Knowledge stems from observation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aren't there things in sciences like physics that aren't observable but can be 'proven' through mathematics?

No. Mathematical proofs deal with the internal consistency of mathematical structures. The application of those structures to real-world phenomena is not something that proofs deal with.

I'm thinking, for example, of the super-small particles that we cannot actually see, but whose action on other particles we can see. Neutrinos? Is that neutrinos? Wasn't the big superconducting supercollider in Europe used for an experiment along those lines?

Yes, you're right that we infer particles that we can't actually observe. But the particle accelerators don't have much to do with neutrinos. Neutrinos are so non-interactive that 65 billion of them pass through each square centimeter of the Earth per second. To notice even a very few of these we have to build crazy experimental apparatus in 4-mile deep mine shafts and stuff like that.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure we have never directly observed an electron let alone anything smaller.

It's as vacuous as most internet fads.

You:
85e.jpg
 
Do you mean the scientific method takes hypotheses and tests them via experimentation and observation? And if everything works out, then they become theories?
Well any hypothesis can be a theory. Evolution and gravity may as well be called facts.

That's not true, ideas begin with observation of reality.
Fair point, but our imaginations can come of with ideas that are far flung from what we originally percieved.
 
Go back to the original thread where we were having this discussion and you'll see it's anything but a strawman. The context of this is that @Narz said something kind of stupid, @Traitorfish called him on it, then rather than making an argument Narz decided to say things like "a five-year-old could see it, it's obvious" and claiming he wasn't theorizing, just talking common sense.
A five year old can see the obvious, humans organize and select leaders to achieve ends. Traitorfish then went on same ramble about different cultures having different hierarchies (true but a non sequitur) and baboon asses, nothing with had any bearing on what I said. Odd stuff.

Pretending that observations can stand on their own without theory to interpret them is what I used to do when I was a teenager.
Things just are. This is one of the reasons computers will overtake us, they aren't limited by biases and fixed concepts, they just see. :scan:
 
Last edited:
Aren't there things in sciences like physics that aren't observable but can be 'proven' through mathematics? Also, does 'observation' in this context include the observation of effects by which we infer causes? I'm thinking, for example, of the super-small particles that we cannot actually see, but whose action on other particles we can see. Neutrinos? Is that neutrinos? Wasn't the big superconducting supercollider in Europe used for an experiment along those lines?
Some things you cant observe directly so you create computer models. Generally the less directly we can observe something the less sure we can say we understand it. Running whatever expierments we can is a good start
 
Do you mean the scientific method takes hypotheses and tests them via experimentation and observation? And if everything works out, then they become theories?

I've run across so many people on comment boards around the internet who don't know the difference and they sneer that something is "only" a theory.

Well any hypothesis can be a theory. Evolution and gravity may as well be called facts.

So the issue here is that there is a colloquial usage of the word "theory", at least in the US, which is synonymous with hypotheses. In science, a theory carries a lot more weight. They are well substantiated across multiple studies and tests and have been shown to have great predictive power. Theories don't become "facts" either, in that sense. They might be... factually accurate, but they will always also be theory. Really they are a higher level of knowledge than what me might think of as a fact, since they try to explain why the facts are the way that they are.
 
Last edited:
Some things you cant observe directly so you create computer models. Generally the less directly we can observe something the less sure we can say we understand it. Running whatever expierments we can is a good start
i've never seen someone try so hard to maintain that theory has no practical use
 
Creating order in chaos is one of the main themes in mythologies.
Indicating how important we humans need to be on top of the chaos.
Sound, proven theories are great in getting order in the chaos of facts, enabling predictions as well.
You can forget or ignore facts that can also be generated by your understanding of correct theories. Which is great for your memory: discarding waste is as important as learning new stuff.
Or minimise the amounts of facts to those that illustrate a theory most nicely if you like to explain other people theories, like in education.
Even hypotheses can be useful as tool to orden the flood of facts, if your job or hobby is in that area of knowledge. Progressive insight.
But only sound theories, that survived the falsification process, are good enough to be used to the next level: apply them like in engineering.
 
seemed pretty par for the course when i first looked at it

i can't wait to upset more people by telling them that theory is useful
 
This thread is like watching homeless people fight over a Hamburger!
 
Hmm, evidently he sends everyone a mean PM on meeting them for the first time

I mean considering his second forum post to me, which was liked by you, was:

"i do not know how else to phrase this, but you're an idiot"

I'm pretty sure that was warranted...
 
I mean considering his second forum post to me, which was liked by you, was:

"i do not know how else to phrase this, but you're an idiot"

I'm pretty sure that was warranted...

It seems sort of dishonest for you to imply this was all there was to that post. If it had been, I certainly wouldn't have liked it.
 
The scientific method takes theories and tests them via experimentation and observation. Study and observation is what makes the science, theory without science is religion.

Ideas begin in the mind first but without testing your ideas you merely have ideas not knowledge.

You're forgetting the most important part, predictions from theories that you can then make new experiments of.

In the social sciences this plays a most important part I think. Say psychology, you can never predict an outcome 100% accurately (as far as we know), but if your theory has better results than others through statistics or other means you can say that it is better than earlier ones. If we take a super scientific view of psychology, it would simply be a matter of incorporating more factors of the human conciousness, but that is just impossible at this time.

Remembering the imperfectness of science and possibility of future discoveries is essential.
 
You are correct, I linked the wrong post.

You're forgetting the most important part, predictions from theories that you can then make new experiments of.

More specifically, the predictions have to be falsifiable, which means they need a degree of specificity, whether quantitative or otherwise. No vague "you will have a great opportunity today" kinda stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom