Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

[ynot]

Hi robinson - I appreciate your good natured, sceptical contributions on this forum and share many of your reservations and thoughts. To a relative layman, modern physics/science seems to be wandering in to the land of woo. So much of it seems to rely on abstract mathematics and impossible analogies, and precious little actual content, that one wonders how scientifically credible it is.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi robinson - I appreciate your good natured, sceptical contributions on this forum and share many of your reservations and thoughts. To a relative layman, modern physics/science seems to be wandering in to the land of woo. So much of it seems to rely on abstract mathematics and impossible analogies, and precious little actual content, that one wonders how scientifically credible it is.

I am also a sort of layman (my physics degree is 20 years in the past and never used). The mathematics used in science is not that abstract since it is closely tied with our observations. The "precious little actual content" is actually an accurate description of what we see.

 

[Klimax]

Vulcan should be capitalized.

Thanks for reminder,why not to post at 7:30 AM in a hurry...with no check before post

As for science woo-heading.For now I am between layman and scientist.I study physic(now electricity and mangetism) with intention to be in theoretical physic,so I watch this.
Dark matter is for now ONLY placeholder,until we learn more,until LHC is operating and so on.

(BTW:[bit OT] Have you ever heard about MFF UK in Prague?;Mathematic and physic faculty of "Charles univerzity"-Karlova univerzita - That is where I study...)

 

[ynot]

I am also a sort of layman (my physics degree is 20 years in the past and never used). The mathematics used in science is not that abstract since it is closely tied with our observations. The "precious little actual content" is actually an accurate description of what we see.

Mathematics is totally abstract. It can be usefully applied to reality, and be used to predict reality, but it isn’t reality and it doesn’t create it.

 

[m_huber]

Mathematics is totally abstract. It can be usefully applied to reality, and be used to predict reality, but it isn’t reality and it doesn’t create it.

But it does accurately model it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

But it does accurately model it.

Maybe thats because fundamentally reality is mathematical in nature and thus lends itself to mathematical modeling?

Just...you know..throwin' that out there... >_>

 

[ynot]

But it does accurately model it.

Always?

It also abstractly models concepts that have no actual reality. Zero for instance.

If reality is reverse engineered from abstract math, how is it known to be acurate (as in real) or abstract?

 

[Reality Check]

Always?

It also abstractly models concepts that have no actual reality. Zero for instance.

If reality is reverse engineered from abstract math, how is it known to be acurate (as in real) or abstract?

Historically it is the other way, e.g. the ancient Greeks were counting stuff (1 pot, 2 pots, 3 pots, etc.), noticed that 1, 2, 3 could be applied to anything (post, ships, toes, etc.) and separated the concept of counting numbers from the things being counted.

 

[dudalb]

Anytime somebody attacks mathmatics as a tool for modeling reality,my Woo detector starts blinking,and I wonder what their grades were in Math in college and/or high school.

 

[sol invictus]

Anytime somebody attacks mathmatics as a tool for modeling reality,my Woo detector starts blinking,and I wonder what their grades were in Math in college and/or high school.

Yeah - me too. Especially when they say things like...

It also abstractly models concepts that have no actual reality. Zero for instance.

Math is nothing but logic written symbolically. If you give it something true as an input, you get back something true as an output. If you put in garbage, you get back garbage.

That's all there is to it.

 

[m_huber]

It also abstractly models concepts that have no actual reality. Zero for instance.

You are joking, I hope? I admit that some models are inaccurate, but we know that they are inaccurate because someone tested them. Other models make predictions, which then prove to be quite accurate when tested.


As to the existence of 0 (if this is meant as a serious problem with math), how many elephants are standing on your computer right now?


As an aside, the Mayans counted up from 0 instead of 1. They held 0 in a special regard, almost to the extreme Pythagoreans held the number 10.

 

[The Atheist]

If the laws of physics are correct and the observations are correct, then there must be a lot of stuff in the universe that we can’t see.

So if there isn’t a lot of stuff out there that we can’t see, we have three possibilities:

1. The observations are wrong;
2. The laws of physics (which are themselves supported by a large body of observations) are wrong;
3. Both the observations and the laws of physics are wrong.

So, which is the least extraordinary claim: that the laws of physics are wrong, that the observations are wrong, or that there is stuff that we can’t see?

What would Occam do?

Brilliantly put. Wins this thread.

 

[ynot]

Historically it is the other way, e.g. the ancient Greeks were counting stuff (1 pot, 2 pots, 3 pots, etc.), noticed that 1, 2, 3 could be applied to anything (post, ships, toes, etc.) and separated the concept of counting numbers from the things being counted.

Wasn’t questioning math per se, just the way it sometimes appears to be used. Seems to me that some conclusions are entirely the result of abstract math, yet these conclusions seem to be readily accepted as being actual reality. If a conclusion is purely mathematical, how is it known if it’s actual or abstract?

 

[CFLarsen]

If the laws of physics are correct and the observations are correct, then there must be a lot of stuff in the universe that we can’t see.

So if there isn’t a lot of stuff out there that we can’t see, we have three possibilities:

1. The observations are wrong;
2. The laws of physics (which are themselves supported by a large body of observations) are wrong;
3. Both the observations and the laws of physics are wrong.

