Einstein’s Mistakes, and Just What is Science for, Anyway?

[RDeppe]

The distinction between invent and discover is difficult as well as defining knowability or knowledge.

Do you invent or discover the colors you see. Do you know what red is. Can you describe the color red in an all incompasing way. Can you describe the color red at all. Is the description of red equivilent to red.

There are at least three completely consistant and coherent kinds of geometry (euclid, hyperbolic, eliptic).

There is Godel who proved that one axiomatic system can't prove everything.

But science can describe things...

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Am I a figment of your imagination, or are you a figment of mine?)

I'm thinking along the lines of nightmare

[elder999]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
So you're arguing solipsism again? I must have a very fertile imagination, to have come up with someone as irritating as you... (Just joking, but you see my point. Am I a figment of your imagination, or are you a figment of mine?)

Well, no, I'm not: you need to read my post again, Mr. "MSc in Cosmology." I'm simply arguing that-as history demonstrates-the model, howevwer it works, is not necessarily the reality, and all that science does is give us a model, since Ptolemy's time, and even today. To argue otherwise is.....unscientific.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by elder999
Well, no, I'm not: you need to read my post again, Mr. "MSc in Cosmology." I'm simply arguing that-as history demonstrates-the model, howevwer it works, is not necessarily the reality, and all that science does is give us a model, since Ptolemy's time, and even today. To argue otherwise is.....unscientific.

No, science gives us explanations, pace David Deutch. To think otherwise is to be unscientific. Mr. "Mad Scientist". (I know, I know, you're an engineer; but "mad engineer" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.)

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, science gives us explanations, pace David Deutch. To think otherwise is to be unscientific. Mr. "Mad Scientist". (I know, I know, you're an engineer; but "mad engineer" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.)

Actually, Aaron's right, it gives us models. That's why we call such things "scientific models". The models serve as useful ways to explain the way things work, but they aren't necessarily always entirely correct (which is why we're constantly having to toss them out and replace them with new ones).

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
I'm thinking along the lines of nightmare

Well, it must be my nightmare, because according to solipsism, you don't exist.

[nicojo]

Mr. "MSc in Cosmology."

Or is that Msc in Cosmetology? j/k Kimpatsu.

Seriously though, the scientists that I have known who most vehemently deny or dismiss any social construction going on in science are the youngest, whether by age or familiarity. Those more at the top of the game take it for granted, or at least seem to have become aware of it through their lifework. Actually, the perception that science is a human descriptor (if I can use that to say what I think you are talking about) sounds similar to a certain perception gained through martial arts, if that makes any sense.

At any rate, there are certain parallels (or rather, mirror images) to my own field here. Still searching for consilience, which may get us by for a few years until we realize its limitations as a philosophical concept.

So, who have you been reading lately, Mr. Cuffee, about science studies? Or is this just through conversations?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
Actually, Aaron's right, it gives us models. That's why we call such things "scientific models".

David Deutch disagrees with you. He says such an inductivist idea of science--that science exists to provide models which are used for prediction--is to miss the point, which is an attempt to describe reality. The idea that science is about models is to explain something only in terms of itself, because it doesn't explain underlying causes. I.e., I can create ever more complex and details models yielding ever more accurate predictions of the motions of the planets, but the whole point of science is to answer the questions, "What are planets?" and "Why do they behave in the way they do?"; questions that mere models do not answer.

[elder999]

Originally posted by nicojo
So, who have you been reading lately, Mr. Cuffee, about science studies? Or is this just through conversations?

I read all sorts of things, but this is entirely through conversations; the Dr. Gell-mann I refer to is Murray Gell-mann, Nobel prize winning physicist and personal friend, and I'm a staff physicist (though in my heart and in practice, I'll alwaysbe an engineer) at Los Alamos National Lab.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
David Deutch disagrees with you. He says such an inductivist idea of science--that science exists to provide models which are used for prediction--is to miss the point, which is an attempt to describe reality. The idea that science is about models is to explain something only in terms of itself, because it doesn't explain underlying causes. I.e., I can create ever more complex and details models yielding ever more accurate predictions of the motions of the planets, but the whole point of science is to answer the questions, "What are planets?" and "Why do they behave in the way they do?"; questions that mere models do not answer.

There are, I'd argue, many points to science, but science doesn't always provide answers to underlying auses, or oftren explains them incorrectly. Moreover, science often draws truthful conclusions from false premises and theories. While you can ask :what are the planets?" and "why do they behave the way they do?" you cannot use anything but a model to support your answers, and any conclusions you draw, as well as experiments that you set up, are subjective in nature, as would be any consensus that you and your "coscienticists" (versus scientists) might reach.

As an example, I'm happily working at LANSCE, again-the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, where we take protons, accelerate them to near relativistic speeds, and utilize them in various experiments in a variety of fields, as well as to generate neutrons and utilize them. This whole process begins with a bottle of protons-that is, hydrogen gas, which is turned into a plasma and stripped of electrons in a device very much like a high-voltage lightbulb called a source. We have an H- source and and H+ source, H- being the more complex of the two. The process of generating H- is aided by cesium, and here's a funny thing: no one can tell you why. Put six or seven PhD. physicists in a room-especially one with alchoholic beverages being served-bring up an H- source and cesiation, and in no time you'll get a lot of "harrrumphing" and hand-waving. We know it aids the process, and we even know how to optimize it, but there is no consensus among the theories as to why it works, or what exactly happens in the source. One of my colleagues says it's "P.F.M.-as in 'pure effin' magic.' Why do you think it's called sourcery?"

