If you listen to many anti-theists, you will no doubt have come across their tendency to try and use the scientific method as a justification of their ideas. It generally is presented that verifiable evidence is preferable to unverifiable evidence. Leaving a side the obvious question of the validity of only considering verifiable evidence, this approach is misguided mostly by the fact that there are an awful lot of cases in science where the established explanation is based on unverified assumptions that have no evidence to support them.
If you are going to require that when an explanation is formulated, only verifiable evidence is allowed to be considered, that leaves you will a big logical problem when the final explanation contains ideas that have never been verified with any experiment.
The best known and most misunderstood example of this is the theory of relativity. If you ask most people if they think that relativity is a correct, they will say yes. But if you ask them to explain the theory, very few, even college professors, are able to explain the theory in an adequate way.
The reality is that with some high school level mathematics training, relativity is an extremely simple idea. It is also quite easy to understand where the theory is useful and where people use it incorrectly. But a real good question is just how verified is the theory?
Proponents of the theory will claim that it's been verified when actuality, even more than 100 years after it was published, its core concepts have never been tested. Several tangential aspects of the theory have been verified, but they only show that theory has not been proven wrong. They are a far cry from showing that the theory is correct.
One thing, most people fail to understand is that there are entire families of theories that predict exactly the same thing relativity does. Every single observation ever made is equally well explained by those theories as it is by relativity. But if you ask people about WHY relativity is better than those alternative theories, there are even less people that can give that answer than there are people that can explain the basics of relativity itself.
So you may be asking, what is unverified. Simply put the two postulates that form the basis of the whole theory. The easiest one to deal with is the invariance of the speed of light. The issue has to do with exactly how you measure that speed. Basically this can be done one of two ways.
The first way is to setup a light and a clock at one end of some distance, and put a mirror at the other end. You turn on the light and measure the time it takes for the light to travel to the mirror and return. This is known as the two way speed of light.
The other way, known as the one way speed of light, is where there are two points at some distance apart that each have clocks that have been synchronized so the time difference for light to travel the distance can be measured.
You would have to be an idiot to not realize that a more complicated test with two clocks that have to be synchronized is less precise than the single clock test. A major assumption that the two clocks run at the same speed has to be added for the two clock model to hold any validity. We already know that where you are can absolutely affect the speed a clock runs.
Simply take two identical atomic clocks and place one on the ground floor of a tall building and place the other one on the top floor. They actually run at different speeds. This fact is why the GPS system must account for the difference in clock rates in orbit and on the ground.
The relativity proponents will claim that the issue is because of the gravitational field and special relativity does not account for it. But where exactly have they performed any experiments that are free of any gravitational field?
So we know that clocks DON'T always run at the same speed and we don't have a lab to perform the tests outside of a gravitational field. So how is the two clock method anything more than being told we should ignore the man behind the curtain? No experiment is ever actually performed that meets the requirements, and any experiment that is performed must take into account they fact the assumption of the clocks working at the same rate is wrong.
So if we turn our attention to the two way, one clock test, we get around the synchronization and clock rate problems. But all of a sudden relativity is NOT so assured any more. Some simple calculations show that whether the speed of light is constant or the speed of light is variable, all possible observations are exactly the same.
The only serious argument that has been made is one that Ritz and deSitter had years ago. deSitter argued that if light was not constant in speed the observed orbits of binary star systems would be distorted. But that argument adds another big assumption. The assumption is that the speed of light is constant over the whole distance regardless of the length of that distance.
Given that today, the farthest any EM signal has been transmitted and received is about 0.002 light years. That's quite a bit away from being anything near the distance between star systems. To assert that the speed of light is constant of such a large distance is nothing more than a guess. Once again no experiment has ever verified the assumption.
So we are left with a situation where the only reliable test is over a very short distance using a method that doesn't rule out the possibility of the assumption being wrong. So given no experiment has been performed using either of the methods that is not open to serious questions, how can anybody claim relativity is right or wrong? Simply put there is no verifiable evidence for either position.
