Amedeo

== THE SCREAMING AMBULANCE AND THE VECTOR ANALYST ==

Preface

There are statements of facts and theories which are allegedly about facts. Facts and theories about facts are different things, but they are often confused, especially when the theories are pre-verbal (that is, beliefs). For instance, we "spontaneosly" believe that things ARE as we SEE them. We do not even realize that this belief is a theory about certain facts. As a matter of fact we not even put our belief into words ["things are as we see them"] precisely because the belief is not deliberately something constructed from certain facts. Strictly speaking, onle a "theory" is something deliberately constructed.

Stating facts and constructing a theory about facts are different things. There can be errors in both the stating of facts and in the constructing of a theory. Those who are not aware of the possibility of human errors insists that reality is as they state it and that, as their theories are about facts, the theories are as true as the statements-of-fact themselves. Thus far, a man's mind behaves in a pre-critical manner and wallows in the assumption of their infallibility. (In the history of the human mind, I notice the formation of beliefs, like the one I cited; the formation of theories, such as the account of the genesis of the world in the Bible; and the fomation of reasoned theories, which are critical in principle but whose success depends on the mental level of the theorizer. I will be dealing with allegedly critical theories about physical reality.)

I will be dealing with facts and theories on this discussion forum in order to have a critical audience. I may make ten statements, which I coinsider adequate, but a reader may not find them adequate: He may not be clear about what is being stated; he may see that a statement includes a distorin of a fact; etc. Then again, if I say that a theory does not deal adequately with the fact, the reader may find that the situation is even worse that I saw, or that my criticism of the theory is not to the point or is fallacious; etc. (One reason for a Socratic dialogue is then even an intelligent and critical mind is not excempt from error, is not infallible. Fallibility does not detract anything from an intelligent and critical mind, and does not invalidate anything; fallibility is simply a limit in what one sees or puts together or analyzes. The adage, "two heads are better than one," applies, for even the better head can miss something which the other can see, and a second head is required in order to deal with the communicability of what is thought.)

Chapter 1

Here comes the screaming ambulance. The siren located on the roof of the ambulance. The ambulance is moving at a constant speed. The siren keeps on blaring a single tone, which a musician may identify as a D in an upper register of the music scale. (I am referring to a monotone: a specific or finite sound which remains unvaried while the ambulance is rolling.)

Those are the facts of a situation. The wording could be different. Additional facts could be stated. And additional statements could be made about the very things which have been mentioned. For instance: The siren is the source of the sound I hear. It is the siren that is set in a certain way so as to keep on producing a sound of a certain pitch, namely the High D. We are naming sounds according to the listener (a listener's experiences, as as C, D, E, and so forth). Pitch is the level of a sound as it is heard. Before the ambulance started rolling, the siren was so set that it produced the sound which we experience as a High D. So, what was referred to as the siren's monotone is what the siren produces, whether it is stationary or moving.

Now, then, we have an ambulance whose siren produces a tone. If a tone (sound of a certain pitch to the listener's ear) is created by a number of pulses or vibration per second, then what we are saying, in the above described situation, is that before the ambulance started rolling, a man set the siren to produce an N number of pulses for second. When the ambulace was rolling, the same man, on the roof of the ambulance, made sure that the siren produced the same N number of pulses per secong. So, we are categorically stating this as a fact: The siren, whether stationary or moving, keeps on producing an N number of pulse per second. This fact implies that the motion of the siren does not alter the siren mechanism so that, for example, it produces (N + z) number of pulses per second.

To be a bit more detailed, On top of the ambulance, there is the siren, the tecnician who ckects the operations of the siren, and a clock, so that number of pulses per second had a definite and unchangeable meaning. Should the movement of the siren bulk affect its operation, such as increasing the pulsation, there would be also an effect on the clock mechanism. So, for instance, the clock marks 61 micro-seconds for a period of time which was maked 60 seconds on the stationary ambulance. If the absolute number of pulses has increased (per stationary-clock second), and the absolute number of seconds has increased (relatively to a stationary clock), then on the rolling ambulance there is no evidence of alteration in frequency (the number of pulses per second). So, I repeat this fact: The rolling ambulance-siren keeps on emitting a sound of the same frequency: it keeps on emitting an N number of pulses per second. This emission is called a High D by the man on the ambulance. (The "N frequency" is a physical phenomenon; "High D" is the name of the tone the technician on the ambulance hears.)

Chapter 2

Here comes the screaming ambulance. I am standing at a street corner and I see the approaching ambulance. It grows bigger and bigger and the siren-sound grows louder and louder.

That's what I OBSERVE: There is an increase in size and an increase in loudness.

I just stated another fact. Any objections? I have an objection. The two underscored statements are not just different statements of one and the same fact. (The Elohim and Yahveh are not just two different names of one and the same agent -- regardless of what religionists believe, BECAUSE those named agents ACT differently for the production of one and the same thing.) Indeed I observe an increase in size. When we consider a child, for instance, if I say that I notice an increase in size, I could also say that THE CHILD is growing bigger: There is an alteration going on in that organism. But now we all realize that when we talk about the approaching ambulance, we do not intend to say that the ambulance is altering its size or the sound is altering its volume: We do NOT attribute a change of size to the ambulance itself: We believe the ambulance is not undergoing any such a change.

Is there any truth to such a belief? Of course! The ambulance itself is the ambulance we know by touch, the structure we can get in and drive, and so forth. The real size of the ambulance is the one we know by touch and when we are at a tangible distance from the amlulance. So, presently "THE ambulance" (the real ambulance) appears larger and the sound appears larger, but such perceptions are not true knowledge of the ambulance itself.

The moment we admit of a distinction betwee a reality and an appearence of a reality, we have a problem in our hands: HOW does an appearence occur? Somebody is coming up with a theory. As a matter of fact, there are two or three theories concerning appearences... and every theorizer believs that he has solved the problem.

The ambulance is approaching, and I notice not only an increase in the size of the ambulance and the sound, but an an increase in pitch: a High D and higher and higher pitches: A sliding increase with point called D, D-Sharp, E, F, G-Flat, F-Sharp, G, etc. etc., without respect for the equally-tempered scale that some musicians use. Eloi, Eloi, I cry out as the ambulance passes by me. Now there is a downward slide in the pitch of the sound I hear, toward High D, as then ambulance and the sound fade away.

Doppler and other humans have said: What occurs outside the ear is a mechanical vibration or wave of the air: The siren sets the air vibrating. Each pulse results in a wave. The time between each pulse corresponds to the lenth between two disturbances in the air. So, one can calculate wave-length [distance between two disturbances] from the emission frequency [number of pulses per second] and the speed of sound [distance covered in one second]. There is a formula that comprehends wave-length, frequency, and speed of sound.

Now, in a given medium under the same conditions [air at a certain temperature and pressure], speed of sound is constant.

Given a constant speed of sound, a constant frequency (the frequency of emission in our siren), we can mathematically determine the wave-length of the sound waves -- the acoustic air-waves [not winds or air currents].

We know from the stationary ambulance that the siren's sound-frequency F
was what the technician hears as the High D. The names are different, the vocabulary is different, because Freq. refers to a physical event: the occurrence of pulses which can be counted and, therefore are expressible by a number, and clock-time units can be heard or seen and can be counted. Thus, the concept of "pulses per second" is descriptive of an audible or visual physical event. When we name tones that we hear, we are nameing precisely what we experience, not units of anything that we can count.

And yet Doppler and others after him ASSUME that a siren-tone I hear is the very same reality as the emitted pulses in a unit of time. They assume that what is heard is the sounding siren (the sound which is being emitted at the siren). Why? the Lord know why, because, when it comes to considering the increasing volume of the ambulance, neither they nor anybody else believes that he is seeing the real abulance itself, that the ambulance is increasing in size. Nor does he or others believe that the volume of the sound is itself increasing.

What is called the Doppler Effect is really this Doppler Theory: When a sound-source approaches an object or observer, the wave-length of the sound moving in the direction of the sound-source is altered in a decreasing way (and that's why one hears higher and higher pitches); when a sound-source moves away from an object or observer, then the wave-lenghth of the sound is altered in a increasing way (and that's why one hears lower and lower pitches).

The Doppler Theory identifies the frequency of a sound and the pitch of a sound. From the fact of pitch alteration he infers that there is a wave-length alteration in the sound itself, and then explains why there is a pitch alteration.

There are steps in between the above-named deeds. Start with the fact of pitch alteration -- what I hear when the ambulance gets closer and then gets father away. Now, if the speed of sound is constant and the frequency of emission is constant, the only thing that must occur, between the emission and the perception, is an alteration in the length of the waves [or the frequency of the mechanically vibrating air]. Once frequency and pitch are identified, there is no escaping of the necessary conclusion that WAVE-LENGTH is objectively altered. [I am studying the mental behavior of some scientists; I am not doing physics, in case any reader is bewildered.]

There is no empirical evidence or any test that shows that the wave-length of the sound in question is actually altered when an ambulance is moving. The wave-length alteration is inferred from that freq--veloc.-waveleng formula, which is itself correct. Nobody has ever critized Doppler because the potential critics thought in the same way that Doppler did. The tone (with a certain pitch) which one hears is an objective reality, something that occurs outside the ear. What lies outside the ear, or at least at the source, is in terms of frequency. This is like believing that the star I see in the sky {which took a million years to stimulate my eyes} is the star which emitted the light-waves which are reaching me now. The presently seen star is identifield with the ancient wave-emitting star. This is the rationality insanity which is at work.

Once the Doppler Theory appeared, there had to be another theory which answers the question: How or why do the sound-waves undergo wave-length alterations when a sound-source is in motion. This is an issue of physics which did not require genial minds to solve.

I will have some fun this this in Chapter 3.

Godless Wonder

Our epistemological project is to construct a theory which explains the data presented by our senses, which is the only data we have.

Merely pointing out that we cannot prove that our sense data corresponds directly with some One True Objective Reality, which I think is what your essay is trying to do, isn't anything new, and doesn't add or subtract credence to/from any particular theory which explains our sense data.

Knowledge and reality are defined by our sense data. Our senses are authoritative in that they are the only thing we have to examine.

What the heck is this doing in the Evolution forum?

RGD

It probably should be in the science and skepticism forum. This is a thread started by Amedeo because he's convinced that none of us know the difference between a fact and a theory, and our theories about the Big Bang are all wrong.

Amedeo

MODERATOR(s)

Please tranfer my post to the SCIENCE section, where I had intended to post it.

Thank you.

Roland98

All theirs.

Duck!

Is anyone else reminded of the scene in Father Ted with Ted trying to explain the difference between "near" and "far away" to Dougal, with the toy farm animals?


Duck!

RGD

I've never seen it. Sorry. But I do wish he would be more concise. Why spend five hundred words to say something when five will do?

Amedeo

I am sorry you did not address anything that I claimed to be a fact or look into any movement of the mind that rises from facts to theory (such as Doppler's).

I have not been engaging [here] in any project to explain sense-data. What is there to explain? According to you, knowledge [true knowledge, I presume] and reality are defined by our sense data, and in fact so they have been untill the rise of critical thinking more than 2000 years ago, and still are for the majority of the population. (When you know the truth, you do not engage in investigations, expnations, etc., of what you have already attained.)

If you read my post, you realize that that the judgement, "The wavelength of a wave, after it is emitted, is altered by the direction in which a sound-source moves" is not a statement of a sense datum -- it is not an empirical judgement. So, if you are interested in defining reality by sense-data, well, that judgment does not provide you a datum that you could utilize. (What I have shown is that a proposition which claims to be scientific, and most people believe in, has no empirical foundation. As far as I know, all orthodox scientists believe in Doppler in the same way that some other people believes in preachers of a divine cause. Scientists may subscribe to the theory of true knowldge you stated, by such a belief does not empower them to recognized false judgments.

As for the theory itself that you proposed, you did practically the same thing that young Theaetetus said to Socrates [in Plato's dialogue named after the young man]. So, all I have to do is give you the Socratic response, though I'll be using my own examples.

I just finished saying that if you stand at a corner and see an ambulance approaching, it grows bigger and bigger. Let us suppose that when it passes by you, it is as high as you. Then its size dwindles again. Neither you nor anybody else would claim that the ambulance is your size some time, and that it is smaller at other times. You yourself have driven an ambulance many times, and youy know that it does not keep on changing size. But wait. When you look at it and it is about a half you size, then THIS SENSE DATUM is false. At least this is the case that you do not define its reality by that sense datum.

Now, for other reasons I need not repeat, you assume the the visual size you have of the ambulance when it is next to you IS its real size; that is, the sense datum in the proximity of the ambulance gives you true knowledge. But is that the case? No; it isn't. One visual sensation has no priviledge over another visual sensation. (There are extraneous reasons for your attributing a priviledge to one sensation.) Suppose I give you the photograph of a strange object. Then I say to you, here is a photo of the thing I took when I walked 50 feet away. So, now you have two visual data of the object. One sense-datum tells you that it has size 1; the other sense-datum tells you that it has size 3/4.

You understand that ONE and the same thing cannot be both 1 and 3/4, but it is empirically true. So, by YOUR theory of true knowledge you must say: The object is really 1 in size and it also really 3/4 in size. / Unfortunately for you, the sense-data did not provide you with a knowledge of the object itself.
(I am sure that by now, you have rejected the consequences of your truth theory, but you hold on to the theory and create a new theory to EXPLAIN things are different from the way they are perceived. Wake up; it's your theory of true knowledge that has to be dumped! This is like the stunt of Philo The Jew who came to know that the Bible has false statements, but instead of dumpiong the Bible as a "book of truth," he invented a theory to explain away the false statements: The Bible has to be read metaphorically, not literally. This was a stroke of genius which has still multitudes of Christians hooked to a book of fables and false judgements. Needless to say, what was really dumped was rationality.)

Duck!

Agreed. The following paragraph:

Could easily have been condensed to:
The siren of the ambulance continuously emits a tone of frequency f.

BTW, f is the standard symbol for frequency.

To be honest, the whole opening post seems to be an overly complicated and very confused description and questioning of the Doppler effect, which is a pretty simple phenomenon to understand.


Duck!

Godless Wonder

Which was why I made the (apparent) mistake of concluding that that was not what it was really about, and that what it was really about was an attack on sense data derived "knowledge" which can't be proven to reflect some external reality not directly accessible.

My position on that BTW, is not that sense data accurately reflects an external "True" reality, but rather than the only meaningful knowledge we can talk about is a reflection of our senses. We can't know this external True Reality, and it is meaningless to talk about knowing it. The only knowledge there is is that which is a reflection of sense data. Sense data necessarily defines that which we call knowledge.

But, apparently that's not what this thread is about. I have no idea what it's about.