From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-09-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
My prediction of I&I's observation of Raptor Jesus' example post:

* TL;DR
* Move goalposts
* Ask totally unrelated question

All that without any cultural bias too.

[Image: ae1n9c.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like LostLocke's post
17-09-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 11:13 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  So I did say I was done with you and your inane need to prove hypotheses wrong (even as I write that out it makes even less sense). But I will make a few last points.

The following are some examples of hypotheses about matter in the world “and space” (odd that you feel the need to include “and space”) based on equations.

Neptune’s existence was predicted by equations, prior to having ever directly observing it by telescope. At the time the Newtonian physics of gravity accounted perfectly for the orbits of the planets (save mercury, but we will return to that). However astronomers did discovered small irregularities in the path of Uranus’s orbit that they could not yet explain entirely by Newton’s law of gravitation. However they realized that these irregularities could be accounted for if there was another planet farther out than Uranus that made small gravitation tugs on Uranus. Using Newton’s gravitational equations, astronomers were able to predict the exact location of the undiscovered planet if it in fact existed. Because of this hypothesis, based on mathematical equations, astronomers knew where to look for the unknown planet and found exactly what they were looking for exactly where these equations predicted it to exist and it had exactly the properties that their equations implied it would have. Instead of the Newtonian law of gravitation being unable to make predictions of Uranus’s orbit, it turns out it is so accurate at predicting its orbit that they were able to discover a new unseen planet. That’s impressive.

Scientist did not want there to be another planet. They did not not want there to be another planet either. They simply made observations of reality, and calculated the implications of those observations, compared them to reality through experiment to discover something new. No cultural bias, no wishful thinking, simply observations of reality.

It was noted that there were small irregularities in the path of mercury’s orbit that couldn’t be described at the time by Newtonian physics. Due to the success of the discovery of Neptune they hypothesized that something similar was going on with Mercury. They hypothesized that there must be another small planet orbiting near the sun, close to Mercury’s orbit, that was responsible for the unusual orbit. However, no calculations could make sense of where another planet must be. Astronomers were reluctant to give up the hypothesis that there was another planet because they had no good alternatives and it had worked so well in explaining Uranus’s orbit, and because Newtonian’s laws proved so accurate. They figured they simply need to keep reworking the calculations until they discover it’s location.

Einstein, unconcerned with Mercury’s orbit, focused on the implications of two other observations, two other hypotheses. That there is no absolute motion, and that the speed of light is fixed. The details of what this implied is more explanation that is needed here, but one byproduct of it is a more accurate depictions of gravitational theory and in addition to accurately explain mercury’s orbit. In fact Einstein equations accurately predict all of Newton’s physics, also expand upon them. The hypothesis that there was another small planet orbiting the sun near mercury was abandoned as Einstein’s equation accurately accounted for its orbits.

Hypotheses are not belief systems, or ideology. One can certainly make a hypothesis based on their ideology and belief system. Creationist and Intelligent design proponents do it all the time. But in the end they have to be supported by observations of reality, facts and evidence. Scientist didn’t “want” there to be another planet near Uranus, it’s just that the evidence showed it to be true. Scientist didn’t “want” there to be a planet near mercury, it’s just that the evidence suggested it, could not be shown to be true and was later over turned by another theory they had not “wanted” to be true, but simply turned out to be the case regardless of any “wants” or not.

To be clear when I say scientist didn’t “want” these things, that’s not to say they were against them. It means they did not simply make up the existence of things just because they wanted more planets, or wanted it be that way for some reason. They followed the line of evidence and the universe reveled itself through the means of carful observations and calculations.

Just as scientist did not “want” there to have been a “big bang”. Some mocked this idea as reeking of creationism. The name “big bang” was coined by a scientist to deride it. In the end 99.99% of all astronomers accept it as true because the evidence does not simply support it, but leaves no other realistic alternative. Scientist do not believe these things because they want to, but because it’s what the overwhelming evidence suggest and shows to be true.

Copernicus did not want the sun to be the center of the solar system. He was a very religious man and desperately wanted to account for the earth being the center of it. That was his cultural, religious bias, but in the end it didn’t matter what his bias was, he could not change the implications of the evidence and had to accept them regardless of his desires to find a way to affix the earth at the center of the universe.

Hypotheses come and go. It does not matter so much what they are or how they are derived, it’s the evidence and observations of reality that matter, and yes predictive mathematical equations too.

In the end, reality wins the argument, not personal theology.

Me and you agree that an equation is not evidence. However much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics.

What you described was using equations that were based on observations that led to an equation which led to another observation confirming the equation. Nothing wrong with that method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 02:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 11:13 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  So I did say I was done with you and your inane need to prove hypotheses wrong (even as I write that out it makes even less sense). But I will make a few last points.

The following are some examples of hypotheses about matter in the world “and space” (odd that you feel the need to include “and space”) based on equations.

Neptune’s existence was predicted by equations, prior to having ever directly observing it by telescope. At the time the Newtonian physics of gravity accounted perfectly for the orbits of the planets (save mercury, but we will return to that). However astronomers did discovered small irregularities in the path of Uranus’s orbit that they could not yet explain entirely by Newton’s law of gravitation. However they realized that these irregularities could be accounted for if there was another planet farther out than Uranus that made small gravitation tugs on Uranus. Using Newton’s gravitational equations, astronomers were able to predict the exact location of the undiscovered planet if it in fact existed. Because of this hypothesis, based on mathematical equations, astronomers knew where to look for the unknown planet and found exactly what they were looking for exactly where these equations predicted it to exist and it had exactly the properties that their equations implied it would have. Instead of the Newtonian law of gravitation being unable to make predictions of Uranus’s orbit, it turns out it is so accurate at predicting its orbit that they were able to discover a new unseen planet. That’s impressive.

Scientist did not want there to be another planet. They did not not want there to be another planet either. They simply made observations of reality, and calculated the implications of those observations, compared them to reality through experiment to discover something new. No cultural bias, no wishful thinking, simply observations of reality.

It was noted that there were small irregularities in the path of mercury’s orbit that couldn’t be described at the time by Newtonian physics. Due to the success of the discovery of Neptune they hypothesized that something similar was going on with Mercury. They hypothesized that there must be another small planet orbiting near the sun, close to Mercury’s orbit, that was responsible for the unusual orbit. However, no calculations could make sense of where another planet must be. Astronomers were reluctant to give up the hypothesis that there was another planet because they had no good alternatives and it had worked so well in explaining Uranus’s orbit, and because Newtonian’s laws proved so accurate. They figured they simply need to keep reworking the calculations until they discover it’s location.

Einstein, unconcerned with Mercury’s orbit, focused on the implications of two other observations, two other hypotheses. That there is no absolute motion, and that the speed of light is fixed. The details of what this implied is more explanation that is needed here, but one byproduct of it is a more accurate depictions of gravitational theory and in addition to accurately explain mercury’s orbit. In fact Einstein equations accurately predict all of Newton’s physics, also expand upon them. The hypothesis that there was another small planet orbiting the sun near mercury was abandoned as Einstein’s equation accurately accounted for its orbits.

Hypotheses are not belief systems, or ideology. One can certainly make a hypothesis based on their ideology and belief system. Creationist and Intelligent design proponents do it all the time. But in the end they have to be supported by observations of reality, facts and evidence. Scientist didn’t “want” there to be another planet near Uranus, it’s just that the evidence showed it to be true. Scientist didn’t “want” there to be a planet near mercury, it’s just that the evidence suggested it, could not be shown to be true and was later over turned by another theory they had not “wanted” to be true, but simply turned out to be the case regardless of any “wants” or not.

To be clear when I say scientist didn’t “want” these things, that’s not to say they were against them. It means they did not simply make up the existence of things just because they wanted more planets, or wanted it be that way for some reason. They followed the line of evidence and the universe reveled itself through the means of carful observations and calculations.

Just as scientist did not “want” there to have been a “big bang”. Some mocked this idea as reeking of creationism. The name “big bang” was coined by a scientist to deride it. In the end 99.99% of all astronomers accept it as true because the evidence does not simply support it, but leaves no other realistic alternative. Scientist do not believe these things because they want to, but because it’s what the overwhelming evidence suggest and shows to be true.

Copernicus did not want the sun to be the center of the solar system. He was a very religious man and desperately wanted to account for the earth being the center of it. That was his cultural, religious bias, but in the end it didn’t matter what his bias was, he could not change the implications of the evidence and had to accept them regardless of his desires to find a way to affix the earth at the center of the universe.

Hypotheses come and go. It does not matter so much what they are or how they are derived, it’s the evidence and observations of reality that matter, and yes predictive mathematical equations too.

In the end, reality wins the argument, not personal theology.

Me and you agree that an equation is not evidence. However much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics.

What you described was using equations that were based on observations that led to an equation which led to another observation confirming the equation. Nothing wrong with that method.

Then explain why did they build the LHC? for the lulz?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
17-09-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 02:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  Me and you agree that an equation is not evidence. However much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics.

What you described was using equations that were based on observations that led to an equation which led to another observation confirming the equation. Nothing wrong with that method.

"I can't see quantum mechanics, therefore it doesn't exist". That's a new low even for you.




... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-09-2013, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2013 03:53 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 02:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  ...much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics...

