The "What if...?" - hypothetical scenario

[gnostic]

I think hypotheticals can work pretty well as analogies. As ways of exemplifying and explaining an idea by presenting it as a scenario. But I find non-representational hypotheticals annoying. "What if an X was a Y?" Who cares? It's not. I see no point to them.

A hypothesis should be proposed (explanatory & predictive) modeling based on ACTUAL preliminary observations of physical or natural phenomena, hence these observations required physical evidence.

That’s what make hypothesis and theory “falsifiable”.

The “what if...?” would be relevant to science, if it represent real-world observations and data, and not something that have no basis in reality.

Creationists and those who have very limitations in biology education make up and put forward some imaginary and impossible “what if” questions (scenario).

The cat-dog and human-chimp “what if” examples are typical creationists’ tactics used to spread misinformation about what biologists would never proposed.

No biologists would theorize that a dog could give birth to kitten or that chimp

Either they misunderstood the common ancestry in Evolution, or they understand and deliberately misrepresent common ancestry, or both. In either cases, they used it to claimed that biologists are wrong, that evolution is wrong...and in either cases, their what if questions are simply deception, they have no interested in understanding the biology in evolution.

 

[Native]

As I said, I'm still stuck to the earth. If I jump, I come down. I trust that to continue as before. And as already stated, explanation beyond a mathematical description of gravity is neither available nor necessary to navigate this world.

OK, if you chose to believe in unexplained occult matters, it´s fine be me, but your cosmological interpretation and assumptions will mirror this occult approach..

Your reference to "explanations beyond mathematical description" doesn´t hold waters in all other kinds of cosmological descriptions.

Yes, intuitively. He seems to know that things fall down when they can. Throw a ball up and he seems to know that it's coming back down. In fact, he goes to where he expects it to fall expecting it to come down to his mouth. He seems to know as much about gravity as much of the human race, and all of it before Newton, who showed that the same force that brings the ball to my dog's mouth also keeps heavenly bodies in stable orbits. Do most people know that? I don't know. I suspect not.

If you have a flying pet parrot as well, what do you think this mean about your "gravity".

I think you're confusing mass and weight. Absent gravity, your mass remainsunchanged, but your weight disappears:

Of course I´m not. It´s the standing cosmology which use one or the other term when it is convenient in their theories.

And there is no strong electromagnetic force. See the next post to cladking. You might have meant the strong nuclear force

Atoms contains electromagnetic properties > The Strong Force hold nucleus together thus forming masses > weights . Of course this Strong Force is electromagnetically in nature.

It´s the standing cosmology which is that schizophrenic to divide the basic E&M into three departments and thus having huge troubles to determine the E&M forces overall functions and formative connections everywhere.

 

[Native]

There is no superstition in science.

Oh isn´t there?
1) Unexplained gravity.
2) Unexplained "heavy dark holes".
3) Unexplained "dark matter".
4) Unexplained "dark energy"..
5) Unexplained Big Bang.

Everything which isn´t scientifically and causally explained is on and in the brink of superstitions. These superstitious areas are just called "hypothesis and theories" in the standing cosmology.

And most of these indoctrinated superstitious assumptions can be solved by taking an Electromagnetic and cyclical approach to cosmology.

 

[Native]

The “what if...?” would be relevant to science, if it represent real-world observations and data, and not something that have no basis in reality.

Everything what you call "reality" and "real world observation", is basically governed and build up by the, for human invisible, electromagnetic frequencies except LIGHT.

So your "physical reality" is nothing worth without considering these invisible E&M forces and their attached energy patterns in formation and motion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you have a flying pet parrot as well, what do you think this mean about your "gravity".

It means that the parrot will be affected by gravity if it is close to the earth or another massive body. And the parrot's behavior will indicate an implicit understanding of gravity such that when it slows or stops its wings from beating, it will alight. It expects to be pulled down.

Of course this Strong Force is electromagnetically in nature.

The strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force are distinct.

having huge troubles to determine the E&M forces overall functions and formative connections everywhere.

Sounds like a serious problem. What have some of the ramifications been?

Everything which isn´t scientifically and causally explained is on and in the brink of superstitions. These superstitious areas are just called "hypothesis and theories" in the standing cosmology.

You must be using a private definition of superstitious. Superstitions are faith-based beliefs. There are none of those in empiricism, which, if adhered to strictly, prevents one from believing any unjustified ideas. Science will tell you the genetics of four-leaf clovers, but it takes faith to believe they're lucky.

And most of these indoctrinated superstitious assumptions can be solved by taking an Electromagnetic and cyclical approach to cosmology.

Superstitions are avoided if one uses critical thinking.

 

[Native]

And the parrot's behavior will indicate an implicit understanding of gravity such that when it slows or stops its wings from beating, it will alight. It expects to be pulled down.

Oh does it? it doesn't when your parrot is riding on thermal uplift which easily overcome your assumed gravity.
And it´s the same case when about 5 quadrillion tons weight of air is floating around in the Earth´s atmosphere.

The strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force are distinct.

Yes and NO. It´s simply the basic E&M working in different areas with different polarities, different charges and with different ranges. As said before, it´s only the schizophrenic approach of scientists who have divided this basic E&M force in three departments and no more can find the connected logical dots.

You must be using a private definition of superstitious.

That could very well be so. I call it simple logics.

Superstitions are avoided if one uses critical thinking.

I agree in this and I´m still waiting for cosmological scientists and laymen to involve such a critical practice instead of automatically repeating occult old dogmas taught in Universities.

 

[cladking]

I had written, "You're describing a faith-based confirmation bias, where somebody chooses a belief before they review the evidence, and then evaluate the evidence with the assumption that the faith-based belief is fact." Did you want to comment on that? Do you agree? If you disagree, why? What part of that is incorrect and in your opinion, why?

I listed just a few scientific superstitions in post #12 in response to YOU. Yet now you seem to think that science is not only correct about everything but immune to superstition. I could come to doubt your sincerity. Everything done by man is founded on definitions and axioms and these are just as ephemeral as inductive "logic". I do not understand why you should have trouble parsing my words. If you would give me some clues I could elaborate. Absent such clues all I can do is repeat myself or try other words you probably can't parse either.

Another comment that I cannot parse. Induction is the intuitive art of unifying data points under an overarching rule that explains past outcomes and allows one to predict future ones.

Here's one of our problems. I define "intuition" as skipping steps in deductive reasoning. The best chess players plan every possible move seven or eight moves ahead but some don't bother with projecting moves with a low probability of gain or loss so they can project other possible moves ten or twelve ahead. The former players probably win more games but they almost invariably take much longer.

Inductive reasoning is like a chess game with no rules. The results of planning are sketchy at best and skipping any steps will result in failure every time. It's how we end up with nonsense instead of theory. Surgeons in the 1850's knew patients bleeding to death had a better chance with immediate attention. But they couldn't see the germs that resulted in their patients' deaths from not washing their hands.

We don't have a rule book for reality but believers think one exists and far worse most of them also think they are familiar with it or can consult a Peer who is. The complexity of life is like the complexity of reality on steroids. Patients must heal themselves and those waiting for a doctor should be aware that if you die on the way out of an examination he'll turn you around and say you were coming in.

Induction has no function in science except to invent hypothesis. At every other part of the scientific method induction is just a means to explain, maintain, or further your beliefs. Your beliefs are in little danger even without induction really.

I can only guess what you mean by that. You must have a private definition of reason.

Again I explained this to YOU.

There is no statement that can be formed in any language which can not be parsed in such a way that it is false. Even the author of an apparently "true" statement might mean it in a way that is false. From this perspective there is no such thing as "reason" but rather it is a belief generated by the way homo omnisciencis thinks.

Remember "this statement is false" has an equally valid counterpoint in "this statement is true". Neither has meaning without a proper metaphysical foundation. Science has no meaning outside its proper metaphysical foundation and a great deal of modern science is founded in speculation, induction, statistics, taxonomies, and exists with no metaphysics and no experiment. Even mathematics which underlies all theoretical physics now days can not be shown to apply to all of reality. While in my opinion reality can probably be expressed mathematically because it is based in logic and all math is logical, it is improbable that all the math necessary to understand reality will never be discovered. But even if it is our mode of thought and the basis of science requires that experiment proves that the math applies to reality.

Science is not even in its infancy yet and the possibility it will be stillborn exists.

Again, it would be easier to understand you if you fleshed out your thoughts a little. Darwin described continually varying population.

Anyone can see populations vary. Even Darwin knew this. But one of his axioms was that populations rarely approach zero except in extinctions. This is WHERE HE WAS WRONG. His axiom is false and when populations approach zero is where most speciation occurs.

It's not just Darwin who has been shown to be a 19th century crackpot but most of the rest as well. Many were great scientists but they made fundamental errors and there are still fundamental errors shown up by experiment.

I had written, "You're describing a faith-based confirmation bias, where somebody chooses a belief before they review the evidence, and then evaluate the evidence with the assumption that the faith-based belief is fact."

So what exactly is the difference if you read a science text and the Bible. You've created your belief before you start investigating. People are collections of beliefs and experiences. We act on our beliefs so our experiences tend to reflect and reinforce those beliefs. As we get older we become our beliefs.

Children should be told at two years of age to be careful what they choose to believe. No child of any age should be told what to believe.

 

[cladking]

Darwin concluded from evidence that nature selects for the most fecund forms.

This is what we think we see when we look at nature. We see a rabbit escape a fox and it seems to us that it must run faster or be smarter than the one that was breakfast. It simply doesn't work this way. Our minds are deceiving us because we seek answers whether they are facile and unevidenced or not. There is never such a root cause except where terms like sick, lame, or hard of hearing apply. Rabbits are not only designed to get away from foxes but each rabbit has a consciousness which keeps it alert and learns to tricks to remain off the menu. Conversely foxes are designed to catch rabbits and will when they are lucky enough to outsmart, get close enough, or catch the breaks.

 

[gnostic]

Everything what you call "reality" and "real world observation", is basically governed and build up by the, for human invisible, electromagnetic frequencies except LIGHT.

So your "physical reality" is nothing worth without considering these invisible E&M forces and their attached energy patterns in formation and motion.

I don’t dispute the importance of EM fields and EM forces, in their interactions with elementary particles (hence particle physics), in quantum field physics, in nuclear physics, in astronomy, in astrophysics & cosmology, etc.

But I am not the ignoring other forces (weak nuclear, strong nuclear & gravitation) at play and in their roles they played in those fields and disciplines that I have already mentioned.

You are the one who being narrow-minded with your claims that “light” explains all, when it don’t.

Light alone, -

• doesn’t explain what hold quarks together in hadron particles (eg protons, neutrons), and what hold protons together within the atomic nuclei in which strong nuclear force,
• nor do light doesn’t explain fully what causes radioactive decays of particles in nuclear fission (weak nuclear force),
• what causes planets orbiting star or stars orbiting the galactic centre (gravitational force).

I do agree with you that EM is stronger than gravitational force, but both have infinite range at astronomical level, and at quantum and subatomic level, EM force is definitely weaker than strong nuclear force.

And you are not as bright as you think.

I am quite sure you have some basic knowledge about electric charges, basic knowledge about magnetism, and basic knowledge about atom and their particles.

But you are not thinking logical how everything together.

In magnetic fields, you know that “like” poles would repulse each other, “opposite” poles attract each other.

Likewise, fields surrounding electric charges, two negative charges would repel each other, and negative charge & positive charge attract one another and become electrically neutral.

Pretty basic, right?

But what holding all the positive charged protons together in atom? Shouldn’t all those proton repelling each other?

It can’t be light or EM force holding the protons together within the nucleus shell. The EM force isn’t strong enough to keep a nucleus full of positive-charged protons.

What’s the protons in place is STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE, not electromagnetic force.

And as strong as EM force when compared with weak nuclear force and gravitational force, you are overlooking another simple basic fact, EM wave like “light”, have problem with another particle or atom or large massive object, which deflect or reflect or bounce light, or refract light, or completely absorb light.

Do you really think light can move planets, stars or galaxies? Ok.

Try to explain this scenario.

Take for instance, beam of light moving at speed of light, collide with asteroid moving in the opposite direction. What do think would happen to asteroid?

• Do you think the light would have enough force, to cause the asteroid move the same direction?
• Would the asteroid bounce off the light, or the other way around?
• Would the (EM) forces of the light completely destroy the asteroid?

Please explain to me what would happen to asteroid when it collide with your all-powerful LIGHT?​

NO! Wait, I really would like to know your answer, but let me get popcorns or chips , before you start.

 

[Native]

I don’t dispute the importance of EM fields and EM forces, in their interactions with elementary particles (hence particle physics), in quantum field physics, in nuclear physics, in astronomy, in astrophysics & cosmology, etc.

Fine.

But I am not the ignoring other forces (weak nuclear, strong nuclear & gravitation) at play and in their roles they played in those fields and disciplines that I have already mentioned.

Fine too. Except from the gravity one which cannot be scientific explained by what dynamic means it should work and which connected assumptions lead to superstitious conclusions.

You are the one who being narrow-minded with your claims that “light” explains all, when it don’t.

How can something be "narrowminded" if it explains everything?

Furthermore: You´re conflating my mythical explanations of LIGHT (Amun-Ra in the Egyptian Creation Story) as the formative force in ancient myths with explanations from modern cosmology and astrophysics. Besides this, I´ve very clearly stated all the other E&M frequencies to play a significant part too in the cosmological formation.

And you are not as bright as you think.
I am quite sure you have some basic knowledge about electric charges, basic knowledge about magnetism, and basic knowledge about atom and their particles.
But you are not thinking logical how everything together.

May I remind you to be careful with judging what is clever and bright or not, as long as the standing conventional cosmology hasn´t achieved a Grand Unification Theory or a Theory of Everything?

In magnetic fields, you know that “like” poles would repulse each other, “opposite” poles attract each other.

Likewise, fields surrounding electric charges, two negative charges would repel each other, and negative charge & positive charge attract one another and become electrically neutral.
Pretty basic, right?
But what holding all the positive charged protons together in atom? Shouldn’t all those proton repelling each other?

Nice copy-pastings - but you forget to include other atoms which participates to the E&M bindings of atoms and molecules. Cosmological formation is much more than what you´ve learned of the basic E&M properties and motions, which can be mechanically and instrumentally measured.

It can’t be light or EM force holding the protons together within the nucleus shell. The EM force isn’t strong enough to keep a nucleus full of positive-charged protons.
What’s the protons in place is STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE, not electromagnetic force.
And as strong as EM force when compared with weak nuclear force and gravitational force, you are overlooking another simple basic fact, EM wave like “light”, have problem with another particle or atom or large massive object, which deflect or reflect or bounce light, or refract light, or completely absorb light.

Same perception problem as above.

Do you really think light can move planets, stars or galaxies? Ok

This just shows that you don´t include the very basic electromagnetic current and its perpendicular running magnetic field into your question of E&M moving planets, stars and galaxies.

Apparently you´re stuck in the superficious idea that a random cosmic cloud of gas and dust suddenly can make an attractive work on itself and get it to spin and form galaxies, stars and planets. This is not how gaseous clouds work in nature as it naturally disperses out in a free space.

Try to explain this scenario.
Take for instance, beam of light moving at speed of light, collide with asteroid moving in the opposite direction. What do think would happen to asteroid?

• Do you think the light would have enough force, to cause the asteroid move the same direction?
• Would the asteroid bounce off the light, or the other way around?
• Would the (EM) forces of the light completely destroy the asteroid?

Please explain to me what would happen to asteroid when it collide with your all-powerful LIGHT?

Before coming with irrelevant questions, you can begin to grasp the very basics of formational E&M forces in cosmos and its rotational and orbital properties.

NO! Wait, I really would like to know your answer, but let me get popcorns or chips , before you start.

So your replies is just on the level of the personal entertaining business show

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Oh does it? it doesn't when your parrot is riding on thermal uplift which easily overcome your assumed gravity.

That's not a rebuttal to my comment, which is that the parrot, like my dog, exhibits an intuitive sense of gravity. Your comment about thermal uplifts doesn't contradict it. The parrot uses various techniques to avoid falling to the ground. It flaps its wings or soars to acquire or maintain altitude above a perch. My original point is that gravity is sufficiently understood to both utilize it and overcome it without any metaphysical understanding of why it exists.

And it´s the same case when about 5 trillion tons weight of air is floating around in the Earth´s atmosphere.

I don't think the atmosphere has an implicit understanding of gravity like the parrot.

I´m still waiting for cosmological scientists and laymen to involve such a critical practice instead of automatically repeating occult old dogmas taught in Universities.

There is no dogma in science. I rebutted that earlier. If you care to answer that with a counter-rebuttal of your own, we can continue that discussion.

Yes and NO. It´s simply the basic E&M working in different areas with different polarities, different charges and with different ranges.

That's not correct. The strong nuclear force is stronger than the electromagnetic force, has a shorter range of action, and performs a different function using different force characters that act on different particle. The strong nuclear force is relevant at the scale of the atomic nucleus and below down to quark, whereas the electromagnetic force is more relevant at a slightly larger scale, that of atoms and molecules and above.

This gives a sense of that. It shows electromagnetism at the atomic scale, holding electrons to nuclei, but it is also how atoms bond and form molecules. The electrons are shown in blue, and the force is shown as four arrows holding them to the nucleus within. The strong force is shown holding the protons (pink) and neutrons (green) together in that center of the atom, the nucleus. It also holds the components of the protons and neutrons - quarks - together. You can also see that gravity doesn't have much effect at the scale of the atom, and that there is a fourth fundamental force, the weak nuclear force. These are the four I mentioned to you previously, and you can see that the strong and electromagnetic forces are not the same thing, the former ignoring electrons, the latter not:

But that doesn't matter to this discussion.

You can learn about the fundamental particles and forces from the book I recommended, or by searching the Internet

 

[cladking]

There is no dogma in science. I rebutted that earlier. If you care to answer that with a counter-rebuttal of your own, we can continue that discussion.

I sure wish I had seen that one.

Was your rebuttal Peer reviewed?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I listed just a few scientific superstitions in post #12

Disagree. You listed a variety of statements that you called axiomatic to science that are not.

1. "ancient people were sun addled bumpkins' is axiomatic to science." Nope. Science has nothing to say about that. It is a set of principles for elucidating how the world works.

2. "there exist four dimensions is axiomatic." Nope. Some scientists are investigating geometries of a dozen or more dimensions. But even were they not, that's still not a superstition or an axiom of science. Before the evidence existed that suggested that so many dimensions were needed to describe subatomic strings, four dimensions of spacetime sufficed, and no others were proposed.

3. "2 + 2 = 4 is a given (derived from definitions) despite the fact that no two identical things exist." That's neither science nor superstition.

4. "It is axiomatic that reductionistic science can answer any question in the long run and most believers "know" it already has." That's wrong on both sides of the conjunction. Science (empiricism) does not claim to to be able to answer all questions, but it does claim to be the only method to elucidate answers about how reality works, and few of the scientifically literate think otherwise.

5. "It is axiomatic that chaos does not need to be considered and that reality is a clockwork that obeys the laws of science." Really? It's a major factor in thermodynamics (entropy) and the science of dissipative structures. Here's the book that taught me about dissipative structures like tornadoes and the hexagonal storm on Saturn's north pole. Under proper circumstances (an energy source and a heat bath like an ocean or atmosphere) chaotic systems order themselves to dissipate energy as heat.

This is now a central idea in abiogenesis. From https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/ :

"The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."

you seem to think that science is not only correct about everything but immune to superstition

I don't claim that science is complete, nor that some older ideas won't be reworked as occurred with gravity between Newton and Einstein, but science is immune from superstition as is any program of thought that rejects insufficiently supported beliefs. Empiricism and critical thought prevent it.

I do not understand why you should have trouble parsing my words.

You use many of them atypically, as you did with the word reason, when you said that reason doesn't exist.

We don't have a rule book for reality

I do. I think I've shared it with you. I'm a pragmatist, that is, I go with what works. Pragmatism says that the ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results. If an idea is true (correct), it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences. Ideas that can't do that can be considered false. Thus, astronomy, which accurately predicts celestial motions such as eclipses, astrology can't successfully predict anything. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is the capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. That's reality for me, and my rules for determining how it works are quite simple. It's through empiricism, or experience. All we need to know about reality is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D, if doing A will achieve D, B is correct. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false. Those are my rules.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Induction has no function in science except to invent hypothesis.

Induction is how we arrive at general rules that predict specific outcomes. It is the source of the laws and theories in science, and of much common knowledge. You tried and liked a few Thai restaurants, and so you induce that you are likely to have a good meal at a Thai restaurant. You apply this when you choose to visit one, action A, and the validity of your induction is put to the test. As long as desired outcome D, a good meal, is generated by belief B, Thai restaurants make food I like, the induction continues to be correct and can be used without modification. A few bad experiences may require modifying the induction.

Doesn't that describe all experiential learning? Every rule about life you learned through experience is an induction.

There is no statement that can be formed in any language which can not be parsed in such a way that it is false. Even the author of an apparently "true" statement might mean it in a way that is false. From this perspective there is no such thing as "reason" but rather it is a belief generated by the way homo omnisciencis thinks.

I think too many people overthink these matters and undermine their own foundations in thought. Some in this forum are radical skeptics, essentially claiming that nothing can be known since all knowledge is at least partly subjective. They're just playing mind games with themselves, since in the end, they live life the same way the rest of us do. They still look both ways before crossing while musing that nothing is knowable. I would recommend my belief B - actionA - desired outcome D schema for them, and embrace the subjectivity. After all, you are the subject, and if it works for you, it's a keeper.

It's not just Darwin who has been shown to be a 19th century crackpot but most of the rest as well.

Shown to whom? I don't know anybody that agrees with that except some creationists. There are other kinds of anti-science people I suppose, like the anti-vaxxers, who are the actual crackpots, but in their attacks on science, they don't comment on Darwin, just Fauci.

So what exactly is the difference if you read a science text and the Bible. You've created your belief before you start investigating.

The difference is whether ones reads critically or not. I suspect that anybody skilled in critical thought reads both critically, and obviously, those that aren't read neither critically. It's the latter, the faith-based thinker, who reads through a confirmation bias. I think it was with you that I noted that one begins with evidence, evaluates it critically, and arrives at sound conclusion, whereas the other begins with premises believed by faith and only uses evidence when he thinks it supports his beliefs while disregarding that which contradicts it. That's why the one that believes the Bible often rejects the science text and vice versa.

No child of any age should be told what to believe.

Eventually, but early on, they need to be told what to believe, before they have the knowledge and experience to make good decisions, lest they go off with some stranger.

Rabbits are not only designed to get away from foxes but each rabbit has a consciousness which keeps it alert and learns to tricks to remain off the menu. Conversely foxes are designed to catch rabbits and will when they are lucky enough to outsmart, get close enough, or catch the breaks.

That's natural selection.

I sure wish I had seen that one.

You did, and responded to it in the post your referenced, #12. He wrote, "if you take modern cosmology, there are lots of simple belief dogmas too - they just call it hypothesis, theories and assumptions," and I explained why scientific hypotheses were not dogma by providing a definition of dogma - "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" - and added that "dogma is indoctrinated, not taught, and if believed, is believed by faith. Science is taught, and being empirical, is the opposite of faith and requires none." All he need do to confirm that is to read science or take classes in science. What he learns will be very different from dogma in the ways just described allowing one to distinguish between the two. Creationism is dogma learned by indoctrination and believed by faith. Evolution is education acquired by looking at evidence and arguments.

Was your rebuttal Peer reviewed?

 

[cladking]

1. "ancient people were sun addled bumpkins' is axiomatic to science." Nope. Science has nothing to say about that. It is a set of principles for elucidating how the world works.

You're moving the goal posts.

"there exist four dimensions is axiomatic." Nope. Some scientists are investigating geometries of a dozen or more dimensions. But even were they not, that's still not a superstition or an axiom of science.

I am quite aware much of existing science can be expressed in spherical geometry and other forms but the fact is all science at this time does assume four dimensions. This isn't a superstition per se, but rather a definition of space and time. I'm sure if there's a better way to define it it will be found eventually.

Keep in mind the earth can be flat if you define all the terms such.

"2 + 2 = 4 is a given (derived from definitions) despite the fact that no two identical things exist." That's neither science nor superstition.

It's definition . Two is half of four and it's the square root of four. It doesn't mean any other species can count to two nor does it mean there are two identical things in existence. It is logical but not reflective of reality. It works because it is logical but then people apply it incorrectly almost every time they whip out a calculator. The logic of math must dovetail with the logic of reality for equations to work. The acceleration due to gravity has no meaning at all in regards to a weight sitting on a shelf. It will not be 16' lower in one second sitting on a shelf unless the shelf falls.

Under proper circumstances (an energy source and a heat bath like an ocean or atmosphere) chaotic systems order themselves to dissipate energy as heat.

Even nonchaotic complex systems have chaotic components or they would persist indefinitely.

You can't divorce any part of reality from chaos or any other part of reality. It's an entire thing and this is why we need to consider EVERY experiment at all times.

I don't claim that science is complete, nor that some older ideas won't be reworked as occurred with gravity between Newton and Einstein, but science is immune from superstition as is any program of thought that rejects insufficiently supported beliefs. Empiricism and critical thought prevent it.

And I've explained numerous times why none of this is true or necessarily true. And I've provided many examples.

Indeed, I would say we haven't reworked our understanding of gravity because we still lack an understanding of gravity. Measuring something is not the same as understanding it. We assume extrapolations have as much validity as experiment.

You use many of them atypically, as you did with the word reason, when you said that reason doesn't exist.

I know. This is WHY I define my terms so much. Anyone TRYING to follow my argument should have no trouble. Why do I have to repeat that no statement can be made that every listener can parse to be true?????? Why is this ignored?????????????? It is on THIS basis that I say there is no reason, or at least, no reason that can be communicated. Unless people try to understand the actual thinking of the author there is not even really any communication. We think we understand one another but this tends to be more superstition. Other life forms always understand one another. We do not.

Inductive reasoning is worse even because it is based on abstractions and taxonomies.

I do. I think I've shared it with you. I'm a pragmatist, that is, I go with what works.

Pragmatically we've always had a rulebook ever since the tower of babel. Of course in the old days it was poor at making predictions or invention but anyone could consult his priest to find what's what. Today even people who barely understand science at all can put a key in the ignition and run to the store to buy a screw or a lever. Easy Peasy. Those who do understand science are much more powerful and can at least fix their poorly made appliances or map a genome.

I'm a pragmatist as well, always have been but right now I'm trying to fix more than a bulky dryer or program my furnace. It started with "What if the pyramids weren't built with ramps" but now it's "what if almost all of science is not only wrong (besides being bought and paid for) but it is incapable of fixing itself? What if science has gotten so far afield and so far from experiment that no experiment can ever show how very very wrong it is". It's not just nature and my genes that got me right here but also experience. Mebbe if I were a species I could change now.

 

[cladking]

Induction is how we arrive at general rules that predict specific outcomes. It is the source of the laws and theories in science, and of much common knowledge. You tried and liked a few Thai restaurants, and so you induce that you are likely to have a good meal at a Thai restaurant. You apply this when you choose to visit one, action A, and the validity of your induction is put to the test. As long as desired outcome D, a good meal, is generated by belief B, Thai restaurants make food I like, the induction continues to be correct and can be used without modification. A few bad experiences may require modifying the induction.

Doesn't that describe all experiential learning? Every rule about life you learned through experience is an induction.

Used to love Thai restaurants and knew a few owners. My theory is that Thais are good at running restaurants and tend to be great cooks. Once you get diverticulosis you have less interest in such places and this goes double when they hire an American chef.

No. Induction is superstition. You can't define define a "thai restaurant" even by cuisine. Every "restaurant" lies on a continuum of thai- not thai. You can't eat in the same thai restaurant twice any more than you can step into the same river twice. If you order the wrong thing in the finest restaurant you are likely to be very disappointed.

