- Thank you received: 0
Logical Hierarchies
20 years 11 months ago #6744
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is an assumption arrived at by induction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah! Back to the original idea ...
This is just what Newton demands in his Rules of Reasoning #4
<i><b>"This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." </b></i>
In other words, since the 2nd law applies to everything that we see, we are compelled to apply it to the universe at large until other experimental evidence compels us to revise or discard the 2nd law. We cannot discard or revise it on the basis of hypothesis.
I should add here that I do not appeal to the "authority" of Newton. He merely expressed directly the experience of all scientists in general. Hence, they place great stock in these words.
Ah! Back to the original idea ...
This is just what Newton demands in his Rules of Reasoning #4
<i><b>"This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." </b></i>
In other words, since the 2nd law applies to everything that we see, we are compelled to apply it to the universe at large until other experimental evidence compels us to revise or discard the 2nd law. We cannot discard or revise it on the basis of hypothesis.
I should add here that I do not appeal to the "authority" of Newton. He merely expressed directly the experience of all scientists in general. Hence, they place great stock in these words.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7427
by Jeremy
Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is an assumption arrived at by induction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah! Back to the original idea ...
This is just what Newton demands in his Rules of Reasoning #4
<i><b>"This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." </b></i>
In other words, since the 2nd law applies to everything that we see, we are compelled to apply it to the universe at large until other experimental evidence compels us to revise or discard the 2nd law. We cannot discard or revise it on the basis of hypothesis.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It seems to me that conventional science does not obey this dictum. Within the last couple of years they have posited that 99% of the universe is invisible dark matter which has never been shown to exist. How can one say anything intelligent about the energy balance of the universe if you can't see 99% of it and don't know anything about its physical properties? Moreover, the only way to get the low entropy beginning is to HYPOTHESIZE a miraculous beginning where everything suddenly appears from nowhere. Scientists quote the rules when they want to knock something down but disobey them when it makes the ruling paradigm work.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is an assumption arrived at by induction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah! Back to the original idea ...
This is just what Newton demands in his Rules of Reasoning #4
<i><b>"This rule we must follow, that the arguments of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." </b></i>
In other words, since the 2nd law applies to everything that we see, we are compelled to apply it to the universe at large until other experimental evidence compels us to revise or discard the 2nd law. We cannot discard or revise it on the basis of hypothesis.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It seems to me that conventional science does not obey this dictum. Within the last couple of years they have posited that 99% of the universe is invisible dark matter which has never been shown to exist. How can one say anything intelligent about the energy balance of the universe if you can't see 99% of it and don't know anything about its physical properties? Moreover, the only way to get the low entropy beginning is to HYPOTHESIZE a miraculous beginning where everything suddenly appears from nowhere. Scientists quote the rules when they want to knock something down but disobey them when it makes the ruling paradigm work.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6750
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Jeremy,
Here, Here.
Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.
Here, Here.
Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6843
by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Within the last couple of years they have posited that 99% of the universe is invisible dark matter which has never been shown to exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Very true. I agree that this has gone too far now. In the 80s, that was the induced principle ... now it has been weakened by not being able to find the dark matter. This has forced them to "hypothesize" to the max. The induced principle has failed badly yet there is no where else to go but to test various hypotheses. This generally means that something big is coming down ... hopefully soon.
Newton would be reexamining the foundations that got them there and would be formulating hypotheses as well. In this case I would say it's every man for himself but WIMPS and MACHOS are off the wall ideas. You can tell they're truly perplexed when they start to make funny names. They are truly stymied.
This doesn't let you off the 2nd law hook however. This law will stand well after the sun is gone. It's very real and you may surely bet your life on it's continued validity.
Very true. I agree that this has gone too far now. In the 80s, that was the induced principle ... now it has been weakened by not being able to find the dark matter. This has forced them to "hypothesize" to the max. The induced principle has failed badly yet there is no where else to go but to test various hypotheses. This generally means that something big is coming down ... hopefully soon.
Newton would be reexamining the foundations that got them there and would be formulating hypotheses as well. In this case I would say it's every man for himself but WIMPS and MACHOS are off the wall ideas. You can tell they're truly perplexed when they start to make funny names. They are truly stymied.
This doesn't let you off the 2nd law hook however. This law will stand well after the sun is gone. It's very real and you may surely bet your life on it's continued validity.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7170
by jrich
Replied by jrich on topic Reply from
When a theory is based on incorrect assumptions, it will eventually fail. Every new observation or experiment will require major modifications to the theory. At some point the required modifications will be in conflict with each other, and scientists will realize that the theory is fatally flawed and cannot be salvaged. But they will have no idea which of their starting assumptions were incorrect. When the Standard Model dies, which assumptions will be falsified? None will be shown to be false only the conclusion drawn from all of them together.
JR
JR
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #6756
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
Jeremy,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Within the last couple of years they have posited that 99% of the universe is invisible dark matter which has never been shown to exist. How can one say anything intelligent about the energy balance of the universe if you can't see 99% of it and don't know anything about its physical properties?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The established scientific community takes us for a fool. Relativity assumes that space is void, yet there exists dark matter that seems to permeate 99% of space.
"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Within the last couple of years they have posited that 99% of the universe is invisible dark matter which has never been shown to exist. How can one say anything intelligent about the energy balance of the universe if you can't see 99% of it and don't know anything about its physical properties?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The established scientific community takes us for a fool. Relativity assumes that space is void, yet there exists dark matter that seems to permeate 99% of space.
"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.254 seconds