The Limits of Science

[henry quirk]

"@HQ SP quotes FTW."

[Blaggard]

Southpark Quotes For The Win. If only everyone spoke interweb gibberish.

[henry quirk]

HA!

Got it now...

[Blaggard]

We all speak to our self.
But... whom do we speak to?
Self reference is the key to our existence!

True, although I think there's at least a thread there you could start but meh. Point taken. Although I think self quoting on a discussion thread is not quite the same as the talking to oneself thing in quite the way you posit, but meh.

[Cerveny]

...
I'm sorry but this post makes no sense at all. Do you think that maths and physics are entities that are not mutually inclusive or... because that just sounded like more gibberish, no offence.

It's also a general pain when someone clearly hasn't studied the subject well enough to critique it uses bad maths and bad science to make straw men, but you don't see me banging on about it post after post.

Someone has to start to make maths and they already did but using equations that are clearly just nothing to do with maths or hence science for that matter are not helping... no offence but I do not think I would be out of line if I suggested if you are going to attack anything, be it philosophy, or a debate about ontology or Psychology, the price of fish, or physics or any science, wouldn't it behoove you to arm yourself with the right weapons, not run in like a mad berzerker with a banana and a dream?

If physicists instead of endless transformations, representations, interpretations sometimes used logic and common sense, physics might not be in such a dismal state. In fact, no one know what the space is, what the time is, what the (dark) matter is, what in “black holes„ is, how can be electromagnetic parameters of vacuum related to the limit of matter speed... Mathematicians hardly ever brought proper things into physics but only bullshit (singularities, infinities, obscure metrics ...) All real discoveries have not been calculated but guessed (thanks to deep intuition). (To be clear, I have gone thru extensive examines of comprehensive analysis, of complex variable theory, of theory of distribution, of functional analysis... at the university;)

[Blaggard]

I love how currently everyone in physics thinks this is a golden age and that the pace and quality of new discoveries means there has never been a better time to be in physics.

With CERN going on line the Higg's bosun has been discovered cementing the final brick in the standard model into place, quantum computers are on the horizon and fusion energy is perhaps 20 years away.

And then there are the luddites in philosophy who are presumably so busy smashing cotton mills they forget to actually learn any science. It is genuinely funny for someone who is studying physics to watch someone who patently knows little or nothing tell them how to do physics and why it sucks. But hey popcorn at the ready please Sen Sei tell me again how dire the world of science is.

Waits for luddite hammer to be drawn.*

Yes we don't know why there appears to be a defficit of matter, and we don't know what dark matter is, although we have tentative evidence from a collision in the Bullet cluster that this material is clearly present and exists as always though the evidence must be inferred as the bullet cluster is many light years away and it is as yet not possible to go there.

Another hot topic is why matter dominated over antimatter, some think the evidence emerging about the lack of parity in time, charge and position in the spontaneous decay of particles offers a pretty good way of seeing why matter tends to more prevalent, but these theories are as yet extremely tentative if not still in the hypothesis stage.

A god of the gaps argument does not constitute a good argument, it never has and it never will, just because science does not have all the answers does not mean it is in crisis or ever was. It's the whole point of science to find the answers not to explain to proles and lay persons why they are so god damned ignorant and why when they scream it's Frankensteins monster or whatever other creationist bilge that is au fait these days neither is it beholden to philosophy for anything but interpretation so as a potential scientist I say eat my shorts.

(To be clear, I have gone thru extensive examines of comprehensive analysis, of complex variable theory, of theory of distribution, of functional analysis... at the university;)

Good for you what does that have to do with physics though?

I presume you mean you looked at fourier analysis and Statistical mathematics. Which is fine it means you at least understand the basics, what it doesn't mean though is that you are the world leading light of wisdom on physics. Get a PhD in philosophy of science focusing primarily on the physics angles you have mentioned and then maybe there will be some good grounding to your criticisms. Having studied maths is hardly a challenge to any physical system at all, this is Sparta er I mean science not maths.

I see this all the time and it's why a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous, it's fine to be keen and to want to set the world to rights, but you need to have gone to school first and done the basics. Even Einstein had to attend university, ok he didn't do a PhD he didn't need to but then he was making theories and his third class degree wouldn't allow him to study further in German universities. End of the day though you do need a degree in the subject you are studying at the very least to have the understanding required to either a make a theory, or b criticise it. Of course if you have a degree in maths or philosophy you are in a good position to start doing science there's certainly a firm foundation there, however that does not make you a scientist suddenly. And it's unlikely no matter how well meaning anyone in the science field is going to take you seriously, nor should they be expected too.

And no that doesn't make science an iconoclastic castle where only the most erudite are admitted entrance, it just means that you have to have walked the walk before you can talk the talk, because this is rocket science.

Still you can always moan bitterly at science that it's just shit like some demented nodding duck, if this is your choice I suggest a discussion with the greatest mind in all history, the self professed enlightened one Greyhorn El, you'll probably get along famously he loves a completely uninformed waffle at the plebs beware though your mind is not going to be able to uderstand his munifecent wisdom, you are only human.

Oh and whatever you do ignore the man behind the curtain just keep your eyes on the Great ELs magnificent image.

[Cerveny]

Certainly, the enthusiasm has its place in science, but it is the sad when it borders with the naivety
Most progress has been brought by skepticism

[Blaggard]

Certainly, the enthusiasm has its place in science, but it is the sad when it borders with the naivety
Most progress has been brought by skepticism

Well continue being skeptical, it is after all what keeps science alive, but ensure it is logical skepticism well founded on rational argument, and knowledge and avoid religion at all costs is my advice, science and religion aren't chalk and cheese that would be understating it, they are like the complete anithesis of each other <insert clever analogy here>.

[thedoc]

Another hot topic is why matter dominated over antimatter, some think the evidence emerging about the lack of parity in time, charge and position in the spontaneous decay of particles offers a pretty good way of seeing why matter tends to more prevalent, but these theories are as yet extremely tentative if not still in the hypothesis stage.

Another foolish question, it's all based on the definitions humans have applied to the universe. How do we know that we are matter and not anti-matter? In the universe what determines up and down, left and right, positive and negative? human labels and nothing else. N.I.H. syndrome. We could be looking at the universe from the wrong perspective.

[Blaggard]

Another hot topic is why matter dominated over antimatter, some think the evidence emerging about the lack of parity in time, charge and position in the spontaneous decay of particles offers a pretty good way of seeing why matter tends to more prevalent, but these theories are as yet extremely tentative if not still in the hypothesis stage.

Another foolish question, it's all based on the definitions humans have applied to the universe. How do we know that we are matter and not anti-matter? In the universe what determines up and down, left and right, positive and negative? human labels and nothing else. N.I.H. syndrome. We could be looking at the universe from the wrong perspective.

That's philosophy not science and with all due respect they are different subjects so who the hell cares.

You see science deals with evidence and has very strict rules about it and philosophy deals with science which is fine, but if you are going to mix the two, why bother making out that it's some massive paradigm shifting thing, it's just words. Science does what it does and philosophy does what it does, if you go too far into philosophy in science then nothing is ever going to get done in science.

It's an odd thing that people want to mix them up like it somehow matters a damn to Scientists but there you go philosophers want to matter, well you do, you don't need to say science is shit, it already knows that, that's why it's science not religion.

Science is a shit heap, it builds a heap of shit, and one day if it is lucky it might just reach the sky.

There are no foolish questions only fools.

Scientists already know how to do science though, some numb nut luddite with a chip on his shoulder about it, really should stop criticising it for knowing how to do science and criticise it in areas that matter, because I can tell you making a wall between science and philosophy is only going to make you redundant, build a bridge and cross it, then someone will care.

[thedoc]

My last sentence. Often when scientists look at things differently, they make new discoveries.

[thedoc]

BTW, this forum is "The Philosophy of Science" not the "Science of Science".

[Hjarloprillar]

Blaggard

"A god of the gaps argument does not constitute a good argument, it never has and it never will, just because science does not have all the answers does not mean it is in crisis or ever was. It's the whole point of science to find the answers not to explain to proles and lay persons why they are so god damned ignorant and why when they scream it's Frankensteins monster or whatever other creationist bilge that is au fait these days neither is it beholden to philosophy for anything but interpretation so as a potential scientist I say eat my shorts."

I must say i agree.

Some are born mediocre.
Some have mediocrity thrust oppon them.
But most, are self made men.

Like medicine and psychiatry/psychology. 'Something' is known.

We grow and learn.
We cannot know everything in one scientific epiphany.
Even Einstein just layed groundwork for others to build on.

Prill

[skakos]

...
I'm sorry but this post makes no sense at all. Do you think that maths and physics are entities that are not mutually inclusive or... because that just sounded like more gibberish, no offence.

It's also a general pain when someone clearly hasn't studied the subject well enough to critique it uses bad maths and bad science to make straw men, but you don't see me banging on about it post after post.

Someone has to start to make maths and they already did but using equations that are clearly just nothing to do with maths or hence science for that matter are not helping... no offence but I do not think I would be out of line if I suggested if you are going to attack anything, be it philosophy, or a debate about ontology or Psychology, the price of fish, or physics or any science, wouldn't it behoove you to arm yourself with the right weapons, not run in like a mad berzerker with a banana and a dream?

If physicists instead of endless transformations, representations, interpretations sometimes used logic and common sense, physics might not be in such a dismal state. In fact, no one know what the space is, what the time is, what the (dark) matter is, what in “black holes„ is, how can be electromagnetic parameters of vacuum related to the limit of matter speed... Mathematicians hardly ever brought proper things into physics but only bullshit (singularities, infinities, obscure metrics ...) All real discoveries have not been calculated but guessed (thanks to deep intuition). (To be clear, I have gone thru extensive examines of comprehensive analysis, of complex variable theory, of theory of distribution, of functional analysis... at the university;)

So true. We tend to forget the real importance of intuition in sciences.
And most importantly, we tend to forget the real connection between our PHILOSOPHICAL DOGMAS and the scientific theories we postulate...
Nothing is based on nothing...
A hidden assumption is always behind the best theory...

[Hjarloprillar]

"So true. We tend to forget the real importance of intuition in sciences."

is that a turn?