Experiment and Theory vs. Reality

[protonman]

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Same reason that would be given for questions on any physics point:
"That's what the experimental evidence says". Arguments about "reasonableness" cannot stand in the face of experimental evidence. (And the experimental evidence in favor of relativity is overwhelming.)
I disagree. Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory. There needs to be a reason, based on some principle, that can explain why these things are true.

For example, if I am in a space ship traveling the speed of light relativity says that I can not walk from one end of the ship to the other. What is the reasoning being this? If all you can say is that there is experimental evidence then your understanding is not complete.

It is extremely strange that although SR has been arround for almost 100 years no one has conclusively answered this question. In fact, it seems that there is very little contemplation given to this question which lies at the foundation of modern physics.

[selfAdjoint]

For example, if I am in a space ship traveling the speed of light relativity says that I can not walk from one end of the ship to the other. What is the reasoning being this? If all you can say is that there is experimental evidence then your understanding is not complete

And if I'm walking across the water of a lake physics says I can't avoid getting my feet wet. Why hasn't science addressed this problem?

Get used to it . You can't be in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light because a spaceship can't travel at the speed of light. Experiment has lots of massive particles accelerated to near the speed of light, relative to the equipment, and they can confirm the physical changes that take place. And relativity does have a theory. It goes:

1. All unaccelerated observers can do physics as if they were at rest.
2. All unaccelerated observers measuring the speed of light get the same number.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory. There needs to be a reason, based on some principle, that can explain why these things are true.


You've got it completely backwards. Experimental agreement is what determines "what is reasonable", and it is also what determines our principles that describe the workings of nature. The principles of which you speak are abstracted from the experimental evidence, not the other way around.

[protonman]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
For example, if I am in a space ship traveling the speed of light relativity says that I can not walk from one end of the ship to the other. What is the reasoning being this? If all you can say is that there is experimental evidence then your understanding is not complete

And if I'm walking across the water of a lake physics says I can't avoid getting my feet wet. Why hasn't science addressed this problem?
This is not a good analog because the fact that your feet get wet is not one of the foundations of modern physics.


Get used to it . You can't be in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light because a spaceship can't travel at the speed of light. Experiment has lots of massive particles accelerated to near the speed of light, relative to the equipment, and they can confirm the physical changes that take place. And relativity does have a theory. It goes:

Get used to what? Is this a cop out? I already said that experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something. If experiementers are able to accelerate particles then there is a highest speed they have reached. This speed is less than the speed of light. How do they know if they go 1% faster things will be the same. All experiment can do is nullify something. It can not establish something conclusively. In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason. An example of this is momentum conservation. This can be established without experiement.


1. All unaccelerated observers can do physics as if they were at rest.
2. All unaccelerated observers measuring the speed of light get the same number.
These are postulates of axioms of SR. Based on these two statements Einstein developed all of SR. I never said that relativity does not have a theory. I said Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory. There is a difference. Initially, Einstein more or less assumed the two postulates. The first one is not so bad and is establishable via reasoning. The second though is complete speculation. The whole idea behind it is the failed attempt to detect any medium though with light waves travel.

My understanding of SR is very deep because I have thought about it outside the confines of the establishment. If you are constantly surrounded by people saying the same thing, it is difficult to formulate original ideas that are contrary.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I disagree. Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory.

Maybe a political or a marketing theory, but it is the only grounds for physical theories.

Why do you think that we consider Newton's laws "reasonable"? why do we not use pre-Newtonian ideas? Aristotle postulated many physical principles that were held as truth for a long time. Why do you think we don't use them any more?

Back in those times, youngsters were taught those principles, which surely were reasonable enough to be around for a long time, but what is now regarded as reasonable (and taught to every child through school and action movie sequences) is different.

As long as these principles are not clearly in contradiction with observation, people can learn them and make them part of what they consider "reasonable". It is important to be aware of that. Our neural circuitry comes with no warranty about the adequacy of its favored ideas for describing reality.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
You've got it completely backwards. Experimental agreement is what determines "what is reasonable", and it is also what determines our principles that describe the workings of nature. The principles of which you speak are abstracted from the experimental evidence, not the other way around.
We could go back and forth all day saying who is correct. You have provided no evidence for your claims. Only that I have it backwards.

Experimental evidence is not conclusive. It can only eliminate a theory, not establish it. Why? Because if an experiment establishes something it only establishes it in the particular situations the experiment was done in. Pervasive establishments are based on reason. If you can establish something based on a reason then you can establish something in all cases.

For example, to find the extrema of a function you could check all points. The problem here is that there are infinite cases. If you check countless cases you still have countless more to check. Consider a simple parabola that has only one minimum at zero. You check every case except zero and based on all these tests conclude there is no zero. Or you could use reason. Since the point where the tanget is zero must be an extrema all we need to do is find this point. This is established pervasively. We did not need to look at every case but through logic and reason deduced that there is a relationship between extrema and the tanget line.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
We could go back and forth all day saying who is correct. You have provided no evidence for your claims. Only that I have it backwards. Not really. This isn't subject to debate. You are quite free to argue in our philosophy forum how the process of science should work, but the way we described it is the way science does work. Those are the rules and thats the game. If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules. Try arguing with an umpire about how many strikes should be allowed in baseball and see how far you get. Same thing here.

[protonman]

Originally posted by russ_watters
protonman, as others have said, your ideas on what science itself is on the most basic level are deeply flawed.
My ideas on what science is are fine. I know what you people accept and I don't accept them. My understanding of the scientific method is perfect. If you read my posts this is what I am attacking. I leave it up to you to fight back.

In fact, you can look to history to see that your way does not work and the current accepted way does. Preconcieved notions of how the universe should work were the cause of thousands of years of scientific stagnation. Only after we broke out of that cage in the Rennaissance (sp) did our understanding of the laws of the universe start to grow - and grow at an astounding rate.

I have no preconceived notions of how the world should work. It is you that have no understanding of why is meant by reason. Reason is not what should make sense. Reason is looking at the world and based on this ensuring that views do not contradict it.

Your own personal understanding will grow as well if you accept the way science works and work within it. Otherwise you are just spinning your wheelse in place - attacking strawman versions of theories by using thought experiments that aren't allowed by the theory in the first place.

Maybe for you but I don't accept things that I find incorrect. I wouldn'y base my entire view of the world on speculation. That is all your method is. That if we do an experiment N times and the results are the same each time the N+1 time it will be the same. This is not certainty.

QM is a good example of a branch of science that broke all the preconcieved rules of logic and our expectations of how it could be. But the experiments are unequivocable and the theories based on them work. So we must accept it. [/B]
Many theories work but that does not mean that the model is an exact description of reality. The best example is right here in front of us. Newtonain mechanics worked ok for a while. Aristotle worked ok for a while. What makes you think that what you have now is any different. Don't you see the pattern of theories that were later shown to be incomplete or wrong.

Since you seem to be in the advice giving mood I will give you some. You desire for certainty at any cost is the problem. The hardest thing for people to realize is what they have devoted their life to and studied for many years is actually wrong. At least not as valid at once thought. Getting past this point is the hard part and everything else after this lead to the truth.

I have the degrees to back up what I say. I am a physics teacher. Unlike you people, I teach students how to think not what to think.

I have defended against all your views. I challenge you to do the same.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
Many theories work but that does not mean that the model is an exact description of reality....

What makes you think that what you have now is any different. Don't you see the pattern of theories that were later shown to be incomplete or wrong....

You desire for certainty at any cost is the problem. No one here has said anything at all about certainty, exactitude, or infallibility of existing theories. That's not how the scientific method works and we know it.

Newtonain phyiscs was not in contradiction with reality at the time. Newtonian physics was in fact known to be contrary to reality at the time it was proposed(or soon thereafter). Since we know why it was incomplete, that does not diminish its utility.

