Café posts split from Stormy Lagoon Nebula (19Oct)

[apodman]

Theory and Perception

I view everything in terms of my current understanding. This includes scientific theory.

If I don't know anything about a particular idea, it has no influence on my perception. With respect to that idea, my consideration of any phenomenon or object is a blank slate.

If I know something about a particluar idea but haven't gotten to the point of supporting or opposing it, my perception can benefit from seeing a phenomenon or object in the light of the information that comes with the idea.

If I know enough about an idea (or think I do) to have formed an opinion, I can benefit from the information but I introduce the element of prejudice or bias into my perception.

Something that agrees with my preconceptions makes me more receptive to new information, and something that disagrees makes me unreceptive. The countermeasure for prejudice is openmindedness, which is the attempted willing temporary suspension of my opinion so I can reap the same informational benefits as a naturally receptive (unbiased) person.

Theory and Perception of APOD Content

The general statements above apply.

APOD content often illustrates or attempts to illustrate a theory. This can be the main purpose of the APOD, or might be any of the theories implicit in the picture. Dispensing with bias as well as I can, I hope to consider any idea presented to me. Usually I'm successful because I don't come looking for an argument and I don't keep digging until I find one.

How Theory Becomes Fact

For the layman, theory becomes fact when scholastic book publishers print it and the teachers believe it. For the expert scientists (who sort-of give the go-ahead to the publishers), the elite sort-of vote on whether they believe it. Very scientific.

When I was in elementary school, people who looked at Africa and South America and said maybe they used to be together went beyond the limits of conventional wisdom and evidence. By junior high, we had a little more evidence and study, and the theory of Continental Drift was somewhat legitimate. By high school, we had the science of Plate Tectonics. By Geology 101, we had details. Now the proto-continents have names. Personally, I believed it all along just because it made sense with everything else I had been told about the Earth. But just because something makes sense to me doesn't make it so, I remind myself again (though I am right incredibly often).

Science of History and Science of the Continuous Present

I believe there is one set of scientific facts that span the full extent and life of the universe. Even if the rules change from here to there or now to then, it's still one set of connected facts. So if there is to be science, which is nothing more than a way of describing and trying to understand what we observe (or sometimes what we can't observe), it's going to be all part of the same package. The past is simply the trail left by the continuous present as it moves forward in time.

Methods of gathering scientific data vary. Mining an existing record is different from having to capture data as it happens.

Those who believe the world is very young might be unreceptive to the historical geological record as popularly interpreted. Those who believed there were only seven spheres in the heavens were unreceptive to Galileo's observation in the continuous present of four more.

Scientific Proof

Proof is not possible in science in the strictly logical, mathematical, or philosophical sense.

If criteria are met and a theory fits everything we know very well, I would still call the theory "accepted" rather than "proven".

Theories that state "there are no such-and-such" can be disproven and theories that state "yes there are such-and-such" can be proven just by finding one. Such trivial cases, however, are hardly representative of a scientific theory.

Acceptance by scientific method doesn't seem very scientific. In logic and mathematics, we have systems of postulates and rigorous methods of proof. In science we have hypothesis and attempts to find evidence to support or refute the hypothesis. But evidence isn't quite proof. The pursuit of scientific knowledge is more like hacking our way through the jungle than following a roadmap.

Science (the set of facts that describes all reality) is beautiful, orderly, and believable.

Science (the pursuit of facts by scientists) is a scramble. We're about to the point of the three blind men describing the elephant as a tree, a wall, and a snake.

Non-Responsive Arguments

Man: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Other Man: No it isn't!

Man: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

Other Man: Look, if I "argue" with you, I must take up a contrary position!

Man: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

Other Man: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Other Man: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Other Man: Yes it is!

Man: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Other Man: It is NOT!

If I wish to go on record as disagreeing with someone without arguing, I can simply do so. If I wish to engage in an argument, I can easily get fired up by someone who has expressed an opinion contrary to my own. But if all I do is shoot back my own opinion without engaging the points made by my worthy opponent (if not worthy, I'm in the wrong place), I'm just trading shots, not arguing. Like the diplomats say, somebody has to move off the dime. But I can stand on this dime forever. If I'm not openminded, I'm unreceptive. If I haven't received a point, I can't understand it, appraise it, form an opinion on it, and express that opinion to the enlightenment of all. I guess that would make me selfish, or at least self-centered. I'd say "the center of the universe" but that brings cosmology back into question.

[emc]

Hi apodman,

At risk of getting mushy as a Jovian surface... I wanted you to know I enjoyed your answers to Nereid! Very well thought out... 8)

[Nereid]

Thanks very much to apodman and emc for your thoughtful posts!

I look forward to others' inputs and comments.

If I may, I'd like to dive into the relationship between perception and theory a bit.

And to start I'll limit 'perception' to (the sense of) sight.

Much of what follows may seem pedantic or philosophical (or both, or worse), but it's important for the point I'd like to (eventually) make.

I imagine each of you reading this is looking at a computer screen or monitor (or perhaps on an iPhone or similar), and at some level you accept, as 'reality', that a person, somewhere else in the world (other than in the place you are now reading this) typed these words - used their fingers to press keys on a keyboard of some kind. You also acknowledge, at some level, that how those keystrokes became patterns on the screen that you are reading involves some technology - the manufacturing of the keyboard and computer, the delivery of electricity, 'the internet', and so on.

But what else is involved in your acknowledgement of the role 'technology' played in your acceptance of the reality I just sketched?

Specifically, at some level, how many, or what, scientific theories does your acknowledgement implicitly require you to accept? Or, to step back a bit, to what extent do you agree that acknowledgement of 'technology' requires acceptance of (at least some) scientific theory, at some level, if only implicitly?

To jump ahead: I am interested in how strongly a case can be made that the kind of acknowledgement of technology that is involved in 'using the internet' means acceptance of modern, mainstream astrophysics (with some important caveats). A possible corollary is that a rejection of 'the Big Bang' (properly re-phrased in terms of contemporary cosmology, the science) is, logically, equivalent to a denial that you 'use the internet'.

[bystander]

Perception and Theory

Although I grew up in Oklahoma, I subscribe to my neighbor to the North's nickname, "Show me!" I've always had a hard time accepting things on faith. I never could learn from others mistakes, I had to make them all myself.

I was exposed to Set Theory, Geometry, and Modern Algebra in Fourth thru Sixth grade (SMSG). I became enamoured with Mathematics and its structure and elegant proofs. I was drawn to the "hard" sciences (chemistry, physics) and, oddly enough, economics.

Without TV, I was (and still am) and avid reader. I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings in Sixth grade. Seventh grade literature was The Illiad and The Odessey. I grew up reading Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, and Heinlein. Heinlein, especially, infuenced my veiwpoint of what should be socially appropriate. I enjoyed Asimov's science (and humor) as much as I did his fiction.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I, like everyone else, am a product of my experience. I can only interpret things according to what I know (or think I know). I've seen a lot of changes in current scientific theory, and my perceptions have changed accordingly. The last half century has seen lots of advances. My perceptions are based upon my current understanding of science.

APOD Content

I like astrophotography because, like Ed, I like the "pretty pictures". That is what originally drew me to APOD. Reading the caption, and traversing the links, can sometimes raise questions. Thankfully, we have the Asterisk, and I appreciate the answers I've received here. But I don't think my perceptions affect how I view the picture as much as how I read the caption and discussion.

Theory and Fact

Theory and fact are two different things. Fact is tangible. Theory is just our interpretation of those facts. How well that theory explains the facts or makes predictions about future observations determines how well received that theory becomes. Sometimes theory can become so well received that it may be perceived as fact. To the layman, it may become indistiguishable from fact. This is a fault of our educators and the science community.

Past vs. Present

In a very real sense, it's all science of the past. By the time we begin to study a phenomenon, it has already passed, but I don't think that is what's being asked. Study of the past helps us in understanding where we are today. Geology, archeology, paleontology, and even history give us an understanding of how our home planet has changed. Astrophysics and cosmology give us the bigger picture of the universe in which we live. History of science provides us with a view of how our understanding of the world has evolved.

Scientific Proof

Scientific proof is possible, but only in the negative. One of the tenets of the scientific method is falsifiability. With only one observation that contradicts a theory, that theory can be proven wrong. However, unlike mathematics, proving a scientific theory right is impossible. Regardless of the preponderance of evidence, how useful a theory is in making predictions, or how plausible a theory may seem, it is still only a theory and will never be fact.

OK, that's my two cents. My thanks to apodman for providing me a presentation method.

[apodman]

I imagine each of you reading this is looking at a computer screen or monitor (or perhaps on an iPhone or similar), and at some level you accept, as 'reality', that a person, somewhere else in the world (other than in the place you are now reading this) typed these words - used their fingers to press keys on a keyboard of some kind. You also acknowledge, at some level, that how those keystrokes became patterns on the screen that you are reading involves some technology - the manufacturing of the keyboard and computer, the delivery of electricity, 'the internet', and so on.

But what else is involved in your acknowledgement of the role 'technology' played in your acceptance of the reality I just sketched?

Specifically, at some level, how many, or what, scientific theories does your acknowledgement implicitly require you to accept? Or, to step back a bit, to what extent do you agree that acknowledgement of 'technology' requires acceptance of (at least some) scientific theory, at some level, if only implicitly?

I am a nerd and thus won't provide anything like a typical or layman's answer, but I'll answer this one anyway.

In school and then in industry, I have made daily use of the principles of mathematics, physics, semiconductors, electronics, circuit theory, digital design, computer hardware architecture, software, and networks. So when I sit at a computer I see the whole pipeline of technology and the theory behind it with every keystroke I type. But I am comfortable with it as with an old blanket. Rather than distracting from and degrading the experience the technology delivers, it provides me with a context and setting for everything I do at my desk. That's part of the technophiliac philosophy. Sort of like a manual transmission (I'm suffering with an automatic right now) keeping me in touch with the actual mechanics of driving my car and providing a more fulfilling driving experience.

He's just an american boy & he loves his machine.
No back-talk from a machine.
When was the last time a television set gave you !@#$ about who you met last night?
No back-talk machine.

[emc]

If I may, I'd like to dive into the relationship between perception and theory a bit.

And to start I'll limit 'perception' to (the sense of) sight.

Much of what follows may seem pedantic or philosophical (or both, or worse), but it's important for the point I'd like to (eventually) make.

I imagine each of you reading this is looking at a computer screen or monitor (or perhaps on an iPhone or similar), and at some level you accept, as 'reality', that a person, somewhere else in the world (other than in the place you are now reading this) typed these words - used their fingers to press keys on a keyboard of some kind. You also acknowledge, at some level, that how those keystrokes became patterns on the screen that you are reading involves some technology - the manufacturing of the keyboard and computer, the delivery of electricity, 'the internet', and so on.

But what else is involved in your acknowledgement of the role 'technology' played in your acceptance of the reality I just sketched?

Specifically, at some level, how many, or what, scientific theories does your acknowledgement implicitly require you to accept? Or, to step back a bit, to what extent do you agree that acknowledgement of 'technology' requires acceptance of (at least some) scientific theory, at some level, if only implicitly?

To jump ahead: I am interested in how strongly a case can be made that the kind of acknowledgement of technology that is involved in 'using the internet' means acceptance of modern, mainstream astrophysics (with some important caveats). A possible corollary is that a rejection of 'the Big Bang' (properly re-phrased in terms of contemporary cosmology, the science) is, logically, equivalent to a denial that you 'use the internet'.

Let me see if I get your point… I accept the use of the technology that goes into the internet by using it so I am also accepting the scientific theories that are embedded throughout technology.

[Chris Peterson]

The relationship between "reality" and (scientific) theory is an interesting one. As it's come up in this thread, let me ask all readers some simple questions, if I may.

I'll consider those questions in a moment, but first, a comment on the above. In my view, "reality" is what we observe, and "theory" is what we use to explain or predict our observations. I don't think that theory in itself needs to have any connection with reality, other than explaining it. That is, if a theory describes an observation in some mathematical terms, there is no requirement that the math and reality have any true connection. Reality just is. I don't find it necessary to ask why- I don't even think the question is necessarily meaningful. Why does gravity cause two masses to attract each other? Meaningless question. Theory can describe the process, but the Universe doesn't solve Newton's equation (or some GR tensor) for every particle, I'm pretty sure of that!

First, what's the relationship between what each of us, as individuals, perceives and (scientific) theory?

As I suggest above, theory can help us find structure in our perceptions. That's the only connection, though. Theory and perception are fundamentally different things.

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)?

That depends entirely on the images. Some I see as mainly aesthetic. Others help me visualize some theory I'm already aware of. Being well educated in astronomical matters certainly enhances my enjoyment of many images.

Third, what would you say are the conditions under which something passes from being 'theory' in one of the general senses that this word is used to 'fact'?

Technically, never. I consider "facts" to be observations, and very unlikely to ever need correction. Examples of facts: the evolution of species, the expansion of the Universe, the behavior of a falling object. "Theories" are models we use to explain and predict facts. Examples of theories (corresponding to the above): evolution by natural selection, the Big Bang (yes, I know there are variants), Newton's law of gravity. If we are careful to treat observations as facts, and explanations as theories, there should be little confusion.

Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

I'm not sure I understand the question. There is a clear difference in the scientific processes used in reconstructing something in the past, and studying something that is current. More specifically, the strongest scientific process allows for experimentation. But there are cases where that is impossible, either because the thing you are trying to explain happened in the past and can't be reconstructed, or because the scale of the thing exceeds practical experimentation (recreating the Big Bang is a difficult thing to do in the lab). But there are many examples of things that happened in the past that we can recreate by analog in the present.

Fifth, is 'proof' possible, in science? If so, what are the criteria for judging if something is '(scientifically) proven'? If not, why not?

No. It doesn't matter how solid your theory is, or how effectively it explains your observations, there can be no assurance that some new observation won't be made that invalidates the theory. A really good theory has lots of supporting evidence, and no contradictory evidence. Weaker theories may have less to support them, or even some potentially contradictory evidence. Any absolutely contradictory evidence invalidates a theory regardless of the strength of its supporting evidence. However, that doesn't mean it has to be thrown out. Some people feel that our understanding of nature is weak, and that in the future sometime most of our present theories will be gone. That seems unlikely to me. Our understanding seems quite deep and accurate, and I think that our theories are likely to undergo slight adjustments (like the adjustments to Newton's laws caused by relativity), not wholesale replacement.

[apodman]

I don't think that theory in itself needs to have any connection with reality, other than explaining it. That is, if a theory describes an observation in some mathematical terms, there is no requirement that the math and reality have any true connection. Reality just is. I don't find it necessary to ask why- I don't even think the question is necessarily meaningful. Why does gravity cause two masses to attract each other? Meaningless question.

I agree. Well stated.

Theory can describe the process, but the Universe doesn't solve Newton's equation (or some GR tensor) for every particle, I'm pretty sure of that!

I'm not so sure. I tend to think that the Universe does solve Newton's equation (or some GR tensor) for every particle, only it uses itself as the instant-results analog computer. If the math and the reality need have no true connection for our purposes, why should the same not be true for the particle's purposes?

