From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(24-09-2013 06:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  An equation alone is not evidence that something exists. Do we all agree?

Yes.

It is the validity of the predictions arising thereof that lend it credence.

(24-09-2013 06:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  George Bush saw and knew of intelligence reports that stated that Hussein didn't have WMD, he and others on his staff chose to not promote the view that Hussein did have WMD. This is called lying you stupid mother fucker.

George Bush saw and knew of intelligence reports that stated that Hussein did have WMD, he and others on his staff chose to promote the view that Hussein did have WMD. This is called you should really talk to the JREF if you can read minds in the past.

(24-09-2013 06:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  Any explanation has to how a hypothesis (which was stated before as someone else that can be biased) becomes an unbiased conclusion. Someone mentioned peer review, which begs the question why peer review is necessary when earlier in another thread of mine, you guys were insisting that fact was not based at all on belief. Why is a consensus needed when according to you guys a fact is a fact no matter what.

Yet again, you utterly misunderstand the scientific method. Consensus is the best method for determining what, if any, of our current ideas form a better representation of reality. They are then assumed to have been the better representations even when we did not think so. These are elementary school science class fundamentals.

...

Protip: quantum mechanics is true.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(24-09-2013 06:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 06:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  An equation alone is not evidence that something exists. Do we all agree?

Yes.

It is the validity of the predictions arising thereof that lend it credence.

(24-09-2013 06:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  George Bush saw and knew of intelligence reports that stated that Hussein didn't have WMD, he and others on his staff chose to not promote the view that Hussein did have WMD. This is called lying you stupid mother fucker.

George Bush saw and knew of intelligence reports that stated that Hussein did have WMD, he and others on his staff chose to promote the view that Hussein did have WMD. This is called you should really talk to the JREF if you can read minds in the past.

(24-09-2013 06:27 PM)I and I Wrote:  Any explanation has to how a hypothesis (which was stated before as someone else that can be biased) becomes an unbiased conclusion. Someone mentioned peer review, which begs the question why peer review is necessary when earlier in another thread of mine, you guys were insisting that fact was not based at all on belief. Why is a consensus needed when according to you guys a fact is a fact no matter what.

Yet again, you utterly misunderstand the scientific method. Consensus is the best method for determining what, if any, of our current ideas form a better representation of reality. They are then assumed to have been the better representations even when we did not think so. These are elementary school science class fundamentals.

...

Protip: quantum mechanics is true.

Is a peer review necessary to make something valid? If so then why? Isn't something true regardless of the peer review? YES OR NO.

And no, an equation alone is not scientific, it has to be validated on whether it's predictions lead to a true statement, not on its predictions alone, believing a prediction based on a prediction alone is called faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:09 PM
Re: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
"from where are scientific hypotheses made." To "George Bush and weapons of mass destruction."

Of course.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(24-09-2013 07:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  Is a peer review necessary to make something valid? If so then why? Isn't something true regardless of the peer review? YES OR NO.

So, that part there, where I literally just answered that question... not gonna read that?

Nobody can know anything with absolute certainty. Peer review and consensus are our best methods for determining anything about the world.

The conclusions reached by those means are assumed true regardless of those means. This is necessarily so, because naturalistic uniformitarianism is foundational to the scientific method.

(24-09-2013 07:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  And no, an equation alone is not scientific, it has to be validated on whether it's predictions lead to a true statement, not on its predictions alone, believing a prediction based on a prediction alone is called faith.

Yes.

I literally just said that, too.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:13 PM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2013 07:38 PM by cjlr.)
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
I and I - I'd also love to hear your thoughts re: quantum theory. I feel as though several days to digest the summary I presented here would be enough for a preliminary reaction.

...

That is to say, I'm worried that you may not yet understand. The towering edifice of willful ignorance and sheer stubborn denial you have constructed within what might once upon a time have been a thinking, functional mind does not seem like it would break down easily.

Let us continue forwards in time. One of the most important and profound experiments ever performed is the Stern-Gerlach experiment. This constituted very strong evidence for quantization of angular momentum.

Silver ions have a single active electron, which is responsible for their most obvious properties. Because they have the same electric charge, they have the same rough interaction in magnetic fields – according to the description of the Lorentz interaction, the deflection of a charged particle in an inhomogeneous magnetic field (again, let us know if you need help with the longer words) is proportional to its charge and its velocity. By controlling the beam of particles, velocity is constant, and then deflection is determined by charge.

However, based on the new theories of quantization, it was known that angular momentum was quantized. This means that the motion of the electron about the nucleus could only exist in certain spatial arrangements. The angular momentum of an electron (or any charged particle) causes it to have a magnetic moment. This is a consequence of Maxwell's laws; a change in charge distribution (such as a moving charge) causes a magnetic effect. Crudely, a particle such as an electron (with a constant charge!) is either more or less magnetic, depending on how it moves.

Therefore, assuming no angular momentum, the silver ions would all impact the same place on the detector – because they would have exactly the same magnetic interaction, and every one of them would traverse the same path through the external magnetic field before reaching the detector in the same spot. (the beam would of course diffuse slightly due to inter-particle effects, but one thing at a time!)

If, instead, they had classical angular momentum – that is to say, a continuous angular momentum distribution, they would display a normal distribution about the neutral point, and present a spectrum to the detector: the most common magnetic moment would be effectively "neutral", and there would be steadily fewer farther reaching the detector away from that point, to the extremes of the distribution at totally positive and totally negative angular momentum, according to the field axis (ie, the axis of measurement).

If, however, angular momentum were quantized – that is, existed at discrete values only, as predicted by and predicated on quantum theory, then the ions would only possess one of several discrete magnetic moments, and their deflection through the field would result in one of several discrete paths, producing discrete spots on the detector.

What was the result? What data was obtained? The third scenario. This experiment, and subsequent revisions and improvements, have been performed for the past 91 years, and the third assumption has predicted and explained the results of every. single. trial. This is among the most incontrovertible scientific observations ever made.

And that, little I and I, is where quantum comes from.

It was this result which was key to the final formulation of modern quantum theory by Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, and others in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The technological progress resulting from these theories is incalculable, but suffice to say all modern technology is utterly concomitant. Some of which, incidentally, you may have occasionally found useful.

Now, it is that time again: you may either accept the reality that is comprehensively in evidence in front of you, or you may deny it in favour of self-absorbed denialist fantasy. I look forward to your response.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:43 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
So we all agree that making a hypothesis can be bias toward ones social upbringing.

Now the end of a scientific statement ends with more humans making a consensus (voting) on whether or not something is true. So we go from bias source to a conclusion that can also be biased. What is science based on? Truth? Fact?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:49 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(24-09-2013 07:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  So we all agree that making a hypothesis can be bias toward ones social upbringing.

Sure. Can the results of experiment be biased?

Unless we say 'no', we cannot learn anything. Ever.

(24-09-2013 07:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  Now the end of a scientific statement ends with more humans making a consensus (voting) on whether or not something is true.

And, then, treating that as though it were true independent of that consensus. This very simple process seems beyond your comprehension for reasons I cannot possibly fathom.

(24-09-2013 07:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  So we go from bias source to a conclusion that can also be biased. What is science based on? Truth? Fact?

If you're going somewhere with this (evidence suggests no, an eminently testable prediction) then please, for the love of God, go there faster.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 07:58 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Why would you treat something as true independent of a consensus if you feel that a consensus is needed?

The consensus can't be said to be based in fact when the point of the consensus is to come to a conclusion about a fact, to validate a fact. So what is this consensus based on?

Do these scientists based on past validations make a belief statement and by consensus believe x to be true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 08:01 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
(24-09-2013 07:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  Why would you treat something as true independent of a consensus if you feel that a consensus is needed?

Because you need to have something to base predictions on.

Do I need to explain the scientific method to you again?

Your refusal to understand (and yes, it is obviously an act) boggles the mind.

(24-09-2013 07:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  The consensus can't be said to be based in fact when the point of the consensus is to come to a conclusion about a fact, to validate a fact. So what is this consensus based on?

Oh, just a trifling little thing you may have heard of. Once or twice. I would hope.

(24-09-2013 07:58 PM)I and I Wrote:  Do these scientists based on past validations make a belief statement and by consensus believe x to be true?

Seriously. Whatever sort of weaksauce non-conclusion you're flailing towards, get there faster.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: From where are scientific hypothesis made?
Yes it boggles my mind that a hypothesis which can be biased ends in a consensus which also can be biased is somehow considered WAY better than a crack pot religious method.

Philosophy has pointed out these and other problems in the scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: