Starship Asterisk*

I agree with those points, but I also point out that it might be premature to count Einstein wrong. There have been plenty of cases in history where the community had to make a choice of which way to go, and pretty much everyone went one way, except for one brilliant maverick who went the other-- and was found right centuries later.

Hello Ken G,

I also welcome you to this Forum and extend that welcome to ALL the new members as well.

I agree but feel that there were others of lesser notariety that agreed with Einstein,s perceptions.

Astrophysical cosmology (a branch of science) requires two kinds of staring into space (visualization if you prefer):

(1) Peering into the view that the laws of nature and current equipment allow us of physical outer space.

(2) Making our own scenery (mine usually with grid lines) in the mind's eye as we examine the view of matter and energy distributed across the space-time fabric.

You can't have (1) without (2) to move the cycle of observation and explanation/prediction forward.

While the second kind of visualization above occurs itself without physical observation, not only must it eventually correlate with physical observation, but the blind squirrel stands a better chance of finding a nut if we actually observed a nut to begin with; i.e., if the second kind of visualization appeared in response to the first. (A thought "from out of the clear blue sky" searching for a physical example to match has a lower chance of success.)

You can call the second kind of visualization above "philosophy" or say it is partly guided by "philosophy" if you wish, but it is a useful scientific tool by any other name.

Yes, I agree that we are doing more than science here, we are doing meta-science. By that I mean, science knows how to test whether or not a hypothesis is correct, but it doesn't know how to test the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct. There simply is no science for that, it's more like intuition and common sense. But Einstein's "common" sense on that issue was not the same as most other people's-- ergo the issue of the thread. It's a real problem, and is related to science's biggest problem: it knows how to test predictions, but it never knows if its predictions will be correct in advance. In response to that, I like to say that science does not predict the future, it predicts the past that has not happened yet.

Hello Ken G,

And, by default, susses out the present?

Ken G wrote:Yes, I agree that we are doing more than science here, we are doing meta-science. By that I mean, science knows how to test whether or not a hypothesis is correct, but it doesn't know how to test the likelihood of a hypothesis being correct. There simply is no science for that, it's more like intuition and common sense. But Einstein's "common" sense on that issue was not the same as most other people's-- ergo the issue of the thread. It's a real problem, and is related to science's biggest problem: it knows how to test predictions, but it never knows if its predictions will be correct in advance. In response to that, I like to say that science does not predict the future, it predicts the past that has not happened yet.

Another way of stating that along similar lines would be:
"Science does not predict the future, It shapes it."

Off topic:

Future History (Heinlein)

Psychohistory (Asimov)

Hello All, (not agaaaaaaain you may be saying)

I'm sensitive to the fact that ideas posted in this Forum may not translate well in other languages so I do try to keep that in mind when commenting or replying to a member. That being said:

Ken G wrote:I like to say that science does not predict the future, it predicts the past that has not happened yet.

The subject of time is ever present in my in the back of my mind- to the degree that most of my thoughts, when presented, possess this hidden aspect as an underpinning or base as a general framework of reference.Time is my pet subject as I have said in the past so, regardless of my comment about the "present" in my last post, it should be understood that all things come to us from the past. Techniquely, the only thing that is even close to being in the present is us humans. Or more specifically, our thoughts. Ken G's comment at the end of his post said it better, and he's right on the money. I'm probably predicting the future by saying I'll write more on this later.

Yesterday is history
Tomorrow is a mystery

astrolabe wrote:Hello Sputnick,

What is science?

Hey Astro - I asked first .. but I think it was Cecelia Payne that defined it 'as a search for the unknown.'

Hello Sputnick,
Cool. Did they find anything?

Ken G wrote:Hello all, it seems the primary thrust of this thread involves two related claims that are meeting with a skeptical welcome:
1) science should be treated as an inclusional, rather than exclusional, enterprise, on the grounds that it is hard to know what strange-sounding ideas might eventually prove successful, and
2) the scientist should use an essentially philosophical reasoning process to motivate his/her hypotheses, and when the prevailing view that is empirically motivated stands in contradiction to the philosophical reasoning, it makes more sense to fix the science than the philosophy.

Hi Ken .. I read your entire post and was tremendously impressed with your perceptions and skill in communicating. However .. if you assumed that I intended to say a scientist should use an essentially philosophical reasoning you are incorrect. I intended only that philosophy should not be neglected as a tool. Einstein said, 'there comes a time when it is necessary.' I say the time for philosophy should have been from the beginning, in harmony with the other tools.

Ken G wrote:I agree with those points, but I also point out that it might be premature to count Einstein wrong. There have been plenty of cases in history where the community had to make a choice of which way to go, and pretty much everyone went one way, except for one brilliant maverick who went the other-- and was found right centuries later.

Exactly - they are the massless or nearly massless neutrino penetrating everything .. but unrecognized by the concensus.

apodman wrote:Astrophysical cosmology (a branch of science) requires two kinds of staring into space (visualization if you prefer):

(1) Peering into the view that the laws of nature and current equipment allow us of physical outer space.

(2) Making our own scenery (mine usually with grid lines) in the mind's eye as we examine the view of matter and energy distributed across the space-time fabric.

You can't have (1) without (2) to move the cycle of observation and explanation/prediction forward.

While the second kind of visualization above occurs itself without physical observation, not only must it eventually correlate with physical observation, but the blind squirrel stands a better chance of finding a nut if we actually observed a nut to begin with; i.e., if the second kind of visualization appeared in response to the first. (A thought "from out of the clear blue sky" searching for a physical example to match has a lower chance of success.)

You can call the second kind of visualization above "philosophy" or say it is partly guided by "philosophy" if you wish, but it is a useful scientific tool by any other name.

The scientific mind more fully opened by direct observation of nature might first philosophize that a blind squirrel will probably find the nut faster than a sighted squirrel because being blind, the squirrel's sense of smell will be more acute .. and in my observations a squirrel uses his sight mostly to chart his path from tree to tree, while it uses its sense of smell to locate nuts .. and this becomes obvious watching squirrels dig up nuts beneath snow, layers of fallen leaves, et. Continued observation and experimentation will prove the philosolphy conclusively .. but please, scientist, be humane and remove the squirrels sight temporarilly by way of eye coverings rather than more unthinking ways. Philosophy, I think, may be indirect observation of nauture .. a gift for those not having had opportunity for observation .. and a gift enhanced by observation. I see much less opportunity for scientists to develop in our modern society, where nature has become a commodity to be clearcut at every opportunity. City parks, I think with squirrels running wildly amok, are better scientific school than the standard model.

Hello All,

Maybe it goes something like this:

Philosophy that is subjective skews observation with preconceived ideas.
Philosophy that is objective is not philosophy it is pure speculation through observation.
Speculation through observation that is backed up by measurement and testing is science.

astrolabe wrote:Hello All,

Maybe it goes something like this:

Philosophy that is subjective skews observation with preconceived ideas.
Philosophy that is objective is not philosophy it is pure speculation through observation.
Speculation through observation that is backed up by measurement and testing is science.

And how about Poetic philosophyzing observation? One of the books I just read, and written by PHDs, stated that Edgar Allan Poe was the first person (recognized) to realize the solution as to why the night sky is dark .. that of not being able to see all of the stars because not enough time has elapsed to allow all the stars' light to yet reach us.
(I wish I had brought my notes downtown today).

Sputnick wrote:And how about Poetic philosophyzing observation? One of the books I just read, and written by PHDs, ...

I've often thought I should go back to school and get a PhD in Philosophy, then nobody could tell me I'm wrong. But I realized I would have to recognize the possibility that everybody else could be right. I'm not sure I'm ready for that.

Hello Sputnick,

Sputnick wrote:

astrolabe wrote:Hello All,

Maybe it goes something like this:

Philosophy that is subjective skews observation with preconceived ideas.
Philosophy that is objective is not philosophy it is pure speculation through observation.
Speculation through observation that is backed up by measurement and testing is science.

And how about Poetic philosophyzing observation? One of the books I just read, and written by PHDs, stated that Edgar Allan Poe was the first person (recognized) to realize the solution as to why the night sky is dark .. that of not being able to see all of the stars because not enough time has elapsed to allow all the stars' light to yet reach us.
(I wish I had brought my notes downtown today).

Poe using Poetic philosophy for his conclusionis an assumption. The Phd's weren't there.

astrolabe wrote:Hello Sputnick,

Sputnick wrote:

astrolabe wrote:Hello All,

Maybe it goes something like this:

Philosophy that is subjective skews observation with preconceived ideas.
Philosophy that is objective is not philosophy it is pure speculation through observation.
Speculation through observation that is backed up by measurement and testing is science.

And how about Poetic philosophyzing observation? One of the books I just read, and written by PHDs, stated that Edgar Allan Poe was the first person (recognized) to realize the solution as to why the night sky is dark .. that of not being able to see all of the stars because not enough time has elapsed to allow all the stars' light to yet reach us.
(I wish I had brought my notes downtown today).

Poe using Poetic philosophy is an assumption. The Phd's weren't there.

True, Astro - the PHDs weren't there, but they came to recognize Poe. Poe, it was said in the book, was also an amateur scientist who gave what was reported in the book I read to be the first paper recognizing why the night sky is dark . . but I wanted to raise the poetic philosophy part first as he came to his realizatin simply by going outside and looking at the night sky.

Hello Sputnick,

Amateur scientist? Well then, "Poe"-etic maybe, not poetic

astrolabe wrote:Hello Sputnick,

Amateur scientist? Well then, "Poe"-etic maybe, not poetic

Astro - if I ever ride my moped to Old Orchard Beach it would be great meeting you.
I rode from Ottawa to Victoria and return two summers ago, so almost anything is possible.

Hello Sputnick,

Let me know, I'll clear my slate and unlock the door. Gotta warn ya though, haven't had a drop in 8.5 light years.

astrolabe wrote:Hello Sputnick,

Let me know, I'll clear my slate and unlock the door. Gotta warn ya though, haven't had a drop in 8.5 light years.

You do have some around though? right? And after all that time it will be well aged.

Hello Sputnick,

Sure do! You can have some of wifey's.

While I have your attention (hee-hee):

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081115.html

Such a beautiful photo -
If these Galaxies are enveloped in Dark Matter - the envelopes will be interacting .. possibly exchanging energies - are these exchanges being searched for?


So: "A" may or may not be true. But, if "A" is true, then "B" is a fact. And since "B" is now a fact then "C" is possible. Is anyone looking for "C"?

How did you accomplish this?
Maybe something like this is what you are looking for? :http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080917.html

astrolabe wrote:Hello Sputnick,

Sure do! You can have some of wifey's.

While I have your attention (hee-hee):

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081115.html

Such a beautiful photo -
If these Galaxies are enveloped in Dark Matter - the envelopes will be interacting .. possibly exchanging energies - are these exchanges being searched for?


So: "A" may or may not be true. But, if "A" is true, then "B" is a fact. And since "B" is now a fact then "C" is possible. Is anyone looking for "C"?

How did you accomplish this?

How did I accomplish what? And I guess I'll have to bring a few bottles with me when I visit because if I drink all your wife's she's going to make your life miserable.

Maybe something like this is what you are looking for? :http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080917.html

I will check this out.