I’ve managed to get into a maybe one day argument again. It looks like a discussion with Matt, but really it’s a maybe one day argument. I suspect I’ll be having them for the rest of my life.
I wonder if it’s more about a different way of thinking, than a difference of opinion. I’ve never had a maybe one day discussion with anyone from a science background. That might have relevance.
See it’s really not about a difference of opinion at all. Because I don’t see there being any opinion involved. Which is also relvent, as those putting forward maybe one day points of view often claim that it’s all about differing opinions.
Let’s say it is.
I’ll quote Richard Dawkins
“When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.”
The ‘argument’ is about the speed of light one day maybe being broken. Again (I get into this argument a lot)
Now let’s start off assuming either side could be wrong. That leaves us with two possibilities
- The speed of light will never be broken
- The speed of light will maybe one day be broken.
Now if this was a differance of opinion either side could equally be right. But it’s not. So one side is at the very least more wrong than the other
- Lots of scientific proof and supporting evidence (including the fact the universe is working) that the speed of light is a constant
NothingA few odd things we don’t understand that may or may not be related to the speed of light
So if we were to be generous and assign 1% to the speed of light being broken (i.e. not constant) then I’m still more likely to be right by near on two orders of magnitude. And that’s being really generous. The reality is that number (1) significantly outweighs number (2) by such a large order that number (2) is deemed false.
In fact the crux of the maybe one day is that whilst (1) appears to be correct, based on past experience we cannot dismiss (2) as ever being zero.
Which sounds true, but is also false, because if we could apply an “Reductio ad absurdum” argument and I can then say
Maybe one day we will prove that we will never be able to exceed the speed of light
Which holds true if we accept maybe one day arguments, which is then clearly false as it conducts the maybe one day argument, thereby showing that maybe one day arguments are not proof of anything.
And if you followed that all I’m really impressed.
The crux is, that “maybe one day” is a statement, not a truth.
It has nothing to do with being open minded, having a healthy scepticism and nothing to do with science.
“maybe one day we will exceed the speed of light” has no more meaning than “maybe one day we wont exceed the speed of light”.
Both can’t be true. Hence one must be.
I’m backing the one with all the science behind it.
1. Destructor
But we’re not dicussing the “maybe one day” argument. We’re discussing an article in which two scientists claim to have broken the speed of light using quantum tunnelling. You dismissed the claim based on your complete faith in the idea that the speed of light simply can’t be broken, cause that’s a law of physics. All Matt and I are saying is that this is the intellectual equivalent of explaining a Mach 3 jet to a scientist from 1910 only to be told that you’re mistaken because as everyone knows man could not survive travelling faster than sound. Or what every scientist and his dog said to Einstein when he tried to explain relativity to them: that flies in the face of physics as we understand it.
We’re saying we are open to the possibility of mankind’s knowledge being expanded and altered beyond what we currently know. This is the driving force behind science. You’re saying you already know it all and we can’t possibly be wrong. History is littered with people who thought like this: they were all wrong. I’m not saying you are wrong, in fact I agree with you! I’m saying it’s actually the definition of hubris to just assume that what we understand to be the truth simply must be the truth- especially as New Scientist is publishing articles saying there is now some room for doubt.
d
2. Adrian
We had stopped discussing that ages back. We then moved onto the philosophy of science and if a presumption about what is possible in the future is worth more or less than hard science.
W.R.T the original article about the speed of light, I stated
I dismissed the claim based on seeing no evidence that the speed of light had been broken.
I never once said we know it all.
I continually (and I have stuck to this for many years now) have said
“There are things that we do know”
Not it all. But a section of it all we must know. And the stuff we know falls under the stuff where proof and observation and all the science add up.
History is littered with people who thought that they could turn lead into gold, and that ether existed and atoms didn’t. History is filled with people believing in things regardless of the proof in front of them.
What I keep hearing is that no matter what proof I show you that we can’t exceed the speed of light, you’ll still believe that maybe one day we can. That’s not science.
I keep stating, show me proof that the rules we know to be are true are wrong, don’t tell me that maybe one day we’ll find this proof. There is a massive difference between the two.
Articles about room for doubt are not the same as proof either.
And even for example if we find we can break the rules for very short periods of time (as we can do in other areas of physics), this doesn’t disprove any of rules on the speed of light being constant, it just adds to them. And based on those rules, man will never accelerate mass (i.e. us) to or beyond the speed of light. And there are zero proofs that show this to be possible.
