Is cherry picking evidence a hindrance to scientific progress?

[Nereid]

I have to say that I am saddened that this thread seems to have terminated in shouting in lots of bold type rather than continuing as a discussion and debate.

[...]

I have certainly used bold type a lot, and I am saddened that you, mysearch, have interpreted this as "shouting".

Over the years I have, in this forum and others, tried many orthographic devices to make clear what I write and distinguish it from what other's have written - colour, use of [ QUOTE ] tags, separators such as "= = = = = = =", font size and type, and so on.

Each method has its strengths and weaknesses, but the one that most closely meets my need (see below) is to take the core part of someone else's post, that I wish to comment on, and bold it. Why? Several reasons, including: colour (font size, font type) doesn't always get reproduced when text is copied, and quote tags are cumbersome when you need to do nesting (and they are also often lost when text is copied or posts quoted).

From my POV, one of the most important things in discussions like this is focus and clarity, and to achieve this I have found it critical to preserve the meanings contained in posts (or material referenced), as the basis from which discussion proceeds (or should proceed).

I hope this helps you understand what I have written better. If you have suggestions on how to achieve focus and clarity without giving the appearance of shouting, would you be kind enough to make them?

I'll comment on other points in your post (that I'm quoting) later.

 

[Nereid]

[...]

Thanks for the reminder. I usually follow George Jones pointers, but in this case I gave up too soon. There are 6 pages and 88 posts in this thread and I originally failed to find the appropriate references in the early posts. For those interested, the link is:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=170753&page=6
Garth raises the issue of the Lieu paper in post #1 and also points to another thread, which may be useful to others, like me, who are trying to come up to speed with issues that others may have already discussed in the past, the resurrection of which may have caused some unintentional irritation. However, Wallace probably gives the most considered and helpful reply, I have seen to-date, see posts #3 & #6.

Well, if that's the definition, it seems to me that almost all of modern science exceeds "The Limits of Inference"!

It’s a definition, not necessarily the only definition. The only point that was really being made was that much of modern science, based on mathematics, is still speculative until some form of empirical verification can be provided. Therefore, as part of any learning process, rather than rote acceptance, I was interested in trying to understand the arguments for and against the Lieu and Disney papers, plus where such limits may have been exceeded.

It took me a while to grok that, but when I did, I suggested that there's a great deal more to the point than merely Lieu and Disney's papers!

And that's why I asked you about IACTs, the solar neutrino problem, etc: I feel that unless and until we have a good, mutual understanding of 'the limits of inference' in modern astrophysics (and, perhaps, modern physics in general), our discussion of what's in Lieu and Disney's papers would be vexing, if only because of the many times we will be 'talking past each other'.

Put this another way: both papers exist in a rich environment, full of concepts, theories, papers, people, egos, and more. Ergo, they can really only be understood if certain essentials about that environment are also understood ('limits of inference' is a good example).

However, I think it may be more productive, if I spend my time reviewing the two earlier threads mentioned above, as suggested.

Some readers may also be interested in another paper, referenced by Garth in post #16, from which the following quote was taken:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1337905&postcount=16

Ironic that it is Karl Popper you quote!

Let's see if others are interested in discussing this ...

 

[wolram]

Nereid.

I am pining my hopes on Advanced Ligo, if there is a null result i think we are in for a long wait for an explanation.

What other observations can be tested for in the (Laboratory)? Dark Matter, we can look for a WIMP, but if we do not find it, it is not very worrisome as DM can be some thing else, what is worrisome is how many guises can it be in, and is it science to say test from a to x
or run out of possibilities?

Particles? there is a wealth of them (axions) awaiting discovery.

Dark Energy, i do not have a clue about it's non existence or existence, or if it can ever be
more than a theory.

Obsevations, all i can say is i know of some of the difficulties, and it would not surprise me if
Z>7 or more distant galaxies are found.

 

[atyy]

To my mind there is only one thing that can cripple modern cosmology, and that is the non detection of gravitational radiation.

How about the Taylor and Hulse evidence for gravity waves? ie. a non-detection by LIGO etc wouldn't be reason to change GR, but rather an indication that gravity wave astronomy will have to wait 20-30 years, rather than just 10 years.

Again to my mind, every thing else, dark matter, dark energy, fitting observations with theory will all ways be open to question.

My sentiments too. I don't believe GR is the final theory (I don't believe in a final theory), but even sticking with GR, to establish LCDM beyond "parameterising our ignorance", we (ie. physicists, not me - I'm a biologist!) must rule out all other possible models that GR permits. This has not yet been done, at least in part because we can't observe all data needed to pin down a particular model (the observable part of the universe is getting bigger everyday), and also because we haven't enumerated all possible models that GR permits (eg. those not obeying the cosmological principle). Particulars apart, I think this attitude of skepticism is advocated in texts like Plebanski and Krasinski's and Schutz's.

 

[wolram]

How about the Taylor and Hulse evidence for gravity waves? ie. a non-detection by LIGO etc wouldn't be reason to change GR, but rather an indication that gravity wave astronomy will have to wait 20-30 years, rather than just 10 year

All the literature i have read predict advanced ligo will detect gravitiy waves, if it doe's not
i think there will be some head scratching, it seems there are many events per year that will be within the range of AL.