Examples of facts: the evolution of species, the expansion of the Universe, the behavior of a falling object.

Examples of theories (corresponding to the above): evolution by natural selection, the Big Bang ..., Newton's law of gravity.

Great pertinent examples.

Some people feel that our understanding of nature is weak, and that in the future sometime most of our present theories will be gone. That seems unlikely to me. Our understanding seems quite deep and accurate, and I think that our theories are likely to undergo slight adjustments (like the adjustments to Newton's laws caused by relativity), not wholesale replacement.

I agree. My crack (actually a standard off-the-shelf crack adapted for use here) about the three blind men was meant to highlight how much more there is possibly to be discovered and therefore included in our theories (look at recent "additions" to the universe like Dark Matter and Dark Energy), not how deficient our current theories are. Besides, the blind men's theories can be revised, improved, and corrected - and don't overlook that they are right as far as they go. My cynicism is more about the pursuit than the theories. I'm not taking your comment personally, Chris, just making use of your argument to better establish my proposition.

[apodman]

I am interested in how strongly a case can be made that the kind of acknowledgement of technology that is involved in 'using the internet' means acceptance of modern, mainstream astrophysics (with some important caveats). A possible corollary is that a rejection of 'the Big Bang' (properly re-phrased in terms of contemporary cosmology, the science) is, logically, equivalent to a denial that you 'use the internet'.

Let me condense or paraphrase this statement for the purpose of comparison:

"If you use technology, you believe in science."

Long before the internet, someone else made the following argument (also paraphrased to help with the comparison):

"If you use technology, you have faith in science, so science is compatible with faith."

Science, religion, philosophy. Theory, observation, fact, belief, viewpoint. Rock, paper, scissors.

[Chris Peterson]

"If you use technology, you believe in science."

Clearly untrue, of course. Plenty of people are unable to separate technology from magic. A three-year old can watch TV, and have no concept of technology, let alone science.

"If you use technology, you have faith in science, so science is compatible with faith."

This statement demonstrates a notable lack of logic.

Science, religion, philosophy.

Science is fundamentally different from the latter two. Religion is a branch of philosophy that includes the supernatural.

[apodman]

"If you use technology, you believe in science."

Clearly untrue, of course. Plenty of people are unable to separate technology from magic. A three-year old can watch TV, and have no concept of technology, let alone science.

Noting that I was referring to the idea and not endorsing it, let me play some semantics anyway:

How about "If you use technology, you believe in science whether you know it or not."? The three-year-old and the person for whom technology might as well be magic would both be accommodated in this revision. A person can believe that the sun will rise tomorrow even if they've never thought about it, and you don't need 3 credits in thermodynamics to think it's warm in here.

If you use technology, you have faith in science, so science is compatible with faith."

This statement demonstrates a notable lack of logic.

Noting that I was referring to the idea and not endorsing it, let me squirm a little anyway:

Remarkably, the argument was originally intended to sell faith as "logical", and science and technology just happened to be used as part of the argument. While some of the notable lack of logic may be due to liberties I took while condensing, I believe that this sort of Möbius logic is a natural result of people playing "rock, paper, scissors" with science, philosophy, and religion. Which is kinda what I wanted to say the first time.

[Chris Peterson]

Noting that I was referring to the idea and not endorsing it...

Yes, I realize you were just passing on the statement. Hard to indicate that in a phpBB quote, though.

How about "If you use technology, you believe in science whether you know it or not."?

I don't buy it, unless you have some unusual definition of "belief", "science", or both. To me, "belief in science" means that you fundamentally accept the scientific approach towards analyzing a problem. Clearly you can use technology without this belief system. Even if you mean a looser definition like "belief in the products of science", people use technology all the time without understanding it, and in constant dread it is going to spontaneously fail (the computer will crash, the plane will crash... something terrible will happen because you can't trust science or technology).

[emc]

I want very much to contribute, but this is all I could come up with…

I don’t see faith as logical and I don’t see science as faith. Faith expects the sun to rise and science explains the sun doesn’t rise rather the earth rotates. Now faith expects the earth to rotate and science explains that the earth’s rotation is slowing down… bummer… then science further explains that the slow down won’t be a problem anytime soon and faith rises again, but with reservation because now faith is reduced to a timeline.

[apodman]

How about "If you use technology, you believe in science whether you know it or not."?

I don't buy it, unless you have some unusual definition of "belief", "science", or both. To me, "belief in science" means that you fundamentally accept the scientific approach towards analyzing a problem.

Science (the set of facts that describes all reality) ...

Science (the pursuit of facts by scientists) ...

The maxim in question would use my first definition of "science" above rather than the second one which you focused on. Definition 4 in my cheap dictionary says "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" which is close enough to what I'm calling it.

Belief is the slippery element to deal with. Ultimately we want to say what "belief" means with regard to a theory. I can name at least four levels of belief for starters:

1. I have never even heard or considered the question. There is nothing to believe or disbelieve.

2. The proposal is preposterous (e.g., the moon is made of green cheese) and has absolutely no basis or means of support. I reject it before even considering believing it.

3. I have some evidence and/or a somewhat attractive theory. Based on all inputs and/or on prior beliefs and knowledge, I can believe, disbelieve, or remain undecided.

4. I have overwhelming evidence and/or an apparently bulletproof theory. I have no choice to believe or disbelieve, because my mind considers this issue to be knowledge of fact. (Chris, I appreciate your definition of "fact" as observed fact to differentiate it from theory, but here I refer to anything the mind accepts as fact including theory that is true even though unprovable.) I could say casually that I "believe" this "fact"; but philosophically by the way I define "belief" and "fact", once something has entered the realm of "fact" in my mind, "belief" no longer enters into it.

Trying this another way, I think of "belief" as involving a conscious choice whereas I think of "acceptance of fact" as a dictated conclusion for a sane informed person. The maxim in question would certainly not make any sense with the concept of "belief" I have stated here. The use of the phrase "believe in science" in the maxim would make no sense coming from me since I accept "science" as "fact". Talking about "belief in science" (meaning believing in the validity of the scientific approach as you suggest) would make somewhat more sense coming from me, since my "belief" in the scientific method as practiced by humans is not whole-hearted (whole-minded) and therefore involves conscious decision, but this wasn't the meaning I was thinking of when I constructed the maxim in question.

I don’t see faith as logical and I don’t see science as faith.

This is in line, I think, with my not seeing belief as pertinent to fact.

[apodman]

... in constant dread it is going to spontaneously fail (the computer will crash, the plane will crash... something terrible will happen because you can't trust science or technology).

So they do believe something about it.

People think of science as difficult and magic as easy. Your Internet Service Provider wants you to use its Home Page as your one true gateway to their magical land of the internet. They want you to believe in the magic rather than the science. They want you to believe that straying from the path they provide will land you in confusion. They want you to believe this so strongly that you stay with them forever. The ISP's Home Page design is an attempt to build a believable (albeit virtual) reality to provide context and comfort for the subscriber's internet experience. (There is no requirement that appearance and reality have any true connection, huh?) Yea, though I browse through the valley of the shadow of cyberspace, I will fear no trojan virus, for I have faith in my ISP. That's what many believe.

[apodman]

I don't get how a simple life form can evolve into a complex life form where all of the systems that make up the complex life form have to be in place at the same time in order for the life form to function successfully.

As I understand the current theory, features were added to living organisms one at a time. For example, at a cellular level, we find DNA in the nucleus and different DNA in the mitochondrion. The conventional interpretation is that the cell and mitochondrion once existed as separate organisms until one assimilated the other. Probably just ate it and failed to digest it. And it survived mitosis, too, and the rest was history.

[Chris Peterson]

I don’t see faith as logical and I don’t see science as faith.

I agree with both observations. Nevertheless, there is some core of faith deep in a scientist, because the decision to believe that science is the best approach to explaining the Universe, or that rationality is the best approach, is axiomatic.

The elegant thing about rationalism is you only need that tiny core element of faith, and everything follows logically. This is quite unlike less rational philosophical or religious beliefs, that require substantial amounts of fundamental (and not so fundamental) material to be taken on faith alone.

[Chris Peterson]

I don't get how a simple life form can evolve into a complex life form where all of the systems that make up the complex life form have to be in place at the same time in order for the life form to function successfully.

As I understand the current theory, features were added to living organisms one at a time. For example, at a cellular level, we find DNA in the nucleus and different DNA in the mitochondrion. The conventional interpretation is that the cell and mitochondrion once existed as separate organisms until one assimilated the other.

Another key point is that elements that seem "irreducibly complex" are not necessarily so. A complex structure might require two or more proteins in order to work, which on first glance is hard to explain, since you would not expect multiple proteins to evolve simultaneously. But recent work has shown- very convincingly- that most such proteins (or even whole structures) have other functions as well. So proteins that function independently in different systems can be co-opted into new functionality.

[apodman]

Philosophy of Science

Karl Popper contended that the central question in the philosophy of science was distinguishing science from non-science. Early attempts by the logical positivists grounded science in observation while non-science (e.g. metaphysics) was non-observational and hence nonsense. Popper claimed that the central feature of science was that science aims at falsifiable claims (i.e. claims that can be proven false, at least in principle). No single unified account of the difference between science and non-science has been widely accepted by philosophers, and some regard the problem as unsolvable or uninteresting.

Karl Popper

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.

Popperian Cosmology

Popperian cosmology also includes Karl Popper's theory of objective epistemology, also known as his theory of falsifiability.

---

(not to be confused with John Popper)

[Chris Peterson]

Philosophy of Science

Karl Popper contended that the central question in the philosophy of science was distinguishing science from non-science. Early attempts by the logical positivists grounded science in observation while non-science (e.g. metaphysics) was non-observational and hence nonsense. Popper claimed that the central feature of science was that science aims at falsifiable claims (i.e. claims that can be proven false, at least in principle). No single unified account of the difference between science and non-science has been widely accepted by philosophers, and some regard the problem as unsolvable or uninteresting.

However, nearly all scientists seem to be in pretty close agreement about the difference between science and non-science <g>.

Not likely you're going to get a group of philosophers to agree on anything! Easy solution: if you can't agree, call the problem "unsolvable or uninteresting". Not a common approach in science, where the general rule is that the harder a problem is to solve, the more interesting it is.

[apodman]

Catholic Encyclopedia

... philosophers employ the words "cosmology" and "philosophy of nature" to designate the philosophic study of the corporeal world.

Helge Kragh

The universe, rigidly understood as the totality of everything, includes after all phenomena that are beyond the power of physics, such as thoughts and human emotions, and it is obviously not with such things the cosmologist is concerned. He or she is concerned with the structure and composition of the physical universe, that is, the geometrical structure of space and the matter and radiation distributed in it, as well as the temporal evolution of this largest possible physical system. To get a reasonable picture of what cosmology is about, we should add that although, in principle, its domain has no limitations in space and time, in practice cosmology deals only with the large-scale features of the universe, typically of galactic or extra-galactic magnitude: atoms, butterflies, and mountains are all parts of the universe, but they are of no interest to the cosmologist.

[apodman]

... perceptions of modern astrophysics and cosmology as science are quite interesting to me.

This concept is out of line, I think, with my not seeing belief as pertinent to fact.

I mean that astrophysics and cosmology, strictly speaking, are science, and that "perception" doesn't enter into it.

Maybe that's just my scientific prejudice talking, but I can't see it any other way.