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
[B]Newtonain phyiscs was not in contradiction with reality at the time. So if this is so why do you accept SR and only Newtonain physics as a low velocity limit?


Because experimental evidence has shown that Newtonian physics is insufficient to explain relativistic phenomena, and that SR predicts what is observed.


The whole idea behind your theories is that they are the same today as tommorow.


Your point?


If science is based on experiemnt and experiemnt is based on observation and observation is based on perception how do you even know your perceptions are correct? Can you prove this experimentally? If not then the foundation of phyics must be abandoned.


I'm sure a philosophy journal might be interested in your theories, but quite frankly I get really tired of the offensive nature of those posters who come on here and deny established scientfic practices because they "think outside the establishment". You are obviously not interested in intellectual discussion, but rather boasting your "superior understanding" of all things science because you aren't a scientist, and aren't "brainwashed" by the orthodoxy.

[russ_watters]

The Scientific Method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)

Excerpts: I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.[emphasis added]
If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. ...and most importantly, the issue here: III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day. [emphasis added]

[protonman]

I'm sure a philosophy journal might be interested in your theories, but quite frankly I get really tired of the offensive nature of those posters who come on here and deny established scientfic practices because they "think outside the establishment". You are obviously not interested in intellectual discussion, but rather boasting your "superior understanding" of all things science because you aren't a scientist, and aren't "brainwashed" by the orthodoxy.
Who said anything about being established? Check up above. It was acknowledged that the idea of certainty is not a reality. Certainty=established.

In addition, it is really great to see you so open to intellectual inquiry. Your views are truly in the spirit of those who seek truth.

[protonman]

Why hasn't anyone addressed this argument?
If science is based on experiment and experiment is based on observation and observation is based on perception how do you even know your perceptions are correct? Can you prove this experimentally? If not then the foundation of phyics must be abandoned. If so how can you establish that perceptions, which are the foundation of experiemental verification, are vefified by experiemnt. How would you know this experiment is valid?

[protonman]

Newtonian physics was in fact known to be contrary to reality at the time it was proposed(or soon thereafter). Since we know why it was incomplete, that does not diminish its utility.
Really? That is strange. Who was it that discovered that it was contrary to reality?

[protonman]

Consider how stupid the argument that the only explanation of why light is measured the same by all observers independently of their relative motion is experimental evidence.

Everytime I throw a baseball up it comes down. To an observer this seems very strange. They ask why it comes down I reply because everytime I throw it up it comes down. Is this really an explanation?

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman

In addition, it is really great to see you so open to intellectual inquiry. Your views are truly in the spirit of those who seek truth.

From the tone of your posts it's quite clear to me (and others) that's you're not interested in intellectual discussion. You're here to stir up **** by insulting everyone's education, proclaiming yourself to be above it all because you think outside the box.

If you are really trying to engage in honest philosophizing, then change your tone and you might find people a bit more receptive. Hint: first thing you post shouldn't be to tell everyone how naive they are for blindly accepting their education, and how superior your thinking process is, plus how you've clearly mastered this field and understand it better than everyone who has studied it.

There's a fine line between critical analysis and just plain nonsensical thought.

You also said:


Everytime I throw a baseball up it comes down. To an observer this seems very strange. They ask why it comes down I reply because everytime I throw it up it comes down. Is this really an explanation?


It is confirmation of a fact. Furthermore, we know that our theories of gravity explain very nicely *why* the ball will come back down when we throw it up.

To be quite honest, I don't remember what your original question was, whether it was light travelling at constant speed or light having mass. In either case, these are backed up by theoretical postulates which are confirmed experimentally. Constant speed of light: Maxwell's equations (classical and covariant form). Constant speed of light in all reference frames: Einstein-Lorentz theory. Null mass of photon: renormalizability of U(1) gauge group.

[Nereid]

protonman wrote (re QM): Many theories work but that does not mean that the model is an exact description of reality. If they 'work', then there is no experimental or observational data that is inconsistent with the theories. But what then is 'reality'? A good topic for discussion! What is 'exact'? In the lab and in the field, it can have meaning only in terms of the apparatus, equipment etc and the (physical) theories which underlie them.

More fundamentally, how can you tell that a description before you - whether proposed by Einstein, Feynman, Russ, Nereid, vlamir, wisp, or anyone else - is 'an exact description of reality'?

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Nereid
If they 'work', then there is no experimental or observational data that is inconsistent with the theories. But what then is 'reality'? A good topic for discussion! What is 'exact'? In the lab and in the field, it can have meaning only in terms of the apparatus, equipment etc and the (physical) theories which underlie them.

More fundamentally, how can you tell that a description before you - whether proposed by Einstein, Feynman, Russ, Nereid, vlamir, wisp, or anyone else - is 'an exact description of reality'?

I don't think anyone is arguing that *any* theory is an EXACT theory of reality (except maybe protonman). Newtonian mechanics had limits, as I'm sure does relativity, quantum field theory, etc... These are constantly being pushed and expanded, and periodically comes a paradigm shift where the line of thinking is completely redrawn.

I will be the first one to admit that present theories will be antiquated in 100 years, and that a more complete theory is waiting, through which we'll understand the universe that much better.

HOWEVER, this does NOT invalidate present theory, any more than SR invalidated Newtonian mechanics. Each theory has a range in which its power of predictability applies and holds.

[Nereid]

GRQC wrote: HOWEVER, this [the assertion that today's hot favourite physics theories - GR, QM, ... - will likely be found seriously wanting in the next ~100 years (I'm paraphrasing)] does NOT invalidate present theory, any more than SR invalidated Newtonian mechanics. Each theory has a range in which its power of predictability applies and holds. Well said!

There's also an 'in the limit' constraint; e.g. GR needs to closely resemble Newtonian mechanics (Nm) 'in the limit' of the range where Nm applies and holds.GRQC wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that *any* theory is an EXACT theory of reality (except maybe protonman) I am kinda hoping that protonman will give us his thoughts on the answer to my question.

[protonman]

More fundamentally, how can you tell that a description before you - whether proposed by Einstein, Feynman, Russ, Nereid, vlamir, wisp, or anyone else - is 'an exact description of reality'? [/B]If somethings description is in accordance with the how the object actually exists.

[protonman]

Everytime I throw a baseball up it comes down. To an observer this seems very strange. They ask why it comes down I reply because everytime I throw it up it comes down. Is this really an explanation?
I will explain why I said this.

I asked why the speed of light is measured the same by all observers regardless of their motion relative to the light source. The answers were all something to the effect of 'its been confirmed by experiment.'

My parallel was for a ball thrown up. Just think if someone asked you why a ball falls back to the earth each time it is thrown up. You respond 'because each time I do it is falls back down.' This is what they are saying. It has nothing to do with your statement that gravity is well understood.

You need to read my posts before you reply to them. It would also be better if you think about what I said because there is a good chance the ideas I am presenting are something you have never heard before. My point of view is quite unique.

[protonman]

Are you all too afraid to touch this one?
If science is based on experiment and experiment is based on observation and observation is based on perception how do you even know your perceptions are correct? Can you prove this experimentally? If not then the foundation of phyics must be abandoned. If so how can you establish that perceptions, which are the foundation of experiemental verification, are vefified by experiemnt. How would you know this experiment is valid?

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
\ It would also be better if you think about what I said because there is a good chance the ideas I am presenting are something you have never heard before. My point of view is quite unique.

Where have you been all of our lives?...

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
If something's description is in accordance with the how the object actually exists. That takes us back one step ... how do you determine 'how the object actually exists' ? (the 'actual existance of the object'?)

And if your determination is to be anything more than something in your own mind, how can I (or Russ, or SelfAdjoint, or Mentat, or marcus, or Greene, or Hawking, ... ) make that same determination?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
That takes us back one step ... how do you determine 'how the object actually exists' ? (the 'actual existance of the object'?)

And if your determination is to be anything more than something in your own mind, how can I (or Russ, or SelfAdjoint, or Mentat, or marcus, or Greene, or Hawking, ... ) make that same determination? If something exists it is an object of a valid perception.

[protonman]

russ_waffers
I was attacking the scientific method which you take a priori as providing a valid method of understanding. Whatever you want to call it doesn't change the fact that you can't stand up to my questions. If your goal is to confine you view of phyiscs to topics you can answer that is your choice. If you want to call everything that doesn't fit you world philosophy and push it to the gutter that is also your choice. But you can't hide from the fact that I am raising serious questions.

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by protonman
russ_waffers
I was attacking the scientific method which you take a priori as providing a valid method of understanding. Whatever you want to call it doesn't change the fact that you can't stand up to my questions. If your goal is to confine you view of phyiscs to topics you can answer that is your choice. If you want to call everything that doesn't fit you world philosophy and push it to the gutter that is also your choice. But you can't hide from the fact that I am raising serious questions.

I'm sorry, what are the serious questions again? And why are they serious?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
If something exists it is an object of a valid perception. I think I 'get' the perception part - as reported by more than one person, per their sense of sight, touch, etc. This can be extended too - reported (etc) as the 'output' of an instrument or device which the two or more people have otherwise perceived (and agreed). Perhaps the 'valid' qualifier means more than one person? or repeatable??

What *is* 'an object of a (valid) perception'?

What I least understand about the statement is the order; I'd've thought it should be 'if something is the object of a valid perception, it exists'.

[Zero]

A serious question would imply a serious understanding of what is being questioned. Attacking the scientific method in favor of some other method is serious business, and as with all extraordinary claims, must be matched with some extraordinary supporting evidence.

[protonman]

Physics is gayy!

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
Physics is gayy!

What's this? From someone who teaches physics for a living with such a passion that he covers relativity theory, and professes to develop critical thinking skills amongst his students?

It's quite obvious that you're no physics teacher.

[treat2]

(From Page 1 of Thread. Approx. 2nd or 3rd post by protonman.)

Originally posted by protonman

...experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something.
....All experiment can do is nullify something.
It can not establish something conclusively.
In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason.
...Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory. ...

I'd like to respond to protonman's point's from this post and some others. Regarding the quote above, I trimmed out certain parts of the post, to get to the basic arguments presented, not to quote out of context, or simplify the arguments.

I'd also like to mention something regarding the Scientific Method that was not explicitly stated earlier, and is very important. Generally speaking, there are 3 possible results when an experiment is performed to test something: success, failure, or inconclusive (i.e. possible).

The Scientific Method differs from faith-based beliefs because it states that until proven, a hypothesis is false, as opposed to possible. In other words, although the results of tests may consistently be inconclusive, for any number of reasons, the Scientific Method states that in such cases, what has been tested, remains FALSE, not inconclusive, nor possible.

Now, to protonman's point's, which are separately quoted, from above.


1) "...experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something."

The quote was made in the context of the absence of a "reasoned hypothesis" to be tested. By reasoned hypothesis, protonman refers to a "principle" arrived at by logic, deductive reasoning, and what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation.

The "something" in this context refers to an experiment that has a true result, without a reasoned hypothesis that is being tested.

Given protonman's posts, I interpret the premise of the argument quoted above to be:

A hypothesis that is not based on logic, nor deductive reasoning, nor what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation, can not be conclusively experimental verified.

My interpretation appears to be quite different than what was actually quoted above. However, after reading the entire thread several times, and the context in which the quotation was made, it is my best assessment of actual meaning, if not the actual words, of the quotation.

It is certainly fair to say that applying the Scientific Method to a hypothesis for which there is either, no empirical evidence, nor any rational basis for establishing would certainly be not only a misuse of the Scientific Method. Moreover, experimentation of that nature, has no basis in Science, whatsoever.

The quotation is actually baiting an argument, due to what the quotation does not clearly state.


2) "....All experiment can do is nullify something."

This statement is clear, and is actually false.

The although a reasoned hypothesis, tested via the Scientific Method can yield different results (mentioned above), the Scientific Method
can not prove what is not true (i.e. a false result is not proof of what is a true result).

The Scientific Method can prove a hypothesis is true, subsequent to that logic and deductive reasoning can be applied to the true result to conclude what must be false.

The Scientific Method can only be used to prove what is true, it can not prove what is false. That requires logic and deductive reasoning.
Therefore, the quotation above is false. One can not prove a negative
via the Scientific Method!


3) "It can not establish something conclusively."

"It" refers to the Scientific Method.
"conclusively" in the context of protonman's posts is understood to mean a universal result that is true in all known and unknown systems.

The Scientific Method, and verification and validation via repeated testing using varied data, as well as, verification and validation via cross-testing of other known reliable tests establishes what can be accepted as conclusive results, within a system.


Only a fool would argue that s/he knows what is unknown. Protonman's
basis for the argument presumes to know the unknown. Protonman can not assert anything scientific without providing empirical evidence of the assertion. The burden of proof for the assertion(s) of unknown systems rests entirely upon protonman to establish.


4) "In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason."

I don't think anyone would argue that.

Mathematics uses logic and reason, as does Physics.

Protonman's original 2 questions can be scientifically be answered using mathematics to explain the reasoned principles that have yielded positive results, via the Scientific Method.

It should be noted that the reasoned principle, a.k.a. the basis, of a hypothesis is reasoned and the experiment is conducted within a "system", for example: our environment, our solar system, etc.

It is widely believed that OTHER SYSTEMS EXIST, in which it is not logical to assume that the reasoned principle is applicable, and that the positive test results from the tested system, would be false within another system. In fact, the Scientific Method demands such results be false in another system!

These are the systems in which we say that all KNOWN laws of physics
are unknown, and are expected to "break down".

No assertions are known to me personally, that the known laws of physics would hold true in unknown systems.


5) "...Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory"

Correct.

Empirical Evidence is grounds for establishment of a Theory a.k.a. Hypothesis.

Experimental agreement is grounds for validating the reliability of the result(s) of the Scientific Method, after applying it to a Theory.

Experimental agreement establishes reliability of valid results.
---------------------------------------------------------

What went wrong with this thread? IMO, There's a lot of baiting that can only be understood after reading the entire thread. Protonman made plenty of assertions, and provided no proof of them. On the other hand, it seems from the tone of the thread, that the 2 initial questions could have been answered mathematically, rather than ONLY asserting that experimentation provides proof. Both sides went to extremes. However, latter in the thread, protonman admitted to baiting in his initial thread post, and what followed.

[protonman]

Originally posted by GRQC
What's this? From someone who teaches physics for a living with such a passion that he covers relativity theory, and professes to develop critical thinking skills amongst his students?

It's quite obvious that you're no physics teacher. That is news to me because last time i checked i was.

[Hurkyl]

What went wrong with this thread? IMO, There's a lot of baiting that can only be understood after reading the entire thread. Protonman made plenty of assertions, and provided no proof of them. On the other hand, it seems from the tone of the thread, that the 2 initial questions could have been answered mathematically, rather than ONLY asserting that experimentation provides proof. Both sides went to extremes. However, latter in the thread, protonman admitted to baiting in his initial thread post, and what followed.

IMHO, it was fairly obvious from the very first post that protonman had no interest in any reasonable sort of discussion, and one could make a fairly good guess the direction it would take. I think most of the initial respones took that into consideration. [:)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
That is news to me because last time i checked i was. Ummm...physical education and physics are two different things.[;)]

[protonman]

Originally posted by treat2
(From Page 1 of Thread. Approx. 2nd or 3rd post by protonman.)



I'd like to respond to protonman's point's from this post and some others. Regarding the quote above, I trimmed out certain parts of the post, to get to the basic arguments presented, not to quote out of context, or simplify the arguments.

