Starship Asterisk*

Céline Richard wrote: I have just a little question, although i am afraid almost nobody will answer:
Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

It seems stupid: indeed, we discover the Universe by means of observations, or breakthrough in other sciences (optics, etc), step by step.
However, i doubt... Indeed, for example, I was told Mendel, in genetics, spent his life in making statistics, from experiences with peas, in order to demonstrate his ideas. So he would have had seeked, because he was trying to check something (sorry for English mistakes :oops: ).
What do you think about it?

Chris Peterson wrote:

Céline Richard wrote:
Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

It seems stupid: indeed, we discover the Universe by means of observations, or breakthrough in other sciences (optics, etc), step by step.
However, i doubt... Indeed, for example, I was told Mendel, in genetics, spent his life in making statistics, from experiences with peas, in order to demonstrate his ideas. So he would have had seeked, because he was trying to check something (sorry for English mistakes ).
What do you think about it?

I'm don't think I understand the question, nor your observation about Mendel.

Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.

It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Chris Peterson wrote: Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.
It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.
If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Céline Richard wrote: Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.
It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.
If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.
Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.
George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

neufer wrote:Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.

Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.

George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

Wikipedia wrote:In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging.
(...)
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman. Einstein later referred to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe from theory, before it was proven by observation of the cosmological red shift, as the '"biggest blunder" of his life.

Céline Richard wrote:But Chris, about Neufer, here science seemed to start on a mathematical model, although it was a mistake:

Wikipedia wrote:In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging.
(...)
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant. However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedman. Einstein later referred to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe from theory, before it was proven by observation of the cosmological red shift, as the '"biggest blunder" of his life.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
Science, as currently understood by most people, is a method of discovery.

It always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

If you are trying to explain something that isn't an actual observation, I'd suggest this isn't "science" in the modern sense of the word.

Science can occasionally start with some hypothesis based primarily upon a mathematical model.

Einstein should have predicted Hubble expansion before any observation was made... but he didn't.

George Gamow predicted cosmic microwave background radiation though it ended up
being discovered by accident before those (e.g., Dicke) looking for it had found it.

Interesting observations, but I disagree with your interpretations. No science was being "started" in these cases. What happened was that other observations led to the formation of theories, and then those theories suggested phenomena that should be observable. The examples you give are famous ones, but this happens all the time in science, at all scales. The best test of any theory is when it predicts something previously unobserved, and then that observation is confirmed. I'd go so far as to say that this is fundamentally the way astronomy works, more so than many other scientific fields.

Chris Peterson wrote:
"Science" always starts with some observation, then proposes an explanation for that observation, then
seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

neufer wrote:"The science of black holes" and "the science of neutron stars both "started" with mathematical models.

neufer wrote: Certainly, one can make the argument that such "new fields of science" were never truly science until later observations either confirmed or rejected the mathematical models (as may be the case for the "non-science" of string theory); however, any history of such "new fields of science" always begins with a mathematical model.

Céline Richard wrote:

neufer wrote: Certainly, one can make the argument that such "new fields of science" were never truly science until later observations either confirmed or rejected the mathematical models (as may be the case for the "non-science" of string theory); however, any history of such "new fields of science" always begins with a mathematical model.

I didn't study at all the string theory, but i was told there is a huge debate about it, within the scientific community.
Do you mean you support the string theory, while Chris is likely to reject it?

Céline Richard wrote:Do you think, in science, we have to know what we seek, before finding it out?

rstevenson wrote:A quote from a famous author bears on this question. Isaac Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny...""
In other words, science sometimes moves forward when something completely unexpected happens. But note that the scientist was engaged in looking for something, though what was found was not what was expected.

Chris Peterson wrote: "Science" always starts with some observation[/b], then proposes an explanation for that observation, then seeks to test that explanation by some combination of experimentation and further observation.

Neufer wrote: I'm assuming that you mean "new fields of science" with a little "s".