Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

[46AND2]

You miss the point entirely. Everything will be consistent with Uniformitarianism when that is an assumed axiom.

For instance, when things like this occur:
How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

Uniformitarianism then makes us change current theory to account for it, but what if the fundamentals of the data had changed? This type of thing happens a lot, but the assumption is not that change occured, but that we'd made an error somewhere. This would be especially difficult if 'minute' changes on the quantum level say, that we have limited resources to test as is. If uniformitarianism is false, there really would be no way to tell in the paltry few years of data we collected - for all we know, 'refinements' in collected data, or aberrations we ascribe to bias or chance may be subtle fluctuations in the fundamental rules by which nature function. We simply can't tell, and our methodology is not structured to be able to account for such or even really 'perceive' it. Uniformitarianism is very much an assumed value today, both in Science and daily life.

Or on other grounds, the data we have would show our current findings on the structure of matter - according to Empiric reasoning, upon which we would then construct our hypotheses. At heart, even a theory on the Big Bang or so, is ultimately dependant on our current data, the current rules we find. If we retroactively seek to explain our 'present findings' as to what clues they left of history, Empirically it would remain based on how we find matter to act right now. It is not that the past and present confirms our tentative hypothesis, but that our tentative hypothesis is of necessity based upon present found action. As I said, a circular argument at best, and something that has to be assumed axiomatically. We would not ever expect anything to lead us to consider it false, by the very structure of Empiric Reasoning, so such would require an absolute paradigm shift in the fundamental structure of scientific methodology.

The "assumption" in science that certain things were the same in the past is not axiomatic. It is TESTED.

There are lots of things in the past which we know were NOT constant. And the only reason we know this, is because we test for uniformitarianism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Study of knowledge is epistemology, so we're already getting into the realm of philosophy.

Science involves the acquisition of knowledge, epistemology is the theory of knowledge.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's deceptive because there are observations in the universe that suggest not just age, but history. In other words events that would have otherwise not occurred if the universe was merely created with the appearance of the occurrence of such events.

Again, I highly recommend reading this article: Path Across the Stars

Observations of the universe point to a universe that is billions of years old.

It used to puzzle me that if people believed that God created the universe whenever, e.g. last Thursday, it seemed logical that if he went to all that trouble to set up a reality for us that included a full history-of-the-universe, tens of billions of years back to the big bang, then those people would assume that a universe with that history is what he wanted us to accept. But no, they seem to want to deny the evidence of the history of the very universe they believe God created...

I later discovered that logic generally doesn't come into it.

 

[Astrophile]

That's ad hoc. "It's justified because it works"
Scientists are sometimes right and very often wrong. The method is not self-justifying simply because it produces results.

I have seen many eclipses of the Moon and some of the Sun; all of them were correctly predicted by astronomers. Astronomers have predicted that the planet Mercury will pass in front of the Sun during the afternoon of Monday 11th November; meteorologists have predicted that the sky will be overcast where I live so that the eclipse will be invisible. If the meteorologists' predictions are wrong, I shall be able to confirm the accuracy of the astronomical prediction; however, if the meteorologists' predictions are right they will at least tend to confirm the validity of the method used to produce them.

Conversely, in my lifetime many people (most of them Christians) have predicted the imminent end of the world; some of these people have dated the expected end to the day. These predictions have only one thing in common; all of them have been wrong, and the world has not come to an end. With this contrast between the success rates of scientific predictions of eclipses and transits, etc. and of religious predictions of the end of the world, which do you think I should put my trust in?

 

[Sam91]

I have seen many eclipses of the Moon and some of the Sun; all of them were correctly predicted by astronomers. Astronomers have predicted that the planet Mercury will pass in front of the Sun during the afternoon of Monday 11th November; meteorologists have predicted that the sky will be overcast where I live so that the eclipse will be invisible. If the meteorologists' predictions are wrong, I shall be able to confirm the accuracy of the astronomical prediction; however, if the meteorologists' predictions are right they will at least tend to confirm the validity of the method used to produce them.

Conversely, in my lifetime many people (most of them Christians) have predicted the imminent end of the world; some of these people have dated the expected end to the day. These predictions have only one thing in common; all of them have been wrong, and the world has not come to an end. With this contrast between the success rates of scientific predictions of eclipses and transits, etc. and of religious predictions of the end of the world, which do you think I should put my trust in?

I think everyone should put their trust in God.

You must know a lot of strange people, or a lot of people. I have not met anyone who would hazard a guess at when the end of the world will be.

It is a easier to predict things in our solar system. However, I do not buy into the idea that they can be sure of what is seen further. It seems a crazy idea in fact. Wrought with so many unknown possibilities.

Imagine the difficulty our own eyes have when gauging distance once things are distant. Imagine that without a frame of reference. Hmm that brings to mind on old psychology experiment on perception. Two lights were flickering on a board. The participants thought they were seeing one light moving back and forth.

It is likely that telescopes can be fooled. There is nothing to say an object is closer but moving at a different speed for example. Other data may be altered due to unknown phenomena or incomplete.

Is temperature uniform in space? I doubt it. Is the density so low through out it? Is the light getting bent by gravity. Too many unknowns. What if galaxies were actually moving like tectonic plates lol?

 

[Sam91]

I mean look at this illogical declaration in this article. I am supposed to believe that these galaxies seen from a telescope were actually formed not long after the big bang... and that their light has taken so many billions of years to get here.

1)So they have managed to decide, or calculate correctly, just how fast the universe expanded?

2) The calculations used in a more mature universe still are correct under primitive conditions? (Before elements formed and matter coalesced)

3) If the universe was created through the big bang then the universe would be a lot smaller billions of years ago. One would have to acknowledge that it should infact take light less time to get here back then, considering we were much closer! ( Btw a fictitious example of the madness I'm supposed to believe here: 'Unless of course we were moving in opposite directions, faster than light and our rate of expansion has slowed and its caught up now. Hmm but that would mean we are slowing down not speeding up. Eureka I have just found a theory, let's make the maths fit. Come up with a new 'constant' that should hopefully fit something else.. yes it does. As long as I keep measuring the same thing, while not having the full facts because I devised the maths to fit the problem I shouldn't actually have a problem'.)

4)Have they been able to calculate that differential precisely? I mean just a teeny error would be very huge over the gigantic proportions of space and time.
5) if there is an error surely that will affect the calculations of our speed, age, distance. Infact how do we know that our relative speed, is the same as something that far in the distance?
6) How can they be sure of the direction of that body? We don't know its bearing and we haven't been able to watch the movement long enough to be sure. I mean... they are talking billions of years for light to get here. We have only very recently been able to visualise these galaxies. We can't have enough measurements to determine anything.
7) No one was around billions of years ago to time how long the light took to get here. It is untested.
8) Astronomers get funding for making things sound exciting and true.

 

[pitabread]

It is likely that telescopes can be fooled. There is nothing to say an object is closer but moving at a different speed for example. Other data may be altered due to unknown phenomena or incomplete.

Do you really think professional astronomers are *that* naive to not evaluate and validate their work?

I read comments like this and it's like people are projecting their own lack of knowledge of a subject onto the professionals in that particular subject.

Then again, I suppose people do that all the time for all sorts of professions (tradespeople, doctors, lawyers, etc...). Why not scientists too?

 

[46AND2]

I mean look at this illogical declaration in this article. I am supposed to believe that these galaxies seen from a telescope were actually formed not long after the big bang... and that their light has taken so many billions of years to get here.

1)So they have managed to decide, or calculate correctly, just how fast the universe expanded?

2) The calculations used in a more mature universe still are correct under primitive conditions? (Before elements formed and matter coalesced)

3) If the universe was created through the big bang then the universe would be a lot smaller billions of years ago. One would have to acknowledge that it should infact take light less time to get here back then, considering we were much closer! ( Btw a fictitious example of the madness I'm supposed to believe here: 'Unless of course we were moving in opposite directions, faster than light and our rate of expansion has slowed and its caught up now. Hmm but that would mean we are slowing down not speeding up. Eureka I have just found a theory, let's make the maths fit. Come up with a new 'constant' that should hopefully fit something else.. yes it does. As long as I keep measuring the same thing, while not having the full facts because I devised the maths to fit the problem I shouldn't actually have a problem'.)

4)Have they been able to calculate that differential precisely? I mean just a teeny error would be very huge over the gigantic proportions of space and time.
5) if there is an error surely that will affect the calculations of our speed, age, distance. Infact how do we know that our relative speed, is the same as something that far in the distance?
6) How can they be sure of the direction of that body? We don't know its bearing and we haven't been able to watch the movement long enough to be sure. I mean... they are talking billions of years for light to get here. We have only very recently been able to visualise these galaxies. We can't have enough measurements to determine anything.
7) No one was around billions of years ago to time how long the light took to get here. It is untested.
8) Astronomers get funding for making things sound exciting and true.

You must think scientists are really stupid.

 

[Sam91]

Do you really think professional astronomers are *that* naive to not evaluate and validate their work?

I read comments like this and it's like people are projecting their own lack of knowledge of a subject onto the professionals in that particular subject.

Then again, I suppose people do that all the time for all sorts of professions (tradespeople, doctors, lawyers, etc...). Why not scientists too?

I am saying I highly doubt they can validate it as yet. I can not trust their measurements, no one has measured them with a tape measure, nor gone back in time.

 

[KarlKarlingIII]

Science involves the acquisition of knowledge, epistemology is the theory of knowledge.

Scientists acquire data. What is it with empiricists referring to “science” in general as if it is some kind of platonic form out there?

Also if you talk with scientists they rarely talk about “knowing” but rather about disproving, ruling out, that sort of thing. And it is only disproving within their limited set of tools, so for example they will talk about the non-falsifiability of God, but in assuming that they have dismissed philosophy and metaphysics entirely. They have their method, but their insistence on the exclusivity of the scientific method in determining truth is all based upon empiricist assumptions about the world. John Locke-type materialism which has been critiqued a thousand times.

 

[Sam91]

You must think scientists are really stupid.

Not really I wish I could be one. I'm learning to be one 20 years too late. Life prevented me from having the possibility of pursuing it despite my aptitude (had no option but to leave school in order to eat, despite being at a grammar school). I am studying social science because the hard science courses were in the evening and I had no childcare in the evening. I hope to be a researcher in Sociology instead.

But what I am saying is we are looking from a very limited perspective, with limited resources. I can not trust the data and although it may look ok sometimes there is a certain arrogance in thinking it is correct when the 'facts' keeping changing. Look at Pluto... how much closer is Pluto than distant objects. There is difficulty with seeing local asteroids too.

Anyway I must sleep. It is 3am and I have a looong history of getting fanatical about the universe during unsociable hours, when during daylight I'm no longer all that interested.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's just baloney.

We could look out and find that the stellar spectra don't make any sense. But in fact, apart from any Doppler effect, stellar spectra are comprehensible, and we can actually determine what elements compose the stars. This is direct evidence that quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and atomic theory are uniform in space and time. The rules a million years ago and a million light years away are the same as ours.

You are being silly, my friend. All that shows is our observations taken today, confirm to how we think things work today. How do you think we decide this was a million light years hence? By applying our empiric reasoning, which assumes Uniformitarianism. We receive data in real time now, though we may ascribe an origin thereof however long ago. Certainly we have all sorts of erroneous readings too, but generally the reason we think they are 'lightyears' away, is because we apply a Uniformitarian standard on the speed of light. Again, circular argument.

Or alternately, perhaps the nature of light alters to confirm to the way it appears in our corner of space. We are simply assuming the standard Empiric hypothesis that what we perceive here and now, reflects how thing are or had been. It is not a demonstrable property, but an axiom, I am afraid.

I am probably not going to argue this further though, as you seem to have made up your mind. I would suggest you look up Gould's paper on 'Is Uniformitarianism Necessary' in which he critiques Lyle's old formulation thereof, and concludes the assumption of Methodological Uniformitarianism is very much implicit in the definition of Scientific Methodology - so he goes so far as to consider it superfluous, a very much implied value by its very structure.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I am saying I highly doubt they can validate it as yet. I can not trust their measurements, no one has measured them with a tape measure, nor gone back in time.

Exactly, it is quite hard to validate these things. The problem is that Science has a tendency to fall into a trap of Induction and then to keep digging it deeper. Now and then, a real Paradigm shift occurs to get them out, but then the cycle repeats itself - for instance Phlogiston before Lavousier, or Classical Mechanics prior to Relativity and Quantum theory, etc.

