Do clever people outsmart themselves?

[abaddon]

Well I don't know if the nuclear forces are considered strong. I know gravity is considered weak.

Wait what? You are blissfully unaware that the Strong Nuclear force is magnitudes greater than the Weak Nuclear force both of which are magnitudes greater than gravity? Really?

The strong force is approximately 137 times as strong as electromagnetism, a million times as strong as the weak interaction, and 10³⁸ (100 undecillion) times as strong as gravitation.

These are the basics and you know none of it?

 

[halleyscomet]

Ever notice that the faith healers NEVER work their magic on an amputee?

Funny that. It seems their deity can only make the lame walk if the lame already have two fully functioning legs.

A few years ago I found this CD, appropriately, in a gutter. It's not playable, thank FSM, so I can only guess how this pressing question took 6 CD's to answer. I can only hope the poor sucker who owned this CD tossed it out in fury, but fear that if he had listened already to volumes 1 and 2, he might have become too stupid to remember where he left it.

I have to give her credit. She's being up front about targeting people who believe "think" is a dirty word. Most televangelists and con artists try to convince their marks they're smarter than those nasty non-believers, but this woman? She straight up tells people not to think, just believe. She's the anti-C. S. Lewis. It's like she read "Mere Christianity" and said, "Like this, but the EXACT OPPOSITE and give me money!"

 

[David Mo]

... do you really think that if you go to the LHC in Geneva (for example), and call all the hundreds of scientists, mathematicians, technicians & engineers there to a meeting, and tell them "OK, I want all of you stop the science now, stop all the experiments and the calculations and the research, because we must now spend an indefinite time into the future debating this essential philosophical question of whether or not certain of your "principles" are reducible to other principles!"

Where did this come from? From a Laurel and Hardy movie? Flying Elephants, perhaps?

 

[Scorpion]

Wait what? You are blissfully unaware that the Strong Nuclear force is magnitudes greater than the Weak Nuclear force both of which are magnitudes greater than gravity? Really?

The strong force is approximately 137 times as strong as electromagnetism, a million times as strong as the weak interaction, and 10³⁸ (100 undecillion) times as strong as gravitation.

These are the basics and you know none of it?

Thanks for the info. Why would I know such things? it was not required theory in my studies of electronics. I have 'city and guilds' in radio and television repairs, and a btec in microprocessors. Those qualifications do not require you to know about nuclear forces or gravity.

The point I was making was that if the nuclear forces binding atoms together was weaker we could walk though walls. Because atoms are largely empty space.

Therefore the appearance of solid object in what is called reality is an illusion.

 

[halleyscomet]

Therefore the appearance of solid object in what is called reality is an illusion.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks for the info. Why would I know such things? it was not required theory in my studies of electronics. I have 'city and guilds' in radio and television repairs, and a btec in microprocessors. Those qualifications do not require you to know about nuclear forces or gravity.

The point I was making was that if the nuclear forces binding atoms together was weaker we could walk though walls. Because atoms are largely empty space.

Therefore the appearance of solid object in what is called reality is an illusion.

I think you could solve this by staring at goats.

Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: [with great concentration] Boone.
Lieutenant Boone: Yes sir?
Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: I'm going into the next office.
Lieutenant Boone: Yes sir.
Brigadier General Dean Hopgood: [breaks into a sprint, slams into the wall, falls over] Damn it.​

 

[8enotto]

Weakening the definition of illusion to that level isn't going to win any prizes. Atoms and atomic levels are not what we consider when we see a 5 pound note on the grass, we stoop to grab it with glee, and lift a solid object. And then pass it to another that changes it for goods. It must be real if he believes it is.

The safe box isn't an illusion when I try to reach through it to take what is inside. It's a barrier my hand cannot pass thus must be accepted.

This isn't a world of Alice in Wonderland. No strange mental abilities, no spirits nor any deity is going to make it possible to do anything extraordinary.

 

[Robin]

Why should any of us (or any research scientists) spend their time dissecting whatever is meant by ...

I don't live inside the mind of Steven Weinberg or Sean Carroll or any other of the scientists who discuss these subjects and so I can't tell you their motivation.

But the point is that they do and if they are going to do so then it is useful to have access to how these subjects have been discussed before.

Many scientists are and have been interested in the philosophy of science, for example Einstein, Planck, Mach. Even Galileo wrote about the philosophy of science.

Just because you are not personally interested in a subject does not make it an invalid subject. You don't speak for science.

arguing about whether or not "principles" in physics (do they mean "Theories"?) can be reduced to a set of simpler "principles" (do they mean "explanations" or "observations") ...

"principles" is the term Steven Weinberg uses when addressing the subject. Nagel used "theories".

 

[Robin]

And what did all these bods come up with for Planck time?

Max Planck wrote a whole book on the philosophy of science, so I guess you are going to tell me that he couldn't have made any useful contribution to science.

 

[Robin]

... do you really think that if you go to the LHC in Geneva (for example), ... "OK, I want all of you stop the science now, stop all the experiments and the calculations and the research, because we must now spend an indefinite time...do you really think anyone there is going to take any notice of you or that anyone should take any notice of you?

Of me? No. Why should they?

Of a philosopher, say, Anthony Grayling? Yes. THE LHC TAKEN WITH PHILOSOPHY

And, guess what? They didn't need to spend an indefinite amount of time to cover the issues.

And they didn't have to halt their day jobs. I am puzzled as to why you thought they would have to.

 

[Robin]

Here is Ernst Mayr discussing reductionism in the correspondence section of Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/331475a0.pdf

But, hey, proper scientists have no interest in nor time for such subjects, right?

 

[Robin]

Here is another scientist showing zero interest in discussing reductionism:

"One can illustrate the reductionist world view by imagining all the principles of science as being dots on a huge chart, with arrows flowing into each principle from all the other principles by which it is explained. The lesson of history is that these arrows do not form separate disconnected clumps, representing sciences that are logically independent, and they do not wander aimlessly. Rather they are all connected, and if followed backward they all seem to branch outward from a common source, an ultimate law of nature that Dyson call 'a finite set of fundamental equations.'"

Reductionism Redux

 

[Robin]

More:

The kind of physics that is done in elementary particle laboratories derives much of its importance from a reductionist world view: we seek those fundamental principles from which all other scientific principles may in principle be derived.

Newtonianism, Reductionism, and the Art of Congressional Testimony

He even seems to be saying that it is relevant to the work scientists do.

He can't know much about science, this Weinberg fellow.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The point I was making was that if the nuclear forces binding atoms together was weaker we could walk though walls.

Well, no, because (a) it's not nuclear forces binding atoms together to make solids, it's electromagnetic forces, and (b) if they were so weak that walls were insubstantial, then so would all matter be, and "we" couldn't possibly exist.

Because atoms are largely empty space.

I think somebody already explained why this is nonsense. It's based on the erroneous assumption that electrons are point objects, which they aren't.

Therefore the appearance of solid object in what is called reality is an illusion.

No. Solid is a definition; the fact that you don't understand the details of the definition doesn't make it undefined.

Dave

ETA: You're rather undermining your point here. The impression I'm getting is that clever people aren't the ones outsmarting themselves.

 

[IanS]

Thanks for the info. Why would I know such things? it was not required theory in my studies of electronics. I have 'city and guilds' in radio and television repairs, and a btec in microprocessors. Those qualifications do not require you to know about nuclear forces or gravity.

The point I was making was that if the nuclear forces binding atoms together was weaker we could walk though walls. Because atoms are largely empty space.

Therefore the appearance of solid object in what is called reality is an illusion.

Atoms are not "largely empty space". There is no such thing as "empty space".

That "space" is actually composed of all sorts of interacting energy fields.

