchaos on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 PM

The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.

That kind of thinking is why the scientific method and modern science is full of crap. "Prove me wrong" isn't a valid argument. In politer circles anyone arguing for the existence of ghosts with "prove me wrong" would get laughed out of the room. You have to prove yourself right.

Wrong. If you test the ghost theory, your test will fail and your theory goes away.

You can't "prove wrong" a ghost theory. If you go into a haunted house in search of a ghost they'll just say the ghost wasn't there that day. There are lots of excuses a ghost-proponent could use. They can say that ghosts aren't visible to cameras, ghosts only prey on the fearful, or all sorts of crap.

The ghost proponent must prove himself right. Asking us to consider theories true until proven otherwise is absurd.

"Prove me wrong" is perfectly valid.

No, it is not. Look up "Proving a Negative."

P.S. We don't absolutely definitely know that ghosts don't exist, but we can make a valid judgement they don't, based on the current lack of strong evidence.

The ghost proponent must prove himself right, not challenge others to prove him wrong.

A good majority of the scientific community treats theories like General Relativity as if it were right and must be proven wrong, despite bendy space being utterly undemonstrated. This is despicable.

Quote from: momentia on October 08, 2011, 12:40:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 07, 2011, 10:10:37 PM

Quote from: effigyofchaos on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 PM

The idea is that you keep a theory until you can prove it wrong.

That kind of thinking is why the scientific method and modern science is full of crap. "Prove me wrong" isn't a valid argument. In politer circles anyone arguing for the existence of ghosts with "prove me wrong" would get laughed out of the room. You have to prove yourself right.

Wrong. If you test the ghost theory, your test will fail and your theory goes away.

You can't "prove wrong" a ghost theory. If you go into a haunted house in search of a ghost they'll just say the ghost wasn't there that day. There are lots of excuses a ghost-proponent could use. They can say that ghosts aren't visible to cameras, ghosts only prey on the fearful, or all sorts of crap.

If someone says a house is haunted, and no instrument can detect this, there is no corroborating evidence for the "theory." If they keep adding conditions and can't predict anything repeatable, the theory becomes weaker. A better theory is that there is no ghost in the house, so that becomes the accepted theory.

I'm wondering if you even read the rest of my post, which shows why you can't prove something "true".

A good majority of the scientific community treats theories like General Relativity as if it were right and must be proven wrong, despite bendy space being utterly undemonstrated. This is despicable.

Actually, bendy space has been demonstrated during eclipses of the sun, apparent brighting and curvature of certain galaxies, neutron star orbit decay, and, most recently and directly, Gravity Probe B. You can say all this is faked, but bending of space has been tested and corroborated. More indirect evidence is the fact that clocks run at different speeds at different altitudes as predicted by GR.