science

Post Reply New Topic

Consider ruveyn's observations about gravity versus gravitation. Gravity is a fact that very much is a certainty. What EXACTLY causes or creates it remains uncertain, but we have a few ideas that seem to be better explanations than others

Something about science that seems to often be conveniently ignored is that interpretations of data are not always consistent--the very same findings can be interpreted in support of very opposite conclusions. Ptolemy, for instance, used his idea of epicycles in predicting the paths of the planets in the sky as part of his greater view of a geocentric universe. His theories are dead on in light of the available data at the time--and still would be for any independent, earth-bound stargazer without the help of a telescope. And even WITH a telescope, an astronomer would have to know what to look for to prove Ptolemy wrong. An alternative, given the same data, is heliocentrism. Taking Occam's Razor into account, a heliocentric system is much neater and cleaner than Ptolemy's geocentric system.

The point is "evidence" is not necessarily so cut and dry any time that it is possible for other interpretations to yield alternative conclusions. Occam's Razor always favors the simplest approach--but the simplest approach is not always necessarily the correct one. It could very well be that often personal bias and possibly even academic peer pressure result in favoring one interpretation over another.

I believe that the planet Neptune exists. There is a huge mountain of evidence that it does. The god "Neptune" hasn't a shred of evidence that he exists. I will not believe the god Neptune exists until sufficient proof is presented that he does. Likewise for any other gods.

Naked eye astronomy is crude and inaccurate and remained so until Tycho Brahe built gigantic instruments that gave him a 2 minute of arc (1/30 of a degree) resolution. In Ptolemy's time astronomy was a mess.

From a purely physical p.o.v. epicycles makes no sense. The were postulated only to account for the appearances. As soon as new observations were at odd with the old, new epicycles were cooked. That is the main reason why Copernicus went to a quasi-heliocentric model. It was less messy. Even so, even the Copernican model needed epicycles to keep the appearances in line.

It was Kepler who made the first real breakthrough.

ruveyn

See bold. I agree completely here. My point is that one only has the technology available at any given time and thus has no choice but to interpret the available data as best he can given the boundaries at the time of the discoveries. No, the epicycles make no sense from a physical viewpoint; but exactly what theories did Ptolemy have to compete against?

It's kinda like a modern-day psych student calling Freud and Jung a couple of morons. Have we moved on from psychoanalysis? I think most of us agree that we have. But was anyone else doing similar significant work at the time? No. Were there better alternatives at the time? No. Did patients benefit from Freud's methodology? Some did, and certainly more benefitted than would have if Freud hadn't made the effort. And what happened? Competing psychological theories and methodologies arose that were either inspired by or departed from Freudian psychology.

Even when someone is absolutely wrong, at least they made the effort and did the best they could with what they had available. Even wrong conclusions lay solid groundwork for future study.

Correct, realistically speaking.

But then again, hypothetically, I say it is a circle, and every time you tell me it is not a circle, I affirm that it is. How do you know that your perception is right and mine is wrong?

This wasn't directed at me, but I will say yes, they are representations. Mathematics is about modeling things abstractly. You try to draw a circle on a piece of paper but it's not an actual circle. It's just a visual model.

A circle is not a physical object, it is an abstract concept.

Any segment could possibly represent the circumference of a circle. If so, calling it a circle might be correct.

Galileo did not discover the four major moons of Jupiter into existence they were around since the solar system was young and long before humans existed so there is plenty out there which science has not discovered yet, but just simply because science has not proven their existence does not mean it does not exist.

... I once was blind, but now I see... from Amazing Grace.

Galileo gave eyes to the astronomers so they could see what was their all the time.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 15 May 2012, 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I grant the obvious fact that mankind does not know everything about everything. Things exist before we learn about them. However, if we are to avoid believing in things which do not exist, we should limit belief to those things which have sufficient evidence. Speculation is useful. Those speculations which can be tested can lead to new discoveries. Those things which can not be tested will forever only be speculations. Those who choose to believe these speculations are called the faithful. What I want to know is this: What makes your particular speculation more likely to be true than anything I might now make up?

Brain-dead easy answer. Great example: the Higgs Boson, dark matter, or something of the like I guarantee will move from hypothesis to theory and onward to accepted reality. I won't push farther just because this conversation doesn't need any kind of additional food-fighting to show that the odds are stacked quite heavily against a 'no'.

Before we can know anything solidly we have to do some guessing.

To get answers, there must be questions. To formulate questions we have to do guessing and imagining.

ruveyn

So you are agreeing with me, right? That was my point about speculation being useful.