Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Jerry on 2 Mar 2010 13:23
On Mar 2, 7:30 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> I expect that some time in the next couple of decades,
> discrepancies will finally be discovered between the predictions
> of GR and experimental findings. Experiments in planning such as
> the Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle are finally
> reaching a level of sensitivity such that, if a discrepancy is
> -NOT- found, it would indicate that something is deeply wrong
> with our current understanding of physics.

Here is a fascinating article on STEP:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/astro2010/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=16
From: PD on 2 Mar 2010 13:37
On Mar 2, 11:23 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 16:38, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 7:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To go back to my original formulation of this issue, the question is
> > > whether science, scientists, and adherents of science more generally,
> > > have the same hallmarks as traditional religions, theologians, and
> > > religious believers more generally. These are not questions of the
> > > supposed scientific method, but of the psychology and sociology of how
> > > science is actually practiced. In the same way that the question of
> > > how Christianity has been in fact practiced is not determined by
> > > reference to the Bible.
>
> > > To start asking questions like "is law a religion" or "is medicine a
> > > religion" is like asking whether canon law "was a religion", or
> > > whether faith healers "are a religion", and of course the answer is
> > > no. Canon law is informed by religious belief, and faith healers are
> > > religious, but neither of them alone comprise "a religion".
>
> > > Also, my point here is not to get into a long (and surely fruitless)
> > > debate of arguing how exactly religion is defined. My point is that,
> > > from a social and psychological perspective, an adherence to science
> > > cannot be distinguished from religious belief in any meaningful and
> > > significant way, and that the supposed differences tend to be either
> > > based on a misapprehension of what function religion actually
> > > performed and how it was practiced in the past, or on a literal appeal
> > > to concepts like "the scientific method" that bears little
> > > correspondence to how science is really practiced.
>
> > It is certainly possible to find similarities in how science is
> > conducted and how religion is conducted. This does not make science a
> > religion, any more than a cow and a turtle both having four legs and a
> > tail would make mammals reptiles. This was the point of my statement
> > about law and medicine, which also show similarities in conduct
> > between those pursuits and religion, but this does not make law a
> > religion or medicine a religion.
>
> > Mammals are distinguished from reptiles by having features that
> > reptiles lack. It does no good to point to the four legs and a tail
> > and comment that, no matter what mammals have, they still have four
> > legs and a tail and so that makes them resemble reptiles. Likewise,
> > though you dismiss the scientific method as a distinguishing trait and
> > choose to focus on the practices that make them seem like religion to
> > you, this does not make science a religion, just by your choice of
> > what will occupy your attention.
>
> The point about emphasising the similarities between science and
> religion is to combat some of the more absolute assertions about the
> nature and value of science. In reality, what you really have is two
> religions at war, where 99% can be the same and yet both insist that
> the remaining 1% difference is a fundamental difference.

Gee, I happen to think that the scientific method on one side, and the
belief in a supernatural entity on the other, are more than "1%"
insignificant differences.

>
> And certainly, one can discuss the differences between science and
> religion, and its significance, but the debate certainly *cannot* be
> conducted in terms of sayng that science invariably produces more
> truth, or is more functional, or is more objective, or involves less
> faith at its core.

Who said that science invariably produces more truth, or is more
functional, or is more objective? I certainly have never told you
that.

>
>
>
> > > > > > Just because there is an agreed-upon methodology by the collective
> > > > > > that practices in the discipline does not warrant that discipline
> > > > > > being called a religion, at least as I understand the meaning of
> > > > > > "religion".
>
> > > > > There is more to religion than an "agreed-upon methodology", but there
> > > > > is more to the practice of science than this, too.
>
> > > > Then you'll have to be precise about your meaning of the word
> > > > "religion" and therefore how it is that science satisfies it.
>
> > > I personally think it's more convenient to compare and contrast,
> > > rather than trying to establish a definition for either religion or
> > > science. Indeed, attempts to establish a consistent definition of
> > > science, by men better than me, have time and again died a thousand
> > > deaths.
>
> > By that approach, one could easily be convinced that cows are
> > reptiles, no?
>
> Indeed. But if people are determined to focus on the differences, the
> question is why.

To decide if a cow is a reptile, which I believe was the question at
hand. No, I'm sorry, it was to decide if science is a religion. Same
thing, more or less.

> If you want cow's milk to drink, then it's convenient
> to distinguish between cows and reptiles. But people are less clear
> about why they want science and not traditional religion.

Who said people want science and not traditional religion?

PD

From: PD on 2 Mar 2010 13:38
On Mar 2, 11:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 17:07, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Mar, 16:23, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 5:53 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, and that is done by self-selection. In the community of
> > > > > > > > scientists, the presumption is that open questions will be addressed
> > > > > > > > by someone eventually. And there is reward in the community for that
> > > > > > > > adventurism. The assessment of the risk vs benefit of the adventurism
> > > > > > > > is made individually.
>
> > > > > > > Indeed. But it is then a sociological question, to ask which
> > > > > > > scientific questions are answered and which are not, and why.
>
> > > > > > That's true. What I just stated is that the presumption is that
> > > > > > essentially all questions get answered eventually.
>
> > > > > Perhaps, but the question is "in what circumstances".
>
> > > > That depends. There's no clean answer I can muster. Why is it
> > > > important to have one?
>
> > > The answer is important in order to verify that science is in fact
> > > likely to deliver the goods that it claims to be able to deliver.
>
> > I'm not sure what you think the claim is.
>
> > > Unless, of course, proof denies faith.
>
> > > And if science is not likely to deliver the goods, then it's useful to
> > > know ahead of time.
>
> > I would judge that on performance. If someone is the world record
> > holder in the 100 m dash, and you ask the question how it is that the
> > record holder trained to be the fastest, and you were not convinced
> > that those methodologies were sound or were guaranteed to produce a
> > world-class sprinter, there is still the fact that he is the world-
> > record holder.
>
> Yes, but it is relevant to determine whether he is the record-holder
> because of his naturally strong physique, or whether it is the
> training regime, or indeed whether it is the various expensive snake-
> oil supplements and drugs that he has been given.

Good. Then you tell ME why science has a track record of studying the
aspects of nature that it does in a successful way.
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 18:23

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 Mar, 09:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> And hence, when I say I want to discuss things instead
>> of just going off and reading a book, it's not because I'm being
>> awkward or just want to sound off cranky ideas to an audience, but
>> because I genuinely apprehend that the interactive discussion is
>> necessary for the questions at hand.
>>
>> _____________________________
>> That is obviously not true. You don't ask questions trying to learn. You
>> state your open disbelief that SR is true,
>
> Peter, I can only put you to the proof of showing where I said I
> disbelieved SR.

Why .. you've not come up with any valid reason to disbelieve it, other than
your incredible arrogance and either inability or lack of will to study and
learn


From: Jerry on 2 Mar 2010 20:33
On Mar 2, 7:06 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:34 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> > Special relativity has been established as true within its
> > domain of applicability. Period.
>
> Your appeal to athority is noted.  Some of us don't accept things just
> because everyone else believes it, particularly when it leads to
> unexpected results.  You would have fit in well with the flat earth
> society.

Not an appeal to authority. Rather, a modest amateur familiarity
with the literature.

I have in my file folders nearly one hundred papers dating from
the late 1800's to the present dealing with the experimental
basis of relativity. I have read many more papers than those that
I own.

This is, of course, a very small number compared with the many
hundreds of papers and subscription journal volumes that I own
and have read which concern my actual field of work. I know my
priorities. I am most definitely not a physicist in real life,
and make no claims to any special expertise.

Nevertheless, I imagine that I am probably somewhat more familiar
with the experimental literature than you.

True or false?

Jerry
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights