The greatest success story in physics

[IBDaMann]

I don't post on threads I know nothing about.

From what I observe, you post exclusively in threads on topics of which you know nothing to very little. Shall we rehash your complete lack of understanding of Marxism? Shall we rehash your complete lack of understanding of national defense? Shall we rehash your scientific illiteracy and your inability to explain what you mean by "the standard model"? Obviously the list goes on.

I know the standard model is an important part in the evolution of particle physics.

Once again, you don't know what "the standard model" even is, or what particle physics is or whether it is even evolving. I'm certain that you don't even know what a particle is.

 

[IBDaMann]

Please read through the entire post before responding. I am making a point here, but it takes a bit to get to it. It explains why I use the wording I use.

I read through your post. I totally understand why you use the wording you use ... it's because you are making a fundamental error concerning arguments/theories/theorems.

The error you are making is that you are conflating the assertion with the "rational basis" (support) for that assertion. The Pythagorean Theorem is the assertion that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, not the proof that it is so. We teach the theorem/assertion to children and they can learn the proof/support/rational basis later if they perhaps care to learn it. F=mA is an assertion that doesn't explain anything. You will never learn about all the experiments that went into convincing people that this assertion works every time; you will merely take the assertion and run with it like it's a hot stock tip. It's why we are able to have engineering; engineers don't reinvent any wheels, they just use the falsifiable assertions provided by science.

In fact, I would ask you if you are aware of any science model/theory that provides any explanation for anything beyond offering relationships that predict nature (or that enable humans to predict nature). I'd very much like to become more familiar with any such models.

No. A theory of science is falsifiable. Other than that, it is no different from any other theory.

Don't forget that it has to predict nature in order to be science. I can create a falsifiable mathematical model that isn't science simply because it doesn't predict nature.

Every theory has predicates.

All proofs/rationale/rational bases/support have predicates. The assertions/models do not; they are merely assertions/models.

Please remember that for centuries we had Fermat's last theorem, completely devoid of proof or any rational basis whatsoever. Nonetheless, we had the assertion/theorem, and no one could show it to be false, because it was eventually proven True with new mathematics. Similarly, if everyone were to forget how to prove the Pythagorean Theorem, or the world were to lose all data concerning Newton's laws of motion, the assertions/theorem/science would remain.

Your particular approach is to include in the overall package, whether expressed or implied, the rational support for the assertion as part of the science. I don't see any harm in this, but you are running counter to the fact that science does not use supporting evidence or argumentation. Science is a collection of assertions that have not been shown to be false. We can call those assertions "theories" or "models" or "arguments" ... but they do not venture into explaining anything. In fact, no explanation is required. The only requirement whatsoever is that which is levied against those who wish to challenge the assertion to show that the assertion is False.

 

[Into the Night]

Now to the point of phenomena, their observation and even formulation of that into an explanatory argument (a theory):

ALL observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Every single observation (including those that resulted in a theory of science), MUST be interpreted by our minds in accordance with how we think the Universe works.

I have given this example before, but it works well to show this.

Take the event of a sunrise, being observed by different people.

* To one, it is a god, rising above the horizon to light the people for His world.
* To another, it is a vehicle for such a god.
* To another, it is a moon orbiting a stationary Earth, but unlike the Moon, it brighter and produces daylight.
* To another, it is the effect of a spherical spinning Earth against a stationary Sun.

Four different interpretations of the same observation, each according to their own view of how they figure the Universe works; each mutually exclusive of each other.

The branch of philosophy that discusses this sort of thing is called phenomenology. EVERYTHING that our own sensors react to (including those augmented by any form of instrumentation) is subject to this problem. They MUST be interpreted by our minds before they have any meaning.

A theory is an explanatory argument. That means, first, that it is an argument. ALL arguments have two characteristics:
* a set of predicates.
* a conclusion.

The explanation part of a theory comes from the problems of phenomenology. This means, quite possibly, that the theory may be wrong or False. This affects ALL theories, both nonscientific theories AND theories of science.

To handle this, theories of science must have an additional characteristic: They are all falsifiable. This means the theory itself must:
* have available a test to try to break the theory (testing the null hypothesis of that theory). This test, of course, must be practical to conduct as well.
* the test must be specific. You must be able to describe the test in specific terms, either numerically (mathematically), or using a logic equation.
* the test must produce a specific result (a numeric or boolean result).

If a theory is so testable, it is automatically a theory of science. As long as the theory survives such tests, it will continue to be part of the body of science. The moment such a test shows the theory to be False, the theory is destroyed...utterly. It no longer exists except as a fallacy (argument of the Stone).

ALL theories of science are falsifiable. That is indeed the very definition of science. It requires no government, scientist, group, academy, university, laboratory, degree or other certification, or any blessing or sanctification by anyone or anything. The theory simply exists as a part of the body of science and will remain so until (and if) it is falsified. Until then, the theory is assumed to be True (although it is not possible to prove any theory True).

Why can science assume a theory to be True despite the inability to prove any theory True? For the simple reason that it is surviving tests designed to destroy it. There is no fixed boundary of such tests, however, so a theory may be falsified at any time. Until then, the fact that tests designed to destroy the theory that failed are enough to support the theory beyond a simple assertion.

This gives a theory of science much more weight then a nonscientific theory.

Nonscientific theories have no such test available. Like any other theory, however, they ARE an explanatory argument (even if the thing that the theory is explaining is an observation, subject to all the problems of phenomenology).

The Theory Global Warming is one example:
The observation is of the existence of government charts and records of increasing temperatures. It does not matter if the charts and temperatures are mathematically impossible to collect. The simple fact that they exist IS the observation, and the Theory of Global Warming is based upon it.

The Theory of Global Warming is a nonscientific theory, and so does not have to conform to the external consistency check used in science (a logical check if exclusivity...no theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science). Like any theory, it DOES try to explain the existence of these numbers, flawed as they are.

As I've stated before, a religion is based on some initial circular argument (which of course may be a nonscientific theory), with argument extending from that. The Church of Global Warming is no different. It conforms to this definition just as much as any other religion (including Christianity, or the Church of No God).

Is the Theory of Global Warming falsifable? No. The Earth may indeed be warming, cooling, or just staying the same temperature. The numbers to support this theory are of course completely manufactured (it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth), but that does NOT mean the Earth's temperature can change.

Commonly claimed methods of changing the Earth's temperature claimed by the Church of Global Warming include but is not limited to:
* Violating the 1st law of thermodynamics by attempting to add energy to the Earth by the mere presence of some Magick Holy Gas in the atmosphere.
* Violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics by attempting to heat a warmer surface using said gas (which is colder because it is in the atmosphere) using a colder gas. In other words, heating an object with a colder substance, sort of like trying to make hot coffee with ice cubes.
* Violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to trap light (energy) from leaving the surface of Earth or by attempting to use this law through bad algebra to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Common techniques is to try to change (falsify) these laws by using contrivances as 'proof', or by changing the law by adding or deleting variables and falsifying the result (a false equivalence fallacy).

So how does a theory of science differ?

Newton's law of motion, F=mA, comes from observations of phenomena and a coalition of existing theories of science into a combined whole. Newton describes much of his reasoning in The Principia, but some was not put in there, since it was simply assuming that Galileo's measurements (observations) were valid, and that Kepler's observations were valid. Additional observations (yes, subject to the problems of phenomenology) included cannonballs, thrown stones and balls, all seemed to follow some sort of curved path. Dropped objects seemed to follow some straight path, but at increasing speed.

Einstein, of course, quite correctly pointed out that the 'straight path', is actually just another parabola, and only appears straight depending on your point of view. This was also studied by Ernst Mach (of which the Mach is named after!), and later resulted in Einstein's theory of relativity. Far from falsifying Newton's law of motion, it enhanced and even simplified the reasoning behind it, since it better explained how such different phenomena (straight vs parabolic descent of an object) are actually the same thing, just in different frames of reference. Einstein took away the concept of an absolute zero motion (or ground reference) and simply noted that what you call zero is up to YOU. You decide the zero frame of reference!

Is Einstein's theory a theory of science? Yes. It is potentially falsifiable. If ANY instance could be found, for example, that there IS an absolute zero speed (and frame of reference), the theory would be falsified. So far, none has been found.

This would mean, of course, that the speed of light (as observed) can also be affected by frame of reference. Using the speed of light itself as the constant tying it all together (by referencing the work of Lorentz and the failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment), Einstein created two formulas extending this theory and transcribing it into mathematics, giving the power of prediction.

It is through these equations that nuclear physics found a explanation for why fission or fusion puts out energy, and why controlled fusion holds such promise (if it's even achievable through engineering).

Thus:

* Science is made of theories (explanatory arguments, not simple assertions) that must be falsifiable (testable against the null hypothesis of that theory).
* Nonscientific theories make up the bulk of religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism (and all the variants you see among American indians), various religions created by the Democrats, the Church of No God, and pretty much any other religion. In each case, they try to explain phenomena, or at least some perceived phenomena. Any one of these theories are potentially False, but none can be proven either True or False.
* Theories of science are also based on phenomena (or at least perceived phenomena) and are therefore potentially False, though none can be proven True.
* All theories are explanatory arguments. Arguments are a set of predicates and a conclusion. A simple assertion has no predicates. It is simply a conclusion, and not an argument at all, nor any theory.

 

[Into the Night]

I read through your post. I totally understand why you use the wording you use ... it's because you are making a fundamental error concerning arguments/theories/theorems.

The error you are making is that you are conflating the assertion with the "rational basis" (support) for that assertion. The Pythagorean Theorem is the assertion that a^2 + b^2 = c^2, not the proof that it is so.

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a theory, but a proof. It is called a 'theorem' by tradition only.

Also, please read the additional post I made.

 

[IBDaMann]

I could care less what ignorant shitheads like you think and am certainly not going to waste my time arguing with one.

Did you really think you were going to get away with pretending to be a thienth geniuth?

So, you are scientifically illiterate and no level of dishonesty is beneath you in your death-struggle to defend your WACKY Global Warming religion. That's where we stand.

Have a glorious day.

p.s. - the correct wording is "I could not care less ..." What you wrote implies that you care substantively.

 

[IBDaMann]

The Pythagorean Theorem is not a theory, but a proof.

Nope. The Pythagorean Theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2, and the proof of such is neat, but the proof is not the theorem.

It is called a 'theorem' by tradition only.

Incorrect. It's called a theorem because it is an assertion. The proof is reason you should accept the assertion.

Also, please read the additional post I made.

I will do so post haste.

 

[Into the Night]

Don't forget that it has to predict nature in order to be science.

I've covered this. Reread my two posts and you will see this.

All proofs/rationale/rational bases/support have predicates. The assertions/models do not; they are merely assertions/models.

A model is not an assertion. It is simply a noun, so to speak, where the theory is the verb making use of it. Science, of course, make use of many models. NONE of them are the theory itself, nor the actual Universe in any way. Imaging little bouncing balls against the walls of a container is one way to help describe the Ideal Gas law, for example, and it works quite well, but air is not just 'bouncy balls' for atoms or molecules. It is possible, for example, to CHANGE those molecules and manipulate them using chemistry.

Bohr's model of the atom is still used in teaching chemistry and electricity/electronics to this day, but science has long ago abandoned this model for others that better explain the characteristics observed in atoms.

