• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Scientific heresy.

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 7:17 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
---
Scientific heresy.
Matt Ridley lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ... eresy.html
=
Comment by Annonymous
In the nineteenth century many eminent physicists such as Maxwell and Lord Kelvin
believed in the ether theory.

Was the ether theory pseudoscientific?

If you think that the ether theory was pseudoscientific then it begins to seem that almost
all past scientists were pseudoscientists.

If you don't thnk that the ether theory was pseudoscientific but that the phlogiston theory
was could you explain what distinguishes the one as pseudoscientific but not the other?

Another question -

Maxwell spent an enormous amount of intellectual effort attempting to develop a mechanical
model of the electromagnetic field. Long ago virtually all physicists have abandoned this idea
and today it is almost totally forgotten.

Were Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to develop a mechanical model of the electromagnetic
field an example of pseudoscience?

If so it seems that one of the greatest scientific minds of all time was a pseudoscientist.

You seem to use the term "pseudoscience" to include any scientific theory that is eventually
replaced or modified by a later theory.

Since modern physics consists of a number of mutually inconsistent theories e.g. general
relativity and QED, most physicists today hope that in the future more general theories will
be developed which will replace them.

If this happens does that mean that present day physics is a pseudoscience?

/ Annonymous /
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ... 4#comments

===
 

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:17 PM
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
---
Location
West Virginia
Forgive me, didn't read the links yet. Will read and then edit later if need be.

Science is defined not by the theory, but by the method. Any theory, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem, can be scientific as long as the methodology is strong, and one can test it. Note that these qualifications do not mean that a theory is true. In the short term, empirical evidence can seem to suggest one improper solution, if only because it is not entirely complete or not interpreted in the right context. It is also convention to stick with the old theory until a better one comes along. Thus, it may always be wise to wait until the empirical verdict on the new theories come
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow 3:47 AM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
7,535
---
GodOfOrder's answer is a good one.

The links weren't working for me, and I don't know much about the theories of which you speak, but I'd like to also point out that not everything a great scientific mind does is science. Scientists need to make breakfast too!

If Maxwell was successful in making his model, and then verified it with the scientific method, then that would be science. Likewise, if he completed the model and then disproved it using the scientific method, that would also be science.

But just thinking about ideas, while stimulating and potentially brilliant, does not the scientific method make.
 

Pizzabeak

Banned
Local time
Today 11:17 AM
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
2,666
---

GodOfOrder

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 2:17 PM
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
520
---
Location
West Virginia
Hmm, instead of editing, I'll just make a new post.

While I stand by my original statement;
Science is defined not by the theory, but by the method. Any theory, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem, can be scientific as long as the methodology is strong, and one can test it. Note that these qualifications do not mean that a theory is true. In the short term, empirical evidence can seem to suggest one improper solution, if only because it is not entirely complete or not interpreted in the right context. It is also convention to stick with the old theory until a better one comes along. Thus, it may always be wise to wait until the empirical verdict on the new theories come
I think it is important to expand on some things.

I'd like to add to it that wherever there are human beings and ideas, that dogmatization will inevitably follow. Some people will hold certain ideas sacred, and others will stick by the herd of other people. This dogma is not science, even if it is professed by scientists. Many ideas begin as heretical, and then become dogma. But this attachment to an idea, or lack thereof, does not make the idea true or untrue, nor does it make it scientific nor unscientific.

Take Isaac Newton's theory of gravity as an example. It was wrong, but we still consider it science, and upon examination and observation it seemed to work. There were of course flaws and holes, things it couldn't explain. At the time, it was just the best explanation. Newton's theory also changed the way we look at forces in the universe, and this shift in thinking was his real contribution, even if his theory was wrong. He asked a question to the effect of "if the apple is falling to Earth, is the moon also falling?" Thus I think the real geniuses the ones who shift perspective, not the ones who are necessarily accurate in their explanations (though this is not science, but philosophy).

Newton's theory was dogmatized, and nearly universally accepted. By the end of the 1800s, we thought we had all of physics sorted out. A new heretic was needed, and along came Albert Einstein. He did away with Newtonian gravity, and gave us relativity. It caused quite a stir. But even Einstein held some ideas sacred. He was unable or unwilling to admit that the universe was not eternal, and was in fact expanding. It took a catholic priest, of all people, to break us of this notion. So as both the article and Hadoblado say, people can be both simultaneously scientific an unscientific, with respect to different ideas in their heads.

Ideas will fall in and out of favor with people throughout the ages. This popular acceptance does not make the ideas right, but it doesn't make them wrong either. Only proper method and testing make science, sentiment only manufactures confirmation bias. Pseudoscience is any thing that consists of a flawed method, usually fueled by confirmation bias, and sentiment. But pseudoscience is tricky because if sentiment for a thing exists, one may not recognize his mistake in reasoning, and thus not see the confirmation bias; one's theory will become self verifying, and enforced by experience, even if it isn't.

With respect to the phlogiston and ether theories, it does't matter if they were correct or entirely bat shit insane. The only thing that matters is if they were testable. If yes, it is science, if no, it is not. But the theory stands alone. An individuals acceptance of this theory is quite different. Any theory can be scientific, but dogmatic acceptance of any theory, regardless of this fact, is not at all scientific. Thus, without assessing evidence, and examining methodology, one's acceptance of a theory is not scientific. (This would be the time where I would address the climate change issue, but I don't feel like it.)
 

s0cratus

Banned
Local time
Today 7:17 PM
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
---
Since modern physics consists of a number of mutually inconsistent theories
e.g. general relativity and QED, most physicists today hope that in the future
more general theories will be developed which will replace them.

If this happens does that mean that present day physics is a pseudoscience?

/ Annonymous /
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ...
==
Does it mean that string particle is a pseudoscience if:
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea? ’
/ Book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin. Page 308. /

Does it mean that QED is a pseudoscience if:
Feynman described QED as ' The Strange Theory of Light and Matter '
.
Does it mean that SRT is a pseudoscience if:
On September 21, 1908 Hermann Minkowski began his talk at
the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians
with the now famous introduction:
" The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Since then the question of the ontological status of this union of space and time
has become the subject of a continued debate.
.........
. . . . . . etc
==....
 
Top Bottom