The tools of science

[mindlight]

I would like to focus this OP on the tools of science. I am not interested in the theories here I am interested in the credibility of the tools which scientists use and why results from using these tools should be considered reliable. Many of you will already know I am coming from a position of extreme scepticism of the usefulness of science at any great distance in time and space and I want you to try and show me that trustworthy conclusions can be drawn from using scientific tools to assess fossils in deep time and objects in deep space for instance.

So I want to focus the discussion on two areas in particular
1) Origins
2) Remote cosmology

So

1) In case of our origins which tools can scientists draw reliable conclusions from?
2) In case of remote cosmology which tools can scientists draw reliable conclusions from?
3) Briefly describe how the tools used to assess our origins are used and why the results they glean can be significant.
4) Briefly describe how the tools used to analyse remote cosmology are used and why the results they glean can be significant.
5) Finally give me a good reason why I should trust a result of some analysis made by one of these tools for origins.
6) Finally give me a good reason why I should trust a result of some analysis made by one of these tools for remote cosmology.

 

[Sphinx777]

A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.

Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.

While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important to ensure that this tendency does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study. After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.

Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (traditionally known as "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I would like to focus this OP on the tools of science. I am not interested in the theories here I am interested in the credibility of the tools which scientists use and why results from using these tools should be considered reliable. Many of you will already know I am coming from a position of extreme scepticism of the usefulness of science at any great distance in time and space and I want you to try and show me that trustworthy conclusions can be drawn from using scientific tools to assess fossils in deep time and objects in deep space for instance.

Ironically, observing fossil evidence and observing deep space are very similar since looking into space is looking back in time because of the limitation of the speed of light.

The assumption that science uses to infer correctness of observations in deep space and time is that the laws of physics are the same in the past and at a distance. It really is as simple as that. There is huge evidence this assumption is correct, and zero evidence it is not.

 

[mindlight]

Ironically, observing fossil evidence and observing deep space are very similar since looking into space is looking back in time because of the limitation of the speed of light.

Assumption based on unproven assumption about light speed. I am more interested in the tools you would actually use to examine deep space e.g. a telescope or fossils e.g. a microscope and why you think it is a reliable way to find things out about deep space or fossils.

The assumption that science uses to infer correctness of observations in deep space and time is that the laws of physics are the same in the past and at a distance. It really is as simple as that. There is huge evidence this assumption is correct, and zero evidence it is not.

Again unproven assumption and irrelevant to this OP. What tools could you use to try and show me that there is a match between sub atomic reality and that which we imperfectly observe in deep space through the filter of our solar system.

 

[mindlight]

A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.

Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.

While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important to ensure that this tendency does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study. After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.

Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (traditionally known as "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

Actually this is not helpful as it describes the method by which observations and deductions are collected into a theory but not the means by which these observations are made and analysed in the first place. Go back to basics here for a second. What are you holding in your hand when you examine a fossil or a star? Whats the basic principle behind the tool you use to collect data about these things and why do you trust the results you obtain from these as being reliable?

 

[sfs]

So I want to focus the discussion on two areas in particular
1) Origins
2) Remote cosmology

So

1) In case of our origins which tools can scientists draw reliable conclusions from?
2) In case of remote cosmology which tools can scientists draw reliable conclusions from?
3) Briefly describe how the tools used to assess our origins are used and why the results they glean can be significant.
4) Briefly describe how the tools used to analyse remote cosmology are used and why the results they glean can be significant.
5) Finally give me a good reason why I should trust a result of some analysis made by one of these tools for origins.
6) Finally give me a good reason why I should trust a result of some analysis made by one of these tools for remote cosmology.

1) Tools for origins (assuming you mean the origins of our or other species): geographical distribution of species, morphological comparison of species, fossils and genetics. The actual operations involved would include collecting living specimens from around the world, digging up fossils, collecting samples of nearby strata and doing involved nuclear chemistry on them, and sequencing genes or genomes of living or ancient specimans.

