Multiverse intelligently designed.

Post Reply New Topic

May I call you "Awe" for short?

I like many of the questions you asked and many of the comments you made.

However, the scientific method is a well established and accepted methodology that in fact sets the scientific world apart from the world of religion. Needless to say, the first step of the scientific method is the formulation of a hypothesis, and this single step is indistinguishable from faith-based religious belief. Measurement and empirical validation is required by the traditional scientific method. Without it, an endeavor may not rightly be called science. This may be inconvenient to some but it what sets science part from both philosophy and religion. In the same way, faith based belief structures are the basis of religion, while abstract reasoning may be considered the basis of philosophy.

To a varying extent, faith-based belief structures, abstract reasoning, and the scientific method are each components of modern philosophy, theology, and science, yet this does not create much confusion in the minds of people or practitioners who attempt to define the primary methods or nature of each of these disciplines.

The scientific method is not a perfect method, to be sure, but it is the best that science has and I'm not proposing its abandonment. However, unlike other segments of the economy or human society, science is notorious for its disdain of corrections. The stock market, the housing market, the automobile industry, the pharmaceutical and life science industries, all regularly experience corrections and recalls. Yet, physics has experienced only two major corrections (scientific revolutions) during the Common Era: (1) Newtonian Physics beginning with the publication of Newton's first two laws of motion in 1687, and (2) the combined theories of relativity (Part A) along with the emergence of quantum physics (Part b). The resistance of the scientific community to major corrections is historical.

Finally, your last comment is interesting to me. Yes, I do regard abstract reasoning and philosophy highly and I recognize that the distinction between science philosophy and science may be difficult to define from the perspective of a science philosopher, but this is not the boundary I mentioned. The one I mentioned is the barrier between science philosophy and science applied from the perspective of many scientists.

One thing is certain, theoretical physics or mathematical constructs which remain detached from physical reality or which innately remain beyond empirical experimentation or validation will not serve as the basis for the next major scientific revolution, which is imminent in my opinion.

I look forward to hearing back from you and others. Again, I know now that I have this pesky problem of communicating in a way that often comes across as arrogant, and I have not yet acquired new skills, although it's high on the list of things I need to do. Thank you for your understanding.

- Scott

.... so that mean's were on the 'no child left behind' universe?


I knew it!

You can call me "Shirley" if it makes you feel better.


I don't know the entire point of this comment. You're making a series of statements acting as if I'll somehow be impressed.

If the question is whether measurement is strictly necessary for work to be considered scientific work, how can you make the assertion and expect me to be persuaded by it. If all I do is create mathematical models for reconciling various scientific theories into a more unified theory, the difference between my work and scientific work appears to be semantic. Whatever I am doing, it is related to science, and uses methodology that sciences often use(mathematical models), so... I don't see the point. I don't believe bright linguistic lines are necessary in our conceptions.

"Rightly called science" according to who? You? The dictionary? The grand overlords? We have a number of people working in scientific departments, trying to build on existing scientific knowledge, who claim they are doing science. Why can't we take their word on what science is above yours? What are you trying to show/prove? Why couldn't the word "science" be defined another way as I, or anybody else, finds pragmatic for their uses?


Is this even related to something I stated?


You mean many scientists except those involved in String Theory? I mean, I don't really see your point.


Ok?


I didn't see arrogance, I just am missing part of the conversation that you're having.

Shirley,

I'm relieved that my congenial use of "Awe" did not offend you! However, it seems that nearly everything else I said did. Curious. Quite frankly, I hadn't considered that my statements of the obvious would have been received as attempts at impressing you or anyone else.

I want you to know that I'm trying terribly hard to focus while I write this reply in my hotel room while the couple in the adjacent room is apparently engaged in wild, loud, and obnoxiously enjoyable sex. It almost seems like they know to mock me while I try to pursue my passion in cosmology and attempt to respond to a fellow scientist who has decided unjustifiably that he must defend himself from some non-existent attack on his values or credentials.