I'd also like to mention something regarding the Scientific Method that was not explicitly stated earlier, and is very important. Generally speaking, there are 3 possible results when an experiment is performed to test something: success, failure, or inconclusive (i.e. possible).

The Scientific Method differs from faith-based beliefs because it states that until proven, a hypothesis is false, as opposed to possible. In other words, although the results of tests may consistently be inconclusive, for any number of reasons, the Scientific Method states that in such cases, what has been tested, remains FALSE, not inconclusive, nor possible.

Now, to protonman's point's, which are separately quoted, from above.


1) "...experimental verification is not enough evidence to establish something."

The quote was made in the context of the absence of a "reasoned hypothesis" to be tested. By reasoned hypothesis, protonman refers to a "principle" arrived at by logic, deductive reasoning, and what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation.

The "something" in this context refers to an experiment that has a true result, without a reasoned hypothesis that is being tested.

Given protonman's posts, I interpret the premise of the argument quoted above to be:

A hypothesis that is not based on logic, nor deductive reasoning, nor what can be plainly seen without the use of experimentation, can not be conclusively experimental verified.

My interpretation appears to be quite different than what was actually quoted above. However, after reading the entire thread several times, and the context in which the quotation was made, it is my best assessment of actual meaning, if not the actual words, of the quotation.

It is certainly fair to say that applying the Scientific Method to a hypothesis for which there is either, no empirical evidence, nor any rational basis for establishing would certainly be not only a misuse of the Scientific Method. Moreover, experimentation of that nature, has no basis in Science, whatsoever.

The quotation is actually baiting an argument, due to what the quotation does not clearly state.


2) "....All experiment can do is nullify something."

This statement is clear, and is actually false.

The although a reasoned hypothesis, tested via the Scientific Method can yield different results (mentioned above), the Scientific Method
can not prove what is not true (i.e. a false result is not proof of what is a true result).

The Scientific Method can prove a hypothesis is true, subsequent to that logic and deductive reasoning can be applied to the true result to conclude what must be false.

The Scientific Method can only be used to prove what is true, it can not prove what is false. That requires logic and deductive reasoning.
Therefore, the quotation above is false. One can not prove a negative
via the Scientific Method!


3) "It can not establish something conclusively."

"It" refers to the Scientific Method.
"conclusively" in the context of protonman's posts is understood to mean a universal result that is true in all known and unknown systems.

The Scientific Method, and verification and validation via repeated testing using varied data, as well as, verification and validation via cross-testing of other known reliable tests establishes what can be accepted as conclusive results, within a system.


Only a fool would argue that s/he knows what is unknown. Protonman's
basis for the argument presumes to know the unknown. Protonman can not assert anything scientific without providing empirical evidence of the assertion. The burden of proof for the assertion(s) of unknown systems rests entirely upon protonman to establish.


4) "In order to establish something in all cases you must use reason."

I don't think anyone would argue that.

Mathematics uses logic and reason, as does Physics.

Protonman's original 2 questions can be scientifically be answered using mathematics to explain the reasoned principles that have yielded positive results, via the Scientific Method.

It should be noted that the reasoned principle, a.k.a. the basis, of a hypothesis is reasoned and the experiment is conducted within a "system", for example: our environment, our solar system, etc.

It is widely believed that OTHER SYSTEMS EXIST, in which it is not logical to assume that the reasoned principle is applicable, and that the positive test results from the tested system, would be false within another system. In fact, the Scientific Method demands such results be false in another system!

These are the systems in which we say that all KNOWN laws of physics
are unknown, and are expected to "break down".

No assertions are known to me personally, that the known laws of physics would hold true in unknown systems.


5) "...Experimental agreement is not grounds for establishing a theory"

Correct.

Empirical Evidence is grounds for establishment of a Theory a.k.a. Hypothesis.

Experimental agreement is grounds for validating the reliability of the result(s) of the Scientific Method, after applying it to a Theory.

Experimental agreement establishes reliability of valid results.
---------------------------------------------------------

What went wrong with this thread? IMO, There's a lot of baiting that can only be understood after reading the entire thread. Protonman made plenty of assertions, and provided no proof of them. On the other hand, it seems from the tone of the thread, that the 2 initial questions could have been answered mathematically, rather than ONLY asserting that experimentation provides proof. Both sides went to extremes. However, latter in the thread, protonman admitted to baiting in his initial thread post, and what followed. I don't appreciate you telling others what I meant. Most likely you have you have no idea what I am talking about.

[protonman]

Even the name of this forum shows the bias of the moderators here. Now I understand how other thinkers feel when they go up against the mainstream physics dogma. You people should be ashamed. Your practices are undemocratic and the analogy I made to Nazis earlier is becomming more truthful.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Even the name of this forum shows the bias of the moderators here. Now I understand how other thinkers feel when they go up against the mainstream physics dogma. You people should be ashamed. Your practices are undemocratic and the analogy I made to Nazis earlier is becomming more truthful. LOL!!!

Do you realize how "scripted" your posts are? Either you are the same crackpot as we've seen here at least once a month for years, or else you guys must subscribe to a newsletter. Your posting is identical to everyone else who doesn't understand physics and doesn't feel like learning anything about it.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL!!!

Do you realize how "scripted" your posts are? Either you are the same crackpot as we've seen here at least once a month for years, or else you guys must subscribe to a newsletter. Your posting is identical to everyone else who doesn't understand physics and doesn't feel like learning anything about it. I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written. What I am questioning is the validity of physics. You seem to have confused my not inability fall victum to your propaganda with a misunderstanding of phyics. In all reality I understand it better than most of the people here. This is evidenced by the fact that you don't even see the thinking behind the questions I raise. You don't understand them so instead of admitting this you just try to shut me up.

Find one place where I show I don't understand physics.

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written.


Protonman: "Physics is gayy."

I'm convinced.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written. What I am questioning is the validity of physics. You seem to have confused my not inability fall victum to your propaganda with a misunderstanding of phyics. In all reality I understand it better than most of the people here. This is evidenced by the fact that you don't even see the thinking behind the questions I raise. You don't understand them so instead of admitting this you just try to shut me up.

Find one place where I show I don't understand physics. Ummm...what you have written shows your LACK of knowledge about physics. Further, what I was commenting on was the fact that you and your fellow crackpots all sound exactly the same...coincidence? Plus, of course, your crackpottery is completely bulletproof, because any attempt to point out your flaws only proves you are right...


...at least on Bizarro World, which is the only place where the things you post make any sense.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by protonman
For example, if I am in a space ship traveling the speed of light relativity says that I can not walk from one end of the ship to the other. What is the reasoning being this? If all you can say is that there is experimental evidence then your understanding is not complete.

I am surprised no one has picked up on this.

This is exactly what Relativity does not say. As far as relativity is concerned, it does not matter what velocity the ship is travelling relative to the earth, or whatever, since you are only considering movement relative to the ship, it does not matter. The ship is effectively stationary. The reasoning is that there is no evidence for an absolute frame of reference (indeed the existence of one would cause many problems), so all frames are equally valid. Define your frame of reference relative to the ship, and you have no problems.

I understand physics quite well. Just look at what I have written.
Oopsy! [;)]

[Zero]

I think we all picked up on it, FZ+...which is why we all questioned his understanding of relativity in the first place. If you don't grasp reference frames, you don't know the first thing about relativity, do you?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by FZ+
I am surprised no one has picked up on this.

