Do clever people outsmart themselves?

[Scorpion]

A more developed view of atoms which still ends up saying atoms could be considered empty

https://www.quora.com/It-is-said-th...e-is-not-empty-what-is-this-space-in-the-atom

 

[IanS]

For Dave Rogers and Ian S

The following web site states that atoms are largely empty space, and its not the only page that says that.


https://education.jlab.org/qa/how-much-of-an-atom-is-empty-space.html

A hydrogen atom is about 99.9999999999996% empty space. Put another way, if a hydrogen atom were the size of the earth, the proton at its center would be about 200 meters (600 feet) across. While I wouldn't want something that big landing on my head, it's tiny compared to the size of the earth

Why does matter feel solid when atoms are largely empty space.

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-atoms-space-solid.html

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-81786,00.html


I am not the only one who still thinks of atoms as miniature solar systems which are largely empty, there are plenty of sites which state this.

OK, I am not going to waste my time reading any old links that you cut-&-paste here, but I read the highlighted one (because it's title makes it sound as if it comes from a respectable site) … please quote where in the text/article from that link it says that atoms are filled with “empty” space? ... well just to save you misunderstanding it again - your link specifically does not say any such thing.

Your second link appears to be just some posts from readers of a newspaper!

A more developed view of atoms which still ends up saying atoms could be considered empty

https://www.quora.com/It-is-said-th...e-is-not-empty-what-is-this-space-in-the-atom

You need to read that link again. It does not say the atoms are filled with “empty space” … in fact it specifically tells you the opposite!

 

[theprestige]

Well, more like, for almost everyone almost all the time, it doesn't MATTER if it's really flat or a sphere of such great radius that the local curvature is too small to observe.

More like, most people living their lives don't give a fat flying **** about the curvature of the earth, and you have no argument for why they should.

 

[HansMustermann]

More like, most people living their lives don't give a fat flying **** about the curvature of the earth

Isn't that exactly the same thing I've been saying, namely that for them it doesn't matter? Exactly what fine distinction are you seeing there?

and you have no argument for why they should.

Which should be just as well, considering that I was certainly not trying to give them one?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm interested in the philosophy of science.
A classic problem of the philosophy of science is scientism. Scientific reductionism (scientism) affirms that science is the only way to know and that everything can be explained scientifically, including the rules for action.

This is idolatry. I have used my wife's hypothesis as an example. An example of a joke that illustrated my point of view. I am sorry that this caused your confusion. You can overlook it if you want. There were other more serious examples.

And I think this is a giant pile of feces. I don't think science is the only way to know something, but science has proven itself 99 percent of the time to be the best way. It's not idolatry to want to understand what is true accurately.

Science doesn't make proclamations, it is merely a method to improve our knowledge. But David acts as if there isn't evidence of feelings that his wife and him act upon. If his wife suddenly stopped saying I love you or stopped being affectionate, you think David might start questioning her feelings?

What I can't stand is him preaching that there may be better ways to know something than science. Let me just say this about that.

I haven't heard it.

 

[David Mo]

And you are fibbing again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12475507#post12475507

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12475510#post12475510


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12475518#post12475518

I appreciate you looking through my old comments. Unfortunately they are not well selected and do not reflect my position. I have made a better selection from my point of view.
Thread: "Hawkins says there are not gods" Comments: 286-289-290-291-293-305-308

Science: The human knowledge based on the experimental method, also known as "hypothetical-deductive". I am not speaking of formal sciences now.


I have not ever seen any scientific experiment that shows that they are wrong. I have philosophical reasons to think they are wrong. Dawkins has philosophical reasons, Russell had philosophical reasons; Sam Harris has philosophical reasons... Perhaps you know an article that shows that God doesn't exist published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It would be a great surprise.


And the best way to know if a question is scientific is to go to the science departments of the universities and consult scientific journals.

What scientific department is charged to? In what scientific journal are published the results of the scientific refutation of gods? HOw can be scientific a problem that is not scientifically studied?

I can show thousand of scientific journals about extinct species. In what scientific journal is published those "thousand years of evidence" about god? A specific answer, please.

I think it is clear.

 

[David Mo]

Good. Then I trust you'll agree that when I deduce things like how far my car can drive when the fuel gauge says it's empty, or make predictions based on that, such as that I don't need to stop at a gas station tomorrow on my way to work, the conditions are controlled enough. It's the same car, with the same engine and mass and aerodynamics, on the same stretch of road I'm making the observation on, the same average speed, etc.

So remind me again, why that's totally exempt from the scientific method for you?



No, that's still just you making things up. You need to control only in as much as it affects the results and, again, in as much as you reasonably CAN. If something doesn't throw the error bar much, or you're ok with the error margin, or you really can't control it, you don't HAVE TO.

E.g., if I measure gravity by throwing a lead ball off the roof, I literally have to control for NOTHING more than the height of the roof. Which is "controlled" only in as much as it's a given for this house.

And there are whole domains even in natural sciences, and indeed "hard sciences" where you can't really control anything other than your detector most of the time. E.g., astrophysics. You don't control when a star goes supernova. You don't control when two black holes collide. You don't control how far away it happens, either. Nor what the conditions may be in the signal's path. (E.g., whether it will get gravity-lensed on the way here.) You just set up your detector and hope to catch some signal. Then you do your best to deal with whatever unforeseen variables happened to be present.

I had foreseen the astronomy objection. Therefore I wrote in a previous comment:
"By the way, the Einstein case you comment on is a classic of controlled experimentation/observation".

In astronomy and some branches of biology experimentation is not possible or convenient. It is replaced by controlled observation: comparison between similar events or repetition of the same event. What matters is that variables are controlled. Example: Tycho Brahe didn't control a basic variable: the distance to fixed stars from Earth. Therefore his alternative to heliocentrism failed.

This difference was irrelevant in the cases I proposed. No control of the variables was present. No quantification of measurements. Etc. Note that in one o f them the variable control was not even needed.

I suggest you to see that in order to know what we are speaking of:
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/variables?f

In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control. Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.
If you want to do science in the kitchen you can control "enough" your variables. But the result will be "enough" defective. This is what we could call "indication" or "circumstantial evidence" (in justice courts). They are not proofs.
Of course, in our ordinary life we usually act by circumstantial evidence, intuition and "logic". Among other things that are not science. But are also knowledge. This is my point.

 

[David Mo]

You made a terrible analogy and were called on it by several people. You're not doing yourself any favours by suddenly pulling out the passive aggressive "it was just a joke, it's not my fault you didn't get it" defense.

Reductionism, positivism and scientism are not science, they are philosophy. When they are dogmatically maintained, as if they were self-evident, they become idolatry or religion. But that is not an attack against science, but against its worshippers.
If you think the comparison is terrible, I think the reductionism is terrible. It has all the vices of religions.

 

[David Mo]

And I think this is a giant pile of feces. I don't think science is the only way to know something, but science has proven itself 99 percent of the time to be the best way. It's not idolatry to want to understand what is true accurately.

I didn't say science is idolatry. Reductionism is not science. It is an ideology. I don't know if science is right 99% or 75% of the time -I don't know any article about this- but it's clear that it's the safest way to get the facts straight. In a conflict between science and something else I wouldn't hesitate.

But you were distancing yourself from reductionism. I don't know why you tell me the rest. Specially the dirty part. Beware of feces. You have to pay close attention to where they are and not take a wrong step.

 

[HansMustermann]

In astronomy and some branches of biology experimentation is not possible or convenient. It is replaced by controlled observation: comparison between similar events or repetition of the same event. What matters is that variables are controlled. Example: Tycho Brahe didn't control a basic variable: the distance to fixed stars from Earth. Therefore his alternative to heliocentrism failed.

And in my example about learning how far I can drive a car before needing to refuel, I'm using repetition of the same event: driving the same route. So, again, why doesn't that qualify for the scientific method?

I know that spewing generic BS instead of addressing the actual question is easier, but do try to follow.

This difference was irrelevant in the cases I proposed. No control of the variables was present. No quantification of measurements. Etc. Note that in one o f them the variable control was not even needed.

Neither was the claim that it has to be peer-reviewed level evidence in the claim where you brought them up, actually. Your claim was just that you couldn't even go outside if you lived your life based on evidence. Your whole starting to run around with the goalposts about what is rigorous enough for published science wasn't even in that claim at all.

So... Yada, yada, cow goes moo, duck goes quack, and David Mo makes up some BS redefining the topic when he doesn't actually have a point. Which tends to be all the time. What else is new?

But to return to your examples, what you've actually said there is NOT that evidence isn't everything. All you've said there is that you're not bothered to look for evidence in a bunch of cases. Which isn't a limitation of the scientific method, it's just you not doing it. Saying that that's a limitation of the scientific method is like saying that my car must be broken, because I couldn't be bothered to drive it anywhere on the weekend.

In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control.
[...]
If you want to do science in the kitchen you can control "enough" your variables. But the result will be "enough" defective. This is what we could call "indication" or "circumstantial evidence" (in justice courts). They are not proofs.

Compare with:

No one claims that the uncertainty of controlled experimentation can be reduced to zero. No matter how close it sometimes gets.

Which one is it, silly? Because either it has to be perfect, or there is in fact a level where it's deemed controlled enough/sufficient. You can't have both.

Bonus points for not understanding that almost all evidence in science is circumstantial for the theory it supports. If it were direct evidence, that one is defined as leaving only one possibility being possible at all. So we could stop trying to falsify it or come up with a better explanation, because by definition it wouldn't be possible to have any other one.

But you're just making up what words mean as you go, as usual, right?

Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.

Why don't you actually ask one if there is such a thing as controlled enough, instead of making up imaginary students supporting your position?

 

[Dave Rogers]

In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control. Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.