 

[wolram]

Scientists are so confident that ligo will detect gravity waves, and are all ready using non detection as a tool.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24501

 

[atyy]

Scientists are so confident that ligo will detect gravity waves, and are all ready using non detection as a tool.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24501

That's nice. Non-detection seems to me harder than detection - eg. did I just forget to turn the switch on? In this case, the non-detection seems consistent with known physics. How many or what sort of non-detections are needed to suggest new physics?

 

[Nereid]

Disney's 14 items (part I)

PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES FOR COSMOLOGY AS A SCIENCE

4. Need to work with what we can currently detect. [But . . . ]
5. Local background very bright.
6. Distances very hard to determine (standard candles).
7. Observational Selection insidious.
8. Distant galaxies hard to measure and interpret unambiguously.
9. Luminosity Functions unreliable.

10. Geometry, astrophysics and evolution often entangled.

3. Need to extrapolate physics over huge distances.
12. Human time-frame so short compared to cosmic.

2. Universe opaque for 56/60 decades since Planck era.
11. Physics of early Universe unknown (and unknowable?)

1. Only one Universe.

14. The singularity.
13. Origin of inertia.

I've re-ordered them somewhat.

In this post I'll comment on them from the POV of whether cosmology is unusual in having difficulties like these.

The first six are easy ... I think it would be quite difficult to find a branch of modern science that doesn't have something like these to contend with. Not the specific ones of course, though much of astrophysics has these specifics, but things like these are found in every branch of science that studies the real world, from linguistics to economics to ecology to climate science to geology to ...

The next (10.) is a transition item, it has characteristics of the first six and the next two.

These two (3. and 12.) are common to all 'deep time' sciences, such as geology and paleontology, with a key part of physics supplying the equivalence of 'huge distances' and 'deep time'.

The next two (2. and 11.) are just plain weird, when taken in conjunction with each other (and 3.). For example, 2 is only a 'difficulty' if you accept that 3 and 11 are not! Be that as it may, almost by definition, only two other branches of science share this difficulty - particle physics and astrophysics (again, equating time with distance in the usual way).

The penultimate one (1.) is, of course, a common difficulty for many branches of science, if you take "Universe" to mean "one and only one of". For example, the world economy, the English language, the psychology of Homo sapiens (the species), the Cambrian, ...

And the last two, well, I pass. I have no idea what Disney means by these, as 'particular difficulties'. Do you, dear reader?

Summary: except for the last two (maybe), it would seem that cosmology-as-a-science is not particularly unusual in the sense of having to address rather knotty 'particular difficulties'.

 

[wolram]

Number 6 on your list, standard candles.

I really do not know if any thing other than parallax measure is reliable, we have parallax measure for a small part of our galaxy.
I guess one can all ways argue that some thing effects light travel, but i know very little on the subject.

 

[turbo]

And the last two, well, I pass. I have no idea what Disney means by these, as 'particular difficulties'. Do you, dear reader?

The origin of inertia is a huge problem that has not been addressed by GR. Einstein felt that it arose from matter's interaction with the local "ether" in which it embedded, as well as gravitational effects. He rejected "spooky action at a distance" in his Leiden address in 1920, and expressed that more forcefully in his 1924 essay "On the Ether". Inertia was one of Fenman's favorite unexplained things, as well.

 

[Nereid]

The origin of inertia is a huge problem that has not been addressed by GR. Einstein felt that it arose from matter's interaction with the local "ether" in which it embedded, as well as gravitational effects. He rejected "spooky action at a distance" in his Leiden address in 1920, and expressed that more forcefully in his 1924 essay "On the Ether". Inertia was one of Fenman's favorite unexplained things, as well.

OK, thanks.

Accepting this, for now, at face value, why does it make for a "PARTICULAR DIFFICULT[Y] FOR COSMOLOGY AS A SCIENCE"?

I mean, none of the weird stuff to do with quantum mechanics is on his list (to take just one example), despite it surely being just as huge a problem/an unexplained thing ...

 

[Nereid]

Number 6 on your list, standard candles.

I really do not know if any thing other than parallax measure is reliable, we have parallax measure for a small part of our galaxy.
I guess one can all ways argue that some thing effects light travel, but i know very little on the subject.

Quite.

But what's that got to do with being a "PARTICULAR DIFFICULT[Y] FOR COSMOLOGY AS A SCIENCE"?

Sure, it's a difficulty, and it affects cosmology (and most of astrophysics, and no doubt other sciences too), but these sorts of difficulties are not unusual in many (most?) sciences ...

 

[wolram]

Quite.

But what's that got to do with being a "PARTICULAR DIFFICULT[Y] FOR COSMOLOGY AS A SCIENCE"?

Sure, it's a difficulty, and it affects cosmology (and most of astrophysics, and no doubt other sciences too), but these sorts of difficulties are not unusual in many (most?) sciences ...

I really do not know Nereid, When is science without a non elastic measuring stick useful?
Parallax is non elastic if there is a standard metric that every one agrees on, what can we deduce beyond that?
Edit for clarity ,with an elastic ruler.

 

[mysearch]

The intention is not to stoke up a debate that appears to have run its course, but I happened to come across 2 quotes, when reading about an entirely different topic, which I felt might be worth adding as a footnote to this thread.

The idea is to try and give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another. Richard Feynman

In this spirit of full disclosure, maybe you might like to look at a few basic questions in the following thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=282764

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their worldly origin and take them as immutably truths. They are then rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given". Such errors often make the road of scientific progress impassable for a long time. Albert Einstein

As such, questioning accepted wisdom should not always be seen as sceptical, especially within any declared learning process.