2) Depends on what you mean by "deep cosmology". The basic tools for all astronomy are telescopes, in wavelengths ranging from radio waves to gamma rays. Basic facts that inform cosmology include the existence of distant galaxies that look much like ours, cosmological red shift that increases with distance, the match between the predictions of General Relativity and observation, the existence of a microwave cosmic ray background, the extreme uniformity of that background and its near-perfect black body spectrum.

3 & 4) That's not really possible. A brief description like the one you're asking for will run to hundreds of pages, assuming most of the technical stuff is left out; you cannot summarize entire fields of science in a forum post. What makes science work, and what makes science's results reliable, is the interconnecting web of support that different pieces of evidence give. Any brief description necessarily leaves out most of the evidence. So what you really need to do is go to a library and pick up a book and start reading -- and then pick up another one, and keep going from there.

I think the best one can do in a forum like this is pick some particular conclusion about the past and try probing it to see what kind of supporting evidence there is for it. For the subject of origins, I suggest this, mostly because I wrote it. It discusses one piece of evidence for shared ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, and might give you an idea of how scientists accumulate evidence for a hypothesis about the past. Read it and start asking questions about how we got the information in it. There are many other pieces of evidence already posted on the web, both in biology and in astronomy, so you could pick any one of those instead. For astronomy, for example, you might look at the evidence from Supernova 1987a, which shows that nuclear physics behaved 160,000 years ago in the same way it does today, and that the speed of light has not changed (much) in that time.

5 & 6) If you are starting from a position of skepticism about science, the only good reason for you to accept the validity of scientific conclusions is your understanding and acceptance of the evidence that scientists used to draw the conclusions. That means you will have to do a lot of work. Note, however, that the same applies to having good reasons for rejecting scientific conclusions. Either way, you have to do the work before you have real grounds for having an opinion on the subject.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Assumption based on unproven assumption about light speed.

Please be more specific. What do you think is unproven?

I am more interested in the tools you would actually use to examine deep space e.g. a telescope or fossils e.g. a microscope and why you think it is a reliable way to find things out about deep space or fossils.



Again unproven assumption and irrelevant to this OP. What tools could you use to try and show me that there is a match between sub atomic reality and that which we imperfectly observe in deep space through the filter of our solar system.

I think I need further clarification.

At what distance do you consider something "Deep space"?

At what point in the past do you consider something a "fossil"?

Do you trust the computer you are using to reliably provide an answer from me to you?

 

[mindlight]

1) Tools for origins (assuming you mean the origins of our or other species): geographical distribution of species, morphological comparison of species, fossils and genetics. The actual operations involved would include collecting living specimens from around the world, digging up fossils, collecting samples of nearby strata and doing involved nuclear chemistry on them, and sequencing genes or genomes of living or ancient specimans.

At last an answer to the question So basically you use a bucket and spade to collect fossils and rocks. You compare these against other rocks and fossils and living creatures previously collected or observed and about which conclusions have already been drawn. Then you get your chemistry set out and do various tests on the samples and use various microscopes and for example Gel electrophoresis DNA techniques to examine your samples.

We are getting into some pretty advanced areas of science in this kind of statement and I think I have made this OP too general and should have focused on a specific area to test out my question. I have already had a big discussion on fossils this year. From the collection/tools perspective my issues can broadly be summarised as the following. What is being observed is rare, partial, mainly degraded and analogies with other objects break down with time. Also all the theories about the evidence and previous observations all come to bear on the context of every experiment. If you accept the broad consensus on all these other things then it makes it easier for you to understand each analysis in line with that consensus. There is too much to discuss here to be done properly. It is too broad a discussion for the purpose of this OP so I do not think fossils is a productive line to follow here.

2) Depends on what you mean by "deep cosmology". The basic tools for all astronomy are telescopes, in wavelengths ranging from radio waves to gamma rays. Basic facts that inform cosmology include the existence of distant galaxies that look much like ours, cosmological red shift that increases with distance, the match between the predictions of General Relativity and observation, the existence of a microwave cosmic ray background, the extreme uniformity of that background and its near-perfect black body spectrum.

