What is Science?

[apodman]

If I were around in [Einstein's] day, or he around now, perhaps I could persuade him to accept the 'universe on a slide' theory.

Persuade with what?

[Nereid]

So how do you decide, Sputnick, which bits of what Einstein said you regard as correct, and which you regard as not correct?

arent we all do it same way? by comparing to our own oppinion?

I know my questions and comments have, in other fora, been called pedantic; it may well be that some readers here think that also.

Sputnick started this thread with an interesting question, albeit one that is slightly beyond the scope of this forum - What is Science?

Very early in this thread I posted an answer; throughout this thread I've been curious to know how Sputnick answers this question, particularly in the operational sense of making decisions about whether certain posts and discussions are within the scope of this forum, or not. My tentative conclusion is that, for Sputnick, modern science is (or should be) philosophy, and that this view is not open to discussion because of the authority of its author (Einstein).

However, that conclusion of mine is only tentative, and my question is intended to test it. As luck would have it, the test is a particularly good one, given that Sputnick seems to have said that logic is a core element of science (after an initial excursion into chaos, where he dispensed with it), is (apparently) a fan of PC, and that the contradiction between Einstein and PC is particularly clear and stark (and fundamental).

[makc]

If I were around in [Einstein's] day, or he around now, perhaps I could persuade him to accept the 'universe on a slide' theory.

Persuade with what?

I would try with a fist, and if that doesnt work, move on to firearms.

...insert her references to logic and "fallacies" here...

Nereid, you are so hopeless... neither Sputnick is interested to be proved wrong, nor you think that Sputnick is someone to alter your own views on "what is science" question. This whole thread looks like chess party that you try to win, but the other player is playing basketball instead.

[bystander]

Nereid, you are so hopeless... neither Sputnick is interested to be proved wrong, nor you think that Sputnick is someone to alter your own views on "what is science" question. This whole thread looks like chess party that you try to win, but the other player is playing basketball instead.

Can't be basketball, basketball has rules...

[bystander]

That's a long time when it comes to cosmology. Extend your reading scale far enough and you could argue that the Universe sits on the back of a turtle (or a stack of turtles).

Yep, it's turtles all the way down.

... (in this example, Doppler redshift, not relativistic redshift) ...

Could you please explain the difference, in laymen's terms if possible. I understand Doppler shift, I worked on doppler radar while in the AF.

[apodman]

my questions and comments have ... been called pedantic ... some readers here [may] think that also.

In the 5th grade, we all had to bring 3 vocabulary words to throw into the hat. I brought "ameliorate", "pedantic", and one I forget. In the intervening 44 years I'm entitled to forget something. Anyway, the teacher was highly insulted that anyone would submit such a word, and my handwriting surely gave me away. She took it personally - just another highlight of my academic career. This is the same teacher who wrote a note to my parents literally questioning my sanity because I disagreed with her about the so-called scientific method. But I digress.

Regarding "pedantic", my cheap dictionary talks about excessive focus on knowledge, learning, details, and rules. It leaves out that, for a true pedant, these excessive foci are at the expense of substance. It also leaves out the part about a lecturing tone from a position of authority.

Looking at your posts in the terms just described, "knowledge" and "learning" are part of the subject matter of recent discussion and are therefore "substance". The "rules" of reasoned argument are also part of the "substance" of recent discussion. And without "details" we have nothing. And, in my experience, "tone" can be as much in the "ear" of the beholder as in the "voice" of the speaker. And a person with knowledge should speak to a student of that knowledge from a position of authority.

So I find no pedantry here. More importantly, I do find clarity and focus.

[apodman]

... (in this example, Doppler redshift, not relativistic redshift) ...

Could you please explain the difference, in laymen's terms if possible. I understand Doppler shift, I worked on doppler radar while in the AF.

The relativistic Doppler effect is different from the non-relativistic Doppler effect as the equations include the time dilation effect of special relativity and do not involve the medium of propagation as a reference point.

It seems to me that the Doppler shift of a train whistle is non-relativistic, and that the Doppler shift of a distant receding galaxy is relativistic. With regard to radar, I think we're in the middle ground: we've dispensed with the medium of propagation as a reference point, and we should use the relativistic equations, but the radar targets move so slowly compared to c that the non-relativistic equations are close enough.

[Chris Peterson]

... (in this example, Doppler redshift, not relativistic redshift) ...

Could you please explain the difference, in laymen's terms if possible. I understand Doppler shift, I worked on doppler radar while in the AF.