As another example, science can tell us fairly conclusively what sorts of music will evoke what sorts of emotions in a listener-it can tell us what sounds good, and what sounds bad, but it can't tell us why, mathematically or otherwise-references to the Golden Mean aside- what constitutes a good melody or bad one, or good harmony or bad one,happy sing ir sad, should be subjective, but appears to be fairly consistent across cultures, and time, and yet, while science can tell us that this one will evoke so-and-such a response in the brain, it can't tell us why, and may never be able to.

[nicojo]

the Dr. Gell-mann I refer to is Murray Gell-mann, Nobel prize winning physicist

Yes, I thought this was who you were talking about. Not too many Gell-mann's well known in physics otherwise, I suppose.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by elder999
There are, I'd argue, many points to science, but science doesn't always provide answers to underlying auses, or oftren explains them incorrectly. Moreover, science often draws truthful conclusions from false premises and theories. While you can ask :what are the planets?" and "why do they behave the way they do?" you cannot use anything but a model to support your answers, and any conclusions you draw, as well as experiments that you set up, are subjective in nature, as would be any consensus that you and your "coscienticists" (versus scientists) might reach.

But the whole point of experimentation is to weed out the worse explanations in favour of better ones. When you say "incorrect explanation", what you're really saying is that the theory we have developed may explain a narrow range of phenomena, but not a broader one. The development of broader explanations with better power to explain things is what the development of science is all about. It is misleading to say any such theory is "wrong"; rather, it is inadequate.

Originally posted by elder999
As an example, I'm happily working at LANSCE, again-the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, where we take protons, accelerate them to near relativistic speeds, and utilize them in various experiments in a variety of fields, as well as to generate neutrons and utilize them. This whole process begins with a bottle of protons-that is, hydrogen gas, which is turned into a plasma and stripped of electrons in a device very much like a high-voltage lightbulb called a source. We have an H- source and and H+ source, H- being the more complex of the two. The process of generating H- is aided by cesium, and here's a funny thing: no one can tell you why. Put six or seven PhD. physicists in a room-especially one with alchoholic beverages being served-bring up an H- source and cesiation, and in no time you'll get a lot of "harrrumphing" and hand-waving. We know it aids the process, and we even know how to optimize it, but there is no consensus among the theories as to why it works, or what exactly happens in the source. One of my colleagues says it's "P.F.M.-as in 'pure effin' magic.' Why do you think it's called sourcery?"

"PFM" sounds like fun (an example of physicist humour), but it isn't really magic; only something that we can't explain yet.

Originally posted by elder999
As another example, science can tell us fairly conclusively what sorts of music will evoke what sorts of emotions in a listener-it can tell us what sounds good, and what sounds bad, but it can't tell us why, mathematically or otherwise-references to the Golden Mean aside- what constitutes a good melody or bad one, or good harmony or bad one,happy sing ir sad, should be subjective, but appears to be fairly consistent across cultures, and time, and yet, while science can tell us that this one will evoke so-and-such a response in the brain, it can't tell us why, and may never be able to.

Science can't yet tell us the "why", but that doesn't mean it will never be able to. Or are you saying that it is better that we don't; i.e., that we should never unweave the rainbow? Because if so, I will disagree with you 110 billion percent. (Never let it be said I'm not partial to hyperbole. ) Ignorance is never bliss; better to face the cold, hard truth, no matter how unpalatable. Wouldn't you agree?

[n2shotokai]

Well this is all so confusing, two opposing views in science. Who should I believe is correct?

A physicist at Los Alamos (gee I think they make and research something technical there)

or

A displaced English translator with an MSc in cosmetology.

Decisions decisions ………

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
Well this is all so confusing, two opposing views in science. Who should I believe is correct?

A physicist at Los Alamos (gee I think they make and research something technical there)

or

A displaced English translator with an MSc in cosmetology.

Decisions decisions ………

Who should you believe between an engineer at Los Alamos, or a Nobel laureate at Oxford University?
Murray Gell-man isn't arguing on this board; Aaron is. So, if you're going to take Aaron's reporting of Gell-man's comments as gospel, you must do likewise for my reporting of David Deutch's comments. Or accept that this debate is between Aaron and me, with no input from wither Gell-man or Deutch.
But, as usual, Steve, you're going with what you want to beleive, not with the facts...

[Shitoryu Dude]

On nearly any topic of science there are competing opinions, theories, and explanations. The one that wins is the one that stands up to the rigor of actually working. Or rather, working until something comes along that can't be readily explained by the accepted version. As knowledge keeps building on itself there will always be adjustments and revisions.

As long as new and better toys continue to be made I'll let those who enjoy arguing about such things figure out how it all works.