Top 10 Best Replicated Findings in Psychology

[bilby]

The greater finding in Psychology corresponds to me.

My discovery makes the former ones look like findings by amateurs.

This is the greatest finding: we and our instruments can perceive solely the present of the universe.

This is a law, and is a law without exceptions.

When philosophers philosophize about science, why are their philosophical conclusions invariably informed by the very latest developments in 19th-century science?

On a clear night, take a look at Andromeda. The electrons in your eyes will be exchanging photons with thousands of dead stars.

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

There is no objective present. In the reference frame of the photons, the journey time from Andromeda is zero, and the electrons in the photosphere of the star in Andromeda interact simultaneously with the electrons in the retina of the earthbound observer.

Assuming, of course, that we don't wish to reject relativity.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Because you are not reading current philosophers of science?

Try this:

https://www.lhc-epistemologie.uni-w...ions/news/philosophy-of-particle-physics.html

Fair enough. Good to know somebody out there is trying to do better.

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

You're providing an example of my point. This picture of the world you imply, a picture containing dead stars coexisting with light they'd emitted before they died, light still flying through space on its way to your eyes, is a picture of classical physics. It isn't a picture of relativity and quantum electrodynamics. According to modern theory, no time passes for a photon in flight. The emitting electron and the receiving electron are entangled across time. Perceiving the photon and perceiving the emitting electron are not two different things -- the emission and the absorption are one phenomenon, not two. If you can see the source star it means there are other equally valid frames of reference in which that star hasn't died yet. Spacetime is a loaf of bread we can cut at any angle and regard the resulting surface as "the present". The conceptual division of reality into an objective present and past has been obsolete since 1905.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

It's a problem for philosophy, not for science.

Ironically, science is now more interested in falsification and is moving away from correspondence towards coherence models of testing theories - not how well do they fit with the world, but how well they integrate with the theories we already have.

Of course these changes are driven by philosophers, Quine, Popper, Feyerabend, Lacatos, Hintikka, Haak and so on. You want to judge philosophy do it by judging philosophers.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Fair enough. Good to know somebody out there is trying to do better.


You're providing an example of my point. This picture of the world you imply, a picture containing dead stars coexisting with light they'd emitted before they died, light still flying through space on its way to your eyes, is a picture of classical physics. It isn't a picture of relativity and quantum electrodynamics. According to modern theory, no time passes for a photon in flight. The emitting electron and the receiving electron are entangled across time. Perceiving the photon and perceiving the emitting electron are not two different things -- the emission and the absorption are one phenomenon, not two. If you can see the source star it means there are other equally valid frames of reference in which that star hasn't died yet. Spacetime is a loaf of bread we can cut at any angle and regard the resulting surface as "the present". The conceptual division of reality into an objective present and past has been obsolete since 1905.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

It's a problem for philosophy, not for science.

Ironically, science is now more interested in falsification and is moving away from correspondence towards coherence models of testing theories - not how well do they fit with the world, but how well they integrate with the theories we already have.

Of course these changes are driven by philosophers, Quine, Popper, Feyerabend, Lacatos, Hintikka, Haak and so on. You want to judge philosophy do it by judging philosophers.

You want to judge philosophy do it by judging philosophers.

Fair enough, but then again, many theists tend to defend current philosophical arguments that ignore, misunderstand and/or misrepresent present-day science or the philosophy informed by it, like usual defenses of the Kalam Cosmological Argument or variants of the fine-tune argument.

In the particular case of humbleman's claims, he seems to be defending Presentism, and Bomb#20 is objecting to that view. I don't know what percentage of philosophers defend Presentism, though this survey (it's a few years old, but not that bad) indicates non-negligible support for the A-theory (I think most of them support either Presentism or Growing Block theory), even if a minority (about 15% accept or lean towards it). Notably, support for the A-theory is considerably lower among philosophers of (Physical) science than among all respondents (in the survey, anyway), and way higher among philosophers of religion.


https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=22&areas_max=1&grain=fine

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=5680&areas_max=1&grain=fine

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=fine

 

[humbleman]

The greater finding in Psychology corresponds to me.

My discovery makes the former ones look like findings by amateurs.

This is the greatest finding: we and our instruments can perceive solely the present of the universe.

This is a law, and is a law without exceptions.

When philosophers philosophize about science, why are their philosophical conclusions invariably informed by the very latest developments in 19th-century science?

On a clear night, take a look at Andromeda. The electrons in your eyes will be exchanging photons with thousands of dead stars.

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

Even so, you must prove that those photons carry the "images" of the extincted stars.

What you just have said is something that I can easily prove is not the real phenomenon. So, I keep the method of testing this Law until I see your last and best efforts to demonstrate those photons carrying images for trillions and trillions of miles.

I will give you the best knowledge about this phenomenon, which I, as the expert in Sensation and Perception, can demonstrate, and you too. Yes, you too can demonstrate it. And I include you because science in reality is simple to understand, but idiots have made it complicated with silly theories.

We see the image of objects solely when light hits their bodies. No matter how far the object is from us, light hit their bodies and we have a good telescope to see them, then we are seeing the present of those bodies -regardless of their distance- simultaneously with our present as observers.

In other words, the thought that we can still see images of a star that doesn't exist anymore is pure lunacy. I have no idea who invented that crap, but what you have said is lunacies, stupidities, invalid arguments, nonsense, childish imaginations...

We can perceive the present only.

 

[humbleman]

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

There is no objective present. In the reference frame of the photons, the journey time from Andromeda is zero, and the electrons in the photosphere of the star in Andromeda interact simultaneously with the electrons in the retina of the earthbound observer.

Assuming, of course, that we don't wish to reject relativity.

Reject it with complete trust that you are doing the right thing doing it.

Relativity is done. That theory is false.

If you defend it because ethnic issues, because friends who are involved in that theory, because you invested money receiving classes about it... well, such is your lost, face it, it's better to start anew with solid scientific knowledge than continuing with pseudoscience as your flag.

 

[humbleman]

Ironically, science is now more interested in falsification and is moving away from correspondence towards coherence models of testing theories - not how well do they fit with the world, but how well they integrate with the theories we already have.

Of course these changes are driven by philosophers, Quine, Popper, Feyerabend, Lacatos, Hintikka, Haak and so on. You want to judge philosophy do it by judging philosophers.

You want to judge philosophy do it by judging philosophers.

Fair enough, but then again, many theists tend to defend current philosophical arguments that ignore, misunderstand and/or misrepresent present-day science or the philosophy informed by it, like usual defenses of the Kalam Cosmological Argument or variants of the fine-tune argument.

In the particular case of humbleman's claims, he seems to be defending Presentism, and Bomb#20 is objecting to that view. I don't know what percentage of philosophers defend Presentism, though this survey (it's a few years old, but not that bad) indicates non-negligible support for the A-theory (I think most of them support either Presentism or Growing Block theory), even if a minority (about 15% accept or lean towards it). Notably, support for the A-theory is considerably lower among philosophers of (Physical) science than among all respondents (in the survey, anyway), and way higher among philosophers of religion.


https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=22&areas_max=1&grain=fine

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=5680&areas_max=1&grain=fine

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=fine

So, you are implying the acceptance of scientific knowledge based on "surveys"?

Look how FOCUS works. Relativists manage to input the image of poor Albert in movies as many as they can, the mention of his name everywhere. Have influence as "scientists" in government contracts to obtain funds and work in the theory, the formula -which by the way is proved false when "c" can't by any means reach its square speed neither in paper- is wrote everywhere. People receive those information for years and years.

After that, you make a survey, and of course, brainwashed people will give green light to the theory and its loony inventor.

You yourself have been exposed to relativistic propaganda for years and years, and you will put your hands on fire defending it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Relativity is done. That theory is false.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

If you defend it because ethnic issues,

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Relativists manage to input the image of poor Albert in movies as many as they can, the mention of his name everywhere.

5 points for each mention of "Einstien",

 

[ronburgundy]

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

There is no objective present. In the reference frame of the photons, the journey time from Andromeda is zero, and the electrons in the photosphere of the star in Andromeda interact simultaneously with the electrons in the retina of the earthbound observer.

Assuming, of course, that we don't wish to reject relativity.

There doesn't need to be an objective present, because observation is not an objective event. There is a present relative to the subjective experience of an observer, and all observation is a subjective experience and thus only in present in any sense that the concept of past and present have any meaning in the discussion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, you are implying the acceptance of scientific knowledge based on "surveys"?

No, the survey gave me some information about the acceptance of the A theory of time. As far as I know, A theorists believe in presentism or growing block (or at least they give one of those a high probability). I pointed out Bomb#20 was arguing against that. As for the science, relativity, and so on, Bomb#20 and others can make (and are making) that argument a lot better than I can, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[humbleman]

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

There is no objective present. In the reference frame of the photons, the journey time from Andromeda is zero, and the electrons in the photosphere of the star in Andromeda interact simultaneously with the electrons in the retina of the earthbound observer.

Assuming, of course, that we don't wish to reject relativity.

There doesn't need to be an objective present, because observation is not an objective event. There is a present relative to the subjective experience of an observer, and all observation is a subjective experience and thus only in present in any sense that the concept of past and present have any meaning in the discussion.

What you just said is fantastically stupid.

So, a dude stops you at night close to your house, hit your head, punches your eye, punches your mouth, steal your wallet, your phone, your keys.

You return back home, and while calling 911 you look at yourself in the mirror and say: "I'm OK, my mouth is not bleeding, it is just a subjective perception, I'm not calling the police, the voice I heard is just a subjective experience..."

The LAW which rules our sensation and perception help us to discriminate illusions and delusions (which appears to be your case).

Poor Albert fell in the traps made by illusion of movement and distance, and invented a good for nothing theory.

From my part, in every school and university must be mandatory learning sensation and perception in order to avoid mistakes like relativity.

If you can't discriminate illusions from the real event, then you will only invent nonsense.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

wut

 

[Speakpigeon]

On a clear night, take a look at Andromeda. The electrons in your eyes will be exchanging photons with thousands of dead stars.

But you are not perceiving the dead stars of the past. You are only perceiving the photons that are reaching your eyes in the present.
You are merely inferring the past and the now dead star as the source of what you perceive now and what you recall perceiving in previous moments. And that is more than mere "semantics". There is a real and important difference between the acts of perception and the acts of inference.

Granted, that is not any kind of "problem" for science unless one tries to define science as pure empiricism rather than the empirically grounded inductive process that it is.

There is no objective present. In the reference frame of the photons, the journey time from Andromeda is zero, and the electrons in the photosphere of the star in Andromeda interact simultaneously with the electrons in the retina of the earthbound observer.

Sure, but from the point of view of the observer, it's different. For the observer, photons move through space at a finite speed and the ones coming from, say, Andromeda will do something like a two-million years journey between the time of their emission and the time they are perceived by the observer.

As I understand it, what we usually mean by the objective world is whatever it is we, most of us at any rate, agree we (think or believe we) are observing. That may be different from whatever science says there may be "in reality". That time is standing still in the reference frame of the photon is not anything like an objective reality. It's a theoretical inference to actual reality from the objective reality scientists agree they are observing.

And I have no idea how one could effectively observe time standing still in some reference frame. Anybody knows?

Still, I guess we all pretty much agree on the substance of it. I think it's just that the language of it is still a bit wobbly.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There doesn't need to be an objective present, because observation is not an objective event. There is a present relative to the subjective experience of an observer, and all observation is a subjective experience and thus only in present in any sense that the concept of past and present have any meaning in the discussion.

I broadly agree on the idea but I disagree as to your use of "observation" here. Observation implies objective world. Our brains are pretty much hardwired to make sure we can't stop believing what we're observing, and what we observe we will call it the objective world, usually.

So, subjectively, there's only the present and nothing else.

But our subjective present includes memories of the past and expectation of the future, so we're essentially Ok. Thus, objectively, we observe the present but we also infer, and believe in, the past, so that we can all get to agree, most of us at least, based on comparing our respective observations, that there is an objective world.

And then science comes along and tell us there's a lot we don't even start to understand, objectively speaking, like time standing still in the reference frame of photons.

The point is that we can't decide absolutely which perspective is correct. Our subjective experience is pretty much all that we actually know. Yet, we all believe in this objective world which does make a lot of sense to all of us, and basically, we play along this perspective whatever Cartesian doubts we may entertain. Those who don't probably die, but who knows?

And then there's what science say must be the actual real world. Nothing we really understand but it's all very rational, i.e. based on observation and logical deduction, plus a smattering of very reasonable metaphysical assumptions most people remain unaware of.

We just don't know in the absolute which is true-true. But, there's no contradiction either.

Maybe the main sticking point, beside reconciling Quantum Physics and Relativity, is that subjective experience isn't explained by our best scientific theories. And, conversely, that our subjective experience doesn't provide any explanation for the existence of the physical world.

Now, as I see it, there's still no contradiction. We'll just have to wait till some smart ass figure all this out.

It might take a long time, though.

Well, yes, but what is time?
EB

 

[lpetrich]

This is the greatest finding: we and our instruments can perceive solely the present of the universe.

This is a law, and is a law without exceptions.

Horseshit.

I repeat:
Horseshit.

When we perceive something we are getting information from the past. For light from an object a foot (30 cm) away, a nanosecond, but it is still the past. It will take much longer for the information to go from our eyes to our brains, however: 1 millisecond, a million times longer.

So we know only what's inside our past light cones, to use some relativity terminology.