Science is all-knowing and all-powerful

[Michael]

A question for both of you:

Does dad hold actual "knowledge" of the "physics" of the "different state past" that he talks about, or does he just hold "belief' in an idea that may or may not be true?

 

[quatona]

So do astrologers "know physics" too, or do they just "believe in nonsense"?

I don´t know. I am just telling you that you can know a false idea. Believing in it is a completely different question.
I do know a couple of fallacious logical deductions inside out. Of course I don´t believe in them.

 

[quatona]

See my last post to Frumious. There is plenty of evidence that astronomers "believe" in LCDM, but I see no evidence that they hold any useful "knowledge" which is why they're using placeholder terms for human ignorance in the first place.

You can bring up cases in which people believe something without knowing it until the cows come home. They don´t address the statement that you can know an idea, a hypothesis, a thought system inside out without believing in it, though.

 

[Michael]

You can bring up cases in which people believe something without knowing it until the cows come home. They don´t address the statement that you can know an idea, a hypothesis, a thought system inside out without believing in it, though.

Sure, but the original post that I gave the thumbs us to made that point when they pointed out that a hypothesis can turn out to be "nonsense", so Hawking doesn't necessarily know "physics" better than anyone else.

Dad's "hypothesis" about the existence of a different state past is *loosely* connected to to the term "physics", but I doubt that you'd assume that dad is therefore more "knowledgeable" about "physics".

 

[Michael]

I don´t know. I am just telling you that you can know a false idea.

In the loosest sense, astrology is also "related to' the field of physics, but you wouldn't automatically assume that an astrologer is necessarily more knowledgeable about the whole field of physics simply by virtue of mastering the dogma of astrology.

Believing in it is a completely different question.

Whether it's right or wrong is the whole question because if it's wrong, it's not 'knowledge of physics", it's just "bad dogma" that has no basis in physics.

I do know a couple of fallacious logical deductions inside out. Of course I d
on´t believe in them.

You might be able to repeat the dogma back correctly, but you can't "know" something about physics that way unless you can demonstrate that the dogma is accurate, which Hawking cannot do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True, but that's not Hawking's field of 'expertise' in the first place.

Not the point. I was talking about his knowledge on physics, in general.

I didn't suggest that the *whole* of physics was nonsense

The post I was replying to, was. So, you agree with me: it clearly isn't "complete nonsense".

, but some of it surely is nonsense

Yes, most likely certain aspects of physics, especially in the frontier of our knowledge, are wrong. I don't have a problem with that. Being wrong, is part of the process of learning.

Physics theories come and go over time, particularly concepts related to particle physics and cosmology.

Theories in every field come and go over time. Again, it's called learning.

You can't really "know" something that is actually wrong.

Off course you can... It's still a subject.
Just like someone can know more about Star Wars then me. Star Wars doesn't need to be accurate history, in order to know what it is all about.

You can hold *false beliefs* in ideas that have no merit whatsoever, but that's not actual 'knowledge", that's just belief in bad dogma.

The wrong belief is a still a subject which you can learn about.
I'll go ahead and assume that you don't buy into hinduism.

Are you saying that it is impossible to have knowledge about hinduism?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So do astrologers "know physics" too, or do they just "believe in nonsense"? Frumious seems to be balking at even calling it "belief", let alone "knowledge".

They are two different words that have different meanings; i.e. knowledge is not belief, nor does it imply belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you actually "know" if it doesn't exist? All you might know is *dogma*, not "truth".

"dogma" isn't necessarily wrong.
And, again, having knowledge of a thing doesn't mean that the thing has to be true (or false).

As I said, I can have knowledge about star wars, while star wars is just fictional.

I got there about the time that astronomers started claiming to *know* that dark matter exists.

Ow, goody. Why am I not surprised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do astrologers "know physics" too, or do they just "believe in nonsense"? Frumious seems to be balking at even calling it "belief", let alone "knowledge".

Astrologers know about astrology, just like homeopaths know about homeopathy.

In and in neither case does it mean that astrology and homeopathy are true / correct / accurate.

