The false theories that give birth to false philosophy

Who is suggesting that telling the truth will destroy our students education? Is it me? I have never heard that telling the truth will cause potential engineers or chemists to fail and our academic system will collapse.

And what is to constitute this "truth" to replace particles and Big Bang? Bill Gaede's ropes perhaps? Intelligent design? Scientific theory may have no authority to call itself "truth" but I shudder to imagine what we might replace it with.

Who is suggesting that telling the truth will destroy our students education? Is it me? I have never heard that telling the truth will cause potential engineers or chemists to fail and our academic system will collapse.

And what is to constitute this "truth" to replace particles and Big Bang? Bill Gaede's ropes perhaps? Intelligent design? Scientific theory may have no authority to call itself "truth" but I shudder to imagine what we might replace it with.

Please do not assume that I would suggest replacing one false concept with another. If it placed within the public domain then it must stand scrutiny and be criticized. You want me to accept the BB as a fact and pander to deceptive description then think again. The truth should be placed in open debate not meekly accepted by us simple folk. Your implication that I would introduce unsupported science or faith driven dogma to replace these false concepts is simply slanderous. I could understand your opposition if I was fundamentally wrong but all you do is want me to accept the crazy notion that science is beyond my ken so I should shut up and be grateful. No way Jose. Lets keep the bible in Latin so us serfs will not question gods book.

You want me to accept the BB as a fact and pander to deceptive description then think again.

Incorrect. I want you to acknowledge the BB as a mere model whose description currently correlates more empirical data together with greater internal consistency than anything else available. As to what you want to call the facts of reality, that's your business, not mine.

The truth should be placed in open debate not meekly accepted by us simple folk.

Correct. Simple folk shouldn't accept truth meekly...which has nothing to do with science, although it does have a lot to do with education, including science education.

Your implication that I would introduce unsupported science or faith driven dogma to replace these false concepts is simply slanderous.

Save the victim routine, Xris, I'm not interested. You already know as well as I do that without science it is precisely faith, dogma and pseudo-science that fills the role of science in the minds of those who decry science. So if you know of something else that constitutes Truth to stand in place of those fallacies, name it.

I could understand your opposition if I was fundamentally wrong but all you do is want me to accept the crazy notion that science is beyond my ken so I should shut up and be grateful.

Incorrect. I want you to stop acting as though science is beyond your ken and instead approach it with a responsible attitude instead of your knee-jerk reactionism fueled by your fears.

Poster you were inferring I would prefer pseudoscience and magic to science. I find that insulting and distortion of my views. Part of my reasoning was because many faith driven posters use the false concept of the BB to support their beliefs. You can not allow false concepts in science to influence or become part of education system.

You are now advocating the BB be taught to our children and used as reference. A concept that as you well know has been questioned by many eminent scientists. Why is it that I who want honesty in science and the truth be explained, no matter what the consequence, is being accused of fear mongering and classed as a trouble maker? You better get used to my opinions or make a better job of defending those concepts rather than attacking my person.

Poster you were inferring I would prefer pseudoscience and magic to science. I find that insulting and distortion of my views.

Incorrect. I am inferring that you would prefer metaphysical foundations for science. Your determination to invoke determinist causation for productive scientific theory, where causation is not in evidence, yields no other conclusion. I know that you don't recognize this. Exogen already tried to get you to see how your position is metaphysical and you did not see it his way. Metaphysics does not imply pseudoscience and magic (although it does support them) and I don't believe you consciously want pseudoscience in place of science. But if you are going to support Bill Gaede's ropes as a scientific theory, then it suggests you are unable to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

Part of my reasoning was because many faith driven posters use the false concept of the BB to support their beliefs.

But you are blaming science for this when you should be looking at those faith driven posters who have misappropriated science to their own ends.

You can not allow false concepts in science to influence or become part of education system.

Then follow your own advice, Xris, and stop looking to the Bill Gaedes of the world for the alternative.

You are now advocating the BB be taught to our children and used as reference. A concept that as you well know has been questioned by many eminent scientists.

You're right, but you're not seeing the significance of your own words, so I'll add the proper emphasis and supplementary clarification: I advocate the Big Bang be taught to our children and used AS A REFERENCE for the CURRENT state of cosmological theory. I even advocate teaching those same children that the Big Bang has encountered significant problems as we have learned more about cosmology since its inception, and in time it will have to be replaced by a more comprehensive model.

Why is it that I who want honesty in science and the truth be explained, no matter what the consequence, is being accused of fear mongering and classed as a trouble maker?

You're dogmatic, Xris. You have an agenda to protect determinism which flies in the face of particle physics, so you attack the integrity of particle physics on this forum in a manner that presents itself as protecting the integrity of science when in fact you are unwittingly attempting to compromise scientific epistemology with metaphysical arguments. Exogen already tried valiantly to show you this, but he failed, and I know I can't do any better. You have every right to try to introduce metaphysics into scientific epistemology, and I have every right to try to expose it.

I am aware that from your point of view, I am the one being dogmatic, and it looks to you like I have a blind allegiance to science. I am actually quite critical of the institution of science, but I do believe that scientific epistemology is a very valuable creation which needs to be understood and appreciated on its terms, not in terms of predetermined metaphysical assumptions.

I like your style poster. You would like to lump every debate we have ever had and make some strange conclusion you were right every time. It dont work like that Poster. You need to confront every issue as it occurs. Simply attaching others views as if they are significant is a sign of your weakness not my dogmatic attention. Gaede was simply a reference to alternative views that needs consideration not an indication I worship him. I notice you do not mention those well known respected scientists who agree with me. I do not care how you would educate our youngsters as I fear you would simply carrying on the same distortions and keep the public away from the reality, as you have indicated from the start. Let the plebs carry on believing in particles wizzing around atoms and the great Big Bang is a biblical certainty.

I don't really see a factual disagreement between Xris's position that the event of the Big Bang and material particles are not factual on the one hand, and Wooden shoe's notion of these "facts" as regulative ideas or A Poster He or I's notion of "facts" as aspects of models or Insext notion of "facts" as pragmatic results or Belinda's notion of "facts" in context of explanation, on the other hand. I think the disagreement is verbal (and unfortunately in some cases, attitudinal).

I think everyone would agree that it's not very useful to suppose that there is such a thing as a fact that is not fallible, as Peirce would put it. I think Xris would agree that the current state of scientific understanding will continue to evolve, and what are considered facts at present are subject to revision.

Norwood Russell Hanson's example of facts being theory dependent is a striking example of the difficulty of understanding what constitutes a scientific fact:

Do Kepler and Tycho see the same thing in the east as dawn? (Norwood Russell Hanson's Patterns of Discovery, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1958, 5)

We say it's a fact that the sun rises in the morning, but it's also a fact that it's the earth that turns so the sun couldn't really rise.

Or why is it a fact before 2006 that Pluto is a planet, but Pluto is no longer a planet after that date. The notion of "fact" turns on linguistic behavior, in this case the definition of "planet" and of "dwarf planet" by the International Astronomical Union.

So a fact is perhaps thought of as a paraphrase of true statement. And a statement is considered true or false in reference to contextual statements. (This is in part what is meant in the claim that facts are theory dependent).

For example, for everyday purposes, if I say the ruler I hold in my hand is 30 cm long, is this statement not a fact if it's actual length is not exactly 30 cm? Since it's actual length depends on temperature, pressure, coefficient of expansion, and so forth, the length would vary somewhat depending upon the conditions under which it is observed. We can introduce the notion of standard conditions, but again this makes the fact of the ruler's length a linguistic artifact somewhat like the definition of "planet."

Moreover, since the length of the ruler varies over time, we really don't want to conclude that the length of the ruler is relative so the ruler doesn't really have a real length.

The notion of the nature of subatomic particles or the notion of the occurrence of a big bang have something more than the notion of some sort of pragmatic truths as being "useful fictions," as Nietzsche put it.

However, to conclude that no facts exist is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It makes sense to view a fact as a true statement, and true statements ought be regarded as provisional truths, depending upon currently available evidence.

Useful fictions. Can we tolerate fiction when it dictates so much more than idle chatter. Just ask a few friends if they believe in the BB as a fact, or if particles exist in the quantum world, then ask them to draw a picture of an atom. Ask a christian what significant scientific fact indicates creation by god? It is drip drip effect that is more torture than philosophy, when these fictions become facts. They ripple out into science and philosophy and eventually turn into waves of enormous magnitude. Black holes, dark matter, white holes fictional universes, gods have become dependant on these fictions and we meekly follow not really caring, thinking they are useful.They hinder and become dogmatic facts no one dare question. Would you blame them after my reception?

Useful fictions. Can we tolerate fiction when it dictates so much more than idle chatter.

What do you want to erect in their place? Gaede is pseudoscience so you don't want that. Intelligent Design is religion so you don't want that. Determinism is metaphysics...is that what you want? What do you want in place of these "fictions?"

Useful fictions. Can we tolerate fiction when it dictates so much more than idle chatter.

What do you want to erect in their place? Gaede is pseudoscience so you don't want that. Intelligent Design is religion so you don't want that. Determinism is metaphysics...is that what you want? What do you want in place of these "fictions?"

