Some Questions (Philosophy of Science)

[philosopherp]

Hi There.
I am extremely interested in this exciting new scientific paradigm, however there are some questions that I have, not just with the science or facts, but with the attitude and approach to this new area. I would be interested to hear your responses. Here goes;

'Good Science' (interpret that as you will), is surely finding a model which best fits the facts. If there are facts that one model cannot take into account, or directly show that account to be false, the account will fail. Whereas a more successful account will encompass more facts and have a greater degree of success at predicting future facts. The bottom line is that the facts (at least ought to) define what makes a model/paradigm live or die. If I am granted that this is the case, then why is there such a polemical tone taken in defending plasma cosmology?

Surely time, empirical facts and scientific research will tell which paradigms are upheld? It seems however the tone of defense here is one where the scientists and thinkers who endorse quantum/gravitational physics are being attacked and accused of ignorantly defending an outdated science with comparisons made to Copernicus and Gallilelo. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant but surely people are right to defend a science that works against an upcoming area which is slowly gaining credibility? I would imagine that with sufficient evidence and research such scientists would soon shift if a new and more accurate paradigm comes about. (there are many psychological reasons why this may not be the case but my point is, shouldn't we look at the science rather than the scientists?)

Similarly this leads me to ask, is Plasma cosmology fundamentally at odds with gravitational/quantum physics? Doesn't relativity state that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin? Can we not have gravity AND electricity? Furthermore, doesn't quantum physics explain how electricity is even possible?

A fear I have with all of this is that some 'scientists' (im thinking pop-scientists) who attempt to interpret cold hard data (if such a thing even exists) into grander theories are actually being liberal with the evidence and so they become philosophers and poets rather than scientists. For example, a documentary I recently watched looked at the similarities with plasma cosmology and mythology, isn't that being a little over-dramatic? What role does this play, aside from being a merely interesting footnote?

Any thoughts?

[philosopherp]

I realise that this is perhaps the wrong kind of place to ask questions like this. I suspect that without an online video or outrageous claim to defend I won't get much response. My continued concern is that on subjects like this, videos and books are often made to make the theories more accessible to lay people (including myself) who then become outraged that such science is ignored. It then begins to border on conspiracy theories that the 'Truth' is being withheld by those in charge. While the theories behind EU sound plausible and are a nice model I am no physicist or scientist and we must beware things that merely look good on the surface without questioning the essence of the phenomenon. I suspect that many of the people here are self-confessed 'experts' on physics and have no doubt read a lot on the subject but I would implore everyone interested in this subject to try to understand the mathematics and science behind these theories, because no matter how persuasive these theories are there is obviously enough scientific reason to question them. Instead of acting like the oppressed speakers of truth start doing science! That is the only way to promote EU theories.

[Steve Smith]

Epistemology isn't usually a very popular topic.

You have the ideas wrong way 'round in some cases. Data are found to fit the models, not models to fit data. First the theory, then the hypothesis, then the experiments (where possible -- a critical point). The experiments then either confirm or deny the theory (which is the model).

The science and the scientists are not two separate entities. Who came up with the "science"? It isn't something just floating around waiting for someone to pick up. It was invented by people. It is all in the imagination, no matter who is doing the imagining.

When I write a Picture of the Day that takes issue with the nonsense that the scientists are imagining, I carefully describe what they're trying to say is happening, I quote them, I refer to their articles and then I show how electricity provides a better imaginary construct. The observations (not facts) appear to fit within the Electric Universe paradigm far better than they fit into their reified abstractions.

There are no "facts."

FACT: A thing that is indisputably the case.

Are mathematical equations indisputable? That was a rhetorical question, BTW, as are they all.

Show me something "factual" in either consensus science or in Electric Universe publications. I'm reminded of the mathematician who visited a remote tribal group and asked them a question about addition.

Mathman: What is 2 + 2?

Tribesman: 5.

Mathman: 5? How do you come up with that idea?