That entire idea of “empty space” comes from a time before we had modern science (ie from before about 1600 onwards, from Galileo up to the present day).

What we have now discovered, from Quantum Field Theory, is that it's impossible (if all theories and measurements are correct … and there is no reason to think otherwise), even in principle, to remove all matter and energy from any region of space, ie not possible to have a true literal vacuum … no matter what you do, there always remains a minimum vacuum energy.

In fact that's why a true state of absolutely “nothing” is apparently (according to QFT) impossible.

That's also a clear example of why we should never argue from dictionary definitions. Because a lot of those dictionaries were written before modern science and at a time when the people whom complied such dictionaries were seriously unaware of how science had discovered why their dictionary definitions of words such as “nothing” were (and still are) completely misleading.

 

[David Mo]

A Philosophical Riddle

Guess who said this:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historical and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.​

First clue: He was a scientist, German, and Jewish.

 

[Darat]

Max Planck wrote a whole book on the philosophy of science, so I guess you are going to tell me that he couldn't have made any useful contribution to science.

I've read it. But your post has nothing to do with the question of mine that you quoted. These philosophers that can tell scientist a thing or two about reduction and so on, what value do they give for planck time?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"But so and so used the word philosophy to describe something what about that there smart guy?"

Yes because the word "philosophy" is ill defined nothing so vague as to be meaningless.

You can't create a term which functionally reduces down to "I'm gonna take credit for all manner of thought possible" and use that to prove something.


__________



When I was very young, very early 80s, I had relatives in the deep South, outside of my immediate family circle but who I was seen in passing n the holidays or family get togethers or whatnot, who still unironically wore the "Knowledge is bad because it can take you away from God" thing pretty openly and one their sleeve and didn't really try to hide it behind apologetics and double-speak.

 

[IanS]

I don't live inside the mind of Steven Weinberg or Sean Carroll or any other of the scientists who discuss these subjects and so I can't tell you their motivation.

But the point is that they do and if they are going to do so then it is useful to have access to how these subjects have been discussed before.

Many scientists are and have been interested in the philosophy of science, for example Einstein, Planck, Mach. Even Galileo wrote about the philosophy of science.

That's an awfully long time ago. And none of those individuals were using formal philosophy to make the contributions they made to science.

Just because you are not personally interested in a subject does not make it an invalid subject. You don't speak for science.

There is no single spokesperson for “science”. And there really is no single or official body that speaks for “science” (nobody, or body, that speaks for all of the millions of scientists all over the world).

I can tell you what my experience has been in science (from the inside for 20 years), and that is just to say that (a) I've never met any scientists (in theoretical & solid state physics) who ever even mentioned philosophers and philosophy, (b) I've certainly never met any who claimed to be practising formal philosophy rather than science, and (c) after reading tens of thousands of reserach papers in science, I don't recall a single one that listed even one reference to any earlier work/contribution from philosophers (if you look hard enough then you may of course find a few refs to something once said by some philosopher ... but it will only be "one-in-a-million").

"principles" is the term Steven Weinberg uses when addressing the subject. Nagel used "theories".

Well there is a difference between an idea such as “principles”, and what is meant in science by the term “Theory”. They are not the same idea at all.

And there is an even bigger difference between formal “philosophy” vs. what we now know as “science”.

 

[HansMustermann]

Max Planck wrote a whole book on the philosophy of science, so I guess you are going to tell me that he couldn't have made any useful contribution to science.

Scientists do all sorts of stuff in their free time. I can also tell you a couple of physicists who do standup comedy. Or a couple who wrote science fiction. That doesn't mean that standup comedy or SF did a contribution to science, nor that scientists should first check up the SF section at the library before tackling a concept, just in case Jules Verne already said something on the topic.

In fact, the idea that if X did both Y and Z, then Y confers some legitimacy to Z, or viceversa, is the topic of several textbook fallacies. Starting with the association fallacy. Although what you seem to be going for there is an argument from authority.