Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 07-12-2002, 11:07 AM

Welcome new lurker - you can introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a> if you like, or you can lurk away!

scigirl

Shadowy Man · 07-12-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:
A long time ago, when I was a graduate student working on my Ph.D. in physics, I had to grade kiddy physics papers. If a student got the right answer to the question, but for the wrong reasons I gave them no credit. This distressed many students, and I gained the reputation of being a hard ass. Some of the methods they used were really very creative, but I would not budge. Now in my old age, I realize that I was too hard on those poor students. What they were doing is exactly what science does everyday.

I, too, was a graduate student grading "kiddy" physics papers. I, too, gave basically no credit for getting the right answer for the wrong reasons. But I disagree with you about being too hard on them. What they were doing is not what science does everyday. Most everyday, I don't know what the answer is to my scientific research, so getting the "right" answer is not an issue. Using the right methods is!

Starboy · 07-12-2002, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:


I, too, was a graduate student grading "kiddy" physics papers. I, too, gave basically no credit for getting the right answer for the wrong reasons. But I disagree with you about being too hard on them. What they were doing is not what science does everyday. Most everyday, I don't know what the answer is to my scientific research, so getting the "right" answer is not an issue. Using the right methods is!

What I was trying to say, is that science basically gets the right answer for the wrong reasons. An example is Newtonian physics. There are many areas where it gives very good agreement with measurement, but is now known to be incorrect. In those years when Newtonian physics had its day everyone thought that they were getting the right answer for the right reasons. Today we know better. Does anyone know for sure if the current crop of theories will do better than Newtonian physics? If I were a betting man, I would wager against them, if I am right, then its deja vu all over again!

Starboy

Starboy · 07-12-2002, 12:10 PM

I would also like to add, that in my opionion, thinking of science in this way is rather liberating. It allows you to start thinking about the universe in all sorts of interesting ways.

Starboy

Shadowy Man · 07-16-2002, 01:49 PM

Newtonian physics isn't incorrect. It just has limited regimes in which it is "correct".

But one shouldn't think of physics as "correct" or "incorrect" anyway, just as how accurate a model it is of what is really going on.

Starboy · 07-16-2002, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
Newtonian physics isn't incorrect. It just has limited regimes in which it is "correct".

But one shouldn't think of physics as "correct" or "incorrect" anyway, just as how accurate a model it is of what is really going on.

Hi Shadowy Man,

Couldn�t agree more. Science is not about the truth, but about what works. I simply used the term �correct� and �incorrect� in the context of thinking of science as the �truth�. Have you read the entire thread?

Starboy

Starboy · 07-16-2002, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
Newtonian physics isn't incorrect. It just has limited regimes in which it is "correct".

But one shouldn't think of physics as "correct" or "incorrect" anyway, just as how accurate a model it is of what is really going on.

You are right. What I should have said was that Newtonian physics (NP) is superceded by special relativity (SR) in the sense that it can be shown that SR -> NP when v << c. So in the day when NP was thought to be the theory of everything that moves, that was clearly incorrect.

Starboy

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Shadowy Man · 07-16-2002, 06:28 PM

Maybe I've studied too much physics and astronomy, but I no longer think of physics as offering "truth". Physics is a model. A model that happens to work exceedingly well. Perhaps at some point our physics is indistinguishable from "truth".

Remember what the Buddha said: "When I point my finger at the moon, don't mistake my finger for the moon."

Starboy · 07-16-2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
Maybe I've studied too much physics and astronomy, but I no longer think of physics as offering "truth". Physics is a model. A model that happens to work exceedingly well. Perhaps at some point our physics is indistinguishable from "truth".

Remember what the Buddha said: "When I point my finger at the moon, don't mistake my finger for the moon."

I feel the same way, however I extend this feeling to all of science, biology included.

Hey Shadowy man, have you been following the MOND theory? Has there been any application of it in your field?

Starboy

Shadowy Man · 07-17-2002, 06:05 AM

I happen to like MOND. Not that I know much about the details, but I've always been bothered by dark matter. I like MOND because someone is thinking outside of the current paradigm.

In my opinion, dark matter is one of the greatest
problems in astrophysics today. It's all fine and dandy to suggest some unseen matter, whose distribution can be anything you like in order to explain what we see, but no one has a clue as to what it is.

There's an article in the recent Sci-Am about MOND. I've just started to read it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2002, 11:07 AM	#11
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Welcome new lurker - you can introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a> if you like, or you can lurk away! scigirl

07-12-2002, 12:10 PM	#14
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	I would also like to add, that in my opionion, thinking of science in this way is rather liberating. It allows you to start thinking about the universe in all sorts of interesting ways. Starboy

07-16-2002, 01:49 PM	#15
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Newtonian physics isn't incorrect. It just has limited regimes in which it is "correct". But one shouldn't think of physics as "correct" or "incorrect" anyway, just as how accurate a model it is of what is really going on.

07-16-2002, 06:28 PM	#18
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Maybe I've studied too much physics and astronomy, but I no longer think of physics as offering "truth". Physics is a model. A model that happens to work exceedingly well. Perhaps at some point our physics is indistinguishable from "truth". Remember what the Buddha said: "When I point my finger at the moon, don't mistake my finger for the moon."

07-17-2002, 06:05 AM	#20
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	I happen to like MOND. Not that I know much about the details, but I've always been bothered by dark matter. I like MOND because someone is thinking outside of the current paradigm. In my opinion, dark matter is one of the greatest problems in astrophysics today. It's all fine and dandy to suggest some unseen matter, whose distribution can be anything you like in order to explain what we see, but no one has a clue as to what it is. There's an article in the recent Sci-Am about MOND. I've just started to read it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.