Page 11 of 11

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 2nd, 2013, 8:39 am
by Xris
Belinda wrote:Xris wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I have never heard os a scientist who accepts scientific findings as though they were 'Gospel truths'. Inductive reasoning is always needed as far as I know. If not, why invest so much in the Hadron Collider if deductive methods of maths are sufficient to reveal truth.

As far as I know the closest scientists ever get to 'Gospel truths ' are natural selection and even more so that physics theory which I do not understand I think it is called Gauge Theory. But does any scientist relinquish centuries old Enlightenment scepticism?
I think if you look at the Higgs particle it has all the elements of a god particle. It was correctly named in my opinion. To believe it exists you have to accept the big bang theory also. You have to believe in those first few milliseconds when the universe came into existance, from nothing, this particle magically appeared. Appeared and converted energy into mass. So now, this particle depends on the BB and by logic the BB now depends on the Higgs particle. We then have to believe that light is a photon particle,to believe in the BB. So the Higgs particle depends on particle physics, the big bang, dark energy, black holes,space curves etc... None of these concepts remember are the treasured laws of science. They are concepts that have become the accepted reasoning of science.Layer upon layer of concepts that have become text book realities. Science has become convinced, so much so that it invests enormous amounts of money and academic education into convincing us and itself that everything is as it should be. There is no enlightened scepticism Belinda. It just don't exist.How much illogical conclusions are we expected to accept before we question science? I value science but should we constantly value every scientific gospel they write?

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 2nd, 2013, 10:47 am
by Skakos
Belinda wrote:Xris wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


I have never heard os a scientist who accepts scientific findings as though they were 'Gospel truths'. Inductive reasoning is always needed as far as I know. If not, why invest so much in the Hadron Collider if deductive methods of maths are sufficient to reveal truth.

As far as I know the closest scientists ever get to 'Gospel truths ' are natural selection and even more so that physics theory which I do not understand I think it is called Gauge Theory. But does any scientist relinquish centuries old Enlightenment scepticism?
Inductive reasoning is based on specific examples and on some axioms used to formulate the basis on which to build your theory. So it is as good as its premises are. Forgetting that you use non-provable truths to start reasoning, is the basis of the science being a kind of "religion".

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 2nd, 2013, 3:55 pm
by A_Seagull
Belinda wrote: I have never heard os a scientist who accepts scientific findings as though they were 'Gospel truths'. Inductive reasoning is always needed as far as I know. If not, why invest so much in the Hadron Collider if deductive methods of maths are sufficient to reveal truth. ?
I agree with you.

The deductive methods of maths only lead to conclusions and truths that are confined to the system of maths. For maths to be applied to the real world it is necessary for it to pass through an inductive process such as a mapping between the two. The combination of deductive and inductive reasoning necessarily adds up to inductive reasoning.

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 2nd, 2013, 9:27 pm
by Cogniphile
Xris wrote: I think if you look at the Higgs particle it has all the elements of a god particle. It was correctly named in my opinion. To believe it exists you have to accept the big bang theory also. You have to believe in those first few milliseconds when the universe came into existance, from nothing, this particle magically appeared. Appeared and converted energy into mass. So now, this particle depends on the BB and by logic the BB now depends on the Higgs particle. We then have to believe that light is a photon particle,to believe in the BB. So the Higgs particle depends on particle physics, the big bang, dark energy, black holes,space curves etc... None of these concepts remember are the treasured laws of science. They are concepts that have become the accepted reasoning of science.Layer upon layer of concepts that have become text book realities. Science has become convinced, so much so that it invests enormous amounts of money and academic education into convincing us and itself that everything is as it should be. There is no enlightened scepticism Belinda. It just don't exist.How much illogical conclusions are we expected to accept before we question science? I value science but should we constantly value every scientific gospel they write?
You are completely ignoring every single independent experiment and observational study that led to the understanding of each aspect of physics you are talking about, Xris. The people who are responsible for these ideas did not just make them up from imagination in the shower one morning - they spent their lives studiously observing even the most minute phenomena, making predictions based on observed phenomena, testing those predictions, and trying with all their intellect to adjust or refine their explanations to try and conform to the way the world seems to be. Where you try to equate theoretical components to idols of religious worship, you are also blatantly incorrect. Theoretical constructs are only maintained so long as they accord with theoretical analysis and observation (case in point: phlogiston) and they are - explicitly and for well-understood reasons - always subject to refinement, change, and abandonment according to empirical and theoretical disconfirmation. In no way is that a quality of religious iconography.

What is even more terrible is that you are using the consistency of these different concepts, and the multiple evidences converging on their accuracy, to undermine their reasonableness. You are literally using the argument that the more sense a theory makes, the less reason we have to believe it. This is conspiratorial, post-modern nonsense.

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 3rd, 2013, 7:10 am
by Xris
Cogniphile wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You are completely ignoring every single independent experiment and observational study that led to the understanding of each aspect of physics you are talking about, Xris. The people who are responsible for these ideas did not just make them up from imagination in the shower one morning - they spent their lives studiously observing even the most minute phenomena, making predictions based on observed phenomena, testing those predictions, and trying with all their intellect to adjust or refine their explanations to try and conform to the way the world seems to be. Where you try to equate theoretical components to idols of religious worship, you are also blatantly incorrect. Theoretical constructs are only maintained so long as they accord with theoretical analysis and observation (case in point: phlogiston) and they are - explicitly and for well-understood reasons - always subject to refinement, change, and abandonment according to empirical and theoretical disconfirmation. In no way is that a quality of religious iconography.

What is even more terrible is that you are using the consistency of these different concepts, and the multiple evidences converging on their accuracy, to undermine their reasonableness. You are literally using the argument that the more sense a theory makes, the less reason we have to believe it. This is conspiratorial, post-modern nonsense.
Sorry but your reply is pure rhetoric.I have introduced real argument, all you are doing is attacking me.The evidence is questionable and their conclusions are even more so. These concepts are not consistent as you claim.

These concepts are a chain of self supporting assumptions that would completely collapse if just one was seriously questioned. I notice that as soon as I make this argument particular you fail to respond, only to return later with a simple argument stating, I am simply wrong. You need to construct an argument against my opinions not simply disagree. These experiments are not independent. They are not looking for the truth, they are seeking confirmation of their concepts. Did they ever doubt this god particle exist, while spending 80 billion dollars? Do you ever hear the BB proponents seek a different conclusion for their observations? Do you ever hear particle physicists, when confronted with the impossible quandary the theory of light produces, try developing an alternative theory to photons? From the concept of particle we have developed the theory that the universe was created from nothing and that a god particle just happened to occur at exactly the same time to create matter. How much illogical nonsense are you going to accept as gospel? It constantly amazes me how much we assume science can be trusted. How it has become the unquestionable faith that we dare not confront. I am a self confessed infidel and I will continue to argue against any dogmatic faith.

Let me inform you that it these concepts are not empirically proven nor do they apply the laws of science that are empirically proven.They are simply theories born from misconceived concepts trying to understand observations.

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 3rd, 2013, 8:01 am
by Belinda
Xris wrote:
Let me inform you that it these concepts are not empirically proven nor do they apply the laws of science that are empirically proven.They are simply theories born from misconceived concepts trying to understand observations
Seriously Xris, do you know what a scientific theory is, and how it differs from a scientific hypothesis? Also what ought to be the level of reverence accorded to statistical analyses within the proofs of theories?

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 3rd, 2013, 8:30 am
by Xris
Belinda wrote:Xris wrote:


(Nested quote removed.)


Seriously Xris, do you know what a scientific theory is, and how it differs from a scientific hypothesis? Also what ought to be the level of reverence accorded to statistical analyses within the proofs of theories?
I think I do Belinda. Darwin had a theory. That theory has been seriously questioned and it has been constantly modified but his basic theory persists. The BB is a theory developed from an assumption.Observations have created a concept that developed into a theory. That theory has been maintained by adjusting and invention. Take dark energy. The BB as theory would not exist without the concept of dark energy. Even though no independent evidence of it exists.Creationists would not let evolutionists assume there is a crucial missing link buried somewhere in the Sahara desert. A theory is not a scientific law. A hypothesis originates from laws that can not be disputed. The BB ignores the laws because they are not presented before this so called plank time. This proposed time where the laws of science have been deserted.

The level of reverence should not decided by the priests but the logical explaination they give their flock. The gods are not above investigation.

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 2:48 pm
by Cogniphile
Xris wrote:Sorry but your reply is pure rhetoric.I have introduced real argument, all you are doing is attacking me.
If I have attacked you, report my post for ad hominem.

The rest is absurd. The last purported argument you introduced was that plasma cosmological theory was more accurate an explanation of the universe's behavior than big bang cosmological theory because the latter might have made some false predictions, and I responded by bringing an explanation of how at least one of plasma cosmological theory's central predictions was demonstrably false. There has yet been no counter-argument. The rest of your contribution has been a series of questioning scientists' motives, stating your opinions as though they are arguments in themselves, making empirical claims without either explaining them or providing evidence to back them up, and concluding that because you find the whole business of modern physics confusing and incomplete, it therefore must all be the false product of lies and dogma (which is a fallacy - the argument from ignorance/personal incredulity). I've color-coded instances of these in the rest of your post below.

Argument implies explanation, or a logical connection between thesis, supporting evidence, and conclusion. You have asked questions and you have stated your conclusions, but you haven't provided any explanations.
The evidence is questionable and their conclusions are even more so. These concepts are not consistent as you claim.

These concepts are a chain of self supporting assumptions that would completely collapse if just one was seriously questioned. I notice that as soon as I make this argument particular you fail to respond, only to return later with a simple argument stating, I am simply wrong. You need to construct an argument against my opinions not simply disagree. These experiments are not independent. They are not looking for the truth, they are seeking confirmation of their concepts. Did they ever doubt this god particle exist, while spending 80 billion dollars? Do you ever hear the BB proponents seek a different conclusion for their observations? Do you ever hear particle physicists, when confronted with the impossible quandary the theory of light produces, try developing an alternative theory to photons? From the concept of particle we have developed the theory that the universe was created from nothing and that a god particle just happened to occur at exactly the same time to create matter. How much illogical nonsense are you going to accept as gospel? It constantly amazes me how much we assume science can be trusted. How it has become the unquestionable faith that we dare not confront. I am a self confessed infidel and I will continue to argue against any dogmatic faith.

Let me inform you that it these concepts are not empirically proven nor do they apply the laws of science that are empirically proven.They are simply theories born from misconceived concepts trying to understand observations.
Okay, let me try it this way. Could you please, Xris, list in the form of individual sentences each item you're calling "illogical nonsense" or "self-supporting assumptions"? If you can identify each thing with which you have a problem, I will see if I can address them, but I will need you to be specific. It would also be extremely helpful if you could explain how/why the evidence supporting each item is unsatisfactory (i.e. provide an explanation of where and how the evidence/argument goes wrong, like I did with plasma cosmology and the electromagnetic force).

Asking questions is excellent, yes, but just asking the question does not collapse the argument, as you claim. If the question can be answered reasonably, the argument stands. Likewise, simply ignoring or dismissing the answer also doesn't collapse the argument; you have to actually show how the answer is insufficient. This is much more difficult than just phrasing one's opinions as skeptical questions, and I apologize accordingly for the inconvenience. As a show of good faith, though, I'll get the ball rolling by trying to answer one of your questions right now.



As far as I can tell, you categorize dark matter as one of these self-supporting assumptions because it, as a concept, was studied and/or proposed as a theoretical construct after observational data did not conform to big bang theoretical predictions. In short, big bang theory would not make sense without dark matter.

So far, I can follow that. A guiding theory (or paradigm, in the language of Kuhn) gives a foothold from which scientists can ground their observations and look for holes in or implications of their understanding of whatever is being studied, and that necessarily leads to theoretical constructs being at least somewhat dependent on current understanding. Not being an astrophysicist, there'll probably be gaps and simplifications in my explanation, but I'll see if a layman's grasp can't address this.



A central point here is that both big bang theory and dark matter depend upon our understanding of gravity since Einstein because the math of relativity is in large part how we test hypotheses about the cosmos; in other words, because we can't directly manipulate the universe as in a normal experiment, we have to use observation (telescopes, radios, spectrometers, etc.) and theory (predictions based on einsteinian and quantum gravity theories) to test our ideas.

1) Modern Physics is said to be the best-founded science because the predictions it makes about the behavior of matter are observed accurate to a degree far right of the decimal point. Given that these predictions are made using the math of einsteinian and now quantum gravity, it logically follows that these two theories are our best attempts at describing external reality's constitution and behavior so far.

2) Based on all of our conversation so far, it seems like your problem with the big bang theory is not with the big bang itself but with the fact it relies on these understandings of light and gravity, which is where you actually find fault. Big bang cosmology uses the math and predictions of these theories to frame its questions and explanations. For instance, what we know about gravity, space, and light from Einstein and others tell us some specific things we should expect to observe (say, about redshift, timeframes, and the positions of material bodies in space) - and, like it or not, many of those predicted circumstances are indeed observed. These kinds of confirmations serve as evidence for the big bang theory of the development of the universe, and necessarily as further confirmation of the gravity theories upon which it's based.

3) But that does come with caveats, like the predicted amount of matter in the universe necessary to explain the conditions of gravitational attraction observed far outnumbering the amount of actual matter observed. Given this mismatch between prediction and observation, the concept of dark matter was proposed to make sense of the disparity. The existence of a great deal of invisible-to-us matter in the universe would explain both the gravitational behavior of visible matter and also why we haven't directly observed this "dark" matter. Incidentally, it is called "dark" matter because for whatever reasons (there are some given, but I can't remember them or explain them if I could) we can't see it, which just means we are not receiving visible light reflected from it - hence "dark."

4) That, rather than the immediate wholesale abandonment of the basic theories and a start over from scratch. Considering your position that any theoretical constructs proposed to explain this disparity are untrue (a logical fallacy), I surmise that the above would be your preferred course of action by leading physicists. The fallacy is in arguing that, because this entity was proposed post hoc to explain some observation, it is therefore false. Granted, proposing some explanation post hoc would be a fallacy itself on the scientists' part, but that does not necessarily make the explanation false. The reason for both is that it is perfectly possible that, by sheer chance alone, their explanation hit upon a truth. Fortunately - and you need to understand this - we don't have to consider their explanation a post hoc concept and therefore as a lucky hit if true or an unscrupulous lie if false.

5) Because of the overwhelming 'correctness' of the basic light and gravitational theories' predictions in so many other areas during the last century, we have strong statistical and inductive reason to believe they are true theories or very close to true theories. This helps us by giving us theoretic grounds for proposing and testing new ideas. It is statistically likely that a theoretical construct that uses the math of these well-supported theories to solve a mismatch between prediction and observation is more probably true, compared to a theoretical construct that demands that these well-supported theories themselves are false. So rather than being a post hoc rationalization, a theoretical construct like dark matter that is consistent with the theoretical body from which it grew, and that is amenable to hypothesis generation and testing, is a reasonable scientific move. And indeed this happens all the time, in all scientific disciplines. New theoretical constructs are proposed based on, and to help explain, other ones whose full details are as yet incomplete. Particle physics and the Higgs boson; natural selection, Mendelian genetics and the structure of DNA; gravity and dark matter.

Now certainly this statistical argument itself does not prove truth - no statistical argument can: even if there's a 99.9% chance that X is true, it's still possible that the 0.1% Y is actually true. But such an argument gives us reasonable justification for pursuing the more-likely explanation rather than the less-likely.



I hope my explanation was understandable. Because I know very little about particle physics and cosmology, I worry that I am not going to provide you the best understanding. You would be far better served by reading the works of active scientists in these areas rather than an ignorant kid like me. In fact I am very curious as to what scientific literature in the relevant fields you do read in order to generate your understanding such as it is. In this thread or another, I've already shared the means by which I come to my (limited) knowledge of these kinds of things. Care to reciprocate?

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 4:16 pm
by Xris
Cogniphile. I thank you for your lengthy reply and I will respond in depth eventually. But I would like to point out I tried to make the debate more sedate and reasoned with post 3626. I do not know if you missed that post but that is why I responded to your last post with some amount of annoyance. If we break down the arguments for and against, in a more regular manner, it might stop misunderstanding. For instance dark matter is not directly linked to my argument about the credibility of the BB. I mentioned dark energy. Dark energy is required to modify the proposed expansion of the universe. Without its invention the BB has lost its credibility. So we have two inventions, not one, to consider. Remember these are concepts. I must indicate this point most clearly. They are concepts, invented to adjust and give credibility to observations that did not fit the original theory. Dark energy and dark matter have no direct evidence to support their reasoning even though they are supposed to be so influential. The argument you give for them come from observations that do not fit the theory of the BB. They could if given alternative theories simply disappear with as much ease as they appeared. I might add I do know the reasoning behind their invention.

Plasma cosmology is in its infancy and has very little financial support. It has up til now not required to invent 90% more dark mass than standard mass or 90% more dark energy than EM energy to give value to its theories. If you want to debate plasma cosmology and the arguments for and against I am only too willing but we must maintain one argument at a time.It's your choice.

You might also note I have since made further remarks that no one appears willing or able to respond to. Yes I do question anything that gives us conclusions we are somehow refused to acknowledge.

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 5:14 pm
by Cogniphile
Oh jeez... What a blunder! So I did all that dark matter stuff when it should have been dark energy. That's awfully embarrassing, ehehe. I'm very sorry for the detour, Xris. Fortunately, I think we can salvage some relevance from the parts of my post that discuss the justifications for theoretical constructs, since dark energy too is a theoretical construct.

I'm glad to attend to arguments one by one, in order, yes. Let's not worry about defending plasma cosmology just yet, though - the other topic is more general and should move us further forward. I'll let you take the lead with your next post, then.

Ah, but where you direct me to post #3626... On my screen the highest-numbered post is #160, so I don't know how to identify the one you're talking about. I'd like to reread the one you're talking about, though, so if you have another way of directing me to it, I'll do so!

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 6th, 2013, 6:07 pm
by Xris
Cogniphile wrote:Oh jeez... What a blunder! So I did all that dark matter stuff when it should have been dark energy. That's awfully embarrassing, ehehe. I'm very sorry for the detour, Xris. Fortunately, I think we can salvage some relevance from the parts of my post that discuss the justifications for theoretical constructs, since dark energy too is a theoretical construct.

I'm glad to attend to arguments one by one, in order, yes. Let's not worry about defending plasma cosmology just yet, though - the other topic is more general and should move us further forward. I'll let you take the lead with your next post, then.

Ah, but where you direct me to post #3626... On my screen the highest-numbered post is #160, so I don't know how to identify the one you're talking about. I'd like to reread the one you're talking about, though, so if you have another way of directing me to it, I'll do so!
It is very complex question Cogniphile. Please do not be sorry. I am glad you are sharpening my argument. Off to bed, I will look again to see if I got the right post tomorrow.

-- Updated Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:27 am to add the following --

Sorry it was post 138. I was hoping we could concentrate on the anomaly of galaxies colliding and the reasoning behind it. Before the plank time, where the proposed quantum fluctuation caused matter to be distributed in a none uniformed way. The period before the Higgs particle is supposed to have turned energy into mass. Where all the known laws of science where absent. The period that defies any logical scientific understanding but it is acceptable to invent quantum fluctuations of matter. The matter that has not been created yet.

I believe they are trying to make the case that larger galaxies will move at a different speed to smaller galaxies and that relatively larger galaxies will attract smaller galaxies. Without quantum fluctuations this anomaly could not have occurred.

Re: Higgs, scientific announcements & Faith...

Posted: March 10th, 2013, 11:11 am
by Skakos
Matter and energy are somehow synonyms in the way scientists use them...