This seems like the best focus for this discussion cause as you say there really is just one tool - the telescope in all its forms and that what is observed is the electromagnetic activity that is observable through a telescope. Certain patterns have been observed using this tool and all the theories spring from observing and then seeking to explain these patterns

3 & 4) That's not really possible. A brief description like the one you're asking for will run to hundreds of pages, assuming most of the technical stuff is left out; you cannot summarize entire fields of science in a forum post. What makes science work, and what makes science's results reliable, is the interconnecting web of support that different pieces of evidence give. Any brief description necessarily leaves out most of the evidence. So what you really need to do is go to a library and pick up a book and start reading -- and then pick up another one, and keep going from there.

I agree this is probably what it would take and at this stage in my life I simply do not have the time.

I think the best one can do in a forum like this is pick some particular conclusion about the past and try probing it to see what kind of supporting evidence there is for it. For the subject of origins, I suggest this, mostly because I wrote it. It discusses one piece of evidence for shared ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, and might give you an idea of how scientists accumulate evidence for a hypothesis about the past. Read it and start asking questions about how we got the information in it. There are many other pieces of evidence already posted on the web, both in biology and in astronomy, so you could pick any one of those instead.

I read your very involved article and while very interesting think this is too much for the purpose of this thread.

For astronomy, for example, you might look at the evidence from Supernova 1987a, which shows that nuclear physics behaved 160,000 years ago in the same way it does today, and that the speed of light has not changed (much) in that time.

This seems a better way to go and more likely to yield some productive discussion. I have discussed this example before I think. Observations of the destruction of various rings observable in a distance galaxy and the time it took between one ring being vaporised by the supernova and then the next yield an apparent value for the speed of light of 186,000 miles per second. Thus this seems to confirm that light travels at the same speed outside our solar system as it does inside it and if the light travelled at that speed for the distance apparent using basic trigonometry of this star from our own then it appears that light travelled at the same speed 160,000 light years ago as it does now. Can I trust this conclusion made from observations from various different kinds of telescopes. If I can this immediately challenges a creationist dating of the universe as being 10,000 years old because if the star appears to have supernoved 160,000 years ago then it would never have actually existed in the first place. I need to think about this example and the use of telescopes on which the conclusion is based. This gives a more workable focus to this OP I think.

Can we trust telescopes to tell us truthes about the universe and its laws?

 

[mindlight]

Please be more specific. What do you think is unproven?

I think I need further clarification.

At what distance do you consider something "Deep space"?

Deep space is that area of unexplored space of which we have no direct travel experience by robotic or manned craft outside the more easily observable zones of our solar system.

Quite simply we do not know much about this zone nor about how light travels through it for example. For all we know once light leaves the immediate vicinity of its star it may simply jump to the next star with no time lapse or apparent distortion. Can anyone prove otherwise?

Apparently if you pointed the Hubble Telescope at the moon you would not be able to observe the Apollo landing module or the flag planted on the moon cause these things are just too small. If we cannot even observe objects of this significance at such a close distance what hope of we observing correctly what is going on in deep space. We miss too many details to be sure of much at all.

The appearance of a thing like a stick that appears bent in water may be very different from the reality.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Deep space is that area of unexplored space of which we have no direct travel experience by robotic or manned craft outside the more easily observable zones of our solar system.

Quite simply we do not know much about this zone nor about how light travels through it for example. For all we know once light leaves the immediate vicinity of its star it may simply jump to the next star with no time lapse or apparent distortion. Can anyone prove otherwise?

Apparently if you pointed the Hubble Telescope at the moon you would not be able to observe the Apollo landing module or the flag planted on the moon cause these things are just too small. If we cannot even observe objects of this significance at such a close distance what hope of we observing correctly what is going on in deep space. We miss too many details to be sure of much at all.

The appearance of a thing like a stick that appears bent in water may be very different from the reality.

You seem to be approaching a type of philosophical skepticism with these ideas. It's basically a variation of "you weren't there" argument. Philosophical skepticism itself can be shown via reductio ad absurdum to at least not be a very productive line of thinking. There are certain assumptions that underscore all of our existence, and once we begin questioning those, we're not going to really get anywhere.

