Scientific Theories?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: I see that F = ma does indeed work here, but it's not quite as obvious as I thought.

But the relationship in question, i.e. F=ma, was spectacularly obvious. Any guy on the street can see it.

The model comes with its falsifiability branded on the packaging. There's no guarantee that all purchasers will be able to derive valid hypotheses or devise valid experiments but the falsifiability comes in the box.

Surface Detail wrote: Still, not to be discouraged,

...and still not starting with the model...

Surface Detail wrote: I propose a new test.

...and I say "Whoa, easy there tiger. A test of what hypothesis?"

This is where you explain the prediction of nature you derived from the model (and briefly your derivation) for which the gyroscope test would make a valid experiment.

You have to do that first.

Surface Detail wrote: I've got one of these spinning things - a gyroscope. I spin it up to speed and set it down on the table at an angle. I expect that, when I let it go, it'll fall to the table as the force of gravity acts on it. It doesn't! Instead, it starts to circle round. It even does this in a vacuum! Why is F = ma not working? Surely this has falsified Newton's second law! Or has it?

You might very well predict the correct result when you derive your hypothesis from the model.. If not, you'll know what to look for when reviewing your test results and when you form a second test.

Surface Detail wrote:Let me rephrase then.

We're talking about falsifying Newton's second law, F = ma, which you claim should be valid under all conditions.

Surface Detail wrote:The hypothesis: Given the force of gravity acting downwards, the top of a gyro set down at an angle on a table top should, in accordance with F = ma, accelerate downwards until it hits the table. That is, the gyro should fall over.

Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.

Tim the plumber wrote:
His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious.

Tim the plumber wrote: Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

Tim the plumber wrote: I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

Tim the plumber wrote: There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

Tim the plumber wrote:To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.

His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.

His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Yes, indeed, that was what I (Surface Detail) was working towards. It isn't always obvious that a particular theory is falsifiable or when it has been falsified. The latter point was what I was illustrating with the gyroscope experiment. To the casual observer, this does appear to falsify Newton's second law, and you need a pretty good understanding of mechanics to understand why it doesn't.

As any student of physics will know, correctly predicting the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit that were one of early triumphs of Einstein's theory of special relativity that succeeded Newton's laws. This observation did indeed falsify Newton's laws of motion. But, of course, this doesn't mean that Newton's laws aren't still useful!

As regards falsifiability, I'd ask how you'd know that astrology, for example, isn't falsifiable. It does, after all, make predictions, and those predictions sometimes come true. Do the predictions that don't pan out falsify astrology, or is it more complicated than we think, like the gyroscope? What is the essential difference between astrology and Newton's laws?

(Just to clarify: Of course I don't believe in Astrology; this is just for the sake of argument!)

So we pick one, say, the second, and we seriously doubt this F=ma bullshit. We think "Nature doesn't work this way ALL the time!" so we aim to find an example in nature that does not adhere to F=ma. So we start developing an hypothesis that we think doesn't hold up.

"Acceptance" is subjective. I can only speak for me.

All of your wording in your questions implies there is some sort of governing body that determines all these subjective decisions for us and decides what is science

i.e. your questions are all loaded with a fundamental error that reveals a misunderstanding on your part of what science is and "how it all works."

The best answer I can give you is that I certainly accept the number I computed for my purposes. If the day ever comes that I need to chart out a path for my shuttle ride to Pluto I will revisit my "acceptance" of that number.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: It's good to see you've now acknowledged that falsification isn't quite such a straightforward process.

Hold on. You're shifting semantics all of a sudden. I'm getting the impression you are just trying to get me to be "wrong" about something.

Our discussion began with falsifiability being obvious. You never acknowledged that.

Falsifiability is one absolute requirement for science and it is obvious if a model has it.

Falsification is never guaranteed.

Do you acknowledge and agree or not?

Surface Detail wrote: Anyway, on to the third test. The smart people who understand gyroscopes and tell us that they don't actually falsify Newton's laws have observed something that is bothering them. The perihelion of Mercury's orbit isn't precessing as it should according to Newton's laws.

You used the word "bothered." This tells me you're taking this right out of an overhyped article by a writer who understands nothing of the topic.

Just for grins, could you provide me the link to that article. It will probably be good for a chuckle.

His point (Hank's) is that sometimes falsifyability is not obvious. Sometimes it is easy to see that the theory has fallen down sometimes not so. Sometimes it even looks like the theory is broken when it is not.

I very much doubt that his post was taken from any other source than his own head.

There is the option of believing everthing which is wrong. There is the option of doubting everything. This is equally wrong but in the other direction. Then there is any level of doubt/skeptisim between 5% and 95% which will come to the same sensable conclusions, generally.

To do the sensable method you will need to not talk about stuff you don't understand.

Yes, indeed, that was what I (Surface Detail) was working towards. It isn't always obvious that a particular theory is falsifiable or when it has been falsified. The latter point was what I was illustrating with the gyroscope experiment. To the casual observer, this does appear to falsify Newton's second law, and you need a pretty good understanding of mechanics to understand why it doesn't.

As any student of physics will know, correctly predicting the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit that were one of early triumphs of Einstein's theory of special relativity that succeeded Newton's laws. This observation did indeed falsify Newton's laws of motion. But, of course, this doesn't mean that Newton's laws aren't still useful! [ I think it's still true that f=ma but the time bit if a is all complex. Newtons laws hold true but time moves at different speeds, just to make our heads spin.]

As regards falsifiability, I'd ask how you'd know that astrology, for example, isn't falsifiable. It does, after all, make predictions, and those predictions sometimes come true. Do the predictions that don't pan out falsify astrology, or is it more complicated than we think, like the gyroscope? What is the essential difference between astrology and Newton's laws?

(Just to clarify: Of course I don't believe in Astrology; this is just for the sake of argument!)

Tim the plumber wrote:If astrology made predicttions that were both unexpected and turned out to be accurate more often than expected it would be reasonable to believe in it.

Tim the plumber wrote: Given that the AGW thing has made predictions so wide that only a cooling of the earth would be outside it's range the predictions it has made are not very unexpected.