P.K. Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 10 hours ago, wrighty said: Unfortunately PK, you're not getting this. There was only one observation - that of the shadow. The sun's reflection at the bottom of the well is simply the 'origin' (in time and place) from which to reference the single observation of the shadow length 600 miles away. To differentiate between a flat earth/near sun model and a spherical earth/distant sun model you need two observations. Try reading my posts before dissing my intelligence. The well proves beyond doubt that the sun is directly overhead in Syene. Therefore it's the reference point for what follows. So two observations. I do take the point that if the sun was close it could form a shadow at Alexandria but at these distances the suns rays are for all intents and purposes parallel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, P.K. said: I do take the point that if the sun was close it could form a shadow at Alexandria but at these distances the suns rays are for all intents and purposes parallel. This is what FE is all about. Trolling aside, it’s the intellectual pursuit of arguing the unarguable. You’re not allowed assumptions you can’t further evidence. You’re assuming the sun is far enough away that its rays are parallel. If you ditch that assumption Eratosthenes 7 degree measurement has (at least) two conclusions that can be made to fit the data. I doubt there are many flat earth ‘enthusiasts’ that believe the earth is flat. Given the number of contributions to this thread you could argue that Chinahand is a flat earth enthusiast. Neither he nor me believe it as a model of reality, and I very much doubt PGW does either. Manxy on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, wrighty said: Manxy on the other hand... Interestingly, I believe that Manxy is flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 3 hours ago, wrighty said: I thinswordl that you're being too dogmatic with what you accept as a definition of hypothesis. Other definitions are available - for example, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." which is what came up on Google. So in my example previously my use of the word 'hypothesis' was exactly that. But let's go with the one you linked with for a moment. The essence seems to be if/then, and the identification of an independent variable, which you feel has to be causal - is that right? If so, then getting back to Eratosthenes and the well, the independent variable would be the earth's curvature, as being the cause of the observed angle changes. Now it's impractical to build yourself a new earth with a different curvature to get a different set of results, which is why the restriction of 'hypothesis' to a simple 'x causes y' relationship is not helpful in this case. I'm more of a mathematician than a scientist - maths being the purer subject in my opinion. As well as the scientific method, there is the discipline of mathematical modelling. The steps involved are: Formulate the model, generate equations, make predictions, test by experiment, refine the model and repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model#Significance_in_the_natural_sciences The model of the earth as a sphere with a distant sun works, and accurately predicts the length of shadows as in Eratosthenes-type experiments. In other circumstances the model may need to be more sophisticated - it's a slightly flattened sphere. In yet others you may need to add in sophistication to take into account non-uniform density, or surface roughness. The most sophisticated model of the earth is the earth itself, but it's impractical to use this to carry out experiments as you'd prefer them to be with your dogmatic interpretation of what science is, and how a hypothesis is formulated. Do you accept that mathematical modelling is a valid means of scientific discovery? It is after all how Newton worked out gravity and planetary motions, and later how Einstein came by relativity theory. The latter has interesting parallels with the flat-earth 'debate'. Einstein postulated that space was curved by the presence of matter and energy. Before him, it was thought that space was just 'space', and thereby flat. He created a model of curved space, did the maths (very complex, took him years to get his head around it), made predictions (precession of the perihelion of mercury, bending of light by mass...) based on his model, observations were done which aligned with his predictions, and hence the theory of general relativity, with its curved space, was given credence, much like a curved earth surface compared with a flat one a couple of thousand years previously. No doubt you argue that the theory of general relativity isn't science because no-one has ever tested the hypothesis by directly measuring the curvature of space in the vicinity of an experimental mass/energy (the independent variable you insist is essential). Most people would view Einstein, and Newton before him, as the greatest scientific minds of all time. What's your view on that Paul, given they didn't follow your method? Wrighty i didnt make any of this up mate! Its science, you cant change it to suit yourself. We are talking about a scientific hypotheses, which has to be tested in experiment in order for the result to have any validity. You didnt provide a valid hypotheses to test in experiment. Just redo it so we can see how far it gets through the method. Are you saying rochester university are incorrect on the matter? None of this has anything to do with my feelings, or yours! Its science wrighty. The independent variable IS the presumed cause in a scientific experiment. As i said the pudding is the hypothesis, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, ie; the experiment. China and others have continually failed to grasp these basic facts about science, whilst clinging to philosophy as their evidence for a spherical earth. wrighty, the independent variable is the one that the scientist must manipulate in the experiment! How can the "curvature" of the earth be an independent variable? ....it cannot. So it would invalidate your hypothesis before even getting to experiment! This is why the whole thread is comical to me. Most of the religious zealots in here, not you wrigthy, dont even know what science is, wouldn't know what an independent variable was if their life depended on it. The scientific method is a fantasy slayer and all their Beliefs fall at the experimental sword. Yet, on they bleat about how science has proven their beliefs! Extraordinary ignorance given the simplicity of this topic. Maths is a language, formal science, used as an aid, to the natural