Please remember that for centuries we had Fermat's last theorem, completely devoid of proof or any rational basis whatsoever. Nonetheless, we had the assertion/theorem, and no one could show it to be false, because it was eventually proven True with new mathematics. Similarly, if everyone were to forget how to prove the Pythagorean Theorem, or the world were to lose all data concerning Newton's laws of motion, the assertions/theorem/science would remain.

Please don't try to equate mathematics with theories. Theories exist without mathematics at all. Fermat's Conjecture was a simple assertion, not a theory.

Your particular approach is to include in the overall package, whether expressed or implied, the rational support for the assertion as part of the science. I don't see any harm in this, but you are running counter to the fact that science does not use supporting evidence or argumentation.

The theory itself is all the support the theory needs, once formed. The reasoning for that theory comes from observations, however. After that, the observation or any data collected by it is no longer needed, even though the formation of that theory was predicated upon the observation to begin with. Remember IF an observation was found to conflict with the earlier one, the theory can be falsified!

Science is a collection of assertions that have not been shown to be false.

It is not possible to prove an assertion either True or False.

We can call those assertions "theories" or "models" or "arguments"

A theory is not a model. It IS an argument, however. An assertion is neither a model, nor a theory, nor an argument.

... but they do not venture into explaining anything.

ALL theories explain something.

In fact, no explanation is required.

Every theory explains something. F=mA is no exception.

The only requirement whatsoever is that which is levied against those who wish to challenge the assertion to show that the assertion is False.

Science does not use assertions. Only falsifiable theories. It is not possible to prove an assertion as either True or False.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. The Pythagorean Theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2, and the proof of such is neat, but the proof is not the theorem.

The relationship is the direct result of a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

Eric is not the only one who says that the field of physics has been wrecked with incompetence and rent seeking, which makes the existence of this thread talking up these elites interesting.

It feels like narrative warring, trying to convince us against all evidence that we should continue to believe and follow the elites.

Physics has not been wrecked, Chicom.

 

[Into the Night]

It seems like the decline of physics is caused by the same thing as the decline of the entire West....greed and the desire to believe in fantasy rather than reality.

Physics has not declined, Chicom.

 

[Into the Night]

^^^ This was so fucking funny I'm going to add it to your litany of scientifically illiterate statements

"Quantum mechanics is the field of physics that explains how extremely small objects simultaneously have the characteristics of both particles and waves." (Scientific American magazine)

​

​

Science is not a magazine, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't post on threads I know nothing about. I know the standard model is an important part in the evolution of particle physics.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Which with me is the majority.

Me not being a GOD and all...

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

 

[Into the Night]

This thread has been wildly successful. It was flypaper that caught Rightwing trolls who claim scientific literacy, and exposed them as scientific illiterates

The Standard Model of particle physics is one of the most important theories in the history of science. America's premier particle physics lab calls it the most successful theory ever:

"The Standard Model: The most successful theory ever" (Fermilab National Physics Lab)

But you and your sock puppet Into the Night have been roaming around the thread demonstrating your ignorance of it's existence

​

​

There is no such thing as a 'standard model' in science.

 

[Into the Night]

Mission accomplished! I put this thread out as fly paper to trap Rightwing Trolls who bluster about their supposed scientific literacy, and expose them as scientific illiterates and frantic Googlers .

Evolution and the Big Bang are part of popular culture, but the Standard Model tends to only be familiar to people who actively read science journalism, even though it is one of the most important scientific theories in human history.

There is no such thing as a 'standard model' in science. Models are not theories.

The Theory of Evolution (which states that Man evolved from other species, such as monkeys) is NOT a theory of science. It is not falsifiable. It is not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is not falsifiable for the same reason.

BOTH are nonscientific theories, and BOTH have become religions.

 

[Cypress]

Please read through the entire post before responding. I am making a point here, but it takes a bit to get to it. It explains why I use the wording I use.

No. A theory is an explanatory argument. I will show why below.

No. A theory of science is falsifiable. Other than that, it is no different from any other theory (including those that became religions). I will show why below.

A theory is both.

Every theory has predicates.
Every theory has a conclusion based on those predicates. (These two characteristics make every theory an argument)
Every theory is explaining something. That is no different with any theory of science. Take F=mA, for example. Newton didn't just come up with this theory in a vacuum. It is an explanation of observed phenomena and a coalition of existing theories into one.

You really should learn the history of various theories of science and how they came to be. NONE of them were developed in a vacuum. NONE of them are simple assertions that are just made with no explanation of something.


Oops. You forgot the requirement of a crime that has to be explained. Any prosecutor presenting an assertion that doesn't have a crime to explain isn't going to get far! This is actually one of the biggest reasons that much of the persecution of Trump by Democrats doesn't really stick. They simply assert a 'crime' where no crime occurred. There is nothing to explain.

Not a simple assertion. ALL theories are explaining something...even theories of science, which explain some observed phenomena, or combines other theories based on that.

Fine.

No 'systematic battery of tests'. ANY test that shows the theory is wrong will work. ANY single test.

Internal consistency checks are NOT part of science, but of logic. ALL theories, both nonscientific theories and theories of science, must pass the Internal Consistency Check, or it's not a theory at all. It's a fallacy.

External consistency checks are part of logic, but also discuss the requirements of theories of science. This is nothing more than an expression of set exclusivity among theories of science (or anything else that makes use of such exclusivity).


You are describing a test, not a hypothesis. Tests are against the null hypothesis of a theory.

WRONG.
Anyone can make a simple assertion. That does NOT make it a theory of science by any means. Example:

I can simply assert that a god exists. That is not a theory of science. It is nothing more than a simple assertion. I don't even have to explain what this 'god' is. Note that this assertion doesn't explain anything at all.
According to your reasoning, this assertion is automatically part of the body of science until someone can prove it False.

Obviously, this line of reasoning results in an attempt to force a negative proof, a fallacy. Science is not based on any fallacy or fallacious reasoning.

As Newton developed F=mA, he was explaining why observed cannonballs or even a thrown stone or ball followed a parabolic curve, why Galileo's measurements were so consistent, why other things seem to fall straight to ground, and why the planets followed their regular courses (from Kepler) and saw he could combine them all into a single relationship.

Circular argument fallacy. You cannot use the conclusion as a cause in a theory of science. You just violated the internal consistency check.

Narrow thinking. The explanation why a theory states what it states is NOT based on the theory itself. That forms circular reasoning.

Correct. Newton observed the phenomena of gravity's effects, created a relationship to explain it, but never attempted to explain what caused gravity itself. He simply accepted that it exists as a force of nature. Once this theory is in place, a question becomes: what OTHER forces of nature are there? How many? This sort of question was never really brought up with such focus before Newton's theory of motion (and also his theory of gravitational attraction).

But they are. EVERY SINGLE THEORY of science is explaining something. Either observed phenomena, or how existing theories (based on that) fit together into a single relationship.

Again, I urge you to study the history of science, how these theories came into being, and the fascinating stories behind them. NONE of these theories are just an assertion made in a vacuum.

Religion is not science. You already know that. BOTH use theories, however. BOTH use those theories to explain various phenomena. The big difference is that a theory of science can be tested to see if it's wrong. A nonscientific theory (which all religions are based upon), cannot. This is the sole difference.

That is exactly what science does. It is also exactly what religion does.
The sole difference between them is that theories of science are falsifiable. They can be tested to try to break the theory. A nonscientific theory cannot. All religions are based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. Many of these are theories, just no theories of science.

No. The model is the noun. The theory is the verb, using the model to represent a snippet of the universe the theory is explaining. The model AND the theory are specifically created for the purpose.

Models don't predict anything. Theories don't predict anything. Prediction is not possible in an open functional system (such as science). The theory MUST be transcribed (or created within) a closed functional system to gain the power of the formal proof and the power of prediction that comes with it. Mathematics, of course, is such a closed functional system and has within it the power of prediction and the power of the formal proof. One comes with the other.

I realize you don't prefer my wording, but this wording comes from the English language, logic, and philosophy. Philosophy, I might point out, that you have already agreed to it's reasoning.

And here it is, all hanging out pink and naked. Theories of science predict a cause->effect. They are explaining why the cause->effect takes place! Once inside mathematics, a closed functional system, the power of prediction of that cause->effect becomes possible.

Technology, however, is NOT science. It certainly makes use of it, but it itself is not science. Engineering is not science. Technology is the result of engineering.


This you have pegged exactly. We have seen this so many times before. This kind of behavior is mostly a collection of buzzword fallacies (they don't even know what their magick phrases even mean most of the time!). It also makes use of redefinition fallacies (including redefining some theory of science to some nightmare bastardization by adding or deleting or arbitrarily changing units of a relationship to take it out of context). Contextomy fallacies are also common, of course, since the theory redefinitions are often based on that. They then finish off with a circular argument fallacy showing their 'proof' (which is only based on fallacies itself) that their theory is True.

Discussions of Bessler wheels, Global Warming, Ozone Holes, Magick Bacteria and the I'm a Famous Scientist types (and others that like to puff themselves up using 'scientific' buzzwords), Perpetual Motion Machine types, etc. ALL do this. We have seen it. You and I have seen these types for years.

Yes. It does get old. I frankly don't blame you for getting particularly snarky with them. Some of your memes are getting particularly good!

Now to the point of phenomena, their observation and even formulation of that into an explanatory argument (a theory):

ALL observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Every single observation (including those that resulted in a theory of science), MUST be interpreted by our minds in accordance with how we think the Universe works.

I have given this example before, but it works well to show this.

Take the event of a sunrise, being observed by different people.

* To one, it is a god, rising above the horizon to light the people for His world.
* To another, it is a vehicle for such a god.
* To another, it is a moon orbiting a stationary Earth, but unlike the Moon, it brighter and produces daylight.
* To another, it is the effect of a spherical spinning Earth against a stationary Sun.

Four different interpretations of the same observation, each according to their own view of how they figure the Universe works; each mutually exclusive of each other.

The branch of philosophy that discusses this sort of thing is called phenomenology. EVERYTHING that our own sensors react to (including those augmented by any form of instrumentation) is subject to this problem. They MUST be interpreted by our minds before they have any meaning.

A theory is an explanatory argument. That means, first, that it is an argument. ALL arguments have two characteristics:
* a set of predicates.
* a conclusion.

The explanation part of a theory comes from the problems of phenomenology. This means, quite possibly, that the theory may be wrong or False. This affects ALL theories, both nonscientific theories AND theories of science.

To handle this, theories of science must have an additional characteristic: They are all falsifiable. This means the theory itself must:
* have available a test to try to break the theory (testing the null hypothesis of that theory). This test, of course, must be practical to conduct as well.
* the test must be specific. You must be able to describe the test in specific terms, either numerically (mathematically), or using a logic equation.
* the test must produce a specific result (a numeric or boolean result).

If a theory is so testable, it is automatically a theory of science. As long as the theory survives such tests, it will continue to be part of the body of science. The moment such a test shows the theory to be False, the theory is destroyed...utterly. It no longer exists except as a fallacy (argument of the Stone).

ALL theories of science are falsifiable. That is indeed the very definition of science. It requires no government, scientist, group, academy, university, laboratory, degree or other certification, or any blessing or sanctification by anyone or anything. The theory simply exists as a part of the body of science and will remain so until (and if) it is falsified. Until then, the theory is assumed to be True (although it is not possible to prove any theory True).

Why can science assume a theory to be True despite the inability to prove any theory True? For the simple reason that it is surviving tests designed to destroy it. There is no fixed boundary of such tests, however, so a theory may be falsified at any time. Until then, the fact that tests designed to destroy the theory that failed are enough to support the theory beyond a simple assertion.

This gives a theory of science much more weight then a nonscientific theory.

Nonscientific theories have no such test available. Like any other theory, however, they ARE an explanatory argument (even if the thing that the theory is explaining is an observation, subject to all the problems of phenomenology).

The Theory Global Warming is one example:
The observation is of the existence of government charts and records of increasing temperatures. It does not matter if the charts and temperatures are mathematically impossible to collect. The simple fact that they exist IS the observation, and the Theory of Global Warming is based upon it.

The Theory of Global Warming is a nonscientific theory, and so does not have to conform to the external consistency check used in science (a logical check if exclusivity...no theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science). Like any theory, it DOES try to explain the existence of these numbers, flawed as they are.

As I've stated before, a religion is based on some initial circular argument (which of course may be a nonscientific theory), with argument extending from that. The Church of Global Warming is no different. It conforms to this definition just as much as any other religion (including Christianity, or the Church of No God).

Is the Theory of Global Warming falsifable? No. The Earth may indeed be warming, cooling, or just staying the same temperature. The numbers to support this theory are of course completely manufactured (it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth), but that does NOT mean the Earth's temperature can change.

Commonly claimed methods of changing the Earth's temperature claimed by the Church of Global Warming include but is not limited to:
* Violating the 1st law of thermodynamics by attempting to add energy to the Earth by the mere presence of some Magick Holy Gas in the atmosphere.
* Violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics by attempting to heat a warmer surface using said gas (which is colder because it is in the atmosphere) using a colder gas. In other words, heating an object with a colder substance, sort of like trying to make hot coffee with ice cubes.
* Violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to trap light (energy) from leaving the surface of Earth or by attempting to use this law through bad algebra to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Common techniques is to try to change (falsify) these laws by using contrivances as 'proof', or by changing the law by adding or deleting variables and falsifying the result (a false equivalence fallacy).

So how does a theory of science differ?

Newton's law of motion, F=mA, comes from observations of phenomena and a coalition of existing theories of science into a combined whole. Newton describes much of his reasoning in The Principia, but some was not put in there, since it was simply assuming that Galileo's measurements (observations) were valid, and that Kepler's observations were valid. Additional observations (yes, subject to the problems of phenomenology) included cannonballs, thrown stones and balls, all seemed to follow some sort of curved path. Dropped objects seemed to follow some straight path, but at increasing speed.

Einstein, of course, quite correctly pointed out that the 'straight path', is actually just another parabola, and only appears straight depending on your point of view. This was also studied by Ernst Mach (of which the Mach is named after!), and later resulted in Einstein's theory of relativity. Far from falsifying Newton's law of motion, it enhanced and even simplified the reasoning behind it, since it better explained how such different phenomena (straight vs parabolic descent of an object) are actually the same thing, just in different frames of reference. Einstein took away the concept of an absolute zero motion (or ground reference) and simply noted that what you call zero is up to YOU. You decide the zero frame of reference!

Is Einstein's theory a theory of science? Yes. It is potentially falsifiable. If ANY instance could be found, for example, that there IS an absolute zero speed (and frame of reference), the theory would be falsified. So far, none has been found.

This would mean, of course, that the speed of light (as observed) can also be affected by frame of reference. Using the speed of light itself as the constant tying it all together (by referencing the work of Lorentz and the failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment), Einstein created two formulas extending this theory and transcribing it into mathematics, giving the power of prediction.

It is through these equations that nuclear physics found a explanation for why fission or fusion puts out energy, and why controlled fusion holds such promise (if it's even achievable through engineering).

Thus:

* Science is made of theories (explanatory arguments, not simple assertions) that must be falsifiable (testable against the null hypothesis of that theory).
* Nonscientific theories make up the bulk of religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, Shintoism (and all the variants you see among American indians), various religions created by the Democrats, the Church of No God, and pretty much any other religion. In each case, they try to explain phenomena, or at least some perceived phenomena. Any one of these theories are potentially False, but none can be proven either True or False.
* Theories of science are also based on phenomena (or at least perceived phenomena) and are therefore potentially False, though none can be proven True.
* All theories are explanatory arguments. Arguments are a set of predicates and a conclusion. A simple assertion has no predicates. It is simply a conclusion, and not an argument at all, nor any theory.

^^^ Someone doesn't have any family or friends to hang with on Easter Sunday.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have given this example before, but it works well to show this. Take the event of a sunrise, being observed by different people.

* To one, it is a god, rising above the horizon to light the people for His world.
* To another, it is a vehicle for such a god.
* To another, it is a moon orbiting a stationary Earth, but unlike the Moon, it brighter and produces daylight.
* To another, it is the effect of a spherical spinning Earth against a stationary Sun.

One asserts that the god Inti is lighting the world for his people
Another asserts that Apollo's chariot is carrying Apollo across the heavens on his daily routine.
Another asserts that the "bright" moon is passing.
Another asserts that the earth is an orb that is spinning.

Got it. Thus far, neither has provided any rational basis for his assertion.

A theory is an explanatory argument.

Thus far, we have no explanations, only assertions.

That means, first, that it is an argument. ALL arguments have two characteristics:
* a set of predicates.
* a conclusion.

This is where you get twisted around the axle. You are discussing proofs/rational bases, the purposes of which are to support assertions, which is why they always "conclude" the theorem/assertion.

