- #36
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,957
- 7
Nereid said:(I will come back to Arp, turbo1, et al I really will; it's just that I have so little time right now).
ditto...hang on, Turbo1
Nereid said:(I will come back to Arp, turbo1, et al I really will; it's just that I have so little time right now).
russ_watters said:The math needs to come first and if it is accurate, how can it lead us off track? A great example is the Lorentz transformations. The concept is now considered flawed, but the math fits observations and is useable in the theory that replaced it.
I really think objections like this come from a simple lack of acceptance of reality at face value. People don't want to believe what the math says.
Oy - fasten your seat-belt, turbo1. You don't know what you just got yourself into...Phobos said:ditto...hang on, Turbo1
I'm talking about in the creation of a theory. A theory that describes a real-world phenomena consists of a mathematical model and a qualitative explanation. The qualitative explanation comes from the mathematical model.Math coming first? I don't understand. All the theoretical equations that I have ever seen have a bunch of variables and constants in them. These did not come first, to us they represent something in the real world. We had to have those real world things and ideas in place first before we could relate them in an equation.
russ_watters said:I'm talking about in the creation of a theory. A theory that describes a real-world phenomena consists of a mathematical model and a qualitative explanation. The qualitative explanation comes from the mathematical model.
Science itself arose for exactly this reason: before Galileo, people had it backwards. Starting with Galileo, scientists started making observations, recording data, and fitting the data to mathematical models, then evaluating what those models said about reality. Thats how we got rid of non-theories like the "chrystal spheres," geocentrism, and the unscientific ideas of Aristotle.
I'm sorry to see this thread in TD. Not because a discussion Savov's ideas doesn't belong in TD; rather because a) the discussion on maths vs observations, chickens and eggs, etc in science is a good one to have (though better in HPS than Astronomy!), but mainly because b) we *really, really* should have a solid discussion of objections to redshift=expansion, quasars, etc a la Arp & Burbidge (et al). IMHO, such a discussion belongs firmly in General Astronomy.chroot said:While this thread seems to contain some interesting discussion, the original poster, as well as other members, seem intent on focusing it on crackpot nonsense. Off to TD it goes... let me know if you have an objection.
- Warren
Why is it a "non-theory"? Because you don't like it?shrumeo said:I'm also talking about in the creation of a theory.
Doesn't what you said about what folks did before Galileo apply to inflationary BB theorists now? They took some observations and interpretations made by Hubble, et al, fit the data to a mathematical model and came up with a non-theory called "Inflationary BB theory".
Since the scientific method was basically invented by Galileo, it is perfectly acceptable to consider the ideas that came before his "non-theories." Before him, ther was no such thing as a scientific theory because there was no such thing as science.shrumeo said:in case you didn't notice, I was mimicking the way you dimissed past "non-theories" as you called them (not agreeing with any of them here)
russ_watters said:Science is not the laws that govern the natural world, science is a process by which we find the laws that govern the natural world. That process has only been around for about 500 years.
Eh said:Err, no. Science is a specific method, not some vauge concept of investigating nature. It has not been around since the Greeks.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. At least in the context here. Cosmology and physics are branches of modern science, which employs the scientific method and has a very limited definition. For clarity, we can say that modern science is a relatively new development that contrasts greatly with any "science" of the ancients.Prometheus said:You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My definition, and incidentally the definition in my dictionaries and at dictionary.com, indicate that science is not necessarily limited to a specific method at all.
That is simply the definition scientists use. This modern science has only been around for a while, and I don't think you will disagree with that.Might I ask where you obtained such a definition of science. Please cite a source that says that the only reasonable definition of science is a specfic methodology.
Now here a curious thing ... the more you look at what 'the ancients' actually did, esp the Greeks, the greater your sense of déjà vu. Sure, things were phrased differently (no 'empirical', 'observation of phenomena', etc), and to be sure none of the ancients codied the method in a form we now know and love ... but their actions (in many cases) speak louder than their words.Eh said:*SNIP
For the scientific method:
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
That sums it up.
That is simply the definition scientists use. This modern science has only been around for a while, and I don't think you will disagree with that.
Eh said:It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.
Russ said:Science is not the laws that govern the natural world, science is a process by which we find the laws that govern the natural world. That process has only been around for about 500 years.
setAI said:all of you specialists need to open your horizons of knowledge and learn some basic anthropology- the scientific method was originally develloped by SHAMANS- the many shamanic methodologies that emerged among human communities over the last 40-70 thousand years
Prometheus said:Hi.
I do have some basic knowledge of anthropology. Still, I wonder how you came up with shamans as the origiinal source of science. Furthermore, how is it that you came up 40-70,000 years ago. I am aware of no information on shamans that long ago, and I am not aware of them or anyone at that time as a precursor to science.
I don't know about that. Do we have Greeks that emphasized the importance of potential falsification of a hypothesis?Nereid said:Now here a curious thing ... the more you look at what 'the ancients' actually did, esp the Greeks, the greater your sense of déjà vu. Sure, things were phrased differently (no 'empirical', 'observation of phenomena', etc), and to be sure none of the ancients codied the method in a form we now know and love ... but their actions (in many cases) speak louder than their words.
Right, but modern science is modern, and it's very different than the old use of the word. And in the context of physics, it's the only definition that has any relevance here.Prometheus said:FOr you to use the term modern science shows that you are aware of science that is not modern.
Which doesn't have much to do with modern science.Therefore, you two must recognize that science also occurred before modern times.
Agreed. So why did you bring up the irrelevant Greek "science" in the first place? It has nothing to do with the context of the discussion here.We do not need to say that modern science is new for the purposes of clarity. We can say that modern science is new due to the definition of the adjective modern.
But not what scientists would call science, and nothing to do with a discussion about the science of the big bang theory.Ancient science was less advanced than today. However it was still science.
It's really simple. The Greeks didn't have modern science, and only modern science has any relevance here.Are you actually trying to tell us that you believe that science itself is new, and that the ancient Greeks did not have any science? I canot believe that you would make this contention. What possible value could there be in this contention?
Eh said:why did you bring up the irrelevant Greek "science" in the first place? It has nothing to do with the context of the discussion here.
Hardly. The reason it is irrelevant is because it has nothing to do with whether the big bang theory qualifies as a good scientific model.Prometheus said:I consider that this is an extremely short-sighted opinion. You would have us ignore history and only focus on the present.
Because the scientific method alone can be understood by any person of reasonable intelligence. That doesn't mean the history leading up to the development of modern science isn't important or an area of interest- it's just off topic. As I said, modern science is the only definition of science in the context of this discussion.Without any context on the past, how can you expect to truly understand modern science?
That's nonsense. Water, fire, Earth and wind are hardly fundamentally the same as gravity, electro-magnetism and the nuclear forces. At this point it's obvious you're grasping at straws without putting any thought into the matter before posting. But it's besides the point, because even if the Greek elements were more similar to the 4 forces, that doesn't mean they would have had the scientific method.Our wonderful, incredibly advanced, "modern" science that you are so in love with recognizes 4 forces of nature. The ancient Greeks also recognized 4 forces of nature. The names have changed, but the fundamental properties of the forces have not changed. Modern science has evolved out of ancient science. This is but one example of the relevance of ancient science.
Which has no relevance to whether or not the big bang theory counts as good (modern) science.Modern science has evolved out of ancient science. This is but one example of the relevance of ancient science.
Eh said:Science is a specific method,
Eh said:As I said, modern science is the only definition of science in the context of this discussion.
Like I said, this thread is a discussion about modern science, not anything the ancients believed. You are the one who confused modern science with beliefs of the ancients, which again has nothing to do with any discussion about physics.Prometheus said:You began with this comment, which is false on its face. I challenge this statement that you made, and you rebut by telling me that I am off topic.
Sure. You're confused about the meaning of science (on a forum about physics no less), therefore I don't know much about the ancient Greeks.You seem to have little understanding of the ancient Greeks, so you make claims that show you have little understanding.
Certainly, as soon as you stop posting in topics about science when you have nothing relevant to contribute.If you do not wish to discuss the Greeks, do not respond to my posts.
What do the ancient Greeks have to do with whether or not the big bang theory is a good scientifc model?However, to claim that they are off topic, a topic that you started, and not me, does not strengthen your argument.
Nice try at a strawman, but I'm not arguing against the influence of the Greeks. As I've said, the Greeks did not have modern science, and that's the point.Science is not a scientific method. Science now uses what is called the sceintific method. Science has been around a long time. The ancient Greeks practiced science. That science still influences us significantly. You reject this idea, but you don't really understand what you are rejecting.
Really? Take another look. This thread became a discussion about the validity of big bang theory. Several posters explained that the theory is mainstream not because of a vast conspiracy, but because it's a very successful application of the scientific method. Crackpot models are called such because they ignore the very same method. In that context, that is a discussion about modern science specifically. Not some vauge notion of investigating nature held by the ancients. Russ pointed out that science is a process that has only been around a few hundred years, clearly talking about modern science. You then decided to jump in with a different definition and claim science has been around for a long time. Surely you can see how that doesn't flow with the topic.I consider that it is you who is off topic. I was not the one who started this topic. I responded to your post.
Eh said:Like I said, this thread is a discussion about modern science, not anything the ancients believed.
Eh said:Certainly, as soon as you stop posting in topics about science when you have nothing relevant to contribute.
Eh said:What do the ancient Greeks have to do with whether or not the big bang theory is a good scientifc model?
Eh said:Really? Take another look. This thread became a discussion about the validity of big bang theory.
I'm telling you ancient science is irrelevant. You don't have to like it, but when someone posts something misleading at least one poster will usually correct it. If you have something relevant to say about the big bang theory, go right ahead. Otherwise, there's nothing left to say.Prometheus said:Poor guy. I do feel sorry for you.
Who are you, by the way, to tell me so repeatedly that I am off topic? Did you begin this thread. No. Did you take over this thread? No, because many people have contributed. Are you the moderator, with ultimate authority to determine what is or is not on topic. No. So, who are you?
Actually, I told the OP to learn what science actually is. And that's quite relevant to the point here.I see that your very first posting on this thread is telling the originator that he is off topic. Thereafter you seem to think that you own it. Be serious.
And here you go again. Jumping in without putting the slightest amount of thought into the matter, thinking you actually have something intelligent to say. How in the world do you justify claiming fire, earth, air and water are indentical to EM, gravity and the nuclear forces? Claiming they have identical properties is idiotic, and a sure sign you haven't put any thought into it.Modern science, which you are blindly in love with, recognizes 4 forces of nature. The ancient Greeks recognized 4 forces of nature. Not only was the number identical, but their fundamental structure is identical. Sure, the names have changed over time, and their superficial symbolism has changed, and this seems to have enabled you, who seem to have so little understanding of either, to determine that you are the definitive authority on relevancy.
After I corrected you on your misuse the word science, you have keep arguing and replying to my posts. So the wasted bandwidth isn't entirely my fault, though I should know better to keep responding to people who will argue about a subject they know nothing about.So, what do you do? The opposite of what you say that you are doing. If you really thought that I am off topic, you should have not responded. Instead, in order to tell me that I am off topic, you have caused this thread to be dominated by posts related to this topic, which is your fault.
I think I've explained why the big bang theory is considered mainstream science quite well.It is your fault that this topic is still alive. You have contributed nothing to the content of this topic but to keep it alive, the very opposite of what you pretend to have as your goal.
Fine, take it to church.To make you happy, I will take my ideas elsewhere, where people respond to ideas they have an interst in and ignore other ideas.