Do You Believe In Scientism?

Do you believe in scientism?


  • Total voters
    19

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Purely for completeness sake, and so I can openly dodge the obvious 'shifting the goalposts' exposure, (due to my using the simplified 'rock' example), I offer this load of total gobbledygook as an example of someone who appears to be seriously attempting to argue that the value of pi is 4, thus demonstrating the different way his mind works in coming up with an alternate value of pi.

Be warned! Miles Mathis is a reknowned web crackpot .. but his 'proofs' are not simply identified as frauds from casual perusal. This post might be better off being a separate thread in the Non-Mainstream forum, actually.
Leaving aside Miles Mathis' crackpottery, pi is one of those mysterious values that crops up in the most unexpected places.
The calculation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom has been around for about a century but recently a mathematician and physicist looking deeper into the calculation found pi lurking in quantum mechanics.
A Classic Formula For Pi Was Discovered Hidden in Hydrogen Atoms

Paper here:
A famous pre-Newtonian formula for π is obtained directly from the variational approach to the spectrum of the hydrogen atom in spaces of arbitrary dimensions greater than one, including the physical three dimensions.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Leaving aside Miles Mathis' crackpottery, pi is one of those mysterious values that crops up in the most unexpected places.
The calculation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom has been around for about a century but recently a mathematician and physicist looking deeper into the calculation found pi lurking in quantum mechanics.
A Classic Formula For Pi Was Discovered Hidden in Hydrogen Atoms

Paper here:
I'm way out of my depth here, but the Wallis product seems to start out by integrating:
sin (x^n) dx between its limits.
So anything describable using trig functions, (sin, cos, etc), ends up being physically based on circular motions of some kind(?), so surely its not so big of a mystery that pi then shows up in Wallis' formula(?)

How pi ends up in the QM context I wouldn't have a clue, however, why would hydrogen energy spectrum levels in QM be exclusive of descriptions of circular movement? I mean we're talking about orbital jumps there aren't we?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But we can agree on the way we decide upon what 'exists' means there .. thus we can agree.
(I suspect we are in agreement, too .. as long as dictionary definitions aren't considered as being true definitions, that is).

I don't think it matters, since I doubt you will take any idea of reality as being objectively true.

Different (human) minds think in different ways on the same observation.
Desriptions of a rock, (for eg), being observed by different humans, can demonstrate the evidence supporting that conclusion. Discarding any of those descriptions, leads towards a more biased conclusion.
What a 'rock is' therefore, (rock=exists), depends upon agreement of like thinking human minds.

You can't say a rock is subjective just because there are different kinds of rocks. What you're describing may have different people saying different things, but that's not because it's subjective. It's objective descriptions of different rocks. That's what accounts for the differences. I'd like to see if you can make this same argument regarding pi.

A Fleebos-ian mind however, might give us further insights on 'exists' from their observing minds' viewpoint (which would be neat). Ever seen this movie?

I think you're taking my joke a little far here...
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think it matters, since I doubt you will take any idea of reality as being objectively true.
Chuckle chuckle .. Ok .. Deal! .. (as long as you confess that you're a human, that is(?))
Kylie said:
You can't say a rock is subjective just because there are different kinds of rocks. What you're describing may have different people saying different things, but that's not because it's subjective. It's objective descriptions of different rocks. That's what accounts for the differences. I'd like to see if you can make this same argument regarding pi.
See, the only demonstrably testable notion there I can apply for distinguishing between 'subjective' or 'objective', is the scientific method .. which defines 'objective'.
Those folk who aren't thinking in scientific ways, can still agree with me that the rock 'exists', however .. thank goodness! How come, though?
The conclusion I can then form, is that they have assigned a rock as 'existing' in some way other than via the scientific method, (which humans must've been doing since time immemorial) .. which is demonstrable .. whereas there's nothing showing us that the rock exists independently from either of our very human perceptions (namely because that's an untestable claim).
So, we've then accounted for their perception and a scientist's and for the obvious observation that we share a common type of mindset (aka: human).
Kylie said:
I think you're taking my joke a little far here...
Ok .. 'twas an interesting movie though .. (recommended).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm way out of my depth here, but the Wallis product seems to start out by integrating:
sin (x^n) dx between its limits.
So anything describable using trig functions, (sin, cos, etc), ends up being physically based on circular motions of some kind(?), so surely its not so big of a mystery that pi then shows up in Wallis' formula(?)
Yes there is a connection.
The motion of a particle around the circumference of a circle (= 2πr) is described by a sinusoidal function.

How pi ends up in the QM context I wouldn't have a clue, however, why would hydrogen energy spectrum levels in QM be exclusive of descriptions of circular movement? I mean we're talking about orbital jumps there aren't we?
It doesn't involve orbital jumps.
What they did was to apply a variational method based on the principle of least action as described in this thread on Bohr’s ‘semi classical’ model for the hydrogen atom where an electron occupies an orbit in a particular energy level defined by its quantum number.
The higher the quantum number the higher the energy level.

The variational method involves making an educated guess of hydrogen’s wavefunction and optimizing the guess.
They found as the atom’s orbital angular momentum increased with increasing quantum number, the theoretical optimized values for energy gradually equaled the experimentally measured energies.
They found they could derive Wallis’s formula for pi from the ratio of the theoretical values to the experimentally measured values.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Yes there is a connection.
The motion of a particle around the circumference of a circle (= 2πr) is described by a sinusoidal function.
..
It doesn't involve orbital jumps.
What they did was to apply a variational method based on the principle of least action as described in this thread on Bohr’s ‘semi classical’ model for the hydrogen atom where an electron occupies an orbit in a particular energy level defined by its quantum number.
The higher the quantum number the higher the energy level.

The variational method involves making an educated guess of hydrogen’s wavefunction and optimizing the guess.
They found as the atom’s orbital angular momentum increased with increasing quantum number, the theoretical optimized values for energy gradually equaled the experimentally measured energies.
They found they could derive Wallis’s formula for pi from the ratio of the theoretical values to the experimentally measured values.
Thanks for that. This is really bugging me.

I understand the importance of this issue .. whenever two apparently independent methods arrive at the same conclusion, there's clearly evidence of dependency somewhere.

So, in this case, is that evidence pointing towards an 'independent' physical reality, or evidence of some sort of commonality in the fundamental physics model (ie: the spectrum of the hydrogen atom) and the pure math model (ie: variational computation applied to the hydrogen wavefunction)?

I'm still having difficulty in distinguishing between the pure math components and the physical models here .. which is all important for understanding how to position this in my thinking(?)
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,855
3,890
✟273,856.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for that. This is really bugging me.

I understand the importance of this issue .. whenever two apparently independent methods arrive at the same conclusion, there's clearly evidence of dependency somewhere.

So, in this case, is that evidence pointing towards an 'independent' physical reality, or evidence of some sort of commonality in the fundamental physics model (ie: the spectrum of the hydrogen atom) and the pure math model (ie: variational computation applied to the hydrogen wavefunction)?

I'm still having difficulty in distinguishing between the pure math components and the physical models here .. which is all important for understanding how to position this in my thinking(?)
We humans suffer from a condition known as Apophenia or the need of finding connections between unconnected things.
The exercise shows that pi can be derived using physics instead of mathematics.
Is there some cosmic connection or deep meaning for this?

Pi also turns up in Buffon’s Needle Problem.
Suppose we have a floor made of parallel strips of wood, each the same width, and we drop a needle onto the floor.
What is the probability the needle will lie across a line between two strips?
If p is the probability, t is the width of strips, and l the length of the needle.

p = (2/π)(l/t)

Since Buffon’s needle problem and quantum mechanics both involve probabilities where pi turns up does this mean there is a deep connection between the two?
Most likely no and just as likely there is no deep connection for the Wallis formula for pi to turn up in both physics and mathematics.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
56
Center
✟58,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
From Wikipedia:

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

SOURCE
I believe reason is the only objective means of knowing anything for humans. Science is a specialized method of reasoning.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
We humans suffer from a condition known as Apophenia or the need of finding connections between unconnected things.
The exercise shows that pi can be derived using physics instead of mathematics.
Is there some cosmic connection or deep meaning for this?

Pi also turns up in Buffon’s Needle Problem.
Suppose we have a floor made of parallel strips of wood, each the same width, and we drop a needle onto the floor.
What is the probability the needle will lie across a line between two strips?
If p is the probability, t is the width of strips, and l the length of the needle.

p = (2/π)(l/t)

Since Buffon’s needle problem and quantum mechanics both involve probabilities where pi turns up does this mean there is a deep connection between the two?
Most likely no and just as likely there is no deep connection for the Wallis formula for pi to turn up in both physics and mathematics.
I (intuitively) thought the pi in Buffon’s Needle reflected the effect of the possible orientations of the needle with respect to the parallel lines... was I wrong?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,659
11,696
54
USA
✟294,144.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I (intuitively) thought the pi in Buffon’s Needle reflected the effect of the possible orientations of the needle with respect to the parallel lines... was I wrong?

You were not. It comes from the calculation of the average orientation.

If you define an angle theta between the direction of the needle and the direction of the lines between the boards, then the projection of the needle into the direction *perpendicular* to the lines between the boards is l * sin(theta).

To compute the average projection length for any set of needles we integrate over all possible angles the quantity "l * sin(theta)". Because of symmetry we only need integrate from 0 to 90-degrees (or pi/2 as it is normally known). To compute the average of a continuous function we need to include a normalization factor. We average the function from [0,pi/2] so the normalization is 1(pi/2 - 0) = 2/pi.

needle-projection.png


The average projection length of needles dropped randomly will be 2l/pi.

If the lines have spacing t and the needles have average projection in that direction of L, what is the probability that a needle with average projection L will be crossing one line with a spacing t?

p = L/t = 2 * l / ( pi * t ) or

p = (2/pi) * l/t


[If you'd like you can take the angle from 0 to pi, then the normalization factor becomes 1/pi, but the definite integral becomes (-(-1) ) - (-1) = 2. I leave it to the reader to figure out why you don't integrate all the way to 2pi = 360 degrees.]
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
You were not. It comes from the calculation of the average orientation.

If you define an angle theta between the direction of the needle and the direction of the lines between the boards, then the projection of the needle into the direction *perpendicular* to the lines between the boards is l * sin(theta).

To compute the average projection length for any set of needles we integrate over all possible angles the quantity "l * sin(theta)". Because of symmetry we only need integrate from 0 to 90-degrees (or pi/2 as it is normally known). To compute the average of a continuous function we need to include a normalization factor. We average the function from [0,pi/2] so the normalization is 1(pi/2 - 0) = 2/pi.

View attachment 299059

The average projection length of needles dropped randomly will be 2l/pi.

If the lines have spacing t and the needles have average projection in that direction of L, what is the probability that a needle with average projection L will be crossing one line with a spacing t?

p = L/t = 2 * l / ( pi * t ) or

p = (2/pi) * l/t


[If you'd like you can take the angle from 0 to pi, then the normalization factor becomes 1/pi, but the definite integral becomes (-(-1) ) - (-1) = 2. I leave it to the reader to figure out why you don't integrate all the way to 2pi = 360 degrees.]
Thank you - it's nice to have a hunch confirmed! ;)
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,956
✟174,730.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You were not. It comes from the calculation of the average orientation.

If you define an angle theta between the direction of the needle and the direction of the lines between the boards, then the projection of the needle into the direction *perpendicular* to the lines between the boards is l * sin(theta).
Its interesting to note that the model here, (more or less by necessity), is a two dimensional one, which focuses on the effect of the angle between the needle and the boards .. Once again trig functions are visualised as a convenient way for tracking dependent variables in that model. Trig functions are also transformable into expressions involving pi .. does this mean pi is a constant upon which the variables in the model depend(?)

What I'm trying to get to here is: why should we be surprised about it when pi shows up in a model which basically invokes triangles and circles?
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Getting in a bit late here. I haven't read every post and I don't know if this point has been mentioned. But good science (by which I mean honest, unbiased, and objective science) has a major advantage over religious doctrine. Good science is dynamic and self-correcting. When evidence shows that its models or theories are wrong, it admits the mistake and adopts new ideas. Religion rarely admits when it's been wrong.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,681
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Religion rarely admits when it's been wrong.
That's why there are thousands of different sects to choose from -- and growing.

HOWEVER, that doesn't excuse people staying atheists and agnostics.

I can understand someone becoming one for awhile, but staying one over a long period of time is inexcusable.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's why there are thousands of different sects to choose from -- and growing.

HOWEVER, that doesn't excuse people staying atheists and agnostics.

I can understand someone becoming one for awhile, but staying one over a long period of time is inexcusable.
And those that are atheist all their lives?
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's why there are thousands of different sects to choose from -- and growing.

In fairness, some religious denominations have admitted error. Though rarely, if ever, were essential doctrines revised. It took until Vatican II in the 60s, when the Catholics decided that Jews (or at least modern Jews) shouldn't be blamed for Jesus's crucifixion. Southern Baptists apologized for originally supporting slavery, and racial segregation later on. Though it took them over 100 years. And though they never admitted error, the Mormons eventually decided that the time had come when black men could be full-fledged LDS priests, and participate in all the temple ordinances. But it also took over 100 years to get there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
0.05 is not necessarily "innate". It is somewhat arbitrarily chosen. This is part of the ongoing current discussion around the relative importance of p-values in publications these days.

Personally I am ok with an arbitrarily chosen "cut-off" just for consistency's sake but I also understand that there may be problems in application and over-reliance on this p-value as an arbiter of truth.

These are good points. Scientific American did a recent article on this. p values are arbitrarily chosen. However, obviously at some level they become important. Since this system was created quite awhile ago, I agree with Scientists who are in favor of an overhaul. Since Science is supposed to be about knowledge and better methods to obtain knowledge, it would make sense to improve the methods and means for interpretation of information as well.
 
Upvote 0