So, if I say to you "I assert that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides" ... I might not have ever proved it, but rather extrapolated (guessed) from some examples that I have and noted that it seems to work. This would correctly be called "IBDaMann's theorem" and you might not buy it right away. You might require more convincing. I could pull out the examples that I have and that might be good enough for you ... or you might try thirty other cases and convince yourself when you find that it seems to work. Either way, we still have a theorem/assertion, regardless of the fact that it has not been proved (as far as we know). Similarly, if I assert F=mA, we can never prove it True. We will have this assertion until it is shown to be false.

The explanation part of a theory comes from the problems of phenomenology. This means, quite possibly, that the theory may be wrong or False. This affects ALL theories, both nonscientific theories AND theories of science.

Sure. Until that day, however, the assertion stands.

To handle this, theories of science must have an additional characteristic: They are all falsifiable.

Correct. This means that the model itself is the authority as to what shows it to be false, not any person, i.e. the model itself specifies what is required to show it to be false.

If a theory is so testable, it is automatically a theory of science.

Nothing gets to be called science until it has survived the scrutiny of scientific method, which means that internal consistency holds, the external consistency has been at least scrutinized, and at least the null hypothesis has been tested. You can assert lots of neat things, but no assertion garners the label of "science" until having met a minimum level of rigor. This doesn't mean that an inventor, say, must somehow wait to start building something until the underlying assertion is declared "science" by anyone.

[lots of good review of science]

I totally agree.

Until then, the fact that tests designed to destroy the theory that failed are enough to support the theory beyond a simple assertion.

The assertion is what the tests are designed to destroy. They aren't designed to destroy any supporting evidence.

Nonscientific theories have no such test available.

Sure they do. Don't confuse falsifiable non-science assertions (ones that merely don't predict nature) with unfalsifiable assertions. Simulations can be run on models that have their own version of "physics engines" or that use non-Euclidean geometry or that are simply logical or mathematical models (my previous mention of SysML being a good example) shows that they are falsifiable while not being science.

Of course, no prosecutor's assertion of "who dunnit" can be considered falsifiable without recorded evidence (transcending time) because we don't have time travel and assertions about the past are therefore entirely speculative.

The Theory Global Warming is one example:

Sadly, the assertion of greenhouse effect and of Global Warming serves as prime examples of many logical antipatterns.

The observation is of the existence of government charts and records of increasing temperatures. It does not matter if the charts and temperatures are mathematically impossible to collect. The simple fact that they exist IS the observation, and the Theory of Global Warming is based upon it.

I disagree. The observation is not of that which is asserted. The observation is merely of the assertion itself, which is then regurgitated to the next person who will observe the assertion being asserted, and who will then regurgitate the assertion to the next person, and so on and so forth. The religion is one of preaching the required dogma on faith alone, without ever questioning the original assertion, only regurgitating it.

The Theory of Global Warming is a nonscientific theory, and so does not have to conform to the external consistency check used in science (a logical check if exclusivity...no theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science). Like any theory, it DOES try to explain the existence of these numbers, flawed as they are.

You are well aware that this is not our experience. Warmizombies open with preaching the assertion, that Global Warming is settled science, but promptly EVADE all such explanation and AVOID all such science. They will not define terms and will not clarify the gibberish they spew. This is deliberate non-explanation and is antithetical to supporting an argument, i.e. it is preaching that demands unquestioning acceptance.

As I've stated before, a religion is based on some initial circular argument (which of course may be a nonscientific theory)

My wording is that religions have a dogma (no connotation implied, just a set of required assumptions, circular or otherwise) that represent personal beliefs and require no rational basis.

Warmizombies pull the rug out from under their own religion by declaring that their religion is not a religion, but instead insist that it is science. This garners their religion the logical value of False the moment the scientific method is applied, which is for what warmizombies unwittingly beg when they declare their religion to be science.

The Earth may indeed be warming, cooling, or just staying the same temperature.

One difference between religion and science that is rarely mentioned is that whereas religions are not subject to any rules about what beliefs their respective dogmas consider "mandatory," science carries the "Occam's Razor" philosophy that an assertion must have a rational basis in order to say that it should/must be accepted. In this case, Occam's Razor says that since no temperature change can be discerned, there is no reason to believe it, or alternatively, all things being equal, not believing that there is any temperature change in the first place is the simplest model, so Occam's Razor cuts that assertion away. One thing warmizombies forget is that the humans of planet earth would be able to discern an earth whose average global equilibrium temperature had increased by 40C, even though we would not be able to measure it. The fact that humans, such as myself, cannot discern any temperature difference, or any ocean level difference*, or any loss of any coral reefs, etc ... precludes any reason to accept the Climate Change assertion or any of its dogma.

* - something that I will be adding to the "ways to verify no sea level rise" debunk on Politiplex is the Santa Monica pier, featured prominently in GTA5. It got me thinking. There was an episode of The Rockford Files (1970s) centering on the Santa Monica pier (underside, antagonist dumping bodies at low tide) and it is exactly that way today. It hasn't changed. In fact, the part of the pier up close to the beach hasn't changed discernably since its construction in 1909.

The numbers to support this theory are of course completely manufactured

I require no convincing. Your point is granted.

So how does a theory of science differ? Newton's law of motion, F=mA, comes from observations of phenomena and a coalition of existing theories of science into a combined whole.

You are also aware that this is also irrelevant. How a theory comes about is totally immaterial. Stefan-Boltzmann came into existence as the result of taking an integral. Anything can bring an assertion into existence, and nothing is ever captured in the resulting assertion ... no data, no research, no observations, no explanations, no episodes of the Rockford Files ... nothing.

Newton describes much of his reasoning in The Principia,

... and we agree that The Principia is not science. However, if I could direct your attention to said work:

PROPOSITION I. THEOREM 1. The areas, which revolving bodies describe by radii drawn to an immovable centra of force, do lie in the same immovable planes, and are proportional to the times in which they are described.

PROPOSITION II. THEOREM II. Every body that moves in any curve line described in a plane, and by a radius, drawn to a point either immovable, or moving forward with an uniform rectilinear motion, describes about that point areas propor
tional to the times, is urged by a centripetal force directed to that point.

PROPOSITION III. THEOREM III. Every body, that by a radius drawn to the centre of another body, howsoever moved, describes areas about that centre proportional to the times, is urged by a force compounded out of the centripetal force sending to that other body, and of all the accelerative force by which that otherbody is impelled.

PROPOSITION IV. THEOREM IV. The centripetal forces of bodies, which by equable motions describe differ ent circles, tend to the centres of the same circles ; and are one to the other as the squares of the arcs described in equal times applied to the radii of the circles.

PROPOSITION VI THEOREM V. In a space void of resistance, if a body revolves in any orbit about animmovable centre, and in the least time describes any arc just then, nascent ; and the versed sine of that arc is supposed to be drawn bisecting the chord, and produced passing through the centre offorce: thecentripetal force in the middle of the arc will be as the versed sine directly and the square of the time inversely.

If the ellipsis, by having its centre removed to an infinite distance, de generates into a parabola, the body will move in tin s parabola ; and the force, now tending to a centre infinitely remote, will become equable. Which is Galileo's theorem.

Of course the book provides support for these theorems/assertions, but you wish to include the support/rational basis as part of a theorem, but it isn't. The rational basis can be omitted without losing any of the "proposition." Acceptance of the theorem might suffer, but acceptance of the theorem is not the theorem itself. The rational basis can be altered for clarity and the assertion does not change.

Einstein, of course, quite correctly pointed out that the 'straight path', is actually just another parabola,

As you often allude, perception is not reality. Feeling that it is hot does not verify Global Warming. A human perception of a straight path is ignoring all the other relationships. All lines are curves, but not all curves are straight lines.

Einstein took away the concept of an absolute zero motion (or ground reference) and simply noted that what you call zero is up to YOU. You decide the zero frame of reference!

It's like Einstein was trying to claim that everything is relative. I wonder how that worked out for him.

Is Einstein's theory a theory of science? Yes. It is potentially falsifiable.

It is falsifiable, not just potentially. All that is needed are separate inertial frames of reference. This is one case wherein satellites provide the necessary magic. GPS satellites, being timing systems, provide everything necessary to test Relativity. It's how we know that clocks in separate inertial reference frames cannot be synchronized.

If ANY instance could be found, for example, that there IS an absolute zero speed (and frame of reference), the theory would be falsified.

You would have to first show that that assertion follows from Relativity. I can understand the lack of any absolute zero speed being intuitive, but I don't recall it ever being derived from Relativity.

This would mean, of course, that the speed of light (as observed) can also be affected by frame of reference.

Nope. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is the same for all observers, irrespective of inerntial frame of reference.

Getting back to wording, I don't personally care how you package "theories." The important thing is that you are defining your terms, which you are at liberty to do as you see fit. The only point of contention will be rather cosmetic, but will highlight the fact that you and I are using different wording, is when you claim that science somehow explains things, and then either I or someone else points to the science and asks you to point out the explanation in that science. Of course, you will not be able to point to any explanation because there isn't any there, nor is there any data, nor research, nor "studies" nor any other observations ... only an assertion that amounts to a prediction of nature.

I could certainly jump onboard with wording to the effect of the rational basis for any science being an explanation for a great many things. Asserting that a force in one direction will result in an equal force in the opposite direction, i.e. F1 = -F2, calls for support (rational basis) that will certainly prove enlightening to whomever is learning it for the first time. None of that explanation, however, can be found in F1 = -F2.

 

[IBDaMann]

The relationship is the direct result of a proof.

You don't know this. The proof might have followed the assertion, i.e. the proof was driven/motivated by the assertion. We don't have time machines to verify.

 

[goat]

One asserts that the god Inti is lighting the world for his people
Another asserts that Apollo's chariot is carrying Apollo across the heavens on his daily routine.
Another asserts that the "bright" moon is passing.
Another asserts that the earth is an orb that is spinning.

Got it. Thus far, neither has provided any rational basis for his assertion.


Thus far, we have no explanations, only assertions.


This is where you get twisted around the axle. You are discussing proofs/rational bases, the purposes of which are to support assertions, which is why they always "conclude" the theorem/assertion.

So, if I say to you "I assert that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the square root of the sum of the squares of the other two sides" ... I might not have ever proved it, but rather extrapolated (guessed) from some examples that I have and noted that it seems to work. This would correctly be called "IBDaMann's theorem" and you might not buy it right away. You might require more convincing. I could pull out the examples that I have and that might be good enough for you ... or you might try thirty other cases and convince yourself when you find that it seems to work. Either way, we still have a theorem/assertion, regardless of the fact that it has not been proved (as far as we know). Similarly, if I assert F=mA, we can never prove it True. We will have this assertion until it is shown to be false.


Sure. Until that day, however, the assertion stands.


Correct. This means that the model itself is the authority as to what shows it to be false, not any person, i.e. the model itself specifies what is required to show it to be false.


Nothing gets to be called science until it has survived the scrutiny of scientific method, which means that internal consistency holds, the external consistency has been at least scrutinized, and at least the null hypothesis has been tested. You can assert lots of neat things, but no assertion garners the label of "science" until having met a minimum level of rigor. This doesn't mean that an inventor, say, must somehow wait to start building something until the underlying assertion is declared "science" by anyone.


I totally agree.


