There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 7)

DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i may have tried too hard with the gradient possibility assertion, and it seems i was hasty, and was off by a digit. i believe that base 7 would make 12 equate to 9 (3x3) not a prime number. you werent specific to what base system you used- so, you could say that i was simply being semantic, regarding the base in question.

irregardless, i believe that my statement about quarks simply being a transitional stage- like a ghost(s) of the hadron deserves consideration- as the quark is so unstable, and decays almost immediately, that the assertion that quarks are fundamental particles is invalidated by the simple fact that they have decay products. a fundamental particle cannot have decay products, as they are said to NOT be a composite particle. a decay product is evidence that they are composite particles, not fundamental particles.

i mean no offense. this is a debate, not an argument. i may have tried a little too hard to challenge your assertions of truth; however, i believe my assertions are valid, and deserve serious consideration.

9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: im not here to cause trouble, i am just stating that your assertions were only correct if your assumptions are reasonably valid. to assume base 10 is simply an assumption, without explicit mention of base 10. the average person would assume base 10, while an informed individual, familiar with non decimal base systems would make no assumption of BASE 10. your assumption that base 10 would be understood is not scientifically accurate, as science should be as precise and accurate- while your lack denoting the numeric base system leaves your assertion open to interpretation. i could have assumed base 10, but an assumption is neither logical nor scientifically valid. and i say this with all due respect, as i most often respect your theses.
(Edited by DEEP_acheleg)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Deep

You're quite right to challenge any dubious assertions. Keep up the good work.

And you do raise an important point: namely, what constitutes "proof" or "evidence", both very confused notions here in Wireland and elsewhere. For example, you'll frequently see the science fans dismiss (and ridicule) the "evidence" of, say, religious believers or UFO fans. Now, there are two points to be made here:-

1. If one is prepared to disqualify other people's evidence, then, in order to obviate allegations of hypocrisy, presumably one has criteria for what constitutes bona fide evidence and what does not. Well, I don't know about you, Deep, but I've yet to catch even a whiff of these criteria. It seems our scientistic friends are just as eager as everyone else to adjudicate by fiat what's kosher and what's not.

2. Even supposing such criteria do exist and are presented to us for scrutiny, why on earth would we demand that non-scientific forms of inquiry are held to the standards of science? Consider:-


"Five eyewitnesses claim to have seen the accused enter the building, but their evidence is not admissible in this courtroom since their testimony has not been reproduced in scientific laboratories throughout the country nor has it been peer reviewed."

Strange days indeed!
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @ - "... the average person would assume base 10..."

Yes, and the average person would assume we're speaking English right now and not Swahili.

We are, aren't we, bwana?
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: So You Think You're a Realist?


This thread has been examining the scientific realism vs antirealism debate. I trust it's already been made clear that value judgements regarding the goodness or badness of science are quite irrelevant. The issue, rather, is whether or not scientific theories warrant a literal interpretation, which is to say: Do we have sufficient grounds for committing ourselves to the "truth" or approximate truth of scientific theories, and by extension, to the existence of any unobservable entities postulated therein? Or, for reasons of parsimony and prudence, should theories containing unobservables be given a purely instrumental interpretation?

Realism/antirealism squabbling is not restricted to the realm of science, of course. Let's consider four different realist claims in increasing order of what we might call ontological generosity. ("Ontology" in philosophy-speak is the investigation of what exists.)


(1). Sense data (i.e., our conscious experiences) exist

(2). The commonsense objects of perception: tables, chairs, etc., exist (i.e. exist independently of what we or anyone else thinks of them - metaphysical realism)

(3). The unobservable entities (quarks, electrons, forces, fields, etc) posited in scientific theories exist

(4). Timeless abstract entities, such as numbers and sets, exist


To assert (1) and only (1) is to adopt a stance of metaphysical idealism akin to that notoriously promulgated by Bishop Berkeley in the 18th century : all is mind, and to exist is to be perceived. It's the kind of position that, no matter how cogently argued, is likely to perpetuate the popular image of philosophers as frothing maniacs . Our intuition about such matters is just too strong.

The scientific realist -- and that probably includes everyone reading this -- asserts at least (1), (2), and (3), while the scientific antirealist stops at (2).

But what about (4)? Scientific theories almost invariably contain numbers. Are these to be denied any real existence and regarded merely as "useful fictions", helpful for their instrumental value but undeserving of full ontological respectability? And isn't this precisely how the antirealist says we should treat entities like quarks?

Well, not everyone is quite so niggardly. Those known as mathematical Platonists extend the same courtesy to (4) as most of us do to (1), (2), and (3). These people are REALISTS about numbers.

But now we have to ask : If the scientific realist (and that means YOU ) holds that numbers don't really exist, why should she react with such horror to the antirealist's rejection of quarks and their unobservable brethren? Why should she be so outraged by the antirealist's claim that not all entities contained in scientific theories are to be taken literally?

And if she holds that numbers DO exist, given that they lack any spatiotemporal location, they exist surely not as part of the natural world. Why, then, are we constantly reminded that science resolutely eschews the supernatural as a matter of methodological principle?


Meanwhile, in the Religion Forum, the Dawkins-inspired atheist is once again admonishing the hapless theist...

: You know, we actually have a lot in common. You deny the existence of Zeus, Osiris, Odin, Guan-Gong, Mithras and a thousand others like them. See, you're an atheist with respect to all these deities. Some of us just go one god further, that's all.


The scientific antirealist might be inclined to say something very similar to the realist.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: This Youtube video summarizes stuff that we all know already (well, if you've been paying attention, that is -- especially to page 1)



Realists insist the only explanation that would not make the success of science a miracle is that our best scientific theories are true, or approximately so, and that the entities contained within genuinely "refer", i.e. there really is something out there in reality which corresponds to the unobservable entities (quarks, etc) described by the theories.

Anti-realists such as Larry Laudan point out that "referring" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a theory to be successful. In other words, a theory can be spectacularly successful, yet contain entities which refer to nothing at all (e.g. 19th century ether theories), or conversely, can contain entities that genuinely do refer, yet not be successful (e.g. Wegener's theory of tectonic plates for many decades).
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Why I Am Overwhelmingly Not a Scientific Realist
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science fans, like their religious counterparts, come in varying degrees of sophistication. An encounter with the more progressive taxa can be an enlightening and fulfilling, but sadly, all too rare, pleasure on the Wireclub savannah.

At the bottom of the phylogenetic scale, meanwhile, are the marauding gangs of scientistic Neanderthals who go around asserting in no uncertain terms the antediluvian and long discredited fantasy that scientific theories are TRUE. They have been PROVEN. And that's that! If pressed, they'll oblige by adducing the standard stockpile of evidence which purportedly proves the theory in question beyond any doubt. Rest assured that the force of the evidence will be embellished with emotive adjectives such as "overwhelming", making clear to all and sundry that only an imbecile could fail to be convinced.

Analogously,the religious Neanderthal will quote you scripture. And that's that! If you don't SEE, that's your problem, buddy.

At a slightly higher level of sophistication, and more likely to be instantiated in younger Wireclubbers who have been exposed, knowingly or not, to advances in the philosophy of science, is a moderated claim along the lines of "Science never proves anything. We just test hypotheses."

Well, it's certainly a welcome improvement over the Paleolithic brutes with the protruding brows. And yet it seems this parvenu is never quite able to fully convince HIMSELF. It's as if after escaping from Plato's cave and stepping outside briefly to catch a glimpse of the brilliant sunlight, it's all too much for him -- it's OVERWHELMING -- and he scurries back inside to shackle himself beside the other troglodytes. In another forum thread later the same day you're likely to hear him atavistically fulminating against insufferable dimwits -- religious or secular -- who fail to be convinced by the "overwhelming" evidence for such-and-such a theory, apparently quite oblivious to the contradiction inherent within his ambivalent doctrine, viz., given science never proves anything, why are we expected to be overwhelmed by his evidence?

Sigh!

Well, if it's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about scientific theories you want, gather round, boys and girls.

Science cannot deliver absolute or definitive answers on the modus operandi of Mother Nature. No theory is incorrigible, infallible, or immune from revision, or, as is frequently the case, outright abandonment. The case is never closed. Furthermore, it's a grave mistake, I submit, to suppose that scientific theories, even if they can't lay claim to final Truth, can at least be said to approach or converge upon a true description of reality. Not so! Repeated revolutionary upheavals in the conceptual infrastructure of science belie this overly optimistic claim. Einstein did not build on Newton; he contradicted Newton.

The logic is very simple. Say religion A claims there is only one god, while religion B claims there are two, then it is simply not logically possible that both claims are true. Einstein and Newton's theories likewise make logically incompatible claims about space, time, mass, forces, and so forth. Time and space cannot be both absolute and relative. A unitary "timespace" is incompatible with the distinct entities "time" and "space". An invariant mass is inconsistent with a variant mass. If one theory is true, the other CANNOT be. A two-god theory does not "build upon" a one-god theory; it CONTRADICTS it. This is the norm in science for theory replacement. The myth of convergence upon truth doubtless arises from the undeniable progress made in science at the pragmatic level; few would deny that science allows us to DO more than before.

We know as a matter of incontrovertible fact from a cursory review of scientific history that even the most fundamental theories, held to the most rigorous standards for decades or even centuries, regarded as very highly confirmed (for which the evidence was said to be "overwhelming" ) can, and almost certainly will, be identified by scientists of a later period as false (even if they are not entirely abandoned right away - theories known to be false can be useful too!). We know the reason why too: simply stated, theories are ALWAYS underdetermined by the data or evidence.

Time and time again we see the scientistic apologist commit the same age-old blunder as the quixotic fundamentalist, somewhere in darkest America, who is convinced that hers is the generation when Christ will return (presumably in her own state), irregardless of the fact that every generation before her has believed exactly the same and been wrong in every case. The mistake is, of course, in believing that YOUR generation somehow occupies a privileged position in the grand scheme of things. Virtually every single scientific theory ever proposed was later rejected as false in one way or another, yet the temptation to believe that somehow ours is the generation where that all ends is ... yes, you've guessed... overwhelming.

The scientific realist must face the questions: What ARE scientific theories? What do they describe?

To assert "they describe reality" is brazenly unjustifiable. To know this, we'd have to somehow transcend science; we'd have to step above and beyond science for a God's-eye view. Regrettably, we're not able simply to "See back of book for answers". On the other hand, an honest answer along the lines of "Theories represent our best attempts at describing reality" is TRIVIALLY true, a banal truism no more interesting than the student who explains "The answers I've given in the exam represent my best attempts at getting the answers right".

The anti-realist, meanwhile, endures no such embarrassment. He countenances no unsustainable claims to the Truth of scientific theories. But if they work, let's use 'em!

Nicholas Rescher expresses all of this much more cogently and eloquently than I can. See pages 361-367 in the link below.

"Scientific realism skates along a thin border between patent falsity and triviality. Viewed as the doctrine that science indeed describes reality, it is utterly untenable; but viewed as the doctrine that science SEEKS TO describe reality, it is virtually a truism. For there is no way of sidestepping the conditional thesis: if scientific theory regarding heavy water or electrons or quarks or whatever is correct -- if it were indeed to be true -- THEN its subject materials would exist in the manner the theory envisages and would have the properties the theory attributes to them: the theory, that is, would afford descriptively correct information about the world.

But this conditional relationship reflects what is, in the final analysis, less a profound fact about the nature of science than a near truism about the nature of truth as "adequation ad rem". The fact remains that our reality -- reality as we conceive it to be -- goes no further than to represent our best estimate of what reality is like."

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=pqez0V0w1MUC&pg=PA366&lpg=PA366&dq=Rescher+Scientific+realism+skates+along+a+thin+border+between+patent+falsity&source=bl&ots=5-v_xYEybi&sig=FcvP0VHKgGa6fO5tbDw5CEX9N8Q&hl=zh-
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I observed in my post yesterday that...


QUOTE
-----------
At a slightly higher level of sophistication, and more likely to be instantiated in younger Wireclubbers who have been exposed, knowingly or not, to advances in the philosophy of science, is a moderated claim along the lines of "Science never proves anything. We just test hypotheses."

Well, it's certainly a welcome improvement over the Paleolithic brutes with the protruding brows. And yet it seems this parvenu is never quite able to fully convince HIMSELF. It's as if after escaping from Plato's cave and stepping outside briefly to catch a glimpse of the brilliant sunlight, it's all too much for him -- it's OVERWHELMING -- and he scurries back inside to shackle himself beside the other troglodytes. In another forum thread later the same day you're likely to hear him atavistically fulminating against insufferable dimwits -- religious or secular -- who fail to be convinced by the "overwhelming" evidence for such-and-such a theory, apparently quite oblivious to the contradiction inherent within his ambivalent doctrine, viz., given science never proves anything, why are we expected to be overwhelmed by his evidence?
---------------
UNQUOTE



... and to any skeptics in the audience I'd point out that we were visited in this very thread by just such a beast a few months ago. Compare what a certain poster says on page 4 of this thread...