So how exactly is belief in relativity any different than a belief in a religion?
If you are going to require that when an explanation is formulated, only verifiable evidence is allowed to be considered, that leaves you will a big logical problem when the final explanation contains ideas that have never been verified with any experiment.
The best known and most misunderstood example of this is the theory of relativity. If you ask most people if they think that relativity is a correct, they will say yes. But if you ask them to explain the theory, very few, even college professors, are able to explain the theory in an adequate way.
The reality is that with some high school level mathematics training, relativity is an extremely simple idea. It is also quite easy to understand where the theory is useful and where people use it incorrectly. But a real good question is just how verified is the theory?
Proponents of the theory will claim that it's been verified when actuality, even more than 100 years after it was published, its core concepts have never been tested. Several tangential aspects of the theory have been verified, but they only show that theory has not been proven wrong. They are a far cry from showing that the theory is correct.
One thing, most people fail to understand is that there are entire families of theories that predict exactly the same thing relativity does. Every single observation ever made is equally well explained by those theories as it is by relativity. But if you ask people about WHY relativity is better than those alternative theories, there are even less people that can give that answer than there are people that can explain the basics of relativity itself.
So you may be asking, what is unverified. Simply put the two postulates that form the basis of the whole theory. The easiest one to deal with is the invariance of the speed of light. The issue has to do with exactly how you measure that speed. Basically this can be done one of two ways.
The first way is to setup a light and a clock at one end of some distance, and put a mirror at the other end. You turn on the light and measure the time it takes for the light to travel to the mirror and return. This is known as the two way speed of light.
The other way, known as the one way speed of light, is where there are two points at some distance apart that each have clocks that have been synchronized so the time difference for light to travel the distance can be measured.
You would have to be an idiot to not realize that a more complicated test with two clocks that have to be synchronized is less precise than the single clock test. A major assumption that the two clocks run at the same speed has to be added for the two clock model to hold any validity. We already know that where you are can absolutely affect the speed a clock runs.
Simply take two identical atomic clocks and place one on the ground floor of a tall building and place the other one on the top floor. They actually run at different speeds. This fact is why the GPS system must account for the difference in clock rates in orbit and on the ground.
The relativity proponents will claim that the issue is because of the gravitational field and special relativity does not account for it. But where exactly have they performed any experiments that are free of any gravitational field?
So we know that clocks DON'T always run at the same speed and we don't have a lab to perform the tests outside of a gravitational field. So how is the two clock method anything more than being told we should ignore the man behind the curtain? No experiment is ever actually performed that meets the requirements, and any experiment that is performed must take into account they fact the assumption of the clocks working at the same rate is wrong.
So if we turn our attention to the two way, one clock test, we get around the synchronization and clock rate problems. But all of a sudden relativity is NOT so assured any more. Some simple calculations show that whether the speed of light is constant or the speed of light is variable, all possible observations are exactly the same.
The only serious argument that has been made is one that Ritz and deSitter had years ago. deSitter argued that if light was not constant in speed the observed orbits of binary star systems would be distorted. But that argument adds another big assumption. The assumption is that the speed of light is constant over the whole distance regardless of the length of that distance.
Given that today, the farthest any EM signal has been transmitted and received is about 0.002 light years. That's quite a bit away from being anything near the distance between star systems. To assert that the speed of light is constant of such a large distance is nothing more than a guess. Once again no experiment has ever verified the assumption.
So we are left with a situation where the only reliable test is over a very short distance using a method that doesn't rule out the possibility of the assumption being wrong. So given no experiment has been performed using either of the methods that is not open to serious questions, how can anybody claim relativity is right or wrong? Simply put there is no verifiable evidence for either position.
So how exactly is belief in relativity any different than a belief in a religion?
"So we know that clocks DON'T always run at the same speed and we don't have a lab to perform the tests outside of a gravitational field."