Why wouldn't light travel normally across space? We have empirical evidence that light (and indeed, any kind of wave) travels from point A to point B, and it does not instantly teleport across any distance. Therefore, the best "assumption" we make is that light travels from point A to point B anywhere in the universe. Science works from empirical evidence. We have no evidence that light teleports as you hypothesize.

 

[mindlight]

This seems a better way to go and more likely to yield some productive discussion. I have discussed this example before I think. Observations of the destruction of various rings observable in a distance galaxy and the time it took between one ring being vaporised by the supernova and then the next yield an apparent value for the speed of light of 186,000 miles per second. Thus this seems to confirm that light travels at the same speed outside our solar system as it does inside it and if the light travelled at that speed for the distance apparent using basic trigonometry of this star from our own then it appears that light travelled at the same speed 160,000 light years ago as it does now. Can I trust this conclusion made from observations from various different kinds of telescopes. If I can this immediately challenges a creationist dating of the universe as being 10,000 years old because if the star appears to have supernoved 160,000 years ago then it would never have actually existed in the first place. I need to think about this example and the use of telescopes on which the conclusion is based. This gives a more workable focus to this OP I think.

Can we trust telescopes to tell us truthes about the universe and its laws?

There is the appearance of the thing through the telescope and then there is the reality. The question is whether a telescope can give us access to that reality or not. Is there a difference between observed and calculated light? How do we know that we do not see the cosmic event as it happens.

Some creationists seem to argue that the lack of stage 3 supernovas in the universe is a proof of a yong universe.

Exploding stars point to a young universe

Hans Holbein painted a picture of Anne of Cleaves that got Henry VIII interested. In reality he found her ugly and never consummated the marriage. Cosmologists paint pictures of the universe that may be radically different from the reality.

 

[mindlight]

You seem to be approaching a type of philosophical skepticism with these ideas. It's basically a variation of "you weren't there" argument. Philosophical skepticism itself can be shown via reductio ad absurdum to at least not be a very productive line of thinking. There are certain assumptions that underscore all of our existence, and once we begin questioning those, we're not going to really get anywhere.

It would be absurd from a practical point of view to doubt the existence of the chair I am sitting on. It is not absurd to question whether what everyone else assumes about the behaviour of light in deep space is true or not. I will not fall off my chair wondering if it is or not.

And when it comes down to it we were not there at our origins nor are we out there observing the phenomena we attempt to describe here.

Why wouldn't light travel normally across space? We have empirical evidence that light (and indeed, any kind of wave) travels from point A to point B, and it does not instantly teleport across any distance. Therefore, the best "assumption" we make is that light travels from point A to point B anywhere in the universe. Science works from empirical evidence. We have no evidence that light teleports as you hypothesize.

There are properties to light that seem to indicate that teleportation is occuring inside our experimental experience. Quantum entanglement and teleportation are apparently happening locally. Its just a matter of scale to start applying that to the distance between stars. We assume a lot about things we observe only dimly and through many filters and distorting media.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Teleportation goes long distance

 

[Dark_Lite]

I was wondering if you would bring up something about quantum entanglement or teleporting photons. Note that quantum teleportation does not mean that a photon disappears from one place and reappears in another. It is only a teleportation of "properties." The light is still traveling from point A to point B. So once again, we don't have any empirical evidence that light instantly teleports from location to location.

I think the Assumptions is a magic word thread may apply here fairly well. Light traveling extreme distances isn't really an assumption... it's a conclusion derived from the evidence we have.

 

[sfs]

I read your very involved article and while very interesting think this is too much for the purpose of this thread.

Which is a shame, since I'm a geneticist and not an astronomer. (Also, you might note that I picked about the simplest examples I could think of in that article and explained them as simply as I could.)

Can we trust telescopes to tell us truthes about the universe and its laws?

Only if you can trust your eyes.

