Physicalism

[Keith&Co.]

God, i should have bet money....

 

[Underseer]

The Big Bang theory

Darwin's theory of evolution

The greenhouse gas theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Those are you three examples of theories contradicting the evidence?

Suddenly, your economic/political beliefs make a lot more sense.

 

[boneyard bill]

Those are you three examples of theories contradicting the evidence?

Suddenly, your economic/political beliefs make a lot more sense.

I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible. Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.

Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.

Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon. But the day will come. I have every confidence in that.

Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't. The GHG theory is falsified.

 

[Togo]

I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible. Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.

Any theory, any chain of logic starts with assumptions, even yours. You disagree with the assumptions of course, but the fact they exist is not in itself a problem.

Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence,

In what particular? Darwinian evolution is such a broad theory I'd have thought it was hard to falsify at all.

Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon.,

Well they don't need to, since instances of bacteria altering their own genome in response to environmental conditions, or stealing genetic traits from others, doesn't invalidate the theory. It's a variation, and it invalidates some of the rather pompous writing that surrounds the subject, but the science is still sound.

Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't.

Because dense matter absorbs energy faster than thin gases do? Go look at the sidewalk on a hot day. Which is hotter, the stone or the air above it?

I'm all for challenging existing ideas, but lets keep the challenges plausible.

 

[steve_bnk]

So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.





You can't know that, because it isn't true. And we know this absolutely, right?





We can say that for sure? So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.





It cannot be wrong? So you're agreeing that I'm right and you were wrong. Some knowledge is absolute.

It all depends on what you mean byknowledge and absolute knowledge.


The word knowledge is itselfsubjective.


The fact that tere are three rocks on atable is the result of the definition of counting. Iris nier true norfalse, it is.


The original model of the atom haddiscrete electros in orbits around the nucleus. Today it is more anamorphous swarm about the nucleus. It is neither true nor false, itmay be a better model than the earlier versions of atomic models. How word be be able to know if we had an absolute true model?


Science is highly circumstantial. Is asubatomic particle an absolutely true reality/? Iis an electron adiscrete particle? Who knows. We infer a discrete electron withproperties because it conveniently fits data.




What we call objective knowledge isthat which is described by three arbitrary parameters. The kilogram,second, and meter.


The sole measure of validity of a modelis the degree of ability to predict results of experiments.


Newtonian physics was long consideredthe absolute reality. Time was linear and absolute.


We know now it fails as relativevelocities increase.


The conclusion after 200 years ofcontinuous scientific revolution, there is no absolute truth ofreality. Science provides no absolutes on anything.


If there are three rocks on a table youan argue that is a absolute knowledge of the state of the surface ofthe table. But what is a rock ?


There are things tested well enoughthat we can take them as an absolute truth. We are all pretty sure ifwe jump off a high builng we will not bounce off the sidewalk.


In terms of the op physcalism, byabsolute i mean absolute quantifiable knowledge of the way realityworks.


If one has no telescopes, the inferencethat the universe rotates about the Earth is valid one. It fits thedata. Telescopes allow us to make a better inference, but nothingabsolute. The bb thery is a good model but not absolute, it is aninference.

 

[boneyard bill]

Togo writes:

Any theory, any chain of logic starts with assumptions, even yours. You disagree with the assumptions of course, but the fact they exist is not in itself a problem.

Not at all. We should expect that a scientific theory starts with observed facts. The big bang theory actually does start with the observed fact of inter-galactic red shift. It then seeks to explain the red shift in terms of a recession of the galaxies. You could argue that that is an assumption since their are other ways to explain the red shift. (Hubble himself did not favor that explanation). But I have no argument with that. The big bang wasn't accepted until the predicted micro-wave background radiation was discovered. Here you have a problem because the observed radiation is actually much less than what was predicted and again, there are other explanations for it. But I'm still willing to say OK. It's still just a theory, and one could argue that, despite its faults, it's the best theory we have, and the defects are quantitative rather than qualitative.

