On 22/07/2020 14:48, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/07/2020 12:53, AnthonyL wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:20:29 -0000 (UTC), (Nick
Maclaren) wrote:
In article ,
AnthonyL wrote:
When I hear them arguing and disagreeing with eachother the thought
that immediately comes to me is "You are scientists.Â* If there is not
a proof there that satisfies all then shut up and go seek it".
It somewhat reminds me of what I learnt as an engineer "Safety factor
is simply ignorance factor".
The former shows your misunderstanding of complex issues - why do you
think there IS a single, explicable, complete answer?Â* There very
often isn't - and, in some cases, there are questions that are quite
simply unanswerable in such terms.
So they may as well believe in a god and argue about that?Â* They may
theorise one thing and it is in pursuit of theories that more becomes
known but to argue that one belief is better than another is the
anathama of what I understand science to be.Â* What's the point in
Science is a progressive approximation to describing reality using the
best mathematics available. The more a scientific theory can explain and
the more experimental tests of its predictions that do not refute it the
stronger that scientific belief in that theory becomes.
I slightly object to 'belief' in that context. I think the phrase used
is 'strong evidence' The material realists believe that the fact that
sciences *works* is 'strong evidence' that the entities that comprise
its theories - e.g. gravity - 'actually exist'.
P prefer to merely note that they are simply explanations that give
useful predictions without ascribing any truth content to them at all.
As can be seen with e.g. Einsetein where a radical different
construction - bent space time, gives almost the same result in most
cases and a far better result in a few cases.
The fundamental conservation laws are close to being an immutable core
set of beliefs and firmly believed by all as anything in physics.
#
As is causality. But what 'causes' that particular radioactive element
to decay at that particular time? Quanatum level mess cannot be solved
by simple cause and effect, instead we have a probability function only.
Einstein claimed he could not believe that God played dice..but that is
a belief, only.
But there is always a possibility that some clever experiment done
tomorrow will refute something that until now has been considered a
sacrosanct law of physics. Groundbreaking experiments with unexpected
results tend to break open whole new areas of physics for study.
Indeed. That pesky photoelectric effect that led to quantum physics,
which gave us the semiconductor and the laser..
Radioactivity, superconductivity, general relativity, lasers for
instance. You can never tell in advance what will be important.
Yup. Or where it all might lead. First integrated circuits were to
control guided missiles. Now they run twitter.
Each advance in physics includes all the existing results as some weak
field limiting case of a more complete and complicated theory. It is
still not known if a grand unified theory of everything is even
possible. Certain pure mathematical proofs hint that it may not be.
If you take Gödel and view him as Hofstatder does as an example of
*recursion*, then it becomes clear that a given knowledge base can never
use itself to prove its own correctness.
Inductive propositions about the real world made by limited beings can
never be sure to have captured the world either completely or
truthfully. See the Matrix. absent the Red Pill how could you tell you
were in a simulation?
Science is not about truth, it is about effective prediction of the
future. Using models of reality that can never shown to be correct. only
be shown to be incorrect.
believe a heavy stone will fall to the ground faster because it is
heavy?
Allowing for air resistance it does fall ever so slightly faster. But
shape will make a big difference too. Experiment trumps elegant theory
every time - nature is the final arbiter of every scientific theory.
That's why it was calld ahem! NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
A flat plate will fall more slowly than a sphere. Shape really matters
unless you do the experiment in a vacuum.
And the second is effectively ********.Â* You cannot design for all
possible events - ships are designed only against (say) 'once in
a millennium' storms, not the worst possible storm, let alone such
things as Cumbre Viejo or the Storegga shelf collapsing.
That is not how engineering builds in safety factors.Â* At least not in
the aviation (airframe and engine) environment I started off in.
They do basically look for the worst case loading that the airframe
might be expected to encounter in service and then choose a suitable
multiple of that as a safety margin. Victorians tended to err on the
side of caution with a factor of 7 so their sewers still work whereas
the cheap and nasty blocks of flats built in the 1960's used a safety
factor of 1.0 which is why Ronan Point collapsed like a deck of cards.
No, to be fair progressive collapse, like the Comet and metal fatigue,
was sort of known about but not considered something you should take
into account.
Same goes for various resonant bridge collapses - Tacoma narrows?
We live, and we learn from thee failures, that there is more we need to
take into account. Known unknowns become known knowns.
But, the problem with science is that fact that it has always worked
before is no absolute guarantee it will work in the future. As the man
falling past the 30th floor replied when asked how he was doing 'okay,
so far' is all we can really know. Assuming that memory is real and
what just happened is not a figment of our imagination, and we are not
trapped in a timeless present with nothing but false memories....
Ultimately we nothing for sure, just a bunch of ideas that seem to have
worked, so far, enough for us to to the Darwinian Shag and beget another
round of brats ...
....Until woke came along and now no one knows whether or not they ought
to not actually be gay, or so full of guilt for actually having the
temerity to exist, that instant suicide is indicated out of pure shame.
All one can say is that such genes will not then be passed on...
--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.
Anon.