Tribesman: If I tie two knots in one piece of string (he demonstrates) and two knots in another piece of string, when I join them together, I have five knots.

Within the Tribesman's universe, his "facts" are logical, consistent, measurable and repeatable.

You say that plasma cosmology and mythology are at odds with one another. Do you know how the Electric Universe theory developed? It was developed out of mythology.

Relax. Try not to worry about it. Things will eventually change for the good or the bad -- deciding which outcome is which? Aye, there's the rub. Meanwhile, have fun thinking about it all.

[philosopherp]

Thanks for responding this is all very insightful and id like to try to respond to some of your key points.

What I should say first of all is that im not talking about Epistemology. I'm not asking about what we know or how we can know it (in that sense I think that we will never fully understand the universe, but that is an empirical issue). If this isn't a 'popular' topic however I would like to know why. It seems that this might be very important. What I am more interested in are the approaches that people take towards science and particularly modern science.

You have the ideas wrong way 'round in some cases. Data are found to fit the models, not models to fit data. First the theory, then the hypothesis, then the experiments (where possible -- a critical point). The experiments then either confirm or deny the theory (which is the model).There are no "facts."

FACT: A thing that is indisputably the case.

I agree somewhat with this, I recognise that there is a bonafide need to guide research with theory or we end up wasting our time or we cannot begin to look at any (visually) unobservable entites. Call it a fact or call it data, a fact does not have to be something indisputably the case, but it is just something which is the case. We need facts and data because, crucially, science needs to be falsifiable. And that falsification needs to have a criterion. This is what I think is crucial; even if we begin with a theory to generate a hypothesis we need data/facts as the criterion for whether that hypothesis is correct or false. If the hypothesis cannot be true or false then what kind of hypothesis is it?

That isn't the end of the story of course because there is (as you correctly point out) a need for interpretation of the data. But I think this is where a lot of modern (pop)science goes wrong. It generates conclusions which go beyond the data/facts. For example, in a lot of quantum physics basic thought experiments (the slit experiments/schrodingers cat etc.) are turned into metaphysical 'truths' which are untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. This just isn't science. You are correct that Science is a man made method but unless we have a standard of truth/falsity we can just generate any interpretation or hypothesis to explain a given set of phenomenon as we please. All we end up doing is stretching our imaginations rather than knowledge. I think you even recognise this when you state; "Within the Tribesman's universe, his "facts" are logical, consistent, measurable and repeatable."

The observations (not facts) appear to fit within the Electric Universe paradigm far better than they fit into their reified abstractions.

Descartes long ago reminded us that we can't trust our eyes, just place a straw in water and watch it appear to bend. Likewise the phenomenal experience was of a flat Earth, but that turned out to be false. Furthermore, by using mathematics we are able to predict and control different phenomenon which we cannot see, and while they may be 'abstract reifications', they work. Mathematics may not be anything indisputable (I really liked the example you use) but they are just another tool we have in our repertoire of theories that we can use for the right job. My question is, without falsifiability how can we define what interpretation to prefer? Surely the point and aim of science (and the aim behind EU) is to find a single theory of explanation.

Finally, if EU was inspired by mythology I have no issue with that. Scientists can gain inspiration from an infinite number of sources (I think it was one of the guys who helped discover the structure of fullerene when he looked down at his toilet floor and was inspired by the structure of the tiles). I don't see them as irreconcilable at all, I just don't see how it adds to the science and there could well be other explanations for the similarity between the mythologies in different cultures. Interestingly, Camus points out that often science is reduced to poetry to describe the world, does this point to a limit of science? Maybe life and science will always be irreconcilable to some degree.

I'm certainly not here to troll but I am interested in the future of science (the topic of this subforum) but so far I have not seen anything in terms of a real attempt to show what is wrong with the scientific method. If there is an issue with peer-reviews or the psychology behind mainstream science that is a seperate issue but I wish to reiterate my previous point; Electric Universe theories should live or die by the scientific method. If you disagree then what alternative is there?

[Steve Smith]

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Have you read "The Electric Sky"?

"The Electric Universe?"

"Thunderbolts of the Gods"?

Do you read the Picture of the Day?

[philosopherp]

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Is this a dictionary definition? I don't mean to be facetious but this description is largely vacuous. It tells us some vague things about science but not how to do it. How do we formulate and test our hypothesis? How should we observe and collect data? What do we do once we have a hypothesis? etc. etc.

Have you read "The Electric Sky"?

"The Electric Universe?"

"Thunderbolts of the Gods"?

No, to all three. My questions are more concerned with the approaches and to encourage discussion of how we approach science and sciences such as EU. If you think that my claims are wrong about science then lets discuss those but my reading or not reading these books should not detract from my arguments. If anything my points ought to apply to all sciences and not just EU. (Unless you want to say that the scientific method I have argued for is incorrect or does not apply to EU)

So I took a look at the image of the day. I must question the following claims:

The discovery that space was permeated with cells and filaments of plasma overturned the “empty space” cornerstone assumption. The discovery that electromagnetic forces in plasma could be many times stronger than gravity fractured the “gravity-only” cornerstone. The discovery that Birkeland-current filaments could connect cosmic bodies into hierarchies of coupled circuits threatened to replace the “internally powered” cornerstone with an “externally powered” one. Only theorists’ dogmatic adherence to the obsolete assumptions preserves them.

The rest of the piece seems to depend on these claims. If you would humour me for the sake of argument; Has it been 'discovered' that space is permeated with cells and filaments of plasma? Is there empirical data to support this or is this a model or theory that scientists are trying to test? The same applies for "The discovery that Birkeland-current filaments could connect cosmic bodies into hierarchies of coupled circuits". The 'could' is crucial here. Do birkeland-current filaments actually connect cosmic bodies? (again where is the evidence/data). Finally, in what way is electromagentism stronger than gravity? Gravity holds the earth into its place in the solar system and there are plenty of things that can accelerate away from a gravitational mass so I dont understand this point.

The point i am trying to make is that it is one thing to acknowledge that we have theories that need to be tested and improved upon, and another to call those who are doing the same with other theories dogmatists. Even mainstream science acknowledges it has lots more to discover (the search for a grand unifying theory) and we continue to discover new events and things in our universe we do not understand but wish to fit into existing frameworks. If it is the case that EU better fits the facts/data then it is a matter of time for that to be recognised. ALL sciences however ought to be falsifiable and liable to be superceded. That applies as much to EU as it does to quantum/relativistic theories.

[StevenJay]

I realise that this is perhaps the wrong kind of place to ask questions like this. I suspect that without an online video or outrageous claim to defend I won't get much response. My continued concern is that on subjects like this, videos and books are often made to make the theories more accessible to lay people (including myself) who then become outraged that such science is ignored. It then begins to border on conspiracy theories that the 'Truth' is being withheld by those in charge. While the theories behind EU sound plausible and are a nice model I am no physicist or scientist and we must beware things that merely look good on the surface without questioning the essence of the phenomenon. I suspect that many of the people here are self-confessed 'experts' on physics and have no doubt read a lot on the subject but I would implore everyone interested in this subject to try to understand the mathematics and science behind these theories, because no matter how persuasive these theories are there is obviously enough scientific reason to question them. Instead of acting like the oppressed speakers of truth start doing science!

I was going to briefly respond to this yesterday but hesitated because I sensed a degree of disingenuousness in your inquiries and concerns above, philosopherp. A few specific examples would have been nice, don'tcha think? My appologies if I am mistaken.

Now, when it comes to "outrageous" claims, it's difficult to top the utterly contradictory and completely unsupported "claim" that the entire known universe simply exploded into existence some billions of years ago. I think Terrence McKenna really nailed it when he once stated: "If you readily accept that 14 billion years ago, nothing exploded into everything, then what will you balk at?" Books and Videos don't even enter into it.

