Post by Mike H on Oct 31, 2012 9:55:20 GMT -5
Here at Integrated Post, we don't use the old 17th century scientific model of observe, predict, experiment.
We use the Rational Scientific Method.
Where Science Went Wrong
Hypothesis, Theory and Conclusion: A Rational Scientific Method
In science, a definition is a limitation or restriction on the use of a word. Scientific definitions are rational, non-contradictory, unambiguous terms that are consistently used, and narrowly defined by the person who is making the hypothesis. We use adjectives to modify nouns (objects) and adverbs to qualify verbs (concepts).
Science in general, and physics in particular, is about the physical... those things which have physical presence. What is real. Things that exist. To exist means to have shape, and location. that is, matter with a location. We visualize objects, and we explain concepts. WE DO NOT EXPLAIN OBJECTS. We point to them. We explain phenomena. Herein lies the problem with today’s scientific inquiry.
The Scientific Method is hypothesis, theory, and conclusion. The hypothesis is about the statement of facts, the key terms, and the objects. The hypothesis describes the phenomena, or, illustrates the objects, defines the key terms, then makes assumptions (a statement of facts- not facts themselves). One does not define objects, one illustrates them. The theory explains the hypothesis. Everyone must decide for themselves, and form a conclusion that the theory is either possible, or it is not possible. That is all that can be done.
Science and Physics are about physically present objects. Understanding the difference between objects, and concepts allows one to rationally make a conclusion about the Key Terms, and the statement of facts at the hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method.
persuasion is for math. Science never persuades. Science, and physics are about physical reality. Math describes abstract dynamic concepts whereas physics illustrates static physical objects.
A hypothesis stands on its own. It matters not weather we agree. The hypothesis should illustrate the objects, define the key terms, and set the stage for the first scene. The theory then would explain the hypothesis. There is no correctness or incorrectness of a hypothesis (it is an assumption). It is either rational or not. If it is rational, we accept the assumption of the hypothesis. 'Predictions,' and observations are opinions, and are extra-scientific.
Flat Earth Hypothesis:
objects- Earth, Person
The Earth, and a person = we all know what I'm talking about, no need to define either.
Earth = Illustration of a pancake shaped earth
Person = illustration of a person standing on the edge of the pancake with one foot off, and one foot dangling over the edge.
Statement of Facts (Assumption): If a person walks off the edge of the earth they will fall off.
Theory:
(Explanation) If a person walks off the edge of the earth they will fall, just as if walking towards, and falling off of, a cliff.
Conclusion: That makes sense. It certainly is possible!
Hypotheses are assumptions, theories explain the hypothesis. We form a conclusion that the theory is either possible, or it is not possible.
We describe objects in the hypothesis, we explain concepts in the theory. We never explain objects, we illustrate them or point to them. This is why, in science, it is crucial to understand the difference between objects, and concepts. Nouns, and verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
We can say: I see a field of corn. The corn stalks wave in the wind. I got a dust particle in my eye. BUT ...Fields, waves, and point particles are concepts in math, do not exist in physical reality, and should not be presented in the hypothesis.
"Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact." -- Einstein
The mathematical physicist loves to use ambiguous or contradictory terms, and even does that inconsistently. He or she confuses objects and concepts, nouns and verbs, adverbs and adjectives. Then after confusing you, Debroglie Waves at you and rides off on his three wheeled unicycle!
Reality does not depend on human perception or observation. It is because the human senses are limited, and flawed, that science must be as objective as possible. The way we do this is by removing the observer. The scientific method is observer independent, as much as possible. First, we test our hypothesis at the conceptual level with rationality, reason, and critical thinking. When it comes down to it, these are our best tools and can not be impersuaded upon at the hypothesis stage. While our senses are limited, there is no limit to our intellect.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.”—Albert Einstein
One must apply rationality, reasoning, and critical thought at the conceptual stage in the hypothesis.
Precision is precious. Defining key terms is critically important. Understanding the difference between concepts, and objects is very helpful in unraveling geek speak. It is essential in dealing with science in general, and physics in particular.
In science, one must be able to visualize the concrete object. Objects must be illustrated in the hypothesis. The objects are the actors, the KEY TERMS make clear the meaning (of the script) and the statement of facts sets the initial scene of the theory. The abstract concept in the theory is describing the phenomena of the hypothesis. The conclusion is the epilog or final scene. Each person takes away their own conclusion as to weather the story was possible or not. The hypothesis is a static photo, the theory is a dynamic movie.
Most important are the KEY TERMS, and these words have meaning as defined by the theorist. In science, one can only use objects which can be illustrated in the hypothesis. If it can not be illustrated or visualized, then it is not real, casts no shadow, and has no physical presence. What is not physical has no place in science.
Science, especially Physics is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial & error) is empirical.
I contend that planes that fly, microwaves that heat, and GPS devices that measure your position work primarily because of technology through trial and error and not because the theories that they are supposedly founded upon are correct.
The big picture is the confusion between objects and concepts. There is no good way to discuss General or Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, or the multiple dimensions of Many Worlds Interpretation until the point, line and plane can be defined and understood. Math attempts to describe dynamic concepts by moving numbers. Physics is about reality. What exists, that is physical presence-objects with location that are made up of matter. These are static, and can be photographed or illustrated. But we must be able to define what ‘exist’ means.
Experiment with defining key terms in precise, unambiguous, non-contradictory fashion and see where that leads you. Try finding better definitions than these:
Universe = matter (atoms) and space (nothing)
Concept = two objects or two locations of an object (relationship between objects or, nested concepts).
Object = that which has shape
Space = that which does not have shape
Exists = matter + location
Location = the set of static distances to all other objects
Motion = object + 2 or more locations
Now learn the difference between a noun and a verb, adjective and an adverb. Then define time, energy, force and wave. No theologian, atheist, philosopher, mathematician or physicist will ever confuse you or lie to you again.
Recently someone said to me:
“Theories don't explain- they predict. Consider gravity- Newton's law tells you the attraction between two masses, and it's mostly consistent with the mostly elliptical orbits that we observe the planets moving in.”
Well, right ...theoretical physics like ToR and QM theories don't explain anything. That's the problem. Theories predict but do not explain? What good is that? I could care less that Newton tells me an apple falls at whatever ft per second per second. I want to know why. I can point at an apple and say look it is falling real fast. So what?
Math 'predicts' how fast something falls to the ground, but says nothing about why.
Ptolemy "predicted' to a high degree of accuracy the position of the planets in the solar system. Except that he had the earth in the center. But how does that help explain why the planets orbit in elliptical paths and don't fly out into space?
And what about these 'predictions'? If I observe an apple fall a few times, and measure its speed, and distance traveled, I can 'predict' how fast an apple falls. What does that tell me? It sure does not tell me when an apple is going to fall. Now THAT would be a real prediction. Something that already happened is described and should then be explained. Something that we have observed happen repeatedly can lead us to think that there is a high degree of probability that it will happen that way again. But that is not really a prediction. It's a guess.
Belief, opinion, persuasion, persuasion, experiments, and observation are not part of the scientific method. The SM is observer-independent.
Science (especially Theoretical physics) is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial & error) is empirical.
Here’s the root of the problem: It all revolves around simple misunderstandings of basic physical reality brought on by Euclidean geometry. Because the point, the line, and the plane are not defined, or defined ambiguously, and are concepts (not objects) they therefore do not represent actual physical reality! A rather shaky basis to form physical laws of the universe such as SR, GR and QM!
Scientific Method (our model for purposes of this discussion):
We assume in the hypothesis stage. If the assumptions are rational, then we can proceed to the theory.
We define our key terms, and make a statement of the facts (the opening scene; i.e., man standing on the edge of a large pancake).
The objects of the hypothesis are described or illustrated (a photograph).
Theory explains the hypothesis; motion, or process is presented as a movie.
Conclusion: possible or not possible? Everyone decides for themselves. It's the best that we can hope for.
Now of course, if one does not accept the model of the SM proposed, then the presentation never begins. Unless there is a better method we can adopt for our presentation we should all go home.
If one does not accept the KEY TERMS of the hypothesis because they are ambiguous, circular, or contradictory, then that person should throw out the hypothesis, or present better definitions of KEY TERMS that the hypothesis depends on, so we can continue on towards resolution.
If we can then proceed to the theory, where we present a movie of the phenomena or process involved in explaining the hypothesis, then, and only then, can we form our own conclusion.
If we conclude it is not possible, then we throw the theory out, erase the board and go on to something else.
If we conclude that the theory is possible, then we publish a paper, or stand around the water cooler telling people about it, or simply move on to the next thing on our agenda.
If we conclude that the theory is possible but not the complete explanation, we form another hypothesis based upon the theory, and build upon it. The flat earth becomes the round earth, becomes the oblate spheroid.....
We use the Rational Scientific Method.
Where Science Went Wrong
Hypothesis, Theory and Conclusion: A Rational Scientific Method
In science, a definition is a limitation or restriction on the use of a word. Scientific definitions are rational, non-contradictory, unambiguous terms that are consistently used, and narrowly defined by the person who is making the hypothesis. We use adjectives to modify nouns (objects) and adverbs to qualify verbs (concepts).
Science in general, and physics in particular, is about the physical... those things which have physical presence. What is real. Things that exist. To exist means to have shape, and location. that is, matter with a location. We visualize objects, and we explain concepts. WE DO NOT EXPLAIN OBJECTS. We point to them. We explain phenomena. Herein lies the problem with today’s scientific inquiry.
The Scientific Method is hypothesis, theory, and conclusion. The hypothesis is about the statement of facts, the key terms, and the objects. The hypothesis describes the phenomena, or, illustrates the objects, defines the key terms, then makes assumptions (a statement of facts- not facts themselves). One does not define objects, one illustrates them. The theory explains the hypothesis. Everyone must decide for themselves, and form a conclusion that the theory is either possible, or it is not possible. That is all that can be done.
Science and Physics are about physically present objects. Understanding the difference between objects, and concepts allows one to rationally make a conclusion about the Key Terms, and the statement of facts at the hypothesis stage of the Scientific Method.
persuasion is for math. Science never persuades. Science, and physics are about physical reality. Math describes abstract dynamic concepts whereas physics illustrates static physical objects.
A hypothesis stands on its own. It matters not weather we agree. The hypothesis should illustrate the objects, define the key terms, and set the stage for the first scene. The theory then would explain the hypothesis. There is no correctness or incorrectness of a hypothesis (it is an assumption). It is either rational or not. If it is rational, we accept the assumption of the hypothesis. 'Predictions,' and observations are opinions, and are extra-scientific.
Flat Earth Hypothesis:
objects- Earth, Person
The Earth, and a person = we all know what I'm talking about, no need to define either.
Earth = Illustration of a pancake shaped earth
Person = illustration of a person standing on the edge of the pancake with one foot off, and one foot dangling over the edge.
Statement of Facts (Assumption): If a person walks off the edge of the earth they will fall off.
Theory:
(Explanation) If a person walks off the edge of the earth they will fall, just as if walking towards, and falling off of, a cliff.
Conclusion: That makes sense. It certainly is possible!
Hypotheses are assumptions, theories explain the hypothesis. We form a conclusion that the theory is either possible, or it is not possible.
We describe objects in the hypothesis, we explain concepts in the theory. We never explain objects, we illustrate them or point to them. This is why, in science, it is crucial to understand the difference between objects, and concepts. Nouns, and verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
We can say: I see a field of corn. The corn stalks wave in the wind. I got a dust particle in my eye. BUT ...Fields, waves, and point particles are concepts in math, do not exist in physical reality, and should not be presented in the hypothesis.
"Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact." -- Einstein
The mathematical physicist loves to use ambiguous or contradictory terms, and even does that inconsistently. He or she confuses objects and concepts, nouns and verbs, adverbs and adjectives. Then after confusing you, Debroglie Waves at you and rides off on his three wheeled unicycle!
Reality does not depend on human perception or observation. It is because the human senses are limited, and flawed, that science must be as objective as possible. The way we do this is by removing the observer. The scientific method is observer independent, as much as possible. First, we test our hypothesis at the conceptual level with rationality, reason, and critical thinking. When it comes down to it, these are our best tools and can not be impersuaded upon at the hypothesis stage. While our senses are limited, there is no limit to our intellect.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.”—Albert Einstein
One must apply rationality, reasoning, and critical thought at the conceptual stage in the hypothesis.
Precision is precious. Defining key terms is critically important. Understanding the difference between concepts, and objects is very helpful in unraveling geek speak. It is essential in dealing with science in general, and physics in particular.
In science, one must be able to visualize the concrete object. Objects must be illustrated in the hypothesis. The objects are the actors, the KEY TERMS make clear the meaning (of the script) and the statement of facts sets the initial scene of the theory. The abstract concept in the theory is describing the phenomena of the hypothesis. The conclusion is the epilog or final scene. Each person takes away their own conclusion as to weather the story was possible or not. The hypothesis is a static photo, the theory is a dynamic movie.