One should always remember that the entirety of Science is an embedded structure of hypotheses, one on the other, that are not necessarily valid. They are Inductively derived, which we know is not necessarily valid as Hume showed. We are essentially trying to 'save the appearances', to create a system of reasoning that fits the data we see as closely as possible - people make the distinct mistake of therefore assuming that the better it 'fits', the 'truer' it is. We have gone on wild goose chases and red herrings before, and will again. It is foolish to be so certain we aren't on one now. Empirically derived Medicine believed in Galenic physiology for a 1000 years - let that sink in - before we started taking it apart.

Science is a great practical tool, but it is a narrow form of epistemology. In Medicine we today use something called Evidence-Based Medicine that tries to deductively derive findings instead of Inductively, to limit bias and try and validate what we think.
One hopes some such similar structure will become more prevalent in Science. At the moment, it seems more as if they keep building more fantastical castles in the air, while claiming them made of stone. A lot of our theoretical physics is untestable and circular, to such an extent that some are beginning to even doubt if it really is empiric anymore. It has a look of a system in decadence I think, self-reverential and ossifying, akin perhaps to the dying years of Scholasticism - another vibrant intellectual tradition that confused itself more repeatedly with reality, until it is said they ended up debating how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. That was the very stultifying discourse modern Science arose from by repudiating such certainties. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Edit: People should look up Popper's Falsification and Kuhn's Paradigm structure here. One must always remember, while Science seems well-known, most people don't really know its underlying structures all that well. Case in point, this whole thread failed to mention the term for the thing they were discussing until quite late, because it is very much an assumed part of life today. In like manner, we all assume theories of Mass when we weigh ourselves or talk about how many kilos of potatoes we bought. In the old days, people did the same with old discredited theories, so have terms like sanguinary or melancholy; or the Romans built aquaducts that worked for hundreds of years on incorrect ideas of flow and pressure. Just because something has become ubiquitous to our understanding, does not validate it as such, and teasing it apart from other thought that has simply already assumed it, is difficult indeed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The "assumption" in science that certain things were the same in the past is not axiomatic. It is TESTED.

There are lots of things in the past which we know were NOT constant. And the only reason we know this, is because we test for uniformitarianism.

No, you assumed the current findings are accurate of the last 200 or so years of our data, and then based thereon, created a structure to account for it. The factors for which the data did not seem to work in a fixed manner, was assumed to vary - but even such variance, was in a uniformitarian manner. It is assumed predictable variance, a ratio or 'speeding up' or interplay of uniformitarian forces or so - on a background of assumed constants for which such did not seem necessary at all. You are confusing Uniformitarian with 'everything is always constant' it seems. The only wrench here is Quantum Theory, but that still assumes uniformitarianism beyond probability states. Who knows, maybe Quantum Theory will kill uniformitarianism one day, as it has already dealt with the idea that objective observation can occur.

 

[essentialsaltes]

but generally the reason we think they are 'lightyears' away, is because we apply a Uniformitarian standard on the speed of light. Again, circular argument.

No, that's absurd. To calculate how far away something is, you would need to know the speed of light and how much time it traveled. (If you drive 30 mph for 2 hours, you travelled 60 miles.) We don't know the travel time of the light. We calculate astronomical distances in an entirely different way.

It is not a demonstrable property, but an axiom, I am afraid.

It is an assumption, but a testable one. So far it passes the tests. As I stated in the OP, any objections are unsupported assertions.

I would suggest you look up Gould's paper on 'Is Uniformitarianism Necessary' in which he critiques Lyle's old formulation thereof

In the context of geology, uniformitarianism has a specific meaning that's not really related to the concept that physics is the same everywhere and everywhen. Indeed, Gould "dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Case in point, this whole thread failed to mention the term for the thing they were discussing until quite late

space and time translation symmetry is in the OP. Just because you prefer an 19th century term from geology subject to equivocation doesn't mean this thread hasn't been talking about the topic properly from the start.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, that's absurd. To calculate how far away something is, you would need to know the speed of light and how much time it traveled. (If you drive 30 mph for 2 hours, you travelled 60 miles.) We don't know the travel time of the light. We calculate astronomical distances in an entirely different way.

Um, what? Maybe read a bit. We determine distances in the solar system by how long light takes to reach it via radar, as we have not reached it ourselves. We determine distances to other stars by stellar parallax, which is dependant on distances in our solar system, and therefore on the speed of light. Older geometric measurements in the solar system have all been 'corrected' if they differed, since we now know the speed of light and all. Once we have distances in space, we then determine how long that light travelled to us to determine when it left its source - which is of course dependant on the speed of light. So yes, to decide if something we observe today had its origins millions of years ago is dependant on the speed of light, both for distance and time travelled.

It is an assumption, but a testable one.

Yes, but only in a circular fashion that assumes it so, not an unequivocal one. So not much of a point, I am afraid.

In the context of geology, uniformitarianism has a specific meaning that's not really related to the concept that physics is the same everywhere and everywhen. Indeed, Gould "dismissed the first principle, which asserted spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws, as no longer an issue of debate."

Yes, because it is inherently implied by the structure of our very methodology. Did you not understand what I wrote?

space and time translation symmetry is in the OP. Just because you prefer an 19th century term from geology subject to equivocation doesn't mean this thread hasn't been talking about the topic properly from the start.

Didn't say it wasn't. And no, Uniformitarianism is the appropriate term for it in philosophy of Science, but has largely been ignored as it has become so ubiquitous that it is just naturally assumed, and seldom need to be established as such. It is similar as how we seldom hear of Universals or Nominitives anymore. In fact, one needs to argue to show people it is really just an axiom, because it is so well entrenched.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Scientists acquire data. What is it with empiricists referring to “science” in general as if it is some kind of platonic form out there?

Scientists acquire data, interpret it in various ways and test the predictions of those interpretations. Science is the category of human endeavour that aims to systematically acquire knowledge about the world via empirical means. It's no more a Platonic form than is education or sport.

Also if you talk with scientists they rarely talk about “knowing” but rather about disproving, ruling out, that sort of thing.

That is an important part of the process - you can gain knowledge by ruling out hypotheses.

And it is only disproving within their limited set of tools, so for example they will talk about the non-falsifiability of God, but in assuming that they have dismissed philosophy and metaphysics entirely.

Perhaps you could help them with this - how do you suggest they can falsify God?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Um, what? Maybe read a bit. We determine distances in the solar system by how long light takes to reach it via radar

That would be news to Cassini, Flamsteed, and all those who contributed to the observations of the transits of Venus in the 18th century. Parallax was used to first measure these distances. It is strictly geometric.

Yes, but only in a circular fashion that assumes it so, not an unequivocal one.

We don't assume that the spectral lines of hydrogen from a distant star are arranged just as they are from a source on earth. We measure it.

Yes, because it is inherently implied by the structure of our very methodology. Did you not understand what I wrote?

I guess I didn't understand why you were persevering on a point already expressed in post #1. Gould's critique is only of the false equivocal meaning of 'uniformitarianism'.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That would be news to Cassini, Flamsteed, and all those who contributed to the observations of the transits of Venus in the 18th century. Parallax was used to first measure these distances. It is strictly geometric.

I addressed that in the previous post. Did you miss it? It hasn't been 'strictly geometric' for the last century. Minute changes telescope error when you use stellar parallax, so we use our actual measured distances in the solar system - via radar. Geometric distances often differ from this, giving a broader range from different observations. We celebrate those who got geometric values close to what we 'know' they are today, while quietly forget the rest. For instance, the first geometric determination of the distance to the sun by the ancient Greeks used basically the correct method, but was out by about 5% or so, which greatly underestimated the distance. When distances outside the solar system, this is even more so. So no, today we use light for distances within the solar system.

We don't assume that the spectral lines of hydrogen from a distant star are arranged just as they from a source on earth. We measure it

No, we measure electromagnetic radiation that arrived here, then assume uniformitarianism, and then ascribe the measurements to what we think is spectral lines of hydrogen around a distant star, as it fits how hydrogen and electromagnetism acts on earth in the present. A circular argument if that is how you seek to affirm uniformitarianism.

Anyway, I don't think I am utilising my time well here arguing. I think you have your mind made up about this. Good day, sir.