WHY SCIENCE IS NOT PART OF CULTURE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: A century of phytoplankton decline suggests that ocean ecosystemsare in peril
Next: Good arguments supporting reality of Global Warming
From: PD on 5 Aug 2010 15:25 On Aug 4, 8:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:40:57 +0200, Hayek wrote: > > Unified_Perspective wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 3:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> The problem is getting more and more pressing: > > >> Science is a relatively small part of our culture, it is true, but - > >> this has always been true. In fact I believe that science probably is > >> held in higher regard now than at any prior time in human history, with > >> the possible exceptions of the dawning of the age of enlightenment, > >> circa 1700's and the dawn of the industrial revolution circa 1880. > > >> The challenge for those of use who love science is to make it more > >> respectable, through the use of good humor and good manners, and to > >> make it more comprehensible through the use of analogies and plain > >> writing or speech. > > >> Einstein is not at fault here. The material he presents and the > >> mathematics he CREATED are quite difficult topics. > > > Einstein did not create the mathematics. Riemann did. Einstein genius > > was that he was able to apply the principle of relativity and > > conservation of energy in some highly creative thought experiments. > > "Thought experiment" is an oxymoron, by the way. I suggests that science > can be done a priori, which is bullshit and very much non-science. > > One of his thought experiments was the EPR paradox. which turned out to > be a pile of bullcrap. > > Einstein's genius was taking Lorentz's work and calling it his own. Physicists do not confuse "thought experiments" with "experiments". Amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists do. That's why amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists think they're doing interesting science by posing "thought experiments". Einstein used "thought experiments" for two main purposes. One was to *explain* the consequences of a proposed tenet, postulate, or model. The consequences then are presumably testable. The other was to show how an imagined outcome is consistent with known laws of physics or are consistent with other statements in the theory. For example, the train and embankment "gedanken" is an explanation of why relativity of simultaneity follows directly from, and is consistent with, the constancy of the speed of light. It is not proposed as a *proof* of either the constancy of the speed of light or of relativity of simultaneity, but rather only the logical connection. All thought experiments beg real experiments of similar intent. And in fact, the EPR proposal was not a claimed proof of anything. It suggested a way, however, to test the claims of quantum mechanics. And in fact, it directly inspired real experiments by Aspect et al., which showed exactly what Einstein bet would not happen. I don't know how you would then conclude that the EPR proposal was therefore "bullcrap".
From: maxwell on 6 Aug 2010 11:29 On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 8:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:40:57 +0200, Hayek wrote: > > > Unified_Perspective wrote: > > >> On Jul 29, 3:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> The problem is getting more and more pressing: > > > >> Science is a relatively small part of our culture, it is true, but - > > >> this has always been true. In fact I believe that science probably is > > >> held in higher regard now than at any prior time in human history, with > > >> the possible exceptions of the dawning of the age of enlightenment, > > >> circa 1700's and the dawn of the industrial revolution circa 1880. > > > >> The challenge for those of use who love science is to make it more > > >> respectable, through the use of good humor and good manners, and to > > >> make it more comprehensible through the use of analogies and plain > > >> writing or speech. > > > >> Einstein is not at fault here. The material he presents and the > > >> mathematics he CREATED are quite difficult topics. > > > > Einstein did not create the mathematics. Riemann did. Einstein genius > > > was that he was able to apply the principle of relativity and > > > conservation of energy in some highly creative thought experiments. > > > "Thought experiment" is an oxymoron, by the way. I suggests that science > > can be done a priori, which is bullshit and very much non-science. > > > One of his thought experiments was the EPR paradox. which turned out to > > be a pile of bullcrap. > > > Einstein's genius was taking Lorentz's work and calling it his own. > > Physicists do not confuse "thought experiments" with "experiments". > Amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists do. That's why amateurs, hacks, and > hobbyists think they're doing interesting science by posing "thought > experiments". > > Einstein used "thought experiments" for two main purposes. One was to > *explain* the consequences of a proposed tenet, postulate, or model. > The consequences then are presumably testable. The other was to show > how an imagined outcome is consistent with known laws of physics or > are consistent with other statements in the theory. For example, the > train and embankment "gedanken" is an explanation of why relativity of > simultaneity follows directly from, and is consistent with, the > constancy of the speed of light. It is not proposed as a *proof* of > either the constancy of the speed of light or of relativity of > simultaneity, but rather only the logical connection. > > All thought experiments beg real experiments of similar intent. > > And in fact, the EPR proposal was not a claimed proof of anything. It > suggested a way, however, to test the claims of quantum mechanics. And > in fact, it directly inspired real experiments by Aspect et al., which > showed exactly what Einstein bet would not happen. I don't know how > you would then conclude that the EPR proposal was therefore "bullcrap". When Einstein introduced the term "thought experiment" he was practicing rhetoric not science. He was incorporating the word "experiment" (which conveys the implication of an actual description of reality) into an idea he was trying to "sell" to his audience, hence rhetoric. If he had been more honest (scientific?) he might have invited his readers to join him in "an act of the imagination" but then that would have shown the "rabbit in the hat" that characterizes much of theoretical physics.