 

[sfs]

Quite simply we do not know much about this zone nor about how light travels through it for example. For all we know once light leaves the immediate vicinity of its star it may simply jump to the next star with no time lapse or apparent distortion. Can anyone prove otherwise?

Yes. In fact, you already outlined how you can prove it. So why are you still asking?

 

[sfs]

It would be absurd from a practical point of view to doubt the existence of the chair I am sitting on. It is not absurd to question whether what everyone else assumes about the behaviour of light in deep space is true or not. I will not fall off my chair wondering if it is or not.

Why is the one more absurd than the other? There are no practical consequences if SN1987a was actually 100 miles away, rather than 160,000 light years away, since to all appearances it acts as if it were 160,000 light years away. There are also no practical consequences if your chair is actually 160,000 light years away, and only acts as if it were touching you. If you want to embrace radical epistemological skepticism, go for it. Why suddenly abandon it in some cases just because you happen to interact with those objects more often?

And when it comes down to it we were not there at our origins nor are we out there observing the phenomena we attempt to describe here.

When it comes down to it, you're not there where your chair is either. All you know about it is how it interacts with you via electromagnetic fields. Why trust them?

And no, quantum teleportation doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It's all in accord with well-explored quantum physics, and it doesn't do anything to support your doubts about light traveling across space, which also follows the same quantum rules. Again, we have many ways of testing whether light in space behaves the way we expect from standard theoretical physics.

 

[mindlight]

I was wondering if you would bring up something about quantum entanglement or teleporting photons. Note that quantum teleportation does not mean that a photon disappears from one place and reappears in another. It is only a teleportation of "properties." The light is still traveling from point A to point B. So once again, we don't have any empirical evidence that light instantly teleports from location to location.

I think the Assumptions is a magic word thread may apply here fairly well. Light traveling extreme distances isn't really an assumption... it's a conclusion derived from the evidence we have.

But if the properties are somehow revealed elsewhere do we actually need to interact with the actual photons to get a meaningful picture. If light does not need to travel to communicate what it can reveal then we will see what is to be seen without the actual lightbeams reaching us. But this is a very different view of the universe to that which we have acepted from modern science. That the earth may be somehow entangled in the web of the stars and that when the star sings its tune the sounds echo here also. if this is true then it does not matter how fast light travels we see the cosmic event for a different reason.

I am not saying out right I believe this, but not sure how someone would actually refute this. We make too many assumptions about a universe about which we known little.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Quantum mechanics operate on a subatomic level. The earth isn't subatomic.

 

[mindlight]

Only if you can trust your eyes

Sight is only one of the senses. I understand we can also listen to the stars to some extent. But physical presence, chemical analysis of solids and gases is something that required manned or robotic space craft. So I trust what has been verified by the most senses more than what has only been verified by one sense.

 

[mindlight]

Why is the one more absurd than the other? There are no practical consequences if SN1987a was actually 100 miles away, rather than 160,000 light years away, since to all appearances it acts as if it were 160,000 light years away. There are also no practical consequences if your chair is actually 160,000 light years away, and only acts as if it were touching you. If you want to embrace radical epistemological skepticism, go for it. Why suddenly abandon it in some cases just because you happen to interact with those objects more often?

Its a question of a level of plausibility. I have many more reasons and many more sense experiences of my chair than I do of starlight in deep space.

When it comes down to it, you're not there where your chair is either. All you know about it is how it interacts with you via electromagnetic fields. Why trust them?

And no, quantum teleportation doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It's all in accord with well-explored quantum physics, and it doesn't do anything to support your doubts about light traveling across space, which also follows the same quantum rules. Again, we have many ways of testing whether light in space behaves the way we expect from standard theoretical physics.

There is discussion about this in physics circles and it's not unanimous that "spooky action at a distance" needs to obey the speed of light.

for instance this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement:

A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light. [10] However, modern quantum physics cannot expect to determine the maximum given that we do not know the sufficent causal condition of the system we are proposing.

Access : Testing the speed of |[lsquo]|spooky action at a distance|[rsquo]| : Nature