Scientific Legalism

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

For the record, QM admits many possible interpretations. The many worlds interpretation is one. But it isn't the only one by any means, and none of the interpretations is actually science.

 

And if it aint science....

[JohnnyWishbone]

 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/13/2019 at 2:52 PM, hyperferion said:

Of the absolute little we know about ourselves & this universe, have we even figured out what percentage we do know? (Is it even a %) Yet there are those who use the little we do know scientifically, to debunk any new hypothesis that threatens the tiny percentage they do know.

 

Kind of like what religion does.

 

This took off in various directions by the 3rd page. But I'm going back to square one. 

 

It's a balance. I think there should be a balance between pseudo skeptics and pseudo scientific claims. Because that's what these sort of issues draw out. And often the pseudo skeptics don't realize that they are equal, but opposite, of the pseudo scientists. But I've picked up on it over time observing. Read below and let me know if that's what you originally meant in the OP.  Not an attack on science in any way, but a jab at the pseudo skeptics within science and in pop culture in recent decades. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

 

<snipped from link>

 

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."^[9]

 

[disillusioned]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

And if it aint science....

 

...?

 

I didn't say, imply,  or mean to imply that things which aren't science are useless. I don't think this at all. I was just correcting what I perceived to be a reiteration of a common misconception. That's all. 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

And if it aint science....

 

Oh I see what you are trying to do there...   

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This took off in various directions by the 3rd page. But I'm going back to square one. 

 

It's a balance. I think there should be a balance between pseudo skeptics and pseudo scientific claims. Because that's what these sort of issues draw out. And often the pseudo skeptics don't realize that they are equal, but opposite, of the pseudo scientists. But I've picked up on it over time observing. Read below and let me know if that's what you originally meant in the OP.  Not an attack on science in any way, but a jab at the pseudo skeptics within science and in pop culture in recent decades. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

 

<snipped from link>

 

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."^[9]

 

 

Advancement of knowledge is a good thing.

Curiosity and inquiry is another good thing.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

...?

 

I didn't say, imply,  or mean to imply that things which aren't science are useless. I don't think this at all. I was just correcting what I perceived to be a reiteration of a common misconception. That's all. 

 

I was just being a smart ass. lol.

 

By 'not science' do you mean, no solid theory?

 

 

[disillusioned]

28 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I was just being a smart ass. lol.

 

By 'not science' do you mean, no solid theory?

 

 

 

Ah, I see :).

Basically, yes,  I mean not contributing to solid scientific theory. The many worlds interpretation of QM adds nothing in terms of descriptivity,  predictability, or falsifiability. It's entirely superfluous to the scientific merit of the theory.  That doesn't mean it's not interesting,  or even that it's not right,  but it's not science, at least as I see it.

[JohnnyWishbone]

9 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Ah, I see :).

Basically, yes,  I mean not contributing to solid scientific theory. The many worlds interpretation of QM adds nothing in terms of descriptivity,  predictability, or falsifiability. It's entirely superfluous to the scientific merit of the theory.  That doesn't mean it's not interesting,  or even that it's not right,  but it's not science, at least as I see it.

What about that new scientific theory, the multiverse.

 

Lot's of bubble universe's, playing out every conceivable scenario.

[LogicalFallacy]

12 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

What about that new scientific theory, the multiverse.

 

Lot's of bubble universe's, playing out every conceivable scenario.

The same applies. To quote:

 

Quote

The many worlds interpretation of QM adds nothing in terms of descriptivity,  predictability, or falsifiability. It's entirely superfluous to the scientific merit of the theory.  That doesn't mean it's not interesting,  or even that it's not right,  but it's not science, at least as I see it.

 

We shouldn't refer to them as theories in a scientific sense. They are more correctly referred to as hypotheses.

[LogicalFallacy]

Quote

 

It seems that way. Put it this way, unless I haven't heard the great news, we haven't been able to confirm any other reality. (Leaving aside what exactly we are calling reality here as I see multiple possibilities and what I'm talking about might depend on what understanding of reality we use... possibly not the thread for this rabbit hole? Happy to follow you down it in another if you'd like) Maybe. Do you have an interest in 'what might be' or only facts and evidence? Maybe both?

 

"Maybe both" is the most correct answer. For example I don't just keep up to date with confirmed theories, but ideas in science.

 

The many worlds interpretation as I understand it, and huge caveats as I haven't brushed up in it for over a year, but it's simply a hypothesis. One that has no observational data to confirm it. Am I correct there? I believe it's only hypothesis. Does this make it worthwhile to think about? Or should it be considered a waste of time to pursue. Not that wasting time seems to be a concern for any of us here. (haha)

 

Certainly very worthwhile thinking about. My issue is drawing conclusions and making statements about reality that are essentially based on unfounded hypothesis.

 

If I am correct I cannot say that yes we experience other realities. Until someone can produce some test that somehow distinguishes between a person actually experiencing some other reality, or simply something their mind made up (You've probably read some research on how awesome our brains are at making shit up, and how terrible we are at figuring shit out?) What is the test for determining reality? I've never really tested this particular one. Just assumed it's real. Hate to take some other person's word for it...I might be hallucinating this whole thing (haha). Aren't reality, dreams, hallucinations, and any other sensory experiences all a function of the same (possibly faulty) facility?

 

So the way I understand it, is from a philosophical sense we can only really know that we ourselves exist. (You might be my imagination, but I am me). So one of the ways we can determine our shared reality is by comparing the data we individually receive. For example we can both agree that we are individually responding to each other on a forum board using a method called the internet and we both agree that is the case. Also everyone else doing the same will most likely agree and thus we can conclude with a high degree of confidence that this is indeed reality. Now if I say, well I have a dragon in my back yard and I can see it, and you come over an cannot see it we have an issue because we are not agreeing on the shared reality. So we get some more people over and they all say they cannot see the dragon. At this point we can say one of two things: 1) I apparently can see things no one else can, or 2) The dragon isn't there per all the other observations and I am mistaken.

 

I do note that we must assume that we are individual conscious agents sharing this reality, but because this is what we are stuck with we have to go along with it. Even if we are in fact in a matrix, to us, in our  shared reality we still have things we can agree on. Make sense or am I buzzfuddled?

 

No that's not what I was asking. I was asking how we'd differentiate between (as I mentioned above) a real experience of "something else" and something the brain produces. Because we have lots of examples of the brain doing really weird stuff, but none to confirm other "something elses'" Some people are very much convinced that NDE's prove the existence of 'something beyond' I listened to an interesting debate some time ago between a person who had studied NDE's and a person who was a neurologist and didn't think NDE's point to anything other than a failing brain. I'll try and hunt it down and post it if you are interested. Fascinating debate.

I understand what you're getting at. You feel NDEs are baloney since we can't test them.  I wanted to point out that even though I dont believe in Jesus/Heaven, since there is one dimension here that we do experience, there may be others and they may not (probably would not) conform to what we think of as Christian heaven or this earth or anything else we are familiar with.

 

I don't believe the NDE's are baloney. That is not my point. I believe that person do have an experience, I do not think their conclusions are founded. (That heaven therefore exists blah blah) There may be other dimensions, but at the moment it appears all this is tied up with how our brains are acting rather than being able to physically access dimensions. That's not to say something like in Interstellar couldn't happen, its just I don't think we can conclude it is the case.

 

 

Yes, and I've listened to many a lecture on these ideas. The problem is, and the scientists will admit it, is that there is little observational data to go with it. It's not like the big bang where you can see the CMB. There's not much utility for the average Joe in considering a 'multiverse' that none of us has access to...well, other than hyperferion. Lucky bastard. It's fun to ponder though, and sometimes debate.

 

You have valid points, sir. I'm sure I'm a big violator of Occam's Razor, but it's fun to think, "what if".

 

I like Occam's Razor, but I agree sometimes he does need to shove it where the sun don't shine.  

 

 

@midniterider Sorry I've mucked up the quoting so it won't directly reference you, hence the tag.

[sdelsolray]

50 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

What about that new scientific theory, the multiverse.

...

The existence of a multiverse is not a scientific theory.  It is speculation from some physicists.

[JohnnyWishbone]

10 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

The existence of a multiverse is not a scientific theory.  It is speculation from some physicists.

I heard it had a whole mathematical formula, and those scientists were off preaching that concept.

 

But I very happy some scientists can think outside of the box.

[sdelsolray]

12 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

I heard it had a whole mathematical formula, and those scientists were off preaching that concept.

 

But I very happy some scientists can think outside of the box.

 

A mathematical formula is not capable, by itself, of creating a scientific theory.

 

Yes, thinking outside of the box can be quite valuable, except when it isn't.

[JohnnyWishbone]

6 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

A mathematical formula is not capable, by itself, of creating a scientific theory.

 

Yes, thinking outside of the box can be quite valuable, except when it isn't.

You know, I love those Farnsworth theorists. Because at least they are thinking, unlike the religious folk who say

 

"Gawd is the same yesterday, today & tomorrow"

 

Man! I hate Christian's.

[JohnnyWishbone]

16 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This took off in various directions by the 3rd page. But I'm going back to square one. 

 

It's a balance. I think there should be a balance between pseudo skeptics and pseudo scientific claims. Because that's what these sort of issues draw out. And often the pseudo skeptics don't realize that they are equal, but opposite, of the pseudo scientists. But I've picked up on it over time observing. Read below and let me know if that's what you originally meant in the OP.  Not an attack on science in any way, but a jab at the pseudo skeptics within science and in pop culture in recent decades. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

 

<snipped from link>

 

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."^[9]

 

Yeah, that does help my POV.

[disillusioned]

18 hours ago, hyperferion said:

What about that new scientific theory, the multiverse.

 

Lot's of bubble universe's, playing out every conceivable scenario.

 

As others have noted, this isn't properly a scientific theory either. Very interesting,  and a lot of scientists are partial to it. Some of them get carried away and forget to draw the line between science and speculation based on science.

[florduh]

Scientists speculate that X is going on, Creationists speculate that Y is going on, psychics speculate that Z is going on......... at least I'll take a look, wait and see what scientists are musing about. Often their speculation evolves into something useful, never so with the other speculators.

[JohnnyWishbone]

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

As others have noted, this isn't properly a scientific theory either. Very interesting,  and a lot of scientists are partial to it. Some of them get carried away and forget to draw the line between science and speculation based on science.

Do you remember the membrane theory?

[disillusioned]

5 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

Do you remember the membrane theory?

 

M-theory? I'm familiar with it, though not an expert by any means. As I understand it, it doesn't make testable predictions, and hence isn't really science. I've known quite a few serious physicists who agree with me.

[JohnnyWishbone]

15 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

M-theory? I'm familiar with it, though not an expert by any means. As I understand it, it doesn't make testable predictions, and hence isn't really science. I've known quite a few serious physicists who agree with me.

I don't know if it's called M-theory. It was the concept that the universe existed on a giant brain of some sort. 

[LogicalFallacy]

20 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

M-theory? I'm familiar with it, though not an expert by any means. As I understand it, it doesn't make testable predictions, and hence isn't really science. I've known quite a few serious physicists who agree with me.

 

In the same vein, string theory seems to be caught in the non testable rut at this point.

[disillusioned]

29 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

I don't know if it's called M-theory. It was the concept that the universe existed on a giant brain of some sort. 

 

Brain or brane? Two very different assertions. If you could provide some links to what you're talking about it would be helpful. 

[disillusioned]

31 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

In the same vein, string theory seems to be caught in the non testable rut at this point.

 

Yes, M-theory is basically the amalgamation/unification of various string theories.

 

The 35s-1min section of the following was a running joke in the physics department I was studying at when this first aired.

 

 

[JohnnyWishbone]

17 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Brain or brane? Two very different assertions. If you could provide some links to what you're talking about it would be helpful. 

Shit did I say brain. I'll get some information on this old cosmological theory, be back soon.