Fred Hoyle dead.

Great Debates
21

To MEBuckner: You are incorrect; I do understand what scientific theory is. Remember, please, the Rutherford model (a well-accepted theory) of the atom. If everyone took Rutherford’s theory as near-Gospel, as near-dogma, who would have contradicted and dismissed it? (The Rutherford theory did not “evolve” [into a better theory]; it is much more accurate to say that it “disintegrated”.)

An even better (and nearly overwhelming) example is Euclid’s theory of geometry. “Take it or leave it?” No one denied Euclidean Geometry for many centuries until finally someone (actually two someones) decided to “leave it” and produced NonEuclidean Geometry. As to Why? it is a better example: Without NonEuclidean Geom., where would modern Einsteinian “relativity” be? Or: Would it even exist at all??

The “leave it” part of scientific theory is, perhaps, the most important part since without it science (and “technology”) would be stuck in an perpetually unchanging intellectual quagmire: Forever unchanging! (As they were, by the way, Aristotealianism under the highly static rule of the Roman Church.)

To Phobos: I’m happy that you’re sorry that I lost my reply to the B.Board’s software; with my little experience elsewhere on this Board, I expected a reaction of “LOL” and applause—“another voice of disent stiffled!”. I thank you for not being a boor and I, too, wish we could have finished the discussion. Alas, I am up to my eyeballs in fending off many (near-boorish and quasi-Luddite) attacks in another thread. :frowning:

You, too, are, alas, incorrect: Both Podkayne and MEBuckner (see above) are wrong in their beliefs. Podkayne says

But there is:** Fact and (ultimately) Truth** (if you can ever get that far!) are both much better than a theory!

You, yourself, make the ghastly statement:

Did you really mean such a thing? Or were you merely defending the honor of more-ancient, more-senior Posters to this Board (against a novice like me)?? Surely: Truth, understand, and comprehension are the ultimate goals of science! No? :wink:

Sea Sorbust: To Mars we must go! (“Better sooner than later!”)

22

I was a victim of “snail wire” (the opposite of “fire wire”). My connection “timed out” and, presumably, the reply was “lost in space”.

But, as it happened, the computer lied: The first try took, as did the second. :o
:rolleyes:

Ah, well. :smiley: (What else is there to say?)

23

Facts in science are nothing more than observations and measurements. Facts by themselves are not particularly useful. Science is done by constructing theories that explain observations, and using the theories to predict future observations, then discarding or revising the theory if it fails. No theory, no matter how powerful its predictive value, will ever be considered a fact, because tomorrow, someone could make an observation that contradicts the theory.

Similarly, no theory will ever be considered “Truth.” Truth is for philosphers, not scientists.

Sea Soburst,you should be warned that you are facing off with actual, real-live scientists here. To continue to tell us that we do not know what science is would be to display considerable hubris.

24

M. Podkayne:

Having, on occasion, met “actual, real-live scientists”, I feel not too intimidated by the challenge.

Certainly I do not intend to presume to tell an actual, real-live scientist what science is. :slight_smile: However, I do intend to say that you are mixing up such things as “facts” with “measurements” and “observations”.

The string is 2 inches long. That is a fact. I pick up my yard-stick and measure the string (nothing special about this string, by the way: just bland, everyday package-string) as “2 inches plus-or-minus one-tenth of an inch”.

(Why did they disable HTML on this board? With notation I could have given that measurement in only a few symbols.)

I contend that measurements will always contain (random) measurement errors. A fact, however, is a fact: No errors, neither measurement-wise nor observational.

You say

I, however, contend that “observations and measurements” can [never] yield a “fact”. Any “fact” which involves a “measurement” must be inferential----albeit, likely infered from a (predictive) “theory” ( :cool: ).

(I hope that I haven’t demonstrated “considerable hubris” since that does not sound like a good thing. :slight_smile: )

((Err: Does any of this have anything to do with the demise of that far-seeing AstroPhysicist, I. Asimov?? :frowning: ))

(((Ach!!! No, no! That’s not the one. [ :eek: ] The British guy: F. Hoyle. :frowning: :frowning: )))

25

And there is no way, scientifically, to ascertain that “fact,” the true length of the string. All we have to rely upon is measurement of the string: “2 inches plus-or-minus one-tenth of an inch”. No scientist would ever (rightly) claim to have measured the “true” length, width, velocity, energy, mass or density of anything, but he would call his measurement, including the quoted uncertainty, a “fact.” No matter how you define it, in scientific terms, a fact is an observation about the physical word.

And cripes, man, “hubris,” at six letters long, does not qualify as a “big” word. Get a dictionary. I’m not looking to intimidate you, I’m just telling you that if you walk up to a professional scuba diver and start spouting that his beliefs about the proper procedure for swimming underwater and his definition of the term “wetsuit” are erroenous, you’re going to look like a fool.

26

I don’t think you could be more wrong on this. Scientists are quite happy to “leave it” (‘it’ being an established scientific theory) if they have compelling evidence in a new and better theory. Indeed, the scientist who manages to thoroughly trash an accepted theory is guranteed fame and maybe some fortune.

In most cases a ‘new’ theory supplants an ‘old’ theory when circumstances merge to make such a jump possible…not because someone decides to randomly work on something with no basis in anything. From your example, Galileo had the advantage of better observations of what was happening to debunk Aristotealianism. Galileo could see how the planets were moving and the prior model just didn’t add up properly for a geocentric view of the solar system (i.e. planets seemed to stop in their orbit, backup a bit and then move forward again). Previous observations noted this and some rather elaborate models were devised to explain this. It was Galileo, however, who set out to find a better model and his heliocentric view ended up providing a much more compelling view of the solar system. That other people (scientists) and groups (the Roman Catholic Church) resisted Galileo’s findings only means that they had their own agendas and maybe pride to protect that Galileo’s heliocentric view didn’t fit into. Nevertheless the compelling nature of the model meant it lasted despite these roadblocks.

Hoyle’s resistance to Big Bang theory and his hanging onto panspermia theory put him in the same class as the Roman Catholic Church…not in the class with Galileo. In the face of evidence that did a demonstrably better job at prediction and fit observations much better than anything else yet proposed he still clung to his outmoded notions.

Hoyle made some very real and very important contributions to science and as such he will be remembered. For coining the phrase ‘Big Bang’ (as a deragatory term no less) he will be remembered fondly (not to mention all of the stories he wrote). It’s too bad that his more flaky notions will also see him remembered as a bit of an eccentric if not an outright kook.

27

I think you’re conflating Kepler and Galileo a bit, there, Mole. Copernicus was the first to present the heliocentric model (well, in that period of history, anyway) but the predictions of planetary positions made by his model were considerably worse than the predictions of the geocentric Ptolemaic model, with its circular orbits and many epicycles. Johannes Kepler created the first accurate heliocentric model by determining that the orbits of the planets are ellispes, using the excellent naked-eye observations of his contemporary Tycho Brahe. Galileo’s observations bolstered the geocentric model, notably by demonstrating that the Galilean satellites orbit Jupiter, not the Earth.

28

1.Geometry is in no way a scientific theory. It is simply a set of definitions, and relationships among things that fall within those arbitrary definitions. As such, while it is very useful as a tool to help scientists develop theories that help us understand “reality,” it is really something sepapate from reality.

  1. The presence of non-Euclidean geometry in no way affects Euclidean geometry. It is simply working from a different set of definitions.

  2. This post shows a truly basic misunderstanding of the history of science and scientific terminology. The use of the term “theory” is based on the fact that the real world cannot be defined as clearly as the world of geometry, and as such, we need a different term from the geometric term “proof.” Hence, “theory.” That is a term used to specifically differentiate from geometrical “proof.”

JDM

29

[sub]Highlighting Mine…I assume you mean heliocentric in this case.[/sub]

Oops…you’re right. I glossed over a lot too easily there. Mostly I was thinking along the lines of Galileo being the guy who seemed to put the final nail in the coffin of the geocentric model of the solar system.

30

When I look at The Dead People Server, I don’t see Fred Hoyle mentioned anywhere.

Hmmm …

Come to think of it, I don’t see anybody listed on the Dead People Server as having died in the entire month of August. Maybe humanity has finally achieved immortality!