If anybody here sees astrophysics and cosmology as non-science (or if anybody here knows and can quantify the views of those who do), please tell me about those views (what astrophysics and cosmology are, not what they aren't) so I can better understand the nature of Nereid's question.

Maybe I'm confused, too, about something similar to the two uses of "science" (the facts vs. the pursuit). Is it the methods, goals, and direction of modern cosmology that someone might find unscientific, or the current popular conclusions of modern cosmology (e.g., Big Bang or cold non-baryonic dark matter) that someone might find unscientific?

---

Great conceptual leaps forward in cosmology come from people like Einstein understanding concepts so deeply that they form a vision and follow it up with mathematics. The so-called scientific method can tell you about testing a theory or hypothesis, but it can't tell you except methodologically how to think of the next theory (or what to think of as the next theory).

So do I think the methods and conclusions of modern cosmology are scientifically valid? I think the methods are interim measures scratching out what we can with observation and conjecture until someone comes up with the next breakthrough vision and the mathematics fit. I say conjecture rather than theory because, as I understand it, there are more open questions than are even addressed by observation. (A mathematical analogy would be having a system of fewer linearly independent equations than you have independent variables described by them - they don't determine a unique solution.) I think the current popular conclusions are interim conclusions until someone comes up with the next breakthrough vision and the mathematics fit.

I have called scientific pursuit a scramble and compared it to hacking through the jungle; I think current cosmology fits right in. To be fair, though, within the scramble is a lot of plodding hard work capturing what data we can; the trudge doesn't get the glory, but it reveals the morsels that eventually add up to the vision.

[emc]

I am struggling to keep up but let me see if I’m still in the ballpark with you guys… I feel like I'm in the “nose bleed” section (if you don’t know – ‘nose bleed section’ is the furthest seats in a stadium without actually being outside)

As a layman, I see astrophysics and cosmology as high level science. By ‘high level’ I mean similar to particle physics… on the edge of discovery almost constantly… at least that’s my perception.

My perception of science in general is that its goal is to explain the physical world/universe around us using observed phenomena that becomes accepted facts or stimulates theories. Again, science is not faith. Science is beautiful in this regard, especially in that it (science) aspires toward the paradigm of truth… or making truth the paradigm of science.

It’s interesting that faith typically also aspires toward the paradigm of truth. Religions certainly make that claim. For me, it’s like pursuing one common goal “truth” from two vantage points... perhaps a good analogy would be parallax.

Faith is feeling and science is logic. I don’t see science and faith strictly at odds, just two different tools for interpreting life. The difference between science and faith is remotely kind of like how my relationship to my wife is different from my relationship to my computer. Both enhance my relationship to the world around me but not in the same way. My wife is not electronically connecting me remotely to interesting people (potentially around the planet) and my computer does not love me back.

I ‘feel’ I can absolutely trust the earth to continue rotating because today science readily supports my faith. If the same were strictly true for faith in the supernatural… this thread would be less interesting IMO.

[starnut]

... 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

[apodman]

I am struggling to keep up but let me see if I’m still in the ballpark with you guys… I feel like I'm in the “nose bleed” section (if you don’t know – ‘nose bleed section’ is the furthest seats in a stadium without actually being outside)

We (forum folks, scientists, et al.) are all in the cheap seats. Else someone would have cosmology all tied up with a neat bow in an elegant theory that would make us all happy.

As a layman, I see astrophysics and cosmology as high level science. By ‘high level’ I mean similar to particle physics… on the edge of discovery almost constantly… at least that’s my perception.

Do you think cosmology is headed in the right direction? I look at something as disturbingly complex as superstring theory and find it aesthetically appealing, so a convoluted explanation is apparently not an impediment to my becoming a fan (still in the stadium, Ed). But a large-scale universe full of things I can't see that nobody ever heard of when I went to school needs something appealing to offset the cold dark strangeness of it all. So I look for some neat and complete mathematical explanation, and they say we're working on it, we'll get it to you.