The assertion is what the tests are designed to destroy. They aren't designed to destroy any supporting evidence.


Sure they do. Don't confuse falsifiable non-science assertions (ones that merely don't predict nature) with unfalsifiable assertions. Simulations can be run on models that have their own version of "physics engines" or that use non-Euclidean geometry or that are simply logical or mathematical models (my previous mention of SysML being a good example) shows that they are falsifiable while not being science.

Of course, no prosecutor's assertion of "who dunnit" can be considered falsifiable without recorded evidence (transcending time) because we don't have time travel and assertions about the past are therefore entirely speculative.


Sadly, the assertion of greenhouse effect and of Global Warming serves as prime examples of many logical antipatterns.


I disagree. The observation is not of that which is asserted. The observation is merely of the assertion itself, which is then regurgitated to the next person who will observe the assertion being asserted, and who will then regurgitate the assertion to the next person, and so on and so forth. The religion is one of preaching the required dogma on faith alone, without ever questioning the original assertion, only regurgitating it.


You are well aware that this is not our experience. Warmizombies open with preaching the assertion, that Global Warming is settled science, but promptly EVADE all such explanation and AVOID all such science. They will not define terms and will not clarify the gibberish they spew. This is deliberate non-explanation and is antithetical to supporting an argument, i.e. it is preaching that demands unquestioning acceptance.


My wording is that religions have a dogma (no connotation implied, just a set of required assumptions, circular or otherwise) that represent personal beliefs and require no rational basis.

Warmizombies pull the rug out from under their own religion by declaring that their religion is not a religion, but instead insist that it is science. This garners their religion the logical value of False the moment the scientific method is applied, which is for what warmizombies unwittingly beg when they declare their religion to be science.


One difference between religion and science that is rarely mentioned is that whereas religions are not subject to any rules about what beliefs their respective dogmas consider "mandatory," science carries the "Occam's Razor" philosophy that an assertion must have a rational basis in order to say that it should/must be accepted. In this case, Occam's Razor says that since no temperature change can be discerned, there is no reason to believe it, or alternatively, all things being equal, not believing that there is any temperature change in the first place is the simplest model, so Occam's Razor cuts that assertion away. One thing warmizombies forget is that the humans of planet earth would be able to discern an earth whose average global equilibrium temperature had increased by 40C, even though we would not be able to measure it. The fact that humans, such as myself, cannot discern any temperature difference, or any ocean level difference*, or any loss of any coral reefs, etc ... precludes any reason to accept the Climate Change assertion or any of its dogma.

* - something that I will be adding to the "ways to verify no sea level rise" debunk on Politiplex is the Santa Monica pier, featured prominently in GTA5. It got me thinking. There was an episode of The Rockford Files (1970s) centering on the Santa Monica pier (underside, antagonist dumping bodies at low tide) and it is exactly that way today. It hasn't changed. In fact, the part of the pier up close to the beach hasn't changed discernably since its construction in 1909.

I require no convincing. Your point is granted.


You are also aware that this is also irrelevant. How a theory comes about is totally immaterial. Stefan-Boltzmann came into existence as the result of taking an integral. Anything can bring an assertion into existence, and nothing is ever captured in the resulting assertion ... no data, no research, no observations, no explanations, no episodes of the Rockford Files ... nothing.


... and we agree that The Principia is not science. However, if I could direct your attention to said work:


Of course the book provides support for these theorems/assertions, but you wish to include the support/rational basis as part of a theorem, but it isn't. The rational basis can be omitted without losing any of the "proposition." Acceptance of the theorem might suffer, but acceptance of the theorem is not the theorem itself. The rational basis can be altered for clarity and the assertion does not change.


As you often allude, perception is not reality. Feeling that it is hot does not verify Global Warming. A human perception of a straight path is ignoring all the other relationships. All lines are curves, but not all curves are straight lines.


It's like Einstein was trying to claim that everything is relative. I wonder how that worked out for him.


It is falsifiable, not just potentially. All that is needed are separate inertial frames of reference. This is one case wherein satellites provide the necessary magic. GPS satellites, being timing systems, provide everything necessary to test Relativity. It's how we know that clocks in separate inertial reference frames cannot be synchronized.


You would have to first show that that assertion follows from Relativity. I can understand the lack of any absolute zero speed being intuitive, but I don't recall it ever being derived from Relativity.


Nope. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is the same for all observers, irrespective of inerntial frame of reference.

Getting back to wording, I don't personally care how you package "theories." The important thing is that you are defining your terms, which you are at liberty to do as you see fit. The only point of contention will be rather cosmetic, but will highlight the fact that you and I are using different wording, is when you claim that science somehow explains things, and then either I or someone else points to the science and asks you to point out the explanation in that science. Of course, you will not be able to point to any explanation because there isn't any there, nor is there any data, nor research, nor "studies" nor any other observations ... only an assertion that amounts to a prediction of nature.

I could certainly jump onboard with wording to the effect of the rational basis for any science being an explanation for a great many things. Asserting that a force in one direction will result in an equal force in the opposite direction, i.e. F1 = -F2, calls for support (rational basis) that will certainly prove enlightening to whomever is learning it for the first time. None of that explanation, however, can be found in F1 = -F2.

Who do you think will read and respond to this crap? We're on an obscure political message board. You're not publishing a paper here. There has to be a reason you refuse to keep it simple and clear. I can post the psychology on this if you want.

 

[IBDaMann]

Who do you think will read and respond to this crap?

The intended audience. I certainly wasn't intending for you to respond, if that's what you're asking; you can't even read half of it and you wouldn't understand the remaining half.

There has to be a reason you refuse to keep it simple and clear.

My intended audience seems to find it simple and clear. Are you experiencing FOMO? Try learning some science and that will happen less.