ReplyDeleteWhat? Clocks run the same speed. It just runs differently by relativistic effects depending on the opbserver. Clocks don't run at the same speed to different frame of references.
Of course you may take the lorentz ether theory and get the same effects of relativity where things that move in relation to an absolute ether diminish in size and etc.
LOL. You don't study the subject very much do you :-)
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of theories without ether that get the same results. How about something like Ritz's emission theory. A localized version of that theory matches every SR prediction exactly.
Ritz's emission theory is really nice for sure. There seems to be some problem with red and blue shift on binary systems though.
DeleteIt's is different from a religion because it could be possibly tested and discarded.
Maybe you should read what I said a little closer. Ritz's original theory was a global theory and therefore didn't work.
DeleteHowever a localized version over an area with a smaller radius than the extinction distance works perfectly.
LOL, it could be tested. OK, where is your transmitter/receiver pair that's even 1 light year away from you?
Voyager should get out that far in about 25,000 years. Of course the battery will be long dead by then.
Could in theory and could in reality are two different things. God could in theory be tested, just not in reality. So what's the difference?
Quite contrary to Popper's view theories cannot be granted and dismissed by simple tests where a whole theory to be granted or dismissed, there always would alternatives bound by observation.
DeleteAre you saying that for something to be a religion it means to a person to pick one alternative view in detriment to others?
So are you rejecting Popper's work? That might just be a BIG part of the problem. You want un-falsifiable beliefs to be given the weight of a scientific idea.
DeleteA religion is pretending an un-falsifiable idea is true and then pretending that this should matter to someone else.
Poppers was trying to separate scientific stuff from unscientific stuff. That view just doesn't really fly today because sientific theories are often not falsifiable easily by doing just this or that test. So it's more an up to date Poppers view.
DeleteUnfalsiable in the scientific sense? Many things are like that, that's also why it would make sense for you to talk about religion as politics. Sure it would be a mistake to try to pretend religion is something like science, that where the whole faith thing come into play. But you also say that mainstream scientific ideas are like a religion too.
So once again you really don't understand the history of the philosophy of science. ALL scientific theories MUST be falsifiable or they are not scientific.
DeleteMany unscientific things are not falsifiable. But not one scientific idea is not falsifiable.
You really are not getting it. Science and religion are EXACTLY alike because no concept in either one is PROVABLE.
A scientific idea by virtue of it being falsifiable makes it a religious belief if you attempt to claim that the ideas are absolute truth.
At least with science, nobody but ignorant fan boys believes that scientific theories are absolute truth.
I'm saying that many scientific theories are not true or false by simple testing as many factors come into that.
DeleteSo what would make either one provable?
Are you still a global warming denialist or your opinion changed given the scietific status of it?
WOW, so you waking up to what Material Logics are. Nothing can EVER make them provable. That's kind of the nature of beast.
DeleteAnthropomorphic global warming is a fantasy religion being pushed by people that want more control on political decisions.
Grow up. It's no different that SJW's that want political change based on their feelings being hurt.
That sound right, you can't prove things is science or religion, and they are two things that are best when they don't overlap.
DeleteThat's would be because of the epistemological status of science and religion where it doesn't meet the standard of proof that exists in logics and mathematics.
The scientific consensus is one by overhealming majority that global warming has man made causes, anti-anthropomorphic global warming views have been funded by people with interest to deny it.
I find it funny how anti-sjw's are the ones whinning about other people's views because they have no basis to act politically.
You start off OK, but then jump off into total lunacy when you try to push a political position while bashing the other side.
DeleteNeither side has any convincing evidence.
I find it funny that you think a bunch of stupid kiddies still in school and the douche bags that prey on them have any influence what so ever.
I have no problem with having a political position that some would interpret as bashing the other side.
DeleteSure and smoking tobacco don't cause cancer if you don't find the evidence convincing. What is your standard?
The stupid kiddies are quite irrelevant, the thing that upset some people is how the dicourse of racism and other forms of ignorance can't work explicitly in an environment where information is quite abundant.
But you undermine your argument by demonstrating that you are an activist making your motivations suspect.
DeleteThe only people upset are the SJW's and anti-SJW. Everybody else knows that are both kooks whining and crying to get attention.
The problem lies in taking a position that is based only in bashing the other side.
DeleteI would really like to think that such people have no relevance at all in the real world, and in general they have little relevance, but if you were that there's no relevance at all it would seem a little bit off.
The anthropic causes of global warming are really becoming undeniable, and I'm not kidding that the same PR firms that denied that smoking cigarrets cause cancer were working for the oil industries.
Rhetoric tactics do work. It's only a problem if you are not prepared to deal with it.
DeleteYou can ignore threats to yourself all you want at you own peril. Those people you blow off as not being relevant are the ones that are going to cause you the most problems.
You by definition CANNOT have any support for your beliefs about global warming. Science is not a popularity contest. Calling them deniers because to don't believe you unfounded claims only shows your lack of evidence that convinces them.
Trying to play guilt by association games only betrays how weak your arguments are.
By what definition there's no support for a belief in GW? Calling them deniers is an quite accepted term.
DeleteI don't think you are a militant, in your post calling against a fan of evolution you seems to be on the spot against people who doens't understand how science works.
The thing is that with years of militancy GW skeptics haven't showed what they came for.
The only militants in the GW debate are the pro-GW kooks. In fact a word like "deniers" shows how upset they get when people are not buying the shit they are shoveling.
DeleteJust because the climate is getting hotter doesn't mean people are causing it. The fact these GW-kooks want to change economics and politics to suit their desires shows what is really going on here.
We are not going to change because a group of self important tree huggers don't like the system we built.
So you are saying that people in the antropomorphic GW camp resorts to appeals to authority and popularity?
DeletePeople are not causing it, individually people make little to no impact, the big oil industry has a big interest in denying their impact in the enviroment though.
Let's see. Because some idiot scientist said it, we have an appeal to authority. Because some group of people agree with it, we have an appeal to popularity. So YES.
DeleteJust because you don't like big industry, doesn't mean they are the cause.
Don't you get that pushing big conspiracy theories only leads to you having low credibility?
It's not some idiot scientist it is 98% of scientists of the area.
DeleteThe big industry would just love to push their responsabilities towards consumers, when consumers are not the problem.
It's not a conspiracy theory, I was hoping you would have some very nice reasoning (as being against evolutionary kooks that doens't understand the basics of science) or you are a kookery farm yourself.
Yea, 98% of the people with a vested financial interest in keeping their research projects funded.
DeleteYea, like those big industries make their money by NOT giving their customers exactly what they ask for.
You really have a lot to learn. You sound like the typical poor young liberal science fan boy. These people never have any real power because they don't deserve it.
If you want to play in the big boy's game, you have to play by the big boy rules. Nobody cares if you like the rules or not.
If kooky means I make 3 times the average income of my community, have no debt, own my house, have my own staff, and get to own major interest in several companies, by all means call me kooky all you want.
Scientist have to say where they funding come from only if they hide it it may pose a problem.
DeleteTheir customers have no control over industries decisions, actually the interest of the customers in minimizing costs is directly opposed to the industry wishes of maximizing profits. I get that you may think that is what is already happening that the interest of the customers is the same of the industry, but as I said it is an asymetrical position where the customers have no control over the industry.
The rules are making the biggest short term profits so CEO's get the fattest pay check, which means in this case ignoring basic research.
In a sense I cannot ever even care by what happens that have no effect on me, I'm glad by that too, ignoring and being negligent with what happens around you because you think you won't get caught is behaving like an asshole anyway.
LOL, there is transparency in science. You definitely have not work in a medical or scientific environment before.
DeleteSo you just don't work on a corporate environment or are in such a low level position that you don't understand what's going on.
Your stereotypical big bad CEO conspiracy theories just make you out as somebody that doesn't know what you are talking about. Other poor people may believe that shit but it doesn't have anything to do with the real world.
Nobody cares if you think they are an asshole. They make better money than you because they deserve it. If you don't like it you can continue to be poor and complain forever. Or you can better yourself and then you will deserve the better income.
When talking about funding disclosure is expected from scientists.
DeleteI was under the impression that you have some simplistic ideological view of how markets work.
CEOs crash business and go out with big paychecks in detriment of shareholders and working people, it's no conspiracy.
You can better yourself and deserve your place in something, that sounds like a religion very much.
Maybe you should actually check what the scientists say about their funding. If you believe it's all above board, you just aren't doing your homework.
DeleteDon't you get that we expect some CEO's to do that? Sure some people don't like it, but then again, seals don't like sharks. The sharks are not evil. They are just feeding.
The reason it's not religion is that it is demonstrable in the real world. Unlike a religion.
There's no problem of funding in most of AGW science. Saying there is is nonsense.
DeleteCeo's are getting the bad rap because they make some people upset, they don't deliver it.
By making oneself better you just mean making a higher income. Unless there is a direct relationship between making oneself better and making a higher income it is a religion. People with higher income are not better than other people except in making more money which has little to do with being better in other things.
LOL, your pet science group doesn't have a conflict of interest, but other groups do have a problem.
DeleteMaking a higher income is only an indication of a higher value to the community around you.
So you seem to be getting that morality exists in a multi dimensional space. But what makes you think your metric on the space is somehow special and should be given more weight?
You assumed there was a problem with their funding I'm saying there isn't.
DeleteSpending money may be an indication, it also naively assumes a correlation. Of something which is not publicized with a unspecified group.
In a multi dimensional space? You mean it may be described as the sum of different interests?
I'm not assuming anything. Doing research that has the express goal of getting funding for more research is inherently a conflict of interest.
DeleteWhen you see things like ClimateGate where the researchers are specifically trying to hide the fact that nature is not following their models yet they want more funding, is a problem.
It depends on what kind of SUM you are talking about. In multi dimensional spaces there are many kinds of sums. A primary question would be do sums along one dimension affect sums along other dimensions. In other words are the dimensions linearly dependent or independent?
So you think that when someone funds a research they have the power to tell what the results should be beforehand? And that's how scientific research works?
DeleteThe climategate was a case where scientists where using technical terms that were taken out of context, they weren't doing anything close to what you are trying it make to be.
Sure, let's take a sum that is not adimensional, we are still talking of one person not a multitude.
You must be pretty naïve to not consider the obvious financial incentives to produce the results desired by the funders.
DeleteI have 35 years of real world experience performing data analysis on complex data sets. I not only completely understand every one of those "technical terms", I understand exactly why it was a scandal.
They attempted to cook the books so their failing theories would continue to hold and got caught at it. And then they attempted to explain away their fabrication by saying people couldn't understand their work.
Problem is, in the modern information age, there are plenty of people that know the data analysis techniques quite well.
So you don't understand what linear independence is or its effect on the creation of a basis for the system. So of course you don't get how a cross product lets you define angles and distance so you can have your metric space.
You have the peer review and stuff, I would say that people interested pushing an agenda have more power in the publication of research and results.
DeleteYou are disputing the AGW that is supported by 98% of scientists on the field. Even studies funded by the oil industry came to the same conclusions.
I understand linear independence, I don't understand how you would get the cross product for more than two dimensions. Two people may have completely different moralities, but when you have a third you would have two metric spaces or what? There would be just no favorable metric space as there is no favorable dimension?
Who gives a rat's ass about what publications have been created? The vast majority of published research in the long run turns out to be wrong.
DeleteHave you never actually worked with actual scientists before? You sound like a science fan boy who pretends that science is a democracy. Science reporting in the popular press is not science.
So you haven't gotten through the basic classes in linear algebra yet.
Don't you get that three people have three separate morality systems and none is even comparable with the others?
You are making the assumption I-Languages are exactly the same. We have no evidence of this. Only some hints at some possibility of a similarity.
There's no problem with funding or peer review (which may have bias) when we're talking about mainstream science.
DeleteI know that scientists are just people trying to make a career in their area. There are some positive stuff from it as their income depends on them not making gross mistakes, and some negative stuff as people wanting their names on whatever is published.
Science reporting is where I would guess funders would have more power of manipulation. Really, publication is a main problem scientists face, then you have citations and stuff.
I don't get the cross product in 3D yet, sure you can have any dimensions you want. I think it may be a simplistic view of morality that cannot describe it even if the concepts may be very well helpful.
That's why you need free euthanasia at will to prove morality, it works by actualizing any morality instantly and why any for of slavery is immoral, force cannot be legitimized by force when we talk about legitimization it gains a realm of its own.
So you are a science fan boy with no real world experience with the peer review process.
DeleteIt's becoming pretty clear that you don't have any real experience with science or math and are just pushing the same old pro-science agenda used to interest kiddies in science.
If you don't understand how a cross product works in N dimensions it's pretty clear you are really ready to deal with multidimensional ideas like morality. No wonder your views on morality are so simplistic.
WTF does euthanasia have to do with morality? For that matter WTF does it mean to "actualize morality"? For that matter WTF is legitimizing something?
You seem to be creating word salad.
I'm definitely not for scientism. I've some problem with AGW deniers as they seems to be the cucks from my view.
DeletePlease explain me how cross products work in more than two dimensions, and why would it be an metric space? People have different views, what does that have to do with morality?
I talking about euthanasia and morality in the post that had so much comments that it broke. It's about making the will of the many agents in the system mean something about it, the will to participation on a system depends on people taking it.
You can believe anything you want. But pro-AGW fan boys are pushing they are right because of "science". That is the definition of scientism. Science is not a justification for anything.
DeleteGet on Khan Academy and learn about linear algebra if you want to eventually understand cross products.
Morality systems have MANY dimensions of good and bad. How the various dimensions affect any measurement of any absolute good or bad is pretty significant.
Why do you continue to try to equate people's internal personal morality with the politics of an entire system? They are different things that come about by different means, and have completely different consequences.
Many dimensions of good and bad, it is a 2d notion. You can have any amount of dimensions you want. What is morality in that space? You are going towards the atom individual again.
DeleteEquating personal morality with the system is getting the only morality that can ever be. Moralists are obviously hypocrites who want to get the appearance.
Don't you think that the singularity will come in the next thousands or so years? And it will come as thought.
So you are saying science is belief like any other and all beliefs get the same treatment? As it is just another belief.
The relative level of moral good or bad in any given situation. Many factors (dimension) have an effect on your assessment.
DeleteThere are at least as many moral systems as there are people. The only hypocrite is the person that thinks these system are comparable.
WTF is "the singularity"? New age beliefs with scientific sounding names are still new age crap for the gullible.
All beliefs are logical contingencies based on unfounded assumptions. If you don't get this and are a fan of science, you suffer from the disease of scientism.
Singularity is just the next step from evolution, Human AI, biotech whatever, merging all minds in one.
DeleteWhat about having no beliefs then? Every belief is just another opinion, someone may inform you of their opinion an that's it. There's an equality between what ever opinion could be. And you just could have opinions in a pragmatic way.
In what fantasy universe do things converge on the trivial set?
DeleteWhat's wrong with beliefs? They are the only way to handle the complexities of the real world. How could they be anything but pragmatic?
Why is it so difficult to understand that there are bounds on what math, logic, science, and reason can do? Understanding those bounds only leads to appreciation for the vast array of heuristics nature invented to deal with the complexity.