I couldn for the life of me list all the horoscope signs and what they supposedly mean 'in astrology', for example. An astrologist would be able to. ie: (s)he would know more about astrology then me.

Just like a so-called "trekkie" will now more about Star Trek, then I do.

How can you not get this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, but the original post that I gave the thumbs us to made that point when they pointed out that a hypothesis can turn out to be "nonsense", so Hawking doesn't necessarily know "physics" better than anyone else.

As I clarified, that wasn't at all the point that was being made. I wasn't talking about any specific hypothesis or theory. I was talking about physics in general, including its history (and thus including all the models that have been proven wrong by now).

The post that you thumbed up, was a post in reply to that saying "but all of that physics could be wrong".

To which I replied: no, ALL of physics, definatly isn't wrong.
Some physics might be wrong, and in fact most likely is.

But as I added later on: It doesn't actually matter if it's wrong or not to the point I was making. That point being: hawking will know more about physics (in general), then I do.

Dad's "hypothesis" about the existence of a different state past is *loosely* connected to to the term "physics", but I doubt that you'd assume that dad is therefore more "knowledgeable" about "physics".

You're reaching....

Again, it's as simple as this: will a Trekkie know more about Star Trek, then a random non-fan of Star Trek? And would it actually matter to the answer of that question, that Star Trek is fiction? Or would it matter that the Trekkie also doesn't actually believe it to be real?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote the paper that won him the Nobel Prize, and he used "thought experiments" to come up with most of his ideas. Granted he gave up the patent clerk job eventually.

Extremely misleading.
For all intents and purposes, Einstein was an expert on those fields. His field of expertise wasn't "patents". It was physics and math, for which he held university degrees.

The only reason he worked as a patent clerk was because he needed money and hadn't landed a position yet at a university or research institution or whatever.


No, Einstein wasn't just your average Joe with no formal training who as-if-by-magic, knew better then all those people with credentials.

I recall having a huge argument with my teenage daughter over her acne problem. She was extremely upset at me for not allowing her to take Accutane like the neighbor girl next door to get rid of her acne. I remember her claiming that I was an arrogant SOB for not trusting the doctors and "scientists" in terms of the safety aspects. A year or so later the product was recalled. Our neighbor got rid of her acne problem but she ended up having all kinds of gastrointestinal problems associated with that drug. Common sense just told me that the benefits didn't warrant the potential risks, and the drug was too new to really know what the long term side effects were going to be. It had not nothing to do with arrogance however. I was simply being "cautious" based on logic and common sense.

"scientists"?
I think you misspelled "pharma".

Also, this is a false analogy... You didn't pretend to know better. You just were cautious and waited to try a new drug. You didn't instead rely on the "expertise" of a layman who pretends to know better then doctors on how to combat acne.

But more then anything else, this is a pharma issue. You just went from science (the activity of finding explanations for phenomena) to applied science: the commercial activity of problem solving. While it is surely tied to science - to equivocate it with it is clearly a bridge to far. There, "truth" or "accuracy" isn't as important as "profit" is.

I'm not complaining about the process of learning, I just don't want to pay the price for their learning process.

What price?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you forget? It's an example of knowing that doesn't require science.

It's also completely arbitrary knowledge, imo.
Someone's label doesn't affect his biological identity. You can interchange names all you like, and all that changes are... names.

Not really what I consider to be "knowledge" in this context. Perhaps "trivia" is a better word here.

And it doesn't matter if it's a small example, even a trivial example. It is an example of how to know something without science - by talking to people.

So, do you think that "talking to people" is a more reliable method of learning about the phenomena at play in the universe, as opposed to "asking the universe"?

The whole point here, was how reliable science is a method for learning and if there are alternatives to it that are also reliable.

So... is "talking to people" a good alternative to the scientific method?

Memory is not part of physical reality?

I said that someone's name is not a phenomena of reality that requires any explaining in that sense. How you concluded from that statement that it is my opinion that memories aren't part of physical reality, is kind of baffling.

Human action is not part of physical reality? A document is not part of physical reality? What is it then? From what mystical source do names come?

Same as above. I didn't say any such thing.

Their "real" name? I know what a legal name is (e.g. Willingdon Beauty). I know what a nickname is (e.g. Old Major). I know what a scientific name is (e.g. Sus scrofa domesticus). You'll have to explain to me what a "real" name is.

Real name = legal name.

As in, if my legal name is Tom Johnson and when someone asks my name, I reply "Tim Brighton", then I am not giving my "real" name.

Did that really need any explaining?

You know it because he's "world-renowned"? How is that a scientific way of acquiring this knowledge?

Because I understand how the scientific method works, what credentials are, what university courses (that I didn't take) are,..... In short: I know what it means to be an "expert" in something. So I also know what it means to not be an expert in something.

This gives you a pretty solid base to form a valid conclusion on who will know more about a given subject then you do.

This is a red herring. Your example was Stephen Hawking, not all of physics and engineering.

No. My example wasn't "just" Stephen Hawking. It was Stephen Hawkings knowledge concerning physics (in general - I didn't narrow it down to a specific theory or hypothesis)

So, your answer must be confined to knowing that what Stephen Hawking did is not nonsense or a lie

I was talking about his knowledge about physics.
Not about what his personal contributions are or what his personal ideas are.

Here is my exact original quote again, to remind you, with bolding for emphasis:

For example, I don't require any special arguments or reasons or whatever, to realise that ,let's say, a Stephen Hawking is vastly more knowledgeable concerning physics then I am.

And here you're conflating the general with the specific. Further, since you didn't seem to understand the context of my statement about "power", I clarified that maybe "ability" is a better word.

I say that it evens out, only because you asked me, and I quote: "So, do you think we could then identify what has the maximum possible knowledge/power? If not, of what you know, what do you think has the most knowledge/power?"

You are talking in general, and in general that is a question I cannot answer. Because some people will be better at X, other people will be better at Y, etc...

Most of us have our own field of expertise and / or what some people call "talent".
In such a setting, there isn't a single person I can point to to call him/her "the most powerfull" or "the most knowledgeable".

(i.e. you can know physicists/engineers know more than you because of the computer you're typing on)

O wauw, that is again not at all what I said....

I said that Stephen Hawking knows more about physics then I do. Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate physics is.

You then said "but it can ALL be nonsense".

1. even if it is, Hawking would still know more about physics then me
2. i replied, as a seperate point, saying it most definatly isn't "ALL" wrong, because in that case my pc wouldn't work, gps wouldn't accurately pinpoint my location and nukes wouldn't explode.

But, whatever, I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy watching the twists and turns.

It seems these supposed twists and turns, were just fabricated due to strawmen.

 

[Resha Caner]

even if it is, Hawking would still know more about physics then me

OK. Good point. I allowed myself to get distracted by side issues.

Because I understand how the scientific method works, what credentials are, what university courses (that I didn't take) are,..... In short: I know what it means to be an "expert" in something. So I also know what it means to not be an expert in something.

This gives you a pretty solid base to form a valid conclusion on who will know more about a given subject then you do.

I'm not convinced you do understand the scientific method that well. While what you say may be a way to know, it isn't at all scientific. Being "world-renowned" has nothing to do with science (as well as many of the other things you've mentioned). It sounds as if you're saying that because Hawking is a scientist, anything you know about him is scientific. Even if that were true, it would then follow that because Salvador Dali was an artist, everything I know about him is art, and therefore art is a way of knowing (Actually, I think it is, but not because of your line of reasoning).

It just sounds ridiculous to me. This thing where people think everything they do is scientific bothers me, but I guess there's nothing I can do about it.

So, do you think that "talking to people" is a more reliable method of learning about the phenomena at play in the universe, as opposed to "asking the universe"?

As a fundamental method of investigation? No. Where did you ever get that idea? I never said anything to imply I think talking to people is superior in all cases. I do think it is superior for the one example I gave. You seem to have a view that unless we're exploring the grand meaning of life, the universe, and everything that it's trivial, not worth our time, and therefore not knowledge - that knowledge is only "the big stuff". Not true. Most of the knowledge we need for living is basic, simple stuff.

Real name = legal name.

And so in times and places that lack a legal system, people don't have "real" names? Oy vey.

It's also completely arbitrary knowledge, imo. Someone's label doesn't affect his biological identity. You can interchange names all you like, and all that changes are... names.

Where did we ever agree "biological identity" is all that matters? People are more than their biology, and names are important. I gave you examples of how names can change a person. Dismissing one as "trivial" doesn't mean it's not a change. Ignoring the other example doesn't make it go away.

You talk about names as if they are something that exists apart from material reality. As if they exist in some kind of ether. That's odd for someone who supposedly only believes in the material sciences. If a name is not memory, not the spoken action of a person, not a record in a document ... then what is it? A "label" is not a thing I can see, hear, touch unless it is one of those physical things.

 

[Michael]

I don´t know. I am just telling you that you can know a false idea. Believing in it is a completely different question.
I do know a couple of fallacious logical deductions inside out. Of course I don´t believe in them.

As my astrology example and dad's different state past example, familiarity with a concept doesn't directly translate to "knowledge of physics". Dad's understanding of his 'different state past' idea is just familiarity with a concept. It's not automatically "knowledge of physics" unless you can demonstrate that it's *accurate*.

 

[Michael]

"dogma" isn't necessarily wrong.
And, again, having knowledge of a thing doesn't mean that the thing has to be true (or false).

By your logic dad has a "knowledge of physics" by virtue of his familiarity with his own different state past concept. There's not really any "knowledge' of physics happening unless you can demonstrate it has a practical application in real physics.

As I said, I can have knowledge about star wars, while star wars is just fictional.

Sure but that doesn't demonstrate that you have an actual knowledge of real wars that are happening in space.

 

[Michael]

Extremely misleading.
For all intents and purposes, Einstein was an expert on those fields. His field of expertise wasn't "patents". It was physics and math, for which he held university degrees.

He wasn't a "professional astronomer" however.

The only reason he worked as a patent clerk was because he needed money and hadn't landed a position yet at a university or research institution or whatever.

Sure but he wasn't risking his day job by putting forth a theory that others might disagree with.

No, Einstein wasn't just your average Joe with no formal training who as-if-by-magic, knew better then all those people with credentials.

Since I never made that claim, you're tilting at windmills of your own creation.

"scientists"?
I think you misspelled "pharma".

As if chemists aren't "scientists"?

Also, this is a false analogy... You didn't pretend to know better.

Yes I did. My daughter specifically pointed out that the neighbor's doctor believed the drug was safe or he wouldn't have prescribed it, and she was mad at me because she claimed that I was extremely arrogant to think that I knew more about that particular drug than "all the doctors" who prescribed it.

You're right of course that I didn't profess to know more about medicine in general.

You just were cautious and waited to try a new drug. You didn't instead rely on the "expertise" of a layman who pretends to know better then doctors on how to combat acne.

But more then anything else, this is a pharma issue. You just went from science (the activity of finding explanations for phenomena) to applied science: the commercial activity of problem solving. While it is surely tied to science - to equivocate it with it is clearly a bridge to far. There, "truth" or "accuracy" isn't as important as "profit" is.

I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, but my point is that my decision had nothing to do with arrogance, but rather "scientific caution" at worst case. One doesn't have to be "arrogant" to reject mainstream beliefs.

 

[Michael]

As I clarified, that wasn't at all the point that was being made. I wasn't talking about any specific hypothesis or theory. I was talking about physics in general, including its history (and thus including all the models that have been proven wrong by now).

The post that you thumbed up, was a post in reply to that saying "but all of that physics could be wrong".

I don't see much evidence that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone else. He holds "beliefs" that may have no basis in reality, just like dad's "different state past" hypothesis. That doesn't translate directly into 'more knowledge of physics". In fact I rarely meet an astronomer that has a decent understanding of the primary alternative to the mainstream dogma, so does the fact that I know *more theories* somehow make me 'more knowledgeable about physics than someone who doesn't understand EU/PC theory for instance, or Birkeland's cathode solar model?

A "scientists" who understands SUSY theory or Multiverse theory backwards and forwards doesn't automatically "know physics". They conceptually grasp ideas that may or may not have physical merit.

I think we're talking past each other because we both had different points in mind when we made our respective comments. I was simply agreeing with Resha's point that Hawking's beliefs may be (and I believe they are) pure nonsense, and not actual "knowledge of physics".

 

[quatona]

As my astrology example and dad's different state past example, familiarity with a concept doesn't directly translate to "knowledge of physics".

Of course it doesn´t, and noone said it did. Familiarity with "physics" (hypotheses, methods, ideas and concepts applied in physics) directly translates to "knowledge of physics". That´s what the Tagliatelle meant, and I´m not going to further feed your attempts at equating "having knowledge about an idea, approach, concept..." with "believing it to be accurate" or it "being accurate".
You are burning your own strawman here.

Like, I will readily concede that - if only for knowing terms like EU, lambda-whatnot, LCMD-plasma that you keep throwing around - you are more knowledgeable in physics than I am (I don´t even know the terms, lest the concepts). Doesn´t mean I think you have it right.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By your logic dad has a "knowledge of physics" by virtue of his familiarity with his own different state past concept.

"physics"?

I think you misspelled "creationism" - and a rather strange and weird version of it.

There's not really any "knowledge' of physics happening unless you can demonstrate it has a practical application in real physics.

I'm talking about the ideas/concepts, not the accuracy thereof.
I would have thought that I made that very clear already, with my star wars example.

Sure but that doesn't demonstrate that you have an actual knowledge of real wars that are happening in space.

I didn't claim I had.
Maybe you should respond to what I actually say, instead of what you would like me to so just so you can object to it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He wasn't a "professional astronomer" however.

I don't think I used the word "professional", which actually just means you get paid to do it...

Nevertheless, he certainly was a well-credentialed one.

Which, by the way, doesn't mean that someone without credentials can't contribute or discover things. It is, obviously, perfectly possible for someone to be self-taught and never take any exams and thus not get credentialed, while actually being more knowledgeable then certain other people with credentials.

But, as always, the proof will be in the pudding.
Ideas fall and stand on their own merrit - not on the merrit of who proposes them.

The point about experts however, is that for outsiders -laymen-, it is quite impossible to evaluate the ideas. We simply lack the required knowledge to do so properly. So it is perfectly fine to rely on experts to provide us with answers. And since we aren't able to evaluate the ideas, the best thing we can do is go by the credentials. And perhaps also the overall reputation the expert in question has within his field of expertise.

Sure but he wasn't risking his day job by putting forth a theory that others might disagree with.

Not sure what this means.
Are you saying that he should have quit his job before putting forth a theory?
Why?

Why is it at all relevant what Einstein did to earn money?

Since I never made that claim, you're tilting at windmills of your own creation.

You certainly were implying something like that. Why else would you bring it up?

As if chemists aren't "scientists"?

I didn't say "chemists". I said pharma.
Pharma is a commercial enterprise.

Yes I did. My daughter specifically pointed out that the neighbor's doctor believed the drug was safe or he wouldn't have prescribed it, and she was mad at me because she claimed that I was extremely arrogant to think that I knew more about that particular drug than "all the doctors" who prescribed it.

You're right of course that I didn't profess to know more about medicine in general.

Then you didn't...
You didn't profess to know better. You were just being cautious.

You didn't say "it doesn't work and/or is harmful for such and such reason".
You said "it's a new drug... let's wait and see". Because, I dare say, you understand how pharma works and how they are more interested in your money then your actual health. Especially in the US of A.

I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, but my point is that my decision had nothing to do with arrogance, but rather "scientific caution" at worst case. One doesn't have to be "arrogant" to reject mainstream beliefs.

Once more, I consider it misleading to say that this is caution of science or scientific investigation. What this is, is caution of big pharma who are more interested in profit then your health.