Incomprehensible

[untermensche]

You seem to be confused about what science is used for.

Science is the search for knowledge.

It is not the search for use. It just so happens that some knowledge is useful.

Models are description of behavior, not explanation of behavior.

so you have replaced "..but it doesn't tell me WHY" with "..but it doesn't explain to me WHY"

You're not getting anywhere.

That is not because there is nowhere to go.

It is because we are extremely limited in our ability to know things.

- - - Updated - - -

How it occurs = the manner in which it occurs. The ball moves towards the earth.

What are all the reasons it behaves in this manner and not another manner = is explained.

And what do you think is missing? Science provides detailed answers to both these angles.

For example, what is charge?

Not how does it behave, what is it?

 

[Juma]

Science is the search for knowledge.

It is not the search for use. It just so happens that some knowledge is useful.

Models are description of behavior, not explanation of behavior.

so you have replaced "..but it doesn't tell me WHY" with "..but it doesn't explain to me WHY"

You're not getting anywhere.

That is not because there is nowhere to go.

It is because we are extremely limited in our ability to know things.

- - - Updated - - -

How it occurs = the manner in which it occurs. The ball moves towards the earth.

What are all the reasons it behaves in this manner and not another manner = is explained.

And what do you think is missing? Science provides detailed answers to both these angles.

For example, what is charge?

Not how does it behave, what is it?

What, that is not behavior, is interesting? What something is = how it behaves.

 

[skepticalbip]

While it is true that science uses logic, logic can not tell us which (if either) of two conflicting theories are correct. Theories are based on an interpretation of data and then mathematical conclusion of the interpretation. If there are two theories then either or neither may be correct. Which, if either, is correct or close to correct can only be determined by further testing giving us further data to analyze.

Yeah, okay, I just threw that post in there to defend philosophy. One more example, think about how helpful and interesting thought experiments are. They are good at running a theory to further implications and conclusions or no conclusion like in the case of Schrodinger's cat.

You are right. I was being a bit discriminating without explaining the difference I see in the philosophy of philosophy as used by science when they are doing philosophy and the philosophy of philosophy as used by our friends over in the philosophy department.

Scientists doing their philosophy are basing their premises on actual observed and tested data - they expect their premises to be tested for truth. They then reach conclusions based on those premises which are testable and they expect them to be tested. This is what is called a hypothesis.

Our friends over in the philosophy department eschew testing - they rely on the old idea introduced by the ancient Greeks that pure reason alone is the path to knowledge. Their premises are not tested, just assumed, and their conclusions are not tested, just presented as truth.

Sorry I didn't explain that when I say philosophy I am generally talking about philosophy as used by our friends in the philosophy department.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think that finding where to cleave the "How" from the "Why" is important. I think it is partly english language.

I think that "why" should be more often used for where humans (and other animals at times) have made a choice among different options. Why a choice has been made in one direction or other.

I think that science is always going to devolve to how, unless you project "agency" onto the universe.

Nothing we do is imune to the why question. Why is this or that experiment conclusive? The nearer we get to the fundamentals of our existence the more difficult it becomes to dismiss why questions with how answers. The reason for this is that we all expect that there is such a thing as absolute fundamentals, things that can't be explained in terms of how answers. In truth, either there are such fundamentals or it will be that we can't look beyond them, as I guess is more likely. Either way, we will be left with things we can't explain with how answers and our why-ld imagination will always be able to feed on that.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What, that is not behavior, is interesting? What something is = how it behaves.

I asked: What is charge?

What is it? It's certainly similar to magnetism with attraction and repulsion.

But it's behavior is not what it is anymore than your behavior is what you are.

It's behavior is an expression of what it is, not what it is.

The question is: What specifically is the cause of this expression, this behavior?

 

[Juma]

But it's behavior is not what it is anymore than your behavior is what you are.

I am no more than the behavior of my constituents.

 

[Malintent]

What, that is not behavior, is interesting? What something is = how it behaves.

I asked: What is charge?

What is it? It's certainly similar to magnetism with attraction and repulsion.

But it's behavior is not what it is anymore than your behavior is what you are.

It's behavior is an expression of what it is, not what it is.