This is exactly what Relativity does not say. As far as relativity is concerned, it does not matter what velocity the ship is travelling relative to the earth, or whatever, since you are only considering movement relative to the ship, it does not matter. The ship is effectively stationary. The reasoning is that there is no evidence for an absolute frame of reference (indeed the existence of one would cause many problems), so all frames are equally valid. Define your frame of reference relative to the ship, and you have no problems. IIRC, there was a response (SelfAdjoint?) - not unlike your own FZ+, but it got lost when key parts of the thread were moved here.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't appreciate you telling others what I meant. Most likely you have you have no idea what I am talking about. Would you be so kind then as to tell us what you meant?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...what you have written shows your LACK of knowledge about physics. I challenge you to present one ACTUAL example.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I challenge you to present one ACTUAL example. But it is so hard to pick just one!! How about...It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
But it is so hard to pick just one!! How about... Then refute what I said. I don't think this is wrong. It is in accordance with physics because it is in accordance with the definition of a wave. A wave is nothing more than the oscillatory motion of a substance. Remove this substance and there is no wave.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Then refute what I said. I don't think this is wrong. It is in accordance with physics because it is in accordance with the definition of a wave. A wave is nothing more than the oscillatory motion of a substance. Remove this substance and there is no wave. Ummm...maybe in accordance with physics 150 years ago...you should really try to keep up, chum.

[treat2]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't appreciate you telling others what I meant. Most likely you have you have no idea what I am talking about.


protonman is an unresponsive waste of bandwith.

S/he has the distinct honor of being the first UserID added to my Ignore List at this Board.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...maybe in accordance with physics 150 years ago...you should really try to keep up, chum. If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today? Correct definitions are time independent.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today? Correct definitions are time independent. Are you saying that new theories and better evidence cannot supplant old theories and less-compelling evidence?

[protonman]

Answer the question If your definition of 150 years ago is no longer valid then why should I accept the definition you have today?.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Answer the question . It isn't a very coherent question, but I think you are asking why we should accept current theories over past discredited ones...more and better evidence, that's why.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
It isn't a very coherent question, but I think you are asking why we should accept current theories over past discredited ones...more and better evidence, that's why. Actually it is very coherent. Maybe just a bit above your head. This I understand and I will explain it to you as I would a 2 year old.

If your ideas that we thought to be correct 150 years ago have been shown to be incorrect why should we give any credence to the present ideas. In order to understand my argument shift the same logic back 150 years to when they thought they were correct regarding wave (of course this is all according to you).

The whole point is this. If everytime your theory is shown to be incorrect you change the definitions of things it indicates that you have no understanding of what is going on. The measure of validity of a theory is its ability to be time independent.

I know some of you people have spent some time studying at universities so I understand you have lost a good amout of your ability to think independently and creatively but consider this. How stuipd is the idea that everytime a theory is shown to be incorrect you change your definitions to fit the model of what you think should be instead of maintaining the definitions and looking at the new findings as incorrect. This is completely ridiculous, unscientific and you are doing exactly what I was criticized for.

In summary, since what we have been doing for so many years can not possibly be wrong we will change the meaning of words and definitions to fit our accepted dogma.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Experimental evidence is not conclusive. It can only eliminate a theory, not establish it. Why? Because if an experiment establishes something it only establishes it in the particular situations the experiment was done in.


I agree that experimental evidence does not constitute absolute proof.


Pervasive establishments are based on reason. If you can establish something based on a reason then you can establish something in all cases.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of "reason" in science, as is made abundantly clear by your reference to mathematics in the next segment (I'll get to that shortly). "Proofs" in the absolute sense are carried out via deductive logic. However, deduction provides us with no method to determine the truth values of statements about concrete objects (such as particles and fields). To establish the truth value of the statements in the proof, we must rely on induction, whose basis is in observational evidence.

Not only is observation the way theories are established, it is the only way they can be established.


For example, to find the extrema of a function you could check all points. The problem here is that there are infinite cases. If you check countless cases you still have countless more to check. Consider a simple parabola that has only one minimum at zero. You check every case except zero and based on all these tests conclude there is no zero. Or you could use reason. Since the point where the tanget is zero must be an extrema all we need to do is find this point. This is established pervasively. We did not need to look at every case but through logic and reason deduced that there is a relationship between extrema and the tanget line.


This is completely inapplicable.

The use of deduction to establish absolute truths can only be done within formal systems that are known a priori, such as logic or mathematics. But the natural world is not known that way; it is known a posteriori, which means that we have no choice but to rely on observation to establish theories.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Actually it is very coherent. Maybe just a bit above your head. This I understand and I will explain it to you as I would a 2 year old.


Lose the attitude. You are the one making fundamental errors here, and you would be well advised to humble yourself.


The whole point is this. If everytime your theory is shown to be incorrect you change the definitions of things it indicates that you have no understanding of what is going on.


Nonsense. What it indicates is that we have an ever-improving understanding of what is going on. Science is not a destination, it is a journey. Physics will never be complete, because we can never be sure that we have the correct laws of nature. The best we can do is form a series of "conjectures and refutations", as Popper put it.


The measure of validity of a theory is its ability to be time independent.


More nonsense. The construction of a "time independent" theory would requre a complete knowledge of both the current state of the universe as well as the dynamics governing its time evolution. As I said, the universe is known a posteriori, but you are making these ridiculous statements as if it were known a priori. There is no reason to accept your point of view, and indeed every reason to reject it.

History may be littered with falsified theories obtained by the methods most of us here espouse, but it is even more littered with the falsified theories of those who espouse introspective reasoning as the basis of scientific research. You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.


I know some of you people have spent some time studying at universities so I understand you have lost a good amout of your ability to think independently and creatively but consider this.


LOL


How stuipd is the idea that everytime a theory is shown to be incorrect you change your definitions to fit the model of what you think should be instead of maintaining the definitions and looking at the new findings as incorrect. This is completely ridiculous, unscientific and you are doing exactly what I was criticized for.


It is not stupid at all, if one adopts the correct view that the universe is not known a priori. It only looks stupid from your backwards view of the world.

Conversely, your ideas look stupid from my view of the world. [:)] Rather than sling mud around, how about trying to see it from the other point of view?


In summary, since what we have been doing for so many years can not possibly be wrong we will change the meaning of words and definitions to fit our accepted dogma.


Again: You have it completely backwards. To adopt the view that the universe is known a posteriori is to be decidedly un-dogmatic. How in the world could you think otherwise? Since when does a dogmatist admit that he is wrong and correct himself, when the need arises?

edit: typo

[protonman]

Again you are taking my view of logic and saying that it is not the logic employed in science. That is fine. We are not discussing your version of logic. We are discussing logic itself. What you don't understand is pervasive logic. Pervasive logic is as true as it was 10,000 years ago is it is today.

For example, all physical phenomena are impermanent. This is something that will never change. It is pervasive knowledge based on a relationship that is not going to change in 100 or 1000 years. It is based on a perfect reason and therefore will not change in the future.

What you people are doing today can not be qualified even as knowledge. To understand this you need to understand what it means to know something. What a vase is has not changed in 10,000 years. If you know something you understand it as it exists. If the view today will be replaced (as you have said) in the future then what you have now does not even qualify as knowledge. In fact, according to your view science will never acheive knowledge of anything in the sense of the definition of knowledge.

What you need to do is study views other than western science. I am saying this with all seriousness. Your exposure to different views is extremely limited and this harms your ability to understand. Modern science is not the sole source of truth. I have the rare experience of being on boths sides. I thought just the way you do. Certainty is a reality. It is only a matter of finding a system of thought that understands this and studying their tenets.

[protonman]

OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by protonman
OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

Yes.

[protonman]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes. Which one?

[protonman]

You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.This is typical of what I have been saying all along. You can't make your own case based on your logic. I don't care what Kant thinks. I don't accept Kant's views.

[FZ+]

Which one?
Neither.

[Hurkyl]

Do you accept any views?

[protonman]

Originally posted by FZ+
Neither. I don't know if you are trying to be funny. A summary.

I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Do you accept any views? Yes. But going on the assumption that you don't accept them I haven't brought them up. This is what true scholars do. You are no different than the Christians who quote the bible. You are refering to experiments that I don't accept. Your method of inquiry I don't accept. In fact I have raised an objection to it here at least twice and it has been ignored both times.

What do I mean by no different than Christians? Because you are trying to use as evidence for your argument views that I don't accept. I have been arguing purely on empirical and logical grounds. My only appeal to authority is the conventional reality that all people agree on. For example, the existence of matter. That fact that we can drink out of a cup. That fact that we do not fly off earth due to gravity. These are things we can all relate to and that is all I have used in my arguments. Common experience and from that reasoning.

Why have I done this? Because I understand that if an argument is based on both sides quoting their root sources the discussion will go nowhere. It will degenerate into what resembles fundamentalist thinking if not become it.

[Hurkyl]

Well, if you're going to dismiss others' posts because you don't accept the methods / views upon which those posts are based, it's only fair game that you present views and methods which you do accept.

On purely logical grounds, the stance you are taking is only useful for defending your own worldview. If the goal of your post was to allow to test your beliefs against the fire, then so be it...

However, you appear to be attempting to debunk modern scientific thought and/or enlightening the rest of us. I am much like yourself; if your arguments aren't based on views or methods -I- accept, then you aren't going to convince me of anything. So, the approach you have been taking thus far isn't particularly productive.


Also, I find it ironic that you accuse me of being like a Christian quoting the Bible, because I have accused others of the exact same thing multiple times in the past! [:D] We've had a few crackpots come through here (such as LogicalAtheist) who were the prototypical example of the scientific analog of a closed-minded fundamental zealot.

And I have asked in the past questions along the line "How would you convince someone who doesn't already believe you?" It would normally be nifty to see that someone appear on the forum, but the attitude you brought certainly didn't inspire people to try and answer my question.


For the record, most (all?) of the regulars here don't believe any of the answers given by science are "absolute truth".

[protonman]

I am much like yourself; if your arguments aren't based on views or methods -I- accept, then you aren't going to convince me of anything. So, the approach you have been taking thus far isn't particularly productive.If you don't accept logic then I guess we have no common foundation. My previous post explains my methods. I raised a question to those of you who accept science. No one has even touch it. Here I will repeat it.

Basically the argument was that if experiment and observation are based on perception how do you know perception is valid. If the only means of establishing anything is the scientific view then you must use this method to determine if perception is valid or not. If you find it is not then the scientific method can no longer be considered a source of valid knowledge on the world. If you do establish that perception is valid via the scientific method then you would have used perception to prove perception is valid which is obviously a circular argument where you are taking what you are questioning as a true condition in order to question that very thing you already axiomatically assumed was true.

I dare anyone to get the guts to even touch this one.

[Hurkyl]

*poke* [:D]


Refutation 1:
I don't need to assume perception is valid to validate perception via the scientific method; just a decent short-term memory.

Refutation 2:
Circular arguments aren't bad things; they are evidence of internal consistency for a belief system. Their drawback is that they are not useful for convincing others who don't already believe in it.

Refutation 3:
It looks as if you're asking us to do something of the form:

Assuming only the axiom "P is true", prove "P is true" without using the axiom "P is true".

Which is a fairly disingenious line of questioning.

Refutation 4:
Even if we can't prove the validity of the scientific method, we can still add to our state of knowledge by proving statements such as "The scientific method implies _______".

Refutation 5:
Your argument doesn't stand up to reversal. I'd be interested in knowing if you can logically prove logic without using logic!

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
*poke* [:D]


Refutation 1:
I don't need to assume perception is valid to validate perception via the scientific method; just a decent short-term memory.

Refutation 2:
Circular arguments aren't bad things; they are evidence of internal consistency for a belief system. Their drawback is that they are not useful for convincing others who don't already believe in it.

Refutation 3:
It looks as if you're asking us to do something of the form:

Assuming only the axiom "P is true", prove "P is true" without using the axiom "P is true".

Which is a fairly disingenious line of questioning.

Refutation 4:
Even if we can't prove the validity of the scientific method, we can still add to our state of knowledge by proving statements such as "The scientific method implies _______".

Refutation 5:
Your argument doesn't stand up to reversal. I'd be interested in knowing if you can logically prove logic without using logic! First of all your arguments are terrible and I am not going to waste my time on such trivial matters. I will address the first one though.

Memory is not a perception. It is based on conceptual thought which can not have a physical object as its appearing object. Physical objects can only appear to non-conceptual minds.

I am not sure what kind of drugs you take but if you assume something is true in order to test if it is true you are way off.

[Nereid]

protonman: First of all your arguments are terrible *SNIPWhy are the arguments 'terrible'?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
Why are the arguments 'terrible'? I already told you I am not going into detail on everything you wrote. I explained why the first argument was wrong. As far as I am concerned if your first argument is not correct the rest are not worth going into. I will explain why each of your points are wrong but one at a time. First you need to understand why the first point is wrong then we can proceed.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I already told you I am not going into detail on everything you [sic] wrote. I explained why the first argument was wrong. As far as I am concerned if your [sic] first argument is not correct the rest are not worth going into. I will explain why each of your points are wrong but one at a time. First you need to understand why the first point is wrong then we can proceed. Thank you for the reply.

Could I ask that you please distinguish between the persons posting? I am Nereid*; I am not Hurkyl.

*"(Class. Myth.) A sea nymph, one of the daughters of Nereus, who were attendants upon Neptune"

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonboy
Again you are taking my view of logic and saying that it is not the logic employed in science. That is fine. We are not discussing your version of logic. We are discussing logic itself.


I am discussing "logic itself", you numbskull. You have completely failed to address my argument. Tell me, protonboy, where in deductive logic is there a mechanical decision procedure to determine the truth value of statements, without using induction? Answer that, and I will concede. Come on, I double dare you.


What you don't understand is pervasive logic. Pervasive logic is as true as it was 10,000 years ago is it is today.


"pervasive logic"?

Quit making stuff up.


For example, all physical phenomena are impermanent. This is something that will never change. It is pervasive knowledge based on a relationship that is not going to change in 100 or 1000 years. It is based on a perfect reason and therefore will not change in the future.


"perfect reason"?

Quit making stuff up.

Protonboy, before you post any more nonsense, why don't you address what has been said? You have two enormous holes in your case:

1. The truth values of statements cannot be determined without induction (and therefore they cannot be determined without experimentation).

2. The universe is not known a priori.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonboy
OK here it is time to drop the bomb to end all discussion. Is light a wave or particle?

"the bomb?"

You are funny, I'll give you that.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonboy
Tom: You really need a course on the work of Kant, specifically his Critique of Pure Reason.

protonboy: This is typical of what I have been saying all along. You can't make your own case based on your logic.


1. I already have made my case based on logic. You ignored it.

2. Kant's case is also based on logic.

3. Since when is it a bad thing to recommend that someone needs to learn something (as you clearly do!)?


I don't care what Kant thinks. I don't accept Kant's views.


Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds when you say that you do not accept a point of view, without ever having read the argument in support of it?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonboy
Basically the argument was that if experiment and observation are based on perception how do you know perception is valid.


How do you know logic is valid? I dare you to have the guts to answer that one.


If you find it is not then the scientific method can no longer be considered a source of valid knowledge on the world.


The validity of perception is established by the fact that we all agree on events that happen in the universe. Any two people can perform the same experiment. When they get the same result, we call that "objectively verifiable". When many such people get the same result, we have even more confidence in the result.

In science, "objectivity" means "corroboration by many subjects".

You may not like it, but it is all we have.


If you do establish that perception is valid via the scientific method then you would have used perception to prove perception is valid which is obviously a circular argument where you are taking what you are questioning as a true condition in order to question that very thing you already axiomatically assumed was true.


So, you have discovered that scientists use base assumptions because they don't know everything. Congratulations. I'll notify the Nobel committee right away. [o)]

[protonman]

1. The truth values of statements cannot be determined without induction (and therefore they cannot be determined without experimentation).