They are very similar in most respects, and the math is similar as well. The ordinary Doppler shift most people are familiar with is the result of the signal source moving with respect to the observer. It is easily understood from a drawing; because of the movement of the source, the waves are either compressed or stretched. That is, blue or red shifted (in the case of EM).

Relativistic redshift happens when a wave travels for a long distance through space that is expanding. What started out as a narrow wavelength when the signal started becomes wider as space itself expands. That's the primary mechanism behind the redshift observations used to establish cosmological distance. It might better be called cosmological redshift, as there is also a [special] relativistic Doppler redshift- that is, Doppler redshift with a compensation factor for the case where the relative velocity between the observer and source is high enough to be relativistic.

Just to add to the confusion, there is gravitational redshift. That's the product of the stretching of a wave in a strong gravitational field. It is seen near black holes, for instance.

[apodman]

when a wave travels for a long distance through space that is expanding ... it might better be called cosmological redshift, as there is also a [special] relativistic Doppler redshift- that is, Doppler redshift with a compensation factor for the case where the relative velocity between the observer and source is high enough to be relativistic.

Thank you for making that distinction.

Just to add to the confusion, there is gravitational redshift. That's the product of the stretching of a wave in a strong gravitational field. It is seen near black holes, for instance.

And there's another new one on me.

[bystander]

Thanks, Chris! and you, too, apodman.

[Sputnick]

"We now realize, with special clarity, how much in error are those theorists who believe that theory comes inductively from experience. Even the great Newton could not free himself from this error (Hypotheses non fingo - I make no hypotheses).

Albert Einstein - Physic and Reality (about 40th paragraph)

"At a time like the present when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations. Physics and Reality, 1st paragraph.

"... by enlargement of the mathematical world of ideas ..."

"... according to my belief ..."

Also by Einstein, and in that lecture somewhere.

It is clear to me that Einstein felt the need to abandon the normal constraints of scientific procedures, methods and thought processes in order to make sense of the universe. "According to my belief" seems to show that the proof he was lacking he was willing to make up for with faith. These things are what I see as lacking in one degree or other from your concepts of science, Nereid. I think Einstein may have said to me, "You think perhaps light corkscrews? I think I'll look into that." With Einstein's capacities he would probably have done so instead of simply calling an idea non-science.

quote by Nereid - "And how does one go about determining which of the millions of "assumptions or insights or hunches" will, at some time in the future, be "proven correct", other than by waiting a year, decade, century, millennium, ... ?"

If that's the question you've been waiting for me to answer: By doing just that - waiting - perhaps even waiting decades for a particular assumption or insight or suspicion to be investigated." We won't know it all today, and that's for sure.

[apodman]

Danger, Will Robinson!

Focus on and centering arguments around Einstein could be interpreted as discussion within the established structure and traditions of science. You might have inadvertently taken a step forward. If you follow where it leads, you might find something useful or even appealing.

[astrolabe]

Hello All,

Einstein's quote did not call for physicists to become philosophers.

[makc]

"We now realize, with special clarity, how much in error are those theorists who believe that theory comes inductively from experience. Even the great Newton could not free himself from this error (Hypotheses non fingo - I make no hypotheses).

Albert Einstein - Physic and Reality (about 40th paragraph)

"At a time like the present when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations. Physics and Reality, 1st paragraph.

"... by enlargement of the mathematical world of ideas ..."

"... according to my belief ..."

Also by Einstein, and in that lecture somewhere.

It is clear to me that Einstein felt the need to abandon the normal constraints of scientific procedures, methods and thought processes in order to make sense of the universe. "According to my belief" seems to show that the proof he was lacking he was willing to make up for with faith.

Interesting that actual work that Einstein has done "by enlargement of the mathematical world of ideas", namely, the theory he worked on after GR, was never accepted by scientific community as "science". In fact, Einstein himself wrote that he has no means to test this theory, and that had pretty much burried it.

[Sputnick]

Danger, Will Robinson!

Focus on and centering arguments around Einstein could be interpreted as discussion within the established structure and traditions of science. You might have inadvertently taken a step forward. If you follow where it leads, you might find something useful or even appealing.

All science is appealing, Apodman.

[Sputnick]

Hello All,

Einstein's quote did not call for physicists to become philosophers.

"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right
thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophysing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it cannot be rigbht at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now."

Einstein: First paragraph of Physics and Reality

[Sputnick]

If I were around in [Einstein's] day, or he around now, perhaps I could persuade him to accept the 'universe on a slide' theory.

Persuade with what?

I suppose I could get him drunk, at which times almost anything seems possible or even certain.

[Sputnick]

"We now realize, with special clarity, how much in error are those theorists who believe that theory comes inductively from experience. Even the great Newton could not free himself from this error (Hypotheses non fingo - I make no hypotheses).

Albert Einstein - Physic and Reality (about 40th paragraph)

"At a time like the present when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations. Physics and Reality, 1st paragraph.

"... by enlargement of the mathematical world of ideas ..."

"... according to my belief ..."

Also by Einstein, and in that lecture somewhere.

It is clear to me that Einstein felt the need to abandon the normal constraints of scientific procedures, methods and thought processes in order to make sense of the universe. "According to my belief" seems to show that the proof he was lacking he was willing to make up for with faith.

Interesting that actual work that Einstein has done "by enlargement of the mathematical world of ideas", namely, the theory he worked on after GR, was never accepted by scientific community as "science". In fact, Einstein himself wrote that he has no means to test this theory, and that had pretty much burried it.

I think I remember he also regreted not including a cosmological constant in an equation, or something like that, because of resistance by his peers, his error of non-inclusion becoming clear years later. Please don't think I'm fudging this .. I just can't remember the details. Astronomy and science is only a recreation for me .. I also make three month solo canoe trips, moped trips from Ottawa to Victoria and return .. I spend a lot of time fishing .. most of my computer keyboard time and reading time in the past 15 years especially has been poetic, and reading and writing non fiction about outdoor life. I see where if my time outdoors had included the dimension of reading science I would have benefited .. but I preferred to spend the time in travel and exploration of what I could touch with my fingers.
This winter seems a good time to do more in science.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

All I see is that Einstein said that physicist were poor philosophers and that they should let the philosophers do the philosophising. Am I mistaken?

[Sputnick]

Hello Sputnick,

All I see is that Einstein said that physicist were poor philosophers and that they should let the philosophers do the philosophising. Am I mistaken?

Hi Astro - I'm so glad you wrote - your question fits right into what I was to post this morning. I won't be able to post much this weekend as the public library computers are unavailable on Sunday, and I'm limited to one hour today.

To answer your question, you are mistaken. Fortunately my instinct told me to include the quote on my memory stick.

"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now."

Einstein: First paragraph of his lecture 'Physics and Reality'.

I found another quote from the same lecture, about instinct, which everyone on the forum should know by now is my chief insight into physics and astronomy .. my knowledge being minimal (but growing - I read three books in the past five days .. the last being The Shadows of Creation by Michael Riordan and David Schramm, copyright 1991.

"To believe ( ) is logically possible without contradiction; but it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot forgo the search for a more complete solution." (2cd paragraph on the Citadel Press Carol Publishing paperback 'The Theory of Relativity and Other Essays' by Einstein.

My instinct tells me that the 'universal' Cosmic Background Radiation is not Big Bang echo - but warmth emanating from Dark Matter .. that the ripples in CBR come from slight disturbances in the flow of Dark Matter in 'rivers' or 'currents' - and that a radio search at frequencies just above CBR will find such a (Dark Matter) river carrying the group of 700 galaxy clusters south. The frequency would be higher because the river would be creating friction (or in another word interaction/exchange of particles) in its boundaries with non-flowing DM. Nereid, are you pointing those discs yet?

[Sputnick]

Hello All,

Einstein's quote did not call for physicists to become philosophers.

Here, Chris, is proof that he did .. First paragraph of his lecture 'Physics and Reality'.

"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophyzing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now."

I found another quote from the same lecture, about instinct, which everyone on the forum should know by now is my chief insight into physics and astronomy .. my knowledge being minimal (but growing - I read three books in the past five days .. the last being The Shadows of Creation by Michael Riordan and David Schramm, copyright 1991.

"To believe ( ) is logically possible without contradiction; but it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot forgo the search for a more complete solution." (2cd paragraph on the Citadel Press Carol Publishing paperback 'The Theory of Relativity and Other Essays' by Einstein.

[astrolabe]

Hello Sputnick,

What is science?

[Ken G]

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.

Frankly, I see both some validity to both these points, and also some important flaws. So they are of value to consider. The validity of the first point I can see is that science does get surprised, and suppression of new ideas because they seem counterproductive can backfire into its own form of counterproductivity. The flaw, of course, is that without any means to select between what is likely to be a fruitful avenue of inquiry, and what is not, science becomes like the blind squirrel that eventually finds a nut. Perhaps the problem can be summarized that the process of making choices about what questions to pursue and what resources to devote to it is a very different process than the process of science itself. I think Sputnik may have confused these two separate pursuits, but perhaps he is not alone in that problem.