That's a bit of a bugger for the medical sciences then. If only they could have come up with some way to account for the impossibility of rigorously controlling all possible variables in a complex biological system, that could do something useful like assigning a level of confidence to their results based on a hypothetical branch of mathematics that dealt with large amounts of uncertain data. But clearly that can only lead to experiments failing, so we can never have such a thing as medical science, and "evidence-based medicine is an oxymoron.

Dave

 

[JesseCuster]

Reductionism, positivism and scientism are not science, they are philosophy. When they are dogmatically maintained, as if they were self-evident, they become idolatry or religion. But that is not an attack against science, but against its worshippers.

Yet your wife still loves you and you have evidence that this is so. (again, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that your wife does in fact love you)

"Prove to me that love exists" is one of those trite, tiresome arguments that get dragged out on forums from time to time and it never gets any better. You should know better.

Railing against scientism or reductionism or other -isms you don't like isn't going to change that. Nothing I said had anything to do with scientism or reductionism anyway, so there's not much point in directing your objections toward me on those subjects.

 

[Chanakya]

David's POV does raise one question (not one he's himself explicitly raised) : how rigorous must evidence be, in order for it to be considered scientific? Is there a rule, or is it entirely subjective?

When considering if X's wife loves X, it's wholly subjective. X may consider some woman smiling at him casually to be proof she loves him; or may considering her swearing blood oaths to be insufficient evidence; that is his business, and the rest of us may, at best, intersubjectively disagree with his particular standards.

But when it comes to science, how rigorous is minimally rigorous? I think that might be an interesting question, that actual practitioners of science could answer for the rest of us.

(Your view, Hans, seems to indicate subjectivity, with practicability, with what is feasible, the primary criterion. But perhaps I misunderstand you? At what point does the scientist say, below this threshhold of rigor in evidence, conclusions simply aren't scientific? Is that threshhold entirely suibjective, is my question.)

 

[IanS]

More like, most people living their lives don't give a fat flying **** about the curvature of the earth, and you have no argument for why they should.

Most people don't think about such things on a daily/regular basis. But there are thousands, if not millions of things things that we have discovered and understood through science, and where people do not think about the scientific explanations, but for which those explanations have very important consequences for almost everything in the daily lives of all those people ...

... they may not ever think about quantum theory or space satellite research, but they probably rely each day on GPS signals. They probably don't think about all sorts of experiments and discoveries that have taken place in medical research over the last 50 to 100 years, but they may have a heart pacemaker fitted, or they may survive because of all sorts of other advances in medical treatment.

The majority may be ignorant of it all. They may even wallow in their ignorance. They may even try to dismiss, dimmish or ridicule science. But their ignorance and wilful stupidity does not change the fact they are all (all of them) almost certainly benefiting hugely from science all day every day.

I'm not sure you could say they are benefiting in any such way, or to any similar extent, from philosophy though.

 

[JesseCuster]

When considering if X's wife loves X, it's wholly subjective.

[emphasis mine]

No it isn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can literally strap David into an MRI and objectively prove he "loves" his wife or not.

Within a few years we'll be able to alter the chemistry of David's and make him love or not love his wife.

Nothing subjective about it.

*And cue the "But wHAt abOUT dA QUALIA!" nonsense*

 

[JesseCuster]

I can literally strap David into an MRI and objectively prove he "loves" his wife or not.

I've never really bought this line of thinking.

I think it would be far easier to show someone loves you simply by observing their behaviour than by doing anything like this.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've never really bought this line of thinking.

I think it would be far easier to show someone loves you simply by observing their behaviour than by doing anything like this.

It's not necessary except to counter the "But can your cold, hard science show you love!!!!!!" nonsense.

Yes. Yes it can. Verily easily in fact.

 

[halleyscomet]

[emphasis mine]

No it isn't.

First we must we quantify "What is Love?"

 

[Chanakya]

[emphasis mine]

No it isn't.

I would say it is.

Does some girl you fancy reciprocate the feeling to the extent of actually loving you? Only you can answer that question to your satisfaction.

Since it is your satisfaction that is paramount (to you), no one else can dictate standards for you.

Your girlfriend does the girlfriend thing with you, but also does the same with one or two other guys. Or she bases her "love" on specific conditions, material or otherwise. Or her love is lukewarm, not passionate.

So is this truly love? And basis this love, will you continue on a relationship with her, or even ask her to marry you? Only you can decide that.

I may, basis my standards, offer you advice, if I were your friend. But I cannot impose my standards on you.

Does she love you, your girlfriend? Love you enough for you to act on? Only you can decide that. (And it is you that must live with the consequences of your decision, for better or for worse.)

With evidence, obviously. I disagree with David Mo when he says no evidence comes into play here. But how much evidence is enough, that is subjective, only you can decide that.

(With an equal amount of emphasis as you put in.)




Or are you someone who takes a poll of your friends, a peer review as it were, to decide whether your girlfriend loves you, and whether you should ask her to marry you, basis that evaluation? Even if you do that, it is still subjective, except you're voluntarily abdicating your decision, your standards, in favor of someone else's standards.


eta: Generic "you", needless to say. No personalization intended.