How to spot bad science.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Dis
not that I know of. But I think I'll do it just for the hell of it.

God created the earth. Prove me wrong.

No Santa Claus did. Prove me wrong.

It is the person who makes a claim who have to back it up. Especially when it is a non-falsifiable claim such as "God created the earth".

[KrazyHorse]

When you include "probably", it accepts a measure of doubt inherent to any such claim

Don't be such a ****ing positivist. I accept that you probably exist. My name is probably [redacted]. etc. etc.

Just because I put unnecessary qualifiers into my speech doesn't mean that Jon's being silly for not doing so.

It's been a hundred years since Einstein. The closest anybody's come to an individual major discovery since then is probably Feynman (contributions to QFT), and even he worked in a university environment.

There's good reason to think that there will never be another Newton or Einstein. Or even a Feynman, Heisenberg, Pauli or (insert any of half a dozen 19th century physicists here).

It's been almost 60 years since even a significant discovery was made by an individual working basically alone. We've had massive technical and theoretical advance since then. The number of working physicists has increased dramatically. But there's good reason to think that, even though it would be silly to claim that all the advances have been made, all the easy advances have been made.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
For many of my statements on forums, 99% = 100%.

Ok, you have further qualified your statement finally. Given the nature of your qualification, you have admitted I was correct. Thank you. In the future if you wish to be given leeway in such matters, you probably shouldn't insult the person you wish to allow you said leeway.

Now what is your evidence that the probability is 99% sure? Or is this again just an unsupported generalization on your part?

Err, I explicitly made a point about the difference between theory and experiment. Please think before replying.

I read your post entirely before responding (several times), and took into account everything you've said in this thread when formulating my response. Your original statement was:

"All the examples of older Physicists couldn't happen now adays."

You offered the evidence about experimentation not being the realm of solo researchers for over 100 years as support for your claims. Notice your original claim does not qualify as pertaining only to experimental research.

Notice also my statement:

"But some of those who brought forward theories you are saying "couldn't happen" entered the spotlight within that timeframe. How is it possible that they existed in contradiction to your "evidence"?

Emphasis added...

I am illustrating the incongruity between your statement, the "evidence" you are offering to support it, and reality. The evidence you have offered obviously does not support your claim that it "couldn't happen".

Have you ever worked in a theory group? Have you ever worked in an experimental group? Have you talked to people who have worked in those sort of groups and asked how they work? That is what my 'no clue' is based on.

You are asking? Are you not sure? You have admitted that your statement was not based on evidence. Thanks.

I am not a physicist, and don't pretend to be. The answers are no, no, yes. If, as you insinuate, the answer to those questions reveal the level of "clue" a person would have (highly debateable), that would thus mean I have an understanding greater than nil, and that your "no clue" is fallacious.

I don't enter physics discussions, and you don't seem to see that this isn't a physics discussion either... at least unless you can propose/find a physics theory that would support your assertions.

[KrazyHorse]

When you look back at the history of physics what you see is

a) A trend toward decreasing "great" accomplishments. Starting with Newton these were common in the 18th century, occasional in the 19th and happened only once in the 20th (1915, invention of GR...not invention of SR)

b) A trend toward a larger and larger group of extremely smart people working on problems. At any one time in the 18th century there might have been a couple of dozen people working who could have made it as physicists today. Maybe hundreds in the 19th. Thousands in the early twentieth. Tens of thousands into today. What dictated this was economics, i.e. the affordability of education.

c) A trend toward greater and greater professionalism. The productive lifetime of physicists has continued to shrink on both ends (you need more learning today, cutting off the young end, and you need to be smarter, cutting off the old)

d) A trend toward more and more complicated equipment, more and more complicated theoretical constructs, greater specialisation and greater collaboration. Experiments today often involve the work of hundreds or thousands of physicists plus tens of thousands of technicians, engineers etc.

All of these trends are interrelated and should explain why physicists are skeptical of the "lone genius" expectation on the part of the public.

People aren't getting smarter fast enough to keep up with the work our predecessors have done. Unless there's some sort of quantum leap in human intellect we're going to continue in the trends I listed.

[Jon Miller]

I asked retorically. I already knew the answer. (for all intents and purposes, no)

Experiments started out being the realm of one person, they have needed larger and larger numbers to be successful, etc. Currently, to really understand something takes many groups with many members (sometimes 1000s) eacho working for years. This has been a pretty constant progression.

Despite the fact that theory has traditionally needed fewer people, it has also had a progression, just a bit delayed compared to experiments. Early broad based theories were developed by a single person. Later, theories were developed by small groups. Einstien was almost a throwback, being the last single person who developed an important theory. Currently it has continued progressing to larger and larger amounts of people needing to work together to advance the field. Sure, small peices are still done by small groups, but the major things are done by many small groups. If you sit on something to try and understand it, some other group will get it out before you.

Jon Miller

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Don't be such a ****ing positivist. I accept that you probably exist. My name is probably Matthew McEvoy. etc. etc.

Would you say the likelyhood that you or I exist is the same as the likelyhood that no "new Einstein" will ever show up?

One is as evident as anything can be, the other quite a bit more unsure I'd say.

Just because I put unnecessary qualifiers into my speech doesn't mean that Jon's being silly for not doing so.

"Silly" is my analysis. It is inherently a personal interpretation. I will readily admit it is not a universal truth, just opinion on my part. If you wish to assert that properly qualifying your statements is unnecessary to making a technically correct statement, feel free.

Jon made technically incorrect statements which is what I have been addressing for the most part. I wouldn't mind the technicalities, especially since I intially failed to address the same technicality in my statement... quite sad that I have to point that out to the both of you... except he deemed it necessary to be pretentious about it and claim I have no clue.

As for whether the spirit of his statements, and your statements, are correct or not, time will tell. I don't know for sure, modern physics may be so advanced as to preclude any major advances, it may also be just a drop in the ocean relatively speaking to what humanity will eventually achieve. How that will be achieved is speculation upon speculation. We have no evidence to prove the negative, and never can unless we reach omniscience.

But there's good reason to think that, even though it would be silly to claim that all the advances have been made, all the easy advances have been made.

"Good reason to think that..." is another qualifier. Would you say without any qualification that all the "easy" advances have been made? In the same light, would you say all the "accidental" or "overlooked" type of discoveries have also already been made?

How would you suggest to prove that potentially "overlooked" discoveries have not been overlooked? Their very nature (if they exist) does not lend itself to such a proof.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
Would you say the likelyhood that you or I exist is the same as the likelyhood that no "new Einstein" will ever show up?

Many Einstein's have showed up. And have added a lot to physics. The point is that they can't (99+%) create a new field.

Neither I nor KrazyHorse are saying that there will be no more major advances. This is one of the misunderstandings that you keep harping on, and which is why I don't feel the need to be 100% correct in my statements, since you misinterpret them anyways.

The point is that there won't be one person who makes the major advances. In fact, there have been major advances since Einstein (KH has listed some of them).

JM

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How to spot bad science.

Originally posted by Doddler


1) Leave public policy to the politicians and voters.

That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. The politicians and voters both need to be educated as to the scientific facts so that they can make informed decisions.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I asked retorically. I already knew the answer. (for all intents and purposes, no)

No, no, yes. Perhaps in physics you can go with 2/3 as "for all intents and purposes"... but if you meant to imply that the third question is irrellevent, then why did you ask it?

Of course you ignored my points about how such a line of questioning was irrellevent to whether your statements were correct.

And if I may point out... you have not at all addressed the extent of my understanding within those categories as to which you have inquired, settling for a simple boolean response. What the extent my experience may or may not be, and whether or not it would qualify as befitting of respect in your eyes, it is hillarious that you have made your assertions about it before having evidence to formulate a position off of.

Your explainations that follow only exhibit the fallacious nature of the assumptions you have made.

Experiments started out being the realm of one person, they have needed larger and larger numbers to be successful, etc. Currently, to really understand something takes many groups with many members (sometimes 1000s) eacho working for years. This has been a pretty constant progression.

Despite the fact that theory has traditionally needed fewer people, it has also had a progression, just a bit delayed compared to experiments. Early broad based theories were developed by a single person. Later, theories were developed by small groups. Einstien was almost a throwback, being the last single person who developed an important theory. Currently it has continued progressing to larger and larger amounts of people needing to work together to advance the field. Sure, small peices are still done by small groups, but the major things are done by many small groups. If you sit on something to try and understand it, some other group will get it out before you.

I am quite aware of all you have mentioned BTW, even though I am surely not an expert on physics. I like history, reading in general, and reading up on physics even. And just as importantly, also payed rather close attention to the last such debate here in the OT. Everything you are saying here is just redundancy that anyone who browses this forum consistantly should be assumed to have had already available. I have also not disputed it whatsoever.

Many Einstein's have showed up. And have added a lot to physics. The point is that they can't (99+%) create a new field.

We may differ about the likelyhood, but we agree that it is not supportable to say that it will definitely not happen. I have no problem with your statement as currently qualified, the (lack of) surity is surely not something that can be determined accurately. So I would not dispute your estimate, as there's nothing but other estimates to compare it to.

Neither I nor KrazyHorse are saying that there will be no more major advances. This is one of the misunderstandings that you keep harping on, and which is why I don't feel the need to be 100% correct in my statements, since you misinterpret them anyways.

The statement you quoted was specifically dealing with "new Einstein", which was KH's terminology, and so if you think it is an inaccurate description, take it up with him. I was not saying that our discussion is dealing simply with major advances, and at no point have made that assertion. If you disagree and wish to discuss a specific case where you assert I have, please respond to it specifically.

Simply claiming I "keep harping on" it simply being an issue of "no more major advances", is not a supported assertion given the statements you have referenced. (And in looking back over the thread I can't find any that I have made that would support it.)

The point is that there won't be one person who makes the major advances. In fact, there have been major advances since Einstein (KH has listed some of them).

You mean, there won't (99+%)... right?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson

As for whether the spirit of his statements, and your statements, are correct or not, time will tell. I don't know for sure, modern physics may be so advanced as to preclude any major advances, it may also be just a drop in the ocean relatively speaking to what humanity will eventually achieve. How that will be achieved is speculation upon speculation. We have no evidence to prove the negative, and never can unless we reach omniscience.

How does this statement have anything at all to do with what I and KH is talking about ? This is what makes me think that you are talking to flowers, trees and bumble bees while I and KH are trying to discuss this with a man, who reads what we write and responds to it.

And if your Physics freinds ever suggest that they spend their time coming up with new results on their own, they are lying to you. Or not coming up with anything worth while. So what I assumed is no, no and no. And all your replied showed is that you might not be at fault for these misconceptions.

And I would say that the chances of any single person making a major discovery in physics in the future are so small to not require consideration. Based upon where physics is now, where it has been, and where it is going.

Jon Miller

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
How does this statement have anything at all to do with what I and KH is talking about ? This is what makes me think that you are talking to flowers, trees and bumble bees while I and KH are trying to discuss to a man, who reads what we write and responds to it.

You quoted it. The sentence after what you bolded.

By "How that will be achieved" I was referencing that we don't know if [the hypothetical advance] will come from one person's insight, or from other methods.

The portion you bolded was poorly qualified if the sentence is taken out of context, but the context offers qualification as well.

And if your Physics freinds ever suggest that they spend their time coming up with new results on their own, they are lying to you. Or not coming up with anything worth while. So what I assumed is no, no and no. And all your replied showed is that you might not be at fault for this misconceptions.

What you assumed was clearly wrong then. It's still no, no, and yes. (And you are still ignoring other methods in which knowledge can be obtained of course.)

I did not say anything about what the nature of that interaction was. (And... part of it was having read KH's and your posts in the other thread. So go ahead and claim such is not reliable if you wish. )

[Jon Miller]

Did you just completely ignore their experience then when you made your statements in favor of future one person major developements in physics? Have you read anything that suggests that physicists that are active and successful even work alone anymore? I am trying to understand you here.

Insight is important, yes. I never claimed it wouldn't be. I am claiming that it takes many people's insights...

Once more I say to you, you are showing you don't know how physicists work currently. This was the first thing I said to you, and this is what I have continued to say to you.

And physicists work this way because it is what gives the best results.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
There are observed phenomenon that haven't been explained yet, and you're already claiming to know the nature of all as-of-yet unobserved phenomenon.

How does this have anything to do with what we are discussing?

JM

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Did you just completely ignore their experience then when you made your statements in favor of future one person major developements in physics? Have you read anything that suggests that physicists that are active and successful even work alone anymore? I am trying to understand you here.

I ignored the unfounded (or unqualified) claims that it absolutely can't happen when allowing for it as a possibility.

Personally I would be suprised if a new field never opened up again due to an individual's unconventional insight. That's just my opinion. There's really no way to know whether it will happen or not, other than to wait and see.

Insight is important, yes. I never claimed it wouldn't be. I am claiming that it takes many people's insights...

And as we've agreed, there is a measure of doubt to that. One person's insight could potentially lead to a major advance still, even if you think that potential isn't worth considering... it's there.

Once more I say to you, you are showing you don't know how physicists work currently. This was the first thing I said to you, and this is what I have continued to say to you.

No. I accept what you and KH have said about how physicists work currently. As well as other authorities I know and trust on the subject. I have no reason not to. Nowhere have I claimed that it is otherwise, and nowhere have I addressed the efficiency of it or other potential methods.

I have addressed the potential, and you have agreed that there is potential. We disagree on probability.

And physicists work this way because it is what gives the best results.

And perhaps in the future there will be other methods which give the best results. It is not surely the way things will continue on forever. It's our best bet for now and the foreseable future I agree.

[Jon Miller]

If Physicists work together now, what makes you think that they won't work together in the future?

JM