The gravity-centric big bang model has been the cornerstone of modern consensus astronomy and astrophysics for nearly a century, and not because of its inherent bullet-proof elegance (which, as is being revealed on an almost daily basis, it is certainly neither). Instead, it is because ideas which directly opposed the view of a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers were, and continue to be, systematically ignored, ridiculed and repressed, no matter how much scientific rigor has been observed in opposition's methodologies. And if you think I'm just peddling "conspiracy theories," then you haven't read the words of the likes of Halton Arp or Hannes Alfvén, to name but two in a very long list of serious researchers who have been maligned and ostracized merely for refusing to compromise their integrity and fall into mindless lock-step with their peers. I dunno, maybe you consider them to be just a couple more fringe-dwelling wingnuts.

My point here is, if you were merely walking by window-shopping and have a few questions about what you saw through the glass, then I would suggest you pack a lunch (or three), come in, and start reading. I too, am just another lay-person who has been intrigued by the cosmos since I was a small child, and as such, have no real vested interest in any of this stuff, i.e., career, reputation, multi-million-dollar government/corporate grants, etc. For me, it's just another fascinating point of interest along my endless path of discovery and learning. And, in the final analysis, if it all somehow turns out to be less than what it is claimed to be, I can slough it off like a wet shirt, just as effortlessly as I donned it. Incidentally, in case it hadn't occurred to you, the things I listed as my not being the least bit invested in are the very reasons that those who are, have been so resistant to anything that threatens their fear-driven sense of comfort and security. As I see it, the very same dynamic is currently being demonstrated in almost every area of socio-political endeavor. That, to me, speaks volumes. Also, as I see it, in a decidedly subjective existence, there are no facts - just constantly changing perceptions.

And, for what it's worth, that's really all I have to say on the matter.

[StevenJay]

And, for what it's worth, that's really all I have to say on the matter.

. . . well that, and this rather timely example of "outrageous," fear-mongering tripe from New Scientist magazine via the UK Telegraph (just when I thought things had gotten about as dim as possible, they toss out even more darkness)! I dare y'all to read this with a straight face, and without throwing something!

Unseen "dark" comets could pose a deadly threat to earth, astronomers have warned.


'Dark' comets happen when the water on their surface has evaporated, causing them to reflect less light. Photo: GETTY
[notice how they're calling this a photo instead of the obvious artist's rendering that it is? -SJ]

The comets, of which there could be thousands, are not currently monitored by observatories and space agencies.

Most comets and asteroids are monitored in case they start to travel towards earth.

But Bill Napier, from Cardiff University, said that many could be going by unnoticed.

"There is a case to be made that dark, dormant comets are a significant but largely unseen hazard," he said

Scientists estimate that there should be around 3,000 comets in the solar system, but only 25 have so far been identified.

"Dark" comets happen when the water on their surface has evaporated, causing them to reflect less light.

Astronomers have previously spotted comets heading towards earth just days before they passed.

In 1983 a comet called IRAS-Araki-Alcock passed at a distance of just 5 million kilometres, the closest of any comet for 200 years, but it was noticed just a fortnight beforehand.

Tests on another comet, called Comet Borrelly, in 2001 revealed it to have large dark patches across much of its surface.

Steve Larson of the University of Arizona's Catalina Sky Survey in Tucson, which monitors comets, said the idea of an unknown number of "dark" comets circling earth had "merit".

But Clark Chapman from the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, said that such comets "would absorb sunlight very well" and so could be detected by the heat they emit, reports New Scientist magazine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... earth.html

Now do you begin to understand the level of frustration and attitude many EU enthusiasts exhibit toward their counterparts in mainstream cosmology? Is this a result of "doing science," philosopherp? I think it's safe to say that NO ONE in the EU community would ever dream of publishing such a ridiculously flagrant display of disinformation and outright stupidity!