From: Androcles on 6 Aug 2010 12:19 "maxwell" <spsi(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message news:2e613205-607a-4605-9c65-804b5ad2d2eb(a)f6g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 8:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:40:57 +0200, Hayek wrote: > > > Unified_Perspective wrote: > > >> On Jul 29, 3:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> The problem is getting more and more pressing: > > > >> Science is a relatively small part of our culture, it is true, but - > > >> this has always been true. In fact I believe that science probably is > > >> held in higher regard now than at any prior time in human history, > > >> with > > >> the possible exceptions of the dawning of the age of enlightenment, > > >> circa 1700's and the dawn of the industrial revolution circa 1880. > > > >> The challenge for those of use who love science is to make it more > > >> respectable, through the use of good humor and good manners, and to > > >> make it more comprehensible through the use of analogies and plain > > >> writing or speech. > > > >> Einstein is not at fault here. The material he presents and the > > >> mathematics he CREATED are quite difficult topics. > > > > Einstein did not create the mathematics. Riemann did. Einstein genius > > > was that he was able to apply the principle of relativity and > > > conservation of energy in some highly creative thought experiments. > > > "Thought experiment" is an oxymoron, by the way. I suggests that science > > can be done a priori, which is bullshit and very much non-science. > > > One of his thought experiments was the EPR paradox. which turned out to > > be a pile of bullcrap. > > > Einstein's genius was taking Lorentz's work and calling it his own. > > Physicists do not confuse "thought experiments" with "experiments". > Amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists do. That's why amateurs, hacks, and > hobbyists think they're doing interesting science by posing "thought > experiments". > > Einstein used "thought experiments" for two main purposes. One was to > *explain* the consequences of a proposed tenet, postulate, or model. > The consequences then are presumably testable. The other was to show > how an imagined outcome is consistent with known laws of physics or > are consistent with other statements in the theory. For example, the > train and embankment "gedanken" is an explanation of why relativity of > simultaneity follows directly from, and is consistent with, the > constancy of the speed of light. It is not proposed as a *proof* of > either the constancy of the speed of light or of relativity of > simultaneity, but rather only the logical connection. > > All thought experiments beg real experiments of similar intent. > > And in fact, the EPR proposal was not a claimed proof of anything. It > suggested a way, however, to test the claims of quantum mechanics. And > in fact, it directly inspired real experiments by Aspect et al., which > showed exactly what Einstein bet would not happen. I don't know how > you would then conclude that the EPR proposal was therefore "bullcrap". When Einstein introduced the term "thought experiment" he was practicing rhetoric not science. He was incorporating the word "experiment" (which conveys the implication of an actual description of reality) into an idea he was trying to "sell" to his audience, hence rhetoric. If he had been more honest (scientific?) he might have invited his readers to join him in "an act of the imagination" but then that would have shown the "rabbit in the hat" that characterizes much of theoretical physics. =========================================== A thought experiment: In agreement with experience we further assume 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c. How far is it from A to A and long does it take to get there? "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" while thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com plays the part, physically, of an infinitely stupid cretin.
From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 13:09 On Aug 6, 10:29 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On Aug 5, 12:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 4, 8:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:40:57 +0200, Hayek wrote: > > > > Unified_Perspective wrote: > > > >> On Jul 29, 3:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>> The problem is getting more and more pressing: > > > > >> Science is a relatively small part of our culture, it is true, but - > > > >> this has always been true. In fact I believe that science probably is > > > >> held in higher regard now than at any prior time in human history, with > > > >> the possible exceptions of the dawning of the age of enlightenment, > > > >> circa 1700's and the dawn of the industrial revolution circa 1880. > > > > >> The challenge for those of use who love science is to make it more > > > >> respectable, through the use of good humor and good manners, and to > > > >> make it more comprehensible through the use of analogies and plain > > > >> writing or speech. > > > > >> Einstein is not at fault here. The material he presents and the > > > >> mathematics he CREATED are quite difficult topics. > > > > > Einstein did not create the mathematics. Riemann did. Einstein genius > > > > was that he was able to apply the principle of relativity and > > > > conservation of energy in some highly creative thought experiments. > > > > "Thought experiment" is an oxymoron, by the way. I suggests that science > > > can be done a priori, which is bullshit and very much non-science. > > > > One of his thought experiments was the EPR paradox. which turned out to > > > be a pile of bullcrap. > > > > Einstein's genius was taking Lorentz's work and calling it his own. > > > Physicists do not confuse "thought experiments" with "experiments". > > Amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists do. That's why amateurs, hacks, and > > hobbyists think they're doing interesting science by posing "thought > > experiments". > > > Einstein used "thought experiments" for two main purposes. One was to > > *explain* the consequences of a proposed tenet, postulate, or model. > > The consequences then are presumably testable. The other was to show > > how an imagined outcome is consistent with known laws of physics or > > are consistent with other statements in the theory. For example, the > > train and embankment "gedanken" is an explanation of why relativity of > > simultaneity follows directly from, and is consistent with, the > > constancy of the speed of light. It is not proposed as a *proof* of > > either the constancy of the speed of light or of relativity of > > simultaneity, but rather only the logical connection. > > > All thought experiments beg real experiments of similar intent. > > > And in fact, the EPR proposal was not a claimed proof of anything. It > > suggested a way, however, to test the claims of quantum mechanics. And > > in fact, it directly inspired real experiments by Aspect et al., which > > showed exactly what Einstein bet would not happen. I don't know how > > you would then conclude that the EPR proposal was therefore "bullcrap". > > When Einstein introduced the term "thought experiment" he was > practicing rhetoric not science. He was incorporating the word > "experiment" (which conveys the implication of an actual description > of reality) into an idea he was trying to "sell" to his audience, > hence rhetoric. If he had been more honest (scientific?) he might > have invited his readers to join him in "an act of the imagination" Agreed. > but then that would have shown the "rabbit in the hat" that > characterizes much of theoretical physics. This statement I don't understand. Most of theoretical physics is tested by real experiment.
From: Marvin the Martian on 7 Aug 2010 00:30
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:25:59 -0700, PD wrote: > On Aug 4, 8:48 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:40:57 +0200, Hayek wrote: >> > Unified_Perspective wrote: >> >> On Jul 29, 3:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> The problem is getting more and more pressing: >> >> >> Science is a relatively small part of our culture, it is true, but - >> >> this has always been true. In fact I believe that science probably >> >> is held in higher regard now than at any prior time in human >> >> history, with the possible exceptions of the dawning of the age of >> >> enlightenment, circa 1700's and the dawn of the industrial >> >> revolution circa 1880. >> >> >> The challenge for those of use who love science is to make it more >> >> respectable, through the use of good humor and good manners, and to >> >> make it more comprehensible through the use of analogies and plain >> >> writing or speech. >> >> >> Einstein is not at fault here. The material he presents and the >> >> mathematics he CREATED are quite difficult topics. >> >> > Einstein did not create the mathematics. Riemann did. Einstein genius >> > was that he was able to apply the principle of relativity and >> > conservation of energy in some highly creative thought experiments. >> >> "Thought experiment" is an oxymoron, by the way. I suggests that >> science can be done a priori, which is bullshit and very much >> non-science. >> >> One of his thought experiments was the EPR paradox. which turned out to >> be a pile of bullcrap. >> >> Einstein's genius was taking Lorentz's work and calling it his own. > > Physicists do not confuse "thought experiments" with "experiments". > Amateurs, hacks, and hobbyists do. That's why amateurs, hacks, and > hobbyists think they're doing interesting science by posing "thought > experiments". Then you must not think Einstein a physicist, because Einstein believed his "thought experiment" debunked quantum entanglement. We know now how stupid THAT was. > Einstein used "thought experiments" for two main purposes. One was to > *explain* the consequences of a proposed tenet, postulate, or model. The > consequences then are presumably testable. The other was to show how an > imagined outcome is consistent with known laws of physics or are > consistent with other statements in the theory. For example, the train > and embankment "gedanken" is an explanation of why relativity of > simultaneity follows directly from, and is consistent with, the > constancy of the speed of light. It is not proposed as a *proof* of > either the constancy of the speed of light or of relativity of > simultaneity, but rather only the logical connection. > > All thought experiments beg real experiments of similar intent. > > And in fact, the EPR proposal was not a claimed proof of anything. It > suggested a way, however, to test the claims of quantum mechanics. And > in fact, it directly inspired real experiments by Aspect et al., which > showed exactly what Einstein bet would not happen. I don't know how you > would then conclude that the EPR proposal was therefore "bullcrap". Oh, bull. Einstein didn't say "we can test the theory this way", the idiot claimed his thought experiment debunked QM. He had an irrational bias against the statistical nature of QM. You can apologize for Einstein's ignorance of the scientific method and try and explain away "thought experiment" as something else - but it's bullshit. The very NAME "thought experiment" is an unscientific appeal to the a priori and is by definition non-science. |