QUOTE
----------
The fundamental flaw in your logic stems from a straw-man fallacy of what science is…and that is simply what science is not: absolute. SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. It merely collects empirical data for or against an hypothesis. Thus, while science can disprove things, CAN NEVER PROVE THEM. We can, however, test the accuracy of things, and compare how well it works. Scientific "realism" therefore, as you describe it, is the very pseudoscientific claims you make. Science never claims certainty. It is tentative, and is the best current explanation of the physical world. Mathematics, and the formulas used in science are, therefore, explanations in ways we can understand. [my caps]
---------------
UNQUOTE



... with what the very same poster says in a different place with regards evolutionary theory. (From the thread "There is no god. Can u prove me wrong" page 359)...



QUOTE
-----------
…and yes Colin, many have examined critical evidence AND DETERMINED WAS [sic] MUST BE TRUE. You should try it some time before toting a google degree in pseudoscientific philosophy. [my caps]

Have YOU subjected the evidence to critical analysis of your own? Are you aware that the requirement to obtain a degree in biology is to actually complete laboratory experiments on this evidence? Did you not even attend a high school science class? Or was your school that inadequate that they didn't even follow the curriculum? Anyone who has ever attended a biology class has done experiments and labs to determine the evidence first hand. Anyone that continued to seek an education, post-secondary, in biology, knows that the peer-reviewed reports you try and pass off as personal opinion, necessarily have to include the methods of experimentation, as well as their results, so that anyone can repeat the tests, and compare their own results with them. If you choose not to, then you are the one who is simply accepting their work…but do not be so utterly ignorant and foolish as to think all have.
---------------
UNQUOTE



I trust the contradiction is obvious. (Note also in this case that the evidence is "critical" - a close cousin of "overwhelming" presumably )

More worryingly, perhaps, is the sentiment I've seen expressed on several occasions from various parties in recent months, usually in response to my challenging and refuting the demonstrably false, contradictory, unjustifiable, or simply vacuous claims made by scientifically inclined members. The sentiment in question is that, inasmuch as I'm not a trained scientist, I should back off; I am, and others like me are, apparently not qualified to criticize.

I'd say the day science raises the drawbridge, lowers the portcullis, and begins constructing an insular edifice in such a manner as to render itself invulnerable to the critiques of interested laypeople and scholars of other disciplines - much as religions have done - is a day when we should all be gravely concerned.

And it doesn't take a Ph.D. in rocket science to spot a contradiction.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
Bourbaki
Bourbaki: I certainly hope you do not allow even well-disguised troglodytes to spoil your view of science. It's obviously clear to you that science does not claim to prove anything in the absolute logical sense, but "merely" to collect supporting or refuting evidence. Essentially, this is science.

Often, I can very much relate to the sentiment you mention - often people argue with me about topics in which they have neither knowledge nor experience; I'm hardly interested in taking part in most of these arguments. Though unfortunate, it seems inevitable that the wrong people would resort to this feeble form of (what they view as) counterargument due to (at the very least) psychological satisfaction in the form of feelings of supremacy. At any rate, the psychoanalysis of morons is not the purpose of my reply. Indeed, I wonder why you dedicate, no, waste, your time and prodigious talent on this bullshit?

While a raised drawbridge should certainly invoke a village panic, even the castle gates are still ajar. The scientific community is generally a very welcoming one. Let us not taint it with the folly of fools.
9 years ago Report
1
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: Title is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. GG
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: In this post I'll try to explain a crucial distinction. Failure to recognize the distinction has been the source of much frustration between myself and Wireclub science fans over the years. In what follows, I'll simplify somewhat and introduce certain terminology partially of my own invention in the hope of being as clear as I possibly can, thus clearing this mess up once and for all. I hope!

The confusion arises over the failure to appreciate that what I shall call the "empirical adequacy" of a theory is not necessarily an indicator of its "Truth", concepts I'll try to clarify below.


The Truth of a theory (TT) may seem self-explanatory, but bear with me. A theory is True if and only if all that it claims is LITERALLY true; that is, the "ontology" (the architecture and furniture of the theory, all the entities postulated within) of the theory exists in reality, and any mechanisms posited therein operate exactly as described.

The Empirical Adequacy (EA) of a theory is a measure of the agreement between theory and observation, to what extent the theory yields accurate observational predictions. In other words, we might say, how well the theory WORKS


Now, necessarily, a true theory will yield ONLY correct predictions. TT entails EA - a true theory cannot fail to be 100% empirically adequate.

The converse does not hold. A theory could have a high degree of empirical adequacy, it could even be 100% empirically adequate, yet be untrue, i.e. the entities it posits do not exist or the mechanisms it postulates are not operative. In other words, it is not a correct reprentation of reality. EA does not entail TT.

I suspect the source of all the confusion I've been adverting to is that many people tend to assume, quite naturally, that the empirical adequacy of a theory is more or less proportional to our epistemic warrant for its truth. In other words, as long as the theory keeps getting things right, we tend to think that it's likely to be true. Newtonian mechanics provides a prime example; the theory for two centuries or more displayed a remarkable degree of empirical adequacy - it consistently yielded highly accurate observational predictions. It got us to the Moon, as we're fond of saying. (and, of course, it still IS empirically adequate to a high degree.)

If, however, as a scientific realist, you take current Einsteinian mechanics to be true, then Newton's mechanics are simply untrue. Period. Its ontology is all wrong - the tale it tells about space, time, mass, forces, and so forth, is just plain false. Current theory tells an entirely different tale. EA does not entail TT.

I've seen this mistake made time and time again in Wireclub forums, whereby the poster confuses successful confirmation of the observational consequence of a theory with proof of the theory itself. Take, for example, relativity theory and time dilation. One observational consequence of relativity theory is the phenomenon of time dilation (something hitherto entirely unsuspected, as far as I'm aware). The phenomenon is subsequently confirmed - time dilation is apparently real. But the poster then announces that relativity theory has been PROVEN.

Not so! Not so x 100000000000000. The EVIDENCE has been proven (if we must use this word), NOT THE THEORY. Time dilation happens to be a derivable consequence of relativity theory; relativity theory ENTAILS time dilation (i.e. if the former is true, the latter must be too). But time dilation does NOT entail relativity theory. There may be any number of conceivable theories for which the phenomenon of time dilation is a derivable observable consequence.

Perhaps the clearest example I can offer involves two semi-hypothetical (and semi-historical) models of the cosmos. Consider two theories T1 and T2:-

T1, very intuitively, posits a motionless Earth and heavens that rotate around us. According to T1, all the heavenly bodies (stars, etc) we see are encased in an invisible hollow crystal sphere. This sphere, in which the heavenly bodies are rigidly fixed, performs a complete rotation around the still Earth once a day.

T2 posits motionless heavens and the Earth rotating on its axis once a day.

Both theories, T1 and T2, are hugely successful at the observational level. They both yield identical predictions for where the position of any particular heavenly body will be at any given time. This provides essential information used in navigation among other things. The two theories are indistinguishable at the level of observation - they share the same degree of EA.

But both theories cannot be TRUE. If one is true then the other is false. Or both may be false.


MORAL : a theory's empirical adequacy is no guarantee of its truth. A high degree of empirical adequacy does not translate into high likelihood of truth. To infer from the undeniable fact that a theory WORKS -- even if it works amazingly well -- to the truth of the theory is to draw an invalid inference. A theory's generating correct predictions doesn't entail that it is generating these predictions IN THE RIGHT WAY, that is, the way nature does it - reality!

Repeat it 1000 times now. Never tire of hearing it.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: Theories are never proven, they are mere explanations of a set of observable facts. Explanations can be incorrect, and no one trumpets these explanations as facts. Is this a misunderstanding on your behalf, or on the behalf of the uneducated masses of Wireclub?
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @ Theis

I heartily endorse your view that theories are never proven. Unfortunately there ARE people - lots of them - out there who DO trumpet these explanations as facts. It is this unfortunate propagation of misinformation that I try to draw attention to in my threads such as this one.

See for example the link below (beginning at the bottom of page 3 all the way to page 5)

Topic: Religion
9 years ago Report
0
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: While it's clear that Corvin is mistaken about the nature of a scientific theory, I think the points he discussed are not theories, but observable facts. My understanding is that what he *ought* have said is that hypotheses can be proven (inductively through the observable facts) = Theory. A theory will just lasso the facts together in an appropriate way -- essentially restating the hypothesis.

If this is true, we expect to see X, Y, Z. Otherwise, the observable facts are contrary to what we expect, and thus the hypothesis is null and a conclusion would not result in a theory based upon that hypothesis, but a footnote for future hypotheses / theories.

As far as the observable facts are concerned, I spotted these:

1. Photons exist
2. Photons are the fundamental light particle.
3. Photons operate as both a wave and a particle.
4. The speed of light in a vacuum is fixed. Honestly, your challenge about different speed through materials is a bit dubious because the photons themselves are travelling at a fixed rate, it's a weird process of energy levels and photons coming and going in and out of existence when they smash into something (quantum tunneling I guess [I SAID GUESS]).

I suspect you had a reason to instigate a challenge, rather than be pedantic about his phrasing (which obviously unsettled him), it just didn't result in an advantageous outcome.

I am with you if your point is to say that theories are not facts and that induction is a poor man's method for obtaining truth.
9 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: Hi again. Thanks for that but...

I don't quite follow your list of four observable facts that you "spotted" (what do you mean you "spotted" some observable facts? ).

Take #1 for example - how can "photons exist" be an observable fact? (if that's what you're saying). I don't think anyone has ever seen, or is ever likely to see, a photon.

If you're identifying "seeing photons" with "seeing light" then surely you're presupposing the truth of the very theory in question? (And by the same reasoning Newton would have been seeing corpuscles). The same applies to the other three too.

Perhaps I've misunderstood. Can you clarify please.

Thanks!
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: Observe is a tricky word.

What I mean is we can detect them. Several experiments establish this and several more depend on it to be the case!

Some things to look into:

The photoelectric effect:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric.html
The Compton effect:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/comptint.html
Antibunching of Photons:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.691

I would never presuppose the existence of photons based upon seeing light.
9 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: Well, it comes to the same thing. To claim to have detected photons is tantamount to claiming you have seen photons. It presupposes the truth of the theory. If you have indeed detected photons then photons are real. Case closed.

If only it were that easy

I suggest what we want to say is "We have detected what we BELIEVE TO BE photons."
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Or simply "We BELIEVE we have detected photons"
9 years ago Report
0
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: I think you're not understanding.

1. Photons were hypothesized.
2. Experiments were devised to attempt to establish facts concerning what we are calling photons.
3. Experiments succeed as expected, detecting them as well as their effects.
4. What we have called photons exist.

As far as a total theory of understanding of what photons are, that is where this meets its end. Only an explanation can be offered. But that isn't to say that facts about *photons* do not exist.
9 years ago Report
1
CoIin
CoIin: So that's the end of it?

Light = photons

And this "fact" is now immune from revision? This identity can never be refuted by any experiment or observation?

I thought science was a fallible business?


Are you forgetting about the other unobservable entities that science posited in the past that we are now told are illusory?
9 years ago Report
0
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: I never mentioned light. I think you struggle to read, and I sincerely doubt you've even a cursory understanding of the effects I posted...which is why I posted them.

Don't ask for support then ignore it, kid.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Uh oh, I'm starting to get a dreadful sense of deja vu
9 years ago Report
0
TheismIsUntenable
TheismIsUntenable: Yawning @ this idiot.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Abusive posts will not be tolerated. I've endured enough of it in the past from people like yourself. You can disagree all you like, but remain civil or your posts will be deleted.

I pose my question to you again. You claim, and I quote "What we have called photons exist".

Why is not possible that you could be wrong? Why is it not possible that what you have called photons do NOT exist? Why is it not possible that what you have called photons could end up on the scientific scrapheap along with phlogiston, caloric, the aether, and many others?

Why is it not possible that scientists one day will say "We used to believe photons were real. But we don't believe that any more" ?

9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: And by the way, you're making precisely the mistake I warned against in the lengthy post I made earlier today beginning "In this post I'll try to explain a crucial distinction".

And that mistake is, to repeat, confusing proof of the EVIDENCE with proof of the theory.

It all comes down to the old logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent", which is, given:-


1. If P then Q

AND

2. Q

THEREFORE

3. P

This is, of course, an invalid inference



Or in the case of your photon theory:-

1. If (my photon theory is true) then (certain observations will be made, certain effects will be detected, etc. )

AND

2. Aforementioned (certain observations, effects) are indeed observed/detected (this is your EVIDENCE)

And from this you infer invalidly:-

3. My photon theory is true. Photons exist.



I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to point this out before (and it's not exactly a national secret - ask a professor or someone you trust on such matters), mainly to no avail.

EVEN IF (another big if) we accept your "certain observations/effects" as a given, as unproblematically proven, then what you have proven is your EVIDENCE, not your theory.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0