Does anybody believe in Physics?

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
The Brans-Dicke theory was abandonned, for empirical equivalency was just that (no one cared to fund further research).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Bohmian mechanics has suffered or is suffering a similar fate, though I'm not certain about it. If so, it's a shame, since Bohm's interpretation really is fascinating. Thanks for the examples.

[Triumph36]

No, it isn't.

"Consequently, how we know anything comes into question." Not skepticism, I am not saying "we do not know anything.", I am saying "we know things. how do we know them?" I'll admit it was poorly worded, but I am not talking about speculations regarding the 'real essence' of phenomena or something like that.

Particles behave in uncertain ways when the perspective is small enough. It therefore becomes a question of science to ask how much uncertainty we are willing to admit in scientific investigations. When a suitable framework does not explain the phenomena in the way we are used to 'knowing', science must ask questions about frameworks in general.

I don't really see the necessity for categorizing scientific and philosophical into two absolutely separate groups, except to inflate one or deflate the other.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Particles behave in uncertain ways when the perspective is small enough. It therefore becomes a question of science to ask how much uncertainty we are willing to admit in scientific investigations. When a suitable framework does not explain the phenomena in the way we are used to 'knowing', science must ask questions about frameworks in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Scientists get angry when laymen misunderstand, for example, the uncertainty principle. In an age of great uncertainties it is easy to mistake science for banality, to believe that Heisenberg is merely saying, gee, guys, we just can't be sure of anything, it's all so darn uncertain, but isn't that, like, beautiful? Whereas he's actually telling us the exact opposite: that if you know what you're doing you can pin down the exact quantum of uncertainty in in any experiment, any process. To knowledge and mystery we can now ascribe percentage points. A principle of uncertainty is also a measure of certainty. It's not a lament about shifting sands but a gauge of the solidity of the ground."
- Salman Rushdie

[Triumph36]

Rushdie has a point, but it still is at odds with fundamental presumptions of physics. Heisenberg claims we can predict the locations of particles within a certain range, but only within a certain range, even if we knew the particle's entire history. This is not so with particles with a magnitude well above Planck's constant. So Heisenberg brought uncertainty directly into a framework; this is not a regular feature of scientific investigations. The uncertainty is therefore 'knowable', but only within certain ranges.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Rushdie has a point, but it still is at odds with fundamental presumptions of physics. Heisenberg claims we can predict the locations of particles within a certain range, but only within a certain range, even if we knew the particle's entire history. This is not so with particles with a magnitude well above Planck's constant. So Heisenberg brought uncertainty directly into a framework; this is not a regular feature of scientific investigations. The uncertainty is therefore 'knowable', but only within certain ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but the point I was trying to make by including Rushdie's quote was that the introduction of the 'spooky' behavior of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty involved doesn't immediately degenerate scientific progress into a coffeshop epistemology discussion. Philosophers and epistomologists (I know it seems like I'm bagging on them pretty hard in my posts, but I'm not - I'm just differentiating philosophy and epistemology from the scientific method) come in where experiment is impossible and then they try to figure things out in that corner of the universe and can possibly help science. But what they do still isn't science. Granted, there's not always 100% of the time a clear line here (i.e. someone who leans more toward the philosophy side of things won't cling to his 'vocation' with such tenacity that he'll avoid experiment, and scientists of course are prone to epistemological speculation from time to time), so it's not a case of "you either are a scientist or you aren't, and that's that", but what they do in a specific instance can be categorized.

[David Sklansky]

"How can Science possibly fail? It produces competing models which organize existing data and make competing predictions. Whichever predicts the best is adopted as the new theory of the day until its predictions run out and another competing set of models are created. It's a no lose game for science. Heads I win, Tails I win."

That's ridiculous. Specifically your statement that whichever model predicts the best is adopted. No model is adopted simply because it predicts better than the competition. It has to predict amazingly well. Do you think Newton's laws would have been adopted if there were obvious exceptions even one percent of the time? When no model measures up to this criterian, scientists do admit, at least temporary, defeat.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB -
"How can Science possibly fail? It produces competing models which organize existing data and make competing predictions. Whichever predicts the best is adopted as the new theory of the day until its predictions run out and another competing set of models are created. It's a no lose game for science. Heads I win, Tails I win."


David Sklansky -
"That's ridiculous. Specifically your statement that whichever model predicts the best is adopted. No model is adopted simply because it predicts better than the competition. It has to predict amazingly well. Do you think Newton's laws would have been adopted if there were obvious exceptions even one percent of the time? When no model measures up to this criterian, scientists do admit, at least temporary, defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous? I beg to differ.

What about the Wave and Particle Dual Theories of Light? Not only does neither produce good predictions all the time but both are retained for the types of experiments they do describe well.

Also, consider Bodhi's example above of Empirically Equivallent Theories. Both organize existing data and make the same predictions. Yet one is popular and the other is not for whatever reasons - elegance, simplicity, fashion. Which one do you integrate into your conceptual framework as the "correct" metaphor for what's being described?

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, consider Bodhi's example above of Empirically Equivallent Theories. Both organize existing data and make the same predictions. Yet one is popular and the other is not for whatever reasons - elegance, simplicity, fashion. Which one do you integrate into your conceptual framework as the "correct" metaphor for what's being described?

[/ QUOTE ]

If two theories make the same predictions about everything, it doesn't matter one whit which one you choose.

[AnyTwoCanLose]

Its absolutely true that Newtonian physics is accurate almost all the time.

I think what "science always wins" means is that it is a continual process of refinement.

We are understanding more and more about the way the universe works at an astounding rate and the more we learn the more we realize that we know very little.

I suspect in 50 years we will look back on our theories today like we currently look back at the science of the 1850's.

[David Sklansky]

Except in cases like this scientists fully admit the theory is flawed. Contrast that to religions that try to squirm out of it when their flawed theories are brought to light.

"Ridiculous? I beg to differ.

What about the Wave and Particle Dual Theories of Light? Not only does neither produce good predictions all the time but both are retained for the types of experiments they do describe well"