|
Post by gwiz on Apr 13, 2011 7:21:50 GMT -4
I gather that when he said he would find Apollo plausible if we could show that more than 20% of the samples have been scientifically examined, he was lying.
It took me a bit of effort to find the link showing over 40% of the Apollo 11 samples were handed out to scientists soon after the mission, and he never responded.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Apr 13, 2011 12:57:25 GMT -4
[Would you bet your life that Apollo was not a hoax in exchange for the possibility of winning 10 bucks? I rather not take the risk. Hey, someone's giving away a free 10 bucks? Where do I sign up? Let's face it - I take an elevator to work every day. Do I *know* it's safe? Perhaps not, by kimchijjigae's standards of "knowing". Why do I not just take the stairs? Why risk plummeting to a horrible death? I can see the discussion with kimchijjigae going like this: K: So, you take the risk of riding the elevator? We can't know for *sure* that it won't collapse and kill you. Me: Well, yes, but it's kept up by a sturdy cable and some pretty good engineering. K: But we don't know for sure that it's in good condition. M: There's a certificate of inspection on the door. K: Maybe the building owners paid off the inspectors. M: Then they'd be putting themselves in serious legal problems if anything went wrong. K: Maybe they've got connections, and the whole thing would be covered up. M: Maybe ... Oops, gotta go, the elevator's here. Bye!
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 13, 2011 13:52:41 GMT -4
I gather that when he said he would find Apollo plausible if we could show that more than 20% of the samples have been scientifically examined, he was lying. Sounds like classic goalpost-moving to me. I've noticed that many HBs regularly demand evidence they know they can't have. And it's certainly not because of any actual utility. The best examples are the backup tapes from the Apollo 11 lunar EVA. I seriously doubt that a single HBer had ever heard of those tapes before the story broke that they couldn't be found. Nor would they have the foggiest notion of what to do with the tapes even if they could be found. Other than proclaim them to be fakes, of course. I can't find even a single HBer who can tell me how the tapes in question were made, why they were made, and what they actually contained -- much less explain why one can't prove the reality of the Apollo landings without them. Plenty of video still exists from the later missions that's of far better quality than anything that could possibly have been produced from the lost Apollo 11 tapes. "Oh no!", they shriek. "NASA destroyed all of the telemetry from all of the Apollo missions!" When I point out that plenty of telemetry appears in each of the mission reports, they counter that they're not the "originals". What's an "original" recording of a radio signal? It is a shame those tapes were lost. They could have given us a better look at a very special moment in history, the very first moon landing. It's the one most people remember even though it wasn't the only one, and even though it was far from being the most scientifically productive. But they're hardly necessary to prove that the events happened. Once in a while, a HBer will demand some piece of evidence that he thinks doesn't exist, but does. That's when the goalpost-moving and backpedaling is most thoroughly entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 13, 2011 15:23:45 GMT -4
[Would you bet your life that Apollo was not a hoax in exchange for the possibility of winning 10 bucks? I rather not take the risk. Hey, someone's giving away a free 10 bucks? Where do I sign up? It some wonder kimchijjigae hasn't fallen from a window since he can't be sure of the harmful interactions of gravity and matter. The window is a much faster way to get to the ground compared to walking down the hall, taking the stairs and going out the front door.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 13, 2011 18:09:50 GMT -4
Perhaps a bit of explanation is in order. It seems that we belong to different traditions in the philosophy of science. I see science more as a practical activity emerging from everyday life in the process of solving practical problems with the goal of satisfying human needs throughout human history, and thus science is based on and emerges from human experience with nature. I see the purpose of science as to solve problems, not to discern truth about nature. That may be the purpose of the philosophy of science, but science itself has emerged from human practical effort and experience and is thus prior to the philosophy of science. It is common through history to discover and apply scientific principles empirically without having any philosophy of science at all. Yes, but although philosophers assert that claim and are correct doing so imo, this specific insight is still a result of an interaction with nature in an ongoing process and thus a result of experience: It is more efficient to adopt the scientific approach to nature, an approach that discerns between the perception of nature and nature itself, than for instance a magical approach, that does not make that distinction, when it comes to manipulating nature in the interest of meeting human needs. Though these ideas are part of modern science, I don't think they are necessary to science as such. A lot of science does not at all include these ideas, and it is not necessary to include an axiom, that the laws of nature are the same on for instance the Moon as on Earth. That is based on - and is subject to - experience. Furthermore the laws of nature are descriptions of nature, not nature itself. Gödel was a mathematician and a logician, and the sphere of application of his theorems is logical systems, not systems of knowledge knowledge as such. Though scientific insights can be reached by the aid of logical systems for instance by the principle of induction, there is no absolute correspondence between the mathematical models and nature. Only experience with nature itself for instance systematized in the experiment will unveil, if the mathematical model has explanatory power concerning the problem at hand. I think I may not understand what you say here, but if you are saying, that the unprovability (is that a word?) of the scientific axioms give foothold for the skeptics, I think my stance is, that this is a false problem, because science by nature is not axiomatic but a human activity based on experience, so in the end all claims must pass the empirical test. So to me it is more fruitful to see science as a practical ongoing progressing activity, that yields insights more and more refined without ever totally corresponding with nature itself, and that is why knowledge is conditional, not because science is a system based on axioms, that can't be proven right. Even more when it comes to historic and forensic science - in my view - the skeptic is inevitably correct, as many have agreed, that certainty is unobtainable, and what is reasonable doubt ends up being a personal choice based on a personal judgment of the evidence at hand. Accepting that to begin with - and the skeptic kicks in open doors. I apologize if this is moving too much off topic. Edited for precision.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 14, 2011 9:53:09 GMT -4
Theteacher, I think we are looking at two views of the same thing and I have no disagreement with what you say. There is a practice of science and an empirical justification for its validity, but there is also a philosophical underpinning to its claims. Carl Poppers thoughts on falsifiability being a basic test for claiming a theory to be scientific is a recent example of the philosophical underpinnings of the practice of science. In other words, the ideas that drive the best practice of science comprise the philosophy of science and the practice of science is a developing art. Many people in science balk at being compared to philosophy because modern philosophy contains some pretty wild speculation on metaphysics yet wants to be taken as a serious and robust field of inquiry. One of philosophy's problems is the absence of the equivalent of calculus. But there is a historical philosophical development which had to take place for modern science arise and the culmination of that work provides a strong underpinning for the claims of science. The strength of science, to me, is based in the correspondence between the co-development of its philosophy and practice and the continued progress from within the scientific community over the centuries to improve both. This gives strength to the claim of science as the best practice with which to learn about nature. Edited for clarity, unfortunately after it has been quoted.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 14, 2011 10:21:16 GMT -4
Theteacher, I think we are looking at two views of the same thing and I have no disagreement with what you say. There is a practice of science and an empirical justification for its validity, but there is also a philosophical underpinning to its claims. Carl Poppers thoughts on falsifiability being a basic test for claiming a theory to be scientific is a recent example of the philosophical underpinnings of the practice of science. In other words, the ideas that drive the best practice of science comprise the philosophy of science and that the practice of science is a developing art. Many people in science balk at being compared to philosophy because modern philosophy contains some pretty wild speculation on metaphysics yet wants to be taken a a serious and robust field of inquiry. One of their problem is the absence of the equivalent of calculus. But there is a historical philosophical development which had to take place for modern science arise and the culmination of that work provides a strong underpinning for the claims of science. The strength of science, to me, is based in the correspondence between the co-development of its philosophy and practice and the continued progress from within the scientific community over the centuries to improve both. This gives strength to the claims of science as the best practice with which to learn about nature. Yes, this is well said. I totally agree with you here.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 14, 2011 14:00:58 GMT -4
Edited for clarity, unfortunately after it has been quoted. It doesn't change the agreement though :-)
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 14, 2011 14:19:16 GMT -4
I see science more as a practical activity emerging from everyday life in the process of solving practical problems with the goal of satisfying human needs throughout human history, and thus science is based on and emerges from human experience with nature. I see the purpose of science as to solve problems, not to discern truth about nature. That's engineering, not science. They're certainly closely related. Scientists figure out how nature works; engineers apply that knowledge to human wants and needs (aside from the human need simply to know how things work).
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 14, 2011 14:58:35 GMT -4
Edited for clarity, unfortunately after it has been quoted. It doesn't change the agreement though :-) I write by the sounds in my head and make many mistakes because of that. (They are not voices, BTW ) But it takes several hours after writing something before I can really proofread it. So forum posts are subject to multiple revisions.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 14, 2011 15:18:07 GMT -4
I'm very bad at proofreading my own work. When I wrote for publication (on the school paper in college), I made someone else proof it for me.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Apr 14, 2011 16:06:28 GMT -4
Though these ideas are part of modern science, I don't think they are necessary to science as such. A lot of science does not at all include these ideas, and it is not necessary to include an axiom, that the laws of nature are the same on for instance the Moon as on Earth. That is based on - and is subject to - experience. I beg to differ. I think the axiom that the laws of nature are universal and unchanging is pretty basic to all of science. Consider how a scientist works. He comes up with a hypothesis, devises an experiment to test it, runs the experiment to collect empirical data, revises his hypothesis to fit, runs some more experiments, publishes his results for others to verify or shoot down, and so on. His goal is to deduce the physical laws underlying whatever natural phenomena he's investigating. If he can't assume that physical laws are the same over time and space, then he's doomed to fail. If the physical law is valid one day but not the next, or valid in California where he is but not in France where those attempting to confirm his work are located, the results won't be repeatable. And repeatability is absolutely fundamental to science. Consider the title of science's primary "joke" journal -- the Journal of Irreproducible Results. An irreproducible result is a worthless, unscientific result. Sometimes a proposed physical law might seem to change with place or time. That's simply because the law, as stated, does not yet take all the necessary conditions into account. In the end, physical laws are always unchangeable and universal.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 14, 2011 16:51:41 GMT -4
I'm very bad at proofreading my own work. When I wrote for publication (on the school paper in college), I made someone else proof it for me. Without unusually concentrated effort, I hear the words that I intended to write rather than read what is on the page.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 14, 2011 18:24:39 GMT -4
Without unusually concentrated effort, I hear the words that I intended to write rather than read what is on the page. I think most people do that.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 14, 2011 18:30:59 GMT -4
I see science more as a practical activity emerging from everyday life in the process of solving practical problems with the goal of satisfying human needs throughout human history, and thus science is based on and emerges from human experience with nature. I see the purpose of science as to solve problems, not to discern truth about nature. That's engineering, not science. They're certainly closely related. Scientists figure out how nature works; engineers apply that knowledge to human wants and needs (aside from the human need simply to know how things work). Yes, in the modern world we make that distinction. But when we go back in history, it is not that obvious. Take for example Newton. Was he a scientist or an engineer? He was struggling with the problem of color aberration from the lenses in telescopes, and alongside with his study of the nature of light, believing that light was particles, he invented the reflecting telescope, which doesn't suffer from color aberration. So his considerations and conclusions concerning the nature of light were motivated by a practical problem, that no one knew how to solve. I think the word science may confuse this debate a bit, since the corresponding word in Danish - or German or Dutch for that matter - does not mean exactly the same as in English but is a broader term. What I have tried to contend is the notion, that science has developed out of human needs, and that a scientific approach to the world has become part of our culture and everyday behavior and problem solving - some of us, that is!. Therefore I find it meaningful to assign the description "scientific" to a lot of human activity, which not necessarily takes place in scientific institutions. Take for instance the gentleman, who made this website: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htmWouldn't you say, that he has a true scientific approach to the problems, he is trying to solve? Contrary to him we have the average HB, who won't even go outside and take a photo of the stars just to see, what will happen. So when we teach science at school, the kids do not only learn about science, they learn how to perform and live science, so that their approach to the world around them - hopefully - becomes truly scientific.
|
|