Rambling Rhodes

You should really read The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn if you haven't already. It talks a lot about the paradigm shifts that are constantly occuring in science. I found it extremely interesting at points.

Of course nobody can ever know anything.

But for purposes of human society, we do need to agree that the sky is essentially blue.

If you see what I mean.

I think you may be mixing some apples and oranges in your examples. The thing about the Newton example is that it can be proven by any observer anywhere. The experiments needed to test that theory are relatively simple.

Theorizing about things like the subjective mental state of somebody in a coma, or what happened on Earth before anybody was around to observe it and record their observations, or what might happen if current theories explaining climate data trends turn out to be true --these are horses of a different color. It would sure be nice if humans could always forego decision-making until we knew all the facts involved, but that almost never seems to be how things work out in the real world.

For instance, the only definitive proof that global warming is really a problem with potentially devastating effects for humanity that I can think of would be for it to become a problem with devastating effects for humanity. Sometimes waiting for the lifeboat to sink in order to prove the hypothesis that the lifeboat is sinking is not an option.

As with everything else in life, sometimes you've just got to proceed with the best guess you can make from the data you've got and hope you get it right. The Scientific Method in these cases is just a strategy for making better educated guesses.

Sometimes waiting for the lifeboat to sink in order to prove the hypothesis that the lifeboat is sinking is not an option.

See, I understand and agree with that. What I keep coming back to, in my mind, is what if it turns out we were never actually sinking in the first place?

I mean, I actually think global warming is a problem. But if, 20 years down the line, it turns out to be a completely wrong, I'd think "huh, what a total waste of time and money THAT was."

And it's true about the Newton thing being obvious to observers everywhere and that the experiments to prove it are relatively simple. With that in mind, it's always been something of a head-scratcher to me that nobody until Newton made the connection and called Aristotle on his error. That's a lot of time elapsing there on something that's easily observable and simple to prove via experimentation. I suppose I could blame the Dark Ages and the time of crushing religious rule, but that doesn't take into account 1,000 years of the Roman empire, a time when human thought, science and the like were pretty damned impressive. Shit, they could build the Colleseum, but they couldn't figure out that things fall at the same rate of speed.

Anyhoo. . .

it's always been something of a head-scratcher to me that nobody until Newton made the connection and called Aristotle on his error. That's a lot of time elapsing there on something that's easily observable and simple to prove via experimentation

One possibility, I suppose, is that it just didn't matter very much to most people. I mean, before tall buildings, airplanes and long-range projectiles, why would most people care whether something falls at 9.8 meters per second or 6 meters per second or whatever? If it falls, it falls. And we all know it'll hurt when it lands on you but that's about all we need to know.

Alternatively, you never know what people knew before someone wrote it down: just because nobody formalized a theory about how objects fall doesn't mean that the guys building the Colleseum weren't aware that a big block of stone and a little block of stone fall at about the same speed.

Nothing important, just that this post reminded me of this article from yesterday, which starts with...

In the [Saturday Night Live] sketch Steve Martin plays Theodoric of York, a medieval barber with a patient whose condition has not improved despite a bloodletting, a sheep's-urine-and-staghorn poultice, and a night buried in the marsh up to her neck. "Medicine is not an exact science," Theodoric tells the girl's mother, "but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach."

What I keep coming back to, in my mind, is what if it turns out we were never actually sinking in the first place?

I mean, I actually think global warming is a problem. But if, 20 years down the line, it turns out to be a completely wrong, I'd think "huh, what a total waste of time and money THAT was."

Or like, what if we didn't need to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMDs. Wouldn't it be wacky if sometime in the future it turned out that we couldn't be so 100% certain he had them?

Yes, hamfisted segue, that's not what you said, et cetera.

It's still funny.

Hamfisted, indeed, David.

But, yeah, I've noticed how you tend to advocate action in the face of overwhelming evidence in some cases, but not in others. You're picky that way.

I've noticed how you tend to advocate action in the face of overwhelming evidence in some cases

Wait wait, I'm sorry-- the construction of that exchange seems to indicate that you think David had access to "overwhelming evidence" of WMDs in Iraq. Would you please cite the overwhelming evidence of WMDs in detail? And please be as specific as possible.

Well, there's overwhelming evidence some people slept during Physics class, or didn't bother to even take a Physics class:

Stuff doesn't fall 9.8 meters every second, it falls 9.8 meters per second faster every second.

Galileo questioned Aristotle's theories 100 years before Newton.

Newton didn't need tall buildings for his experiments, he used inclined planes, just like Galileo.

Yeah, wow Rob. You really got me with that one.

I guess you didn't infer from the phrases "I suppose," or "or whatever," that I was advancing a vague hypothesis about social/environmental factors rather than a specific hypothesis about physical limitations? So maybe I was just kind of slopping the whole "rate of gravity" thing out there without being too specific? No?

You know, Rob, jumping on mistakes that were obviously intentional in an effort to make the person you're addressing look stupid makes you come off as incredibly insecure. You might want to work on that.

mistakes that were obviously intentional

Nothing like using "obvious" mistakes to prove a point, huh?

Does using "obvious" mistakes make you look stupid, or does someone pointing out you made a mistake make you look stupid? Either way, the outcome is the same.

Insecure is whining about someone calling "bullshit" on you when you get the most basic law of physics wrong.

Insecure is knowing that when you get caught screwing up such simple facts, other people will always question any of your other anal extractions.

Let me save you the trouble of responding...

"Whatever."

You must hear that a lot.

If by "a lot," you mean every time you use it, then yes, I do hear it "a lot."

Gentlemen, don't make me pull over and stop this blog.

He started it.

Uh, no. Actually I didn't.

Here Rob, let me help you out with the concept of an obvious intentional omission:

Stuff doesn't fall 9.8 meters every second, it falls 9.8 meters per second faster every second.

See, now, we all know that "stuff" doesn't actually fall "9.8 meters per second faster every second." It actually falls at approximately 9.8 meters per second per second, at sea level, on Earth. I know that. I know Ryan knows that and I know you know that, so I can infer that you meant that-- but that you just didn't say it that way because you wanted to save time.

Insecure is whining about someone calling "bullshit" on you when you get the most basic law of physics wrong.

"Stuff falls at 9.8 meters per second faster every second" is also not a "basic law of physics". Gravity is a force of nature. The acceleration due to gravity on Earth is a common value in physics. A "basic law" would be something like, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it," or, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

The fact that you omitted, generalized, or misapplied some of these facts doesn't necessarily mean you're not aware of them. I'm reasonably confident that your imprecise statements were imprecise for the sake of rhetorical concision or style, and that you have a good basic grasp of high school physics.

But—and this is, in many ways, the rub—in most respects your knowledge of these facts (or lack thereof) is totally unimportant to me; none of these things is germane to any point that was up for debate. If we were discussing whether or not the sky is blue and I pointed out that you misspelled "blue", that wouldn't advance any discussion of what color the sky is. You know that famous saying about foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds?

This comment string was basically about epistemology. Whether or not Joshua knows the difference between velocity and acceleration isn't really relevant to the bigger question: it's a niggling little jab. It's also obnoxious.

your knowledge of these facts (or lack thereof) is totally unimportant to me

Right.

So you take 1000 words to say, basically what I said you were going to say.

Are you still arguing through "obvious intentional mistakes?"

I only ask, because you keep using them.

The Laws of Gravity are a sub-section of the study of physics, one of the most fundamental, so calling it a "basic law of physics" is correct.

Just because YOU don't consider it a "law of physics" doesn't mean that it isn't, but keep convincing yourself that you are right and 400 years worth of Newtonian physicists are just so dang wrong.

It's great that you know of Newton's Laws (there's that freakin' word again!) of Motion. But those are also based on observations of forces of nature, like gravity.

Scientific "Laws" are accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or "Laws of Nature," include the Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's Laws of Motion and the Law of Gravity (part of Newton's Laws of Universal Gravitation).

Yeah.

Rob, you're an idiot.

A "basic law" would be something like, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it,"

Newton's 2nd law of motion.

An apple, sitting in a tree, minding it's own business, when all-of-a-sudden, it falls to the ground.

sounds a lot like:
an object at rest, tending to stay at rest, until gravity, an external force, acts upon it.

And you're the smartest human on the earth.

Well, besides the 6 billion others.

Okay, this has been entertaining, but I'm pretty convinced now that Rob is just poking Joshua for sport. Which, you know, I totally support the activity, but I figured I'd just point out that I think Rob's just having a little fun now.

Perhaps now we can have a discussion about some of the theories of Quantum mechanics? Because, that would be a hoot.

and I would present you with one of these:

http://ramblingrhodes.mu.nu/archives/cluepon-thumb.jpg

But you could infer from that that I gave a shit.

Everything else applies, though.

ooh, yes...

Light is a particle AND a wave!

Okay, this has been entertaining, but I'm pretty convinced now that Rob is just poking Joshua for sport.

That's charitable of you, but I'm not at all convinced it's true.

Oh, it's true.

Thank you for playing, our lovely hostess has some parting gifts for you, including the Home Version of our game!

Oh yeah-- I'm sure you think it's true, Rob. I mean to say I'm not sure it's true in the way Ryan thinks it is.