Evolution Speculation
Anthony S. Gambino
I'm leaving the followups the way they are 'coz I really can't tell
where the main participants are coming from with respect to newsgroups.
Or, in the other respect, in some instances. :)
Attributions standardized.
In article <4mn5fs$9...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Patrick Juola wrote:
: In article <4mmb18$r...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
: >Patrick Juola <pat...@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk>:
: >>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
: >>> I don't dismiss anecdotal evidence -- what I object to is the
: >>>argument (if you can call it one) that runs, "I have chips and salsa,
: >>>so mankind has advanced."
Seems to me that he's arguing against people taking something of
very little importance and using it as "evidence" of mankind's
advancement.
: >>Well, considering that I can now make that statement -- and three
: >>hundred years ago I couldn't have -- that strikes me as extremely
: >>powerful evidence.
: > What are you trying to say here? I assume (correct me if I'm
: >wrong) that you're not three hundred years old -- so this couldn't be
: >a statement about your own case. And three hundred years ago, people
: >_were_ eating chips and salsa, or the equivalent. If you were one of
: >those people, you could have said so, just as you are now. So what's
: >the advance?
: The advance is that, if we have a vote on "how many people have enough
: chips and salsa" now, we'll get a "yes" vote, worldwide, of about 10%.
: At *NO POINT* in human history have we before achieved this high
: a plurality.
But would this be considered a big enough "advance" to mention?
If the world were to end tomorrow, or you knew h. sapiens sapiens
would suddenly become extinct, would you be happy saying "Well, at
least we have chips and salsa"? :)
[...]
: >>Yes, in some areas, children are dying by the bushel from preventable
: >>illnesses. On the other hand, in other areas (10% of the world's
: >>population), they are *NOT* dying from those illnesses. Several
: >>hundred years ago, there was no shelter from those illnesses and
: >>starvation.
: >
: > As I've been suspecting, you're only thinking about one part
: >of the world -- the "advanced," industrial nations. You've admitted
: >here that your argument simply doesn't apply to 90% of the globe. I
: >can't help see that as a small weakness.
:
: All right, smart-alec. One simple question, one simple answer :
:
: DOES OR DOES NOT THE FACT THAT MY ARGUMENT APPLIES TO MORE THAN 10% OF
: THE PLANET CONSTITUTE AN ADVANCE OVER THE STATE OF THE WORLD THREE
: HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHEN IT APPLIED TO LESS THAN 1% OF THE PLANET?
(Do you have to yell?)
Sure, it constitutes an advance. But how significant an advance is
it? And when will we consider it "enough"? Is 10% sufficiently
advanced for you to be able to rest and say "Well, we're advanced."?
Because it's not enough for me, and I would suspect the same for
a majority of the people on here.
--
Anthony S. Gambino
p014...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us - agam...@acc.fau.edu
afn3...@afn.org - agam...@nyx.net
<a href="http://nyx10.nyx.net:8001/~agambino/">My Home Page</a>
--
Anthony S. Gambino "No. It's nonexistence has nothing to
agam...@nyx.net do with it's existence."
http://www.nyx.net/~agambino -- pa...@netzome.com in
<4utt07$8...@news.goodnet.com>
Anthony S. Gambino
Obviously, alt.pomo is having a derogatory effect on t.o. Let's hopefully
change this.
In article <4mr3c1$b...@bessel.nando.net>, moggin wrote:
: ce...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Stu):
[...]
: >Newtons laws were confined to small masses and low velocities in all
: >their experimental grounding - so its unfair to call them false in
: >regions for which they went untested.
:
: You mean regions in which Newton didn't test them. But now
: they _have_ been tested there, and it turns out they're inaccurate;
: so why is it "unfair" to call them false?
I think you're both playing semantic games. As a matter of fact, Stu
is closer to the target when he says "confined". The theories are
accurate when limited to the conditions observed by Newton.
The inaccuracies in areas not covered by the original hypothesis can't
invalidate hundreds of years of correct predictions on Earth under
"normal" conditions.
ObT.O.: The problem is that some Creationists don't understand that,
especially those who are ignorant about science. Many will argue
that because there aren't little green men flying to meet us Earthlings,
that evolution itself can't be right because it wasn't reproduced all
over the solar system/galaxy/universe/etc. This is, of course,
preposterous.
moggin
Anthony S. Gambino <afn3...@afn.org>:
>Obviously, alt.pomo is having a derogatory effect on t.o. Let's
>hopefully change this.
English isn't your native language?
ce...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Stu):
>: >Newtons laws were confined to small masses and low velocities in all
>: >their experimental grounding - so its unfair to call them false in
>: >regions for which they went untested.
moggin <mog...@bessel.nando.net>:
>: You mean regions in which Newton didn't test them. But now
>: they _have_ been tested there, and it turns out they're inaccurate;
>: so why is it "unfair" to call them false?
Anthony:
>I think you're both playing semantic games. As a matter of fact, Stu
>is closer to the target when he says "confined". The theories are
>accurate when limited to the conditions observed by Newton.
>The inaccuracies in areas not covered by the original hypothesis can't
>invalidate hundreds of years of correct predictions on Earth under
>"normal" conditions.
They're inaccurate, period. Very inaccurate in certain cases.
-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <50d543$8...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Date: 1 Sep 1996 19:09:55 -0400
>Anthony S. Gambino <afn3...@afn.org>:
>ce...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Stu):
>moggin <mog...@bessel.nando.net>:
>Anthony:
Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
*are* inaccurate in an absolute sense, but so is (probably) everything else
except in mathematics, where accuracy doesn't depend on physics *or*
observation of phenomena.
>-- moggin
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
moggin
ce...@mail.bris.ac.uk (Stu):
>>>: >Newtons laws were confined to small masses and low velocities in all
>>>: >their experimental grounding - so its unfair to call them false in
>>>: >regions for which they went untested.
moggin <mog...@bessel.nando.net>:
>>>: You mean regions in which Newton didn't test them. But now
>>>: they _have_ been tested there, and it turns out they're inaccurate;
>>>: so why is it "unfair" to call them false?
Anthony:
>>>I think you're both playing semantic games. As a matter of fact, Stu
>>>is closer to the target when he says "confined". The theories are
>>>accurate when limited to the conditions observed by Newton.
>>>The inaccuracies in areas not covered by the original hypothesis can't
>>>invalidate hundreds of years of correct predictions on Earth under
>>>"normal" conditions.
moggin<mog...@bessel.nando.net>:
>> They're inaccurate, period. Very inaccurate in certain cases.
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
>the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
>*are* inaccurate in an absolute sense, but so is (probably) everything else
>except in mathematics, where accuracy doesn't depend on physics *or*
>observation of phenomena.
Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
-- moggin
Michael L. Siemon
In article <50g73a$1...@bessel.nando.net>, mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
wrote:
+ Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
+within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
+considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
+say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
Generally speaking, you are a total idiot. I am not at all sure
that you are *capable* of playing semantic games. You seem to have
no connection to any kind of meaning whatsoever, indulging as it
appears in purely arbitrary sequences of words. Generally speaking,
Newtonian physics is so highly accurate that you haven't a clue how
good it is. Go on, fool; posture before us -- it is to laugh. There
has never in history been any predictive theory so good as Newton's
-- until its replacement which is astoundingly better.
Tell us, on what basis does an inaccurate theory predict the existence
and orbit of Neptune; or do you prefer to blather in obscene ignorance
to pander to an ill-founded self-conceit.
I don't know why the pomo shitheads have started cross-posting to
talk.origins again. They are *not* making a better show this time
than they did before. Ignorant twits.
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
>the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
>*are* inaccurate in an absolute sense, but so is (probably) everything else
>except in mathematics, where accuracy doesn't depend on physics *or*
>observation of phenomena.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>+ Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
>+within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>+considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>+say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com>:
>Generally speaking, you are a total idiot. I am not at all sure
>that you are *capable* of playing semantic games. You seem to have
>no connection to any kind of meaning whatsoever, indulging as it
>appears in purely arbitrary sequences of words.
Michael, you ignorant slut! So nice to hear from you again.
How's life in the sandbox? I'd have thought you were in grade school
by now, but you must have been held back.
>Generally speaking,Newtonian physics is so highly accurate that you
>haven't a clue how good it is.
Blatantly wrong. Faced with the very fast or the very small,
it's highly inaccurate -- by limiting its application, you can limit
its inaccuracies.
> Go on, fool; posture before us -- it is to laugh. There
>has never in history been any predictive theory so good as Newton's
>-- until its replacement which is astoundingly better.
>Tell us, on what basis does an inaccurate theory predict the existence
>and orbit of Neptune; or do you prefer to blather in obscene ignorance
>to pander to an ill-founded self-conceit.
Goes to show that accurate predictions are a poor test, since
even a false theory can produce them.
>I don't know why the pomo shitheads have started cross-posting to
>talk.origins again. They are *not* making a better show this time
>than they did before. Ignorant twits.
As previously, the ignorance belongs to you. This thread was
exhumed and cross-posted by one Anthony S. Gambino <afn3...@afn.org>,
who said: "Obviously, alt.pomo is having a derogatory effect on t.o.
Let's hopefully change this," before going on to take up Stu's end of
the debate we had last spring.
-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <50g73a$1...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
<snip>
>moggin<mog...@bessel.nando.net>:
>>> They're inaccurate, period. Very inaccurate in certain cases.
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
>>the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
>>*are* inaccurate in an absolute sense, but so is (probably) everything else
>>except in mathematics, where accuracy doesn't depend on physics *or*
>>observation of phenomena.
> Generally speaking, they're inaccurate.
Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
When they're confined
>within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
No, I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of resolution for
everyday events, and is thus a moot point. Mathematically, you are correct,
but there is no way, given current technology, to prove it at low velocities.
G*rd*n the Demon Rat
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
| As previously, the ignorance belongs to you. This thread was
| exhumed and cross-posted by one Anthony S. Gambino <afn3...@afn.org>,
| who said: "Obviously, alt.pomo is having a derogatory effect on t.o.
| Let's hopefully change this," before going on to take up Stu's end of
| the debate we had last spring.
May I say that I had hoped that we would stop derogating
t.o? It seems to me that getting the universe started tires
them out and they get very cranky, and I think they should
be left alone. I have heard that in "postmodernism" we
don't even _have_ origins -- they're one more of those
subverted categories -- so there really shouldn't by any
bones of contention here. Woof, woof, eh? Wag wag wag.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>[...] You're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
>>>the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
>>>*are* inaccurate in an absolute sense, but so is (probably) everything else
>>>except in mathematics, where accuracy doesn't depend on physics *or*
>>>observation of phenomena.
moggin:
>> Generally speaking, they're inaccurate.
Bob:
>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
not accurate in general.
Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
an accurate one.
moggin:
>>When they're confined
>>within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>>considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>>say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
Bob:
>No, I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of
>resolution for everyday events, and is thus a moot point.
O.k., but why does that make it moot?
>Mathematically, you are correct, but there is no way, given current
>technology, to prove it at low velocities.
A comment on the technology.
-- moggin
moggin
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>| As previously, the ignorance belongs to you. This thread was
>| exhumed and cross-posted by one Anthony S. Gambino <afn3...@afn.org>,
>| who said: "Obviously, alt.pomo is having a derogatory effect on t.o.
>| Let's hopefully change this," before going on to take up Stu's end of
>| the debate we had last spring.
G*rd*n the Demon Rat <g...@panix.com>:
>May I say that I had hoped that we would stop derogating
>t.o? It seems to me that getting the universe started tires
>them out and they get very cranky, and I think they should
>be left alone.
Hey, I tried -- I deleted them from the thread on Chomsky
and pomo, just to keep Michael's blood-pressure down. But I can't
help it if they insist on digging up threads from six months back.
Next thing they'll be wanting to argue about Ross and Sokal again.
-- moggin
Christopher Carrell
In article <50hq49$d...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
-mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
-
->| As previously, the ignorance belongs to you. This thread was
->| exhumed and cross-posted by one Anthony S. Gambino <afn3...@afn.org>,
->| who said: "Obviously, alt.pomo is having a derogatory effect on t.o.
->| Let's hopefully change this," before going on to take up Stu's end of
->| the debate we had last spring.
-
-G*rd*n the Demon Rat <g...@panix.com>:
-
->May I say that I had hoped that we would stop derogating
->t.o? It seems to me that getting the universe started tires
->them out and they get very cranky, and I think they should
->be left alone.
-
- Hey, I tried -- I deleted them from the thread on Chomsky
-and pomo, just to keep Michael's blood-pressure down. But I can't
-help it if they insist on digging up threads from six months back.
-Next thing they'll be wanting to argue about Ross and Sokal again.
Well, seeing as it came from someone from either sci.skeptic or some
atheism group, my first reaction was, "Damn, they're coming back." And they
did. Bloody hell.
Followups set to alt.pomo. Do the same in the other threads that got
dug up as well.
Chris
Wade Hines
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
>>the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
<<< snip >>>
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>+ Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
Generally, no. Generally cannon balls obey neuton's laws, ask any general.
>>+within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>>+considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
grow considerably vs. accurate. The mind boggles. You are hereby sentenced
to teaching remedial qualatative analysis for med students. Enjoy.
>>+say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com>:
>>Generally speaking, you are a total idiot. I am not at all sure
>>that you are *capable* of playing semantic games. You seem to have
>>no connection to any kind of meaning whatsoever, indulging as it
>>appears in purely arbitrary sequences of words.
> Michael, you ignorant slut! So nice to hear from you again.
I bet you feel that way about all the ignorant sluts you know, biblically
speaking that is.
>How's life in the sandbox? I'd have thought you were in grade school
>by now, but you must have been held back.
Rehashed Saturdaynight outtakes to regressive shades of a junior high
schooler's failed atempt at humor via insult. Try alt.fan.don.rickles
to get started on remedial insults. Work up from there.
>>Generally speaking,Newtonian physics is so highly accurate that you
>>haven't a clue how good it is.
> Blatantly wrong. Faced with the very fast or the very small,
>it's highly inaccurate -- by limiting its application, you can limit
>its inaccuracies.
So I guess Ford doesn't want to make its small cars go fast, right?
I'm afraid that you have no sense of scale. As I work with molecules
of moderate size, say 500 to 5000 amu going rather fast, as in 30KeV
labatory frame, I'ld have to say that they behave rather well by simple
1/2 mv2 sorts of laws. Methinks you have no practical sense of scale.
>> Go on, fool; posture before us -- it is to laugh. There
>>has never in history been any predictive theory so good as Newton's
>>-- until its replacement which is astoundingly better.
>>Tell us, on what basis does an inaccurate theory predict the existence
>>and orbit of Neptune; or do you prefer to blather in obscene ignorance
>>to pander to an ill-founded self-conceit.
> Goes to show that accurate predictions are a poor test, since
>even a false theory can produce them.
And you know what, Babe Ruth had a horrible swing. Somebody shoulda
made him fix it. Moggins of course doesn't appear to have the insight
a blind child would have on the imagry of a picasso.
--Wade
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are
>>>correct to the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low
>>>(<1%c) velocities.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>+ Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
>>+within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>>+considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>>+say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
hi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines):
>Generally, no. Generally cannon balls obey neuton's laws, ask any general.
Are you speaking cannonically?
Wade:
>grow considerably vs. accurate. The mind boggles. You are hereby sentenced
>to teaching remedial qualatative analysis for med students. Enjoy.
Inaccuracies small and large, as opposed to accuracy. What's
boggling you?
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com>:
>>>Generally speaking, you are a total idiot. I am not at all sure
>>>that you are *capable* of playing semantic games. You seem to have
>>>no connection to any kind of meaning whatsoever, indulging as it
>>>appears in purely arbitrary sequences of words.
moggin:
>> Michael, you ignorant slut! So nice to hear from you again.
>>How's life in the sandbox? I'd have thought you were in grade school
>>by now, but you must have been held back.
Wade:
>Rehashed Saturdaynight outtakes to regressive shades of a junior high
>schooler's failed atempt at humor via insult. Try alt.fan.don.rickles
>to get started on remedial insults. Work up from there.
Shame you don't know what you're talking about. I was taking
up where we left off; that is, with Michael holding his hands in front
of his face in order to pretend that I didn't exist.
Michael:
>>Generally speaking,Newtonian physics is so highly accurate that you
>>haven't a clue how good it is.
moggin:
> Blatantly wrong. Faced with the very fast or the very small,
>it's highly inaccurate -- by limiting its application, you can limit
>its inaccuracies.
Wade:
>So I guess Ford doesn't want to make its small cars go fast, right?
>I'm afraid that you have no sense of scale. As I work with molecules
>of moderate size, say 500 to 5000 amu going rather fast, as in 30KeV
>labatory frame, I'ld have to say that they behave rather well by simple
>1/2 mv2 sorts of laws. Methinks you have no practical sense of scale.
Irrelevant.
Michael:
>>>Tell us, on what basis does an inaccurate theory predict the existence
>>>and orbit of Neptune; or do you prefer to blather in obscene ignorance
>>>to pander to an ill-founded self-conceit.
moggin:
>> Goes to show that accurate predictions are a poor test, since
>>even a false theory can produce them.
Wade:
>And you know what, Babe Ruth had a horrible swing. Somebody shoulda
>made him fix it. Moggin of course doesn't appear to have the insight
>a blind child would have on the imagry of a picasso.
Babbling.
-- moggin
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
moggin:
> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>not accurate in general.
> Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
>however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
>an accurate one.
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
:is a special and not interesting case.)
Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
be in some cases.
Matt:
:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
:electron and the radius of proton.
Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
what we'll see now.)
-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>not accurate in general.
> Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
>however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
>an accurate one.
I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
is a special and not interesting case.)
>moggin:
>>>When they're confined
>>>within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>>>considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>>>say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
>Bob:
>>No, I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of
>>resolution for everyday events, and is thus a moot point.
> O.k., but why does that make it moot?
>>Mathematically, you are correct, but there is no way, given current
>>technology, to prove it at low velocities.
> A comment on the technology.
Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
electron and the radius of proton.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which comes a might surprise to them.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
>moggin:
>> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>>not accurate in general.
>> Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
>>however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
>>an accurate one.
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>:is a special and not interesting case.)
> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>be in some cases.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
>Matt:
>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>:electron and the radius of proton.
> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>what we'll see now.)
Actually I wanted to know if you understood the scale of the
inaccuracy we are talking about. It seems infinitesimally close to
accurate for the velocities and masses we usually talk about.
moggin
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>:is a special and not interesting case.)
moggin:
> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>be in some cases.
Matt:
:Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
:completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
:degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
:am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
:turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
:these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
No, we're not understanding each other. Or maybe we are -- I
can't tell because of the ambiguity in your phrase, "describing the
world." Newton's laws have only a small degree of inaccuracy when you
limit their application -- specifically, when you confine them to the
"everday world." (I assume that's what you're saying.) But elsewhere
(for example, at larger fractions of c), their inaccuracy increases.
So, are they generally accurate? No. The best you can say is that if
applied only to a limited range of phenomena, the errors they produce
will be relatively (heh) small.
Matt:
>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>:electron and the radius of proton.
moggin:
> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>what we'll see now.)
Matt:
>Actually I wanted to know if you understood the scale of the
>inaccuracy we are talking about. It seems infinitesimally close to
>accurate for the velocities and masses we usually talk about.
Once again: the inaccuracies are small over a certain range,
that is, "the velocities and masses we usually talk about." And as
I've also pointed out, that doesn't make them vanish, or change the
theory into an accurate one.
-- moggin
WillT
moggin wrote:
>
> Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>
> >>>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are
> >>>correct to the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low
> >>>(<1%c) velocities.
>
> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>
> >>+ Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
> >>+considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
> >>+say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
>
Isn't this what science is:
The quest for a model that ignores as much as is necessary to
reduce what would otherwise be a very complex phenomenon down
to a set of rules simple enough for even my wits to comprehend?
Every model breaks when pressed to the limits. The trick is to
pick the model that yields predictions close enough to be useful
without burdening the intellect with excess detail.
Bob Casanova
In article <50if32$k...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
Never mind my previous post; I forgot that you (moggin) format your follows as
a script.
>>>>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are
>>>>correct to the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low
>>>>(<1%c) velocities.
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>>+ Generally speaking, they're inaccurate. When they're confined
>>>+within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>>>+considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>>>+say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
>hi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines):
> Are you speaking cannonically?
>Wade:
>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com>:
>moggin:
>Wade:
>Michael:
>moggin:
>Wade:
> Irrelevant.
>Michael:
>moggin:
>Wade:
> Babbling.
>-- moggin
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
In article <50imvs$4...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
>moggin:
>> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>>not accurate in general.
>> Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
>>however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
>>an accurate one.
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>:is a special and not interesting case.)
> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>be in some cases.
>Matt:
>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>:electron and the radius of proton.
> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>what we'll see now.)
Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
mathematics.
Bob Casanova
In article <50ivmn$l...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>From: mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 04:12:12 GMT
>In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
>>moggin:
>>> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>>>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>>>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>>>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>>>not accurate in general.
>>> Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
>>>however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
>>>an accurate one.
>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>>:is a special and not interesting case.)
>> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>>be in some cases.
>Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
>completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
>degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
>am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
>turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
>these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
My point was that the inaccuracy cannot be measured (for events at "ordinary"
velocities), but can only be calculated. They are thus outside the realm of
experiment for any event under these conditions, and the inaccuracy is thus
moot.
>>Matt:
>>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>>:electron and the radius of proton.
>> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>>what we'll see now.)
>Actually I wanted to know if you understood the scale of the
>inaccuracy we are talking about. It seems infinitesimally close to
>accurate for the velocities and masses we usually talk about.
>Matt Silberstein
>-----------------------------
>The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
>Disney Corp. Which comes a might surprise to them.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <casanova.4...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>,
casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
+Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
+mathematics.
moggin? discussing mathematics? not bloody likely. That his "discussion"
of accuracy in science is quite clueless is, of course, not surprising.
Bob Casanova
In article <50hpnf$c...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Date: 3 Sep 1996 13:26:07 -0400
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>>[...] You're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are correct to
>>>>the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low (<1%c) velocities. They
>>>>*are* inaccurate in an absolute sense, but so is (probably) everything else
>>>>except in mathematics, where accuracy doesn't depend on physics *or*
>>>>observation of phenomena.
>moggin:
>>> Generally speaking, they're inaccurate.
>Bob:
>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>not accurate in general.
> Under certain conditions the inaccuracies are very small --
>however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform the theory into
>an accurate one.
>moggin:
>>>When they're confined
>>>within certain limits, the inaccuracy is small; otherwise, it can grow
>>>considerably. You want to call that "an accurate theory" -- and you
>>>say _I'm_ "playing semantic games"!
>Bob:
>>No, I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of
>>resolution for everyday events, and is thus a moot point.
> O.k., but why does that make it moot?
Because the inaccuracy can't be demonstrated other than mathematically. When
you can demonstrate the inaccuracy using measurements on a passenger train,
say, or an F-16, let me know.
>>Mathematically, you are correct, but there is no way, given current
>>technology, to prove it at low velocities.
> A comment on the technology.
More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be inaccurate,
without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best, along with semantic
games.
>-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <50if32$k...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
Umm, *none* of the below is mine.
>>>>Anthony is right; you're playing semantic games. Newton's laws are
>>>>correct to the limits of resolution for ordinary events at low
>>>>(<1%c) velocities.
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>hi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines):
> Are you speaking cannonically?
>Wade:
>Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com>:
>moggin:
>Wade:
>Michael:
>moggin:
>Wade:
> Irrelevant.
>Michael:
>moggin:
>Wade:
> Babbling.
>-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <mls-040996...@mls.dialup.access.net> m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon) writes:
>From: m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 23:03:06 -0400
>In article <casanova.4...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>,
>casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
>+Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
>+mathematics.
>moggin? discussing mathematics? not bloody likely. That his "discussion"
>of accuracy in science is quite clueless is, of course, not surprising.
Well, his main argument seems to be based on the mathematical inaccuracy of
Newton's laws, which is, of course, correct. However, he seems unable to deal
with the difference between mathematical accuracy and practical accuracy, and
seems to be somewhat fixated on the former.
>--
>Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
> "sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."
Bob C.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <casanova.4...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>,
casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
+In article <mls-040996...@mls.dialup.access.net> m...@panix.com
(Michael L. Siemon) writes:
+>From: m...@panix.com (Michael L. Siemon)
+>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
+>Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 23:03:06 -0400
+
+>In article <casanova.4...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>,
+>casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova) wrote:
+
+
+>+Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
+>+mathematics.
+
+>moggin? discussing mathematics? not bloody likely. That his "discussion"
+>of accuracy in science is quite clueless is, of course, not surprising.
+
+Well, his main argument seems to be based on the mathematical inaccuracy of
+Newton's laws, which is, of course, correct.
Not at all; there is no such notion, for one thing. And mathematicians
are the first to object to people (ab)using functions outside a proper
domain. By any half-way adequate definition of accuracy applicable to
Newton's laws, they are spectacularly good.
If the "problem" is that Newton's theory is no longer held to be universal,
then one gets into much more interesting territory -- the territory that
the pomos seems to avoid like a plague -- of attempting to make sense of
the notion that our physical theories are in some honest way a succession
of approximations to "reality." moggin's blather about accuracy seems to
*beg* that question, in the most simple-minded way. As if it is a gambit
designed to *avoid* having to deal with an interesting question.
+However, he seems unable to deal
+with the difference between mathematical accuracy and practical accuracy, and
+seems to be somewhat fixated on the former.
He would appear to be "fixated" on the former in the way that a lot of
total ignorami are fixated on mathematics while knowing zilch about it.
I dropped moggin from my killfile a while back, after the main symptoms
of infestation of talk.origins from the pomo side subsided. It may be
time to reinter him.
moggin
[...]
Matt:
>>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>>:electron and the radius of proton.
moggin:
>> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>>what we'll see now.)
Bob:
>Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
>mathematics.
Bodies in motion fall under the heading of physics, which was
still one of the sciences, last I checked.
-- moggin
moggin
Bob:
>>>[...] I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of
>>>resolution for everyday events, and is thus a moot point.
moggin:
>> O.k., but why does that make it moot?
>Because the inaccuracy can't be demonstrated other than
>mathematically. When you can demonstrate the inaccuracy using
>measurements on a passenger train, say, or an F-16, let me know.
You haven't answered my question.
>My point was that the inaccuracy cannot be measured (for events at
>"ordinary" velocities), but can only be calculated. They are thus
>outside the realm of experiment for any event under these conditions,
>and the inaccuracy is thus moot.
Yes, you keep saying that, but you don't explain why. I can
understand why it would be moot for an airplane designer, but not why
you think it's a moot point, in general.
Bob:
>>>Mathematically, you are correct, but there is no way, given current
>>>technology, to prove it at low velocities.
moggin:
>> A comment on the technology.
Bob:
>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>along with semantic games.
Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
-- moggin
moggin
casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova):
>>+Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're
>>+discussing mathematics.
Michael:
>>moggin? discussing mathematics? not bloody likely. That his
>>"discussion" of accuracy in science is quite clueless is, of
>>course, not surprising.
Bob:
>Well, his main argument seems to be based on the mathematical
>inaccuracy of Newton's laws, which is, of course, correct. However, he
>seems unable to deal with the difference between mathematical accuracy
>and practical accuracy, and seems to be somewhat fixated on the former.
Not quite. You make it sound as if I'm correcting Newton's
math ("Look -- he forgot to carry the one!"). The point, of course,
is that his picture of the universe is disputed by later findings.
You say that's moot, apparently because it bears no consequences for
passenger trains or jet aircraft. So it seems that your interest is
restricted to engineering.
-- moggin
moggin
WillT <wtho...@pop700.gsfc.nasa.gov>:
>Isn't this what science is: The quest for a model that ignores as much
>as is necessary to reduce what would otherwise be a very complex
>phenomenon down to a set of rules simple enough for even my wits to
>comprehend?
>Every model breaks when pressed to the limits. The trick is to pick
>the model that yields predictions close enough to be useful without
>burdening the intellect with excess detail.
Sounds like a more honest account than some. Nothing there
about "truth" or "reality," for example. But -- the trick to what?
-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <50o6q9$a...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Date: 5 Sep 1996 23:46:17 -0400
>Bob:
>>>>[...] I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of
>>>>resolution for everyday events, and is thus a moot point.
>moggin:
>>> O.k., but why does that make it moot?
>>Because the inaccuracy can't be demonstrated other than
>>mathematically. When you can demonstrate the inaccuracy using
>>measurements on a passenger train, say, or an F-16, let me know.
> You haven't answered my question.
Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant was that the inaccuracy is not
demonstratable for ordinary events, or for any events at low velocities, and
thus is meaningless for events of this nature. Perhaps a better word would be
"irrelevant".
>>My point was that the inaccuracy cannot be measured (for events at
>>"ordinary" velocities), but can only be calculated. They are thus
>>outside the realm of experiment for any event under these conditions,
>>and the inaccuracy is thus moot.
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you don't explain why. I can
>understand why it would be moot for an airplane designer, but not why
>you think it's a moot point, in general.
I believe I did so. If you reject the reason I gave, please explain why.
>Bob:
>>>>Mathematically, you are correct, but there is no way, given current
>>>>technology, to prove it at low velocities.
>moggin:
>>> A comment on the technology.
>Bob:
>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>along with semantic games.
> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
And, for most of us not involved in high-energy physics research, the
"inaccuracy" is irrelevant, as it has no measurable effect on everyday
phenomena.
>-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <50o810$a...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova):
>Michael:
>Bob:
As I clearly stated, the inaccuracy is not measurable except under
circumstances outside the everyday, and physics doesn't deal only with
high-energy, high-velocity phenomena. For such everyday phenomena, Newton's
laws work fine, for engineering *and* physics. BTW, engineers who work on the
design of such things as particle accelerators must also take relativistic
effects into account; relativity isn't the province solely of physicists.
Bob Casanova
In article <50o57q$9...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>[...]
>Matt:
>moggin:
>Bob:
Fine. Physics is (at least partly) an experimental science. Please outline an
experiment (no high-energy physics labs) which will demonstrate the inaccuracy.
Richard Harter
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
Egads, I go on vacation for a week and the place becomes infested with
moggins with a Fitch thrown in for good measure. Gordon we may
ignore; long ago he learned the secret power to cloud his mind and he
has been practicing that mystic art ever since. Let's see what the
good moggin has been up to.
Ah, I see. Someone has dragged some moth eaten thread out of the
attic and the troops are squabbling over it. Moggin in his usual
inimitable style is engaged in palming off superficialities as
profundities and said troops are engaged in gobbling irritably. It is
quite a mystery to me how the good moggin raises hackles with such
ease. Me, I plant them, I water them, I fertilize them, I weed them,
and the damn things are dead by mid-July.
Enough babbling, onto the topic of discussion. It is not immediately
clear to me what is meant by the accuracy of a theory. One tends to
think of accuracy of a measurement or a prediction or even of a
statement. One speaks of the accuracy of the predictions of a theory;
however these are measurements and they have numbers associated
with them. Treating "accuracy" as a Boolean attribute seems to be
more than a bit off the mark, a misuse of the language.
To be fair, my esteemed colleagues from talk.origins seem to have
wandered into sundry semantic swamps with their discussions of
mathematics vs science vs engineering. The issue, it seems to me, is
what it means to say that Newton's laws are inaccurate. If it simply
means that they make inaccurate predictions outside a restricted
domain then the matter is settled; we all know that that is true and
we can go home and have supper with a clear conscience. If it means
something murky and transcendental having to do with "truth" then I
will go home have supper by myself; I already know how that discussion
turns out. Between the good moggin's powers of obfuscation and my
esteemed colleagues prediliction for mangroves the crocodiles of
contumely will dine well but not on my little piggies, thank you.
As a side note, the venerable moggin has made a slight error that
poses an interesting problem in physics. We know that there are
differences between the predictions of Newtonian physics and the
theory of relativity and that these differences are small in the
"ordinary arena". The ineffable one suggests that inability to
measure this difference is merely an engineering question, a
deficiency of precision of measurement. However there comes a point
where the difference is not measurable in principle because of
Heisenberg uncertainty. The task for our physics mavens is to specify
the range of conditions in which the difference is undetectable in
principle.
---
There - that should wrap up this thread nicely.
:-)
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Soc.women is the Beruit of the internet. There is nothing
left but rubble and fanatics shooting at each other.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
[snip]
>Enough babbling, onto the topic of discussion. It is not immediately
>clear to me what is meant by the accuracy of a theory. One tends to
>think of accuracy of a measurement or a prediction or even of a
>statement. One speaks of the accuracy of the predictions of a theory;
>however these are measurements and they have numbers associated
>with them. Treating "accuracy" as a Boolean attribute seems to be
>more than a bit off the mark, a misuse of the language.
FWIIW, I made this point to Moggin awhile ago and it was ignored. I
have learned the futility of dealing with Moggin, so I did not pursue.
>To be fair, my esteemed colleagues from talk.origins seem to have
>wandered into sundry semantic swamps with their discussions of
>mathematics vs science vs engineering. The issue, it seems to me, is
>what it means to say that Newton's laws are inaccurate. If it simply
>means that they make inaccurate predictions outside a restricted
>domain then the matter is settled; we all know that that is true and
>we can go home and have supper with a clear conscience. If it means
>something murky and transcendental having to do with "truth" then I
>will go home have supper by myself; I already know how that discussion
>turns out. Between the good moggin's powers of obfuscation and my
>esteemed colleagues prediliction for mangroves the crocodiles of
>contumely will dine well but not on my little piggies, thank you.
Which is why I dropped out. Though why anyone would get involved in
such a discussion with Moggin is probably the better question. Moggin
will never participate with a eye to exchanging views.
>As a side note, the venerable moggin has made a slight error that
>poses an interesting problem in physics. We know that there are
>differences between the predictions of Newtonian physics and the
>theory of relativity and that these differences are small in the
>"ordinary arena". The ineffable one suggests that inability to
>measure this difference is merely an engineering question, a
>deficiency of precision of measurement. However there comes a point
>where the difference is not measurable in principle because of
>Heisenberg uncertainty. The task for our physics mavens is to specify
>the range of conditions in which the difference is undetectable in
>principle.
I asked this question also and was ignored. Is is possible, even in
principle to measure the difference at, say, Indy car speeds? Without
doing any calculations (which I would get wrong) I suspect not.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
G*rd*n the Demon Rat
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
| mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
|
| ... Gordon we may
| ignore; long ago he learned the secret power to cloud his mind and he
Tut-tut. My remarks were of radical clarity, especially the
last two sentences.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Richard Harter
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n the Demon Rat) wrote:
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>| mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>|
>| ... Gordon we may
>| ignore; long ago he learned the secret power to cloud his mind and he
>| has been practicing that mystic art ever since. ...
>Tut-tut. My remarks were of radical clarity, especially the
>last two sentences.
Radical clarity, huh. I kind of like that. I did admire your last
two sentences, the mark on one ruff and ready to hound ill thinkers
with dogged enthusiasm without paws.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Soc.women is the Beirut of the internet. There is nothing
-Mammel,L.H.
In article <50s1ba$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I asked this question also and was ignored. Is is possible, even in
>principle to measure the difference at, say, Indy car speeds? Without
>doing any calculations (which I would get wrong) I suspect not.
Well, it's possible to measure the relativistic doppler
effect due to speeds of a few cm/sec using the Mossbauer
effect. I don't know what you would claim for the Newtonian
prediction here. Of course, doppler shifting of light is
right at the nub of the principle of relativity.
Also, there's the atomic clock / airplane experiment which
was marginally able to detect time dilation.
Most significant, I would think, would be the precession of
the perihelion of Mercury, since orbital mechanics were the
showcase of Newton's success.
I suggest reading Newton's preface to the Principia. He
makes definite claims for the exactness of his theory there.
Although he does allow for the possibility of "a better method
of philosophizing", this is in reference to his plan for
explicating nature via systems of interacting particles,
and this program has never been abandoned.
Also interesting is Cote's preface to the second edition,
which is largely a polemical reply to critics of Newton.
There are even a few lines of flamage worthy of Usenet.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Brigitte Darcel
In article <50o6q9$a...@bessel.nando.net>,
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>Bob:
>
>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>along with semantic games.
>
> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
>
get us from point A to B most anywhere in the Cosmos as long as we don't go
near a singularity and allow us to build and support structures, and to
generally function within our known universe. When we get to the point where
Newtonian physics begins to fail we pull out the Quantum ruler. I don't see the
point of the debate. Certainly no one will deny that Newtonian physics can not
accurately describe every aspect of the universe. But do I really care what is
going on at the quark level when I'm building a bridge?
--
===========================================
"A yawn may be defined as a silent yell"
- G. K. Chesterton
Brigitte Darcel __
LMPS Motorola )o (--o EXTERMINATE!
Schaumburg, IL """"===-( EXTERMINATE!
|::|:\ EXTERMINATE!
|::|::\
=======
===========================================
moggin
casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova):
>>>>+Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're
>>>>+discussing mathematics.
Michael:
>>>>moggin? discussing mathematics? not bloody likely. That his
>>>>"discussion" of accuracy in science is quite clueless is, of
>>>>course, not surprising.
Bob:
>>>Well, his main argument seems to be based on the mathematical
>>>inaccuracy of Newton's laws, which is, of course, correct. However, he
>>>seems unable to deal with the difference between mathematical accuracy
>>>and practical accuracy, and seems to be somewhat fixated on the former.
moggin:
>> Not quite. You make it sound as if I'm correcting Newton's
>>math ("Look -- he forgot to carry the one!"). The point, of course,
>>is that his picture of the universe is disputed by later findings.
>>You say that's moot, apparently because it bears no consequences for
>>passenger trains or jet aircraft. So it seems that your interest is
>>restricted to engineering.
Bob:
>As I clearly stated, the inaccuracy is not measurable except under
>circumstances outside the everyday, and physics doesn't deal only with
>high-energy, high-velocity phenomena. For such everyday phenomena, Newton's
>laws work fine, for engineering *and* physics. BTW, engineers who work on the
>design of such things as particle accelerators must also take relativistic
>effects into account; relativity isn't the province solely of physicists.
Fine. So? None of that is in dispute, and none of it makes
the inaccuracies of Newton's laws irrelevant to science, as you seem
to think.
-- moggin
moggin
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
[...]
:Ah, I see. Someone has dragged some moth eaten thread out of the
:attic and the troops are squabbling over it. Moggin in his usual
:inimitable style is engaged in palming off superficialities as
:profundities and said troops are engaged in gobbling irritably. It is
:quite a mystery to me how the good moggin raises hackles with such
:ease. Me, I plant them, I water them, I fertilize them, I weed them,
:and the damn things are dead by mid-July.
Agreed that we could well have allowed the moths their meal,
but I protest your characterization. Has the noxious atmosphere of
talk.origins turned a gentleman such as yourself into a cad? Or is
this what comes of eating a cod printed with the Sunday paper?
:Enough babbling, onto the topic of discussion. It is not immediately
:clear to me what is meant by the accuracy of a theory. One tends to
:think of accuracy of a measurement or a prediction or even of a
:statement. One speaks of the accuracy of the predictions of a theory;
:however these are measurements and they have numbers associated
:with them. Treating "accuracy" as a Boolean attribute seems to be
:more than a bit off the mark, a misuse of the language.
Semantics. I began by using the term "false," and I'll
happily to return to it, if that's enough to end your quibbles.
:To be fair, my esteemed colleagues from talk.origins seem to have
:wandered into sundry semantic swamps with their discussions of
:mathematics vs science vs engineering. The issue, it seems to me, is
:what it means to say that Newton's laws are inaccurate. If it simply
:means that they make inaccurate predictions outside a restricted
:domain then the matter is settled; we all know that that is true and
:we can go home and have supper with a clear conscience. If it means
:something murky and transcendental having to do with "truth" then I
:will go home have supper by myself; I already know how that discussion
:turns out. Between the good moggin's powers of obfuscation and my
:esteemed colleagues prediliction for mangroves the crocodiles of
:contumely will dine well but not on my little piggies, thank you.
I don't mind skipping the discussion myself, especially since
we've had it several times before. And since you're making no claims
for the truth of Newton's theory, I won't make you late for dinner.
:As a side note, the venerable moggin has made a slight error that
:poses an interesting problem in physics. We know that there are
:differences between the predictions of Newtonian physics and the
:theory of relativity and that these differences are small in the
:"ordinary arena". The ineffable one suggests that inability to
:measure this difference is merely an engineering question, a
:deficiency of precision of measurement. However there comes a point
:where the difference is not measurable in principle because of
:Heisenberg uncertainty. The task for our physics mavens is to specify
:the range of conditions in which the difference is undetectable in
:principle.
I didn't claim that the difference was always measurable -- I
pointed out that the difficulty in measuring it did little to improve
the accuracy of Newton's laws. (Why the t.o. science-meisters needed
that pointed out to them, I can't begin to guess.)
-- moggin
moggin
Matt:
>>>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>>>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>>>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>>>:electron and the radius of proton.
moggin:
>>> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>>>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>>>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>>>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>>>what we'll see now.)
Bob:
>>Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
>>mathematics.
moggin:
> Bodies in motion fall under the heading of physics, which was
>still one of the sciences, last I checked.
Bob:
:Fine. Physics is (at least partly) an experimental science. Please
:outline an experiment (no high-energy physics labs) which will
:demonstrate the inaccuracy.
Why?
-- moggin
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>FWIIW, I made this point to Moggin awhile ago and it was ignored.
I replied directly both of your posts.
>Is is possible, even in principle to measure the difference at, say,
>Indy car speeds? Without doing any calculations (which I would get
>wrong) I suspect not.
Why not? And more importantly, so what?
-- moggin
moggin
Bob:
>>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>>along with semantic games.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
Brigitte Darcel <brig...@tr792.tr.comm.mot.com>:
>What is your definition of accurate? Newtonian physics is accurate enough to
>get us from point A to B most anywhere in the Cosmos as long as we don't go
>near a singularity and allow us to build and support structures, and to
>generally function within our known universe. When we get to the point where
>Newtonian physics begins to fail we pull out the Quantum ruler. I don't see the
>point of the debate. Certainly no one will deny that Newtonian physics can not
>accurately describe every aspect of the universe. But do I really care what is
>going on at the quark level when I'm building a bridge?
Nope, you don't. But I thought scientists had loftier goals.
-- moggin
moggin
Bob:
>>>>[...] I merely said that the inaccuracy is below the limits of
>>>>resolution for everyday events, and is thus a moot point.
moggin:
>>> O.k., but why does that make it moot?
Bob:
>>Because the inaccuracy can't be demonstrated other than
>>mathematically. When you can demonstrate the inaccuracy using
>>measurements on a passenger train, say, or an F-16, let me know.
moggin:
> You haven't answered my question.
Bob:
:Perhaps I used the wrong word. What I meant was that the inaccuracy is
:not demonstratable for ordinary events, or for any events at low
:velocities, and thus is meaningless for events of this nature. Perhaps
:a better word would be "irrelevant".
They're both fine words, but neither them applies here. The
fact that the inaccuracy isn't ordinarily noticeable doesn't make it
either moot or irrelevant.
Bob:
>>My point was that the inaccuracy cannot be measured (for events at
>>"ordinary" velocities), but can only be calculated. They are thus
>>outside the realm of experiment for any event under these conditions,
>>and the inaccuracy is thus moot.
moggin:
> Yes, you keep saying that, but you don't explain why. I can
>understand why it would be moot for an airplane designer, but not why
>you think it's a moot point, in general.
Bob:
:I believe I did so. If you reject the reason I gave, please explain why.
Well, you have now, with only a little prompting. And yes, I
do reject it -- for one thing, your reason only applies to "ordinary
events," as you said youreself. So it's no reason to believe that the
inaccuracy is irrelevant, in general.
Bob:
>>>>Mathematically, you are correct, but there is no way, given current
>>>>technology, to prove it at low velocities.
moggin:
>>> A comment on the technology.
Bob:
>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>along with semantic games.
moggin:
> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
Bob:
:And, for most of us not involved in high-energy physics research, the
:"inaccuracy" is irrelevant, as it has no measurable effect on everyday
:phenomena.
_This_ is where to use the word "irrelevant."
-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>FWIIW, I made this point to Moggin awhile ago and it was ignored.
> I replied directly both of your posts.
You did leave out the "point" being discussed. To repeat, I do not
understand why you insist that accuracy is an absolute, rather than a
comparative. Why do you say there are degrees of inaccuracy, but
something is either entirely accurate or it is inaccurate. By your
definition most people would probably agree that Newton's Laws are
"inaccurate", but, as you say, so what?
Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
It is this question of the boolean quality of accurate that you
ignored. I looked back at your posts and you said nothing about this
questions.
>>Is is possible, even in principle to measure the difference at, say,
>>Indy car speeds? Without doing any calculations (which I would get
>>wrong) I suspect not.
> Why not? And more importantly, so what?
If something cannot be measured, even if in principle, does it exist?
Bob Casanova
In article <5177k7$t...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net (Bob Casanova):
<snip>
>Bob:
>>As I clearly stated, the inaccuracy is not measurable except under
>>circumstances outside the everyday, and physics doesn't deal only with
>>high-energy, high-velocity phenomena. For such everyday phenomena, Newton's
>>laws work fine, for engineering *and* physics. BTW, engineers who work on the
>>design of such things as particle accelerators must also take relativistic
>>effects into account; relativity isn't the province solely of physicists.
> Fine. So? None of that is in dispute, and none of it makes
>the inaccuracies of Newton's laws irrelevant to science, as you seem
>to think.
Given what I posted, your response makes no sense. I *never* claimed that this
was irrelevant to science *in general*; you seem unable to accept that there
are areas where the inaccuracy is totally irrelevant, and can thus be said to
be nonexistent to the limits of measurement.
Bob Casanova
In article <51759t$p...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Matt:
>moggin:
>Bob:
>moggin:
>Bob:
> Why?
I *could* say, "Because you believe it exists for ordinary phenomena, but have
yet to demonstrate that your belief has a basis in fact.". But I won't.
Instead I'll say:
Why not? Or do you (finally) agree that there is no measurable inaccuracy when
"ordinary" phenomena are the subject? The point being, of course, that even
though you may be able to *calculate* the inaccuracy (or you may not; the
uncertainty principle may foil you, depending on the subject), if you can't
measure the inaccuracy, it is effectively nonexistent.
Bob Casanova
In article <517crl$8...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob:
>>>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>>>along with semantic games.
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>>>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>>>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
>Brigitte Darcel <brig...@tr792.tr.comm.mot.com>:
>>What is your definition of accurate? Newtonian physics is accurate enough to
>>get us from point A to B most anywhere in the Cosmos as long as we don't go
>>near a singularity and allow us to build and support structures, and to
>>generally function within our known universe. When we get to the point where
>>Newtonian physics begins to fail we pull out the Quantum ruler. I don't see the
>>point of the debate. Certainly no one will deny that Newtonian physics can not
>>accurately describe every aspect of the universe. But do I really care what is
>>going on at the quark level when I'm building a bridge?
> Nope, you don't. But I thought scientists had loftier goals.
The goal being to spend additional time calculating *exactly* the same answer?
moggin
Matt:
>>>>>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>>>>>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>>>>>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>>>>>:electron and the radius of proton.
moggin:
>>>>> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>>>>>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>>>>>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>>>>>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>>>>>what we'll see now.)
Bob:
>>>>Actually, we're discussing science and engineering. You're discussing
>>>>mathematics.
moggin:
>>> Bodies in motion fall under the heading of physics, which was
>>>still one of the sciences, last I checked.
Bob:
>>:Fine. Physics is (at least partly) an experimental science. Please
>>:outline an experiment (no high-energy physics labs) which will
>>:demonstrate the inaccuracy.
moggin:
>> Why?
Bob:
>I *could* say, "Because you believe it exists for ordinary phenomena,
>but have yet to demonstrate that your belief has a basis in
>fact.". But I won't. Instead I'll say:
>Why not? Or do you (finally) agree that there is no measurable
>inaccuracy when "ordinary" phenomena are the subject? The point being,
>of course, that even though you may be able to *calculate* the
>inaccuracy (or you may not; the uncertainty principle may foil you,
>depending on the subject), if you can't measure the inaccuracy, it is
>effectively nonexistent.
When did I claim it was measureable with regard to "ordinary"
phenomena? Or that it had any discernable effect in "everyday" life?
You can build bridges and race Indy cars with nary a thought in your
head about relativity or QM. (A poll of Indy drivers and pit crews
would back me up.) Ditto for delivering newspapers, collecting coins,
and playing canasta. But as I may have noted before, the inaccuracy
exists even if its effect on canasta players is immeasureably small.
-- moggin
moggin
[This is a re-post of my dialogue with Matt, for Matt's benefit.]
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>Not "generally speaking"; they *are* mathematically inaccurate when relative
>>motion is involved. This doesn't, however, invalidate my point that the
>>inaccuracies are, in most everyday events, immeasurable.
moggin:
> Those are two different points. Newton's laws are inaccurate.
>That's not in dispute, and of course you're not disputing it. You're
>just defending them as a special case -- that's what you're at when
>you say they hold for "ordinary events." But it follows that they're
>not accurate in general. Under certain conditions the inaccuracies
>are very small -- however, that doesn't make them vanish, or transform
>the theory into an accurate one.
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
:is a special and not interesting case.)
Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
be in some cases.
Matt:
:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
:electron and the radius of proton.
Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
what we'll see now.)
-- moggin
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>:is a special and not interesting case.)
moggin:
> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>be in some cases.
Matt:
:Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
:completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
:degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
:am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
:turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
:these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
No, we're not understanding each other. Or maybe we are -- I
can't tell because of the ambiguity in your phrase, "describing the
world." Newton's laws have only a small degree of inaccuracy when you
limit their application -- specifically, when you confine them to the
"everday world." (I assume that's what you're saying.) But elsewhere
(for example, at larger fractions of c), their inaccuracy increases.
So, are they generally accurate? No. The best you can say is that if
applied only to a limited range of phenomena, the errors they produce
will be relatively (heh) small.
Matt:
>:Any idea how accurate they are? For instance what is the difference if
>:you use relativistic formulae to calculate the trajectory of a flying
>:indy car? My WAG says that is somewhere between the radius of an
>:electron and the radius of proton.
moggin:
> Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously they're good enough
>that their errors are dismissable for practical purposes. But are we
>discussing science or engineering? (I remember that a great amount of
>stress was placed on the distinction during our last round -- I wonder
>what we'll see now.)
Matt:
>Actually I wanted to know if you understood the scale of the
>inaccuracy we are talking about. It seems infinitesimally close to
>accurate for the velocities and masses we usually talk about.
Once again: the inaccuracies are small over a certain range,
that is, "the velocities and masses we usually talk about." And as
I've also pointed out, that doesn't make them vanish, or change the
theory into an accurate one.
-- moggin
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>FWIIW, I made this point to Moggin awhile ago and it was ignored.
moggin:
>> I replied directly to both of your posts.
Matt:
>You did leave out the "point" being discussed.
I addressed what you said, after which you sank from view,
only to reappear just now, sobbing on Bob's breast about how I had
ignored you.
>To repeat, I do not
>understand why you insist that accuracy is an absolute, rather than a
>comparative. Why do you say there are degrees of inaccuracy, but
>something is either entirely accurate or it is inaccurate. By your
>definition most people would probably agree that Newton's Laws are
>"inaccurate", but, as you say, so what?
I don't insist -- it's reasonable to speak of accuracy as a
matter of degrees. (That's what you're requesting, isn't it? Your
language isn't entirely clear.) Given that sense of the term, it's
the case that the accuracy of Newton's laws varies considerably --
although they're never perfectly accurate (except, as you said, at
V=0), under certain conditions they can produce good approximations,
while in other cases their accuracy is nil. That's why I said that
they were inaccurate, generally speaking.
>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
>and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
>Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
>It is this question of the boolean quality of accurate that you
>ignored. I looked back at your posts and you said nothing about this
>questions.
You're full of shit. I'll make a re-post of our exchange.
Matt:
>>>Is is possible, even in principle to measure the difference at, say,
>>>Indy car speeds? Without doing any calculations (which I would get
>>>wrong) I suspect not.
moggin:
>> Why not? And more importantly, so what?
Matt:
>If something cannot be measured, even if in principle, does it exist?
Yep. I'd still like to hear about the principle, though.
-- moggin
moggin
Bob:
>>>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>>>along with semantic games.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>>>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>>>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
Brigitte Darcel <brig...@tr792.tr.comm.mot.com>:
>>>What is your definition of accurate? Newtonian physics is accurate
>>>enough to get us from point A to B most anywhere in the Cosmos as long
>>>as we don't go near a singularity and allow us to build and support
>>>structures, and to generally function within our known universe. When
>>>we get to the point where Newtonian physics begins to fail we pull out
>>>the Quantum ruler. I don't see th e point of the debate. Certainly no
>>>one will deny that Newtonian physics can not accurately describe every
>>>aspect of the universe. But do I really care what is going on at the
>>>quark level when I'm building a bridge?
moggin:
>> Nope, you don't. But I thought scientists had loftier goals.
Bob:
>The goal being to spend additional time calculating *exactly* the same
>answer?
No; more like "understanding nature," or "describing reality."
That sort of thing.
-- moggin
P.S. Would it be *exactly* the same answer?
moggin
Bob:
>>>As I clearly stated, the inaccuracy is not measurable except under
>>>circumstances outside the everyday, and physics doesn't deal only with
>>>high-energy, high-velocity phenomena. For such everyday phenomena,
>>>Newton's laws work fine, for engineering *and* physics. BTW, engineers
>>>who work on the design of such things as particle accelerators must
>>>also take relativistic effects into account; relativity isn't the
>>>province solely of physicists.
moggin:
>> Fine. So? None of that is in dispute, and none of it makes
>>the inaccuracies of Newton's laws irrelevant to science, as you seem
>>to think.
Bob:
>Given what I posted, your response makes no sense. I *never* claimed
>that this was irrelevant to science *in general*;
Good. Then you'll stop saying things like, "the inaccuracy is
thus moot." What you mean is that in most, "ordinary" cases, it's not
a practical consideration. That's true, and I never said differently.
To repeat: it's not in dispute, and it doesn't erase the inaccuracy of
Newton's laws.
>you seem unable to
>accept that there are areas where the inaccuracy is totally
>irrelevant, and can thus be said to be nonexistent to the limits of
>measurement.
Ah, how quickly you forget! You can't even finish a sentence
before you're back to claiming that it's "totally irrelevant."
-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>[This is a re-post of my dialogue with Matt, for Matt's benefit.]
[snip to the relevant part]
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>:is a special and not interesting case.)
> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>be in some cases.
My point was that accuracy is comparative, not absolute. You ignored
that and continued talking about inaccuracy. Unless, of course, you
language was not entirely clear.
[snip]
[repetition of above quotes snipped]
>Matt:
>:Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
>:completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
>:degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
>:am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
>:turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
>:these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
> No, we're not understanding each other. Or maybe we are -- I
>can't tell because of the ambiguity in your phrase, "describing the
>world." Newton's laws have only a small degree of inaccuracy when you
>limit their application -- specifically, when you confine them to the
>"everday world." (I assume that's what you're saying.) But elsewhere
>(for example, at larger fractions of c), their inaccuracy increases.
>So, are they generally accurate? No. The best you can say is that if
>applied only to a limited range of phenomena, the errors they produce
>will be relatively (heh) small.
Still don't see anything about my disagreement with you use of the
word accurate as an absolute. Unless, as I said, one of us is using
language that is not entirely clear.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>>FWIIW, I made this point to Moggin awhile ago and it was ignored.
>moggin:
>>> I replied directly to both of your posts.
>Matt:
>>You did leave out the "point" being discussed.
> I addressed what you said, after which you sank from view,
>only to reappear just now, sobbing on Bob's breast about how I had
>ignored you.
You must admit a cry does us good now and again. Clever of you to
notice the tear stains on my post.
>>To repeat, I do not
>>understand why you insist that accuracy is an absolute, rather than a
>>comparative. Why do you say there are degrees of inaccuracy, but
>>something is either entirely accurate or it is inaccurate. By your
>>definition most people would probably agree that Newton's Laws are
>>"inaccurate", but, as you say, so what?
> I don't insist -- it's reasonable to speak of accuracy as a
>matter of degrees. (That's what you're requesting, isn't it? Your
>language isn't entirely clear.)
Do you any language is entirely clear?
>Given that sense of the term, it's
>the case that the accuracy of Newton's laws varies considerably --
>although they're never perfectly accurate (except, as you said, at
>V=0), under certain conditions they can produce good approximations,
>while in other cases their accuracy is nil. That's why I said that
>they were inaccurate, generally speaking.
True. They are also astoundingly accurate, generally speaking.
>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
>>and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
>>Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
Agreed. So what?
>>It is this question of the boolean quality of accurate that you
>>ignored. I looked back at your posts and you said nothing about this
>>questions.
> You're full of shit. I'll make a re-post of our exchange.
Please do. I looked back to see and I did not find it. If you did
respond then maybe your language was not entirely clear. Things like
that happen. And sorry for making you loose your temper. I know you
usually don't use language like that.
>Matt:
>>>>Is is possible, even in principle to measure the difference at, say,
>>>>Indy car speeds? Without doing any calculations (which I would get
>>>>wrong) I suspect not.
>moggin:
>>> Why not? And more importantly, so what?
>Matt:
>>If something cannot be measured, even if in principle, does it exist?
> Yep. I'd still like to hear about the principle, though.
>-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
[snip]
>> I don't insist -- it's reasonable to speak of accuracy as a
>>matter of degrees. (That's what you're requesting, isn't it? Your
>>language isn't entirely clear.)
>Do you any language is entirely clear?
Sorry, this should have read,
To you, is any language entirely clear?
I guess my first try was really not clear
[snip again]
Richard Harter
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>[...]
>:Ah, I see. Someone has dragged some moth eaten thread out of the
>:attic and the troops are squabbling over it. Moggin in his usual
>:inimitable style is engaged in palming off superficialities as
>:profundities and said troops are engaged in gobbling irritably. It is
>:quite a mystery to me how the good moggin raises hackles with such
>:ease. Me, I plant them, I water them, I fertilize them, I weed them,
>:and the damn things are dead by mid-July.
> Agreed that we could well have allowed the moths their meal,
>but I protest your characterization. Has the noxious atmosphere of
>talk.origins turned a gentleman such as yourself into a cad? Or is
>this what comes of eating a cod printed with the Sunday paper?
Indubitably. Somehow zippy and dilbert get intermingled and the whole
thing gets incredibly confused. However I wasn't really putting you
down [well a little bit] but merely expressing bewilderment at
something quite remarkable. Everyone is in agreement as to the facts
of the matter and yet the arguments go on. You are saying something
not at all exceptional and yet you raise hackles, people obviously
taking exception and casting about for counter arguments. This, I
think, is quite remarkable.
Now one reasonably suspect that people have long memories of prior
discussions (best left buried) and are operating on the assumption
that the statement that Newton's laws are false/inaccurate has some
baggage that they object to. I suggest that the difficulty arises
from the boolean nature of "true" and "false" which carry the baggage
of totally correct or totally incorrect. A theory can be "good"
without being totally correct where "good" has at least two
dimensions, degree of accuracy of prediction and conceptual
consistency with better theory. Thus Newton's laws are (a) quite
accurate [where accuracy is considered as a measurable attribute] and
(b) are conceptually close to a better theory [relativity]. In the
latter regard, Newton's laws are a limit point of relativity. It is
true enough that there is no metric for measuring conceptual
consistency but that's the way it goes. In science the relevant
question is not whether theories are true but rather whether they are
good and how good are they. Science doesn't deal in certain truth -
certainty of truth is left to those realms where there is no
possibility of refutation. Thus to ask "are Newton's laws true or are
they completely accurate" and answer it with "no" is off the mark
because the question is, in a sense, the wrong question to ask, i.e.,
it is not truly relevant.
I speculate that the reaction you get is because people recognize well
enough that the question and answer are not appropriate but haven't
quite thought out why. Thus we have the reference to mathematics
(where true and false are immediately relevant) which seems quite
mysterious otherwise.
Enough. Have you read any good haddock lately?
Noel Smith
moggin wrote:
>
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>: [deletions]
> Matt:
> >Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
> >and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word
> >Newton's Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
> out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
This is also true of Einstein's equations, or of any scientific "law"
having to do with real physical systems: They produce useful
approximations under certain limited conditions. In many cases the
accuracy is beyond the limits of measurement under current conditions,
which means that it is perfect for all practical purposes. Prediction
does not require perfect accuracy or absolute knowledge. Metaphysical
certitude, after all, is a term which belongs to philosophy, not
science.
The nihilism of much modern philosophy is a consequence of its desire
for perfection and absolutes, which are not found; scientists are
pragmatists, and are comfortable with the approximateness of the
empirical.
> - moggin
- Noel
moggin
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>:is a special and not interesting case.)
moggin:
> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>be in some cases.
Matt:
:My point was that accuracy is comparative, not absolute. You ignored
:that and continued talking about inaccuracy. Unless, of course, you
:language was not entirely clear.
You've got me confused here. You criticized me for talking about
accuracy as an absolute -- but I was following your use of the term by
speaking of degrees of inaccuracy. So I don't understand what you're
objecting to, or why you think I ignored your point. Sure I continued
talking about inaccuracy. Taking accuracy as relative doesn't remove
inaccuracies -- it just places them in a range. In this instance, the
range is large, since the inaccuracy of Newton's laws varies from low
(when considering "everyday" phenomena) to high (re: the small and the
fast).
"Accuracy" can be either a relative or an absolute concept. But
as you agree, Newton's laws aren't precisely accurate anywhere except
V=O. If accuracy is relative, you can say that they're sometimes more
accurate and others more inaccurate -- not that they're "astoundingly
accurate," in general. Which is what I wrote before: their inaccuracy
varies, and in some cases it's relatively small. In others cases, of
course, it's relatively large.
Recall that we're discussing a set of natural laws. A natural
law that varies wildly in its degree of accuracy isn't any law at all
-- the appropriate term is "false." And that's the case with Newton.
Matt:
>:Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
>:completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
>:degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
>:am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
>:turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
>:these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
moggin:
> No, we're not understanding each other. Or maybe we are -- I
>can't tell because of the ambiguity in your phrase, "describing the
>world." Newton's laws have only a small degree of inaccuracy when you
>limit their application -- specifically, when you confine them to the
>"everday world." (I assume that's what you're saying.) But elsewhere
>(for example, at larger fractions of c), their inaccuracy increases.
>So, are they generally accurate? No. The best you can say is that if
>applied only to a limited range of phenomena, the errors they produce
>will be relatively (heh) small.
Matt:
:Still don't see anything about my disagreement with you use of the
:word accurate as an absolute. Unless, as I said, one of us is using
:language that is not entirely clear.
You didn't want me to use it as an absolute, so I spoke about it
as a matter of degree. I honestly can't see what you have to complain
about. My point stands. Newton's laws are not generally accurate --
the most you can say is that they're relatively accurate when applied
within certain limits. So if "the world" means "the universe," you're
wrong to say that "these laws have a very small inaccuracy."
-- moggin
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
>You must admit a cry does us good now and again.
Granted.
Matt:
>>>To repeat, I do not
>>>understand why you insist that accuracy is an absolute, rather than a
>>>comparative. Why do you say there are degrees of inaccuracy, but
>>>something is either entirely accurate or it is inaccurate. By your
>>>definition most people would probably agree that Newton's Laws are
>>>"inaccurate", but, as you say, so what?
moggin:
>> I don't insist -- it's reasonable to speak of accuracy as a
>>matter of degrees. (That's what you're requesting, isn't it? Your
>>language isn't entirely clear.) Given that sense of the term, it's
>>the case that the accuracy of Newton's laws varies considerably --
>>although they're never perfectly accurate (except, as you said, at
>>V=0), under certain conditions they can produce good approximations,
>>while in other cases their accuracy is nil. That's why I said that
>>they were inaccurate, generally speaking.
Matt:
>True. They are also astoundingly accurate, generally speaking.
Don't follow you there. Since their accuracy varies (to say
the least), they _aren't_ generally accurate. If you make accuracy a
matter of degree, you can label a good approximation "accurate," but
they can only provide one under specific conditions -- not in general.
>To you, is any language entirely clear?
There's always room for misunderstanding.
Matt:
>>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
>>>and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
>>>Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
moggin:
>> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
>>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
>>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
Matt:
>Agreed. So what?
So they aren't generally accurate. That's what we're talking
about, right? It's false to say that "Generally speaking, Newtonian
physics is highly accurate" (Michael's claim), and it's not generally
true that "Newton's laws are astoundingly accurate" or that "these
laws have a very small inaccuracy" (as you've been stating).
It also follows that the claim "scientific theories are never
wrong" is false. (Not that you said they were, but that was the issue
before.) Further implications: usefulness doesn't entail validity (so
much for the argument that if it works, it must be true). And Newton
can't be recuperated as a "special case" under Einstein (consequences
for the idea of scientific progress).
-- moggin
Michael D. Painter
If you insist on continuing this why not use the correct term. Newton's
approximation (no pun intended) are very accurate. What you are discussing
is precision.
moggin <mog...@bessel.nando.net> wrote in article
<517qpe$p...@bessel.nando.net>...
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>
> >>>FWIIW, I made this point to Moggin awhile ago and it was ignored.
>
> moggin:
>
> >> I replied directly to both of your posts.
>
> Matt:
>
> >You did leave out the "point" being discussed.
>
> I addressed what you said, after which you sank from view,
> only to reappear just now, sobbing on Bob's breast about how I had
> ignored you.
>
> >To repeat, I do not
> >understand why you insist that accuracy is an absolute, rather than a
> >comparative. Why do you say there are degrees of inaccuracy, but
> >something is either entirely accurate or it is inaccurate. By your
> >definition most people would probably agree that Newton's Laws are
> >"inaccurate", but, as you say, so what?
>
> I don't insist -- it's reasonable to speak of accuracy as a
> matter of degrees. (That's what you're requesting, isn't it? Your
> language isn't entirely clear.) Given that sense of the term, it's
> the case that the accuracy of Newton's laws varies considerably --
> although they're never perfectly accurate (except, as you said, at
> V=0), under certain conditions they can produce good approximations,
> while in other cases their accuracy is nil. That's why I said that
> they were inaccurate, generally speaking.
>
> >Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
> >and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
> >Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
>
> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
> out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
> under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
>
> >It is this question of the boolean quality of accurate that you
> >ignored. I looked back at your posts and you said nothing about this
> >questions.
>
> You're full of shit. I'll make a re-post of our exchange.
>
moggin
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter):
>>:Ah, I see. Someone has dragged some moth eaten thread out of the
>>:attic and the troops are squabbling over it. Moggin in his usual
>>:inimitable style is engaged in palming off superficialities as
>>:profundities and said troops are engaged in gobbling irritably. It is
>>:quite a mystery to me how the good moggin raises hackles with such
>>:ease. Me, I plant them, I water them, I fertilize them, I weed them,
>>:and the damn things are dead by mid-July.
moggin:
>> Agreed that we could well have allowed the moths their meal,
>>but I protest your characterization. Has the noxious atmosphere of
>>talk.origins turned a gentleman such as yourself into a cad? Or is
>>this what comes of eating a cod printed with the Sunday paper?
Richard:
>Indubitably. Somehow zippy and dilbert get intermingled and the whole
>thing gets incredibly confused. However I wasn't really putting you
>down [well a little bit] but merely expressing bewilderment at
>something quite remarkable. Everyone is in agreement as to the facts
>of the matter and yet the arguments go on. You are saying something
>not at all exceptional and yet you raise hackles, people obviously
>taking exception and casting about for counter arguments. This, I
>think, is quite remarkable.
I share your feeling. If you'll notice, I've never claimed to
be offering profundities -- I was merely stating some _fin de siecle_
commonplaces, and it's no end of wonderment to me that they've aroused
so much turmoil and opposition.
>Now one reasonably suspect that people have long memories of prior
>discussions (best left buried) and are operating on the assumption
>that the statement that Newton's laws are false/inaccurate has some
>baggage that they object to.
Yep. Although they probably know better, some of these folks
insist on claiming that Newton's laws are generally accurate. Partly
idol-worship, I would guess, and partly a desire to protect even more
dubious propositions (e.g., scientific theories are never wrong). In
short, the statement that Newton was mistaken deprives them of baggage
they want to hold on to.
>I suggest that the difficulty arises
>from the boolean nature of "true" and "false" which carry the baggage
>of totally correct or totally incorrect. A theory can be "good"
>without being totally correct where "good" has at least two
>dimensions, degree of accuracy of prediction and conceptual
>consistency with better theory. Thus Newton's laws are (a) quite
>accurate [where accuracy is considered as a measurable attribute] and
>(b) are conceptually close to a better theory [relativity]. In the
>latter regard, Newton's laws are a limit point of relativity. It is
>true enough that there is no metric for measuring conceptual
>consistency but that's the way it goes.
Newton's laws are generally quite inaccurate, where accuracy
is a matter of figures and measurements. However, there are certain,
limited conditions where they produce good approximations, which you
can arguably call accurate results. (You know this, of course, but
you seem to have difficulty holding it in your mind.) Conceptually,
there are large discrepancies between Newton and Einstein -- another
commonplace.
>In science the relevant
>question is not whether theories are true but rather whether they are
>good and how good are they. Science doesn't deal in certain truth -
>certainty of truth is left to those realms where there is no
>possibility of refutation. Thus to ask "are Newton's laws true or are
>they completely accurate" and answer it with "no" is off the mark
>because the question is, in a sense, the wrong question to ask, i.e.,
>it is not truly relevant.
Scientists aren't always so hasty to abandon their claims to
truth. In any case, Newton's laws are sometimes highly inaccurate --
they're "accurate" (meaning of relatively low inaccuracy) only under a
limited set of conditions. (Odd I have to keep mentioning that.) And
looking at it conceptually, Newton's thought turns out to have been in
error.
But that's irrelevant to you, since you don't think it's right
to ask about truth or accuracy in science. What _are_ you willing to
ask? If truth and accuracy aren't your criteria, what do you believe
makes for a "good" theory? Calling "good" consistency with "better"
begs the question, and if it's o.k. to speak of "degrees of accuracy,"
then accuracy and inaccuracy _are_ relevant, after all.
>I speculate that the reaction you get is because people recognize well
>enough that the question and answer are not appropriate but haven't
>quite thought out why. Thus we have the reference to mathematics
>(where true and false are immediately relevant) which seems quite
>mysterious otherwise.
I don't see why they're inappropriate, myself, and you haven't
explained why they seem that way to you, or what questions you prefer
to ask, instead. Perhaps you'll elaborate. The reaction, I believe,
stems from a distaste for the implications of some perfectly relevant
questions. Bringing in math, for example, was an attempt to say, "Oh,
that's not really part of _science_!" No mystery there.
>Enough. Have you read any good haddock lately?
No, but I may give it a try, just for the halibut.
-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <517toa$s...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob:
>moggin:
>Bob:
Er, if you're going to quote out of context, you really *should* remove the
context from your reply. See above, where I posted "...there are areas
where..."? This means that my statement only refers to *those areas*.
Are you claiming that an immeasurable difference, within the areas where it is
immeasurable, *is* somehow mystically relevant? Or are you still playing
semantic games?
Bob Casanova
In article <517u4u$s...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob:
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>Brigitte Darcel <brig...@tr792.tr.comm.mot.com>:
>moggin:
>Bob:
"Understanding nature" - The fact that we agree that there are phenomena which
require us to use relativistic calculations says that we understand reality
fairly well.
"Describing reality" - The fact that we know that Newton's laws yield results
indistinguishable from "more accurate" methods, when describing everyday
phenomena, shows that we know that any inherent inaccuracy is immeasurable,
and thus irrelevant.
>-- moggin
> P.S. Would it be *exactly* the same answer?
Bob C.
moggin
Michael D. Painter <mpai...@maxinet.com>:
>If you insist on continuing this why not use the correct term.
>Newton's approximation (no pun intended) are very accurate. What you
>are discussing is precision.
In some cases the inaccuracy of Newton's laws is very low --
that is, they make good approximations. In others, however, they're
highly inaccurate. Why do you think precision would be a better word?
(With careful work you can produce the most precise of inaccuracies.)
-- moggin
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>>>As I clearly stated, the inaccuracy is not measurable except under
>>>>>circumstances outside the everyday, and physics doesn't deal only with
>>>>>high-energy, high-velocity phenomena. For such everyday phenomena,
>>>>>Newton's laws work fine, for engineering *and* physics. BTW, engineers
>>>>>who work on the design of such things as particle accelerators must
>>>>>also take relativistic effects into account; relativity isn't the
>>>>>province solely of physicists.
moggin:
>>>> Fine. So? None of that is in dispute, and none of it makes
>>>>the inaccuracies of Newton's laws irrelevant to science, as you seem
>>>>to think.
Bob:
>>>Given what I posted, your response makes no sense. I *never* claimed
>>>that this was irrelevant to science *in general*;
moggin:
>> Good. Then you'll stop saying things like, "the inaccuracy is
>>thus moot." What you mean is that in most, "ordinary" cases, it's not
>>a practical consideration. That's true, and I never said differently.
>>To repeat: it's not in dispute, and it doesn't erase the inaccuracy of
>>Newton's laws.
So we're agreed?
Bob:
>>>you seem unable to
>>>accept that there are areas where the inaccuracy is totally
>>>irrelevant, and can thus be said to be nonexistent to the limits of
>>>measurement.
moggin:
>> Ah, how quickly you forget! You can't even finish a sentence
>>before you're back to claiming that it's "totally irrelevant."
Bob:
>Er, if you're going to quote out of context, you really *should*
>remove the context from your reply.
Since I didn't remove the context, I wasn't quoting you out
of it. (This shouldn't need explaining.)
>See above, where I posted "...there are areas where..."? This means
>that my statement only refers to *those areas*. Are you claiming that
>an immeasurable difference, within the areas where it is immeasurable,
>*is* somehow mystically relevant? Or are you still playing semantic
>games?
Impossible, since I wasn't playing them before. (That was
your initial mistake.) Now, my point was that Newton's laws aren't
generally accurate, so it's sufficient for me to note that there are
areas where they perform inaccurately. If your assertion that their
inaccuracies are "totally irrelevant" refers only to _other_ areas,
where their inaccuracy is relatively low, then it has no bearing on
what I said.
Since there are areas where the inaccuracy is relevant, you
don't have anything to argue with me about. I said that they were
inaccurate, and so they are. The degree of their inaccuracy varies
from one area to another, but they're not generally accurate. And
of course they're failures as "natural laws."
All that remains is to interpret their inaccuracy in areas
where it's the smallest, meaning in relation to "everyday" events.
You say that since it's immeasurable, it's irrelevant -- but is it
immeasurable in principle? And why make measurement the universal
principle for measuring relevance, in any case?
-- moggin
moggin
Bob:
>>>>>>More a comment on the practice of claiming Newton's laws to be
>>>>>>inaccurate, without qualifying that statement; misdirection at best,
>>>>>>along with semantic games.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>>>> Nonsense. They're inaccurate, generally speaking. (I may
>>>>>have mentioned that before.) Can't see where you disagree, either,
>>>>>since you tell me you don't want to call them an "accurate theory."
Brigitte Darcel <brig...@tr792.tr.comm.mot.com>:
>>>>>What is your definition of accurate? Newtonian physics is accurate
>>>>>enough to get us from point A to B most anywhere in the Cosmos as long
>>>>>as we don't go near a singularity and allow us to build and support
>>>>>structures, and to generally function within our known universe. When
>>>>>we get to the point where Newtonian physics begins to fail we pull out
>>>>>the Quantum ruler. I don't see th e point of the debate. Certainly no
>>>>>one will deny that Newtonian physics can not accurately describe every
>>>>>aspect of the universe. But do I really care what is going on at the
>>>>>quark level when I'm building a bridge?
moggin:
>>>> Nope, you don't. But I thought scientists had loftier goals.
Bob:
>>>The goal being to spend additional time calculating *exactly* the same
>>>answer?
moggin:
>> No; more like "understanding nature," or "describing reality."
>>That sort of thing. P.S. Would it be *exactly* the same answer?
Bob:
>"Understanding nature" - The fact that we agree that there are
>phenomena which require us to use relativistic calculations says that
>we understand reality fairly well.
Not to me, it doesn't -- perhaps you can explain what it's
whispering into your ear. And how does your comment on Einstein
do anything to help Newton, especially since you already said that
you didn't want to call N.'s laws an "accurate theory"?
>"Describing reality" - The fact that we know that Newton's laws yield
>results indistinguishable from "more accurate" methods, when
>describing everyday phenomena, shows that we know that any inherent
>inaccuracy is immeasurable, and thus irrelevant.
It doesn't show that the inaccuracy is immeasurable -- just
that it's unmeasured. And you have yet to even attempt to show why
"unmeasureable" would necessarily equal "irrelevant." Which one is
it, anyhow: an immeasurable inaccuracy, or *exactly* the same answer?
In order to know that it was *exactly* the same, you would probably
have to measure it, but now you're claiming that it's not measurable.
-- moggin
moggin
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>> I share your feeling. If you'll notice, I've never claimed to
>>be offering profundities -- I was merely stating some _fin de siecle_
>>commonplaces, and it's no end of wonderment to me that they've aroused
>>so much turmoil and opposition.
Richard:
>>>Now one reasonably suspect that people have long memories of prior
>>>discussions (best left buried) and are operating on the assumption
>>>that the statement that Newton's laws are false/inaccurate has some
>>>baggage that they object to.
moggin:
>> Yep. Although they probably know better, some of these folks
>>insist on claiming that Newton's laws are generally accurate. Partly
>>idol-worship, I would guess, and partly a desire to protect even more
>>dubious propositions (e.g., scientific theories are never wrong). In
>>short, the statement that Newton was mistaken deprives them of baggage
>>they want to hold on to.
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>Let's see. Moggin does not know why the post aroused turmoil. Moggin
>then says scientists are idol worshipers. Anyone beside me see a
>connection?
Let's hope not, for the sake of talk.origins good reputation.
The post I was wondering about didn't say scientists worship idols --
that was my later speculation about why my earlier comments on the
obvious shortcomings of Newton's laws inspired such angry, defensive
replies. It was odd to see such an ordinary observation cause a big
fuss. Idol-worship is one, possible explanation.
-- moggin
moggin
Richard:
>>>I suggest that the difficulty arises
>>>from the boolean nature of "true" and "false" which carry the baggage
>>>of totally correct or totally incorrect. A theory can be "good"
>>>without being totally correct where "good" has at least two
>>>dimensions, degree of accuracy of prediction and conceptual
>>>consistency with better theory. Thus Newton's laws are (a) quite
>>>accurate [where accuracy is considered as a measurable attribute] and
>>>(b) are conceptually close to a better theory [relativity]. In the
>>>latter regard, Newton's laws are a limit point of relativity. It is
>>>true enough that there is no metric for measuring conceptual
>>>consistency but that's the way it goes.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>> Newton's laws are generally quite inaccurate, where accuracy
>>is a matter of figures and measurements.
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>A small question since you know so much about this. How could the
>accurace not be a matter of figures and measurements? What other kind
>of scientific accuracy would you expect?
See below.
moggin:
>>However, there are certain,
>>limited conditions where they produce good approximations, which you
>>can arguably call accurate results.
>But you don't.
I might.
moggin:
>>(You know this, of course, but
>>you seem to have difficulty holding it in your mind.)
Matt:
>This sentence is more than mearly unclear.
It's very clear.
moggin:
>>Conceptually,
>>there are large discrepancies between Newton and Einstein -- another
>>commonplace.
Matt:
>Cool use of the word "conceptually"! I kept you from having to imply
>that the difference was one of measurement. BTW, what does the word
>commonplace mean in that sentence and what are the two (or more)
>"commonplaces"?
My use of "accurately" and "conceptually" followed Richard's,
so the credit and the questions should go to him. A commonplace is a
platitude or some other form of accepted wisdom, in that sentence as
elsewhere in the language. One of them is right there -- the others
concerned the well-known defects of Newton's theories.
Richard:
>>>In science the relevant
>>>question is not whether theories are true but rather whether they are
>>>good and how good are they. Science doesn't deal in certain truth -
>>>certainty of truth is left to those realms where there is no
>>>possibility of refutation. Thus to ask "are Newton's laws true or are
>>>they completely accurate" and answer it with "no" is off the mark
>>>because the question is, in a sense, the wrong question to ask, i.e.,
>>>it is not truly relevant.
moggin:
>> Scientists aren't always so hasty to abandon their claims to
>>truth. In any case, Newton's laws are sometimes highly inaccurate --
>>they're "accurate" (meaning of relatively low inaccuracy) only under a
>>limited set of conditions. (Odd I have to keep mentioning that.)
Matt:
>Stop mentioning that.
Why? Because you prefer to forget?
>It is your only point, that you want to use accurate as a boolean.
Nope.
-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>>:is a special and not interesting case.)
>moggin:
>> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>>be in some cases.
>Matt:
>:My point was that accuracy is comparative, not absolute. You ignored
>:that and continued talking about inaccuracy. Unless, of course, you
>:language was not entirely clear.
> You've got me confused here. You criticized me for talking about
>accuracy as an absolute -- but I was following your use of the term by
>speaking of degrees of inaccuracy. So I don't understand what you're
>objecting to, or why you think I ignored your point. Sure I continued
>talking about inaccuracy. Taking accuracy as relative doesn't remove
>inaccuracies -- it just places them in a range. In this instance, the
>range is large, since the inaccuracy of Newton's laws varies from low
>(when considering "everyday" phenomena) to high (re: the small and the
>fast).
If accuracy is a range rather than an absolute than it is wrong to say
the theory is *not accurate*, you can same it has X inaccuracy, or
only applies over Y range.
> "Accuracy" can be either a relative or an absolute concept. But
>as you agree, Newton's laws aren't precisely accurate anywhere except
>V=O. If accuracy is relative, you can say that they're sometimes more
>accurate and others more inaccurate -- not that they're "astoundingly
>accurate," in general. Which is what I wrote before: their inaccuracy
>varies, and in some cases it's relatively small. In others cases, of
>course, it's relatively large.
IOW, their accuracy varies and in some cases it is very high, and in
others, of course, it's "relatively: large.
> Recall that we're discussing a set of natural laws. A natural
>law that varies wildly in its degree of accuracy isn't any law at all
>-- the appropriate term is "false." And that's the case with Newton.
Probably the wrong term is Law.
>Matt:
>>:Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
>>:completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
>>:degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
>>:am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
>>:turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
>>:these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
>moggin:
>> No, we're not understanding each other. Or maybe we are -- I
>>can't tell because of the ambiguity in your phrase, "describing the
>>world." Newton's laws have only a small degree of inaccuracy when you
>>limit their application -- specifically, when you confine them to the
>>"everday world." (I assume that's what you're saying.) But elsewhere
>>(for example, at larger fractions of c), their inaccuracy increases.
>>So, are they generally accurate? No. The best you can say is that if
>>applied only to a limited range of phenomena, the errors they produce
>>will be relatively (heh) small.
>Matt:
>:Still don't see anything about my disagreement with you use of the
>:word accurate as an absolute. Unless, as I said, one of us is using
>:language that is not entirely clear.
> You didn't want me to use it as an absolute, so I spoke about it
>as a matter of degree.
No, you continue to talk about inaccuracy, not accuracy, and then act
as though you have scored points.
>I honestly can't see what you have to complain
>about. My point stands. Newton's laws are not generally accurate --
>the most you can say is that they're relatively accurate when applied
>within certain limits. So if "the world" means "the universe," you're
>wrong to say that "these laws have a very small inaccuracy."
They are as accurate as you or I will ever need for our own work.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
>Matt:
>>True. They are also astoundingly accurate, generally speaking.
> Don't follow you there. Since their accuracy varies (to say
>the least), they _aren't_ generally accurate. If you make accuracy a
>matter of degree, you can label a good approximation "accurate," but
>they can only provide one under specific conditions -- not in general.
Don't follow you there. Generally accurate as in accurate in those
cases one generally deals with.
>>To you, is any language entirely clear?
> There's always room for misunderstanding.
As you know from experience.
>Matt:
>>>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
>>>>and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
>>>>Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
>moggin:
>>> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
>>>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
>>>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
>Matt:
>>Agreed. So what?
> So they aren't generally accurate. That's what we're talking
>about, right? It's false to say that "Generally speaking, Newtonian
>physics is highly accurate" (Michael's claim), and it's not generally
>true that "Newton's laws are astoundingly accurate" or that "these
>laws have a very small inaccuracy" (as you've been stating).
Don't follow you there. For any case I will personally handle in my
life Newton's Laws are dead on.
> It also follows that the claim "scientific theories are never
>wrong" is false. (Not that you said they were, but that was the issue
>before.)
Nor would I ever claim it. Nor do I know of anyone who would claim it.
So I don't know how it became an issue.
>Further implications: usefulness doesn't entail validity (so
>much for the argument that if it works, it must be true).
Actually usefulness (as in the ability to predict) is in some ways a
definition of validity.
>And Newton
>can't be recuperated as a "special case" under Einstein (consequences
>for the idea of scientific progress).
Don't follow you there.
Matt Silberstein
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
> I share your feeling. If you'll notice, I've never claimed to
>be offering profundities -- I was merely stating some _fin de siecle_
>commonplaces, and it's no end of wonderment to me that they've aroused
>so much turmoil and opposition.
[snip]
> Yep. Although they probably know better, some of these folks
>insist on claiming that Newton's laws are generally accurate. Partly
>idol-worship, I would guess, and partly a desire to protect even more
>dubious propositions (e.g., scientific theories are never wrong).
Let's see. Moggin does not know why the post aroused turmoil. Moggin
then says scientists are idol worshipers. Anyone beside me see a
connection?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
> Newton's laws are generally quite inaccurate, where accuracy
>is a matter of figures and measurements.
A small question since you know so much about this. How could the
accurace not be a matter of figures and measurements? What other kind
of scientific accuracy would you expect?
>However, there are certain,
>limited conditions where they produce good approximations, which you
>can arguably call accurate results.
But you don't.
>(You know this, of course, but
>you seem to have difficulty holding it in your mind.)
This sentence is more than mearly unclear.
>Conceptually,
>there are large discrepancies between Newton and Einstein -- another
>commonplace.
Cool use of the word "conceptually"! I kept you from having to imply
that the difference was one of measurement. BTW, what does the word
commonplace mean in that sentence and what are the two (or more)
"commonplaces"?
>>In science the relevant
>>question is not whether theories are true but rather whether they are
>>good and how good are they. Science doesn't deal in certain truth -
>>certainty of truth is left to those realms where there is no
>>possibility of refutation. Thus to ask "are Newton's laws true or are
>>they completely accurate" and answer it with "no" is off the mark
>>because the question is, in a sense, the wrong question to ask, i.e.,
>>it is not truly relevant.
> Scientists aren't always so hasty to abandon their claims to
>truth. In any case, Newton's laws are sometimes highly inaccurate --
>they're "accurate" (meaning of relatively low inaccuracy) only under a
>limited set of conditions. (Odd I have to keep mentioning that.)
Stop mentioning that. It is your only point, that you want to use
accurate as a boolean.
>And
>looking at it conceptually, Newton's thought turns out to have been in
>error.
Oh that I could make such an error!
moggin
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein):
>>:I was not aware that the term accurate was an absolute, I always
>>:thought is wasa comparative: more or less accurate, very or not very
>>:accurate. If you use the word that way then Newton's laws are
>>:astoundingly accurate (and simple). (They are precise at V=0, but that
>>:is a special and not interesting case.)
>moggin:
>> Their degree of inaccuracy varies, e.g. by velocity. What you
>>mean to say is that you're astounded by how small their inaccuracy can
>>be in some cases.
>Matt:
>:My point was that accuracy is comparative, not absolute. You ignored
>:that and continued talking about inaccuracy. Unless, of course, you
>:language was not entirely clear.
moggin:
> You've got me confused here. You criticized me for talking about
>accuracy as an absolute -- but I was following your use of the term by
>speaking of degrees of inaccuracy. So I don't understand what you're
>objecting to, or why you think I ignored your point. Sure I continued
>talking about inaccuracy. Taking accuracy as relative doesn't remove
>inaccuracies -- it just places them in a range. In this instance, the
>range is large, since the inaccuracy of Newton's laws varies from low
>(when considering "everyday" phenomena) to high (re: the small and the
>fast).
Matt:
:If accuracy is a range rather than an absolute than it is wrong to say
:the theory is *not accurate*, you can same it has X inaccuracy, or
:only applies over Y range.
A theory that produces inaccurate results isn't an accurate
theory, even if it manufactures the right answer in some cases. Or
(heeding Richard's comments about terminology) a theory which makes
inaccurate predictions is false.
moggin:
> "Accuracy" can be either a relative or an absolute concept. But
>as you agree, Newton's laws aren't precisely accurate anywhere except
>V=O. If accuracy is relative, you can say that they're sometimes more
>accurate and others more inaccurate -- not that they're "astoundingly
>accurate," in general. Which is what I wrote before: their inaccuracy
>varies, and in some cases it's relatively small. In others cases, of
>course, it's relatively large.
Matt:
:IOW, their accuracy varies and in some cases it is very high, and in
:others, of course, it's "relatively: large.
Nope -- in some cases its accuracy relatively high, if by
"accuracy" you mean "inaccurate, but not enough to bother me." In
others it has no accuracy to speak of. So as I pointed out before,
you're wrong to say that it's "astoundingly accurate," in general.
moggin:
> Recall that we're discussing a set of natural laws. A natural
>law that varies wildly in its degree of accuracy isn't any law at all
>-- the appropriate term is "false." And that's the case with Newton.
Matt:
:Probably the wrong term is Law.
Alright -- then it's false to call them laws of nature.
Matt:
>>:Let me see if I understand you correctly. Something is either
>>:completely accurate, or it is not accurate. But something can have a
>>:degree of inaccuracy? You use the word "accurate" differently than I
>>:am used to. But fine, by your definition, you are correct. It all just
>>:turned out to be a disagreement about one word, but you agree that
>>:these "laws" have a very small inaccuracy when describing the world.
moggin:
>> No, we're not understanding each other. Or maybe we are -- I
>>can't tell because of the ambiguity in your phrase, "describing the
>>world." Newton's laws have only a small degree of inaccuracy when you
>>limit their application -- specifically, when you confine them to the
>>"everday world." (I assume that's what you're saying.) But elsewhere
>>(for example, at larger fractions of c), their inaccuracy increases.
>>So, are they generally accurate? No. The best you can say is that if
>>applied only to a limited range of phenomena, the errors they produce
>>will be relatively (heh) small.
Matt:
>:Still don't see anything about my disagreement with you use of the
>:word accurate as an absolute. Unless, as I said, one of us is using
>:language that is not entirely clear.
moggin:
> You didn't want me to use it as an absolute, so I spoke about it
>as a matter of degree.
Matt:
:No, you continue to talk about inaccuracy, not accuracy, and then act
:as though you have scored points.
To repeat: "Sure I continued talking about inaccuracy. Taking
accuracy as relative doesn't remove inaccuracies -- it just places
them in a range." You have no grounds to ban the term "inaccuracy" --
just a fond wish that it should never be applied to Newton, or perhaps
to any scientific theory. (Have I mentioned "idol-worship" anywhere?)
moggin:
>I honestly can't see what you have to complain
>about. My point stands. Newton's laws are not generally accurate --
>the most you can say is that they're relatively accurate when applied
>within certain limits. So if "the world" means "the universe," you're
>wrong to say that "these laws have a very small inaccuracy."
Matt:
:They are as accurate as you or I will ever need for our own work.
Oh, is _that_ the decisive criterion for evaluating scientific
theories? Well, now I know the standard you apply. Proves what I was
suspecting: science is just like that ol' time religion. ("Gimme that
ol' time religion, gimme that ol' time religion/It's good enough for
me, it's good enough for you.")
-- moggin
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>True. They are also astoundingly accurate, generally speaking.
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>> Don't follow you there. Since their accuracy varies (to say
>>the least), they _aren't_ generally accurate. If you make accuracy a
>>matter of degree, you can label a good approximation "accurate," but
>>they can only provide one under specific conditions -- not in general.
Matt:
>Don't follow you there. Generally accurate as in accurate in those
>cases one generally deals with.
You mean "the everyday world"? Yes, that's where they provide
useful approximations -- but since they can't do that elsewhere, they
aren't accurate, in general -- they don't generalize very well beyond
"ordinary" conditions. (I thought that had become common knowledge.)
Matt:
>>>To you, is any language entirely clear?
moggin:
>> There's always room for misunderstanding.
Matt:
>As you know from experience.
Especially with t.o.
Matt:
>>>>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
>>>>>and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word Newton's
>>>>>Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
moggin:
>>>> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
>>>>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
>>>>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
Matt:
>>>Agreed. So what?
moggin:
>> So they aren't generally accurate. That's what we're talking
>>about, right? It's false to say that "Generally speaking, Newtonian
>>physics is highly accurate" (Michael's claim), and it's not generally
>>true that "Newton's laws are astoundingly accurate" or that "these
>>laws have a very small inaccuracy" (as you've been stating).
Matt:
>Don't follow you there. For any case I will personally handle in my
>life Newton's Laws are dead on.
I didn't know that scientists restricted their interests to
cases that you'll "personally handle." Be that as it may, you and
others have been making broad claims about the accuracy of Newton's
laws, not just observations about how well they apply in your life.
And their usefulness to you personally doesn't make them accurate,
in general, especially since there are conditions where they don't
work well at all.
You already agreed that the best you can say is that they
produce useful approximations under certain, limited conditions. It
follows that your claim of general accuracy is false. (That's as
simple as I can make it for you.)
moggin:
>> It also follows that the claim "scientific theories are never
>>wrong" is false. (Not that you said they were, but that was the issue
>>before.)
Matt:
>Nor would I ever claim it. Nor do I know of anyone who would claim it.
>So I don't know how it became an issue.
That claim has been offered by talk.originals or sci.sceptics
at least three separate times in the past year -- incredible, huh? In
fact, it appeared just a little earlier on this thread -- our present
discussion takes up from there.
moggin:
>>Further implications: usefulness doesn't entail validity (so
>>much for the argument that if it works, it must be true).
Matt:
>Actually usefulness (as in the ability to predict) is in some ways a
>definition of validity.
That's called a tautology.
moggin:
>>And Newton
>>can't be recuperated as a "special case" under Einstein (consequences
>>for the idea of scientific progress).
Matt:
>Don't follow you there.
Seems not.
-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>> Newton's laws are generally quite inaccurate, where accuracy
>>>is a matter of figures and measurements.
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>A small question since you know so much about this. How could the
>>accurace not be a matter of figures and measurements? What other kind
>>of scientific accuracy would you expect?
> See below.
I saw below. Did not see a response to my question.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
[snip]
>>> Yep. Although they probably know better, some of these folks
>>>insist on claiming that Newton's laws are generally accurate. Partly
>>>idol-worship, I would guess, and partly a desire to protect even more
>>>dubious propositions (e.g., scientific theories are never wrong). In
>>>short, the statement that Newton was mistaken deprives them of baggage
>>>they want to hold on to.
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>Let's see. Moggin does not know why the post aroused turmoil. Moggin
>>then says scientists are idol worshipers. Anyone beside me see a
>>connection?
> Let's hope not, for the sake of talk.origins good reputation.
>The post I was wondering about didn't say scientists worship idols --
>that was my later speculation about why my earlier comments on the
>obvious shortcomings of Newton's laws inspired such angry, defensive
>replies. It was odd to see such an ordinary observation cause a big
>fuss. Idol-worship is one, possible explanation.
I will try to make this clear. Do you think that your propensity for
gratuitous insults might be responsible for some of the reaction to
your posts?
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>A small question since you know so much about this. How could the
>>>accurace not be a matter of figures and measurements? What other kind
>>>of scientific accuracy would you expect?
moggin:
>> See below.
Matt:
>I saw below. Did not see a response to my question.
I told you where to direct it.
-- moggin
moggin
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>>>> Yep. Although they probably know better, some of these folks
>>>>insist on claiming that Newton's laws are generally accurate. Partly
>>>>idol-worship, I would guess, and partly a desire to protect even more
>>>>dubious propositions (e.g., scientific theories are never wrong). In
>>>>short, the statement that Newton was mistaken deprives them of baggage
>>>>they want to hold on to.
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>Let's see. Moggin does not know why the post aroused turmoil. Moggin
>>>then says scientists are idol worshipers. Anyone beside me see a
>>>connection?
moggin:
>> Let's hope not, for the sake of talk.origins good reputation.
>>The post I was wondering about didn't say scientists worship idols --
>>that was my later speculation about why my earlier comments on the
>>obvious shortcomings of Newton's laws inspired such angry, defensive
>>replies. It was odd to see such an ordinary observation cause a big
>>fuss. Idol-worship is one, possible explanation.
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>I will try to make this clear. Do you think that your propensity for
>gratuitous insults might be responsible for some of the reaction to
>your posts?
Gratuitous, what gratuitous? I don't hesitate to make pointed
comments, but usually they have a point (in contrast to the usual t.o.
witlessness). Here I was pointing out that you tried to explain the
replies to my comments on Newton by citing a phrase ("idol-worship") I
didn't use until later, when I speculated about why my earlier remarks
had been so provocative to the t.o. faithful. The question is, why do
some people react to the observation that Newton was mistaken as if it
was a gratuitous insult? You know my guess.
-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <51aher$g...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
<snip>
>moggin:
>>> No; more like "understanding nature," or "describing reality."
>>>That sort of thing. P.S. Would it be *exactly* the same answer?
>Bob:
>>"Understanding nature" - The fact that we agree that there are
>>phenomena which require us to use relativistic calculations says that
>>we understand reality fairly well.
> Not to me, it doesn't -- perhaps you can explain what it's
>whispering into your ear. And how does your comment on Einstein
>do anything to help Newton, especially since you already said that
>you didn't want to call N.'s laws an "accurate theory"?
>>"Describing reality" - The fact that we know that Newton's laws yield
>>results indistinguishable from "more accurate" methods, when
>>describing everyday phenomena, shows that we know that any inherent
>>inaccuracy is immeasurable, and thus irrelevant.
> It doesn't show that the inaccuracy is immeasurable -- just
>that it's unmeasured. And you have yet to even attempt to show why
>"unmeasureable" would necessarily equal "irrelevant." Which one is
>it, anyhow: an immeasurable inaccuracy, or *exactly* the same answer?
>In order to know that it was *exactly* the same, you would probably
>have to measure it, but now you're claiming that it's not measurable.
>-- moggin
Like I said, semantic games. Try to follow this: If two calculations based on
measurement yield the same result, no difference can be determined between
them for that set of measurements. It thus follows that there is no relevant
difference between the calculations *for that set of measurements*. If there
is no relevant difference then any difference, and thus any inaccuracy in one
or the other method, is irrelevant *for that set of measurements*. And since,
for the purpose of comparing Newton's laws to "more accurate" methods of
calculation, this class of measurements comprises *all* measurements of
"everyday" phenomena, for such measurements the "inaccuracy" in Newton's laws
is irrelevant. Please point out any steps which you consider to be erroneous
or unclear, and I will try to help.
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>The fact that we know that Newton's laws yield
>>>results indistinguishable from "more accurate" methods, when
>>>describing everyday phenomena, shows that we know that any inherent
>>>inaccuracy is immeasurable, and thus irrelevant.
moggin:
>> It doesn't show that the inaccuracy is immeasurable -- just
>>that it's unmeasured. And you have yet to even attempt to show why
>>"unmeasureable" would necessarily equal "irrelevant." Which one is
>>it, anyhow: an immeasurable inaccuracy, or *exactly* the same answer?
>>In order to know that it was *exactly* the same, you would probably
>>have to measure it, but now you're claiming that it's not measurable.
Bob:
>Like I said, semantic games.
Thus repeating your mistake. You began with the claim that
calling Newton's laws inaccurate was just a "semantic game." But you
quickly had to concede their inaccuracy -- you even denied that you
wanted to call Newton's theory "accurate." So your accusation turned
out to be hollow.
Here I pointed to several, distinct errors in your reasoning,
and in reply you accuse me, once again, of playing "semantic games."
And maybe this _is_ a matter of semantics -- it seems that "semantic
games" is the term you apply to anything you don't want to hear.
>Try to follow this: If two calculations based on
>measurement yield the same result, no difference can be determined between
>them for that set of measurements. It thus follows that there is no relevant
>difference between the calculations *for that set of measurements*. If there
>is no relevant difference then any difference, and thus any inaccuracy in one
>or the other method, is irrelevant *for that set of measurements*. And since,
>for the purpose of comparing Newton's laws to "more accurate" methods of
>calculation, this class of measurements comprises *all* measurements of
>"everyday" phenomena, for such measurements the "inaccuracy" in Newton's laws
>is irrelevant. Please point out any steps which you consider to be erroneous
>or unclear, and I will try to help.
It's clear that what you've got here is a tautology. And of
course science isn't limited to the study of "'everyday' phenomena."
-- moggin
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin):
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>moggin:
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
You are good, very good.
>Here I was pointing out that you tried to explain the
>replies to my comments on Newton by citing a phrase ("idol-worship") I
>didn't use until later, when I speculated about why my earlier remarks
>had been so provocative to the t.o. faithful. The question is, why do
>some people react to the observation that Newton was mistaken as if it
>was a gratuitous insult? You know my guess.
When responding to you I trouble deciding between giving you straight
lines and giving the jokes myself. However, I am getting tired of the
thread, so I will just say good-by until later.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>moggin:
>>> See below.
>Matt:
You got me on this one. The only thing I can see is that you might
have suggested that I should ask Richard. Is that what you intended?
If not, please try to be a little clear and explicit, just this once.
Thanks.
Valucard International
Matt Silberstein (mat...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In talk.origins mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) wrote:
: >[This is a re-post of my dialogue with Matt, for Matt's benefit.]
: [snip to the relevant part]
: Still don't see anything about my disagreement with you use of the
: word accurate as an absolute. Unless, as I said, one of us is using
: language that is not entirely clear.
: [snip]
: Matt Silberstein
: -----------------------------
: The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
: Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
Sorry to butt in, guys, but...
This is a(n) hilarious parody of my conversations with my own friend Matt,
And I'd like to comment that there's nothing particulary accurate about
Newton's Laws, they are cute and that's about it.
Everything moves in jerky little stuttering jumps, and more than that
depends on whether you got suckered into believing Newton's Laws when
you were in Indoctrination Camp.
You noticed this every day of your life, you just ignored it, and your mind
told you that Newton's "Laws" must be so, or jeez, look how much stuff
would just go out the window.
Later. Thanks for the clue.
17
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May the best hallucination win.
I want a God who takes responsibility for His mistakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>>>A small question since you know so much about this. How could the
>>>>>accurace not be a matter of figures and measurements? What other
>>>>>kind of scientific accuracy would you expect?
moggin:
>>>> See below.
>Matt:
>>>I saw below. Did not see a response to my question.
moggin:
>> I told you where to direct it.
Matt:
>You got me on this one. The only thing I can see is that you might
>have suggested that I should ask Richard. Is that what you intended?
>If not, please try to be a little clear and explicit, just this once.
>Thanks.
The previous exchange:
***
moggin:
>>>Conceptually, there are large discrepancies between Newton and
>>>Einstein -- another commonplace.
Matt:
>>Cool use of the word "conceptually"! I kept you from having to imply
>>that the difference was one of measurement.
moggin:
> My use of "accurately" and "conceptually" followed Richard's,
>so the credit and the questions should go to him.
***
How much more clear and explicit could I have been?
-- moggin
Brad J Cadle
In article <i17Dxp...@netcom.com>,
I know this Discussion about newtons laws is off topic, But
am not sure what you mean about everything moving in Jerky little
suttering jumps. Could you please Elaborate on this? It seems to me
that although Newtons laws don't seem to work well near the speed
of light, and motion become blurred on the quantum level, it seems
like it was sufficently accurate to describe motion for the Apollo
Missions to the moon. If you mean jerky little motions as pertaining to
the problem with resistance, that is a seperate issue beyond Newtons
laws. Clearly, you have to take into account thinks like air resisitance
and lift when describing the motion of a projectile in our atmosphere.
I hope you weren't trying to use motion on earth as a way to invalidate the
accuracy of newtons laws, by not taking into account the complex nature
of the environment in which the motion is taking place.
-Brad
Bob Casanova
In article <51d7hk$8...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
>Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>>The fact that we know that Newton's laws yield
>>>>results indistinguishable from "more accurate" methods, when
>>>>describing everyday phenomena, shows that we know that any inherent
>>>>inaccuracy is immeasurable, and thus irrelevant.
>moggin:
>>> It doesn't show that the inaccuracy is immeasurable -- just
>>>that it's unmeasured. And you have yet to even attempt to show why
>>>"unmeasureable" would necessarily equal "irrelevant." Which one is
>>>it, anyhow: an immeasurable inaccuracy, or *exactly* the same answer?
>>>In order to know that it was *exactly* the same, you would probably
>>>have to measure it, but now you're claiming that it's not measurable.
>Bob:
>>Like I said, semantic games.
> Thus repeating your mistake. You began with the claim that
>calling Newton's laws inaccurate was just a "semantic game." But you
>quickly had to concede their inaccuracy -- you even denied that you
>wanted to call Newton's theory "accurate." So your accusation turned
>out to be hollow.
Nope, sorry. I've shown several times why I consider that inaccuracies which
cannot be demonstrated (measured) are effectively nonexistent (my term was
"irrelevant"). So far, although you've complained much about that term, you
have yet to show that it is incorrect, only that you dislike it.
> Here I pointed to several, distinct errors in your reasoning,
Actually, you misquoted me. I never said that our knowledge showed that the
inaccuracy was immeasurable, but that we know this to be true.
As to your second claim, I've shown several times why I believe "immeasurable"
to effectively equal "irrelevant". You brushed off each without a substantive
counter.
Third claim (actually, "question"): What, exactly, is the difference, to you,
between an "immeasurable inaccuracy" (i.e., an inaccuracy which is smaller
than your calculation will show) and "*exactly* the same answer"?
Fourth claim: An example of how a test could be conducted: Measure the weight
of any body at rest (A locomotive, for instance). Calculate the difference in
mass for the locomotive at, say, 120mph. Measure the weight of the locomotive
at 120mph. If the unavoidable error in the measurements is larger than the
difference between your calculation and the Newtonian one, your experiment has
failed to show a difference in the accuracy the calculations, and thus any
theoretical difference is irrelevant (there's that word again) until such time
as you *can* demonstrate a difference.
>and in reply you accuse me, once again, of playing "semantic games."
>And maybe this _is_ a matter of semantics -- it seems that "semantic
>games" is the term you apply to anything you don't want to hear.
No, it seems that you aren't listening. Claims of inaccuracy which haven't
been demonstrated, only interpolated, are premature. And no, I'm *not*
claiming that the interpolation is wrong; I *am* claiming that it hasn't been
(and probably never will be) demonstrated.
>>Try to follow this: If two calculations based on
>>measurement yield the same result, no difference can be determined between
>>them for that set of measurements. It thus follows that there is no relevant
>>difference between the calculations *for that set of measurements*. If there
>>is no relevant difference then any difference, and thus any inaccuracy in one
>>or the other method, is irrelevant *for that set of measurements*. And since,
>>for the purpose of comparing Newton's laws to "more accurate" methods of
>>calculation, this class of measurements comprises *all* measurements of
>>"everyday" phenomena, for such measurements the "inaccuracy" in Newton's laws
>>is irrelevant. Please point out any steps which you consider to be erroneous
>>or unclear, and I will try to help.
> It's clear that what you've got here is a tautology.
A tautology? Really? So you either accept all of it, or reject all of it.
Which will it be?
And of
>course science isn't limited to the study of "'everyday' phenomena."
Nor did I ever claim it was. Of course, science also isn't limited to areas
where any inaccuracy in Newton's laws can be successfully demonstrated.
>-- moggin
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
>>>>>The fact that we know that Newton's laws yield
>>>>>results indistinguishable from "more accurate" methods, when
>>>>>describing everyday phenomena, shows that we know that any inherent
>>>>>inaccuracy is immeasurable, and thus irrelevant.
moggin:
>>>> It doesn't show that the inaccuracy is immeasurable -- just
>>>>that it's unmeasured. And you have yet to even attempt to show why
>>>>"unmeasureable" would necessarily equal "irrelevant." Which one is
>>>>it, anyhow: an immeasurable inaccuracy, or *exactly* the same answer?
>>>>In order to know that it was *exactly* the same, you would probably
>>>>have to measure it, but now you're claiming that it's not measurable.
Bob:
>>>Like I said, semantic games.
moggin:
>> Thus repeating your mistake. You began with the claim that
>>calling Newton's laws inaccurate was just a "semantic game." But you
>>quickly had to concede their inaccuracy -- you even denied that you
>>wanted to call Newton's theory "accurate." So your accusation turned
>>out to be hollow.
Bob:
>Nope, sorry. I've shown several times why I consider that inaccuracies
>which cannot be demonstrated (measured) are effectively nonexistent
>(my term was "irrelevant"). So far, although you've complained much
>about that term, you have yet to show that it is incorrect, only that
>you dislike it.
Not at all -- it's a fine term, and I use it often. Let me
put it to use right now: you've correctly noted that there are cases
where the inaccuracies can be safely ignored. But that's irrelevant.
Those relatively small inaccuracies aren't erased -- neither are the
larger ones outside of "everyday" conditions. Therefore you made an
empty accusation when you said that mentioning them was a "semantic
game."
moggin:
>> Here I pointed to several, distinct errors in your reasoning,
Bob:
>Actually, you misquoted me. I never said that our knowledge showed
>that the inaccuracy was immeasurable, but that we know this to be
>true.
If that sentence makes any sense, I'd like to know about it.
I'd also be interested to learn where you think I misquoted you, and
how. For now, I'll just point out that you still haven't shown why
the inaccuracy is immeasurable in principle.
>As to your second claim, I've shown several times why I believe
>"immeasurable" to effectively equal "irrelevant".
Another irrelevancy. There's no dispute that is some cases,
the effects of the inaccuracy are small enough that for practical
purposes they can be ignored. Between us, we've listed a number of
them -- Matt offered car racing, Brigitte mentioned bridge-building,
you brought up airplane design, and I added delivering newspapers,
collecting coins, and playing canasta. We could even lengthen the
list. But the fact that there are some cases where it's possible to
dismiss the inaccuracy does nothing to show that it's _necessarily_
irrelevant.
>You brushed off each without a substantive counter.
I've replied much as I just did -- you've repeated yourself
instead of answering me.
>Third claim (actually, "question"): What, exactly, is the difference,
>to you, between an "immeasurable inaccuracy" (i.e., an inaccuracy
>which is smaller than your calculation will show) and "*exactly* the
>same answer"?
One is immeasurable, as stipulated, while the other is not
only measurable, but measurable with a high degree of precision --
which would you like to claim?
>Fourth claim: An example of how a test could be conducted: Measure the
>weight of any body at rest (A locomotive, for instance). Calculate the
>difference in mass for the locomotive at, say, 120mph. Measure the
>weight of the locomotive at 120mph. If the unavoidable error in the
>measurements is larger than the difference between your calculation
>and the Newtonian one, your experiment has failed to show a difference
>in the accuracy the calculations, and thus any theoretical difference
>is irrelevant (there's that word again) until such time as you *can*
>demonstrate a difference.
Nope -- only if the inaccuracy is unmeasurable in principle,
and if "unmeasurable" necessarily equals "irrelevant" -- the points
that you failed to support above.
Even on your own assumptions, you're still wrong -- all you've
offered is a case where the inaccuracy is small enough to dismiss, for
practical purposes. As velocity increases, so does the the inaccuracy
-- outside the region of "ordinary phenomena," it can be quite large.
moggin:
>>and in reply you accuse me, once again, of playing "semantic games."
>>And maybe this _is_ a matter of semantics -- it seems that "semantic
>>games" is the term you apply to anything you don't want to hear.
Bob:
>No, it seems that you aren't listening. Claims of inaccuracy which
>haven't been demonstrated, only interpolated, are premature. And no,
>I'm *not* claiming that the interpolation is wrong; I *am* claiming
>that it hasn't been (and probably never will be) demonstrated.
If you're that good at predicting the future, post the scores
for next week's football games, or some weather reports -- something
_measurable_, y'know? Until then your claim is meaningless. Even if
I accept it, just for the sake of argument, you _still_ haven't shown
that "unmeasureable" is synonymous with "irrelevant."
Bob:
>>>Try to follow this: If two calculations based on measurement yield
>>>the same result, no difference can be determined between them for that
>>>set of measurements. It thus follows that there is no relevant
>>>difference between the calculations *for that set of measurements*. If
>>>there is no relevant difference then any difference, and thus any
>>>inaccuracy in one or the other method, is irrelevant *for that set of
>>>measurements*. And since, for the purpose of comparing Newton's laws
>>>to "more accurate" methods of calculation, this class of measurements
>>>comprises *all* measurements of "everyday" phenomena, for such
>>>measurements the "inaccuracy" in Newton's laws is irrelevant. Please
>>>point out any steps which you consider to be erroneous or unclear, and
>>>I will try to help.
moggin:
>> It's clear that what you've got here is a tautology.
Bob:
>A tautology? Really? So you either accept all of it, or reject all of
>it. Which will it be?
No need to do either, since a tautology establishes nothing.
moggin:
>>And of course science isn't limited to the study of "'everyday'
>>phenomena."
Bob:
>Nor did I ever claim it was.
And yet that's the region your argument is limited to.
>Of course, science also isn't limited to areas where any inaccuracy in
>Newton's laws can be successfully demonstrated.
So? Obviously there are areas where their inaccuracy is small
enough to that you can call it irrelevant for practical purposes. But
you've got to show that it's _always_ irrelevant -- not just that it's
posssible to ignore under certain, limited conditions. You haven't.
As I said before:
"My point was that Newton's laws aren't generally accurate, so
it's sufficient for me to note that there are areas where they perform
inaccurately. If your assertion that their inaccuracies are 'totally
irrelevant' refers only to _other_ areas, where their inaccuracy is
relatively low, then it has no bearing on what I said.
"Since there are areas where the inaccuracy is relevant, you
don't have anything to argue with me about. I said that they were
inaccurate, and so they are. The degree of their inaccuracy varies
from one area to another, but they're not generally accurate."
Strange you didn't reply. But let's go back to some of the
things you _have_ said. You've admitted that you don't want to call
Newton's theory "accurate." You also said, " I *never* claimed that
this [inaccuracy] was irrelevant to science *in general* [...]."
(Emphasis yours.) So it's hard to imagine what all your chattering
about "irrelevancy" is meant to establish. I replied:
"Good. Then you'll stop saying things like 'the inaccuracy is
thus moot.' What you mean is that in most 'ordinary' cases, it's not
a practical consideration. That's true, and I never said differently.
To repeat: it's not in dispute, and it doesn't erase the inaccuracy of
Newton's laws."
Again, you didn't answer. But let's see: you're not claiming
Newton's theory is accurate, and you're not claiming the inaccuracy is
irrelevant to science. So you've got no argument. (That may explain
why you've been so unsuccessful in offering one.)
-- moggin
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
:>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one side
:>>and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word
:>>Newton's Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
moggin:
:> True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
:>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
:>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
Noel Smith:
:This is also true of Einstein's equations, or of any scientific "law"
:having to do with real physical systems: They produce useful
:approximations under certain limited conditions. In many cases the
:accuracy is beyond the limits of measurement under current conditions,
:which means that it is perfect for all practical purposes. Prediction
:does not require perfect accuracy or absolute knowledge. Metaphysical
:certitude, after all, is a term which belongs to philosophy, not
:science.
:The nihilism of much modern philosophy is a consequence of its desire
:for perfection and absolutes, which are not found; scientists are
:pragmatists, and are comfortable with the approximateness of the
:empirical.
In your haste to polemicize, you completely missed the point.
Newton is disputed by the findings of 20th century physics -- given
Einstein and Heisenberg, Newton was wrong.
-- moggin
Bob Casanova
In article <51fvhe$b...@bessel.nando.net> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
>From: mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin)
>Subject: Re: Evolution Speculation
<snip>
> I've replied much as I just did -- you've repeated yourself
>instead of answering me.
>>No, it seems that you aren't listening. Claims of inaccuracy which
>>haven't been demonstrated, only interpolated, are premature. And no,
>>I'm *not* claiming that the interpolation is wrong; I *am* claiming
>>that it hasn't been (and probably never will be) demonstrated.
> If you're that good at predicting the future, post the scores
>for next week's football games, or some weather reports -- something
>_measurable_, y'know? Until then your claim is meaningless. Even if
>I accept it, just for the sake of argument, you _still_ haven't shown
>that "unmeasureable" is synonymous with "irrelevant."
This seems to be the crux of the "argument". You claim, with some theoretical
justification, that Newton's laws are inaccurate at *all* velocities above
zero, but you have, and can, offer no experimental proof. My claim is that for
such unverified "inaccuracies", the only rational position is that until such
time as they are verified experimentally, the inaccuracies are irrelevant
*because* they are unverified and unmeasured. Which is essentially what I said
above.
>Bob:
>>>>Try to follow this: If two calculations based on measurement yield
>>>>the same result, no difference can be determined between them for that
>>>>set of measurements. It thus follows that there is no relevant
>>>>difference between the calculations *for that set of measurements*. If
>>>>there is no relevant difference then any difference, and thus any
>>>>inaccuracy in one or the other method, is irrelevant *for that set of
>>>>measurements*. And since, for the purpose of comparing Newton's laws
>>>>to "more accurate" methods of calculation, this class of measurements
>>>>comprises *all* measurements of "everyday" phenomena, for such
>>>>measurements the "inaccuracy" in Newton's laws is irrelevant. Please
>>>>point out any steps which you consider to be erroneous or unclear, and
>>>>I will try to help.
>moggin:
>>> It's clear that what you've got here is a tautology.
>Bob:
>>A tautology? Really? So you either accept all of it, or reject all of
>>it. Which will it be?
> No need to do either, since a tautology establishes nothing.
Er, not quite. A tautology establishes nothing *because* each statement is the
semantic equal of every other statement. Since I started with the statement
that it is impossible to establish any difference between two measurements
which yield equal results, and concluded with the statement that for such
measurements any difference was irrelevant, they must, if a tautology, be
equal statements. If so, either both must be true or both false. Since you
have claimed the last to be false, then the first must also be false.
Unfortunately, it isn't.
>
>moggin:
>>>And of course science isn't limited to the study of "'everyday'
>>>phenomena."
>Bob:
>>Nor did I ever claim it was.
> And yet that's the region your argument is limited to.
Of course. And I never claimed otherwise. You seem to have the habit of
violent agreement.
>>Of course, science also isn't limited to areas where any inaccuracy in
>>Newton's laws can be successfully demonstrated.
> So? Obviously there are areas where their inaccuracy is small
>enough to that you can call it irrelevant for practical purposes.
Not quite. There are areas where the inaccuracy has never been demonstrated to
exist, a somewhat different situation.
But
>you've got to show that it's _always_ irrelevant -- not just that it's
>posssible to ignore under certain, limited conditions. You haven't.
No, for the purpose of my initial claim, I only need to show that it's
irrelevant under the "limited" conditions I first stated (which, BTW, includes
*most* of science, not the small portion your use of the word "limited" seems
designed to convey, and nearly all experiential phenomena).
However, I expect you will either not answer this with any evidence, or will
brush it off with the usual "So what?". So it's probably fruitless to continue
this discussion.
Have a nice day.
<snip>
Thomas Franklin Harris Jr.
moggin (mog...@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
: In your haste to polemicize, you completely missed the point.
: Newton is disputed by the findings of 20th century physics -- given
: Einstein and Heisenberg, Newton was wrong.
Newton doesn't break down until you reach subatomic levels and/or approach
the speed of light. (And given chaos theory, it is hardly certain that
subatomic "uncertainty" need deny Newtonian cause and effect; it mimplies
onlt that the causes are too numerous to know.) You're blaiming Newton for
what he couldn't know. Within his macro context -- always remember context
-- Newton is right. Most physicists still use Newton when they can because
he's physics is easier and still works in most situations.
--
******************************************************************************
T. Franklin Harris Jr. tfha...@HiWAAY.net
*** Franklin's Fab! Web Page @ http://fly.hiwaay.net/~tfharris ***
Noel Smith
moggin wrote:
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one
side and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word
Newton's Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
> moggin:True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
I wrote:
This is also true of Einstein's equations, or of any scientific "law"
having to do with real physical systems: They produce useful
approximations under certain limited conditions. In many cases the
accuracy is beyond the limits of measurement under current conditions,
which means that it is perfect for all practical purposes. Prediction
does not require perfect accuracy or absolute knowledge. Metaphysical
certitude, after all, is a term which belongs to philosophy, not
science.
The nihilism of much modern philosophy is a consequence of its desire
for perfection and absolutes, which are not found; scientists are
pragmatists, and are comfortable with the approximateness of the
empirical.
moggin:
> In your haste to polemicize,
moggin is shocked, shocked, to find the polemical on the Net.
moggin:
> you completely missed the point.
> Newton is disputed by the findings of 20th century physics --
> given Einstein and Heisenberg, Newton was wrong.
Newton isn't disputed at all, since what he did and didn't do is
transparently understood. Pragmatically, his work is a useful subset
of Einstein's and, while his model of reality is entirely different,
it isn't "wrong," for the reasons which follow:
It's important that any new scientific theory must
explain the facts we already know, though it can
twist your head around to do the job. Einstein's
explanation of gravity as warped space-time doesn't
sound like Newton's forces acting at a distance--but
they both explain the same elliptical orbits and
falling apples, with Einstein winning in the fifth
decimal place.
- Gregory Benford, physicist & SF author
I think we're misunderstanding the nature of the concept, scientific
theory, like the Bible belt states which require evolution texts to
include the disclaimer that evolution is a theory. A scientific theory
is a model which explains current empirical observations. Engineers
and scientists use current theories in building real machines which
work because the machines apply those theories. That is, a scientific
theory is not a notion or conjecture ("hypothesis" is used for these),
but the current understanding of how physical processes work. In
general, "theory" replaces "law of science," which was used for
earlier scientific discoveries.
There are no wrong theories which work, but there are theories which
are more accurate and/or cover a wider range of conditions. Any theory
which explains the empirical phenomena at least as well as the other
currently available theories, and which is not needlessly inelegant,
ugly, or complexified (Occam's rule), is right, or at least not
"wrong" as moggin uses the term.
That is, a theory is a model. If it explains the facts, as above, it
does what it is supposed to do. There can be two models for the same
thing, as in the wave/particle explanations for the behavior of some
particles.
The transactional interpretation, which physicist John G. Cramer of
the University of Washington offers in place of the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum phenomena, explains inertia, and the
Schroedinger's Cat paradox, in part on the basis of waves which move
backward in time. According to Cramer, it accounts for the same
observed phenomena as the CI, but more straightforwardly.
In addition, it predicts phenomena not yet observed (IIRC), much as
Einstein's theory predicted bending of light near the sun, which was
not observed until the theory caused scientists to look for it in
1919. That is, a new model ("theory") not only explains observed
phenomena, but may cause us to observe new phenomena. (I should point
out here that while Cramer's current web pages describe the TI in
detail, it's apparently not widely accepted, possibly for valid
reasons.)
Where philosophers misunderstand science is in thinking that some sort
of final truth about the world is the goal of science, or even a
factor in its considerations. What science has is measurements of
phenomena, which are always, in the final analysis, approximate; and
models which attempt to account for the measured phenomena, which in
truth are only current working hypotheses.
Rightly understood, this lack of finality can allow scientists to
approach the universe in a spirit of play. Nothing, after all, could
be stranger, or more strangely elegant, than Einstein's curved
space-time, bending light, and objects which age more slowly and grow
both shorter and heavier as they go faster.
Such pessimisms as Horgan's _The End of Science_ reflect a
misunderstanding. Science is neither fixed nor exhaustible.
Mathematics, after all, is produced primarily according to the
constraint of self-consistency, not fidelity to empirical phenomena.
Riemann, if I've got the right guy, invented a geometry based on the
non-Euclidean postulate that parallel lines meet at infinity. It
wasn't intended to explain phenomena, and didn't, until the
Einsteinian model needed such a geometry.
Without end, there will always be new, unexplained phenomena, and more
accurate measurements. These will require new models or theories.
_None_ _of_ _these_ _will_ _be_ _the _ _final_ _truth._ Einstein will
be superseded. But Einstein is not "wrong," and neither is Newton.
Both produced approximate models, with the newer one covering a wider
series of conditions, but more counter-intuitive, and requiring more
cumbersome math. To repeat: Metaphysical certitude, after all, is a
term which belongs to philosophy, not science.
> -- moggin
- Noel
Jeff Inman
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>moggin wrote:
>> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one
>>>side and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word
>>>Newton's Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
>
>>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
>>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
>
>having to do with real physical systems: They produce useful
>approximations under certain limited conditions. In many cases the
>accuracy is beyond the limits of measurement under current conditions,
>which means that it is perfect for all practical purposes.
Hardly. One has yet to establish whether the domains in which the
measurements are being made are somehow pertinent. I don't know for
sure, but I thought Moggin was suggesting that the deeper questions
about Truth require evaluating the strengths of various possible
domains of inquiry. Clearly, scientific "laws" are formulated prior
to the completion of any such evaluation. This must mean that science
is not qualified to speak about 'truth'. To do that, you must first
propose that the parameters of knowledge (within which scientific laws
are stated) are somehow self-evidently "valid".
>Prediction
>does not require perfect accuracy or absolute knowledge. Metaphysical
>certitude, after all, is a term which belongs to philosophy, not
>science.
Prediction of what? You seem to be saying that science needn't know
what it is talking about, as long as its theories conform to its
measurements.
>The nihilism of much modern philosophy is a consequence of its desire
>for perfection and absolutes, which are not found; scientists are
>pragmatists, and are comfortable with the approximateness of the
>empirical.
They always say this, but it always turns out that they're lying.
>There are no wrong theories which work, but there are theories which
>are more accurate and/or cover a wider range of conditions. Any theory
>which explains the empirical phenomena at least as well as the other
>currently available theories, and which is not needlessly inelegant,
>ugly, or complexified (Occam's rule), is right, or at least not
>"wrong" as moggin uses the term.
Just to clarify: Occam's razor is a heuristic, not a provably valid
criterion. But it turns out to be self-eliminating. Revolutionary
ideas are typically resisted because they challenge the "easy",
"simple" functioning of existing theories. This implies that part of
the measure of the "needfulness" of some theory's "inelegance" is
distorted by the needs of the existing theories and theorists. This
ends up complicating what sorts of things can be "empirical".
>That is, a theory is a model. If it explains the facts, as above, it
>does what it is supposed to do. There can be two models for the same
>thing, as in the wave/particle explanations for the behavior of some
>particles.
With which particular facts is one concerned?
>Where philosophers misunderstand science is in thinking that some sort
>of final truth about the world is the goal of science, or even a
>factor in its considerations. What science has is measurements of
>phenomena, which are always, in the final analysis, approximate; and
>models which attempt to account for the measured phenomena, which in
>truth are only current working hypotheses.
I think I can guess where this conversation started. And I think I
can guess how it has been sidetracked by a misunderstanding. It might
be interesting to ask whether scientists mistake their theories for
statements of fact, but it's more interesting to wonder whether the
scientific method itself really provides a reliable means for making
theories "better". Sounds like a stupid question, at first. Sure,
you wanna through out repeatability, falsifiability, and
predicatability, what are you gonna get? But this misses the point.
To even suppose that a scientific "advance" is possible, one must have
already made a philosophical "argument" that empiricism directs one
towrds some kind of "final truth".
>Rightly understood, this lack of finality can allow scientists to
>approach the universe in a spirit of play.
Sounds like such fun, but the "playfulness" I've seen is always
oriented ultimately towards control, subjection of material. I
certainly don't object to control, per se, but it hardly seems like
the only kind of playing one might think of. Perhaps there really are
philosophical scientists, here and there. Another kind of play
supposes that what is "out there" is related to what is "in here".
That seems a lot more like profitable play, to me.
>Without end, there will always be new, unexplained phenomena, and more
>accurate measurements. These will require new models or theories.
>_None_ _of_ _these_ _will_ _be_ _the _ _final_ _truth._ Einstein will
>be superseded. But Einstein is not "wrong," and neither is Newton.
But your explanation makes it sound like you envision this as a series
of refinements and improvements. That each "supercession" is really
an encompassing. But is reduction, for example, a necessary aspect of
this "advance", or might it be an arbitrary notion that pervades
inquiry for some historical reason, or maybe because of some reaction
in the hearts of scientists, or perhaps because of some logical
necessity for the preservation of the scientific enterprise? Mightn't
it turn out that all analytical inquiries are also synthetic?
>Both produced approximate models, with the newer one covering a wider
>series of conditions, but more counter-intuitive, and requiring more
>cumbersome math. To repeat: Metaphysical certitude, after all, is a
>term which belongs to philosophy, not science.
So you are denying that scientific inquiry has any kind of grounding?
But then how do you validate the criterion whereby you suggest that
science is "progressing", in any sense. I think if you turn that
stone over, you'll find quite a metaphysics after all, pale and
cringing in the light.
--
A: "Two negatives make a positive, but two positives don't make a negative."
B: "Yeah, yeah."
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In article <51kvjk$i...@tierra.santafe.edu>, j...@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>>
>>This is also true of Einstein's equations, or of any scientific "law"
>>having to do with real physical systems: They produce useful
>>approximations under certain limited conditions. In many cases the
>>accuracy is beyond the limits of measurement under current conditions,
>>which means that it is perfect for all practical purposes.
>
>Hardly. One has yet to establish whether the domains in which the
>measurements are being made are somehow pertinent. I don't know for
>sure, but I thought Moggin was suggesting that the deeper questions
>about Truth require evaluating the strengths of various possible
>domains of inquiry.
Sounds like a typical "philosophy-speak". Sounds profound, but means
little. Science isn't dealing with Truth, but creating models of
observed phenomena.
>Clearly, scientific "laws" are formulated prior
>to the completion of any such evaluation. This must mean that science
>is not qualified to speak about 'truth'.
See above. Furthermore, who is, in your opinion, qualified to speak
about "truth".
>>Prediction
>>does not require perfect accuracy or absolute knowledge. Metaphysical
>>certitude, after all, is a term which belongs to philosophy, not
>>science.
>
>Prediction of what? You seem to be saying that science needn't know
>what it is talking about, as long as its theories conform to its
>measurements.
>
If you're really interested to know the answer to "predictions of
what?", you should study some science. Not much, mind you, high
school level knowledge will suffice.
>
>>The nihilism of much modern philosophy is a consequence of its desire
>>for perfection and absolutes, which are not found; scientists are
>>pragmatists, and are comfortable with the approximateness of the
>>empirical.
>
>They always say this, but it always turns out that they're lying.
Really? Any examples?
>
>Just to clarify: Occam's razor is a heuristic, not a provably valid
>criterion. But it turns out to be self-eliminating. Revolutionary
>ideas are typically resisted because they challenge the "easy",
>"simple" functioning of existing theories. This implies that part of
>the measure of the "needfulness" of some theory's "inelegance" is
>distorted by the needs of the existing theories and theorists. This
>ends up complicating what sorts of things can be "empirical".
Here we go again with the legend of "revolutionary ideas are typically
resisted". In this century there were two massive revolutions in
physics, neither of which was seriously resisted. In fact they were
embraced rather enthusiastically.
>
... snip ...
>
>I think I can guess where this conversation started. And I think I
>can guess how it has been sidetracked by a misunderstanding. It might
>be interesting to ask whether scientists mistake their theories for
>statements of fact,
It might be. Assuming you actually asked, the answer is "no".
> but it's more interesting to wonder whether the
>scientific method itself really provides a reliable means for making
>theories "better". Sounds like a stupid question, at first. Sure,
>you wanna through out repeatability, falsifiability, and
>predicatability, what are you gonna get? But this misses the point.
>To even suppose that a scientific "advance" is possible, one must have
>already made a philosophical "argument" that empiricism directs one
>towrds some kind of "final truth".
Not at all. Theory is better if its predictions are in closer
agreement with existing data. There is no assumption of any "final
truth" involved. Of course some scientists may believe that such
"final truth" exists but that's a personal belief, not part of the
scientific method. The argument that the concept of "better" implies
a concept of "best" doesn't hold water.
>
>>Without end, there will always be new, unexplained phenomena, and more
>>accurate measurements. These will require new models or theories.
>>_None_ _of_ _these_ _will_ _be_ _the _ _final_ _truth._ Einstein will
>>be superseded. But Einstein is not "wrong," and neither is Newton.
>
>But your explanation makes it sound like you envision this as a series
>of refinements and improvements. That each "supercession" is really
>an encompassing.
Because it is. Each new theory includes in it the previous ones as
special cases. How much more encompassing you can get.
>So you are denying that scientific inquiry has any kind of grounding?
>But then how do you validate the criterion whereby you suggest that
>science is "progressing", in any sense.
When you've a theory which explains some given set {A} of phenomena
but fails at set {B} and come with a new theory which manages to
explain both {A} and {B}, you've progress. There is no need to assume
the existance of some final theory that explains everything. Think
about it in terms of mapping. Suppose you've some Stone Age village
and that its inhabitants know the territory within 20 miles radius,
but nothing else. Suppose now that individuals or groups start hiking
further away till they end with a detailed knowledge of the territory
within 50 miles radius. They've achieved progress. And, they didn't
need to assume that the Earth has a finite area and that by continuing
this way eventually they'll know it all. They may believe it, if they
choose so, but such belief is irrelevant. The progress is real, on
the other hand.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins j...@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) wrote:
>Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>>moggin wrote:
>>> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com>:
>>>>Personally I would see a continum with totally accurate on one
>>>>side and totally inaccurate on the other. But that use of the word
>>>>Newton's Laws are astoundingly accurate for "low" velocities.
>>
>>>True -- and inaccurate for "high" ones. As I already pointed
>>>out, the best you can claim is that they produce useful approximations
>>>under certain, limited conditions. (This shouldn't come as any news.)
>>
>>This is also true of Einstein's equations, or of any scientific "law"
>>having to do with real physical systems: They produce useful
>>approximations under certain limited conditions. In many cases the
>>accuracy is beyond the limits of measurement under current conditions,
>>which means that it is perfect for all practical purposes.
>Hardly. One has yet to establish whether the domains in which the
>measurements are being made are somehow pertinent. I don't know for
>sure, but I thought Moggin was suggesting that the deeper questions
>about Truth require evaluating the strengths of various possible
>domains of inquiry.
What Moggin was doing was jerking some chains. Moggin played games
with some words by using inaccurate so as to upset people. Moggin even
think that Moggin upset me, so Moggin is not as smart as Moggin thinks
Moggin is. (But that is true for all of us.)
> Clearly, scientific "laws" are formulated prior
>to the completion of any such evaluation. This must mean that science
>is not qualified to speak about 'truth'. To do that, you must first
>propose that the parameters of knowledge (within which scientific laws
>are stated) are somehow self-evidently "valid".
>>Prediction
>>does not require perfect accuracy or absolute knowledge. Metaphysical
>>certitude, after all, is a term which belongs to philosophy, not
>>science.
>Prediction of what? You seem to be saying that science needn't know
>what it is talking about, as long as its theories conform to its
>measurements.
No, Jeff is saying that modern science has decided to ignore the
metaphysical concept of truth.
>>The nihilism of much modern philosophy is a consequence of its desire
>>for perfection and absolutes, which are not found; scientists are
>>pragmatists, and are comfortable with the approximateness of the
>>empirical.
>They always say this, but it always turns out that they're lying.
I agree with that.
moggin
Bob Casanova <casa...@casanova.pop.crosslink.net>:
moggin:
Bob:
moggin:
Bob:
moggin:
: Not at all -- it's a fine term, and I use it often. Let me
:put it to use right now: you've correctly noted that there are cases
:where the inaccuracies can be safely ignored. But that's irrelevant.
:Those relatively small inaccuracies aren't erased -- neither are the
:larger ones outside of "everyday" conditions. Therefore you made an
:empty accusation when you said that mentioning them was a "semantic
:game."
Bob:
[No reply.]
moggin:
>> Here I pointed to several, distinct errors in your reasoning,
Bob:
>Actually, you misquoted me. I never said that our knowledge showed that the
>inaccuracy was immeasurable, but that we know this to be true.
moggin:
: If that sentence makes any sense, I'd like to know about it.
:I'd also be interested to learn where you think I misquoted you, and
:how. For now, I'll just point out that you still haven't shown why
:the inaccuracy is immeasurable in principle.
Bob:
[No reply.]
Bob:
>As to your second claim, I've shown several times why I believe
>"immeasurable" to effectively equal "irrelevant".
moggin:
: Another irrelevancy. There's no dispute that is some cases,
:the effects of the inaccuracy are small enough that for practical
:purposes they can be ignored. Between us, we've listed a number of
:them -- Matt offered car racing, Brigitte mentioned bridge-building,
:you brought up airplane design, and I added delivering newspapers,
:collecting coins, and playing canasta. We could even lengthen the
:list. But the fact that there are some cases where it's possible to
:dismiss the inaccuracy does nothing to show that it's _necessarily_
:irrelevant.
Bob:
[No reply.]
Bob:
>You brushed off each without a substantive counter.
moggin:
: I've replied much as I just did -- you've repeated yourself
:instead of answering me.
Bob:
[No reply.]
Bob:
>Third claim (actually, "question"): What, exactly, is the difference,
>to you, between an "immeasurable inaccuracy" (i.e., an inaccuracy
>which is smaller than your calculation will show) and "*exactly* the
>same answer"?
moggin:
: One is immeasurable, as stipulated, while the other is not
:only measurable, but measurable with a high degree of precision --
:which would you like to claim?
Bob:
[No reply.]
Bob:
>Fourth claim: An example of how a test could be conducted: Measure the
>weight of any body at rest (A locomotive, for instance). Calculate the
>difference in mass for the locomotive at, say, 120mph. Measure the
>weight of the locomotive at 120mph. If the unavoidable error in the
>measurements is larger than the difference between your calculation
>and the Newtonian one, your experiment has failed to show a difference
>in the accuracy the calculations, and thus any theoretical difference
>is irrelevant (there's that word again) until such time as you *can*
>demonstrate a difference.
moggin:
: Nope -- only if the inaccuracy is unmeasurable in principle,
:and if "unmeasurable" necessarily equals "irrelevant" -- the points
:that you failed to support above.
Bob:
[No reply.]
moggin:
: Even on your own assumptions, you're still wrong -- all you've
:offered is a case where the inaccuracy is small enough to dismiss, for
:practical purposes. As velocity increases, so does the the inaccuracy
:-- outside the region of "ordinary phenomena," it can be quite large.
Bob:
[No reply.]
moggin:
>>and in reply you accuse me, once again, of playing "semantic games."
>>And maybe this _is_ a matter of semantics -- it seems that "semantic
>>games" is the term you apply to anything you don't want to hear.
Bob:
>No, it seems that you aren't listening. Claims of inaccuracy which
>haven't been demonstrated, only interpolated, are premature. And no,
>I'm *not* claiming that the interpolation is wrong; I *am* claiming
>that it hasn't been (and probably never will be) demonstrated.
moggin:
: If you're that good at predicting the future, post the scores
:for next week's football games, or some weather reports -- something
:_measurable_, y'know? Until then your claim is meaningless. Even if
:I accept it, just for the sake of argument, you _still_ haven't shown
:that "unmeasureable" is synonymous with "irrelevant."
Bob:
>This seems to be the crux of the "argument". You claim, with some
>theoretical justification, that Newton's laws are inaccurate at *all*
>velocities above zero, but you have, and can, offer no experimental
>proof. My claim is that for such unverified "inaccuracies", the only
>rational position is that until such time as they are verified
>experimentally, the inaccuracies are irrelevant *because* they are
>unverified and unmeasured. Which is essentially what I said above.
This isn't "the crux" -- it's the one, small fragment you've
responded to thus far. You simply deleted everything you had to no
answer to. (All the points above, and more below.) As far as _this_
issue goes, your "rational position" boils down to "just because." As
I've said, you need to show that Newton's "unmeasurable" inaccuracies
are _necessarily_ irrelevant -- but your reply is merely that they're
irrelevant "*because*" they're "unmeasured." (You seem to be one of
those people who believe that typing asterisks is a form of reason.)
Bob:
>>>>Try to follow this: If two calculations based on measurement yield
>>>>the same result, no difference can be determined between them for that
>>>>set of measurements. It thus follows that there is no relevant
>>>>difference between the calculations *for that set of measurements*. If
>>>>there is no relevant difference then any difference, and thus any
>>>>inaccuracy in one or the other method, is irrelevant *for that set of
>>>>measurements*. And since, for the purpose of comparing Newton's laws
>>>>to "more accurate" methods of calculation, this class of measurements
>>>>comprises *all* measurements of "everyday" phenomena, for such
>>>>measurements the "inaccuracy" in Newton's laws is irrelevant. Please
>>>>point out any steps which you consider to be erroneous or unclear, and
>>>>I will try to help.
moggin:
>>> It's clear that what you've got here is a tautology.
Bob:
>>A tautology? Really? So you either accept all of it, or reject all of
>>it. Which will it be?
moggin:
: No need to do either, since a tautology establishes nothing.
Bob:
>Er, not quite. A tautology establishes nothing *because* each
>statement is the semantic equal of every other statement. Since I
>started with the statement that it is impossible to establish any
>difference between two measurements which yield equal results, and
>concluded with the statement that for such measurements any difference
>was irrelevant, they must, if a tautology, be equal statements. If so,
>either both must be true or both false. Since you have claimed the
>last to be false, then the first must also be false. Unfortunately,
>it isn't.
Since you agree that your only point is tautological, I'd say
we're done. If you want to go on, you need to show that "unmeasured"
necesssarily equals "irrelevant" -- not just define it as such. (That
means demonstrating that it's unmeasurable in principle, and also that
"unmeasurable" is synonymous with "irrelevant.") And you'll need to
find a way to dismiss the larger inaccuracies that Newton's laws give
outside "everyday" conditions. You've already granted that that they
exist and that they're relevant to science, so you're shit out of luck.
moggin:
>>>And of course science isn't limited to the study of "'everyday'
>>>phenomena."
Bob:
>>Nor did I ever claim it was.
moggin:
: And yet that's the region your argument is limited to.
Bob:
:Of course. And I never claimed otherwise. You seem to have the habit of
:violent agreement.
I'm glad you've discovered that you agree with me. Since you
admit that your argument, such as it is, leaves out the areas where
Newton's laws have their greatest inaccuracy, I'm sure you'll also
concede that it's hardly sufficient to support your accusation that
referring to them as inaccurate is a "semantic game."
Bob:
>>Of course, science also isn't limited to areas where any inaccuracy in
>>Newton's laws can be successfully demonstrated.
moggin:
: So? Obviously there are areas where their inaccuracy is small
:>enough to that you can call it irrelevant for practical purposes.
Bob:
>Not quite. There are areas where the inaccuracy has never been demonstrated
>to exist, a somewhat different situation.
Since you're "*not* claiming that the interpolation is
wrong" (your emphasis), that's a difference without a distinction.
The main point remains that you're simply ignoring the areas where
Newton's laws are the most inaccurate.
moggin:
:But
:you've got to show that it's _always_ irrelevant -- not just that it's
:posssible to ignore under certain, limited conditions. You haven't.
Bob:
:No, for the purpose of my initial claim, I only need to show that it's
:irrelevant under the "limited" conditions I first stated (which, BTW,
:includes *most* of science, not the small portion your use of the word
:"limited" seems designed to convey, and nearly all experiential
:phenomena).
Your claim is that it's a "semantic game" to note that Newton's
laws are inaccurate. But all that you've been able to argue is (I'm
paraphrasing), "Well, sometimes he comes close, even though sometimes
he doesn't" -- and that's not nearly enough to rescue your assertion.
As I've now said twice before:
: "My point was that Newton's laws aren't generally accurate, so
:it's sufficient for me to note that there are areas where they perform
:inaccurately. If your assertion that their inaccuracies are 'totally
:irrelevant' refers only to _other_ areas, where their inaccuracy is
:relatively low, then it has no bearing on what I said.
: "Since there are areas where the inaccuracy is relevant, you
:don't have anything to argue with me about. I said that they were
:inaccurate, and so they are. The degree of their inaccuracy varies
:from one area to another, but they're not generally accurate."
Bob:
[Still no reply.]
moggin:
: Strange you didn't reply. But let's go back to some of the
:things you _have_ said. You've admitted that you don't want to call
:Newton's theory "accurate." You also said, "I *never* claimed that
:this [inaccuracy] was irrelevant to science *in general* [...]."
:(Emphasis yours.) So it's hard to imagine what all your chattering
:about "irrelevancy" is meant to establish. I replied:
: "Good. Then you'll stop saying things like 'the inaccuracy is
:thus moot.' What you mean is that in most 'ordinary' cases, it's not
:a practical consideration. That's true, and I never said differently.
:"To repeat: it's not in dispute, and it doesn't erase the inaccuracy of
:Newton's laws."
: Again, you didn't answer. But let's see: you're not claiming
:Newton's theory is accurate, and you're not claiming the inaccuracy is
:irrelevant to science. So you've got no argument. (That may explain
:why you've been so unsuccessful in offering one.)
Bob:
[Still no reply.]
Bob:
>However, I expect you will either not answer this with any evidence,
>or will brush it off with the usual "So what?". So it's probably
>fruitless to continue this discussion.
Who knows? You might be able to learn from your mistakes.
>Have a nice day.
You, too.
-- moggin
moggin
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What Moggin was doing was jerking some chains. Moggin played games
>with some words by using inaccurate so as to upset people.
Please strive for at least a small degree of accuracy -- then
we would have something to work from. I was having a more-or-less
friendly discussion with Stu, where I said that Newton was wrong. (An
unexceptionable observation, given the findings of twentieth century
physics.) That was last spring. Recently Anthony decided to unearth
that old thread, producing our present discussion. I certainly wasn't
trying to upset anyone, but it was amazing to see so people flipping
their lids over the comments Anthony re-posted.
You and Bob have both tried to show that I was just playing
games, or stating irrelevancies, but both of you have done a terribly
poor job. You can always have another go at it, but re-stating an
assertion you've already failed to support doesn't improve your case.
Why so many people were upset to hear that Newton's laws are
inaccurate remaims an open, and I think an interesting question. My
guess, as I said before, is that it's partly a matter of idol-worship,
and partly a distaste for the implications.
-- moggin
moggin
Noel:
>moggin is shocked, shocked, to find the polemical on the Net.
Where did I indicate shock? It's entirely predictable to
find you on your soap-box.
>Newton isn't disputed at all, since what he did and didn't do is
>transparently understood.
Of course he is, per the understanding of what he got wrong.
>Pragmatically, his work is a useful subset of Einstein's and, while
>his model of reality is entirely different, it isn't "wrong," for the
>reasons which follow:
> It's important that any new scientific theory must
> explain the facts we already know, though it can
> twist your head around to do the job. Einstein's
> explanation of gravity as warped space-time doesn't
> sound like Newton's forces acting at a distance--but
> they both explain the same elliptical orbits and
> falling apples, with Einstein winning in the fifth
> decimal place.
- Gregory Benford, physicist & SF author
In other words, they give different explanations and their
equations produce different results. They don't even explain the same
facts, since the "facts" of Newton's universe differ considerably from
the "facts" of Einstein's. So if you accept Einstein, then Newton was
wrong.
>I think we're misunderstanding the nature of the concept, scientific
>theory, like the Bible belt states which require evolution texts to
>include the disclaimer that evolution is a theory. A scientific theory
>is a model which explains current empirical observations. Engineers
>and scientists use current theories in building real machines which
>work because the machines apply those theories. That is, a scientific
>theory is not a notion or conjecture ("hypothesis" is used for these),
>but the current understanding of how physical processes work. In
>general, "theory" replaces "law of science," which was used for
>earlier scientific discoveries.
Not really -- it makes more sense to say that Newton claimed
to identify certain laws of nature, which he offered as part of his
theory. (I've never heard of a "law of science" -- sounds like part
of the sociology of knowledge, delineating the regularities of lab
work.)
>There are no wrong theories which work...
Sure there are -- Ptolemy and Newton are two examples.
>...but there are theories which
>are more accurate and/or cover a wider range of conditions. Any theory
>which explains the empirical phenomena at least as well as the other
>currently available theories, and which is not needlessly inelegant,
>ugly, or complexified (Occam's rule), is right, or at least not
>"wrong" as moggin uses the term.
Occam's rule isn't a scientific principle -- it's an aesthetic
one. And Newton's theory doesn't meet your conditions, so it's still
wrong, even as you use the term.
>That is, a theory is a model. If it explains the facts, as above, it
>does what it is supposed to do. There can be two models for the same
>thing, as in the wave/particle explanations for the behavior of some
>particles.
O.k. -- what's Newton's model of the wave/particle duality?
>The transactional interpretation, which physicist John G. Cramer of
>the University of Washington offers in place of the Copenhagen
>interpretation of quantum phenomena, explains inertia, and the
>Schroedinger's Cat paradox, in part on the basis of waves which move
>backward in time. According to Cramer, it accounts for the same
>observed phenomena as the CI, but more straightforwardly.
>In addition, it predicts phenomena not yet observed (IIRC), much as
>Einstein's theory predicted bending of light near the sun, which was
>not observed until the theory caused scientists to look for it in
>1919. That is, a new model ("theory") not only explains observed
>phenomena, but may cause us to observe new phenomena. (I should point
>out here that while Cramer's current web pages describe the TI in
>detail, it's apparently not widely accepted, possibly for valid
>reasons.)
None of this is any help to Newton.
>Where philosophers misunderstand science is in thinking that some sort
>of final truth about the world is the goal of science, or even a
>factor in its considerations. What science has is measurements of
>phenomena, which are always, in the final analysis, approximate; and
>models which attempt to account for the measured phenomena, which in
>truth are only current working hypotheses.
That's odd -- you were just busily correcting the "mistake" of
confusing scientific theories with mere hypotheses. Maybe you should
work this out a bit more before you go public.
>Rightly understood, this lack of finality can allow scientists to
>approach the universe in a spirit of play. Nothing, after all, could
>be stranger, or more strangely elegant, than Einstein's curved
>space-time, bending light, and objects which age more slowly and grow
>both shorter and heavier as they go faster.
More irrelevancies.
>Such pessimisms as Horgan's _The End of Science_ reflect a
>misunderstanding. Science is neither fixed nor exhaustible.
Excuse me -- did somebody cite Horgan? Or claim that science
was fixed? Or that it was exhaustible? I didn't think so.
>Mathematics, after all, is produced primarily according to the
>constraint of self-consistency, not fidelity to empirical phenomena.
>Riemann, if I've got the right guy, invented a geometry based on the
>non-Euclidean postulate that parallel lines meet at infinity. It
>wasn't intended to explain phenomena, and didn't, until the
>Einsteinian model needed such a geometry.
You're blathering. Newton is still wrong. (Space is
Euclidean for Newton, Reimannian for Einstein.)
>Without end, there will always be new, unexplained phenomena, and more
>accurate measurements. These will require new models or theories.
>_None_ _of_ _these_ _will_ _be_ _the _ _final_ _truth._ Einstein will
>be superseded. But Einstein is not "wrong," and neither is Newton.
That's exactly what you haven't shown.
>Both produced approximate models, with the newer one covering a wider
>series of conditions, but more counter-intuitive, and requiring more
>cumbersome math.
And contradicting the old one.
>To repeat: Metaphysical certitude, after all, is a term which belongs
>to philosophy, not science.
It's also a concept that nobody in this discussion has used
but you. So this is just as irrelevant as the first time you said it.
-- moggin