.............. ...Among a fastidious infinite amount of an experiments,
the photometry and the photosynthesis all along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............
....

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote:

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


Why are posts concerning God made at all to sciences news groups.
Science and God have nothing to do with each other. Not a thing.
Render
unto Science what belongs to Science and forget about God altogether.

Bob Kolker


Bob, as you undoubtedly have noticed, most people simply do not know

what

science is, even though is was explained to them in junior high. The

number

of replies I made simply explaining what was taught to me in grade 8 is
beyond belief.

This was taught to you in grade 8? Amazing.


I was taught before grade 8.


.. Apparently you went to a
pretty good school.


I was taught about differences in Sunday School. I don't remember
when I started going to that.

Here in Germany, I first learned a bit (but only a bit) what science
really is in my third semester of my physics study, when I was already
20. It was not taught at all in school, IIRC.


I was doing biology experiments in grade 5.

If the counting of grades is the same in the US as here in Germany,
that would have been at an age of about 10 or 11?

If yes, that is also true for me, IIRC.


I can't remember
when I wasn't doing physics applications, especially in the
mechanics part. I may not have been able to put them down
on paper but I sure knew about forces when I played on
the merry-go-round.

What has doing biology experiments and physics applications to do
with actually learning what *science* is?

Were you ever told that doing experiments is the most crucial part in
science? That theories in science can not be proved, only falsified by
experiments?


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
robert j. kolker wrote:


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


Were you ever told that doing experiments is the most crucial part in
science? That theories in science can not be proved, only falsified by
experiments?


I never learned that in grade school or high school. I did not become
aware of Popper until I was in college.

Well, *that* was essentially what I meant by "learning what science is".

What I meant by learning what science is was test, hypothesize, test,
hypothesize, over and over. That was taught in grade 8. Popper had to wait
until later.

But the above is enough to draw some general conclusions that are not
considered time and time again on this newsgroup.

1. Nothing about reality, whatever that is, is mentioned.
2. Nothing about the theory conforming someone's view of common sense.
3. Nothing about the hypothesis requiring direct experiential evidence
4. Nothing about the scientists not being able to create hypothesis by
studying equations, philosophy or anything else they damn well feel like
5. The hypostasis must have testable consequences.
6. Nothing about the hypothesis conforming to someone idea of what physical
is.
7. Nothing about the theory conforming to someone's idea of cause and
effect.
8. Nothing preventing the theory not being expressed in mathematical
language
9. Nothing saying the hypothesis can not concern the origin of the
universe.

It is summed up in one sentence - science is concerned with correspondence
with experiment - end of story. People genuinely interested in science
understand this even though scientists will often use other criteria. For
example SR is preferred to LET because it is easer to generalize to other
domains (eg GR and QFT) and emphasizes a theme of modern physics - symmetry.
Genuine scientists, such as Tom Roberts, freely admit LET is a valid theory
because it, in a limited domain of applicability, meets the only requirement
of a theory - correspondence with experiment. The list of rubbish posted
around here would be considerably diminished if the posters would simply
analyze their writing in light of what science is and use a little bit of
reasoning. The real problem though is that cranks confuse their inability
to understand with discovering something not seen by these supposed smart
physics dudes. Normal people when confronted with not seeing something
think a bit more, study a bit more, or post a reasoned question. They do
not immediately jump to the conclusion I am correct and because of that I am
smarter than all these supposed smart dudes. It is obvious for them posting
if fulfilling a psychological need to feel special. Just look at the
following form another thread: 'Gravity definitely doesn't behave like a
wave. That's why all these dumb physicists cant explain it.' - I mean what
can you say?

Thanks
Bill




Bye,
Bjoern

Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
....
... The real problem though is that cranks confuse their inability
to understand with discovering something not seen by these supposed smart
physics dudes.

There are cranks and cranks. Some of them are worse than others.

Normal people when confronted with not seeing something
think a bit more, study a bit more, or post a reasoned question.

You have a very "limited" definition of normal. "Normal" people ask others
(or handbooks) so they don't have to do all that studying. You (and most
of the good ones here) are "hungry", and don't let others cook everything
for you. You are NOT normal, and I mean that with the utmost respect. I
am one of those "normal" folks (hungry but don't have the means to feed
myself yet), perhaps with abnormal recall. So I refer to normal as the
average Joe we get about 10-20 of here a year.

They do
not immediately jump to the conclusion I am correct and because of that I
am
smarter than all these supposed smart dudes. It is obvious for them
posting
if fulfilling a psychological need to feel special.

(assuming you are still discussing "normal" folks)
They mostly have to ask, because their circle of friends is selected to
comfort them. Which means they are not (usually) capable of answering
questions outside some collective knowledge-set. They post here because
they want to understand, but they don't have the basics necessary to get
the answer for available soruces. The "smart dudes" speak a different
language, and choose (by convention) specific meanings for words in common
usage.

Just look at the
following form another thread: 'Gravity definitely doesn't behave like a
wave. That's why all these dumb physicists cant explain it.' - I mean
what
can you say?

I will offer what is probably bullsh*t, so you can just ignore it if you
like. In control theory there are three terms that provide different types
of performance in hitting a control target. I refer to the
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) type control. Two terms (P & I)
tend to push the controlled variable to hit some measured target. Think of
these as scientists (proportional) and engineers (integral).

Think of the cranks as derivative terms, contrarians if you will.
Sometimes they can make things unstable. But sometimes they provide a
countering "force" that actually help stay on target.

I personally think they are necessary, and unavoidable, given human nature.
Maybe I'm not "normal" after all...

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:hbP_c.85519$4o.12641@fed1read01...
Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
...
... The real problem though is that cranks confuse their inability
to understand with discovering something not seen by these supposed
smart
physics dudes.

There are cranks and cranks. Some of them are worse than others.

True.


Normal people when confronted with not seeing something
think a bit more, study a bit more, or post a reasoned question.

You have a very "limited" definition of normal. "Normal" people ask
others
(or handbooks) so they don't have to do all that studying. You (and most
of the good ones here) are "hungry",

Obsessional maybe - but that is OK.

and don't let others cook everything
for you. You are NOT normal, and I mean that with the utmost respect. I
am one of those "normal" folks (hungry but don't have the means to feed
myself yet), perhaps with abnormal recall. So I refer to normal as the
average Joe we get about 10-20 of here a year.

Yes there are other ways than what I mentioned for handling when you do not
understand something - and one is, as you say, simply take the word of the
expert or someone you trust. And that is fine. But it is definitely not
normal to jump immediately to the conclusion everyone else must be wrong and
I am the only one that has seen what all these others have not.


They do
not immediately jump to the conclusion I am correct and because of that
I
am
smarter than all these supposed smart dudes. It is obvious for them
posting
if fulfilling a psychological need to feel special.

(assuming you are still discussing "normal" folks)
They mostly have to ask, because their circle of friends is selected to
comfort them. Which means they are not (usually) capable of answering
questions outside some collective knowledge-set. They post here because
they want to understand, but they don't have the basics necessary to get
the answer for available soruces. ]

Yes we get people like that and I love responding to them, hoping to lead
them though what was a harder road for me. Again these are the perfectly
normal ones.

The "smart dudes" speak a different
language, and choose (by convention) specific meanings for words in common
usage.

Just look at the
following form another thread: 'Gravity definitely doesn't behave like a
wave. That's why all these dumb physicists cant explain it.' - I mean
what
can you say?

I will offer what is probably bullsh*t, so you can just ignore it if you
like. In control theory there are three terms that provide different
types
of performance in hitting a control target. I refer to the
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) type control. Two terms (P & I)
tend to push the controlled variable to hit some measured target. Think
of
these as scientists (proportional) and engineers (integral).

Think of the cranks as derivative terms, contrarians if you will.
Sometimes they can make things unstable. But sometimes they provide a
countering "force" that actually help stay on target.

I personally think they are necessary, and unavoidable, given human
nature.
Maybe I'm not "normal" after all...

I do not think it is bullsh*t. That is true as well. But in the context of
what science is the mistakes made often, IMHO, are a result of simply
misunderstanding what they were taught early on.

Thanks
Bill


David A. Smith

In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

snip

Here in Germany, I first learned a bit (but only a bit) what science
really is in my third semester of my physics study, when I was already
20. It was not taught at all in school, IIRC.


I was doing biology experiments in grade 5.

If the counting of grades is the same in the US as here in Germany,
that would have been at an age of about 10 or 11?

If yes, that is also true for me, IIRC.

I think that was the age. These things were the beginnings
of formal studies. I was doing experiments on my own ever
since I can remember. Did I know that I was falsifying
or using controls? No, I could have never named the actions
using these words. But I was certainly doing these actions.

My relatives were always doing these actions; they had farms.


I can't remember
when I wasn't doing physics applications, especially in the
mechanics part. I may not have been able to put them down
on paper but I sure knew about forces when I played on
the merry-go-round.

What has doing biology experiments and physics applications to do
with actually learning what *science* is?

You could describe how to walk to me using words, but I'll never
understand until I try to walk. If somebody had tried to stuff
vocabulary down my throat before I could get into a lab, I'd
have taken up nursing or something.

Were you ever told that doing experiments is the most crucial part in
science? That theories in science can not be proved, only falsified by
experiments?

Nope. Nobody told me anything other than do it or try it. IIRC,
my first explanation of a control was when we had rats and
studied the results of diets.

However, anybody who is trying to figure out why the light
doesn't turn on, exercises falsification all the time.

What I learned in college was how to isolate what you want to
study. This is not a trivial task. All that learned helped
me tremendously when working in the computer biz. To fix
a bug, it helps to eliminate as much running software as possible;
it's a lot easier to reproduce the bug if you don't have to wait
for 50 other programs to execute, not to mention that the others
might make the problem go away and give you a false sense of
security.

What I was taught in Sunday School was that, even though it didn't
make any sense, a true good Christian would believe everything
even though facts countered the belief. You learn early to
separate god-things from living-your-life-things.

/BAH


/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article ,
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:


Were you ever told that doing experiments is the most crucial part in
science? That theories in science can not be proved, only falsified by
experiments?


I never learned that in grade school or high school. I did not become
aware of Popper until I was in college.

Well, *that* was essentially what I meant by "learning what science is".


Oh, I see. You meant being able to express it in words and
the doing of it.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article ,
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" wrote:

.............. ...Among a fastidious infinite amount of an
experiments,
the photometry and the photosynthesis all
along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............
....

Huh? I suggest you drop another sugar cube.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

snip
What I meant by learning what science is was test, hypothesize, test,
hypothesize, over and over. That was taught in grade 8. Popper had to wait
until later.

But the above is enough to draw some general conclusions that are not
considered time and time again on this newsgroup.

1. Nothing about reality, whatever that is, is mentioned.
2. Nothing about the theory conforming someone's view of common sense.
3. Nothing about the hypothesis requiring direct experiential evidence
4. Nothing about the scientists not being able to create hypothesis by
studying equations, philosophy or anything else they damn well feel like
5. The hypostasis must have testable consequences.
6. Nothing about the hypothesis conforming to someone idea of what physical
is.
7. Nothing about the theory conforming to someone's idea of cause and
effect.
8. Nothing preventing the theory not being expressed in mathematical
language
9. Nothing saying the hypothesis can not concern the origin of the
universe.

It is summed up in one sentence - science is concerned with correspondence
with experiment - end of story.

If you are interested in Popper it might be worth pointing out that
you are out of step with him right here.

Summed up in a sentence, science is the method of making a conjecture
to explain something, and making criticisms to test the conjecture
with. Carefully note that:

10. Nothing in that says the tests need to be physical experiments.

For example, there are no tests that falsify relativity or quantum
mechanics? But we know that there is something wrong with the picture
they paint. How can that be if they pass every experiment? Well, the
criticism has been made that general relativity won't co-exist with
the uncertainty principle.

So thats a test. If we can tweak relativity somehow, or perhaps tweak
the uncertainty principle somehow so that they can co-exist, our new
conjecture will have passed that test. As long as its descriptive
power is not adversely affected, that there is one fewer
compatibility, one fewer critical test the new theory fails, then we
say that the new theory is better than the old one.

That is Popper in a nutshell.

--
http://www.techmocracy.net/music/

N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\):
Dear Bill Hobba:

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
...
... The real problem though is that cranks confuse their inability
to understand with discovering something not seen by these supposed smart
physics dudes.

There are cranks and cranks. Some of them are worse than others.

The problem with cranks is that you can't live with 'em and
you can't use 'em for experimental subjects.