The Progressive Niceness of Science

An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.

John Savard

On Saturday, 2 December 2017 18:45:44 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.

John Savard

Science has the unique advantage of pluralism and growing equality on the human hierarchical scale.
No longer can a rich, pompous, white ass, with a Professorship, poo poo a distant Chinese, Indian or African upstart with a much better idea.
The upstart is quite probably leading the team in the nearest university.
Despite not having enjoyed the rich kid's, monopolistic, fast track to guaranteed academia.

I find it gratifying that so many unfamiliar sounding names are listed amongst the credits in the publication of so many of today's remarkable scientific breakthroughs.
If only such high standards of true multiculturalism, mutual respect and internationalism existed in everyday life.
Imagine what we could achieve in a relatively short time compared with the grudging misery of religious, class, race, tribal and national rigidity.

Where one is born is an accident of fate over which the new generations has absolutely zero choice or effect.
Education is still largely about filtering out and exclusivity rather than achieving true inclusivity.

Imagine what individually tailored, universal education for all, right around the globe, including girls of course, could achieve in a very short time.
Imagine what the countless poor of the world could bring to the table with the right education.
Imagine what infinite wealth, of new ideas, they could bring to an equally rewarded, global society of true equals.

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:45:44 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov

Asimov was MUCH more than a science fiction writer. He was also a
biochemist and a writer of technical books and essays, the above being
one such. He was also a polymath (or as close to one as we're likely
to find in the present era).

that explains why, although the scientific theories of today will
doubtless be improved upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted
as a very close approach to truth, superior to that which we had in
the past.

John Savard

I think he was right about many of the basic building blocks; however,
there are still some important things to hash out. After all, matter
seems to account for a only a minor part of the cosmos. There are some
universe-shaking things yet to discover. One of them is the problem of
dark matter. Another is the incompatibility of general relativity and
quantum electrodynamics: once a viable quantum gravity theory is achieved,
it will drastically change our conception of cosmology, IMHO.

Gary

On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 09:45:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov that
explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be improved
upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close approach to truth,
superior to that which we had in the past.

It's a point I've made often, that some people have problems with: it
appears that we have reached the point where we substantively
understand the Universe and have an accurate model of reality. Some
people like to compare that to past aphorisms about everything useful
having been invented or similar, but the fact is, when we look at the
growth of knowledge, the big stuff is looking pretty solid. I can't
think of a major theory that has been overturned in the last century
or so. We look at all the core ideas of physics and all we see is more
and more support from additional independent lines of evidence. And
where new concepts have come along- dark energy and dark matter are
good examples- we don't see them replacing the theories we already
worked with, but simply refining them. (I increasingly prefer not to
look at science in terms of "theories", but rather in terms of
"models", which are how we understand complex systems which are
described by multiple individual theories.)

I tend to view our understanding now as looking like a jigsaw puzzle.
There are still lots of missing pieces, but the landscape we see in
the many pieces which are already in place isn't going to somehow
change into something different as we continue to add pieces.

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 3:35:28 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I can't
think of a major theory that has been overturned in the last century
or so.

You remind me of the brexiteers - completely delusional within a very small world which, by the way, you are entitled to.

A theory is a formalized academic opinion, no more or no less, so it is where the opinion on attraction meets astronomical insight and methods originating with Newton where all other opinions live or die.

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 6:18:19 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Asimov was MUCH more than a science fiction writer.

That's true, but that particular pecadillo is why a certain poster here will never
listen to him...

John Savard

The theories of the last 300 years can't be overturned because there is nothing there to overturn outside the rough guiding principle that creates formalized academic opinions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

It is fun going through the ins and outs how attraction morphed into universal qualities by starting with how the Earth attracts an apple and ending with the Sun attracting the Earth but unfortunately the whole scheme was going to end as it has.

Quadibloc:
An Ars Technica article gave me this link:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

which is an essay by the (horrors!) _science fiction_ writer Isaac Asimov
that explains why, although the scientific theories of today will doubtless be
improved upon in the future, they can indeed be accepted as a very close
approach to truth, superior to that which we had in the past.

Chris L Peterson:
It's a point I've made often, that some people have problems with: it
appears that we have reached the point where we substantively
understand the Universe and have an accurate model of reality. Some
people like to compare that to past aphorisms about everything useful
having been invented or similar, but the fact is, when we look at the
growth of knowledge, the big stuff is looking pretty solid. I can't
think of a major theory that has been overturned in the last century
or so. We look at all the core ideas of physics and all we see is more
and more support from additional independent lines of evidence. And
where new concepts have come along- dark energy and dark matter are
good examples- we don't see them replacing the theories we already
worked with, but simply refining them. (I increasingly prefer not to
look at science in terms of "theories", but rather in terms of
"models", which are how we understand complex systems which are
described by multiple individual theories.)

I tend to view our understanding now as looking like a jigsaw puzzle.
There are still lots of missing pieces, but the landscape we see in
the many pieces which are already in place isn't going to somehow
change into something different as we continue to add pieces.

True, and enough big questions remain unanswered to keep physicists
busy for a little while yet. QM: Copenhagen, Many Worlds, or other?
Particles or Strings?

Quantum gravity or no? Freeman Dyson said on that subject "[Brian]
Greene takes it for granted, and here the great majority of physicists
agree with him, that the division of physics into separate theories for
large and small objects is unacceptable ... Greene believes that there
is an urgent need to find a theory of quantum gravity that applies to
large and small objects alike. ... As a conservative, I do not agree
that a division of physics into separate theories for large and small
is unacceptable. I am happy with the situation in which we have lived
for the last eighty years, with separate theories for the classical
world of stars and planets and the quantum world of atoms and
electrons. ‹ ³The World on a String,² New York Review of Books, May 13,
2004."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Gary Harnagel:
...There are some
universe-shaking things yet to discover. One of them is the problem of
dark matter. Another is the incompatibility of general relativity and
quantum electrodynamics: once a viable quantum gravity theory is achieved,
it will drastically change our conception of cosmology, IMHO.

When do you reckon that will happen?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

" Oh what a tangled web..."

By creating a web of words based on universal attraction and then calling it gravity, quantum gravity or whatever, the proponents are caught in the web itself. From the outside it is an anachronism , a throwback to a time before the internet, powerful imaging and graphics.

Magnetism is a visible form of attraction but with the empirical 'gravity' getting in the way, the ability to use electromagnetic analogies to large scale objects is lost. I often though it was a matter of people making the transition to adults but found out it is a matter of people dying along with their ideologies and although sad, that is the way it may happen.