Frankly, my friend, based on what you've had to say so far (not to mention, in the interest of honesty), you probably should have opened your original post with something like: "Hi, I'm philosopherp, and I'll be your agent provocateur for today!"

[Grey Cloud]

Hi StephenJay,
The comet nonsense is also here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &sk=t&sd=a

'In space, no one can hear you scrape the bottom of a barrel'

[webolife]

Hey, philosopherp, whatever you do, don't leave on account of the defensiveness of some...
stick around... read TPOD's, get "The Electric Universe" and see what folks are actually saying...
I identify with several of your points, and don't feel you are being dishonest in any way; I "drove by" the EU for a couple of years without stopping to look close, due to the strictly mythological nature of some of the first TPOD's I happened to see. Then stopping for a longer draught, I realized this is a place where some darn good "real" science is happening. My last point to you will be this, science without philosophy is, well... nothing, because all scientists are first students, then philosophers, then scientists... there is no getting around this, imho, though there are some here who might disagree.

[philosopherp]

Now do you begin to understand the level of frustration and attitude many EU enthusiasts exhibit toward their counterparts in mainstream cosmology? Is this a result of "doing science," philosopherp? I think it's safe to say that NO ONE in the EU community would ever dream of publishing such a ridiculously flagrant display of disinformation and outright stupidity!

Frankly, my friend, based on what you've had to say so far (not to mention, in the interest of honesty), you probably should have opened your original post with something like: "Hi, I'm philosopherp, and I'll be your agent provocateur for today!"

The questions I have asked have been questions I am genuinely interested in hearing an answer for, and NOT merely to provoke strong responses. My second post, which you responded to previously, probably sounded more frustrating because after "window shopping" a bit more I realised that a lot of the topics in the future of science, revolved around discussion of "the secret people" and how there are secret groups hell bent on covering up the truth. I am genuinely interested to find out about the EU universe and wanted to have a discussion or argument that could help me and the people involved to clarify the different positions being taken, and to seperate what is genuinely worthy of inquiry from that which is merely personal vendettas, hyperbole, rhetoric and spin (not the quantum sort). I think this is a discussion that is important. In order to do this I have tried to steer the discussion away from personal attacks and to try to discuss science itself. What seems to be the case, at least from my view, is that there has been little persuasive argument to show that the scientific method is insufficient.

Now, in answer to the previous article you linked: I have not sat here and said; 'oh look EU theory is silly,id much rather believe in invisible comets'. No. My arguments and discussion apply equally, if not significantly moreso, to articles like that. I'm not trying to show that EU theories are just false or that mainstream physics and cosmology is the only right one. Part of my reason for asking these questions is because I think they genuninely need to be asked of anything that comes under the rubric of modern science. My own personal gripe, if you will allow me this very personal opinion, is that when scientists get talking about alternative universes, extra dimensions, possible worlds, or anything fundamentally impossible to ever measure or experience, they aren't doing science.

So, my intention at least has been to steer the discussion away from conspiracies, resentments, frustrations and ad hominem arguments. Why? Well lets continue the analogy of the window shopper; I don't need to know exactly how a television works or what every component does in order to know the difference between a good one or bad one. I can ask; Is it compatible with other products I own? How much does it cost? How robust is it? etc. The same applies to EU and mainstream physics. Lets see them as two competing brands of TV; the dominant brand, which everyone buys, touts itself as the only brand, the best brand and the most compatible one. Some of its claims are pretty outrageous but hey, everyone else seems to buy it and don't seem to have any complaints and its just a matter of time before the remaining problems are fixed. Then we have another brand which claims that the dominant brand is not the best brand, in fact it is pretty darn shoddy and appeals only to morons and people who just follow the crowd. The alternative is advertised as the best, its just that people are too ignorant to realise that it is, when its proven that it is better. The would-be tv buyer then might ask, is the alternative brand really that much better? If it is then why isn't it selling more units? what is preventing it from being more popular? These are the questions that us lay-people can ask the scientists on the front line and demand that they answer them. If EU theory is supposed to be that much superior to mainstream physics what is preventing this from being recognised? (Is EU theory the ipod or the zune?). IF all a tv salesman could tell you was that people who buy the other brand of tv are idiots and only smart people buy his brand, and could only tell you what was wrong with that brand and couldn't tell you a thing about his tv's, would you buy from him?

Sadly it is all too easy to attack other peoples integrity, intelligence and outlook instead of looking at the issue at hand. Sometimes such smoke and mirror tactics are all you need to make a bad theory look like a good one, especially if you raise the people who agree with you above everyone else, but this is just pride and it appeals to those people who want to put others down to make themselves look better. We ought to be critical and demanding consumers, and this applies to any scientific, religious or political doctrine that others would have us believe. Admittedly explanations, arguments and doubts all come to an end at some point, but this shouldn't stop us from asking questions of ourselves and eachother.

I will finish this post with two genuine (and honest) questions: Is there anything necessarily implicit in the EU model that prevents its claims from being scientifically tested and verified? What, if any, restrictions are there that prevent scientific inquiry of the EU model?

(My fear is that some of you will take issue with some of my comparisons here but I implore you to discuss my arguments and to not just see this as a baseless attempt to provoke or cause offense)

[Steve Smith]

Do you know the acronym, RTFM?

The three books I listed are the Electric Universe hypothesis.

[philosopherp]

Do you know the acronym, RTFM?

The three books I listed are the Electric Universe hypothesis.

I don't even know what to say to this. The basic message you keep sending me is that you are unable to answer any of my questions. Is it that you can't argue or think for yourself? I've found this with a lot of Christians, when you confront them about awkward facts or ask them questions outside of their comfort zone they just resort to the 'its in the bible' defense. I'm not going to sit here and start getting into personal attacks. I've made my points and if nobody here can answer my questions then I have all the answers I need.

[kevin]

Philosopherp,
You said,
"Gravity holds the earth into it's place in the solar system"
Is that a guess?

Kevin

[nick c]

Hello philosopherp,

No, to all three. My questions are more concerned with the approaches and to encourage discussion of how we approach science and sciences such as EU. If you think that my claims are wrong about science then lets discuss those but my reading or not reading these books should not detract from my arguments.

It is amazing that you have the ability to critique the EU without any familiarity with the written material which is essentially the EU! I have to ask where did you get your information on the EU, if you have not read any of the material?

I don't even know what to say to this. The basic message you keep sending me is that you are unable to answer any of my questions.

The basic message that is being sent to you is not that your questions are unanswerable, but that you should read the suggested material, then come back with some questions or criticisms pertaining to said materials.
Might I suggest reading, for a simple overview and summary of things, for starters:
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php

You can go to the [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm]TPOD subject index [/url2] and read entries on a variety of topics.
These sources are available on line for free, you only need spend some time reading the material.

Then maybe you will want to pick up a copy of Scott's The Electric Sky or Thornhill and Talbotts' The Electric Universe

Is it that you can't argue or think for yourself? I've found this with a lot of Christians, when you confront them about awkward facts or ask them questions outside of their comfort zone they just resort to the 'its in the bible' defense.

I don't think that if you had actually read the EU material you would equate it with faith or religious based positions. It is a body of theory that will be supported or not be supported by observations and experiments. It makes predictions based on the logic of the theory that has the potential to be falsified by future observations or experiments. The interest in the theory is growing because many past predictions have been validated by new space age discoveries, and many observations inconsistent with mainstream theory have simpler explanations in the EU. Furthermore, it presents a cosmological theory which has aspects that can be tested and examined in laboratory experiments. These are detailed in the suggested reading material.

I'm not going to sit here and start getting into personal attacks. I've made my points and if nobody here can answer my questions then I have all the answers I need.

No personal attacks. It would be nice for you to become aquainted with the theory not by hear say, but by reading the theorists, such as Thornhill, Scott, Talbott, et al... so that you can join in on the debates and discussions.

nick c