Philosophy of Science never should have been created.

[ReinyDays]

You apparently don’t realize who said what I quoted.

It wasn’t Karl. It was Groucho. You know. The Marx Brother.

Did you miss the Horse Feathers reference? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Hey, good luck with that!

... another Marxism ...

 

[SavannahMann]

Did you miss the Horse Feathers reference? ...

I’m sorry. I didn’t make the connection.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

Was that in response to anyone actually asking, "Professor Feynman, why should we be careful about asking why questions?" or was he just dissembling to dazzle those believing critical thinking to be a sin? Style over substance? If it was such "an awesome explanation" why can't you (or I) remember any of it?

He pointed out that we often know beyond any reasonable doubt what will happen even if our knowledge of the why or how is not as solid. Science advanced much faster after breaking away from philosophy in the 17th century. Technological innovation is the ultimate purpose of science. Individual scientific advancements may not have immediate technological implications, except they usually do eventually have an impact on technology or at least lead to other scientific advancements that do.

1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Still working on finding out where all the anti-matter is ... I'll need a few more days ...

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem

home.cern

Besides, There's No Reason to Believe It Has to Equal the Amount of Matter

Distant galaxies go faster than the speed of light, because they represent to original matter that created this universe from another universe. That matter entered at the square of the speed of light. So, if anti-matter is looked for as an answer of what is drawing those galaxies, it isn't.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

He pointed out that we often know beyond any reasonable doubt what will happen even if our knowledge of the why or how is not as solid. Science advanced much faster after breaking away from philosophy in the 17th century. Technological innovation is the ultimate purpose of science. Individual scientific advancements may not have immediate technological implications, except they usually do eventually have an impact on technology or at least lead to other scientific advancements that do.

1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.

A Useless Regime Despises Utility

Here's a Unified Theory. Everything is related to the stagnancy of hereditary power, or at least we must consider its effect but it blocks us from that possible explanation. The birth-privileged controlled Natural Philosophy and Daddy's Money took care of their needs, so they diverted it to theory instead of practicality, which is still dragging down scientific productivity.

Also, they know that the development of natural resources creates class mobility and they must stamp that out. They can't survive in a society based on worth rather than birth.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He pointed out that we often know beyond any reasonable doubt what will happen even if our knowledge of the why or how is not as solid. Science advanced much faster after breaking away from philosophy in the 17th century. Technological innovation is the ultimate purpose of science. Individual scientific advancements may not have immediate technological implications, except they usually do eventually have an impact on technology or at least lead to other scientific advancements that do.

1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Besides, There's No Reason to Believe It Has to Equal the Amount of Matter

Distant galaxies go faster than the speed of light, because they represent to original matter that created this universe from another universe. That matter entered at the square of the speed of light. So, if anti-matter is looked for as an answer of what is drawing those galaxies, it isn't.

One highly plausible theory.

 

[Grumblenuts]

1. If it works, it works. If it don't, it don't.
2. Don't ask why, only ask how.
3. Don't waste time on pseudoproblems that you won't solve.

Scenario: In a Star Wars movie you see the Dark Side's TIE fighters attacking some allied spacecraft.. You hear pew, pew, , pew, pew, pew! Then witness the craft explode accompanied by a ka-BOOM!

Now despite knowing damn well there's no air out there in space to compress or rarify, these sound effects strike you as pleasingly fitting and intuitive. You never even consider how or why, it all seems so obvious.

1. It works, but it doesn't.
2. One really should ask both why and how.
3. Again, Feynman should never have pretended to even know what magnetism was, let alone how to explain it. He was simply stroking his ego in an entertaining manner for kicks and giggles. Style over substance. Same as Trump carnival barking to his many willing dupes.

Teehee hee! You're Fort Fun Indiana, aren't you?

 

[GuyOnInternet]

Scenario: In a Star Wars movie you see the Dark Side's TIE fighters attacking some allied spacecraft.. You hear pew, pew, , pew, pew, pew! Then witness the craft explode accompanied by a ka-BOOM!

Now despite knowing damn well there's no air out there in space to compress or rarify, these sound effects strike you as pleasingly fitting and intuitive. You never even consider how or why, it all seems so obvious.

1. It works, but it doesn't.
2. One really should ask both why and how.
3. Again, Feynman should never have pretended to even know what magnetism was, let alone how to explain it. He was simply stroking his ego in an entertaining manner for kicks and giggles. Style over substance. Same as Trump carnival barking to his many willing dupes.

Teehee hee! You're Fort Fun Indiana, aren't you?

Then why don'tthe Philosophers show the Scientists how it's done? Scientists are better at solving problems, philosophers are better at talking about how other people should solve problems. Also, a scientist would be more likely to understand that the ship would not explode like that in outer space than a liberal arts style critical thinker would.

 

[rupol2000]

Positivism

 

[Grumblenuts]

Positivism

I support that.

Then why don'tthe Philosophers show the Scientists how it's done?

It's not an either or. Philosophy is a science. Professional philosophers are scientists whether they know it or not. My personal experiences with Philosophy courses sucked. My early courses in Physics as well. That means nothing. So I had some shitty teachers? So has everyone. I'm sure I ended up taking on too much too soon. I'm still just trying to make sense of it all, mostly to sleep better and keep moving forward. I hope I help some people see things more clearly now and then. I have no other agenda.

 

[ReinyDays]

Besides, There's No Reason to Believe It Has to Equal the Amount of Matter

Yes, there is ... when we go to create mass in the lab, we always always always create two particles at a time ... one of matter and one of anti-matter ... every time ...

Pair production - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, there is ... when we go to create mass in the lab, we always always always create two particles at a time ... one of matter and one of anti-matter ... every time ...

Pair production - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL. Sure, if one suspends disbelief and buys QM / Standard Model physics completely. But then one must also believe space has properties and light energy transport ("photons") require no Aether medium.. both presumptions being plain nuts.

 

[ReinyDays]

LOL. Sure, if one suspends disbelief and buys QM / Standard Model physics completely. But then one must also believe space has properties and light energy transport ("photons") require no Aether medium.. both presumptions being plain nuts.

Do you have a counter-example to QM? ... or better, what is your alternate theory that explains absorption spectra? ...

What particle do we know of, and can experimentally demonstrate, that isn't in the Standard Model ... I'm not saying this is "THE TRUTH", just saying it perfectly predict our universe with the exception of gravity ...

Yeah, that's a GREAT BIG GIANT EXCEPTION ... hoot-and-nanny ... when we start ignoring gravity, we're in deep deep trouble ...

However, if you claim the universe is smooth, you'll have this problem to deal with:

Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you have a counter-example to QM? ... or better, what is your alternate theory that explains absorption spectra? ...

What particle do we know of, and can experimentally demonstrate, that isn't in the Standard Model ... I'm not saying this is "THE TRUTH", just saying it perfectly predict our universe with the exception of gravity ...

Yeah, that's a GREAT BIG GIANT EXCEPTION ... hoot-and-nanny ... when we start ignoring gravity, we're in deep deep trouble ...

However, if you claim the universe is smooth, you'll have this problem to deal with:

Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem is presuming everything to be particulate, e.g. "a photon," or wavelike for that matter, or anything between. Planck better resolved the character of light energy radiation mathematically, just as Einstein better resolved mass / energy equivalence. Light energy absorption is a different animal, inviting yet another round of atomistic guessing.

The "alternate theory that explains" it all is the same one they thought they could just replace. The same one all took for granted until Einstein had a brain fart (for a short while), deciding the Aether superfluous. The same Aether that easily explains all, including gravity. None fully understood what they already had, even Tesla who was otherwise beyond where we are now.

That said, we've never communicated on the same wavelength. No reason to believe we ever will.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Then why don't the Philosophers show the Scientists how it's done? Scientists are better at solving problems; philosophers are better at talking about how other people should solve problems.

The Philosophers and Physicists of This Decadent Era Are Escapist Children Addicted to Mind-Candy

You're referring to the decadent Philosophy of the 20th Century. In healthier times, philosophers would have pointed out that Postclassical Physics is irrational.

And William James, the last of the classical philosophers, would have suggested that the Scientific Method should add "How can we use this discovery?" as a last step. Instead of feeling all goofy and thrilled about the discovery of the neutrino, that last step may have led to using it in a GPS/Geiger Counter kind of instrument that would map all of Earth's resources all the way to the core.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The problem is presuming everything to be particulate, e.g. "a photon," or wavelike for that matter, or anything between. Planck better resolved the character of light energy radiation mathematically, just as Einstein better resolved mass / energy equivalence. Light energy absorption is a different animal, inviting yet another round of atomistic guessing.

The "alternate theory that explains" it all is the same one they thought they could just replace. The same one all took for granted until Einstein had a brain fart (for a short while), deciding the Aether superfluous. The same Aether that easily explains all, including gravity. None fully understood what they already had, even Tesla who was otherwise beyond where we are now.

That said, we've never communicated on the same wavelength. No reason to believe we ever will.

"We're Not Like Those Weirdos. We're a Different Kind of Weirdo."

Everything carries a fourth (spatial) dimension with it and surrounding it, including empty space, which is a substance. The only reason the Quantumists didn't consider an underlying dimension was that it had been proposed decades before and had degenerated into superstitions about ghosts, etc.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"We're Not Like Those Weirdos. We're a Different Kind of Weirdo."

Everything carries a fourth (spatial) dimension with it and surrounding it, including empty space, which is a substance. The only reason the Quantumists didn't consider an underlying dimension was that it had been proposed decades before and had degenerated into superstitions about ghosts, etc.

That's another theory I don't subscribe to because it's "unnecessary complicated" as what's-his-name-put -it. I'll stick with Occam and K.I.S.S. until demonstrated wrong.

 

[ReinyDays]

The problem is presuming everything to be particulate, e.g. "a photon," or wavelike for that matter, or anything between. Planck better resolved the character of light energy radiation mathematically, just as Einstein better resolved mass / energy equivalence. Light energy absorption is a different animal, inviting yet another round of atomistic guessing.

The "alternate theory that explains" it all is the same one they thought they could just replace. The same one all took for granted until Einstein had a brain fart (for a short while), deciding the Aether superfluous. The same Aether that easily explains all, including gravity. None fully understood what they already had, even Tesla who was otherwise beyond where we are now.

That said, we've never communicated on the same wavelength. No reason to believe we ever will.

You didn't provide a counter-example to QM ... don't feel bad ... no one can ... that in-of-itself is perplexing ... most all other scientific theories have a few small exceptions ... QM has proven to be robust in all her manifestations ... strange but true ...

The problem with the æther model is that doesn't explain the expansion of the universe ... that's what Einstein's math predicted at a time when consensus was for a steady-state universe ... so he inserted his "cosmological constant" to keep the universe from flying apart ... until Hubble showed him that the universe was ... in fact ... flying apart ...

"Here Planck experienced the truth of his own earlier observation from his struggle with the older views during his younger years: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" ...

I'm not sure you're aware of this ... but it was Linus Pauling who worked out the physics of optical isomerism ... using his own QM theory of chemical bonding ... that's a whole other area of science where Planck was wrong ... even Einstein had to have nose rubbed in red-shift before he changed his equations back to the expanding universe form ...

[giggle] ... what experiment can we perform to demonstrate the existence of the æther? ... if there's is none, then this is strictly philosophical ...

Disclamer: I'm NOT saying the Standard Model is THE TRUTH ... what it explains, it explains well ... what it doesn't explain, it doesn't even try ...

Update: It appears "dark matter" has to be 95% of the mass of the universe, and we're only missing 50% ... we have 300% more gravity but the universe is still inflating ... maybe 300 million times the "dark energy" than previously guesses ... research continues ...