Your doing it again poster are you that desperate? I simply want science to be as it should be. Not Gaede, not intelligent design. I do not want atoms and it's parts to explained as particles when no particles exist. I do not want the BB and all it's results to be taught as much as a fact as the theory of relativity. If I have a view on any subject it is my view, I do not expect it to be taught in schools as a fact. I will not be drawn in to subjects that or not relevant. You can continue with them in the relative threads.

You speak of science "as it should be."

The only way I can make sense of what you mean (given what you say you DON'T mean) is that you want science to present an image of Objective Reality, where things are presented with the "honesty" of Objective Truth, not metaphors given misleading names like "particle" and "wave."

But Objective Truth is a matter for metaphysics, and metaphysics is not the business of science. Science as it should be must (ideally) rigorously uphold scientific epistemology above all other considerations.

You also don't want theory taught as fact. I have stated numerous times in other threads that I (more-or-less) agree with you. But for some reason that I cannot get to the bottom of, you are convinced that this is the fault of science, not the fault of science education. You who claim to want to uphold the honesty of science then speak as fact of a scientific priesthood bent on keeping "the plebes" in ignorance...and you have the audacity to feel insulted when your purposely-provocative OP is challenged on its own terms?

When it comes down to it, one only accepts science as fact if they have no or partial knowledge of it. That is not sciences fault. That is general ignorance, and as such ignorance should be eradicated with knowledge.... Of science. So the hurdle to accepting the idea that science is not fact but just our best guess involves education, not removal of science as important.

How can you say it is ignorance that perpetuates these false theories? Look at any article on particle science or listen to any televised programme about the universe and both the BB and particles are spoken of as certainties. Are we looking for the god particle or not? The BB has even convinced the learned that black holes exist and dark matter needs to be found? This is without finding philosophical arguments using the BB to enforce a concept of god the creator. They constantly muddy the water of scientific understanding and intruding into every aspect of debate. It needs a contentious debate to make it known.

Xris:

I know you've heard this before, but most of what you say suggests that you really have fundamentally misunderstood the way that science works and how it attempts to create predictive theories about the world. Perhaps this is partly the fault of the way science is presented in the media. For some reason you seem to be sort of angry about all this, as if you think that "science" is engaged in some kind of conspiracy.

The concepts invented by science, like particles, are models with the purpose of making predictions about the world. None of them is a complete description of the world. That's why they're called models. When you say that particles "don't exist" you're misundestanding what a particle is supposed to be. In a sense, you're right. A particle is an abstract concept. It's not supposed to exist, in the sense that you seem to require it to. It is a way of describing, or modelling, some aspects of the physical world. There are some ways in which it is a good model. And some others in which it is not so good. That does not make it useless. Just limited, like all the concepts of science.

When studying physics you learn about a lot of such models which approximate the real world to a greater or lesser extent. The Bohr model of the atom, for example, is a sort of half way house between the classical and quantum mechanical models of the atom. Still discussed. Still useful.

And yes, in educating people we still talk about the solar-system-like model of the electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets around the Sun. We do this not because it is "right" but because it is useful. Not complete, but still useful.

Xris:

Lets pretend the universe started with an enormous big bang and atoms look like planets.

What else would you suggest that atoms "look like"? if you're talking literally then the question of what an atom looks like is meaningless. They're too small for the concept of visual appearance to apply. So when talking about things like "what an atom looks like" we are necessarily always talking in metaphors/similes. And different metaphors are used for different purposes. In some ways, an atom does indeed "look like" a miniature solar system. In other ways it "looks like" a mathematical equation.


I guess it's difficult in your average Dr Brian Cox BBC2 vehicle to convey these ideas about how science works so maybe science programmes on TV tend to give the wrong impression and seem to be talking about what's right and wrong, rather than talking about what's useful and not useful. If you're interested in physics I would urge you to study the subject properly before judging its practitioners too harshly!

Steve I understand your view and why the concept is used but it goes further than that. Ask anyone who is not fully versed in particle science, including me, and you find the concept is ingrained into our psyche. When you do look more closely you can see this concept is spawning even more strange unexplained concepts. If you look or enquire there are disagreements between scientists on what we have been led to believe are fundamental truths. I am too old and too ignorant to take a degree is particle science but reading scientific articles has convinced me the state of particle science is far from honest. When you consider how much has been spent and for how long, should we not be treated with more respect and expect a clearer picture. Why should we be fed false concepts and then be told to take a degree in physics before we question them?

Take the two concepts,BB and particles, they suddenly start refering to each other and look to support one with the other. "In the begining when particles first started to emerge from the..." " We know that these simple element.."
These sacred cows should be just as questionable as any other that are based more on faith than evidence.