I never argued against room for doubt. I argued against lack of any sort of proof against a big body of proof.
3. Matt
I also actually never argued that the speed of light wasn’t a constant (that has been pretty much categorically proven) or that we’d break the “light barrier” by traveling faster (or indeed anywhere near) the speed of light.
And the guys who tried that quantum tunneling thing weren’t actually trying to exceed the speed of light either, but move something between two points instantaneously, not at speeds greater than C, but at infinite speed.
I’m more of the opinion that given the fact that all current scientific knowledge is, in fact, correct, that one day we will travel from one point to another faster than light can travel between those two points. Not by traveling faster than light, but by some heretofore unknown method such as “folding space” or wormholes or some such science-fictioney method.
There are numerous proofs that state that it requires more energy than is contained within the entire universe to accelerate something (of even negligible mass) up to or beyond the speed of light. The speed of light exists as it is the fastest speed that anything can travel at, and light having almost zero mass, this is the barrier is comes up against as it moves through space.
There is, however, no proofs that I am aware of (correct me if I’m wrong, please) that space cannot indeed be “folded” (space is curved, yes?) so that one can travel between two points instantaneously. If one travels instantaneously, no “light barrier” has been broken.
Or something like that. I really should have paid more attention in physics.
4. Adrian
Ok, I don’t want to get too hung up on the speed of light thing here, as that was more our email discussion. I more am trying to point out how I think “I saw it in science fiction so maybe one day it will be possible” is not the same as “science says it can’t be” (e.g. tranporters ala star trek)
On the speed of light, the folding of space/wormholes etc is still effectively exceeding the speed of light. By getting somewhere faster than light can get there you are breaking causality.
See my blog on this titled Leave my grandfather alone
There are other proofs as well that show how wormholes and folded space are great conceptually but even if they could even work at a sub quantum level (theoretically), they couldn’t work on a practical level.
So there are proofs against even wormholes and folded space.
What we have for worm holes and folded space is science fiction. Which is fun to read (I love it and read it loads) but nothing more than that.
It’s great to think about, but so is winning the lottery and thinking about it doesn’t make it so.
I’ll refer also back to Stephan Jay Gould’s definition of fact in science.
There is no reason not to consider wormholes and folded space. But the fact you can consider them doesn’t mean that they are possible, and science right now says they are more likely not to be possible than the other way round.
5. Matt
Science says they are more likely not to be possible, but it doesn’t say they are impossible.
Science says transporters ala Star Trek are impossible (the Observer Effect, and not Heisenbergs’ uncertainty principle), and that is proven, so therefore I accept that at no time in the near of distant future will I or any of my descendants ever be able to be “beamed” from one point to another.
There is no conclusive proof that folding space is completely impossible. You say there is no proof that they are impossible. You say “science right now says they are more likely not to be possible than the other way round” (emphasis on the “right now”), making me believe that you yourself think there’s a lot more to be learned on the matter.
And that, fundamentally, is the core of mine and Dans’ argument. We humans like to think we are very clever, and that we know a great deal all what there is to know about ourselves and the universe around us. In actual fact though, we simply haven’t a clue, and if you think otherwise, that things have been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, all I will say to you is this:
We haven’t proven that God, Buddha, Mohammad, Jah, Krishna or whoever else don’t exist either, but that doesn’t mean I can’t believe that they don’t, or that someone else can’t believe that they do. If you believe that we now know or possess more knowledge than we will learn in the next ten or hundred or thousand years, then you can’t call yourself a scientist of any degree.
6. Adrian
You can believe in what you want.
But that’s not science.
And you can believe in things and be wrong about them.
Just because something cannot be categorically proved in a philosophical sense as not possible doesn’t make it true either
Read Stephan Jay Goulds quote I linked too above.
I never once said I don’t believe we will have more knowledge in the future.
What I completely fail to understand is how you can back tomorrows knowledge over today proofs. Without even knowing what tomorrows knowledge may prove.
I equally (and this was what I tried to explain in this post) can say that tomorrows knowledge will prove me more and more correct (speed of light, god, folding space). You can’t disprove that statement any more than I can yours. Which shows the fallacy of such an argument.
Either the future knowledge proves these things not to be possible. Or it proves them to be possible. It can’t do both, if it’s adding knowledge to the sum of our existing knowledge.
You’re just choosing to back the future knowledge that supports your science fiction theories.
You have to accept at some point that some science is correct, no matter what the future holds.
Why accept gravity as correct but something else as not? You’re not basis your believes on anything more than what seems nice to disprove.
The word belief has no place in a discussion about science.
7. Matt
“Just because something cannot be categorically proved in a philosophical sense as not possible doesn’t make it true either”
It also doesn’t make it untrue.
“What I completely fail to understand is how you can back tomorrows knowledge over today proofs. Without even knowing what tomorrows knowledge may prove.”
What I completely fail to understand is how you can back todays proofs over tomorrows knowledge, without even knowing what tomorrows knowledge may prove. Different sides of the same argument, with the same answer to both. No-one can know what tomorrows knowledge may prove, so there is, in fact, no argument either for against it.
“You can’t disprove that statement any more than I can yours. Which shows the fallacy of such an argument.”
It goes to show the fallacy of both arguments, you mean? Both mine and yours?
“You have to accept at some point that some science is correct, no matter what the future holds.”
Even if the future holds proofs that some of the scientific theories that we hold as being true today are completely incorrect?
“Why accept gravity as correct but something else as not? You’re not basis your believes on anything more than what seems nice to disprove.”
Because gravity is correct. When I jump, I come back down again, I do not fly off into space. No-one has conclusively proven that idealistic theories such as folding space, subspace travel, and the like are categorically impossible.
“The word belief has no place in a discussion about science.”
Even though you believe yourself to be scientifically correct, based on your current knowledge, just as much as I believe you not to be, as your knowledge, however advanced it may be over mine, is limited? Even the most knowledgeable physicist in the world will admit that his knowledge is limited compared to all the knowledge in the Universe, why can’t you? In all our numerous arguments/discussions on philosophy, physics, and the nature of ourselves and the Universe around us, I have never proven you wrong, and you have never proven me wrong either. This is because there is no proof either way. We can argue the merits of our points of view until we are blue in the face, I can say black and you can say white, but the truth is definitely somewhere in the grey area.
8. Adrian
What I completely fail to understand is how you can back todays proofs over tomorrows knowledge, without even knowing what tomorrows knowledge may prove. Different sides of the same argument, with the same answer to both. No-one can know what tomorrows knowledge may prove, so there is, in fact, no argument either for against it.
Except that tomorrows proof are completely unknown where today’s proofs are known. I’m not saying we wont learn knew things. But I’m pretty safe in saying apples wont levitate any time soon.
There is an argument for actual knowledge vs. potential knowledge of unknown quantities. Else you should not accept anything at all
It goes to show the fallacy of both arguments, you mean? Both mine and yours?
Meaning the argument is a fallacy itself. Meaning that if I can disprove the future knowledge/maybe one day argument with the same argument, the actual argument itself is flawed as a mechanism to prove any points, mine or yours.
We both can’t use the same argument to prove alternative points of view.
Even if the future holds proofs that some of the scientific theories that we hold as being true today are completely incorrect?
But then I could argue that those future proofs could be disproved by some proofs even future in the future further ahead of your future. You can go on and on with this line of logic.
What I’m saying though is that the universe is governed by a set of rules unrelated to our knowledge of them. The science of the universe is unrelated to our existence, understanding or knowledge of them.
Because gravity is correct. When I jump, I come back down again, I do not fly off into space. No-one has conclusively proven that idealistic theories such as folding space, subspace travel, and the like are categorically impossible.
From a scientific perspective , we have actually proved that is closer to unlikely than not. But gravity is easy to understand by everyone and advanced physics, quantum mechanics and causality are not. I spent a week researching this before I posted the blog on causality.
This is because there is no proof either way. We can argue the merits of our points of view until we are blue in the face, I can say black and you can say white, but the truth is definitely somewhere in the grey area.
No.
NO!
Definitely no!
The truth exists regardless of you and me. You can say black, I can say white, and if the object is either black or white then one of us is right. This isn’t about points of view, it’s not about belief its’ about the nature of the universe.
Which in some cases we know and in some we don’t.
And I’ll back my life on what we know vs a guess that in the future we might know different.
And I wouldn’t back a hair on what we don’t know. Would you really stake your life on something that’s a guess we might know? vs a proof we probably can’t?
9. Anonymous
You guys should stop pretending you don’t want to argue about the existence of God and just go ahead and do it.
10. Matt
“I’m pretty safe in saying apples wont levitate any time soon”
Yeah? Well I’m not so sure.
“You can say black, I can say white, and if the object is either black or white then one of us is right.”
Why? Why can’t both of us be wrong? Why can the object not be grey?
As usual, there’s no point furthering this discussion. You know you are right, and I know I am also right. I cannot convince you to accept that you may be wrong, and the same goes for you convincing me.
I will finish my part of the discussion with this: Mankind has had advanced knowledge of the principles of physics, chemistry and biology for a couple of hundred years now. Altogether, in the several hundred thousand or more years that we have been homo sapiens, we have probably gathered 1% or less of all the information that there is to know. No-one can convince me that anything we know or hold to be true, even by physical proof, won’t be completely dis-proven in the future. Call it a “maybe one day” argument if you want.
11. Destructor
Why? Why can’t both of us be wrong? Why can the object not be grey?
I actually agree with Adrian on this point: There is clearly an objective reality we both coexist in, and science is how we quantify and predict it. If there is an object that is EITHER black or white, one of these things will be objectively true, irrespective of opinion. However I still think you’re both talking at cross purposes.
Ultimately, it IS a matter of belief. Adrian believes in science, believes in the theory (the THEORY) of relativity so strongly that he assumes it will never be disproven, despite the fact that we’ve never accelerated a human to even 1% of the speed of light. If we ever do this, I imagine there will be all sorts of interesting experimental results that fundamentally alter the way we view the universe and the laws of physics. That’s the thing: we just don’t know. We can theorize and attempt to predict, and science is a great tool for that, but we’ve been wrong so many times before, we’ve believed so strongly that we burn people on a stake for saying otherwise, but we were wrong then. I simply can’t believe that now, in our lifetimes, we just happen to the be the generation that cracks the code and finally can’t be wrong. I call scruples on that. The odds are not good. Yes we stand on the shoulders of giants and we know more now than we ever have known before. But there’s so much more to discover. We’ve already proven that the group velocity of light can be exceeded, and scientists are working every day to try and transfer information faster than the front velocity of light. Maybe it’s impossible, but clearly they (and we should be clear: they know more than we do) wouldn’t be trying if they simply assumed it was impossible- indeed, science would never make ANY progression if people simply assumed we knew it all already. This sort of scepticism is absolutely essential to science, and that is ALL I am trying to say- take nothing for granted, assume nothing to be absolutely inviolable.
12. Adrian
Altogether, in the several hundred thousand or more years that we have been homo sapiens, we have probably gathered 1% or less of all the information that there is to know.
1% eh … based on what ….?
It’s just as possible we know 75% of all their is to know. Arguing about how me we do or don’t know has no point.
No-one can convince me that anything we know or hold to be true, even by physical proof, won’t be completely dis-proven in the future. Call it a “maybe one day” argument if you want.
Ok well then I can’t do anything here. If you are unable to accept anything as true, even that some things must be true then you are discussing pseudo-philosphey vs. hard science. There’s no discussion here.
I’m arguing that one of us is right. You’re arguing that we are both entitled to an opinion. This is not the same thing. I actually don’t care if I’m wrong, but I want people to understand that a Dawkins says, there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs.
We can theorize and attempt to predict, and science is a great tool for that, but we’ve been wrong so many times before, we’ve believed so strongly that we burn people on a stake for saying otherwise, but we were wrong then.
Ok but there is a difference. We burnt people at the steak for differing beliefs. No one has been burnt for coming up with alternative peer reviewed theories and supporting evidence. The closest we have to that now is Intelligent Design vs Evolution, and no where in actual science is ID making any head room, and will eventually get kicked to the curb which it should be, because science proves it’s patently ridiculous false.
Again I point to Stephen Gould’s quote again(explicitly this time)
You’re right, that by some sort of philosophical approach we can never know that what we know is the absolute that exists. But that doesn’t benefit anyone. You need axioms to work with. You need truths to amend and improve on and alter. You need to start somewhere.
Being wrong before is not a case for being wrong now. It’s a case for making sure you’re doing the work to making sure you’re right. It’s a case for not believing anything without proving it and backing it up. It’s a case for being open to unexpected results. It is not a case for proving something is wrong without any other proof
It’s a bit like saying “I lied to my mom about my homework when I was 7, so you can’t trust anything I say now”. I did lie to my mom when I was 7, but that has no relevance to my truthfulness now (either way)
his sort of scepticism is absolutely essential to science, and that is ALL I am trying to say- take nothing for granted, assume nothing to be absolutely inviolable.
Have I ever denied that. But scientists don’t sit around and say “maybe [random fact] is wrong. Scientists build theorems and compare to observed and experimental evidence and work from there. When conflicts arise they explore those conflicts. Starting from working on known knowns and if that fails looking at issues with the known knowns
Science is a PROCESS. This is what fundamentally sets it apart from belief and opinion and religion. It’s not based on what you think or what you believe. It’s based on a process of discovering and documenting the facts that underlie the universe. Sure we get it wrong sometimes. And equally we get it right sometimes.
I’m choosing to back this process, which has for the most part proved infallible. Sure we can get some of the facts wrong, but this is really important the process self corrects them as we proceed with it.
You’re not arguing for the process of science, you’re arguing for some unknown event in the future. There just is no base axiom in this.
Look if you where to steak your life, or your teeth or your gonads or something quite important to you, where would you place your bets?
I’d firmly back them on what we actually do know (say gravity for example) than what one day we might know (that apples can levitate magically if they feel like it)
13. Andrew
The speed of light isn’t constant, it is slowed down in transparent media (remember refractive index?).
14. Adrian
Actually “c” which is the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
The speed of light through a medium is the phase velocity for that specific medium.
You’re picking. Or Stirring. When people talk about the speed of light being constant, it’s always “c” or the speed of light in a vacuum.
Obviously the speed of light can be slowed down. For example it’s zero going through a lead block.
15. NKL
What do you mean they have proven I cant be beamed anywhere?!?!?!?!?! I am so disappointed. It has ruined my day.
16. Dragon
While your points are in some way valid, Adrian, your blinkered approach isn’t. You’re correct when you say “When conflicts arise they explore those conflicts. Starting from working on known knowns and if that fails looking at issues with the known knowns” but the thing is, this can be applied to the assumptions that you’re ready to take as being absolute truths.
If scientists thought as you do, then they would never challenge the assertion that c is a constant. Yet they do. John Moffat (who corresponded with Einstein and associted with Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger) proposed a theory that the speed of light was once faster than it is now. Joao Magueijo also explored this subject and his controversial paper was published. This paper is tantamount to one of your “maybe one day” arguments but he backed it up with maths and his results do match observed cosmological phenomena.
Now, if they’re right (and I’m not saying they are but they’re published, working scientists so it’s not inconcievable) then that provides a precedent for hypothesising that one day the speed of light might change speed again. Why? Because the axiom people have been working with - that the speed of light is a constant - has been challenged.
Even if you ignore the hotly debated topic of time-travel in favour of something a little more realistic like, say, a cohesive and comprehensive unified field theory that successfully reconciles general relativity and electromagnetism, I wouldn’t be surprised if - when maybe one day they work it out - that in doing so, much of what you and I and Stephen Jay Gould hold to be true today is no longer true then.
17. Adrian
I’m slightly amused that I’m being accused of being blinkered because I wont ignore the evidence in front of me in light of accepting evidence yet to be discovered/proved.
And then you are asking me perhaps to ignore that new evidence in the future vs potential evidence discovered after that.
Please trust me I am not blinkered. I’m just trying to illustrate the fallacy of the argument that future proof might change current proof. It sounds like being open minded but the argument itself is flawed. I’ve tried in every way I know how to illustrate this.
Blinkered would be if I said x=y. And you brought proof that x=z. And I still beleived x=y.
Blinkered is if x=y, and you said “that proof might not always be true, maybe oneday x=z” but with no proof, just and imagination of the future of decent sci fi.
Changes in science of the years have shown that it’s constantly in flux and our knowledge and understand constantly improves upon our past knowledge. However that doesn’t prove anything about our current knowledge being false.
Being open minded to change (which I am) is not the same as deny current knowledge and evidence with no basis. That’s for creationists and intelligent designers.
I have no issue with the speed of light being proved to not be a constant. I really don’t. All I demand is proof.
You cannot accuse me of being blinkered because you don’t have any proof.
18. Destructor
No-one is saying you have to deny current knowledge! No-one here is saying the speed of light can, or will, be broken. The statement we took issue with was:
“Right now I don’t see the speed of light being broken, just two scientists who don’t understand a phenomenon.”
Really? Two physicists don’t understand light speed can’t be broken? What morons! They must really be dumb not to assume that fundamental law of the universe can’t be broken. Or maybe they are scientists and know a smidge more than we all do and are doing what is required of all scientists and that is to be skeptical.
19. Adrian
No-one is saying you have to deny current knowledge
Actually the whole way through this blog that has been said. This blog is about the fundamental problem with maybe one day arguments, and not the specifics of the speed of light which was the email discussion.
However given the original article, the point I made was, what you showed me was a piece of news about a phenomenon that was not understand, that seemed to indicate something was occurring faster than the speed of light.
What you categorically did not show me was proof that the speed of light was broken. The article had nothing to do with the scepticism of scientists and I have no problems with scientists doing real science. Which they were.
But as I said, I’ve seen several of these articles over the last 5 - 10 years. I’ve yet to see proof the speed of light was broken, and that article didn’t prove anything.
I’m also amused that scientist are required to be sceptical. Scientists are required to be good scientists. Which means exploring science, both evidence and theoretical. Good scientists go where the science takes them, which has nothing to do with being sceptical. Good scientists are not sceptical, they are good practitioners of the process of science.
People who are sceptical of science are usually not scientists but belief based followers. I point towards creationists again.
20. Matt
“Good scientists are not sceptical, they are good practitioners of the process of science.
People who are sceptical of science are usually not scientists but belief based followers. I point towards creationists again.
”Good scientists are skeptical, not of science, but that individual theories are correct and true. Being skeptical doesn’t in any way mean you are a creationist, it means you are a skeptic.
Not being skeptical about science means you are from that South Park episode “Go God Go” where Cartman travels into the future in an effort to play Nintendo Wii 3 weeks early but ends up in the year 2546, and the people believe in science the way creationists believe in God, and go around saying things like “Oh Science, help us!” and “Science damn you”.
21. Dragon
I’ve reread your blog and I have to say, if I was your logic tutor, I’d mark it with a big red cross and tell you to see me after class.
Also, I disagree. A good scientist has to be sceptical. If we are both scientists and I tell you that I’ve managed to carry out simple nuclear fusion in my coffee cup, you’re not going to believe me straight off the bat are you? You’re going to want to see my workings, examine my lab conditions, find out if it can be repeated and whether you can do it too. You’re going to be sceptical of my conclusions until you’ve ruled out other explanations by following a scientific methodology.
As for belief - that has to come into science as well because there are some things that cannot be proved such as, for example, speed of light being a constant. You have, on one side, Moffat and Magueijo et al positing that if the speed of light was not a constant and if, billions of years ago, it went faster than it does now then that would scientifically and mathematically resolve the horizon problem. On the other side, you have the scientists who say that’s all well and good but the speed of light is definitely a constant so you must be wrong.
Bearing in mind that neither side can empirically prove that the speed of light wasn’t faster billions of years ago, who do you believe? (I’m hoping it’s not the side that has the most scientists because I’m not sure that’s very scientific!) Your answer may be informed by the fact that keeping c as a constant and accepting cosmic inflation will match more observations than it doesn’t but you still have the horizon problem. At the end of the day, however, it is still a belief but it is informed and not a blind belief like those of the creationists and ID loonies.
But the main point of your post and this discussion is the “maybe one day” argument. You’re correct in your original assertion that “‘maybe one day we will exceed the speed of light’ has no more meaning than ‘maybe one day we wont exceed the speed of light’” but this is not because of science but because it is logically irrational. This, essentially, is why we take issue when you say things along the lines of “The speed of light will never be broken”. It’s pragmatic to accept that and it suits our theories well. We can’t live otherwise. However, it doesn’t work logically. The philosophical problem of induction has yet to be resolved. Anyway, don’t take my word for it:
22. Adrian
_Good scientists are skeptical, not of science, but that individual theories are correct and true. Being skeptical doesn’t in any way mean you are a creationist, it means you are a skeptic. _
No good scientists aren’t sceptical or not sceptical. Good scientists are good at science. Which means scepticism is irrelevant. You follow the numbers and the theories and the evidence. Science is not about having a healthy disregard for what’s known, unknown or pink. It’s about having a healthy regard for the discovery of the truth of the universe.
Also, I disagree. A good scientist has to be sceptical. If we are both scientists and I tell you that I’ve managed to carry out simple nuclear fusion in my coffee cup, you’re not going to believe me straight off the bat are you? You’re going to want to see my workings, examine my lab conditions, find out if it can be repeated and whether you can do it too. You’re going to be sceptical of my conclusions until you’ve ruled out other explanations by following a scientific methodology.
I don’t see where scepticism comes into this. What I see is exactly what I keep asking about. Science. Proof. Scepticism is what you do when you have belief. Science is what you do when you have a methodology and a process. I’m not sceptical of your nuclear coffee cup (great name for a band there). It simply is something that does or doesn’t work/exist based on the proof you present. What you have said here is exactly my point however the word sceptical is in it for some reason I can’t quite connect.
_As for belief - that has to come into science as well because there are some things that cannot be proved such as, for example, speed of light being a constant. _
Everything can be proved. Perhaps not buy us, but if it exists there is a reasons. The reason being beyond us doesn’t make it not a reason.
On the other side, you have the scientists who say that’s all well and good but the speed of light is definitely a constant so you must be wrong.
Actually this works perfectly fine. They can both be right. The speed of light could have been faster a long time ago when the universe was being formed and can be constant right now, without either model destroying the universe as the numbers, and science both add up for both cases. The universe around it’s formation was not the same universe we live in now. The same way a cake mix is not the same as the delicious chocolate cup cakes I shovel down when no one is looking.
At the end of the day, however, it is still a belief but it is informed and not a blind belief like those of the creationists and ID loonies.
Belief requires nothing but belief. Informed belief is not belief. It’s hypothesis. Belief cannot be proved wrong. Hypothesis can. Belief by virtue of not requiring proof can only be blind. That doesn’t mean a belief is by the same virtue wrong, (I can believe I am going to win the lottery, and can win it, but this doesn’t make the belief right either)
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
Yes yes yes. I pointed out my Gould quote too. Fact and proof and all of science is always up for question based on the fact we don’t quite know what proof really means. But you get to a point where something is solid enough that you can accept it as a fundamental till proved otherwise, like my green swans with polka dots example above.
Like I keep saying. I have no problem being proved wrong by a proof. I have an issues I’m assumed to be wrong because they did it on star trek and know one knows what the future holds.
If a gun was too your head would you back the chance of maybe one day finding a green swan with purple and yellow triangular polka dots? Or would you back our current scientific knowledge of avian pigmentation?
Avian Pigmentation would also make a great band name.
23. Matt
Just so we’re clear, polka dots, by their nature, cannot be triangular, and that is why there will never be purple swans with yellow triangular polka dots, because such a thing is a contradiction in terms. If you said a purple swan with yellow polka dots, I might’ve been convinced of your argument.
24. Adrian
Maybe one day polka dots will be triangular.
25. donalda bint
Well, I know nothing about any of this, and I am wont to agree with Sevitz but only because this is his webpage and it would be rude not to. However, something did stand out, Adrian, namely this comment:
So where do paradigm shifts come into it then? How did the scientists get from Newton to Einstein? Surely at some point they would look at the numbers and the theories and the evidence… and start, well, questioning the very structure itself?
I might follow the numbers, theories, and evidence from Newtonian Physics very well, but this would not make me a good scientist: rather, I would be a good science historian.
At what point does the balance tip?
Or even, at what point does science become history? (And I hear that these days in academia this can quite often be answered by lecturers screaming ‘Since bloody students use Wikipedia and their essays are based on the out of copyright editions of Encyclopedia Britannicas of 1875-89, 1902-03, and 1911, which are incorporated into it’ before crying.)
I also think there are several arguments going on here: one on the nature of science, one on the nature of knowledge, one on whether or not the speed of light can be broken.
I would love to help, but we Newtonian Science Historians are useless on this sort of thing.
On a slightly related note: I knew a Science Historian. I proof-read her article on the history of washing-machine advertising.
26. Adrian
I think Paradigm shift come because great people, the Newtons, The Dawins, The Einsteins, The Hawkins etc look at the universe and go “wow I have to know why it is the way it is”.
I think they are great minds who can look through the murk of the universe and the the cosmic truth, the absolute, or at least closer to it than we can.
Sometimes the truth is counter intuitive to how we think so it takes great minds to see past this. The speed of light being constant is very counter intuitive for example.
I don’t think these great mind question the past as much as just the truth and set out to prove it. The follow the process and method of science, they just do it quicker and in ways that the normal person can’t the same way a great musician just picks up a instrument and plays.
I don’t think they do it because they are sceptical of anything. They do it because they want the pure knowledge of the universe. They want to understand.
27. Destructor
No good scientists aren’t sceptical or not sceptical. Good scientists are good at science.
Wow. Next you’ll be telling me chocolate brownies are brown and made with chocolate.
The scientific method is codified skepticism. It is a series of saying: “I don’t believe this, this must be proven.” If you are ‘good at science’, you are good at being a skeptic, and taking time to dis/prove everything, such as the unbreakable speed of light, which we only just figured out ten minutes ago from a historical perspective. The theory of relativity is the best predictor of things we have at the moment (even though it’s not unified with special relativity so has a big fat hole in it), but it is still open to challenge, and it is the duty of science and scientists to be skeptical of it, and everything. This is written into the scientific method. You are suffering from what is known as ‘closeminded science’, one of the greatest dangers of science, which even Einstein suffered from, QED. I daresay that even if you wouldn’t even bother to examine Dragon’s proofs that he has made a nuclear coffee cup, because you already know it’s impossible. As DB pointed out- if everyone was equally nonskeptical, we’d still be using Newtonian physics and getting everything wrong.
28. Adrian
I suspect we are going to start cutting semantic hairs soon.
Wikipedia give us
This says to me that a sceptic doubts everything for the sake of doubting it regardless of what evidence he is shown.
This sounds more like an Intelligent Design Follower than a scientist.
I’m saying a scientist trusts the science and numbers of the universe regardless of what he feels of thinks. He doesn’t doubt or not doubt (god I sound like Yoda now) he just does.
A sceptic doubts evolution in place of ID because well you can be a sceptic of anything. A scientists looks for the truth and even though their are holes in the theory of evolution, looks to fill those holes with more science than with scepticism.
If I doubt dragons nuclear coffee cup (NCC) because I’m a sceptic, that’s not science. If I doubt dragons NCC because science says it’s unlikely (to the point of improbability) unless he provides proof (evidence or theory based), that’s science. Hell every year some new crack pot tries to patent an perpetual motion machine. Should be we believe them all too without proof? The patent office doesn’t think so.
I would be within my rights not to bother to examine Dragon’s NCC because the onus of proof is on Dragon, not on me. That’s nothing to do with scepticism, but with time. In a world where science is advancing every day, if you come up with fringe theories you need to do a little more than “trust me” for me to give it my time.
That said, when Dragon’s NCC powers his car or a city or something, I’ll say quite happily “Looks like your NCC works, tell me why and how”.
I again struggle to see why I’m being called close minded for demanding peer reviewed proof.
I will accept any fact about the universe that’s proven. I understand some of those facts I accept might be wrong, specific to certain rules, or right. I will change the facts I believe based on new facts changing it.
Let me know when you have some new facts.
A fact that could exist sometime in the future (green swans, triangular polka dots) is not a fact. It’s a fancy.
29. saltation_lj
>the speed of light is a constant
minor nerdy modification: the speed of light is a normal-space Maximum. it’s not a Constant. it is known to vary according to the matter it’s passing through, with Density being a major factor. for example, it takes around 100,000 years for light emitted at the heart of the sun to make it to the surface, but only 8 minutes to get from there to earth. for a freakier example, you can make a black hole by swirling super-dense bose-eisenstein condensates, and the swirl is travelling faster (3-4mph) than the light within it and the light is ineluctably trapped: a black hole for light.
i think the most-accepted position is that einstein’s e=mc^2 holds in any given normal-space frame-of-reference, but that it is possible to find other frames of reference in which that local maximum is not relevant. quantum entanglement being an example, the walking-pace-swirled quantum condensate blackhole being another.
ie, i think you’re both right, but to go “faster” than light requires we learn how to step outside normal-space somehow. but even then, we’d be avoiding the limit rather than breaking it.