Don't you hate it when people refute established/proven facts?

[Pengwuino]

lol oh yes, love the "i don't like the idea" crowd (whats with you guys ragging on creationists all the time lol).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Time is a constant. Time is a variable. The facts change.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But that's not the way that it was. Ten years ago the evidence for a decelerating universe was considered to be overwhelming and for all practical purposes, irrefutable. So the facts change. It was taught as a fact.

As far as I know, there was no direct evidence for a decelerating universe prior to the SNIa measurements, so I'm not sure who you were talking to. People certainly assumed that it would be decelerating, but nobody claimed to have measured it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting. So this was taught as a fact even though we had no direct measurements? This surprises me since for all of my life the question of the mass of the universe [which has increased by a factor of ten in recent years, another changing fact] and whether the universe would collapse or continue expanding, were the only real questions. For a time, the published materials set the [measured?] values right at the limit such that we couldn't tell what would happen. So how this was all inferred, I don't know.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Interesting. So this was taught as a fact even though we had no direct measurements? This surprises me since for all of my life the question of the mass of the universe [which has increased by a factor of ten in recent years, another changing fact] and whether or not the universe would collapse or continue expanding, was the only real question. For a time, the published materials set the [measured?] values right at the limit such that we couldn't tell what would happen. So how this was all inferred, I don't know.

I agree with you that it was naive for the astronomical community, but that's how it goes. Here's a quote from a 1998 SNIa paper, immediately prior to the acceleration discovery:

Although many other methods for measuring the global curvature and cosmological deceleration exist, none has yet delivered a definitive result.

- Schmidt et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 46

This sentence sums it up really nicely. Basically, they were assuming deceleration despite having no measurement of it!

Fortunately, there are scientists in the community who don't take such a myopic view of things. A member of this department, Bohdan Paczynski, was a dissenter of this sort on the issue of gamma-ray bursts. The community had collectively decided that they were galactic in origin, but he kept pressing the evidence for extragalactic origins. In the end, the evidence was on his side, so he eventually won out, but not without a long fight.

If you ask me, we're in the same position today with inflation. Many are simply assuming its truth despite its producing no observable predictions (other than the observations it was originally meant to explain). It may be true, I'll grant, but we should not be assuming it.

 

[Nereid]

You sure do work with some interesting people SpaceTiger!

Wrt the thread topic ... how many readers lived through the BSE epidemic, esp in the UK? Wouldn't you say that a certain scepticism, even disdain, for 'official scientific wisdom' would be an entirely rational response to the UK Dept of Agriculture (as it was then) and its unforgivable pronouncements?

Maybe I get more peeved by over-simplified, distorted and generally misleading popularisations than blissful ignorance (OTOH, wilful ignorance is quite a different kettle of worms )

 

[ZapperZ]

It is relatively safe to hold that atoms exist and also tenable to hold that they do not exist. Almost anything at all can be said not to exist on the basis that it is merely an explanatory device with no deeper significance, since almost anything is only known through effects that might be produced by that thing's existence but also, in every case, might arise for other reasons. I may be about to sound stupid because I have been reading Brian Greene's popular science presentation and have no actual knowledge of this, but I so gather that in some string theories dimensions can have size R, and in others the corresponding dimensions have size 1/R, yet these theories are equivalent because of other factors. It's not impossible to imagine that in a similar fashion at some time in the future the idea of atoms may be replaced with some other, equivalent idea, or perhaps with an idea with greater explanatory power.

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't use something as speculative as what you read in Greene's book as a demonstraton against the concrete <no pun intended> idea of the atom.

The person who denies the existence of an atom lacks an alternative "model" then to explain the whole set of observations that have been attributed to the existence of the atom. So based on just this, it isn't rational to deny its existence when there isn't a plausible alternative. It is not as if it hasn't been producing results that are consistent with experimental observation - we are not talking about String Theory here, folks.

Zz.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes--someone who rationally denies the existence of the atom would be rejecting the idea of abstract models in general. Saying what is there is an act of faith. The only thing that is not an act of faith (or less of one) is the effects that are produced on one's equipment. A rational atom-denier might say that equipment appears to act _as if_ things like atoms existed, but would consider atoms themselves as merely a mental convenience, a mathematical curiosity. He might say that there is no reality to anything other than the effects it produces, so nothing absolutely exists and the idea of objects is useful but empty.

By the way, liberalism vs. conservatism is by no means a settled issue. Take Finland, a very liberal country--guess their economy's down the drain, eh? Or not.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes--someone who rationally denies the existence of the atom would be rejecting the idea of abstract models in general. Saying what is there is an act of faith. The only thing that is not an act of faith (or less of one) is the effects that are produced on one's equipment. A rational atom-denier might say that equipment appears to act _as if_ things like atoms existed, but would consider atoms themselves as merely a mental convenience, a mathematical curiosity. He might say that there is no reality to anything other than the effects it produces, so nothing absolutely exists and the idea of objects is useful but empty.

Then why not go even a step further and question the "reality" of the effect? We then get to the absurdity that nothing is real, a very popular conversation in philosophy that has no end. We can go even MORE absurd than that and question the reality of the idea that there is no reality. Then we get into a convoluted paradox.

As an experimentalist, I find it highly amusing, not to mention, utterly ridiculous, of this line of thought. The central pillar of experimental physics, which is the reproducibility of observations, appears to be either an unimportant or a trivialized factor in these endless discussion. You'll understand if I sometime wish some of these people will just stop yapping about "existence" of something or not and just simply DO stuff. The degree of certainty of the existence of the atom is greater than the degree of certainty of the statement that there is no reality to so-and-so. The former is quantifiable and verifiable, the latter can't and is only a matter of tastes.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

Don't you just hate it when someone, usually an idiot, blatantly denies or refutes an established fact?

Of course, you happened to choose examples that are not irrefutable.

One of these situations came up today. A girl in one of my classes tried to claim that evolution is just a theory and isn't any more proven than (biblical stuff). I tried to explain to her that evolution has been studied, witnessed, and isn't even up for debate. Whether or not it was the start of creation as we know it is what is widely debated.

Technically, it's not proven, but upheld by a preponderance of evidence. Evolution is a theory, that's why we call it the Theory of evolution. Of course, that evolution happens is considered a fact. On the other hand, even if we found a serious flaw in the argument for evolution, that doesn't make the creationist (or any other) argument suddenly correct. Disproving one theory doesn't prove another theory.

Another example of this that I have come across is the existence of the G-spot in women.

In what regard is this an indisputable or proven fact? Anecdotally, women report an area of greater sensitivity in the vagina, but do all women experience this? Plenty of women also anecdotally report not experiencing any different sensation in this area. And anatomists don't identify any special structure within the vagina to account for it. It may not even be the vagina, per se that is involved in the sensation experienced by stimulation of this area, but stimulation of closely positioned pelvic nerves or the urethra and/or bladder, which can be palpated through the vaginal wall in this area.

Also, the majority of germans still believe that wind blowing on them (even in 90-degree weather) will cause them to get sick.

I don't even know where this came from? Majority opinion can change rather quickly. Have you polled all Germans to find out what they believe? Or are you refuting that wind blowing on you can make you sick? The wind itself, no, that won't make you sick, but if there is an outbreak of an airborne virus, then the wind carrying that virus could lead to illness, as could the wind carrying pollutants.

Very few things in science are "irrefutable facts." It's dangerous to take such a rigid view of scientific findings, as others have pointed out above. Afterall, tomorrow, someone could find the evidence that disproves what we believe to be irrefutable today.

 

[Monique]

I too think it is healthy to have discussions where commonly established facts are challenged, it makes you look up the facts and evaluate their value. A good scientist is curious and does not take anything for granted. There are enough papers published in Science and Nature that were later refuted.

 

[BicycleTree]

Then why not go even a step further and question the "reality" of the effect? We then get to the absurdity that nothing is real, a very popular conversation in philosophy that has no end. We can go even MORE absurd than that and question the reality of the idea that there is no reality. Then we get into a convoluted paradox.

As an experimentalist, I find it highly amusing, not to mention, utterly ridiculous, of this line of thought. The central pillar of experimental physics, which is the reproducibility of observations, appears to be either an unimportant or a trivialized factor in these endless discussion. You'll understand if I sometime wish some of these people will just stop yapping about "existence" of something or not and just simply DO stuff. The degree of certainty of the existence of the atom is greater than the degree of certainty of the statement that there is no reality to so-and-so. The former is quantifiable and verifiable, the latter can't and is only a matter of tastes.

Zz.

Main point:
Claiming an atom exists is the act of faith, and a philosophical conjecture; in pure experimentalism the only question is how to predict the outcome of the next experiment. Meta-questions about the system you have made to help you predict such things, of which the existence of the atom is one, are philosophy, not pure experimentalism.

Secondary point:
Solipsism is a valid path of reasoning, though very strange (and personally I do not believe it), but it is not equivalent to reasoning from effects instead of objects. Basically, someone who reasons from effects instead of objects picks a class of observation to regard as solid (the class of "effects") and regards everything else as ephemeral. One way to pick that class of solid observation is the class of things that can be fairly directly perceived by the human senses, including the human senses of other experimentalists; there are other ways.

One can pick the class of solid observation as the class of one's perceptions, and that is solipsism, but merely reasoning from effects instead of objects does not have to go to this extreme.

 

[KingNothing]

Technically, it's not proven, but upheld by a preponderance of evidence. Evolution is a theory, that's why we call it the Theory of evolution. Of course, that evolution happens is considered a fact. On the other hand, even if we found a serious flaw in the argument for evolution, that doesn't make the creationist (or any other) argument suddenly correct. Disproving one theory doesn't prove another theory.

The word "proven"'s semantics can be argued, but denying the existence of evolution without any counter-evidcence is still basically crackpot-ish.

In what regard is this an indisputable or proven fact? Anecdotally, women report an area of greater sensitivity in the vagina, but do all women experience this? Plenty of women also anecdotally report not experiencing any different sensation in this area. And anatomists don't identify any special structure within the vagina to account for it. It may not even be the vagina, per se that is involved in the sensation experienced by stimulation of this area, but stimulation of closely positioned pelvic nerves or the urethra and/or bladder, which can be palpated through the vaginal wall in this area.

No, of course not all women like g-spot stimulation, just as not all women like (name any other sexual act). Something doesn't have to be true everywhere in order for it to be true anywhere. What I meant was that anyone who says that there is no such thing as a G-Spot is wrong.

Even if the G-Spot is 'just' the stimulation of nearby nerves through the vaginal wall, that's not an argument that refutes its existence, it merely explains how it works.

I don't even know where this came from? Majority opinion can change rather quickly. Have you polled all Germans to find out what they believe? Or are you refuting that wind blowing on you can make you sick? The wind itself, no, that won't make you sick, but if there is an outbreak of an airborne virus, then the wind carrying that virus could lead to illness, as could the wind carrying pollutants.

It came from germany, that's where it came from! And as a matter of fact, I have taken a rather good poll of germans if I do say so myself. I've spent around 4 months of my life in germany, visiting all the major cultural centers. Let me put it this way: We were driving out of Hamburg, 4 of us in the car. Like 90 degrees F outside (no air conditionaing in german cars)..I asked if I could open the window, they all collectively said no. I asked why, and they said they would get sick because of the wind.

They weren't talking about airborne viruses or anything like that. Just the wind. Also, my HS German teacher once noted (she spent her first 15 years in germany) that she was very surprised when she came to America that we allowed the wind to blow on us, and that she was even more surprised when she found out it was not unhealthy.



Skepticism is one thing, but denying established concepts (such as the existence of the atom) is not the same.

 

[ZapperZ]

Main point:
Claiming an atom exists is the act of faith, and a philosophical conjecture; in pure experimentalism the only question is how to predict the outcome of the next experiment. Meta-questions about the system you have made to help you predict such things, of which the existence of the atom is one, are philosophy, not pure experimentalism.

Counter point: what you stated is not even testable, nor reproducible. If claiming at atom exists is an act of faith, then claiming the validity of your idea is, at best, the same thing, and at worse, a speculation. You lack the ability to prove that what you stated is valid. You can't even use it to make prediction of the outcome of any experiment.

Secondary point:
Solipsism is a valid path of reasoning, though very strange (and personally I do not believe it), but it is not equivalent to reasoning from effects instead of objects. Basically, someone who reasons from effects instead of objects picks a class of observation to regard as solid (the class of "effects") and regards everything else as ephemeral. One way to pick that class of solid observation is the class of things that can be fairly directly perceived by the human senses, including the human senses of other experimentalists; there are other ways.

One can pick the class of solid observation as the class of one's perceptions, and that is solipsism, but merely reasoning from effects instead of objects does not have to go to this extreme.

You are assuming that (i) there is a separation between "effects" and "objects" and (ii) that this separation can be verified and detected. This is no more real or valid than saying an atom exists. I put it to you that everything about YOU is a series of properties that are measurable and detectable, so that when someone else observes you, that person is comparing previous sets of measurements with the present set of measurements, and then make the recognition. I will also put it to you that EVERYTHING that you recognize and accept as being "real" ARE defined the same way, via a set of properties that you have remembered. This is not unlike an atom. The only difference being that you do not have the ability to view an atom with your eyes using the very limited electromagnetic spectrum of the visible range.

But if you look closely (and understand how it is described), the existence of an atom has a higher degree of certainty than any philosophical idea. I find it strange that one uses something with a lower degree of certainty to refute something that has a higher degree of certainty. I also think that anyone who doesn't think an atom "exists" is more than welcome to stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me.

Zz.

 

[The Rev]

I got into things with a Jehova's Witness about evolution.

She made the point that something as complex as a human couldn't just be "blown together by the wind." So, as I saw that she did not understand how Natural Selection worked, I explained it to her, point by point. She listened, nodded, listened, and after I was done, said, "Yes, but it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution, because something as complex as a person couldn't just be blown together by the wind."

After that, I took it as the rule that most people don't want their beliefs messed with, expecially by something as trivial as reality.

\infty

The Rev

 

[BicycleTree]

Counter point: what you stated is not even testable, nor reproducible. If claiming at atom exists is an act of faith, then claiming the validity of your idea is, at best, the same thing, and at worse, a speculation. You lack the ability to prove that what you stated is valid. You can't even use it to make prediction of the outcome of any experiment.

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean here. Claiming the validity of which idea?

The idea that atoms exist cannot be used to predict the outcome of any experiment. Only the mathematics (which can be interpreted by some to mean that atoms exist) can be used to predict the outcome of experiments.

You are assuming that (i) there is a separation between "effects" and "objects" and (ii) that this separation can be verified and detected. This is no more real or valid than saying an atom exists. I put it to you that everything about YOU is a series of properties that are measurable and detectable, so that when someone else observes you, that person is comparing previous sets of measurements with the present set of measurements, and then make the recognition. I will also put it to you that EVERYTHING that you recognize and accept as being "real" ARE defined the same way, via a set of properties that you have remembered. This is not unlike an atom. The only difference being that you do not have the ability to view an atom with your eyes using the very limited electromagnetic spectrum of the visible range.

I am agreeing with you here. Everything is a property; there word "object" has no more meaning than properties that are for some good reason grouped together. But it is easy to imagine an opposing point of view, wherein objects viewed through direct sensory evidence or reported through the direct sensory experience of others, perhaps because direct sensory experience is the only direct means for a human to interact with the world, have a privileged status and therefore are considered "real" and all other things mere conveniences.

The dispute then between you and someone holding that point of view would not be over the existence of atoms--since you both consider there to be equal evidence for them, and your disagreement over whether they "exist" is merely verbal--but over the existence of mundane, directly observable things, since the other person believes there is special weight for the existence of those other things and you do not.

But if you look closely (and understand how it is described), the existence of an atom has a higher degree of certainty than any philosophical idea. I find it strange that one uses something with a lower degree of certainty to refute something that has a higher degree of certainty. I also think that anyone who doesn't think an atom "exists" is more than welcome to stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me.

Zz.

What exactly do you mean by the degree of certainty of a philosophical idea? I don't think that's something you can name. Also, the quantification of the degree of certainty of some proposition depends on the ideas you already have at the time you examine the proposition. Someone with the philosophical idea that theoretical objects are insubstantial would not evaluate the idea of atoms as having much degree of certainty at all.

It depends on your basis. Philosophy forms a basis for other things; other things are evaluated through your philosophy. You believe there is a fair degree of certainty for atoms because your philosophical basis provides for such a conclusion; someone with a different basis would not come to that conclusion and would be just as right. Comparing degrees of certainty of ideas in different philosophical formulations is like comparing the rightness of actions in different value systems.

A rational atom-denier would not deny the relative effects of atoms. He would not stand in the path of the beam (assuming he denies neutrons as well as atoms) because although he does not believe in the neutrons, he does believe in the effects.

 

[marlon]

I also think that anyone who doesn't think an atom "exists" is more than welcome to stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me.

Zz.

Aren't you getting tired of saying things like this ? Similar sentences can be found in over 90% of your posts. Apparentely, this approach is not working and i don't see why you even bother.

marlon

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean here. Claiming the validity of which idea?

The idea that atoms exist cannot be used to predict the outcome of any experiment. Only the mathematics (which can be interpreted by some to mean that atoms exist) can be used to predict the outcome of experiments.

But here is where we differ. I put it to you that we ALL exist via a set of properties that defines us! When I say an atom exists, I mean that it fulfills all the properties that defines what it is. Just because these properties are described mathematically isn't a bad thing, but rather a strength, because it can be quantitatively verified, unlike "philosophical ideology". Having something agreeing quantitatively, to me, is a damn strong verification. Not many things we accept in our daily lives have THAT degree of agreement.

Thus, the "outcome" IS the definition for something to exist. The "effects" are how we define the existence of anything. You and I and the atom-denier are known to exists because of such properties. You are defined by your "effects".

A rational atom-denier would not deny the relative effects of atoms. He would not stand in the path of the beam (assuming he denies neutrons as well as atoms) because although he does not believe in the neutrons, he does believe in the effects.

Luckily, only in philosophy would something like this be taken seriously.

 

[BicycleTree]

Aren't you getting tired of saying things like this ? Similar sentences can be found in over 90% of your posts. Apparentely, this approach is not working and i don't see why you even bother.

marlon

Marlon, you are aware that I am not an atom-denier, right?


Zapper, the middle things that I said, which you did not quote, already address your argument sufficiently.

 

[marlon]

Marlon, you are aware that I am not an atom-denier, right?

Ofcourse you are not. Otherwise you would not have been able to write down your very own posts

marlon

 

[BicycleTree]

Ofcourse you are not. Otherwise you would not have been able to write down your very own posts

Like it or not, what you think is determined in great part by your philosophy, stated or implicit. Alternative philosophical views do exist and it is good to be aware of them.

 

[franznietzsche]

No, like the people who ignored them. They weren't unaccepting of established fact; they were unaccepting of established dogma. They were the ones who had the facts, to the limits of their ability.

Did you just not read the rest of my post? That was a sarcastic comment.

 

[Nereid]

Like it or not, what you think is determined in great part by your philosophy, stated or implicit. Alternative philosophical views do exist and it is good to be aware of them.

No problemo! If, at the end of the day, whatever philosophical approach (or views) a person takes doesn't lead them to think they can 'stand in the neutron beam path in the building next door to me' with impunity!

No, cancel that; if there were such a person, wouldn't we have 'an existence proof' that The Rev could use in his discussions with the nice lady who came knocking on his door?

More seriously, exactly *how* you choose to think of core concepts in highly successful theories of physics is, of course, yours (philosophically) to make. From the POV of *doing* science - in the lab (a.k.a. experiment/observation), with paper and pencil (a.k.a. theory), or anyhow else - the only relevant 'objective' measure is, surely, productivity? I.e. how many (high quality) papers does a person with philosophical bentA produce, cf the person with philosophical bentB?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I too think it is healthy to have discussions where commonly established facts are challenged, it makes you look up the facts and evaluate their value. A good scientist is curious and does not take anything for granted. There are enough papers published in Science and Nature that were later refuted.

I would add that almost by definition, if there are any grand and Earth shattering discoveries to be made [and considering the recent track record in many fields of study, this seems virtually certain] accepted paradigms will fall. Which ones? Hmmmm. So even though I have the greatest confidence in "science" and the methods of science generally, I think it goes against the essential goal of science to ever accept "facts" without question. Unfortunately, people not trained in science often take this to mean that we should accept any silly idea that has no supporting evidence, or even logic behind it. There is a big difference between questioning accepted facts, and promoting bad science or nonsense.

 

[Danger]

Did you just not read the rest of my post? That was a sarcastic comment.

Sorry. I did read the whole thing, but interpreted it as sardonicism rather than sarcasm. It's not always easy to tell the difference, even with smilies.

Incidentally, SpaceTiger—cool new avatar. Is that a merkin I see clinging to your chin? Where you been hangin' out, man?

 

[Pengwuino]

You know what i hate that kinda fits into this topic... when people will argue with you on something they know nothing about that is like a book or law or something of that nature.

For example, me and my friend got into an argument about the patriot act. I had taken the time a few weeks earlier to look at the bill and the other laws associated with it . Well we get into an argument and I am all "really, what rights are being taken away from us" or something to the effect and he pretty much names off these 3 things straight from the ACLU's website. I ask him "really? where does it say that in the act?" and he goes "its just there, i know it!" and we argue a little about it being there or not and at some point he goes "well I am not some geek like you who has time to sit around reading laws, i have work to do" and I am pretty much like "So your trying to lecture me on something you didnt even bother to read?" and then he goes "it doesn't matter, i could be like you and look at the act if i wanted to but I am not a loser". Oh yah and he brought the whole argument up too by the way.

 

[Chronos]

Oh please. Talk about a pedantic argument. Do you even have a point? Zapper and Moonbear have a grip on reality, and an idea how to express it.

 

[Steve Woods]

Don't you just hate it when someone, usually an idiot, blatantly denies or refutes scientific method?

One of these situations came up yesterday. A girl in somone's class tried to explain that evolution is just a theory and isn't any more proven than (biblical stuff). He tried to claim that evolution has been studied and witnessed and that she was denying " an established fact". which wasn't even up for debate. He seemed to think that evolution had something to do with the start of creation as we know it and that was all that was widely debated.

A cohesive theory based on good scientific research and method on the development of life remains a theory whilst there are, are may be, alternatives, which fit the know or potential facts. Since we do not know all future potentila facts, most science is based on theories eg relativity. Scientific Laws are, or claim to be, logically irrefutable. The fact that many people, including myself, believe evolution to be a fact does not make it one in scientific terms. "Theory" remains the correct word.

However, I have never before heard anyone suggest that the creation of the universe was part of evolution. I thought evolution covered living matter.

 

[Soilwork]

Holy crap it was tedious reading all that pholosophical stuff.
It's so painful.
It just seemed like a really convoluted and round-about argument that questions the existence of an atom.
How this all stemmed from the initial topic I don't know.
Anyway as long as you enjoy talking about this stuff then I guess it's OK.