The question is: What specifically is the cause of this expression, this behavior?

Electrons. The presence (or absence) of electrons are the cause (the reason, the why, the how) of 'charge'.

Why do we use + and - represent them? because of math. the presence or absence of electrons are a binary proposition. we alreadyhav ea number system that is centered on 0. Anything to the 'left' is negative, and anything to the 'right' is positive. Makes for a very convenient way of describing a deficit or surplus of electrons.. greater than, equal, or less, than zero.

 

[Juma]

Electrons. The presence (or absence) of electrons are the cause (the reason, the why, the how) of 'charge'.

Then how do you explain charge on quarks? And protons?

Electrons has that property but they are not the only ones.

 

[untermensche]

But it's behavior is not what it is anymore than your behavior is what you are.

I am no more than the behavior of my constituents.

But if all I look at is your behavior I have no idea what the constituents are doing.

If all I look at, all I can possibly look at, is the behavior of the quark, I also have no idea what it's constituents are doing to cause that behavior.

 

[untermensche]

I asked: What is charge?

What is it? It's certainly similar to magnetism with attraction and repulsion.

But it's behavior is not what it is anymore than your behavior is what you are.

It's behavior is an expression of what it is, not what it is.

The question is: What specifically is the cause of this expression, this behavior?

Electrons. The presence (or absence) of electrons are the cause (the reason, the why, the how) of 'charge'.

Why do we use + and - represent them? because of math. the presence or absence of electrons are a binary proposition. we alreadyhav ea number system that is centered on 0. Anything to the 'left' is negative, and anything to the 'right' is positive. Makes for a very convenient way of describing a deficit or surplus of electrons.. greater than, equal, or less, than zero.

An electron is a carrier of charge, a possessor of charge, but just by saying the word electron, or even by giving the scientific explanation of the behavior of the electron, doesn't explain the idea of "charge".

 

[Juma]

I am no more than the behavior of my constituents.

But if all I look at is your behavior I have no idea what the constituents are doing.

That's just arguing from ignorance. We know a lot about the constuents of the human body and what they are doing. There is also a lot we dont know.

 

[skepticalbip]

I asked: What is charge?

What is it? It's certainly similar to magnetism with attraction and repulsion.

But it's behavior is not what it is anymore than your behavior is what you are.

It's behavior is an expression of what it is, not what it is.

The question is: What specifically is the cause of this expression, this behavior?

Electrons. The presence (or absence) of electrons are the cause (the reason, the why, the how) of 'charge'.

Why do we use + and - represent them? because of math. the presence or absence of electrons are a binary proposition. we alreadyhav ea number system that is centered on 0. Anything to the 'left' is negative, and anything to the 'right' is positive. Makes for a very convenient way of describing a deficit or surplus of electrons.. greater than, equal, or less, than zero.

Indeed, but if they had chosen to designate the electron as positive instead of negative when first identified it would have made a hell of a lot more sense and the description of electronic circuit design at the component level much smoother. But to be a little more precise, charge is a term we use for convenience to describe a conserved quantum number, an eigenvalue, of a particle. The problem with trying to discuss such things with Unter- is that he has shown the habit of claiming that if someone can not explain anything that is way, way above his head so he can understand it then it hasn't been explained.

 

[untermensche]

Electrons. The presence (or absence) of electrons are the cause (the reason, the why, the how) of 'charge'.

Why do we use + and - represent them? because of math. the presence or absence of electrons are a binary proposition. we alreadyhav ea number system that is centered on 0. Anything to the 'left' is negative, and anything to the 'right' is positive. Makes for a very convenient way of describing a deficit or surplus of electrons.. greater than, equal, or less, than zero.

Indeed, but if they had chosen to designate the electron as positive instead of negative when first identified it would have made a hell of a lot more sense and the description of electronic circuit design at the component level much smoother. But to be a little more precise, charge is a term we use for convenience to describe a conserved quantum number, an eigenvalue, of a particle. The problem with trying to discuss such things with Unter- is that he has shown the habit of claiming that if someone can not explain anything that is way, way above his head so he can understand it then it hasn't been explained.

I can discuss things with people capable of reason and rational argument.

If somebody thinks they can explain what charge is, beyond a mathematical notation and something observed, they are free to do so.

 

[Malintent]

Indeed, but if they had chosen to designate the electron as positive instead of negative when first identified it would have made a hell of a lot more sense and the description of electronic circuit design at the component level much smoother. But to be a little more precise, charge is a term we use for convenience to describe a conserved quantum number, an eigenvalue, of a particle. The problem with trying to discuss such things with Unter- is that he has shown the habit of claiming that if someone can not explain anything that is way, way above his head so he can understand it then it hasn't been explained.

I can discuss things with people capable of reason and rational argument.

If somebody thinks they can explain what charge is, beyond a mathematical notation and something observed, they are free to do so.

skeptic made a good point... your history does indicate that you reject that which you cannot personally comprehend. That's fine for you... but most people don't really care what you are capable of understanding with respect to what is understandable.

charge is understood well enough to build the computer you are communicating with right now. Why this understanding is insufficient in any way, you have failed to communicate.

 

[repoman]

Ok, let's say that there is an accelerator experiment that comes about that throws everything into disarray and requires a dismantling of much of the current models to account for the result.

Maybe after all of that work was finished the physicists would think why didn't anyone realize that before?

Seems like the size of these models may be a sunk cost that people get attached to.

 

[Malintent]

Ok, let's say that there is an accelerator experiment that comes about that throws everything into disarray and requires a dismantling of much of the current models to account for the result.

Maybe after all of that work was finished the physicists would think why didn't anyone realize that before?

Seems like the size of these models may be a sunk cost that people get attached to.

Maybe the anti-science crowd really does trust and believe everything that science learns.. they just don't like it or are financially damaged by the implications...

'Maybe' is a powerful word.

Let's just say that a highly trusted politician that is known to never lie comes out and admits that aliens have been running the US government for decades.

Maybe after all the beliefs of the common people are dismantled will it be realized that they are just too attached to their ideology of human run economics.

 

[skepticalbip]

Indeed, but if they had chosen to designate the electron as positive instead of negative when first identified it would have made a hell of a lot more sense and the description of electronic circuit design at the component level much smoother. But to be a little more precise, charge is a term we use for convenience to describe a conserved quantum number, an eigenvalue, of a particle. The problem with trying to discuss such things with Unter- is that he has shown the habit of claiming that if someone can not explain anything that is way, way above his head so he can understand it then it hasn't been explained.

I can discuss things with people capable of reason and rational argument.

If somebody thinks they can explain what charge is, beyond a mathematical notation and something observed, they are free to do so.

What charge is is well understood. However, I can't believe that you could possibly understand and accept a detailed description unless you were willing to spend some serious time in study first - and given the temperament and mindset you display, probably not even then.

What exactly would you think an acceptable description of charge would contain (what bullet points covered) given your present understanding of physics?

 

[untermensche]

But if all I look at is your behavior I have no idea what the constituents are doing.

That's just arguing from ignorance. We know a lot about the constuents of the human body and what they are doing. There is also a lot we dont know.

It's not close to arguing from ignorance.

I know that your behavior is due to many constituents, what exactly they are nobody knows.

So again, if all I look at are your behaviors I don't have the slightest clue what those constituents are or what they are doing.

 

[untermensche]

I can discuss things with people capable of reason and rational argument.

If somebody thinks they can explain what charge is, beyond a mathematical notation and something observed, they are free to do so.

skeptic made a good point... your history does indicate that you reject that which you cannot personally comprehend. That's fine for you... but most people don't really care what you are capable of understanding with respect to what is understandable.

charge is understood well enough to build the computer you are communicating with right now. Why this understanding is insufficient in any way, you have failed to communicate.

My experience is that people claim to understand things but when pressed it's quickly discovered they don't have a clue.

The behavior of charge is understood so we can make use of it.

Understanding the behavior of charge is not close to understanding what it is. Anymore than watching your behavior gives us information about the neuron.

 

[Juma]

So again, if all I look at are your behaviors I don't have the slightest clue what those constituents are or what they are doing.

Which is nothing but ignorance.