But now you get to the problem of trying to explain how the universe got be the way it is today using such cosmology, and you are constrained by the principle that the laws of physics have not changed. This is an assumption. We have no way of proving that, but science abandoning that principle creates huge problems so science isn't ready to do that. So we have to say that for the universe to be what it is today, the big bang had to have been followed by a brief, but very significant inflation which, unfortunately, couldn't have happened according to our laws of physics. In other words, the universe couldn't be what it is today according to the laws of physics. So you have two choices. 1. The big bang theory is falsified or, 2. The laws of physics change over time. But if you accept the second choice, there is no end to the big bang scenarios that you could draw or perhaps even little bang theories, etc. So the prudent option, the conservative choice is 1.

In what particular? Darwinian evolution is such a broad theory I'd have thought it was hard to falsify at all.

Any Darwinian theory requires that adaption must be gradual. Evolution proceeds incrementally. The fossil evidence, however, shows that evolution actually occurred over a few rather quick periods and eons of stasis in between. This is called "punctuated equilibrium," and it is a controversial issue but Darwinians who have sought to address it, in particular Stephen Jay Gould, receive heavy criticism from the likes of Richard Dawkins. This isn't because of Gould's inability to solve the problem, (although he did fail to do that) but simply because he brought the problem to public attention.

Well they don't need to, since instances of bacteria altering their own genome in response to environmental conditions, or stealing genetic traits from others, doesn't invalidate the theory. It's a variation, and it invalidates some of the rather pompous writing that surrounds the subject, but the science is still sound.

Why does that not invalidate the theory? The neo-Darwinian theory is completely mechanistic. Natural selection working on random mutations is a completely mechanistic process. If the organism responds in ways that you describe or through the epigenome, then, at a minimum, you have added another mechanism that isn't included in the model. More significantly, you don't have a mechanistic model at all now, you have an organic model. The environment acts upon the organism, and the organism responds and it passes those responses on to its off-spring. The organism isn't simply acted upon by blind, outside influences.

Because dense matter absorbs energy faster than thin gases do? Go look at the sidewalk on a hot day. Which is hotter, the stone or the air above it?

That would be true if the "surface" measurements were literally "surface" measurements, but they're not. They are surface "atmospheric" measurements. They are taken about 6 feet above the surface. But it isn't just a problem between the surface and the tropopause. The lower troposphere is also warming faster than the middle troposphere, and it should be the other way around. So the total pattern of warming is the opposite of what the GHG theory predicts.


[/QUOTE]

 

[beero1000]

I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible. Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.

Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.

Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon. But the day will come. I have every confidence in that.

Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't. The GHG theory is falsified.

Every statement in this post is demonstrably wrong. I am saddened that so much inaccuracy has condensed into one place.

 

[boneyard bill]

Every statement in this post is demonstrably wrong. I am saddened that so much inaccuracy has condensed into one place.

At least you give me credit for being able to state my argument succinctly. But your reply, I fear, is a bit too succinct since it offers no evidence at all and is merely a dogmatic statement. Have you nothing better to offer?

 

[steve_bnk]

boneyard bill

All our theories and laws are made up. The universe is what it is. What we call laws and theories are notreality. My favorite line, 'the map is not countryside'.


Observe, hypothesize, compare hypothesis to reality. New observations, modify theory.


It was found the observed galactic motions did not fit theory. A place holder dark matter was inventedfor the phenomena causation.

Newtonian mechanics was unable toacciunt for experiments at the atomic scale and at high relativespeeds. In response quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics weresynthesized, or 'made up' if you prefer.


That is the way science works. If not humans would have to have prior knowledge of the universe. Growth ofknowledge involves trial and error, humans are fallible and not all knowing.

Note in history there have been many theories prosed, and we tend to only be aware of the successful ones. In the early 1900s there were multiple theories to explain electric current. Only one prevailed.

Cosmology is more difficult because observation is limited and not reducible to a lab experiment.

 

[blastula]

So we have to say that for the universe to be what it is today, the big bang had to have been followed by a brief, but very significant inflation which, unfortunately, couldn't have happened according to our laws of physics.

What are the laws of physics for expansion that inflation is defying?

 

[Togo]

Not at all. We should expect that a scientific theory starts with observed facts.

No, we shouldn't. Science starts with wild-ass guesses and speculation, just like everything else. It ends with observed facts - the observations test the hypothesis.

You also appear to be confusing theories with hypotheses. An individual hypothesis gets tested by exposure to the facts. Theories are broader, and stand and fall according to the utility they display as a means of describing the universe and how it works, and in generating testable predictions. A single prediction that is falsified generally calls for more investigation - the Theory itself stands or falls as to whether it remains useful as a framework.

So when you say that there are problems with Inflation, or punctuated equilibrium, you're taking stuff that scientists already know, and are already looking at within the context of the Theory, and citing not abandoning the Theory as a reason to mistrust the scientists involved. And you know, maybe some of them are prats. But this isn't an issue around the science at all, you're not citing anything that would cause us to doubt the conclusions as being terribly wrong. You're trying to use the usual and typical features of the evolution of a Theory to try and cast doubt on the motivations of scientists in general. And while we can't know for certain why you would seek to do this, no doubt some will come to the conclusion that this is somehow bound up with your political opposition to actions intended to combat Climate Change.

I'm sure people are more than happy to discuss individual scientific questions. But there doesn't seem to be much call to either dismiss the entire scientific enterprise, or to cast all of science as being politically motivated. In the spirit of compromise, however, I'm happy to regard Dawkins as a bit of an ass.

On more specific points:

This is called "punctuated equilibrium," and it is a controversial issue but Darwinians who have sought to address it, in particular Stephen Jay Gould, receive heavy criticism ... simply because he brought the problem to public attention.

Possibly, but this is a political claim rather than a problem with the science, particularly since you're citing a scientists disagreeing with each other.

Why does that not invalidate the theory? The neo-Darwinian theory is completely mechanistic. Natural selection working on random mutations is a completely mechanistic process. If the organism responds in ways that you describe or through the epigenome, then, at a minimum, you have added another mechanism that isn't included in the model.

Because the model is a framework to contain individual mechanisms, hypotheses and observations, and not a sweeping decisive statement intended to annoy posters on message boards. I appreciate that many people who enjoy making sweeping statements treat it as the latter, but that doesn't invalidate the process.

That would be true if the "surface" measurements were literally "surface" measurements, but they're not. They are surface "atmospheric" measurements. They are taken about 6 feet above the surface.

Which is still close enough to the surface to be warmed by it.

But it isn't just a problem between the surface and the tropopause. The lower troposphere is also warming faster than the middle troposphere, and it should be the other way around. So the total pattern of warming is the opposite of what the GHG theory predicts.

This is the same point again, isn't it? Only with the words 'near the surface' being replaced with 'lower troposphere'.

 

[beero1000]

At least you give me credit for being able to state my argument succinctly. But your reply, I fear, is a bit too succinct since it offers no evidence at all and is merely a dogmatic statement. Have you nothing better to offer?

I didn't think it was worth the effort, but if you insist.

I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible.

False. Inflation does not violate any law of physics and is supported by empirical evidence. You can tell that because physicists haven thrown it out yet, which they would do for any hypothesis that contradicts physical evidence.

Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.

False. There is a huge amount of evidence for dark matter. Gravitational lensing, cosmic background radiation, galaxy velocities and rotations, etc.

Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.

False. Evolution makes easily falsifiable predictions about the fossil record, and in 150 years not one has been falsified.

Of course, now we've got epigenetics which shows that acquired characteristics CAN be inherited, but still no one seems to want to jump off the Darwinian band-wagon. But the day will come. I have every confidence in that.

Evolution does not require that all characteristics are genetically caused. In fact, Darwin had no idea what genes actually were, and was just noting effects.

Then there's the greenhouse gas theory which has been falsified in a number of ways. CO2 is supposed to warm the troposphere because the gas cannot escape the tropopause and get into outer space. So the surface gets its warming from there. So how come the surface is warming faster than the troposphere. How can the surface be warming faster than the source of the warming? It can't. The GHG theory is falsified.

False. Energy, and heat especially, are easily transferable, while temperature depends on many other, separate factors.

 

[ryan]

Of course, Darwinism does not, and never has, conformed to the fossil evidence, and when theory doesn't fit observation we're supposed to say that the theory is falsified, but with Darwinism most scientists don't. They're just too committed to the paradigm I suppose.

That is not true for theories; theories can have some conflicting evidence. You're thinking of laws; laws must not have any conflicting evidence.

 

[Speakpigeon]

boneyard bill

All our theories and laws are made up. The universe is what it is. What we call laws and theories are notreality. My favorite line, 'the map is not countryside'.

Clearly, you don't want to learn about Alfred Korzybski!

'The map is not the countryside' originates in GS

Wiki: Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory ".
EB

I know, I know...

You did reply this:

heehee. Any schmo can google and try to appear knowledeable...I read his book aound 40 years ago....if you find territory vs countryside an issue knock yourself out.

Now, can you improve on you stock response?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We should expect that a scientific theory starts with observed facts.

No, we shouldn't. Science starts with wild-ass guesses and speculation, just like everything else. It ends with observed facts - the observations test the hypothesis.

Science starts when you apply a specific methodology to some observations.

Any explanation is not science. Observations in themselves are not science. Prediction from observations is not science. Inductive prediction from observations is not science. Rational discussion of observations is not science.

However, it is true as boneyard says that science starts with observed facts. It is the observed facts contradicting our expectations that require a new explanation, a new theory. It is the recurrence of facts that appear to legitimate our expectations that prediction is possible through explanation and theory. If you don't start with some objective facts, it is at best philosophy.

But observations in themselves are not science.
EB

 

[steve_bnk]

Clearly, you don't want to learn about Alfred Korzybski!


I know, I know...

You did reply this:


Now, can you improve on you stock response?
EB

Yes,I can certainly embellish.

Anyshmo can resort to personal commentary and attack having nothing todo with an op without actually saying anything, thus giving theappearance of having something to say.


From past experience you are not worthengaging. Adios. my ignore list was feeling lonely.

 

[boneyard bill]

stv-bnk writes:

Newtonian mechanics was unable toacciunt for experiments at the atomic scale and at high relativespeeds. In response quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics weresynthesized, or 'made up' if you prefer.

Quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics were not "made up." They were responses to observations and as a result of these observations, Newtonian mechanics was abandoned. Newtonian mechanics was falsified even though it still may be used in many applications where the mathematics was simpler. But, by the same token, until the onset of computers, the Ptolemaic system was still used in ocean navigation. Nonetheless, no one has argued that it wasn't falsified.

 

[boneyard bill]

What are the laws of physics for expansion that inflation is defying?

I assume that it would be the law of gravity since, if gravitation accounted for the inflation it would have emerged automatically from the model, but it didn't so the scientist working on it (I think it was Guth) figured out what he needed to get universe like we have today and added the inflation to his model. But we have no way to account for how it would have happened.

 

[boneyard bill]

Togo writes:

No, we shouldn't. Science starts with wild-ass guesses and speculation, just like everything else. It ends with observed facts - the observations test the hypothesis.

I can't believe you really believe this. You're putting the scientist on the same level as the witch doctor. But even at that we have to speculate on what it is that the scientist is "wild-ass guessing" about, and I suggest that he is guessing about an observation or a number of observations. The hypothesis may, indeed, be tested by controlled observations, but the scientist, even at the beginning of his ruminations, is certainly doing more that throwing shit at the wall and seeing how much of it sticks.

You also appear to be confusing theories with hypotheses. An individual hypothesis gets tested by exposure to the facts. Theories are broader, and stand and fall according to the utility they display as a means of describing the universe and how it works, and in generating testable predictions. A single prediction that is falsified generally calls for more investigation - the Theory itself stands or falls as to whether it remains useful as a framework.

A scientific theory, as opposed to just any old theory, is a collection of laws. Newton's theory of gravity combined the law of planetary motion and the law of falling bodies to produce his theory of gravity. A hypothesis is a theory that hasn't yet been tested.

A theory is falsified when the test of its predictions fails. (The prediction, of course, is not a prophecy, but a claim that a controlled experiment will produce x result). If the test isn't sufficient to falsify the theory, it isn't a good test, and there is really no reason to conduct such an experiment. Of course, if the theory is falsified, there remains the possibility that the theory can be amended to account for the failure and the new theory may then not be falsified. That is what you are proposing with Darwinism, but the proponents of the theory have not done that.

So when you say that there are problems with Inflation, or punctuated equilibrium, you're taking stuff that scientists already know, and are already looking at within the context of the Theory, and citing not abandoning the Theory as a reason to mistrust the scientists involved.

My quarrel isn't with the scientists in particular although some of them have been very nasty and punitive toward their critics, and some have probably abused their positions of authority to suppress dissent. After all, their careers can be at stake. What if the theorists of the electric universe, for example, turn out to be right? The scientist who has become an expert on black holes is suddenly and expert on nothing at all, and would need to go back and study plasma physics. That's not a very appealing option for a tenured professor.

But I realize that these scientists are aware of the defects in these theories, and they deal with these nuances in discussions with their colleagues. But in the media and in science education, these are presented to the public as known truths when, in fact, they are, at best, the best guess in the case. So you would think that the big bang or the greenhouse gas theory were as well-established as quantum mechanics or special relativity, and that simply isn't the case.

And you know, maybe some of them are prats. But this isn't an issue around the science at all, you're not citing anything that would cause us to doubt the conclusions as being terribly wrong. You're trying to use the usual and typical features of the evolution of a Theory to try and cast doubt on the motivations of scientists in general. And while we can't know for certain why you would seek to do this, no doubt some will come to the conclusion that this is somehow bound up with your political opposition to actions intended to combat Climate Change.

These ideas are not put forward to the general public as "evolving" theories of how the universe works. They are put forward as pretty much well-established fact. That is what I object to. My political opposition to actions on climate change derives from my understanding of the science, not the other way around.

I'm sure people are more than happy to discuss individual scientific questions. But there doesn't seem to be much call to either dismiss the entire scientific enterprise, or to cast all of science as being politically motivated. In the spirit of compromise, however, I'm happy to regard Dawkins as a bit of an ass.

Where have I proposed to dismiss the entire scientific enterprise? I was asked to name three theories, and I did. I did not say that all the rest of our science was wrong. At least we can agree about Dawkins.

Possibly, but this is a political claim rather than a problem with the science, particularly since you're citing a scientists disagreeing with each other.

But their disagreements are largely political themselves. Should we address this problem of punctuated equilibrium? Gould said yes. It's the primary topic of his books. Dawkins said no. You're spilling the beans. We shouldn't let the public know that there are any problems whatsoever with the theory.

Because the model is a framework to contain individual mechanisms, hypotheses and observations, and not a sweeping decisive statement intended to annoy posters on message boards. I appreciate that many people who enjoy making sweeping statements treat it as the latter, but that doesn't invalidate the process.

A scientific theory is NOT a framework. A materialistic metaphysic would be a framework. Darwinism assumes a materialistic framework. Introducing non-materialistic processes moves the theory out of its materialistic framework. That is why discoveries like epigenetics falsify the theory. Under the notion of "random mutations" is the claim that the organism does not reference its environment in the evolutionary process. But we now know that epigenetic factors (the agents that activate or de-activate the genes) do so in relationship to environmental factors. The entire organism responds to its' environment and those changes are passed on to its heirs. The organism does not wait for random mutations to come along and enhance its survival.

Which is still close enough to the surface to be warmed by it.

Presumably not which is why that height was chosen. At any rate, the actual observed temperatures are subject to all kinds of adjustments, and if the height is presumed to be a factor, adjustments are made for that as well as for changes in the ambient environment. Such as a peach orchard being turned into a shopping mall.

If you want to go by the raw data alone, there has been no change in global mean temperature whatsoever! ALL of the "global warming" is due to adjustments imputed by the agencies that carry out these calculations.

This is the same point again, isn't it? Only with the words 'near the surface' being replaced with 'lower troposphere'.

No. Lower tropospheric and middle tropospheric temperatures are measured by satellites and weather balloons.

 

[steve_bnk]

stv-bnk writes:



Quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics were not "made up." They were responses to observations and as a result of these observations, Newtonian mechanics was abandoned. Newtonian mechanics was falsified even though it still may be used in many applications where the mathematics was simpler. But, by the same token, until the onset of computers, the Ptolemaic system was still used in ocean navigation. Nonetheless, no one has argued that it wasn't falsified.

On the contrary Newtonian mechanics wasfar from abandoned.


Newtonian, relativistic, and quantummechanics are used routinely with the limits of the models.


Newton’s laws of motion are used toput a probe to and on Mars.


Science is a map and we have no way toknow if the map accurately pictures reality. In that sense science ishighly circumstantial and made up.


To paraphrase Carver Meade, 'I do notknow if an electron exists, but I know I can do useful things withthe concept. That sums it it up for my perspective.