Most important are the KEY TERMS, and these words have meaning as defined by the theorist. In science, one can only use objects which can be illustrated in the hypothesis. If it can not be illustrated or visualized, then it is not real, casts no shadow, and has no physical presence. What is not physical has no place in science.
Science, especially Physics is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial & error) is empirical.
I contend that planes that fly, microwaves that heat, and GPS devices that measure your position work primarily because of technology through trial and error and not because the theories that they are supposedly founded upon are correct.
The big picture is the confusion between objects and concepts. There is no good way to discuss General or Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, or the multiple dimensions of Many Worlds Interpretation until the point, line and plane can be defined and understood. Math attempts to describe dynamic concepts by moving numbers. Physics is about reality. What exists, that is physical presence-objects with location that are made up of matter. These are static, and can be photographed or illustrated. But we must be able to define what ‘exist’ means.
Experiment with defining key terms in precise, unambiguous, non-contradictory fashion and see where that leads you. Try finding better definitions than these:
Universe = matter (atoms) and space (nothing)
Concept = two objects or two locations of an object (relationship between objects or, nested concepts).
Object = that which has shape
Space = that which does not have shape
Exists = matter + location
Location = the set of static distances to all other objects
Motion = object + 2 or more locations
Now learn the difference between a noun and a verb, adjective and an adverb. Then define time, energy, force and wave. No theologian, atheist, philosopher, mathematician or physicist will ever confuse you or lie to you again.
Recently someone said to me:
“Theories don't explain- they predict. Consider gravity- Newton's law tells you the attraction between two masses, and it's mostly consistent with the mostly elliptical orbits that we observe the planets moving in.”
Well, right ...theoretical physics like ToR and QM theories don't explain anything. That's the problem. Theories predict but do not explain? What good is that? I could care less that Newton tells me an apple falls at whatever ft per second per second. I want to know why. I can point at an apple and say look it is falling real fast. So what?
Math 'predicts' how fast something falls to the ground, but says nothing about why.
Ptolemy "predicted' to a high degree of accuracy the position of the planets in the solar system. Except that he had the earth in the center. But how does that help explain why the planets orbit in elliptical paths and don't fly out into space?
And what about these 'predictions'? If I observe an apple fall a few times, and measure its speed, and distance traveled, I can 'predict' how fast an apple falls. What does that tell me? It sure does not tell me when an apple is going to fall. Now THAT would be a real prediction. Something that already happened is described and should then be explained. Something that we have observed happen repeatedly can lead us to think that there is a high degree of probability that it will happen that way again. But that is not really a prediction. It's a guess.
Belief, opinion, persuasion, persuasion, experiments, and observation are not part of the scientific method. The SM is observer-independent.
Science (especially Theoretical physics) is conceptual. Technology (mostly trial & error) is empirical.
Here’s the root of the problem: It all revolves around simple misunderstandings of basic physical reality brought on by Euclidean geometry. Because the point, the line, and the plane are not defined, or defined ambiguously, and are concepts (not objects) they therefore do not represent actual physical reality! A rather shaky basis to form physical laws of the universe such as SR, GR and QM!
Scientific Method (our model for purposes of this discussion):
We assume in the hypothesis stage. If the assumptions are rational, then we can proceed to the theory.
We define our key terms, and make a statement of the facts (the opening scene; i.e., man standing on the edge of a large pancake).
The objects of the hypothesis are described or illustrated (a photograph).
Theory explains the hypothesis; motion, or process is presented as a movie.
Conclusion: possible or not possible? Everyone decides for themselves. It's the best that we can hope for.
Now of course, if one does not accept the model of the SM proposed, then the presentation never begins. Unless there is a better method we can adopt for our presentation we should all go home.
If one does not accept the KEY TERMS of the hypothesis because they are ambiguous, circular, or contradictory, then that person should throw out the hypothesis, or present better definitions of KEY TERMS that the hypothesis depends on, so we can continue on towards resolution.
If we can then proceed to the theory, where we present a movie of the phenomena or process involved in explaining the hypothesis, then, and only then, can we form our own conclusion.
If we conclude it is not possible, then we throw the theory out, erase the board and go on to something else.
If we conclude that the theory is possible, then we publish a paper, or stand around the water cooler telling people about it, or simply move on to the next thing on our agenda.
If we conclude that the theory is possible but not the complete explanation, we form another hypothesis based upon the theory, and build upon it. The flat earth becomes the round earth, becomes the oblate spheroid.....
