• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When to "stop" doing science?

I less than three logic said:
Is it a recent development where people think any picture with some lines, some points, and some words make that picture a graph? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Nope, but it is one (you prove it) where people don't read, or forget they've read, where I addressed this silly sidetrack complaint, in full, already.
 
Spindrift said:
Simple. When
tolerance = banana

I know some might argue that tolerance = iguanadon, but they would be wrong.

Makes as much sense as his graph.
Click to expand...

Actually, consider the science of flipping coins. Keep track of the % heads over time. It can go above the Truth (P(Heads) = .5) and below quite easily.
 
rwp said:
T'ai Chi - Science is never satisfied, questioning established theories, always looking for mistakes.
Click to expand...

Right, that is not in dispute. But surely you don't doubt gravity. So at what point did we decide that the theory is good and no serious further tests need to be done to verify or not disprove it?
 
When do you decide that you have enough evidence to suggest P(heads) = .5?

Surely you don't just say 'well....I'll flip indefinitely'! Or do you?
 
Judging from your graph, it appears you carried on for far longer than was necessary to figure out that the probability of a coin coming up heads is 0.5. In fact the fact that you bothered to do it at all shows that you did more than was necessary, in the absence of any possible mechanism for making the coin more likely to land one way up than the other.

But what's this got to do with stopping doing science?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Right, that is not in dispute. But surely you don't doubt gravity. So at what point did we decide that the theory is good and no serious further tests need to be done to verify or not disprove it?
Click to expand...

Einstein found that Newton's gravity theory wasn't accurate enough and continued researching and looking for the truth about the universe. Gravity, Relativity, and any other discoveries are constantly put to the test. That's the way science works. Either the theory continues to be valid and stands up to tests and predictions or it is thrown out and refined. There is constant testing; one is not satisfied.
 
Do you hold out pencils and drop them to see if the theory of gravity still holds?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Do you hold out pencils and drop them to see if the theory of gravity still holds?
Click to expand...

Gravity calculations are in use everyday to send rockets into orbit. The formulas have helped us predict when eclipses will occur (reference).

If at some point they fail - if we start floating in air, we'll have to continue looking at the world around us and maybe some new definitions will pop us to explain what is happening.

Science is not a set of beliefs. It's a method of examining. Our discoveries and theories and laws using the scentific method will change to match the way the universe behaves.

Perhaps you really want to know when things become defined as "Theories" or "Laws"

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

It doesn't mean that they still aren't subject to testing - they are constantly put to the test.
 
T'ai Chi said:
When do you decide that you have enough evidence to suggest P(heads) = .5?
Click to expand...

If this question were answered, would it answer your "general" question?

If not, then what's the point in answering it?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Right, that is not in dispute. But surely you don't doubt gravity. So at what point did we decide that the theory is good and no serious further tests need to be done to verify or not disprove it?
Click to expand...

Which theory? How good?

I don't doubt that masses tend to attract. I don't doubt that the force gets weaker with distance, stronger with mass.

But that's not nearly as much as I'd like to know.

The current theories are acceptable for their scales, for the following reasons:

1. The math works.
2. When we assume the theory and act on it, we get the results predicted.
3. It works on vast scales, without exception.
4. There are no competing models.
5. Perhaps the most important point, when we extrapolate from these theories, we develop new theories which also work to the same degree of certainty.

Let's take perhaps a better example -- the atomic model. Using the atomic model -- the basic stuff, with the 3 fundamental particles in their relative locations with their most well-known properties -- it is possible to understand chemistry, and chemistry works like it's supposed to all the time. So does electromagnetism. Our entire moderns lives depend on that fact every moment of every day. In fact, so did our primitive lives. On top of that, experimentation shows it to be so without exception.

There is no alternative.

But if you're looking for that bright line -- like the bright line between the atmosphere and outer space, or between the 2 dialects of ancient days and the 2 languages of modern times -- you are not going to find it.

But looking for it is not only a fool's errand, it is also a pointless one. Because there can be no doubt that my house is inside the Earth's atmosphere, that English is not a dialect of French, or that atomic chemistry is sound.

What do you hope to gain from seeking for this imaginary line, anyway?

That's not a rhetorical question -- I'd really like to know.
 
In every area of science the more we learn the more we realize we don't know. Take the atom for instance, originally called that because it was thought to be the smallest particle but we learn atoms are made of protons neutrons and electrons and then that there are smaller particles still. In your case of the pencil dropping, I am pretty sure no one is studying pencils dropping however we still don't understand gravity.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Actually, consider the science of flipping coins. Keep track of the % heads over time. It can go above the Truth (P(Heads) = .5) and below quite easily.
Click to expand...
Is Newtonian Mechanics above or below the Truth? By how much? How would you have known whether to tolerate it or not? Is it still tolerable?

What about Darwinism? Above or below? By how much?
 
hgc said:
Is Newtonian Mechanics above or below the Truth? By how much? How would you have known whether to tolerate it or not? Is it still tolerable?

What about Darwinism? Above or below? By how much?
Click to expand...
What, haven't you been listening?

Flip a coin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom