Philosophy Of Science

[pood]

And Einstein said he never would have dreamed up relativity except for David Hume (philosopher). It should also be recalled that Hume offered a philosophical argument against intelligent design centuries before Darwin.

Philosophy, as always baking bread that science eats.

I started the thread to antagonize you .....

We would not want you to get bored.

Thanks!

 

[Shadowy Man]

If everything is “wrong” then nothing is “wrong” and the word/concept of “wrong” loses any utility in this context. So best not to worry about whether “Einstein proved Newton wrong”.

I don’t think Einstein proved Newton wrong. Newton works fine for everyday stuff. He just showed that Newton’s gravity failed at a certain domain.

maybe you personally do not say that but I have heard it many times from non-scientists.

 

[pood]

If everything is “wrong” then nothing is “wrong” and the word/concept of “wrong” loses any utility in this context. So best not to worry about whether “Einstein proved Newton wrong”.

I don’t think Einstein proved Newton wrong. Newton works fine for everyday stuff. He just showed that Newton’s gravity failed at a certain domain.

maybe you personally do not say that but I have heard it many times from non-scientists.

It’s wrong, of course, because Newton takes us to the planets and is fine for everyday work. It falters at the domains of relativity and QM. I think what this shows is that all our models — and I agree with Steve and Hawking that we should use “model” instead of “theory” — may only be applicable within certain domains. This could also mean that a long-sought theory of everything is forlorn.

 

[pood]

Anyhow, I’m glad this thread got traction. I think talking some more about Trump or Kirk or Gaza would make me

 

[Shadowy Man]

If everything is “wrong” then nothing is “wrong” and the word/concept of “wrong” loses any utility in this context. So best not to worry about whether “Einstein proved Newton wrong”.

I don’t think Einstein proved Newton wrong. Newton works fine for everyday stuff. He just showed that Newton’s gravity failed at a certain domain.

maybe you personally do not say that but I have heard it many times from non-scientists.

It’s wrong, of course, because Newton takes us to the planets and is fine for everyday work. It falters at the domains of relativity and QM. I think what this shows is that all our models — and I agree with Steve and Hawking that we should use “model” instead of “theory” — may only be applicable within certain domains. This could also mean that a long-sought theory of everything is forlorn.

I mostly agree with this. Just don’t like when words like “right” and “wrong” are thrown about in these contexts.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I do think “model” and “theory” do mean different things in science though.

 

[pood]

I do think “model” and “theory” do mean different things in science though.

How would you differentiate them, and should we prefer one over the other?

 

[bilby]

Certainly at least at the college level, it seems to me, discussion of ID is unavoidable and perhaps beneficial to bring out the difference between well-established and productive research programs and those that are not established at all.

If you tried to teach ID as a research program there would be nothing to teach.

I agree, that's absolutely true at the college level. But the supporters of ID are not interested in college students; They know that an adequate indoctrination in primary school is sufficient to recruit lifelong converts.

They don't care for reality, facts, or truth; They care about belief. And beliefs are established in early childhood.

 

[pood]

Certainly at least at the college level, it seems to me, discussion of ID is unavoidable and perhaps beneficial to bring out the difference between well-established and productive research programs and those that are not established at all.

If you tried to teach ID as a research program there would be nothing to teach.

I agree, that's absolutely true at the college level. But the supporters of ID are not interested in college students; They know that an adequate indoctrination in primary school is sufficient to recruit lifelong converts.

They don't care for reality, facts, or truth; They care about belief. And beliefs are established in early childhood.

I don’t know how things are in primary school now, or elementary school as we call it here in the states. But I fear you’re probably right, that students are just presented with a series of ideas, factual or otherwise, to remember and regurgitate back on tests.

Thinking again, though, I was not introduced to evolutionary theory in school until high school, though I already knew about it from reading on my own. Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict. Leave it up tp a vote?

I still remember a fourth-grade “science” teacher who presented a model of the atom as a miniature solar system. It had been known for decades that this model was false.

 

[bilby]

Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict.

They wouldn't. It would be one or the other; The conflict would be decided by the people who set the syllabus, not in the classroom - certainly at the elementary level. Right now, there seems to be an unwritten agreement to simply ignore the subject as "too hard" for elementary level, and "too divisive" for high school.

Let the parents indoctrinate their kids, and then they can discuss it when they get to college - by which point, they are very unlikely to change their position no matter what evidence is presented.

 

[pood]

Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict.

They wouldn't. It would be one or the other; The conflict would be decided by the people who set the syllabus, not in the classroom - certainly at the elementary level. Right now, there seems to be an unwritten agreement to simply ignore the subject as "too hard" for elementary level, and "too divisive" for high school.

Let the parents indoctrinate their kids, and then they can discuss it when they get to college - by which point, they are very unlikely to change their position no matter what evidence is presented.

Maybe so. I recall the old joke about a teacher applying for a job teaching earth sciences in Texas: “I can teach it round, or I can teach it flat.”

 

[Shadowy Man]

I do think “model” and “theory” do mean different things in science though.

How would you differentiate them, and should we prefer one over the other?

It’s not a preference issue they are different things. For example:

The Kerr black hole is a model. General relativity is the theory applied to that model. So is the lambda-CDM model of the universe.

A protoplanetary disk is a model. Magnetic reconnection in the solar corona is a model to which the theories of magnetohydrodynamics are applied.

Models are specific configurations to which the theories are applied to make predictions. One can have a useful theory but an “incorrect” model if the predictions don’t match observations. Reconfigure the model, reapply the theory and make new testable predictions.

I can have a model of the ionization structure of the interstellar medium then predict what I see when I observe it and apply atomic theory to note which absorption lines are from which atoms and molecules.

At least that is how i personally understand the distinction between theories and models.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'll give you a more concrete example that derives directly from my life. During my PhD work I was looking at data of dust scattered light in a nebula. I analyzed the data by developing a model of the nebula: a spherical cloud of constant density dust particles. Then I calculated how light would propagate through the cloud while scattering off of the particles. A primary part of that model was the Henyey-Greenstein phase function (which relates two parameters - albedo and phase function - to the direction and intensity of the scattering). That phase function is itself a model. Underpinning that model is electromagnetic theory, as described by Maxwell's equations. Using Maxwell's equations one can calculate the expected scattering performance from expected or hypothesized models of particular shapes and physical properties of interstellar dust.

 

[pood]

@Shadowy Man, thanks for clearing things up for me. Always nice to learn new stuff.

 

[pood]

Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict.

They wouldn't. It would be one or the other; The conflict would be decided by the people who set the syllabus, not in the classroom - certainly at the elementary level. Right now, there seems to be an unwritten agreement to simply ignore the subject as "too hard" for elementary level, and "too divisive" for high school.

I would like to see some actual data on this with respect to U.S. schools. I gather the situation is not so dire in Australia?

 

[pood]

I’m trying to do some Google research on this but am immediately being bombarded with AI slop and hallucinations. Will try to find some scholarly studies.

 

[bilby]

Not sure how an elementary/high school teacher would present evolution and ID when they are in direct conflict.

They wouldn't. It would be one or the other; The conflict would be decided by the people who set the syllabus, not in the classroom - certainly at the elementary level. Right now, there seems to be an unwritten agreement to simply ignore the subject as "too hard" for elementary level, and "too divisive" for high school.

I would like to see some actual data on this with respect to U.S. schools. I gather the situation is not so dire in Australia?

It's generally not an issue here; We have plenty of religious nutters, but we don't let them set policy or design syllabi for public schools.

 

[pood]

The AI crap doesn’t just stop at the top summary. It continues down through other links.

 

[pood]

Eventually AI will teach school kids and then the entire nation will be as dumb as the current MAGGOT half of it is.

 

[pood]

Found this from BioMed Central. Only have had time to read the opening, but it sounds promising.