2. The universe is not known a priori. [/B] First off you can't beat me and I am not just saying that to be a jerk. It is true.

Second according to philosophypages.com we have the following:In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. What I am talking about is certainty which would imply deductive logic.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
"the bomb?"

You are funny, I'll give you that. Regardless. By definition something can not be both a wave and a particle.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
First off you can't beat me and I am not just saying that to be a jerk. It is true.


Yes, it is true. You are a jerk.


Second according to philosophypages.com we have the following:In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. What I am talking about is certainty which would imply deductive logic.


I don't need the little lesson from philosophypages.com. I teach courses in this subject. Also, you have completely failed to address my argument, which states that deduction cannot determine the truth value of a statement.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
1. I already have made my case based on logic. You ignored it.

2. Kant's case is also based on logic.

3. Since when is it a bad thing to recommend that someone needs to learn something (as you clearly do!)?



Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds when you say that you do not accept a point of view, without ever having read the argument in support of it? How do you know I haven't. I have studied physics and from what I am reading here I have thought about it more than most of you. I may not be as skilled at towing the party line and not really thinking about what is going on, I will give you that, but I have certainly thought about these things.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Regardless. By definition something can not be both a wave and a particle.

Right. What that means is that those concepts are ill-suited to describe real, physical light and that new concepts must be formulated.

[protonman]

I don't need the little lesson from philosophypages.com. I teach courses in this subject. Also, you have completely failed to address my argument, which states that deduction cannot determine the truth value of a statement. [/B] I don't give a hoot if you teach anything. Lots of teachers are wrong. What the hell does truth value mean anyway?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
How do you know I haven't.


I know you have not studied these things from the blatant ignorance exhibited in your posts.


I have studied physics and from what I am reading here I have thought about it more than most of you.


It isn't showing.

By the way, the reference to Kant is a work in philosophy, not physics.


I may not be as skilled at towing the party line and not really thinking about what is going on, I will give you that, but I have certainly thought about these things.


Again: It isn't showing.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't give a hoot if you teach anything. Lots of teachers are wrong.


If you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong. You have done nothing other than assert it.


What the hell does truth value mean anyway?

Why don't you look it up at philosophypages.com, protonboy?

[Tom Mattson]

Here is my full argument against pure reason as a scientific method. I am copying it directly from the thread Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1865)

Here is my argument supporting my position that pure reasoning can only reveal things about abstract forms, and not about reality.

From FZ's topic The limits of reason (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1469)

First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.
Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).


All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive

I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.

Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:

I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).

Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality. In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.

The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.

Continuing:

If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?

Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:

We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Here is my full argument against pure reason as a scientific method. I am copying it directly from the thread Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1865)

Here is my argument supporting my position that pure reasoning can only reveal things about abstract forms, and not about reality.

From FZ's topic The limits of reason (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1469)

First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.
Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).


All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive

I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.

Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:

I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).

Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality. In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.

The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.

Continuing:

If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?

Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:

We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic. Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it. There is so much more existent objects than just the physical. Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it. Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world. In fact, the idea of the atom dates back before the Greeks to Hinduism. What you people need to do is get some exposure to other method of understanding. The techniques and findings of Buddhist meditators have been tested and tested over and over again for thousands of years. If you study the texts you will see that exactl as the experience is described it can be realized. This is real science. This is real experiment. In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent. That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.

In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception. This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it.


Prove it. You can start by actually addressing my argument for a change.


There is so much more existent objects than just the physical.


Prove it.


Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it.


Prove it (using logic, please).


Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world.


No protonboy, they were investigating their own minds. To "investigate the world" implies going out and observing the world. Medidation and introspection won't cut it.


In fact, the idea of the atom dates back before the Greeks to Hinduism. What you people need to do is get some exposure to other method of understanding.


OK, but we were talking about logic here, remember? You're changing the subject.


This is real science. This is real experiment.


No, real science and real experiments are about observing the world without, not the world within.


In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent.


LOL, I thought you said that theories cannot be confirmed experimentally. Changin' yer tune, protonboy?


That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.


Scientific theories enjoy the same status. In addition to that, they make precise quantitative predictions about the observable world, which no amount of pure introspection can do.


In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception.


Sure I do. I further understand that those limts are the reason we build precise instruments that are not subject to the same problems.


This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.


Talk about hypocritical. When I refered you to Kant, you pointed it out as an example of people not being able to think for themselves (despite the fact that I had an argument of my own posted--which you ignored). I then pasted a more detailed argument in this thread, which you also ignored. Now, here you are, telling me to go and study something and you aren't even making a coherent case for it!

Come on, protonboy, don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
You need to study Buddhist philosophy. Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh?

[protonman]

quote:Originally posted by protonman
Your domain of examination is so limited you don't even know it. You only examine the physical world.

There is so much more existent objects than just the physical. Prove it.Mind.

Modern science is so backwards and so limited and it doesn't even know it. Prove it (using logic, please).They only investigate the physical world.

Consider the scholars and meditators of ancient India. These ideas have been experimented with for over 5000 years. While the ancestors of you scientists were still living in caves these people were investigating the world.

No protonboy, they were investigating their own minds. To "investigate the world" implies going out and observing the world. Medidation and introspection won't cut it.Well you don't really know much about Indian philosophy. Buddhism and Hinduism both have extensive explanations of the physical world as indicated below in my statement about their idea of atoms originating with the Hindus. In addition, modern science does not understand the relation between the mind and the external world

This is real science. This is real experiment.

No, real science and real experiments are about observing the world without, not the world within.Again I call attention to your lack of understanding of the relation between the mind and external reality. What you belive in is an objective existence of an external reality which is logically impossible.

In addition to having experimental confirmation the theories are logically consistent.

LOL, I thought you said that theories cannot be confirmed experimentally. Changin' yer tune, protonboy?No I am not changing my tune. What I am saying is that your methods of experiment can not be confirmed because you do not support them with pervasive logic. If you have a perfect reason backing your experience you can establish it as true.

In addition, I didn't say they were confirmed in all cases. I simply said they were confirmed. That is, confirmed for the individual. But in combination with perfect reasoning they are established.

That is to say, the meditators and scholars can explain the why of their view not just say because it agrees with experiement.

Scientific theories enjoy the same status. In addition to that, they make precise quantitative predictions about the observable world, which no amount of pure introspection can do. Scientific theories do not enjoy the same status. They are continually being replaced every 50-100 years by a so called better theory. You can't explain why the speed of light is measured the same in all inertial reference frames. You can't explain why light is both a particle and a wave. This is total BS.

In addition, the mind, if trained enough, can understand anything. Therefore, it can know the number of atoms in a handful of sand. You see real wisdom does not rely on machines.

In addition, you don't even understand the limits of sense perception.

Sure I do. I further understand that those limts are the reason we build precise instruments that are not subject to the same problems.Well let me inform your of something. If you are using a machine to detect particles and looking at the traces in a bubble chamber you are not seeing the particles directly. Therefore, you are using reasoning to establish your theories.

This sense perception is just the tip of the ice berg with regard to understanding how the mind works and you don't even understand this. You people are pathetic and competely arrogant. You need to study Buddhist philosophy.

Talk about hypocritical. When I refered you to Kant, you pointed it out as an example of people not being able to think for themselves (despite the fact that I had an argument of my own posted--which you ignored). I then pasted a more detailed argument in this thread, which you also ignored. Now, here you are, telling me to go and study something and you aren't even making a coherent case for it!My case is that you don't even understand what I am talking about.

Come on, protonboy, don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove it.You seem to have a lot of bulit up anger.

[Janitor]

Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on.