So, which is the least extraordinary claim: that the laws of physics are wrong, that the observations are wrong, or that there is stuff that we can’t see?

What would Occam do?

There's a gaping hole in that argument.

And I use that phrase deliberately, because you left out a crucial factor.

Let's say we want to examine marine life. What do we do? Well, we can look at what is washed up on the shores, but maybe not everything is washed up. We can also send down divers, but they can only go so far down before they die, and we have a sneaking suspicion that life close to the surface might be different from deep sea life. So, we gotta investigate all layers in the ocean.

Aha! Those fishermen have a pretty good way: They use nets! Let's do that, too.

So, we come up with a lot of specimens. We come to the conclusion that there are both fish and mammals in the oceans. Wow! There's also a lot of sea weed. OK, that's maybe not so big a deal. And all animals are bigger than 5 cm. Cool!

The observations are not wrong. There is nothing against the laws of physics that says anything about the size of animals. So, no ocean animal is smaller than 5 cm.

What was the crucial factor you left out?

 

[Reality Check]

Wasn’t questioning math per se, just the way it sometimes appears to be used. Seems to me that some conclusions are entirely the result of abstract math, yet these conclusions seem to be readily accepted as being actual reality. If a conclusion is purely mathematical, how is it known if it’s actual or abstract?

You need to tell us what you conside to be "abstract math". Do you consider "E=mc²" to be abstract?
Or are you really talking about the role of mathematics in the scientific method, e.g.:

1. A set of observations exists.
2. A hypothesis is create to explain the observations. This involves constructing a mathematical model.
3. The mathematical model is used to make testable predictions.
4. The predictions are confirmed by further observations (upgrade the hypothesis to a theory and go back to step 3) or proved false (go back to step 2).

 

[m_huber]

There's a gaping hole in that argument.

And I use that phrase deliberately, because you left out a crucial factor.

Let's say we want to examine marine life. What do we do? Well, we can look at what is washed up on the shores, but maybe not everything is washed up. We can also send down divers, but they can only go so far down before they die, and we have a sneaking suspicion that life close to the surface might be different from deep sea life. So, we gotta investigate all layers in the ocean.

Aha! Those fishermen have a pretty good way: They use nets! Let's do that, too.

So, we come up with a lot of specimens. We come to the conclusion that there are both fish and mammals in the oceans. Wow! There's also a lot of sea weed. OK, that's maybe not so big a deal. And all animals are bigger than 5 cm. Cool!

The observations are not wrong. There is nothing against the laws of physics that says anything about the size of animals. So, no ocean animal is smaller than 5 cm.

What was the crucial factor you left out?

Scientists used to think that life did not exist beneath the photic zone. Then they dredged deep sea sediments, and they found organisms. In your example, the problem is that the observations are not complete.

 

[sol invictus]

The observations are not wrong. There is nothing against the laws of physics that says anything about the size of animals. So, no ocean animal is smaller than 5 cm.

That's a "negative" claim - one which can be disproven with a single counterexample. Such claims are extremely difficult to establish, because you must test and rule out all possible counterexamples.

The existence of DM is a positive claim. If is far easier to establish, and in fact it already has been by multiple lines of independent evidence - including the direct observation of its gravitational lensing effects.

Look - there is a (reasonably) unambiguous mathematical formalism for handling this question of what is extraordinary and what is not. You can take either a Bayesian or frequentist approach, but they both give the same result - DM is by far the least extraordinary theory we have. Until or unless someone comes up with an alternative, it will remain so.

 

[SezMe]

Everything we know, everything we can detect, is only 5% of the entire Universe! - Extraordinary claim!

20% of the Universe is something we can't see or detect, that doesn't obey the laws of physics, except it has mass, but passes through everything, including itself, and leaves no trace. - Extraordinary claim!

75% of the Universe is energy that defies known laws of physics, it negates gravity, can't be detected, and causes the entire Universe to go faster, with no known source for the energy involved in causing that! - Extraordinary claim!!!

I'm stating that those are, all considered, an Extraordinary claim.

I reject that.

How long have we been using telescopes? A few hundred years. How long has a well codified scientific method been actively used. A few hundred years.

And you think that it is surprising that we are discovering new "stuff". That is an extraordinary view.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Hi robinson - I appreciate your good natured, sceptical contributions on this forum and share many of your reservations and thoughts. To a relative layman, modern physics/science seems to be wandering in to the land of woo. So much of it seems to rely on abstract mathematics and impossible analogies, and precious little actual content, that one wonders how scientifically credible it is.

I find it so ironic that you could possibly make such a statement using a piece of technology that is based directly upon that supposedly "woo-physics/science"...

For the record, the science of quantum mechanics (which we used to make computers, etc) is extremely mathematical in nature. But, seeing as how you made such an inane statement using a computer, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

May I suggest ditching the Internet all together and sticking with smoke signals from now on?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Wasn’t questioning math per se, just the way it sometimes appears to be used. Seems to me that some conclusions are entirely the result of abstract math, yet these conclusions seem to be readily accepted as being actual reality. If a conclusion is purely mathematical, how is it known if it’s actual or abstract?

Here's a good example. You can use the laws of physics to predict the orbit of the Space Shuttle and ISS, and using those predictions you can plan a rendezvouz in low-Earth orbit between the two. We do this all the time. Seems pretty "actual" to me...