That's why they built the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Scientist may be able to show that something must exist through equations, such as with Neptune, but do not claim to have found it until they can prove it's existence. The existence of the higgs boson was shown by equations to be something that must exist, because it was the only thing that fit the data (the observed observations) but scientist cannot claim it's actually a real thing until they to the experiment and prove it. They can continue to use the equations based on it until then, as they are still the only equations that work. But prove it is exactly what the LHC did. They don't stop at equations. The built the largest, most complicated and intricate piece of machinery ever constructed in order to test it's existence along with a great many other test of quantum physics.

There are a great number of test that have been replicated repeatedly. Hell, your GPS in your car or on your cell phone validates aspects of quantum physics every time you use it. Just because you don't understand what is going on, doesn't mean that some how makes you correct. Pick up a book and learn something...seriously. And just because religious types don't understand quantum theory doesn't mean that they then somehow understand it. I promise, if this is the best argument you can make, you do not know quantum theory. One should be embarassed to speak about things they know nothing about, and so should you.

Pick up a book, they are free to borrow at the library.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2013 04:23 PM by I and I.)
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 03:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 02:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  Me and you agree that an equation is not evidence. However much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics.

What you described was using equations that were based on observations that led to an equation which led to another observation confirming the equation. Nothing wrong with that method.

"I can't see quantum mechanics, therefore it doesn't exist". That's a new low even for you.




And you are the one that maintains that George Bush did not lie about Iraqs WMD..... that is fucking retard.

Are you implying that it is crazy to want observable evidence for something? Again, this site has the shittiest atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 03:35 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 02:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  ...much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics...

That's why they built the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Scientist may be able to show that something must exist through equations, such as with Neptune, but do not claim to have found it until they can prove it's existence. The existence of the higgs boson was shown by equations to be something that must exist, because it was the only thing that fit the data (the observed observations) but scientist cannot claim it's actually a real thing until they to the experiment and prove it. They can continue to use the equations based on it until then, as they are still the only equations that work. But prove it is exactly what the LHC did. They don't stop at equations. The built the largest, most complicated and intricate piece of machinery ever constructed in order to test it's existence along with a great many other test of quantum physics.

There are a great number of test that have been replicated repeatedly. Hell, your GPS in your car or on your cell phone validates aspects of quantum physics every time you use it. Just because you don't understand what is going on, doesn't mean that some how makes you correct. Pick up a book and learn something...seriously. And just because religious types don't understand quantum theory doesn't mean that they then somehow understand it. I promise, if this is the best argument you can make, you do not know quantum theory. One should be embarassed to speak about things they know nothing about, and so should you.

Pick up a book, they are free to borrow at the library.


Wait, I agreed with you and then you disagreed with my agreeing with you. Are you now changing your stance?

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 04:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(17-09-2013 03:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "I can't see quantum mechanics, therefore it doesn't exist". That's a new low even for you.




And you are the one that maintains that George Bush did not lie about Iraqs WMD..... that is fucking retard.

Are you implying that it is crazy to want observable evidence for something? Again, this site has the shittiest atheists.

Fine, go somewhere else for better ones. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-09-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 04:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  And you are the one that maintains that George Bush did not lie about Iraqs WMD..... that is fucking retard.

Ah, yes! Because that is relevant.

Incidentally, and as you well recall, I didn't make that claim. I've found it's beyond my ability to know exactly what certain other people knew and thought 11 years ago. You don't seem to have that problem!

You should talk to the JREF; there's a million dollars there with your name on it.

(17-09-2013 04:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  Are you implying that it is crazy to want observable evidence for something? Again, this site has the shittiest atheists.

Are you under the delusional impression that there isn't observable evidence for the predictions of quantum mechanics?

[Image: 57029.jpg]

This site has the shittiest trolls.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
17-09-2013, 04:53 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(17-09-2013 04:21 PM)I and I Wrote:  Me and you agree that an equation is not evidence. However much of modern science today is equation based and equation driven, if x is true then y or z is possible (quantum physics). Quantum physics/mechanics says " hey we have these equations that show x exists however this x is so far away that you will never be able to see it". That is complete garbage and not scientific at all. Which is why the new age religious peeps love quantum physics.


(17-09-2013 03:35 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  ...Pick up a book and learn something...seriously. And just because religious types don't understand quantum theory doesn't mean that they then somehow understand it. I promise, if this is the best argument you can make, you do not know quantum theory. One should be embarassed to speak about things they know nothing about, and so should you.

Pick up a book, they are free to borrow at the library.

(17-09-2013 04:21 PM)I and I Wrote:  Wait, I agreed with you and then you disagreed with my agreeing with you. Are you now changing your stance?

I take that back, don't bother going to the library. You obviously don't know how to read, not even what you yourself wrote.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: