Café posts split from Stormy Lagoon Nebula (19Oct)

[emc]

Nereid’s introducing me to the ‘problem of induction’ spurred another internet search where again, I skimmed… Now I am seeing observation (is that proper grammar??) as a questionable fact (is that inductive induction??)

[emc]

... Unfortunately, it is common in the non-scientific press for theories to be described as if one were as good as another.

It's a big internet, and it's very easy to set up a website!

A few hours searching will uncover an astonishing range of 'alternative' views, some of which are quite explicit in their claims that cosmology cannot be science, by definition.

More common however is the claim that modern astrophysics and cosmology is unscientific - i.e. what the pros actually do is not science, but that it is possible to do astrophysics and/or cosmology in a scientific manner (and you'll find great amounts of material on what, in these alternative views, the doing of 'real' astrophysics would entail).

It is my responsibility as an interested "consumer" to be discerning. But I am limited by my perception and understanding of whatever astrophysics and cosmology I already have in my brain.

The internet has both a good and bad reputation regarding the passing of information... and maybe that is the root of this discussion... truth.

As a layman, my perception of astrophysics and cosmology is the same in that they both have more mysteries and theories than you can shake a stick at. I see both as frontier science working from (or stuck in) the big city.

[emc]

Hi Mr. apodman,

You are much appreciated. I am inspired by a lot of folks in Asterisk such as you and appreciate the kind words you gave me.

I try to keep my focus on astronomy but sometimes it’s difficult. It's like I have this alien inside me just busting to get out.



I hope I answered your string theory question adequately… I expect it would be more for fun if I could parlay better… but that’s all I got. So I’m going with “my education on the subject is not complete”.

[apodman]

I am not acting when I present myself as the “humble layman”.

I'm just poking a little fun at the care you take to mention it. I have standard disclaimers, too, though I try to camouflage them a bit (I know too many lawyers, maybe).

had to look up ‘verisimilitude’

Once in a while I deal one off my short deck of sesquipedalian words just for fun. (Whoops, there goes another one.) V* is from my 10th grade English teacher (who is responsible for a number of other gems) and s* is from Mark Twain (likewise). Seriously, I have spent so much time professionally and otherwise trying to write for the greatest possible understandability by the widest audience without compromising the content, that it feels good just to let it rip once in a while (usually in one of these forums) without regard to reaching everyone; throwing in a word so far out that a responsible writer would never use it for general audiences is just the crowning touch. One nerd's style of being a wise guy.

One of my favorite jokes in the electronics industry in regard to magic… If an integrated circuit (IC) or capacitor or any component explodes or fails in a short circuit it is commonly referred to as “letting the magic smoke out”.

In my neck of the woods, novice electronic technicians (including myself) ran many a "smoke test". (Forgot to float the ground before probing the ac end of the circuit again.) Talk about announcing your error. We also used to say that all electronics is FM (friggin' magic).

As a layman, my perception of astrophysics and cosmology is the same in that they both have more mysteries and theories than you can shake a stick at. I see both as frontier science working from (or stuck in) the big city.

Again, me too.

[apodman]

It is my responsibility as an interested "consumer" to be discerning.

It's a big internet, and it's very easy to set up a website!

A few hours searching will uncover an astonishing range of 'alternative' views, some of which are quite explicit in their claims that cosmology cannot be science, by definition.

Now I remember. When I do my quick-and-dirty research on the web, I've gotten into the habit of automatically skipping what I think is wacko while I scan for anything useful (even within the wacko articles). This is generally an asset, I think, but I can see it's a liability in a case like this where I purposely want to go looking for the non-scientific material. It's funny (peculiar) how often a search for scientific keywords results in links to non-scientific web pages concerning astrology, new age nonsense, pseudo-scientific nonsense, and stuff that could only be made up by misunderstood hermits who never opened a real science book but think they're a natural genius. (I'm purposely forgetting to put the mainstream non-scientific thinkers on this list.) Note to natural geniuses: there might be a proposition or two in modern physics that's not intuitive.

Surely these publishers of alternative ideas would rather wallow in their fantasies than learn hard (serious and difficult) science for comparison and then make an informed choice. So seeking them out and informing them is futile. And one of them gets perturbed out of the Oort cloud into this forum where we have to deal with them infrequently enough not to be a big problem. And I don't think the public is in such immediate danger if they don't know enough to choose a scientific theory over nonsense that we need to adopt a unified view immediately and launch a persuasive public information campaign. So as properly self-appointed correct thinkers, what is our purpose and our mission here? Can the sane and informed benefit from a dialog with the not-quite-sane, the misinformed, and the uninformed? (I refer here to a dialog debating the nature of scientific theory and the adherence of modern physics thereto, not to dialogs in general.)

[apodman]

Snippets don't do justice to some of the actual subtleties of Popperian falsificationism

Agreed. I felt lucky to find the quotes I did to put with the links. Sometimes I can't find a representative quote at all. The quotes I used were meant, of course, to tempt the interested reader to check out the whole linked articles and further links. Philosophy text is generally difficult reading, so longer quotes make poor snappy teasers.

In the barely adequate world of phpBB, there's no way without saying so to indicate "a quote that's there to introduce a link" vs. "a link that's there to attribute a quote". In my role as Mr. Ambiguity, I usually try to make it both ways so no interpretation can be wrong, but of course it can.

A cool thing about a forum format is that you don't have to attach instructions and all your own footnotes to every post. If clarification is really important, someone will usually ask or do it for you.

An alternative to quotes and links would have been for me to have summarized Popper's work myself, but I'm far from qualified.

[emc]

So as properly self-appointed correct thinkers, what is our purpose and our mission here?

Perhaps your purpose like so many others is to instill confidence in the readers that someone here knows a thing or two about the science of astronomy... astrophysics... cosmology... the subjects that typically fit like a glove with the APODs.

I'm not confident as to my purpose here... except to provide a naive and non scientific viewpoint.

My mission has been to learn more about astronomy, practice the writing of my thoughts, try to entertain strangers with my nuttiness, learn how to "forum" and make friends.

Nereid started this thread/branch... I'm interested in his/her take on the mission. And I've wondered if the subject line should change.

[emc]

Taking some earlier posts ...

[...]

Second, for the subset of APOD 'pictures' that are 'out of this world' (i.e. from space probes, or of planets - other than Earth, stars, galaxies etc), how much does your perception of what's in the pictures depend on theory (leave aside how the pictures got from some server in MTU to your screen/monitor)?

2. Very little. I see the pictures aesthetically… as works of art... both from the author of the APOD and the Author of the APOD subject.

To clarify, if I may ... the 'stars' (in various APODs) may be 'other Suns', or they may be something else entirely, it's pretty much a wash for you?

Not a wash more like a sponge bath. I absorb some of the science but without the scientific background you appear to have for example, most doesn't make it past my "crusty outer layer".

The Big Bang may have created all the stuff which later became the stars and gas and dust in the Lagoon nebula, or some space aliens created a neat screen in front of the HST just before it snapped that picture which became the 19 Oct 2008 APOD (but who cares)?

I've often wondered about the space aliens... by the nature of their name, we can't readily know what their up to.

When you say "the Big Bang may have created..." aren't you repeating what you said next about the aliens? I mean, the BB is an artifact right, not a creator but the act of creation. Isn't the creator somehow buried in the mix... outside the vantage point of logics observational window?

[Nereid]

It is my responsibility as an interested "consumer" to be discerning.

It's a big internet, and it's very easy to set up a website!

A few hours searching will uncover an astonishing range of 'alternative' views, some of which are quite explicit in their claims that cosmology cannot be science, by definition.

Now I remember. When I do my quick-and-dirty research on the web, I've gotten into the habit of automatically skipping what I think is wacko while I scan for anything useful (even within the wacko articles). This is generally an asset, I think, but I can see it's a liability in a case like this where I purposely want to go looking for the non-scientific material. It's funny (peculiar) how often a search for scientific keywords results in links to non-scientific web pages concerning astrology, new age nonsense, pseudo-scientific nonsense, and stuff that could only be made up by misunderstood hermits who never opened a real science book but think they're a natural genius. (I'm purposely forgetting to put the mainstream non-scientific thinkers on this list.) Note to natural geniuses: there might be a proposition or two in modern physics that's not intuitive.

Surely these publishers of alternative ideas would rather wallow in their fantasies than learn hard (serious and difficult) science for comparison and then make an informed choice. So seeking them out and informing them is futile. And one of them gets perturbed out of the Oort cloud into this forum where we have to deal with them infrequently enough not to be a big problem. And I don't think the public is in such immediate danger if they don't know enough to choose a scientific theory over nonsense that we need to adopt a unified view immediately and launch a persuasive public information campaign. So as properly self-appointed correct thinkers, what is our purpose and our mission here? Can the sane and informed benefit from a dialog with the not-quite-sane, the misinformed, and the uninformed? (I refer here to a dialog debating the nature of scientific theory and the adherence of modern physics thereto, not to dialogs in general.)

This forum - or section (of The Asterisk*, the Café) - welcomes all members.

However, there are rules and guidelines and restrictions, beyond those imposed by the phpBB framework itself, such as no spam (and instant perma-bans for all spamsters), and that innocuous seeming phrase "this is a scientific forum, devoted to discussing astronomy".

There are members who feel that certain alternatives should be allowed to be presented and discussed here, because they are just as much astrophysics or cosmology as science as (say) standard solar models, or 'Big Bang Nucleosynthesis' (a.k.a. 'the BBFH theory', named after the authors Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle) ... and some seem to get extremely upset when told that these alternatives are non-science^. One of the things I think we could discuss, in the Café, is what those who are promoting (or supporting, or ...) these alternatives consider the "science" part of modern astrophysics and cosmology is, what they think it should be, and whether there is common ground for communication (a precondition for discussion) ... or, put another way, identify and characterise any important gaps between the perceptions of what astrophysics and cosmology, as science, are.

And that's kinda how this thread got started, with one member writing: "By the way .. the 'Big Bang' is a theory, an idea, a possibility but not a likelihood and it bothers me the way it is thrown around as if fact" (though sadly this member has not posted to this thread since its creation, by splitting out certain posts).

^ a recent example: "Non Science reference removed, you really haven't a clue do you.
[material promoting alternative] was removed for political and religeous reasons from the BBT , The Church, and the political establishment nature which controls funding and ideology within the sciences today. Wake Up. and start behaving like scientists instead of theologians in dire fear of the Truth. Mainstream Science is behaving like a religion and not like a science, when you deny and refuse any mention of the [aspect of alternative]."

[Nereid]

Snippets don't do justice to some of the actual subtleties of Popperian falsificationism

Agreed. I felt lucky to find the quotes I did to put with the links. Sometimes I can't find a representative quote at all. The quotes I used were meant, of course, to tempt the interested reader to check out the whole linked articles and further links. Philosophy text is generally difficult reading, so longer quotes make poor snappy teasers.

In the barely adequate world of phpBB, there's no way without saying so to indicate "a quote that's there to introduce a link" vs. "a link that's there to attribute a quote". In my role as Mr. Ambiguity, I usually try to make it both ways so no interpretation can be wrong, but of course it can.

A cool thing about a forum format is that you don't have to attach instructions and all your own footnotes to every post. If clarification is really important, someone will usually ask or do it for you.

An alternative to quotes and links would have been for me to have summarized Popper's work myself, but I'm far from qualified.

My post here is as much in response to an excellent one by Chris earlier as it is to apodman's.

I'm quite interested in the nature of science - especially astrophysics and cosmology - and so it's inevitable that a good discussion on this will bring in Popper, falsification(ism), and the philosophy of science in general.

But it's such a big topic that I think it deserves a thread of its own, so I'll not continue with this aspect of our discussion here ...

... except to say that I think some time spent on 'theory', 'model', and 'hypothesis' would be time well spent.

[Nereid]

... The scientists haven't found all the answers yet, but yet the religious nuts insist that what the scientists know so far proves they are wrong, like for example the gaps in fossil records.

Gary

Hi Gary,

I think from reading your comment that you may be calling me a religious nut… if so, I am offended… Just plain “nut” would have been OK.

Even though I am not a scientist, if you read my posts here, you will know that I have a deep respect and appreciation for science. And I am not remotely trying to prove science or scientists wrong… I'm sorry I let my emotions get the better of me in this thread and expounded religious flavored cafe rhetoric. I simply look for truth as best I can. And what's wrong with looking in a public scientific forum?

I’ve had a lot of fun and learned a good deal of science, but I have frequently felt over my nutty head here.

emc, I apologize for offending you. I know that you have made a lot of interesting and thoughtful posts. I haven't seen any anti-science rants from you in them. There is nothing wrong with having a religious belief. My missive was aimed at people on the religious right who are angered by the devaluation of the stature of man and the special place we supposedly occupy in God's creation that scientists since Copernicus brought about. Those people have tried to rise doubts about scientific findings, particularly in the fields of biology, geology, and cosmology, and provide alternative explanations, such as creationism. intelligent design, electric universe, and other unproven "theories".

Gary

(emphasis added)

I'm quoting this to illustrate a key point I'm working my way towards, namely that the "alternative explanations" are non-science (and that it's better to address the core non-science aspects than treat them as containing competing, or alternative, scientific theories).

Nereid started this thread/branch... I'm interested in his/her take on the mission.

Nereid the moderator 'started' this thread, by splitting posts out of another thread; that's what mods do (among other things) ... and the 'mission' behind that action is just to keep this forum well-organised and as enjoyable, educational, etc a place it can be within its rules.

Nereid the ordinary member's mission, here, is to discuss the nature of modern astrophysics and cosmology as science, and within this huge topic to see if there is a strong case that can be made that (most) modern astronomical observations are 'theory-free'. I'd be particularly pleased if just one member who is a supporter of, or who promotes, or ... any one of the alternatives that has been posted here in the Café, hithertofore, were to join the discussion ... starting with comments on the extent to which they think astronomical observations are theory-free.

[Nereid]

Taking some earlier posts ...

[...]
2. Very little. I see the pictures aesthetically… as works of art... both from the author of the APOD and the Author of the APOD subject.

To clarify, if I may ... the 'stars' (in various APODs) may be 'other Suns', or they may be something else entirely, it's pretty much a wash for you?

Not a wash more like a sponge bath. I absorb some of the science but without the scientific background you appear to have for example, most doesn't make it past my "crusty outer layer".

Thanks Ed.

How about this: to the (same?) extent that your use of 'the internet' (that's a shorthand) requires acceptance (at some level) of most of modern physics, the stars in various APODs are other Suns ... because the underlying physics is the same?

The Big Bang may have created all the stuff which later became the stars and gas and dust in the Lagoon nebula, or some space aliens created a neat screen in front of the HST just before it snapped that picture which became the 19 Oct 2008 APOD (but who cares)?

I've often wondered about the space aliens... by the nature of their name, we can't readily know what their up to.

When you say "the Big Bang may have created..." aren't you repeating what you said next about the aliens? I mean, the BB is an artifact right, not a creator but the act of creation. Isn't the creator somehow buried in the mix... outside the vantage point of logics observational window?

It will come as no surprise, I'm sure, that my choice of words ("the Big Bang may have created...") was quite deliberate.

As I commented in an earlier post in this thread "the Big Bang" is a common term, but one that is all too easily misunderstood wrt what the scientific theory/theories is/are that it is a shorthand for.

There's nothing particularly unusual in common phrases being shorthands for a lot of (sometimes quite different) underlying science, nor for them to be, sometimes, misleading or misunderstood. For example, how often do you come across 'the theory of evolution' being invoked wrt the origin of life on Earth?

So it is with "all the stuff which later became the stars and gas and dust in the Lagoon nebula": the elements heavier than Li (lithium) were all created in BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), a scientific theory one of whose authors is Fred Hoyle, the same Fred Hoyle who created the term "Big Bang" to deride it (how's that for irony)! Of course "BBN" is a shorthand, and the theory itself is quite silent about the creation of the universe.

(as an aside, all elements other than H and He are called 'metals' by astronomers ... talk about misleading!)

So what about the H, He (and Li, if there is any) in the Lagoon Nebula? Ladies and gentlemen, please give a big welcome to "Baryogenesis"! This takes you to the leading edge of modern physics, a place which the LHC will explore and (maybe) help understand how the observable universe came to have the baryons (and leptons) it does (today). And so cosmologists will have a good handle on how "all the stuff which later became the stars and gas and dust in the Lagoon nebula" (i.e. the baryons and leptons) were created.

But no theory of baryogenesis or leptogenesis - which in a decade, or century, will become 'fact' - will address the creation of the universe, nor will any such claim to do so.

May I ask: do these distinctions seem infuriatingly, impossibly pedantic to you?

[Nereid]

[...]

what (for you) is a 'theory-free' observation, in modern astronomy?

I don't know where you draw the line on "modern", but even with regular old fashioned observational astronomy I think there's no such thing as 'theory-free' observation.

(emphasis added)

This is what I'd like to concentrate on, from here on, in this thread.

Perhaps, if it's OK with all you readers - both those who are writing posts to this thread and those who are merely reading alone - we could start with the 17 Sep 2008 APOD I introduced earlier? And within that, start with the HST data that is represented in it (via standard data processing pipelines, not that which ended up as the blue blobs)?

For convenience, let's ignore all the parts from the MAST servers to the .jpg file displayed on your screen.

[emc]

Taking some earlier posts ... To clarify, if I may ... the 'stars' (in various APODs) may be 'other Suns', or they may be something else entirely, it's pretty much a wash for you?

Not a wash more like a sponge bath. I absorb some of the science but without the scientific background you appear to have for example, most doesn't make it past my "crusty outer layer".

Thanks Ed.

How about this: to the (same?) extent that your use of 'the internet' (that's a shorthand) requires acceptance (at some level) of most of modern physics, the stars in various APODs are other Suns ... because the underlying physics is the same?

Still not a wash… black holes are stars but we don’t fully understand the physics. Or at least I am not aware that we do. I get the impression that we understand a lot about our sun... is this a test??

The Big Bang may have created all the stuff which later became the stars and gas and dust in the Lagoon nebula, or some space aliens created a neat screen in front of the HST just before it snapped that picture which became the 19 Oct 2008 APOD (but who cares)?

I've often wondered about the space aliens... by the nature of their name, we can't readily know what their up to.

When you say "the Big Bang may have created..." aren't you repeating what you said next about the aliens? I mean, the BB is an artifact right, not a creator but the act of creation. Isn't the creator somehow buried in the mix... outside the vantage point of logics observational window?

It will come as no surprise, I'm sure, that my choice of words ("the Big Bang may have created...") was quite deliberate.

I thought that and appreciate the opening.

But no theory of baryogenesis or leptogenesis - which in a decade, or century, will become 'fact' - will address the creation of the universe, nor will any such claim to do so.

May I ask: do these distinctions seem infuriatingly, impossibly pedantic to you?

No. But thanks for asking.

I would love it if science were able to address creation. But I suppose if it can't be detected...)

BTW - You're a good example at posting and moderating.

[Nereid]

Still not a wash… black holes are stars but we don’t fully understand the physics.

Aye ... but my original comment excluded black holes ("the 'stars' (in various APODs) may be 'other Suns'" - bold added)!

Deliberately!!

I would love it if science were able to address creation. But I suppose if it can't be detected...)

"Detection" is tricky ... as you can see, from my other posts, I'm putting up for discussion the notion that there are (essentially) no 'theory-free' observations, and what are 'observations' but 'detections'?

One corollary: with more powerful theories comes new observations (and so detection).

Or perhaps the 'observable' universe may get vastly larger once a good quantum theory of gravity (or similar) becomes established?

Finally, isn't there a logical flaw in your comment? Why MUST the observable universe have been created (or, if you prefer, have a creation event)?

And thanks.

[emc]

..., isn't there a logical flaw in your comment?

Yes my comment is not logical. Because that’s the way I think (or is my nature).

Why MUST the observable universe have been created (or, if you prefer, have a creation event)?

The short answer... no logical reason except it fits my perception.

Longer answer... My perception of creation hinges on the following... I was born... ergo I was created... and I will die. Science is telling me that the sun was born and will die (or drastically change… not sure about the death part). Science is telling me that the universe has a beginning and will die a frozen death but again not sure about the death part. My point is that science sees the universe as start and finish.

I think something has to be infinite… an uncaused cause, if you will, but infinity’s outta the ballpark (comprehensible/detectable range)... So I look outside/beyond science for the answer.

[apodman]

to discuss the nature of modern astrophysics and cosmology as science, and within this huge topic to see if there is a strong case that can be made that (most) modern astronomical observations are 'theory-free'

what (for you) is a 'theory-free' observation, in modern astronomy?

I don't know where you draw the line on "modern", but even with regular old fashioned observational astronomy I think there's no such thing as 'theory-free' observation.

Facts of Observation - self-evident facts; visual facts requiring no interpretation; facts whose acceptance requires no validation.

Facts of Explanation - facts that generalize Facts of Observation; facts that describe unseen mechanisms manifested in Facts of Observation; "Laws of Nature"; facts whose acceptance requires validation.

Scientific Theories - attempts to narrow possibilities into Facts of Explanation.

It looks like Nereid is proposing that there is such a thing as theory-free observation in modern astrophysical cosmology.

It looks like apodman is is proposing that there is not.

It looks like neither answer might be entirely valid.

I'm putting up for discussion the notion that there are (essentially) no 'theory-free' observations

So I'm still not sure which side Nereid is playing, but it doesn't matter. The question is the same.

Apodman appears to be at odds with himself. He says there is no such thing as a theory-free observation, but he proposed Facts of Observation that appear to be theory-free.

Apparently he believes that, once a Scientific Theory has connected a Fact of Observation to an accepted Fact of Explanation, the next Observation is biased by that "knowledge".

So apodman's simplified world of Scientific Theories needs to become a little less simple. Instead of just the Scientific Theory arrow pointing from Observation to Explanation, we also need a Feedback arrow pointing back from Explanation to Observation.

---

Regardless of how the question of theory-free observations in astrophysical cosmology turns out, we can jump ahead now and also ask:

What is the impact on what we can say about the nature of Scientific Theory as currently utilized in astrophysical cosmology if it turns out that there is such a thing as a theory-free astronomical observation?

What is the impact if it turns out that there is not?

What is the impact if the question has no clear answer?

---

The Feedback (bias) arrow pointing back from Explanation to Observation isn't all bad. We have an observation, then a theory, then an idea of what kind of equipment to use for our next observation. We gain knowledge faster by concentrating our search in this manner than by shooting (unbiased) randomly in the dark.

---

what (for you) is a 'theory-free' observation, in modern astronomy?

I see two questions in one:

(1) Define the criteria for calling an astronomical observation theory-free.

(2) If you have one, offer a representative example of a theory-free astronomical observation.

I don't see the answers yet. Somebody please reveal them to me.

---

Wouldn't neither answer (to the "theory-free" question) being entirely valid violate the Law of the Excluded Middle? Something must either true or false, right? Not exactly. For this "law" to apply, first we would have to make sure that our criteria for "is" and "is not" were logically bulletproof and mutually exclusive. Then we would have to be examining and describing a static system, which this is not; our logical judgments in this case take place over time in a chain of events with feedback applied to the original conditions, similar to the logic that says "you can't park in an empty parking space."

[emc]

I don't know if this qualifies, but I remember looking up at the stars as a child with just a sense of wonder.

[apodman]

I don't know if this qualifies, but I remember looking up at the stars as a child with just a sense of wonder.

I think that's the kind of raw unbiased astronomical observation that may be truly theory-free. But by the logic I'm looking at, my first theory-free observation might be my last.

---

And boy am I looking at logic. If we're going to set the question of scientific theories against a background of philosphy of science including Popper, our logical treatment of Scientific Theories as an Axiomatic System must also defer to philosophy of mathematics including Hilbert and Gödel so that we might respect the limits of what we can get out of such a system. I'm not suggesting that we review this material up front, but I think it's possible that some lines of inquiry might lead us to paradox-land where these guys are our guides.

---

But back to that sense of wonder. I had it too, but it led quickly to whole shelves of astronomy books at home and at the library. Books are another good thing for a kid to look at with wonder. I may be in metro DC now, but I grew up a quarter mile away from a good view of the Empire State Building (right smack in the middle of the light pollution image you see of the Richmond-to-Boston megalapolis) and I spent my entire childhood looking in vain for the Milky Way. Even way down at the other end of the parkway in Cape May County (Jersey's own little Florida-like peninsula), there was still too much light in the places and at the times when I looked. So I personally first saw the Milky Way at the age of 24 in Georgia, and it was awesome. Since then I've found dark spots to see the Milky Way in many states, even the harshly lit ones, but back to my point. Exactly opposite of looking with wonder (even though I was doing that too), I was looking in a desperate and very un-theory-free way for visual evidence to support the Science I had seen documented.

Funny (peculiar) thing, I could have sought the same thing with the same desire and sense of urgency if I had heard of someone's awesome raw observation of the same thing as Nature. This suggests that my observation was biased by Scientific Theory because of my own perspective and the route of experience I took to it, not because of any scientific property inherent in observing the Milky Way. So it looks like an observation is scientific if you do it scientifically and not if you don't - I came a long way if only for that. Is it also biased if and only if you do it scientifically?

But did I draw different conclusions because of my Scientific perspective? Without a doubt, yes. I said, there's the branch that runs through those constellations right where it's supposed to be, and there's the center of the galaxy in Sagittarius right where it's supposed to be, etc. If Nature and beauty had been my perspective, I would have said there's a fat part, and there's a bright part, and there's a curly part with knots. I still say that anyway every time I look, but the Science is hard for me to ignore.

---

We're lucky to be holding this discussion on a planet with (weather permitting 8) and light pollution aside) great clear skies. Throughout the galaxy there are advanced species who have developed the science of astronomy despite permanent cloud cover. Kinda hard to find someone with a personal perspective on unbiased observation there.

[emc]

Hi apodman,

Since I hadn’t done proper research (i.e. look up where 39N-77W is), I had the wrong impression you were based in Washington state. Now one of my silly jokes doesn’t make sense anymore… I apologize for that.

What I hear you saying, is that if we have scientific theory under our hat, we can no longer have unbiased observation. And that makes sense to me. So maybe Nereid’s quest for an example of theory-free observation can only come from someone unfamiliar with theories regarding astronomy, astrophysics, etc. But I'm with you, that seems to simple. Or maybe you guys use too many big words.

We're lucky to be holding this discussion on a planet with (weather permitting 8) and light pollution aside) great clear skies. Throughout the galaxy there are advanced species who have developed the science of astronomy despite permanent cloud cover. Kinda hard to find someone with a personal perspective on unbiased observation there.

Whoa horse! (My bold added) Is there something else you're not telling us? Have you figured out my secret?

[orin stepanek]

OK, I lied; one more for today ...

I've just re-read this thread from the beginning, and I see that neufer, Sputnick, and orin stepanek posted to it before it was split from the original (Discuss an APOD) thread and moved here ("Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:44 pm"). These three folk have also not posted to this thread since then.

If any of you are still reading this, may I invite you to participate?

I'm particularly interested to hear from you Sputnick, because it seems (to me) that you have some (strong?) opinions about theory, observations (facts), science, cosmology, etc.

And although starnut has posted since 22 Oct, the one post has not been about any of my posts; may I explicitly invite you to comment too?

I'm speechless! There is so much hashing and rehashing about theory that it is hard to keep up.

I'm satisfied that the BB is accepted theory; and when I refer to it, that is what I mean. Whether or not I distinguish that is is just theory.

The concepts explaining whether something is theory or fact has gotten over my head; so I'll just sit on the sideline and watch. If something urges me to butt in; I'll be there.

Orin

[Nereid]

..., isn't there a logical flaw in your comment?

Yes my comment is not logical. Because that’s the way I think (or is my nature).

Why MUST the observable universe have been created (or, if you prefer, have a creation event)?

The short answer... no logical reason except it fits my perception.

Longer answer... My perception of creation hinges on the following... I was born... ergo I was created... and I will die. Science is telling me that the sun was born and will die (or drastically change… not sure about the death part). Science is telling me that the universe has a beginning and will die a frozen death but again not sure about the death part. My point is that science sees the universe as start and finish.

I think something has to be infinite… an uncaused cause, if you will, but infinity’s outta the ballpark (comprehensible/detectable range)... So I look outside/beyond science for the answer.

NOW we're getting away from science!

I'd hoped that I'd been sufficiently clear, if pedantic, re what 'science' 'tells' (you) about the origin of the universe, but apparently not.

'Science' can get 'the observable universe' (NOT 'the universe'!) back to a time when it was very hot and dense (and small, compared to now), but it can't get you an origin ('creation') ... without addressing the fatal mutual incompatibility between the two very best physics theories 'science' has today.

There's another logical (or 'scientific', if you prefer) flaw that's more fatal to your non-science: the strong implication that (all) components of the universe are 'born' and 'die' (or 'will die').

The logic flaw? The oldest one in the book: 'This thing (or class of things) was born and later it died, THEREFORE all things (or class of things) are born and (will) die'.

The scientific flaw? Among the many mind-twisting things in quantum mechanics (QM) is that 'individual objects may lose their identity' (or 'certain things cannot have an individual identity, period'). Of course, this is 'just' a limitation of the human mind when it comes to trying to interpret the theory ... the mathematics is crystal clear (and not all that difficult); and even the 'greats' are on record as saying they can't grok QM fully (yes, even Feynman!), hence the expression 'shut up and calculate'. Simple example: the two-slit experiment done 'one photon at a time' (or 'one electron' or 'one atom'). Oh, and QED (think of it as 'part of QM') is the most precisely tested theory in science, period (14? decimal places!!!), so unless you define 'fact' so narrowly that it has no physical meaning, these mind-twisting behaviours must count as 'facts'.

[Nereid]

to discuss the nature of modern astrophysics and cosmology as science, and within this huge topic to see if there is a strong case that can be made that (most) modern astronomical observations are 'theory-free'

what (for you) is a 'theory-free' observation, in modern astronomy?

I don't know where you draw the line on "modern", but even with regular old fashioned observational astronomy I think there's no such thing as 'theory-free' observation.

Facts of Observation - self-evident facts; visual facts requiring no interpretation; facts whose acceptance requires no validation.

Facts of Explanation - facts that generalize Facts of Observation; facts that describe unseen mechanisms manifested in Facts of Observation; "Laws of Nature"; facts whose acceptance requires validation.

Scientific Theories - attempts to narrow possibilities into Facts of Explanation.

It looks like Nereid is proposing that there is such a thing as theory-free observation in modern astrophysical cosmology.

It looks like apodman is is proposing that there is not.

It looks like neither answer might be entirely valid.

I'm putting up for discussion the notion that there are (essentially) no 'theory-free' observations

So I'm still not sure which side Nereid is playing, but it doesn't matter. The question is the same.

Apodman appears to be at odds with himself. He says there is no such thing as a theory-free observation, but he proposed Facts of Observation that appear to be theory-free.

Apparently he believes that, once a Scientific Theory has connected a Fact of Observation to an accepted Fact of Explanation, the next Observation is biased by that "knowledge".

So apodman's simplified world of Scientific Theories needs to become a little less simple. Instead of just the Scientific Theory arrow pointing from Observation to Explanation, we also need a Feedback arrow pointing back from Explanation to Observation.

---

Regardless of how the question of theory-free observations in astrophysical cosmology turns out, we can jump ahead now and also ask:

What is the impact on what we can say about the nature of Scientific Theory as currently utilized in astrophysical cosmology if it turns out that there is such a thing as a theory-free astronomical observation?

What is the impact if it turns out that there is not?

What is the impact if the question has no clear answer?

---

The Feedback (bias) arrow pointing back from Explanation to Observation isn't all bad. We have an observation, then a theory, then an idea of what kind of equipment to use for our next observation. We gain knowledge faster by concentrating our search in this manner than by shooting (unbiased) randomly in the dark.

---

what (for you) is a 'theory-free' observation, in modern astronomy?

I see two questions in one:

(1) Define the criteria for calling an astronomical observation theory-free.

(2) If you have one, offer a representative example of a theory-free astronomical observation.

I don't see the answers yet. Somebody please reveal them to me.

---

Wouldn't neither answer (to the "theory-free" question) being entirely valid violate the Law of the Excluded Middle? Something must either true or false, right? Not exactly. For this "law" to apply, first we would have to make sure that our criteria for "is" and "is not" were logically bulletproof and mutually exclusive. Then we would have to be examining and describing a static system, which this is not; our logical judgments in this case take place over time in a chain of events with feedback applied to the original conditions, similar to the logic that says "you can't park in an empty parking space."

Maybe there's a danger of getting too deep into the philosophy?

A key aspect of my proposal (that there are (essentially) no theory-free observations in modern astronomy) is to make sure all the relevant theory is acknowledged when we discuss things like Sputnick's assertion ("By the way .. the 'Big Bang' is a theory, an idea, a possibility but not a likelihood and it bothers me the way it is thrown around as if fact"), or those of supporters/promoters of various 'alternatives'.

The extremely condensed version goes something like this: the core parts of modern LCDM cosmological models are just as much 'fact' as that you are at the lat-long location your GPS receiver tells you (assuming it is functioning correctly), or that your bank balance is {insert value here}.

Of course, we could go through the vast amount of experimental and observational results and the chains of logic and highlight what one or other of us feel is the weakest, and put some number on it (like you did in an earlier post) ... but I think we'd likely lose nearly all the readers.

On the other hand, we could peel back the covers of one or more of these 'alternatives', and highlight the internal inconsistencies that arise from building in acceptance of theories that are later, in other parts of the logic chains, explicitly rejected. A simple example: if key 'observations' required time or location information (when and where the observations were taken) which was obtained by means that relied upon the 'fact' of General Relativity (GR), then you can't really use those same observations as 'proof' that GR is wrong, can you?

Yes, there are no 'theory-free' observations (in modern astronomy), but that's OK because the theories those observations require (for them to be 'observations') have been tested to limits way beyond the levels needed for those observations. Example: yes, I need GR for my images from MESSENGER to be observations, but the level of accuracy that I need from GR is waaaay below that to which it has been independently tested.

[Nereid]

OK, I lied; one more for today ...

I've just re-read this thread from the beginning, and I see that neufer, Sputnick, and orin stepanek posted to it before it was split from the original (Discuss an APOD) thread and moved here ("Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:44 pm"). These three folk have also not posted to this thread since then.

If any of you are still reading this, may I invite you to participate?

I'm particularly interested to hear from you Sputnick, because it seems (to me) that you have some (strong?) opinions about theory, observations (facts), science, cosmology, etc.

And although starnut has posted since 22 Oct, the one post has not been about any of my posts; may I explicitly invite you to comment too?

I'm speechless! There is so much hashing and rehashing about theory that it is hard to keep up.

I'm satisfied that the BB is accepted theory; and when I refer to it, that is what I mean. Whether or not I distinguish that is is just theory.

The concepts explaining whether something is theory or fact has gotten over my head; so I'll just sit on the sideline and watch. If something urges me to butt in; I'll be there.

Orin

Thanks Orin.

neufer?

starnut?

Sputnick??

[orin stepanek]

I like to think of creation as bringing in being that what was not. Whether by the BB or by God or whatever. True I believe in a Divine Being; but, I believe the tools He uses are what you Science Nerds are discovering. The BB (accepted theory) being one of them. Evolution being another. Who is to say what theories may explain the universe in years to come. That is what makes Science fun. If this makes me a religious nut; so be it.

Orin