(Al Gore "originated" the Internet, he says, and I've been thinking he may have some Buddhist leanings, so I'll give you folks some credit there. [:D])

[protonman]

Originally posted by Janitor
[B]Does it bother you at all that the cultures of India, Nepal, Tibet, and China did not get humans to the moon centuries before the United States (which is overwhelmingly non-Buddhist) did? And I could ask similar questions about whether it was Buddhists or non-Buddhists who had the Right Stuff to design and build the first particle accelerator, the first telescope, the first television set, the first trans-ocean communications cable, the first compact disc, the first digital computer, and so on. Not at all. Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing. Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering? Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?

[Janitor]

"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."

My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.

"Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"

Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?

"Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"

Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago?

[Hurkyl]

Originally posted by protonman ...

I say you're wrong.

[FZ+]

I asked you if a photon was wave or a particle. There are four answers wave, particle, both and neither. You said 'yes' eliminating the neither choice. I then asked which one was it and you said neither. So based on what you said initially, which eliminates neither, you then answer that it is in fact neither after you had already eliminated this choice.
Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? I thought this was about science, not navel-gazing...silly me, huh? What are you implying?

[protonman]

Originally posted by FZ+
Good to see you are on the ball. I didn't post the first reply, but yes, it is both - and - neither. The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models. Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Janitor
"Does it bother you that without your machines you have nothing."

My point is that we non-Buddhists must have had something pretty powerful going on in our minds in order to design effective machines in the first place.But your knowledge is nothing without them.

"Does it bother you that your people have no idea how to overcome all suffering?"

Maybe I should have added to my list of devices some pharmaceuticals such as various painkillers, which I suspect were originally researched overwhelmingly by non-Buddhists. Or am I taking you too literally?This is only a very gross form of suffering.

"Does it bother you that Buddhists have an understanding of how to attain a state where everything is known?"

Including knowing how to put a man on the moon? Then why didn't they do so a hundred or a thousand years ago? Because they realized it is more important to work on inner development.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter. Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone?

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Instead of infering, how about looking at the evidence that exists at the "micro" level? More importantly, why don't you stop ignoring the real world yourself, and realize that you cannot do science by thought experiment alone? Because inference is more valid than perception.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
Because your views have no connection to the real world. There must be a logical connection between the micro and macro worlds. From observing the large conventional level we can infer things about the subtle level of matter. How then do you account for the observations of material things (made of atoms), in the macro world, which behave in accord with QM, but not in accord with classical physics? Some examples (not all may be relevant, it depends on your viewpoint, which remains somewhat unclear to me):
- superfluid helium (http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm), both He4 and He3
- macroscopic quantum entanglement (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/9/2)
- macroscopic effects observed in SQUIDs (http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR9596/BAPSMAR96/abs/S3820004.html) (there are surely better examples in this area, but this will do)

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
How then do you account for the observations of material things (made of atoms), in the macro world, which behave in accord with QM, but not in accord with classical physics? Some examples (not all may be relevant, it depends on your viewpoint, which remains somewhat unclear to me):
- superfluid helium (http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm), both He4 and He3
- macroscopic quantum entanglement (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/9/2)
- macroscopic effects observed in SQUIDs (http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR9596/BAPSMAR96/abs/S3820004.html) (there are surely better examples in this area, but this will do) That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid.

[FZ+]

Because your views have no connection to the real world.
Wrong. QM, as far as we know, is the real world. What we observe macroscopically is a crude approximation of the beautiful action at the lowest scales. Even in our larger views, we use perception - there is no inference without perception.

That is easy QM is wrong.
Q: Why does X happen?
A: Because it is wrong.

Interesting logic.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Because inference is more valid than perception. Really? And what are you infering from? Your perception...

What you mean to say is that you like the nonsense you make up yourself more than actually learning anything real...which is fine, but don't pretend that it is an intellectually superior position than real learning and experimentation.

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid. Hmmm...possibly, but it DOES carry a higher validity than a worldview which DOESN't make accurate predictions.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
That is easy QM is wrong. Although its application may allow one to predict the results of an experiment this does not imply that it is ontologically valid. If one does not use QM, then how do you account for the *macroscopic* results of these experiments?

[Janitor]

"but it DOES carry a higher validity than a worldview which DOESN'T make accurate predictions." -- Zero

My thoughts exactly.

Protonman, by meditating, can you calculate (or should I say divine in the verb sense of the word?) the decay half life of a muon at least as accurately as standard methods of quantum physics can? And if you can't, how can you feel so sure of your superiority?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonboy
You only examine the physical world.


But we were talking about physical theories, remember spanky?


Mind.


I said to prove nonphysical objects exist, not to simply assert that they do.


They only investigate the physical world.


But you still have not proven that a "nonphysical world" exists, so this is moot.


Well you don't really know much about Indian philosophy. Buddhism and Hinduism both have extensive explanations of the physical world as indicated below in my statement about their idea of atoms originating with the Hindus.


Name a single comprehensive theory of the material world that comes from introspection and show how the scientific method of observation "has it backwards". To show that, all you have to do is show how a theory obtained by such navel gazing makes more accurate predictions than modern scientific theories.

You should also explain how such navel gazing is more reliable than sense perception. And your trite one-phrase answers aren't going to cut it. You have to post an argument.


In addition, modern science does not understand the relation between the mind and the external world
Again I call attention to your lack of understanding of the relation between the mind and external reality.


This is awfully presumptuous of you. What makes you think that you do understand the relation between mind and matter?


What you belive in is an objective existence of an external reality which is logically impossible.


Prove it.


No I am not changing my tune. What I am saying is that your methods of experiment can not be confirmed because you do not support them with pervasive logic. If you have a perfect reason backing your experience you can establish it as true.


Again, you are just making this junk up. You seem to believe in some nonexistent "superlogic" that has the certainty of deductive validity not only in the making of inferences, but also in determining the truth value of statements. Such a "perfect reason" or "pervasive logic" simply does not exist.


In addition, I didn't say they were confirmed in all cases. I simply said they were confirmed. That is, confirmed for the individual. But in combination with perfect reasoning they are established.


Since there is no such thing as "perfect reasoning", this is hardly relevant.


Scientific theories do not enjoy the same status. They are continually being replaced every 50-100 years by a so called better theory. You can't explain why the speed of light is measured the same in all inertial reference frames. You can't explain why light is both a particle and a wave. This is total BS.


No, what is "BS" is your backwards view of how scientific investigation is supposed to be undertaken. It comes from your equally backwards worldview that states that the workings of the physical world should be known a priori, when in fact they are not.


In addition, the mind, if trained enough, can understand anything. Therefore, it can know the number of atoms in a handful of sand. You see real wisdom does not rely on machines.


Prove it.


Well let me inform your of something. If you are using a machine to detect particles and looking at the traces in a bubble chamber you are not seeing the particles directly. Therefore, you are using reasoning to establish your theories.


Yes: Inductive reasoning.


My case is that you don't even understand what I am talking about.


Then why don't you prove all the outrageous assertions that I asked you to prove, instead of waffling at every opportunity?


You seem to have a lot of bulit up anger.


No, I am just being emphatic, as I often am when I am correcting a dumb troll who is abusive of the members and staff of these Forums.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonboy
Because inference is more valid than perception.

Prove it, protonboy. Hurkyl and I have already asked you how you know that introspection is more valid than perception. All you keep doing is asserting it.

I am giving you one more chance to go through this thread and answer the straightforward questions put to you. If you come back with more nonsensical assertions, then I am shutting this circus down.

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Prove it, protonboy. Hurkyl and I have already asked you how you know that introspection is more valid than perception. All you keep doing is asserting it.

I am giving you one more chance to go through this thread and answer the straightforward questions put to you. If you come back with more nonsensical assertions, then I am shutting this circus down. No you won't because you are dying to get my answer. Inside you want to know why you are wrong you just won't admit it. So go ahead shut it down. I don't care if one less person doesn't know what I know. It most likely isn't going to change your view.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by protonman
No you won't because you are dying to get my answer.


No, I am dying for this thread to start making some progress. It has not, and therefore it is finished.

See protonboy, your introspection hasn't told you everything after all!