Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about science?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Geordie Ross
Posts: 1644
Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Newcastle UK.

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Geordie Ross » November 5th, 2013, 4:22 pm

Oh so ropes don't conform to logic? So why are you championing them as a bastion of logic? :roll:

They don't represent ropes, how many times do I have to tell you they're representations of trajectories.

You're the one demanding images of subatomic particles, is it then unreasonable for me to demand images of ropes? Hypocrisy as usual.
The good life is one inspired by love, and guided by knowledge. - Bertrand Russell

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Xris » November 5th, 2013, 5:06 pm

Geordie Ross wrote:Oh so ropes don't conform to logic? So why are you championing them as a bastion of logic? :roll:

They don't represent ropes, how many times do I have to tell you they're representations of trajectories.

You're the one demanding images of subatomic particles, is it then unreasonable for me to demand images of ropes? Hypocrisy as usual.

Particles as you have admitted are not logical. So how are you judging EM ropes? When they explain light with a clarity that particles can never do, what is your real objection? Give me 20 billion dollars and fifty years I think I could give a good account of them.

Are those trajectories waves or particles?

Engineer0RQ1
Posts: 218
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 5:16 am
Favorite Philosopher: Descartes
Location: Stevenage SG2 ***

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Engineer0RQ1 » November 5th, 2013, 7:13 pm

Thanks A_Seagull

You make a very interesting point in post15

Are we balancing degree of "true/trust" when we calm down and think slowly/rationally?

WDYT

-- Updated Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:23 pm to add the following --
Geordie Ross wrote:It has nothing to do with logic or rationality, it's objective reality.


How can Physical Reality be "Objective" when one cannot observe any electromechanical system?


Rgds
Chris

An engineer by philosophy, opinion and action.

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by DarwinX » November 5th, 2013, 7:59 pm

Geordie Ross wrote:It has nothing to do with logic or rationality, it's objective reality. It's illogical that two cannon balls of different mass fall at the same rate, does that mean reality is wrong because it doesn't conform to our logic?
Is that your subjective opinion? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

Engineer0RQ1
Posts: 218
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 5:16 am
Favorite Philosopher: Descartes
Location: Stevenage SG2 ***

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Engineer0RQ1 » November 5th, 2013, 11:21 pm

Go DarwinX. :D :( Geordie Ross


Perhaps we also require some "Relative" thinking??? :shock: :? ... :idea:


Rgds
Chris

An engineer by philosophy, opinion and action.

User avatar
Geordie Ross
Posts: 1644
Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Newcastle UK.

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Geordie Ross » November 6th, 2013, 10:01 am

Give me a valid reason as to why the universe should conform to our system of logic. It clearly doesn't, quantum mechanics is one of the most accurate forms of physics discovered, yet it breaks the "law" of non-contradiction and the "law" of identity. So what's more likley? Our logic has limits, or observable reality is wrong because it doesn't behave as we expect it to?
The good life is one inspired by love, and guided by knowledge. - Bertrand Russell

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Xris » November 6th, 2013, 10:22 am

Geordie Ross wrote:Give me a valid reason as to why the universe should conform to our system of logic. It clearly doesn't, quantum mechanics is one of the most accurate forms of physics discovered, yet it breaks the "law" of non-contradiction and the "law" of identity. So what's more likley? Our logic has limits, or observable reality is wrong because it doesn't behave as we expect it to?

But you are contradiction yourself. If a concept does not conform to the observation why would you accept it? Simply stating that logic is not applicable is irrational.

DarwinX
Posts: 1298
Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
Location: Australia

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by DarwinX » November 6th, 2013, 11:12 am

Geordie Ross wrote:Give me a valid reason as to why the universe should conform to our system of logic. It clearly doesn't, quantum mechanics is one of the most accurate forms of physics discovered, yet it breaks the "law" of non-contradiction and the "law" of identity. So what's more likley? Our logic has limits, or observable reality is wrong because it doesn't behave as we expect it to?
Only humans can be illogical. Nature is incapable of being that devious. If nature seems illogical, its only because humans haven't worked it out properly. Note - Humans are egocentric creatures that often see themselves as infallible.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

Engineer0RQ1
Posts: 218
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 5:16 am
Favorite Philosopher: Descartes
Location: Stevenage SG2 ***

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Engineer0RQ1 » November 6th, 2013, 4:00 pm

Geordie Ross

DarwinX has gone straight to the point
humans haven't worked it out properly.
It is that simple : Science has shown us three equally valid viewpoints it is just a matter of employing our own inbuilt intellect to determine the fundamental paradigm or truth that lies behind them.

Mathematics cannot do this because it can only define and validate relationships.

Scientists cannot do this because they can only define and validate relationships.

i.e It is up to us all to use our own common sense and frankly the people at CERN do not have it yet. :?

They are still stuck with the Copenhagen Compromise. My message to them would be:

Get over it and then your results will make sense


Rgds
Chris

An engineer by philosophy, opinion and action.

User avatar
Geordie Ross
Posts: 1644
Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Newcastle UK.

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Geordie Ross » November 6th, 2013, 4:37 pm

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

But you are contradiction yourself. If a concept does not conform to the observation why would you accept it? Simply stating that logic is not applicable is irrational.
Xris, your the one contradicting yourself by calling observations concepts. You're so desperate for "accepted" science to be wrong, that you're tripping yourself up.

Engineer, Darwin is a conspiracy theorist that think everyone (except himself and his luny fringe hypothesese) are wrong. Also, I've blocked him, thus refuse to read his vapid, insipid posts, as they have no philosophical value other than to stir the cauldron of fecal matter. A.K.A he is a poop stirrer, here to cause arguments with no scientific or philosophical merit.

As for your post, it raises a deeper philosophical question, "can science ever be 'complete', that, in itself deserves it's own topic. But in short, I kind of agree. Science doesn't have all the answers, but the answers it does produce are primarily accurate, and at best, they're incredibly practical, unlike Darwin's "X-Y-Z is a fraud! But I know the real truth!"

I shall reply in full when I'm back in England, I'm using my iPhone with weak wifi in benidorm. You raise strong philosophical questions Engineer, unlike your fellow "scientific skeptics" Xris and DarwinX.

I look forward to a stimulating conversation. :wink:
The good life is one inspired by love, and guided by knowledge. - Bertrand Russell

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Xris » November 6th, 2013, 4:45 pm

I look forward to your return. If you have a concept and the observations prove it to be illogical why would you maintain the concept ? Get it now Geordie?

User avatar
Geordie Ross
Posts: 1644
Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Newcastle UK.

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Geordie Ross » November 6th, 2013, 5:13 pm

The "concept" was built from observations, not the other way round. You expect people to accept Gaedes ropes on face value, yet there is no evidence, no observations, there is nothing. It sounds vaugley logical, yet when questioned its absurd. Are it's vectors identical to those of photons? If they are, they're no discernible difference.

I look forward to getting home, not least because the air con is broke, but I'll be able to follow the links you give unimpeded.

Ps my spell check is poor. Apple only use American spelling
The good life is one inspired by love, and guided by knowledge. - Bertrand Russell

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Xris » November 6th, 2013, 5:31 pm

Geordie Ross wrote:The "concept" was built from observations, not the other way round. You expect people to accept Gaedes ropes on face value, yet there is no evidence, no observations, there is nothing. It sounds vaugley logical, yet when questioned its absurd. Are it's vectors identical to those of photons? If they are, they're no discernible difference.

I look forward to getting home, not least because the air con is broke, but I'll be able to follow the links you give unimpeded.

Ps my spell check is poor. Apple only use American spelling
The concept of light was not constructed using observations. You can not see particles. I am not expecting you to believe anything.But you can not argue from a position that accepts even if a concept is illogical it has to be maintained.

Engineer0RQ1
Posts: 218
Joined: June 25th, 2011, 5:16 am
Favorite Philosopher: Descartes
Location: Stevenage SG2 ***

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Engineer0RQ1 » November 7th, 2013, 2:44 am

Xris wrote:I look forward to your return. If you have a concept and the observations prove it to be illogical why would you maintain the concept ? Get it now Geordie?
For the same reason as I do Xris: Because it works in practice!!!

I am using a modern microprocessor to talk to you now. It's internal layout has been redesigned using those illogical equations so as to overcome several problems that occur when you build semiconductor substrates this small and surprisingly it now works!!!

This as far as I am concerned proves that the "illogical" equations show a true picture of Reality and therefore we are the ones with faulty logic.

Not only that, I believe there now devices being developed from QM concepts. One being quantum tunnelling diodes /junctions


Makes you think eh?

A.E.Rae's book gives several more examples of how a "dead/alive" cat and other illogical paradigms do seem to give us a clearer view of the workings of our world if you are interested.
Chris

An engineer by philosophy, opinion and action.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Is it appropriate to correct misconceptions about scienc

Post by Xris » November 7th, 2013, 6:27 am

Engineer0RQ1 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


For the same reason as I do Xris: Because it works in practice!!!

I am using a modern microprocessor to talk to you now. It's internal layout has been redesigned using those illogical equations so as to overcome several problems that occur when you build semiconductor substrates this small and surprisingly it now works!!!

This as far as I am concerned proves that the "illogical" equations show a true picture of Reality and therefore we are the ones with faulty logic.

Not only that, I believe there now devices being developed from QM concepts. One being quantum tunnelling diodes /junctions


Makes you think eh?

A.E.Rae's book gives several more examples of how a "dead/alive" cat and other illogical paradigms do seem to give us a clearer view of the workings of our world if you are interested.
Engineering science does not work using concepts.Measuring the flow of electricity does not incur arguing over the movement of electrons. Lets say for argument that Bill Gaedes ropes are the true representative of how EM radiation transmits energy.Would it really change the technical advances we have observed? If we admitted that the observer does not influence an experiment would your tunnelling diodes not work. If we discovered a hidden variable in the cats box and we knew if it was dead or alive,would science suddenly cease? Defending illogical consequences formed from false concepts can never be defended on the grounds that we have seen certain technical advantages.

Post Reply