Induction leads to more bad science than even bad assumptions.

Shown to whom? I don't know anybody that agrees with that except some creationists. There are other kinds of anti-science people I suppose, like the anti-vaxxers, who are the actual crackpots, but in their attacks on science, they don't comment on Darwin, just Fauci.

I still believe every experiment and observation shows there is no survival of the fittest causing gradual change. Anyone looking at change in species might consider Darwin a crackpot.

I've been wrong before and might be now but I don't see anyone presenting such experimental evidence. I have shown (in aggregate) a great deal of evidence for sudden change based on consciousness. Why did Gould disbelieve Darwin?

I think it was with you that I noted that one begins with evidence, evaluates it critically, and arrives at sound conclusion, whereas the other begins with premises believed by faith and only uses evidence when he thinks it supports his beliefs while disregarding that which contradicts it.

I'm not so sure this is true. People make up there minds pretty young about what they want to believe. Many people who believe in science just absorb it from a very young age. Many of the best learners become specialists. This is great except nobody who is adept at science is trained as a generalist and this is much of the problem today with out nonfunctioning economy, government, and commonweal. Nobody knows what's going on and every question must be settled by computer. The economy hums along at a 3% efficiency, all products are crap, and the rich rake in all the money.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're moving the goal posts.

I don't agree. You said, "ancient people were sun addled bumpkins' is axiomatic to science," and I contradicted you by writing, "science has nothing to say about that. It is a set of principles for elucidating how the world works." Did you want to address that rebuttal? Do you still believe science holds some dogma or superstition or axiom about ancient people? I'm assuming that this comment comes from your beliefs that ancients had better science than now based on the pyramids, and you'd like people to believe that and to respect it a little more. Science says two things - how best to study reality and what it has discovered using that method.

It is on THIS basis that I say there is no reason, or at least, no reason that can be communicated.

That is what moving the goal posts looks like. First you claimed that there was no such thing as reason, and now you say instead that it can't be communicated, which is also incorrect. I do it in both directions several times a day, and so do you. It's remarkable how often I read somebody telling me that science is in crisis or that knowledge is impossible, and yet, I find that science works quite well and knowledge not only is possible, but useful knowledge is easily acquired just through experience. The people telling me these things also find science working for them, as when they communicate over the Internet, and that knowledge is possible every time things turn out as they intended (desired outcome D) because of actions (action A) informed by that knowledge (belief B), but they go on warning of crises in these areas anyway.

the fact is all science at this time does assume four dimensions.

Science does not posit the existence of anything until it has evidence not explained by earlier scientific narratives, as when it discovered that galaxies were unexplainedly rigid when rotating and posited dark matter to account for that new finding. The idea was needed previously. Likewise with the evidence that the rate of universal expansion is accelerating, something unexpected given the state of understanding at the time.

Two is half of four and it's the square root of four. It doesn't mean any other species can count to two nor does it mean there are two identical things in existence. It is logical but not reflective of reality.

You had written, "2 + 2 = 4 is a given (derived from definitions) despite the fact that no two identical things exist." OK. But you mentioned it as an example of scientific dogma, and it is a fact from math. If you want to try t rebut that, feel free. Perhaps you can restore arithmetic to the status of dogma or superstition. Your argument there seems to be that it's not always correct, and that is right. It applies to discrete objects like apples and cars, and even discrete abstractions, like hours. Where it fails is when it is misapplied. I believe that mixing two gallons of different liquids often results in a mixture that is fewer than four gallons. If so, that wouldn't be the place to use that fact.

The acceleration due to gravity has no meaning at all in regards to a weight sitting on a shelf. It will not be 16' lower in one second sitting on a shelf unless the shelf falls.

It's meaning is diagrammed in the graphics below. It's the downward arrow, and it does have meaning. Once again, one has to know when to apply the mathematics. It's why the standing man and the car remain on the surface. Gravity appears in the calculation of the force friction even for boxes not falling. That force is important for strong bones unrelated to downward movement, even when standing on a shelf.

And I've explained numerous times why none of this is true or necessarily true. And I've provided many examples.

I refuted those. I wrote, "science is immune from superstition as is any program of thought that rejects insufficiently supported beliefs. Empiricism and critical thought prevent it."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Indeed, I would say we haven't reworked our understanding of gravity because we still lack an understanding of gravity.

We have a sufficient understanding of gravity to get our space probes to their desired locations at the desired time using Newtonian physics, and to have accurate GPS satellites using relativity, which is an updated formulation for gravity: "GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.".

Measuring something is not the same as understanding it.

I've given you my criteria for knowledge, and it doesn't include metaphysical considerations that theist like to introduce such as why does gravity exist. Ideas that accurately predict outcome are knowledge to the extent that they do that. If one can predict outcomes that depend on an understanding of how gravity works, that alone is a sufficient understanding of it. And throwing in metaphysical guesses doesn't increase that utility, just as adding gods to scientific theories doesn't increase their utility even if there are gods out there.

Inductive reasoning is worse even because it is based on abstractions and taxonomies.

Inductive reasoning is extremely valuable, as I explained. It's the basis of all accurate expectations that were not lucky guesses. It's how we decide a person's character and how we decide what that person is likely to do and not do. People that are chronically late can be expected to be late in the future much more often than people that have been punctual. It is understood that each can do the opposite of his usual on occasion, but it's a useful induction nevertheless. I don't have keep friends that can't be on time, nor who cancel plans with little provocation, because they are unacceptably unpredictable.

What if science has gotten so far afield and so far from experiment that no experiment can ever show how very very wrong it is

As long as it works, it is correct to the extent that it works.

Induction is superstition. You can't define define a "thai restaurant" even by cuisine. Every "restaurant" lies on a continuum of thai- not thai. You can't eat in the same thai restaurant twice any more than you can step into the same river twice.

You make it too difficult. I use such knowledge effectively every day, and so do you.

If you order the wrong thing in the finest restaurant you are likely to be very disappointed.

You learned that using induction.

I still believe every experiment and observation shows there is no survival of the fittest causing gradual change.

OK. I believe that natural selection is a self-evident fact, and not limited to biology.

People make up their minds pretty young about what they want to believe. Many people who believe in science just absorb it from a very young age. Many of the best learners become specialists.

Yes, and in that process, they learn critical thinking and are able to weed out unsupported and erroneous beliefs.

 

[cladking]

You did, and responded to it in the post your referenced, #12. He wrote, "if you take modern cosmology, there are lots of simple belief dogmas too - they just call it hypothesis, theories and assumptions," and I explained why scientific hypotheses were not dogma by providing a definition of dogma - "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" - and added that "dogma is indoctrinated, not taught, and if believed, is believed by faith. Science is taught, and being empirical, is the opposite of faith and requires none." All he need do to confirm that is to read science or take classes in science. What he learns will be very different from dogma in the ways just described allowing one to distinguish between the two. Creationism is dogma learned by indoctrination and believed by faith. Evolution is education acquired by looking at evidence and arguments.

If there's no such thing as dogma then why does Nova now bring up both global warming and structural racism on every single program no matter the subject.

Why have we been producing as much CO2 as we can since 1958 and now the same people who can't predict tomorrows weather and are in the employ of rich people who will profit from "combatting" global warming in total agreement that we are heating up the planet and must spend trillions and trillions of dollars to save the planet? Why are the same people who stand to profit the most from global warming currently producing appliances that are so shoddy they will be in landfill or being recycled in only a few years? Why is there no effort to increase efficiency which could cut CO2 far more than building new shoddy CO2 containment or whatever. How is it logical to tear down perfectly functional coal powered generators in good condition and replace them with whatever is popular today? How much waste will be generated transferring the rest of all the wealth to the few?

 

[cladking]

I don't agree. You said, "ancient people were sun addled bumpkins' is axiomatic to science," and I contradicted you by writing, "science has nothing to say about that. It is a set of principles for elucidating how the world works." Did you want to address that rebuttal?

Anthropology, Egyptology, Sumerology, Linguistics, archaeology, etc etc are all sciences until someone wants to dispute their nonsense.

I personally agree that none of these bear any relationship to science but any of them probably could if practiced differently.

I've given you my criteria for knowledge, and it doesn't include metaphysical considerations that theist like to introduce such as why does gravity exist.

No! I'm not asking why it exists, I'm asking what it is.

Inductive reasoning is extremely valuable, as I explained. It's the basis of all accurate expectations that were not lucky guesses.

This is one of relatively few times you're just wrong. Experiment underlies knowledge and most reasoning involving experiment invention and the like involve deductive reasoning. Most paradigms result from deductive reasoning. Some (most?) people use inductive reasoning to invent hypothesis.

You had written, "2 + 2 = 4 is a given (derived from definitions) despite the fact that no two identical things exist." OK. But you mentioned it as an example of scientific dogma, and it is a fact from math.

No, I didn't. It is logical fact, not dogma. It is an example of definition and axiom.

Teachers may treat it as dogma with slow first graders.

You make it too difficult. I use such knowledge effectively every day, and so do you.

Guilty as charged but I always make an effort to avoid taxonomies and induction.

You learned that using induction.

I think this was experience.

I often ask the waitress what's good and base part of her tip on good advice. Again... ...experience.

OK. I believe that natural selection is a self-evident fact, and not limited to biology.

This is a quite common belief.

It's meaning is diagrammed in the graphics below. It's the downward arrow, and it does have meaning.

Obviously I was referring to actual acceleration. I even mentioned it would not fall 16' in the first second.