The validity in the second point that I see is that I do agree that physics and philosophy have much more overlap than most physicists will allow themselves to admit. For example, the idea that philosophy is inherently rational and physics is inherently empirical overlooks the fact that empiricism is itself a philosophy, and physics has benefited greatly from what are primarily rational gedankenexperiments. Physics is born of philosophy, and I see it as very much like the prodigal son of philosophy-- setting out on its own, largely with disdain for its tutelage, preferring to trust in its own wits and its own experience. Yet, that tutelage is always there, whether its importance is denied or not. As such, there is no shame in relying on a kind of philosophical intuition to guide our hypotheses, any more than there would be shame in recalling a parental dictum even as we plot an independent course. However, there is a flaw in the claim that when a successful scientific hypothesis runs counter to the expected outcome of philosophical reasoning, it must always be the scientific hypothesis that we should look to blame for the disconnect. Einstein himself was at once an excellent example of both sides of this issue.

[apodman]

Welcome to the forum, Ken G.

Some other posts in this this topic notwithstanding, I enjoy reading well expressed rational thoughts.

[Chris Peterson]

Einstein's quote did not call for physicists to become philosophers.

Here, Chris, is proof that he did .. First paragraph of his lecture 'Physics and Reality'.

Have you actually read the essay, in its entirety? You are completely taking out of context the paragraph you quote. Astrolabe is correct; Einstein is not calling for physicists to become philosophers. What he is doing in the essay (and not very well, IMO) is making his own attempt at reconciling the formal philosophy of reasoning with modern (at the time) science. In particular, he wrote this primarily as an argument against the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, which he opposed until his death. Modern QM theory derives primarily from the Copenhagen Interpretation, so in this respect Einstein was probably in error.

He attempts to compare mechanics, field theory, and QM, arguing that the latter's inherently statistical nature means that it can't adequately provide a complete description of nature, in part because of the failure of inductive reasoning processes. Like Kant, Popper, and other philosophers, he falls into the trap of trying too hard to narrow down "acceptable" reasoning processes in science. The reality is that there is no "correct" process. A good scientist uses a mix of inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning. A good scientist also makes a good case for the reasoning used. "Good" theories are those for which many people accept those processes.

In this essay, Einstein also gets caught up in the issue of reconciling theory and experience. He understands that the two are increasingly far apart in modern physics. This was a popular topic at the time; scientists then were creating 20th Century science, but were themselves the product of 19th Century scientific thinking. It was difficult for many physicists, Einstein included, to make the jump to theories that were non-mechanistic and radically non-inductive.

He recognizes that an intuitive, creative process is required for formulating theories (which few would disagree with). Note, however, that he doesn't stop there, as I think you do. He is very clear in this essay that the process is (1) intuition, (2) theory, (3) evaluation of theory against usefulness. Intuition is not useful if it can't be used to produce a mathematically rigorous theory that can then be tested against observation.

If you are going to quote Einstein, please don't do so out of context, and please don't pick quotes selectively, ignoring what the man is really saying.

I found another quote from the same lecture, about instinct, which everyone on the forum should know by now is my chief insight into physics and astronomy .. my knowledge being minimal (but growing - I read three books in the past five days .. the last being The Shadows of Creation by Michael Riordan and David Schramm, copyright 1991.

"To believe ( ) is logically possible without contradiction; but it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot forgo the search for a more complete solution."

What is this actually about? Einstein has just described some details of QM with respect to examining a complex system (what he calls an ensemble of systems). He recognizes this method is unable to examine the details of just one system. That is, he discusses QM's success at describing the state of multiple particle systems, and its failure to deal (completely) with single particles. He goes on:

"But now I ask: Is there really any physicist who believes that we shall never get any inside view of these important alterations in the single systems, in their structure and their causal connections, and this regardless of the fact that these single happenings have been brought so close to us, thanks to the marvelous inventions of the Wilson chamber and the Geiger counter? To believe this is logically possible without contradiction; but, it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot forego the search for a more complete conception."

Well, today nearly every physicist accepts that we cannot get fully into such a single system. In this case, Einstein allowed his "scientific instinct" to get in the way of his reasoning, and as a result was unable to deal fully with QM, arguably the single greatest development of physics in the 20th Century.