Oh, thank goodness. My hotel neighbors are no longer having sex at my expense.

I reread my last entry and frankly I can't find any content that was intended to antagonize you or anyone else. The act of sharing my thoughts with complete and total strangers leaves me ill equipped to attack anyone's belief structures, even if I truly wanted to, which I don't. My comments were designed to let you and others understand my position and to ensure the greatest amount of inclusion by others in the discussion.

Oh goodness, now they're having an argument. I think I preferred the barnyard sounds to this.

Anyway, I can't possibly imagine that it's your intention to generate ill will over my rather simple and straightforward statements, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that you take a deep breath and next engage in dialog of a more professional and productive manner conducive of an objective, impassionate scientist. I want to remind you that I'm the one who's been flipping out and going through a psycho-emotional roller coaster, isolated in a cheap hotel room while undergoing drastic changes in meds. You just wouldn't believe how difficult the past couple of weeks have been for me. Ugh!

I'd be delighted to clarify any statements you found confusing or ambiguous. In terms of trying to persuade you about the utility of the scientific method in the pursuit of science, I believe that matter was settled quite some time ago.

Mathematics is perhaps the most useful of all tools in the toolbox of science. Yet, mathematics is not science. As I'm sure you are well aware, models can only be as good as the concepts upon which they are based. No model can be constructed before the emergence of a new concept. I am unaware of a model that has succeeded in providing the new insights that we crave to unify quantum mechanics with relativity, to provide thorough description of quantum gravity, or even to explain why we need two theories of relativity to describe a single universe.

Such statements are not attacks; rather, they are expressions of the challenges we face.

Science needs to be able to look in the mirror and see itself for what it is: an imperfect human endeavor struggling to gain meaningful insights into the nature of the universe which the universe is loathe to provide without a fight.

I would also add that organizational structures of your or any other institution do not represent attempts at meaningful definitions of scientific terms or disciplines. They are attempts at creating a useful organizational/social/political taxonomy which shift relentlessly over time.

I look forward to hearing back from you. I'm sure I would enjoy hearing more of your viewpoints, comments, and challenges. However, the last thing in the world I need right now is unnecessary conflict so perhaps you would consider taking a softer approach to someone in a delicate condition. I don't believe that it's your intention to discourage or intimidate others from participating in a forum when their views might be different than yours, but that is what I'm feeling.

I appreciate your understanding and I look forward to reading more of your contributions. It sounds like you might have some important new insights to share with us from your modeling endeavors so that we may all benefit.

Finally, in case you're curious, the couple next door is not arguing anymore, so it seems like a good time to try to get to sleep.

- Scott

That uses mathematical models also. It's still wrong.

Well, the issue is that once you make your statement about what the scientific method is, the matter becomes definition, doesn't it? I am actually not offended.


I'm blunt. I don't play the "objective" person with the "professional and productive manner". I really wasn't trying to be mean, or to have ill will.


Apparently not if we have String Theorists, but in all honesty, debates over the scientific method are still the matter of 20th century philosophy of science. I am nowhere towards promoting Paul Feyerabend's position, but you can't just dismiss it and expect that the debate is settled between you and any other party. And even further, WHY NOT Paul Feyerabend? You may think I am joking, but I am asking you to take it seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism


I don't see your point. We aren't talking about pure mathematics, we are talking about mathematics applied to scientific problems. Even if these are flawed efforts, to say "These are not science" seems at best a pointless quibbling on definitions. I simply think that calling String Theorists physicists is more reasonable than calling them mathematicians or metaphysicists given the sociological context we deal with.


No, they're just statements.


That's nice.


Language is the effort at creating useful taxonomy, and the taxonomies shift over time. Trying to identify something with a platonic essence doesn't appeal to me, particularly given that any definition for the word "science" is an organization/social/political taxonomy, but we didn't identify some essence of "pure science goodness" anywhere.


I am not aiming to cause conflict, but as a relatively disagreeable person, asking me to tone down too much is a bit of an exercise in futility. You are being a bit oversensitive to my statements as well.