Can scientific theories be certain?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

There is no such thing as a scientific (i.e. physical) theory proven "beyond a doubt". Why? Because one cannot say if and when a fact will come along that will blow such a blessed theory to smitereens. All it takes is one stubborn contrary fact to falsify a general assertion. Example: all swans are white. then someone comes along and points out a non-white swan. Goodbye generalization. It is gone. It is busted.

ruveyn

[PhilO 0]

A generalization that all swans are white was a very weak one in the first place. There is no apparent *causal* connection between the color of a swan's feathers and the more important physical characteristics that comprise swans. Furthermore, since it's apparent that swans are a kind of bird, and it's also apparent that many bird species have varied coloration (especially gender-related), such a false generalization would be even further undercut. The problem with "induction by enumeration" is that it fails to look at causality. It can be a suggestion of a direction to look, but it isn't conclusive by itself. (A valid scientific question would be: *why* are most observed swans white? Asking why connects the facts to their causes.)

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

A generalization that all swans are white was a very weak one in the first place. There is no apparent *causal* connection between the color of a swan's feathers and the more important physical characteristics that comprise swans. Furthermore, since it's apparent that swans are a kind of bird, and it's also apparent that many bird species have varied coloration (especially gender-related), such a false generalization would be even further undercut. The problem with "induction by enumeration" is that it fails to look at causality. It can be a suggestion of a direction to look, but it isn't conclusive by itself. (A valid scientific question would be: *why* are most observed swans white? Asking why connects the facts to their causes.)

I used the example to illustrate the principle. To falsify a general statement of the form (x)P(x) - for all x P is true of x- one need only come up with a single counter example. A billion or ten billion true instances of P(x) cannot withstand a single contrary instance.

As for causes all that is required is a single instance with the cause is present and the effect is absent. Again, the principle of the contrary or counter example holds.

ruveyn

[Carlos 0]

There is no such thing as a scientific (i.e. physical) theory proven "beyond a doubt".

This has been discussed so many times that I don't know how you still repeat this.

A theory can always be proven "beyond a doubt" within a given context. For example, Newton's mechanics are beyond a doubt absolutely correct for describing the motion of "big" objects moving at "slow" speeds. "Big" and "slow" delimit the context, which in this case means much bigger than the atomic level, and much slower than relativistic speeds.

Why? Because one cannot say if and when a fact will come along that will blow such a blessed theory to smitereens. All it takes is one stubborn contrary fact to falsify a general assertion.

One can know with certainty that no new fact within the context where the theory is valid can ruin it. The theory is something abstract that subsumes all concrete observations one can make within the physical context that the theory was made. You might as well try to invalidate the process of concept formation by pointing out that broken units exist.

We don't need to become empiricists who need to fly to every single planet just to double-check that Newtonian mechanics magically no longer applies in different places. This is absurd.

Example: all swans are white. then someone comes along and points out a non-white swan. Goodbye generalization. It is gone. It is busted.

Science is much more than just making a generalization about observations.

[Carlos 0]

I used the example to illustrate the principle. To falsify a general statement of the form (x)P(x) - for all x P is true of x- one need only come up with a single counter example. A billion or ten billion true instances of P(x) cannot withstand a single contrary instance.

As for causes all that is required is a single instance with the cause is present and the effect is absent. Again, the principle of the contrary or counter example holds.

ruveyn

Is the concept of cat invalidated because, though 99% of cats are born with whiskers and a tail and 4 legs, some 1% are born with malformations or in some freak case horns like a cow?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I used the example to illustrate the principle. To falsify a general statement of the form (x)P(x) - for all x P is true of x- one need only come up with a single counter example. A billion or ten billion true instances of P(x) cannot withstand a single contrary instance.

As for causes all that is required is a sing instance with the cause is present and the effect is absent. Again, the principle of the contrary or counter example holds.

ruveyn

Is the concept of cat invalidated because, though 99% of cats are born with whiskers and a tail and 4 legs, some 1% are born with malformations or in some freak case horns like a cow?

Define cat.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

A theory can always be proven "beyond a doubt" within a given context. For example, Newton's mechanics are beyond a doubt absolutely correct for describing the motion of "big" objects moving at "slow" speeds. "Big" and "slow" delimit the context, which in this case means much bigger than the atomic level, and much slower than relativistic speeds.

Let's see now. The planet Mercury is big enough and it goes around the sun slow enough. Even so, Newton's law of gravitation does not correctly predict the precession of the orbital perihelion of Mercury. On the other hand Einstein's theory of general relativity which is predicated on a totally different notion of space and time from Newton's theory predicts the precession bang on.

Not only that. Using Newtonian gravitation which does not predict a gravitational red shift the GPS is Newtonian mode is off by hundreds of kilometers at the end of the 24 hour clocking period (the clocks are recalibrated every 24 hours).

From the Wiki article on tests of General relativity I have exercepted the following:

"Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is not designed as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. When the first satellite was launched, some engineers resisted the prediction that a noticeable gravitational time dilation would occur, so the first satellite was launched without the clock adjustment that was later built into subsequent satellites. It showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. This rate of discrepancy is sufficient to substantially impair function of GPS within hours if not accounted for. An excellent account of the role played by general relativity in the design of GPS can be found in Ashby 2003."

Note that the GPS sattalites are big (enough) and they go slow (much slower than light) yet Newtonian gravitation does not process their data correctly.

Where Newtonian theory is more than good enough is in regions of space where the gravitational field is very weak. Hence we can get to the moon and outer planets very nicely using Newtonian gravitation. Newton's theory is an excellent first approximation to the way gravitation works.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

Newton's theory of gravitation is not an "approximation", it is an explanation of the dynamics of gravitational masses, with limits on its precision -- including the precision of the precession of Mercury's orbit, but not to 43 seconds of arc per century. There is no such thing as measurements to infinite precision. There is no "bang on" infinite. Knowledge is a grasp of reality, not an approximation to it. General relativity could not be understood without Newton, still leaves a lot to be desired in the way of explanation, and has been confirmed as more accurate only with a very few tests. It has been found to be more accurate in certain situations and that accuracy is required in practice for certain purposes. That does not make it a "substitute" theory for Newton or a "better approximation", which term does not apply, and is not a refutation of it. Our knowledge expands. Science is not a sequence of exploded fallacies.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Newton's theory of gravitation is not an "approximation", it is an explanation of the dynamics of gravitational masses, with limits on its precision -- including the precision of the precession of Mercury's orbit, but not to 43 seconds of arc per century

Look at Newton's law carefully. No time delay factor. If one changes the mass of one body it is "felt" as an increase in force in the other instantly. This implies a kind of faster than light gravitational "Morse Lamp" could be built. Bzzzzzzt. Wrong! Newton's gravitational formula is the first term of an infinite serious describing the gravitational interaction. Also Newton's law assumes a flat space-time manifold. We know from the "bending" of star light around our sun and so-called gravitational lensing this is not the case.

Additionally, Newtonian gravity complete misses gravitational red-shift. Newtonian gravitation cannot account for the way the GPS works.

Flaws, flaws and incompleteness.

Newton's gravitation produces an incorrect prediction therefore it is not generally true. But it is close enough for some uses.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

Newton's theory of gravitation is not an "approximation", it is an explanation of the dynamics of gravitational masses, with limits on its precision -- including the precision of the precession of Mercury's orbit, but not to 43 seconds of arc per century

Look at Newton's law carefully. No time delay factor. If one changes the mass of one body it is "felt" as an increase in force in the other instantly. This implies a kind of faster than light gravitational "Morse Lamp" could be built. Bzzzzzzt. Wrong! Newton's gravitational formula is the first term of an infinite serious describing the gravitational interaction. Also Newton's law assumes a flat space-time manifold. We know from the "bending" of star light around our sun and so-called gravitational lensing this is not the case.

Additionally, Newtonian gravity complete misses gravitational red-shift. Newtonian gravitation cannot account for the way the GPS works.

Flaws, flaws and incompleteness.

Newton's gravitation produces an incorrect prediction therefore it is not generally true. But it is close enough for some uses.

Please stop repeating the same fallacies while presumptuously lecturing us as if we have never looked at Newton's law carefully, while you continue to ignore the refutations of your repeated slogans and irrelevancies. We all know what Newton's law of gravitation says and what it does not, which does not make it a false theory. If you can't follow the discussion then ask honest questions and try to understand. Repetitious, context-dropping sniping with 'falsifiability' slogans is neither refuting anyone here nor contributing.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Please stop repeating the same fallacies while presumptuously lecturing us as if we have never looked at Newton's law carefully, while you continue to ignore the refutations of your repeated slogans and irrelevancies. We all know what Newton's law of gravitation says and what it does not, which does not make it a false theory. If you can't follow the discussion then ask honest questions and try to understand. Repetitious, context-dropping sniping with 'falsifiability' slogans is neither refuting anyone here nor contributing.

Facts, not fallacies. Everyone of my assertions are backed up by experiment doubled, redoubled and checked even again. Newtonian gravitation does not predict the motion of the planets correctly. It fail noticeably for Mercury. This is a matter of established scientific fact.

If you like I will prepare a bibliography of refereed journal articles backing up every one of my assertions.

When It comes to physics I do not fool around. I go where the corroborated experiments point. Facts are more important than theories or even philosophical principles.

ruveyn

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

Relativity doesn't tell you how to brush your teeth. That's a fact. So relativity is a fallacious scientific theory. It rained the other day. 110 + 5 = 115. Balls bounce. Those are facts. They can all be checked and confirmed. Therefore you must be wrong.

Stop repeating your irrelevant nonsense exploiting context-dropping equivocations on behalf of your false philosophy and failure to understand or discuss what others here are talking about. This is the second time you have hijacked this thread with your irrelevant, repetitious repetitions, repeated over and over, and refusal to address what others have said. It is not the first thread in which you have done this. Please stop it.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Newton's theory of gravitation is not an "approximation", it is an explanation of the dynamics of gravitational masses, with limits on its precision -- including the precision of the precession of Mercury's orbit, but not to 43 seconds of arc per century. There is no such thing as measurements to infinite precision. There is no "bang on" infinite. Knowledge is a grasp of reality, not an approximation to it. General relativity could not be understood without Newton, still leaves a lot to be desired in the way of explanation, and has been confirmed as more accurate only with a very few tests. It has been found to be more accurate in certain situations and that accuracy is required in practice for certain purposes. That does not make it a "substitute" theory for Newton or a "better approximation", which term does not apply, and is not a refutation of it. Our knowledge expands. Science is not a sequence of exploded fallacies.

then it is not a correct explanation, since Newtonian gravitation does not account for the motion of Mercury.

In Einstein's theory gravitation is not a force, it is curvature of the space-time manifold.

[ewv 0]

Newton's theory of gravitation is not an "approximation", it is an explanation of the dynamics of gravitational masses, with limits on its precision -- including the precision of the precession of Mercury's orbit, but not to 43 seconds of arc per century. There is no such thing as measurements to infinite precision. There is no "bang on" infinite. Knowledge is a grasp of reality, not an approximation to it. General relativity could not be understood without Newton, still leaves a lot to be desired in the way of explanation, and has been confirmed as more accurate only with a very few tests. It has been found to be more accurate in certain situations and that accuracy is required in practice for certain purposes. That does not make it a "substitute" theory for Newton or a "better approximation", which term does not apply, and is not a refutation of it. Our knowledge expands. Science is not a sequence of exploded fallacies.

then it is not a correct explanation, since Newtonian gravitation does not account for the motion of Mercury.

In Einstein's theory gravitation is not a force, it is curvature of the space-time manifold.

Newton's theory certainly does account for the motion of Mercury. It doesn't account for it with the precision it does for the other planets because of the nature of Mercury's orbit. It accounts for it within 43 seconds of arc per century for the rotation of the orbit in comparison with observational measurements -- and in comparison with other planets for which the accuracy is at least 100 time better than it is for Mercury.

No theory has unlimited precision. That does not make them "approximations" to an "ideal' that does not exist, or an "approximation" to reality. Conceptual knowledge, including theories of physics, is how we grasp the universe in a way possible to our form of consciousness. It is the form in which we know it, not an 'approximation' to it, which is a misuse of the term 'approximation', and not an 'infinitely precise' 'model' somehow in parallel to it or providing mystical insight with infinite precision.

This has been explained many times before and it does not help to repeatedly by rote call it not correct based on an impossible and meaningless standard.

Einstein's (so far) more accurate equations do not negate that gravity is a force. The equations' different kind of quantitative representation is far more abstract, formulated in terms of a variational principle --using similar mathematical methods and principles of other variational formulations employed in classical physics -- involving both time and space and the concept of a mathematical 'curvature' tensor combining and relating them. So what? All dynamical equations involve both time and space mathematically related in some abstract form.

The abstract quantitative representation of a 'space time manifold' is a useful method of analysis which does not negate the existence of forces, which do not appear directly in the more abstract variational equations, and does not make space-time a 'thing', mysteriously mixing space and time in which space, time and forces have no meaning. The development of relativity physics depends on the prior concepts of time and space and other concepts in physics, which are not negated in higher level abstractions dependent on them.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

There is no such thing as a scientific (i.e. physical) theory proven "beyond a doubt". Why? Because one cannot say if and when a fact will come along that will blow such a blessed theory to smitereens. All it takes is one stubborn contrary fact to falsify a general assertion. Example: all swans are white. then someone comes along and points out a non-white swan. Goodbye generalization. It is gone. It is busted.

Ruveyn is not an Objectivist and he is expounding the widely help view, associated with Karl Popper (link) which Objectivists reject.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Is the concept of cat invalidated because, though 99% of cats are born with whiskers and a tail and 4 legs, some 1% are born with malformations or in some freak case horns like a cow?

The genome says what the beast is.

Consider how new species have arisen. A cat through a genetic mutation would give birth to a non-cat.

That is how the human species arose from prior primate non-human species.

[Paul's Here 0]

Is the concept of cat invalidated because, though 99% of cats are born with whiskers and a tail and 4 legs, some 1% are born with malformations or in some freak case horns like a cow?

The genome says what the beast is.

Consider how new species have arisen. A cat through a genetic mutation would give birth to a non-cat.

That is how the human species arose from prior primate non-human species.

That is irrelevant to concept formation and grasping the meaning of the concept or what entities fall under a concept.

[jim wright 24 0]

Existence is an axiomatic concept, i. e., is self evident, per Ayn Rand. Thi s, throughout space and time, to infinity. One cannot reasonably expect it to come into being sometime in the pasts nor to go out of existence some time in the future, nor expect it to cease being someplace "out there" or have come into being some time in the past. "Existence exists.", again to quote Ayn Rand.

So, what will we find in those far off places?

Strange looking people with strange looking faces?

Most assuradly so, for in thore far off brews,

There's an infinite amount of what ever you choose.

Jim Wright