The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[Brant Gaede]

Spooky, but non the less real, as exhibited by the experiments.

No, as interpreted by physicists using corrupt philosophy as their guide. There is no such thing as causeless action, there is no such thing as action without means, thus this "experiment" is merely an illusion of some kind that physicists haven't yet figured out.

Four statements of "fact" not all of which are necessarily facts. The first is obviously dubious as is the last for you cannot know that there is an"illusion" involved because you are literally observing nothing but they are observing something making them one up on you to say the least.

--Brant

[sjw]

Four statements of "fact" not all of which are necessarily facts. The first is obviously dubious as is the last for you cannot know that there is an"illusion" involved because you are literally observing nothing but they are observing something making them one up on you to say the least.

--Brant

How dare you. I've studied the alleged phenomenon in some detail Brant, reading papers from the theoreticians and experimentalists. What do you want me to do to earn the right to criticize, set up a $20M experiment of my own? In your book, the only people authorized to make any kind of statement would be the government-sponsored physicists.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

When your experiment says X and your philosophy says not X (assuming the experiment is valid) then give up what your philosophy says. Experimental fact invariably trumps principled generality.

Experiments don't "say" anything. They require interpretation, and interpretations always carry philosophical presuppositions. Of course, if your principle says that x is impossible, that x can never happen, and x does happen, then your principle has been falsified. But disputes may still arise over whether x is really the x that it appears to be. Moroever, your example is different and far more complicated. It depends heavily on the assumptions that are built into the experiment.

The following passage by Imre Lakatos, though it addresses a somewhat different issue, nicely illustrates the problem with what is often called "naive" or "dogmatic" falsificationism:

The story is about an imaginary case of planetary misbehaviour. A physicist of the pre-Einsteinian era takes Newton's mechanics and his law of gravitation (N), the accepted initial conditions (I), and calculates, with their help, the path of a newly discovered small planet, p. But the planet deviates from the calculated path. Does our Newtonian physicist consider that the deviation was forbidden by Newton's theory and therefore that, once established, it refutes the theory N? He suggests that there must be a hitherto unknown planet p' which perturbs the path of p. He calculates the mass, orbit, etc., of this hypothetical planet and then asks an experimental astronomer to test his hypothesis. The planet p' is so small that even the biggest available telescopes cannot possibly observe it; the experimental astronomer applies for a research grant to build yet a bigger one. In three years' time the telescope is ready. Were the unknown planet p' to be discovered, it would be hailed as a new victory of Newtonian science. But it is not. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory and his idea of the perturbing planet? No. He suggests that a cloud of cosmic dust hides the planet from us. He calculates the location and property of this cloud and asks for a research grant to send up a satellite to test his calculations. Were the satellite's instruments (possibly new ones, based on a little-tested theory) to record the existence of the conjectural cloud, the result would be hailed as an outstanding victory for Newtonian science. But the cloud is not found. He suggests that there is some magnetic field in that region of the universe which disturbed the instruments of the satellite. A new satellite is sent up. Were the magnetic field to be found, Newtonians would celebrate a sensational victory. But it is not. Either yet another ingenious auxiliary hypothesis is proposed or . . . the whole story is buried in the dusty volumes of periodicals and the story never mentioned again.

This story strongly suggests that even a most respected scientific theory, like Newton's dynamics and theory of gravitation, may fail to forbid any observable state of affairs.... ("Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos and Musgrave, Cambridge, 1970, pp. 100-01).

I am not denying the possibility of falsifying a theory or a universal proposition. I am merely pointing out that the process is sometimes not as simple or as obvious as it may seem.

Ghs

[sjw]

And another thing Brant, these physicists aren't "observing" FTL, they are inferring it based on correlations. You have to understand a bunch of math to even "see" that there has been this alleged FTL event. Which in fact there hasn't been, they just screwed up in their interpretations.

[sjw]

Asking a physicist to tell you what reality is is like asking a lawyer to tell you what your rights are.

Every profession in our modern world is, as a whole, deeply corrupt. Exceptions exist, but are very rare.

[George H. Smith]

Spooky, but non the less real, as exhibited by the experiments.

No, as interpreted by physicists using corrupt philosophy as their guide. There is no such thing as causeless action, there is no such thing as action without means, thus this "experiment" is merely an illusion of some kind that physicists haven't yet figured out.

Shayne

You seem to be saying that physicists should make sense when they speak, and that if they cannot coherently explain the results of their experiments, they should be honest enough to say so.

But these are physicists! How dare you impose on them the same standards of intelligibility that we require of everyone else! Who are we, who have not been initiated into the mysteries of the supersensible subatomic world, to question what they say? Only a silly, ignorant Objectivist would ever dare engage in such blasphemy.

Let us heed the counsel of Augustine: We must first believe in order to understand. A physicist once told me that the same object can be in different places at the same time. Did I question him? Did I demand that he define his terms? Of course not. I thanked him profusely for imparting this wisdom to me, and then I kissed his ring.

Ghs

[sjw]

Exactly George. Generally speaking (gotta pay my dues to Ellen now or later), modern physicists are just another priest class, along with government-licensed doctors, government-licensed lawyers, and the rest of the horde of alleged "experts." The unwashed masses are just supposed to bow down to them as they dispense their liberty-murdering anti-reason anti-individualism notions, while they in turn bow down to the State for their handouts.

Most people, including Objectivists, are not up to the task of recognizing the enormity of the fraud they are living under. They haven't really grown up, they want to be able to look up to a proxy mommy and daddy to tell them it will be all right, that somebody is taking care of them. In a manner of speaking they are being "taken care" of -- their intellectual independence is being anesthetized by the priest class in order to turn them into domesticated farm animals to be fed off of by the priest class, the political class, and the warrior class.

Edit: the foregoing is an aspect of what is going on, it is not meant as the whole story. For example, it is true that part of an endocrinologist's job is to be a monkey, monitoring hormone levels that any monkey could monitor and tweaking prescriptions for the sole purpose of executing his function as a government-licensed gatekeeper -- in other words, his function to strip an individual of his own independence and control over his own health. But that doesn't mean that everything he does falls in that category, he might be a good doctor in other respects, and it is not as if it is even his choice to function as the independence-stripping agent of the State, that depends on what he advocates.

Edited August 22, 2010 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

Four statements of "fact" not all of which are necessarily facts. The first is obviously dubious as is the last for you cannot know that there is an"illusion" involved because you are literally observing nothing but they are observing something making them one up on you to say the least.

--Brant

How dare you. I've studied the alleged phenomenon in some detail Brant, reading papers from the theoreticians and experimentalists. What do you want me to do to earn the right to criticize, set up a $20M experiment of my own? In your book, the only people authorized to make any kind of statement would be the government-sponsored physicists.

Shayne

Your criticisms of the physicists are both epistemological and moral, but these conundrums, metaphysically speaking, are going to be ultimately dealt with by physicists, not well-read laymen laying it on with a shovel. You are no more going to inform the likes Ba'al and DF about physics then they have been informing us about philosophy. It is true enough, however, that science is government-money corrupted and scientists would rather know what they know then challenge it. What kind of scientist does real science when his brain is always half-full of thoughts about getting government grants and filling out forms instead of pure scientific reasoning on a problem or on a queer conglomeration of facts transcending disciplines or sub-disciplines?

--Brant

and my previous remarks stand since you didn't address them

edit: I will say you seem to be focused on what's going on while I'm more fiocused on what's going to be going on

Edited August 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Brant, I'll decide who the real physicists are, not you. Now go back to whatever it was you were assigned to do and stop worrying about what the adults are doing.

[Brant Gaede]

Spooky, but non the less real, as exhibited by the experiments.

No, as interpreted by physicists using corrupt philosophy as their guide. There is no such thing as causeless action, there is no such thing as action without means, thus this "experiment" is merely an illusion of some kind that physicists haven't yet figured out.

Shayne

You seem to be saying that physicists should make sense when they speak, and that if they cannot coherently explain the results of their experiments, they should be honest enough to say so.

But these are physicists! How dare you impose on them the same standards of intelligibility that we require of everyone else! Who are we, who have not been initiated into the mysteries of the supersensible subatomic world, to question what they say? Only a silly, ignorant Objectivist would ever dare engage in such blasphemy.

Let us heed the counsel of Augustine: We must first believe in order to understand. A physicist once told me that the same object can be in different places at the same time. Did I question him? Did I demand that he define his terms? Of course not. I thanked him profusely for imparting this wisdom to me, and then I kissed his ring.

Ghs

LOL! Bullseye, George.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, I'll decide who the real physicists are, not you. Now go back to whatever it was you were assigned to do and stop worrying about what the adults are doing.

I do wish you'd give up bullying your way through all the threads you post on on OL because if you continue it'll just be you, yourself and nobody.

--Brant

[sjw]

Brant, I'll decide who the real physicists are, not you. Now go back to whatever it was you were assigned to do and stop worrying about what the adults are doing.

I do wish you'd give up bullying your way through all the threads you post on on OL because if you continue it'll just be you, yourself and nobody.

--Brant

I'm just repeating your BS back to you in clear, honest terms. It was meant as tongue-in-cheek, mocking you for your hypocrisy. Don't like it? Neither did I.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, huh.

--Brant

Edited August 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Edit: if Brant is going to take it back then so am I.

Shayne

Edited August 22, 2010 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

You're a bully, pure and simple. It doesn't matter apropos that that I agree with most of what you actual say about ideas, things and such.

Yeah, it's more important in this sick culture to be nice than to be right. Nevermind the fact that your post had contained vile authoritarian premises, my job is to inform you without hurting your precious feelings.

You had to go prove it was a mistake on my part to have deleted what you quoted.

--Brant

[sjw]

You had to go prove it was a mistake on my part to have deleted what you quoted.

--Brant

I edited it. Ball is in your court.

[Dragonfly]

But these are physicists! How dare you impose on them the same standards of intelligibility that we require of everyone else! Who are we, who have not been initiated into the mysteries of the supersensible subatomic world, to question what they say? Only a silly, ignorant Objectivist would ever dare engage in such blasphemy.

It's true that Objectivists are particularly prone to such stupidity. An intelligent person would understand that physics not a question of "initiating into the mysteries", but of (gasp!) studying the subject first and that means learning it the hard way, including the math. The "knowledge" gathered by reading some popularizing texts is useless, as modern physics cannot be dumbed down to the layman level without losing a real understanding of the subject. But tell that to a particularly arrogant branch of philosophers, who think they can understand the world from their armchair without doing some serious study that is indispensable for a real understanding and who insist that a simple popular text can give, nay should give such an understanding. I suspect that they're frustrated with envy of physical sciences as they're left out and not taken seriously, as they're too lazy or not intelligent enough to study first what they want to criticize. Compare this attitude with the condescension they display against a person who dares to criticize Rand's ideas without having studied those extensively. Double standard, anyone?

[Dragonfly]

No, as interpreted by physicists using corrupt philosophy as their guide. There is no such thing as causeless action

How do you know?

there is no such thing as action without means, thus this "experiment" is merely an illusion of some kind that physicists haven't yet figured out.

This experiment is not an illusion, but a hard fact. Now of course Objectivists are not interested in facts but in the mystical illusion that they've created for themselves. If reality doesn't conform to their ideas, well, so much the worse for reality. The results of the experiment are not in contradiction to special relativity, they may seem strange to us, but they are in accordance with the theory.

[sjw]

This experiment is not an illusion, but a hard fact.

On top of being a poorly written sentence, it's a bald-faced lie. The experimental results require sophisticated interpretation in order to yield the FTL conclusion. And this interpretation is wrong.

Shayne

[Dragonfly]

This experiment is not an illusion, but a hard fact.

On top of being a poorly written sentence

Possibly, English is not my native language.

, it's a bald-faced lie. The experimental results require sophisticated interpretation in order to yield the FTL conclusion. And this interpretation is wrong.

And it's clear that you cannot read.

[Brant Gaede]

You had to go prove it was a mistake on my part to have deleted what you quoted.

--Brant

I edited it. Ball is in your court.

That's not what I meant. I had reconsidered whether "bully" was appropriate and decided I hadn't enough data relative to perceived bullying so I copied over my copy not knowing you were simultaneously providing the adequate data. But I'm going to start over anyway by giving you a clean slate recognizing that if you are you won't stop and if you aren't I was mistaken again. It's neither productive nor my cup of tea to get into Internet flame wars. Do what you want.

--Brant

[sjw]

And it's clear that you cannot read.

If it's not as I say, it should be very easy for you to provide the evidence. Or is everyone just supposed to take your word for it?

Anyone looking up these experiments and trying to get details is going to find a lot of complicated stuff, so it would seem to anyone on its face that I'm correct: there's quite a bit of interpretation going on.

Shayne

[sjw]

That's not what I meant. I had reconsidered whether "bully" was appropriate and decided I hadn't enough data relative to perceived bullying so I copied over my copy not knowing you were simultaneously providing the adequate data. But I'm going to start over anyway by giving you a clean slate recognizing that if you are you won't stop and if you aren't I was mistaken again. It's neither productive nor my cup of tea to get into Internet flame wars. Do what you want.

--Brant

Brant, you're the bully, not me. You say something stupid, I call you on it, you have no rational answer, so you resort to appealing to the mob using terms you know that generally motivate them. If you were really sincere in any way and wanted to correct some kind of bad behavior on my part, you would have contacted me privately.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

That's not what I meant. I had reconsidered whether "bully" was appropriate and decided I hadn't enough data relative to perceived bullying so I copied over my copy not knowing you were simultaneously providing the adequate data. But I'm going to start over anyway by giving you a clean slate recognizing that if you are you won't stop and if you aren't I was mistaken again. It's neither productive nor my cup of tea to get into Internet flame wars. Do what you want.

--Brant

Brant, you're the bully, not me. You say something stupid, I call you on it, you have no rational answer, so you resort to appealing to the mob using terms you know that generally motivate them. If you were really sincere in any way and wanted to correct some kind of bad behavior on my part, you would have contacted me privately.

You are publicly answerable to what you say on a public forum as am I.

--Brant

[sjw]

You are publicly answerable to what you say on a public forum as am I.

--Brant

Whether or not you think I'm a bully does not seem particularly relevant to this thread. Either you are trying to get sympathy for yourself, or you are trying to give me constructive feedback. If it's the former, keep on carrying on like you are and I will start ignoring you. If it's the latter, feel free to contact me privately, I accept personal criticism.

Shayne