|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/23/2011 : 05:55:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
I'm amazed at your confusion, Tim. Absolutely everything we are aware of is a result of observation, through our eyes, or hearing, through our ears, or feeling through our body, or heart (figuratively), or intuition, irrespective of any science. |
Well, if you're going to switch the context from science to philosophy without warning, is it any wonder that you are confusing?| The obervation that the earth revolves around the sun has been possible only as a result of the laboratory-produced lens in the form of a telescope, which was a scientific endeavour. |
Aristarchus: 270 BCE
Seleucus: 190 BCE
Aryabhata: 499
Copernicus: 1530
Telescopes: 1608
History fail.| That the telescope extends our powers of observation is confirmed. There's no doubt at all about that. But there are clearly doubts about our interpretation of those distant events, just as there are doubts about any theory which cannot be verified by the standard scientific procedures which have resulted in all the goods we enjoy on this earth. |
Moving the goalposts fail.Ego fail. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2011 : 22:56:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Sebastian
I'm amazed at your confusion, Tim. Absolutely everything we are aware of is a result of observation, through our eyes, or hearing, through our ears, or feeling through our body, or heart (figuratively), or intuition, irrespective of any science. |
Well, if you're going to switch the context from science to philosophy without warning, is it any wonder that you are confusing?| The obervation that the earth revolves around the sun has been possible only as a result of the laboratory-produced lens in the form of a telescope, which was a scientific endeavour. |
Aristarchus: 270 BCE
Seleucus: 190 BCE
Aryabhata: 499
Copernicus: 1530
Telescopes: 1608
History fail.| That the telescope extends our powers of observation is confirmed. There's no doubt at all about that. But there are clearly doubts about our interpretation of those distant events, just as there are doubts about any theory which cannot be verified by the standard scientific procedures which have resulted in all the goods we enjoy on this earth. |
Moving the goalposts fail.Ego fail.
|
No Dave, I'm afraid it is you who have failed in English comprehension. I've done my best to explain that everything we have ever known is an interpretation of observation (or feeling, or smell, or hearing etc).
We have no awareness or knowledge of anything except through our senses, and this was just as true of our distant ape-like ancestors as it is today in the modern era.
There have been many theories in history attempting to explain our observations of our surroundings.
It would be very strange indeed if none of the multitude of theories proposed throughout the ages even remotely resembled the later-confirmed scientific truth in any way.
We might think it's rather amazing that someone like Democritus who lived about 2400 years ago could have hit upon the concept of the atom. But we would be deluding ourselves if we thought his theory was based upon specific observations relating to atoms. He was just lucky.
On certain broad issues there are not very many alternative explanations. There are not many options when attempting to describe the relationship between the earth and the sun. Broadly speaking, either the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth revolves around the sun.
The consensus of scientific opinion in Europe, around the time that Copernicus proposed his heliocentric view of the universe, was that the earth was at the centre of the universe. Copernicus was at odds with most of his scientific colleages, as Galileo was.
We must never forget that it was the scientific method of verification and falsification that later confirmed that Copernicus and Galileo were broadly correct, although not correct in detail.
This should be a lesson to us all. In the absence of full scientific verification according to the highest standards, the consensus view on any issue which does not lend itself to thorough scientific verification cannot be relied upon, no matter how illustrious the proponents, and that includes the alarmist theories of anthropogenic climate change, the advocates of which claim that the consensus view cannot be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 08:00:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
No Dave, I'm afraid it is you who have failed in English comprehension. I've done my best to explain that everything we have ever known is an interpretation of observation (or feeling, or smell, or hearing etc).
We have no awareness or knowledge of anything except through our senses, and this was just as true of our distant ape-like ancestors as it is today in the modern era. |
Yes, but this is all irrelevant to anything but a lecture on the philosophy of science. You're in over your head, here, and so are obviously trying to distract away from your failures.There have been many theories in history attempting to explain our observations of our surroundings.
It would be very strange indeed if none of the multitude of theories proposed throughout the ages even remotely resembled the later-confirmed scientific truth in any way.
We might think it's rather amazing that someone like Democritus who lived about 2400 years ago could have hit upon the concept of the atom. But we would be deluding ourselves if we thought his theory was based upon specific observations relating to atoms. He was just lucky. |
Wow. When your factually incorrect statement that heliocentrism had to wait for the advent of the telescope was challenged, your response is that the ancient astronomers who proposed heliocentrism were "just lucky"?! You're displaying a stunning childishness, coupled with a deep ignorance of the history and the reasons why Ptolemy's model held sway for over a thousand years. One of those reasons was the entirely unscientific ideal of Plato's that "uniform circular motion" could explain all phenomena in the universe. That's an example of dogma overriding science, and not a simple matter of guessing wrong between two equally evidenced theories.On certain broad issues there are not very many alternative explanations. There are not many options when attempting to describe the relationship between the earth and the sun. Broadly speaking, either the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth revolves around the sun.
The consensus of scientific opinion in Europe, around the time that Copernicus proposed his heliocentric view of the universe, was that the earth was at the centre of the universe. Copernicus was at odds with most of his scientific colleages, as Galileo was.
We must never forget that it was the scientific method of verification and falsification that later confirmed that Copernicus and Galileo were broadly correct, although not correct in detail.
This should be a lesson to us all. In the absence of full scientific verification according to the highest standards, the consensus view on any issue which does not lend itself to thorough scientific verification cannot be relied upon, no matter how illustrious the proponents, and that includes the alarmist theories of anthropogenic climate change, the advocates of which claim that the consensus view cannot be wrong. |
And nobody but you is talking about the "consensus view" here. You go ahead and keep attacking that straw man if it helps you feel superior. It's not an argument against any of the criticisms leveled at you here - nobody has claimed that you are wrong because of any consensus.
If fact, I've been begging you to examine and critique the actual data we have that favor the AGW and Dark Matter theories, but you just continue to refuse to count the horse's teeth, in an unmitigated display of antiscientific hypocrisy.
Oh, and how exactly are Dark Matter and AGW not amenable to "thorough scientific verification?" What is it about those phenomena which prevents verification? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 15:20:17 [Permalink]
|
| I think the claim is that Dark Matter and AGW cannot be seen or touched, therefore cannot be scientifically verified. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 19:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
I think the claim is that Dark Matter and AGW cannot be seen or touched, therefore cannot be scientifically verified. |
Yeah, but that was my point about electrons. By the "seen or touched" standard, Atomic Theory is unverifiable. But it's still responsible for an awesome amount of technological advances, and one of Sebastian's other standards is practical utility, so "seen or touched" clearly isn't what he means.
But that's the thing: Dark Matter and AGW are both practical theories in the sense that Sebastian used (pages ago). They both make predictions which can be verified or falsified, predictions which can be used to further our scientific knowledge. They've both failed to be falsified, many times. Yet Sebastian refuses to include them as verifiable, for reasons he refuses to divulge with any clarity.
I'm pretty sure he will only offer broad and vague criticisms which will unfortunately also attack established sciences as collateral damage. He will continue to ignore those problems with his own statements, and he will continue to refuse to engage with any real data. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2011 : 21:08:56 [Permalink]
|
Sebastian.....
Way back then, you wrote:| As I understand, a scientific theory is considered to be correct, or sufficiently correct for our practical purposes, when all events or circumstances that the application of the theory predict, are found in reality to be true, or broadly true. |
Because of the epistemological complexity of understanding and applying such terms as correct, reality and true; why not say: [box]As I understand, a scientific theory is considered to be correct, or sufficiently correct for our practical purposes; when all events or circumstances that the application of the theory predict, are found to actually produce the predicted results when applied, and these results can be demonstated by repetition without limitation.
Surely you do not mean to state or imply that subatomic particles are not real (in the commonly accepted and used meaning of "reality") because they cannot be immediately recognized by our common five sense modalities? That is an absurdly naíve statement! |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2011 : 12:17:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
I really don't know what point is supposed to be made by this, and the discussion around it, but I would like to point out that it was eventually determined that Earth goes around the sun by observing nature, not by making controlled laboratory experiments. The size and shape of the moon as well as its distance from Earth, and the size and shape of Earth itself were determined thousands of years ago by observing nature, not by conducting controlled laboratory experiments.
|
The observation that the earth revolves around the sun has been possible only as a result of the laboratory-produced lens in the form of a telescope, which was a scientific endeavour.
|
That is a factually incorrect statement. Copernicus clearly began his studies of the heliocentric system as early as 1514, the date on the earliest copy we have of his Commentariolus. He used a combination of his own observations, and those of other astronomers to establish the empirical superiority of the heliocentric system. His major work, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) appeared in 1543, shortly before he died. But it is clear that he had actually finished the book sometime before that and deliberately delayed publication until his own death, perhaps to avoid religious persecution. This book has its strength & weaknesses. It is a mathematically complicated book with a considerable amount of what we would now call spherical trigonometry, used to analyze the motions of the planets (I have a copy in my library, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, Nicolaus Copernicus, Running Press 2002, edited with commentary by Stephen Hawking). The major strength of this book is that it is not simply philosophical musing over where the sun & earth belong, but a formal, mathematical analysis of the motions of the planets, establishing the empirical superiority of a heliocentric solar system. But its major weakness is that Copernicus could not part with the idea of perfectly circular orbits because they are geometrically "perfect" (later, Galileo suffered the same weakness, and fell out with Kepler over elliptical orbits). This adherence to circles, with the planets attached to heavenly spheres, meant that Copernicus had to retain a system of epicycles to conform with retrograde motions, but his system was still far simpler than the Ptolemaic system.
It was Johannes Kepler who finally nailed down the final basic version of the heliocentric solar system that we use today. Kepler began to work with Tycho Brahe at the Uraniborg Observatory in 1600, and after Tycho died unexpectedly in 1601, Kepler took over his title as "Imperial Mathematician", assigned to complete Tycho's work on the motion of the planets. Kepler had already published his Mysterium Cosmographicum (The Cosmographic Mystery) in 1596, in support of Copernicus but continuing with circular orbits. Kepler finished Astronomia Nova in 1605, but publication was delayed until 1609 by legal disputes with Tycho's family over the use of Tycho's data. In this work Kepler published the first 2 of what we now call Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, establishing elliptical orbits instead of circles, and establishing the variable speed of the planets. These two laws of motion were the key to conservation of angular momentum later discovered by Isaac Newton, and Kepler anticipates Newton's law of gravity in his own description of mutual attractions between bodies as the force that keeps the solar system stable (I am quite sure I have a copy of Kepler's books in my library as well but just can't find them at the moment).
At this point it is important to appreciate the depth of Tycho Brahe's contribution. Brahe was the last and greatest of the pre-telescopic astronomers. His data were far & away the best of their kind, but Brahe did something else of great significance that no other scientist had ever done before. Brahe studied his instruments and how he used them and quantified the uncertainty in his observations. Furthermore, he properly propagated these uncertainties through the calculations that transformed his observations into positions on the sky, so that his positions had a formal and correct observational uncertainty attached to them (nobody had ever done this before; see Theoretical Concepts in Physics by Malcolm Longair, Cambridge University Press 2003 (2nd edition), section 2.3). This made Tycho's data set the first set of data sufficiently precise to distinguish between circular & elliptical orbits (the idea of noncircular orbits had come up before but the data were never precise enough to tell the difference). It was this propagation of uncertainties (commonly called "observational errors" and "error analysis" despite the fact that they are really uncertainties and not mistakes) that allowed Kepler to determine that the orbits were ellipses and not circles.
So the final form of the heliocentric system was established by 1605, which you can push to 1609 if you include the delay in publishing Astronomia Nova. But the first telescopes did not appear until 1608, 3 years after Kepler had already finished Astronomia Nova. And although Hans Lippershey is usually credited with the invention of the telescope, it seems likely that his young children actually made the discovery while playing with his eye-glass lenses. Now it should be noted that the earliest examples of lenses date back to about 700 BCE and the ancient Assyrian Empire and could hardly have been invented for scientific puropses (History of Optics). Although telescopes were quickly put to scientific use (or so we would call it today), the first use of telescopes was military, especially for ships at sea. Galileo told the Italian Navy that he had invented the telescope himself, and earned money on the royalties for "his" invention making them for the Italian Navy.
Galileo gets credit for being the first astronomer to use a telescope, but that is not born out by the historical record. The first astronomer to use a telescope was the Englishman Thomas Harriot (or Hariot) whose earliest dated observation dates from 26 July 1609, which pre-dates any of Galileo's observations. However, Galileo stuck with it and Harriot did not, so Galileo does deserve credit for systematically establishing the first reliable telescope based astronomy. Thanks to Galileo we can make an interesting assertion. We already know that in fact the heliocentric solar system was firmly established before the telescope was invented, but now we can argue that, if anything, the telescope would have set back rather than advanced, any heliocentric cosmology. At the time nobody really understood the optics of lenses as we do now, in particular they were unaware of diffraction and the Airy disk. So when Galileo discovered the first known double star, Mizar in the bend of the "Big Dipper", he thought the disk his eye perceived in the telescope was the physical disk of the star. Guessing that both stars were the same size as the sun, he reasoned that the smaller (actually just dimmer though he didn't realize it) star was farther away. He measured the angular distance between them (which he did accurately, his 11 arcseconds matches the currently accepted value) and guessed correctly, given his faulty assumptions, that as Earth moves around the sun, parallax should result in these two stars moving back & forth with respect to each other in the telescope. He "knew" the distance to the stars by virtue of their assumed size and he knew the diameter of Earth's orbit around the sun, so he "knew" in advance how far they should move. But after a full year of observation he actually knew that they did not show any parallactic motion at all. This was in fact observational evidence against a heliocentric cosmology, so Galileo buried the observations in his notebooks and never told anybody. The absence of parallax, and not always necessarily religious dogma, was one reason that Papal astronomers, and others, had rejected a heliocentric cosmology. So to that extent, the Catholic Church gets a raw deal in most historical discussions.
But the big conclusion to make here is simply that the heliocentric solar system was established without the use of telescopes, and made without the use of controlled laboratory experiments of any kind. It was established solely through uncontrolled observation of raw nature.
Originally posted by Sebastian
I'm amazed at your confusion, Tim. Absolutely everything we are aware of is a result of observation, through our eyes, or hearing, through our ears, or feeling through our body, or heart (figuratively), or intuition, irrespective of any science.
|
Now I am amazed at your confusion. What makes you think that anyone is arguing that point? I am talking about the difference between controlled laboratory experiments and uncontrolled observations of raw nature, and about your claim that the former are superior to the latter. What do you think I was talking about?
Originally posted by Sebastian
That the telescope extends our powers of observation is confirmed. There's no doubt at all about that. But there are clearly doubts about our interpretation of those distant events, just as there are doubts about any theory which cannot be verified by the standard scientific procedures which have resulted in all the goods we enjoy on this earth.
|
I am still amazed at your confusion. What makes you think I am arguing about this? Of course there are doubts, has anyone suggested otherwise? Not that I can see, and certainly not me.
slightly edited to fix annoying typo |
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - Tim Thompson on 11/25/2011 14:51:44 |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 12:33:09 [Permalink]
|
| Thank for the post Tim. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 14:03:25 [Permalink]
|
| Tim, thanks for taking the time for your post. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2011 : 18:58:20 [Permalink]
|
Tim Thompson.....
Thank you for posting a fascinating, meticulously researched, and highly informative history of the development of the heliocentric concept of the Solar System. The quality of discourse here on SFN is greatly enhanced by your contributions.
As a scientific layman, I truly appreciate occasionally finding genuine expertise in postings here. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/26/2011 18:07:49 |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 00:22:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
Question for Sebastian: Do you also agree with Wilson, specifically that There is no clear cut distinction between an experiment and a simple observation?
|
My thanks for the approval of my posting prowess. 
But the discussion of the history of telescopes & heliocentrism is a bit of a digression. I do not believe I have seen Sebastian answer the question asked. And so I await the favor of a comprehensible reply.
|
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Tim Thompson
New Member
USA
36 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 00:27:59 [Permalink]
|
Again, there was a time when dark matter & dark energy seemed to be topics of discussion. So once again I invite Mr. Sebastian to reply to the topic on point, reference my earlier message re-posted here.
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
Comments on Cosmology and Dark Matter
Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, we were talking about dark matter. Let me return to that topic by once again quoting myself:
Originally posted by Tim Thompson
My conclusion: I don't see how anyone can look at the full weight of the evidence, both direct & indirect, and not conclude that that the presence of non-baryonic dark matter is in fact the best solution currently available to the scientific community as an explanations for the "missing mass" problem. I do not mean by this that the alternative solution, a modification of the law of gravity, should be ignore; quite the opposite, it should be pursued as best we can. But credit, as they say, should go where credit is due, and non-baryonic dark matter is in fact the superior solution on offer, by virtue of both quantity and quality of both observational evidence and theoretical considerations.
|
There really isn't much more for me to say now. In that post I laid out the empirical evidence favoring the case for the existence of non-baryonic dark matter. I will add to that a reference which in fact appeared only today:
Evidence for dark matter modulation in CoGeNT
Chiara Arina, et al., preprint dated 14 November 2011.
Abstract:
We investigate the question of whether the recent modulation signal claimed by CoGeNT is best explained by the dark matter (DM) hypothesis from a Bayesian model comparison perspective. We consider five phenomenological explanations for the data: no modulation signal, modulation due to DM, modulation due to DM compatible with the total CoGeNT rate, and a signal coming from other physics with a free phase but annual period, or with a free phase and a free period. In each scenario, we assign to the free parameters physically motivated priors. We find that the no modulation model is excluded with odds in excess of 10^5 : 1 when all energy bins are included in the analysis. The DM models are strongly preferred over explanations due to other physics, even when astrophysical uncertainties are taken into account and the impact of priors assessed. However, the evidence for the DM model in which the modulation signal is compatible with the total rate is significantly weaker than for a DM model in which this prior is not implemented, a result driven mainly by the large modulation amplitude observed in the energy range (0.9 - 3.0) keV by CoGeNT. Classical hypothesis testing also rules out the null hypothesis of no modulation at the 4.5-sigma to 4.8-sigma level, depending on the details of the alternative. Lastly, we investigate whether anisotropic velocity distributions can help to mitigate the tension between the CoGeNT total and modulated rates, and find encouraging results.
It would be nice to see a response from Sebastian on what I thought was the real topic of this thread. And hopefully we can minimize the confusingly irrelevant parables and analogies to global warming or horses teeth and try to pointedly address the topics at hand.
|
|
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 19:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Tim Thompson....
| My thanks for the approval of my posting prowess. |
Of course. You are welcome. But, above prowess, what impresses is the level of expertise, erudition, and authority in your field that your posts reveal.
The more years that pass, the deeper the realization grows in me that I truly know damn little about anything. Young people like chefcrsh cannot understand that perspective. His attitude is derisive of longevity. That will change with the growth of maturation.
My respect continually increases for those who by academic and experiential background and by employing extensive research, can demonstrate that they are not just intellectually shooting from the hip. These folks really do know a lot about something. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.....!
Take Sebastian for one example. He really is in way over his head here in his endless declarative pronouncements here: but his posts demonstrate that he believes himself to be an expertly educated professional. He obviously is not anything close to that.
It is abundantly evident that you truly are a genuine professional in your chosen field. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/26/2011 19:35:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 19:30:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Take Sebastian for one example. He really is in way over his head, but his posts demonstrate that he believes himself to be an expertly educated professional. He obviously is not anything close to that. |
It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2011 : 20:53:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Tim Thompson....
The more years that pass, the deeper the realization grows in me that I truly know damn little about anything. Young people like chefcrsh cannot understand that perspective. His attitude is derisive of longevity. That will change with the growth of maturation.
|
WTF? bngbuck This shows you to be an ass on so many levels. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism about the Big Bang