sciences. Science is the study of the natural world, where experiment is king. When you use a model it means you have a limitation, or lack of validity to your original hypothesis. Models are outside the remit for scientific validation, as the citation i provided states clearly. So no, models and mathematics are not scientific validation, unless they are based on previously validated experiments. Einsteinian " gravity" " snapped the wand" of newtonian "gravity" and is the current accepted "science" on the matter. You have already realised by now, neither of them nor has anyone else proven "gravity" in experimental tests, with any validity. Doesnt matter who said it or how fancy it sounds, if it diasgrees with experiment then its wrong. And once again wrighty i have to remind you, its not MY method. Its THE scientific method, and it chews fairytales up and spits them out. Thats why this thread is still goin strong 3 an a half years later x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 2 hours ago, paul's got wright said: Wrighty i didnt make any of this up mate! Its science, you cant change it to suit yourself. We are talking about a scientific hypotheses, which has to be tested in experiment in order for the result to have any validity. You didnt provide a valid hypotheses to test in experiment. Just redo it so we can see how far it gets through the method. Are you saying rochester university are incorrect on the matter? None of this has anything to do with my feelings, or yours! Its science wrighty. The independent variable IS the presumed cause in a scientific experiment. As i said the pudding is the hypothesis, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, ie; the experiment. China and others have continually failed to grasp these basic facts about science, whilst clinging to philosophy as their evidence for a spherical earth. wrighty, the independent variable is the one that the scientist must manipulate in the experiment! How can the "curvature" of the earth be an independent variable? ....it cannot. So it would invalidate your hypothesis before even getting to experiment! This is why the whole thread is comical to me. Most of the religious zealots in here, not you wrigthy, dont even know what science is, wouldn't know what an independent variable was if their life depended on it. The scientific method is a fantasy slayer and all their Beliefs fall at the experimental sword. Yet, on they bleat about how science has proven their beliefs! Extraordinary ignorance given the simplicity of this topic. Maths is a language, formal science, used as an aid, to the natural sciences. Science is the study of the natural world, where experiment is king. When you use a model it means you have a limitation, or lack of validity to your original hypothesis. Models are outside the remit for scientific validation, as the citation i provided states clearly. So no, models and mathematics are not scientific validation, unless they are based on previously validated experiments. Einsteinian " gravity" " snapped the wand" of newtonian "gravity" and is the current accepted "science" on the matter. You have already realised by now, neither of them nor has anyone else proven "gravity" in experimental tests, with any validity. Doesnt matter who said it or how fancy it sounds, if it diasgrees with experiment then its wrong. And once again wrighty i have to remind you, its not MY method. Its THE scientific method, and it chews fairytales up and spits them out. Thats why this thread is still goin strong 3 an a half years later x And that's me out. If you are such a religious adherent to one 'definition' of THE (sic) scientific method then I may as well be debating evolution with a young-earth literal-bible creationist. Your interpretation of what constitutes science is clearly flawed, or at least limited to stuff such as heating up a can of water and measuring the temperature change relative to how long you keep the gas on. We'll have to agree to differ on this - I'm sure we can agree that my interpretation of science leads to useful technological advancement and understanding of the world, and yours...how about 327 pages of comment on a chat forum that's read by about 5 individuals. Perhaps Chinahand will continue - he seems to have limitless patience. I've only dipped in over the last couple of days as I'm bored while ill off-work. Adios (signing off from the thread, not doing a Dilligaf style flounce from the site ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 28 minutes ago, wrighty said: And that's me out. If you are such a religious adherent to one 'definition' of THE (sic) scientific method then I may as well be debating evolution with a young-earth literal-bible creationist. Your interpretation of what constitutes science is clearly flawed, or at least limited to stuff such as heating up a can of water and measuring the temperature change relative to how long you keep the gas on. We'll have to agree to differ on this - I'm sure we can agree that my interpretation of science leads to useful technological advancement and understanding of the world, and yours...how about 327 pages of comment on a chat forum that's read by about 5 individuals. Perhaps Chinahand will continue - he seems to have limitless patience. I've only dipped in over the last couple of days as I'm bored while ill off-work. Adios (signing off from the thread, not doing a Dilligaf style flounce from the site ) nothin religious about science wrighty. you are more than welcome to try and refute the rochester university definition. i will post a variety of citations from universities all over the world. you can try and refute them if you like also! it's not MY interpretation! the whole article backs up and reiterates what i am telling you about how science works. i have posted the definition many times here, and demonstrated my understanding clearly. whilst also pointing out the lack of basic knowledge other posters have about how science actually validates things! we are not having a debate, objective reality is not up for debate. we are discussing the scientific method, and you provided an invalid hypothesis statement. just redo it, nothing lost. its not as if i am criticising you personally. just the hypothesis is invalid, so give it another try. trial and error is fine. well more than 5 people reading this wrighty. at least you are streets ahead of pk! read over these citations from the article and let it sink in what science really is x " Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory." "If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment." "As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary." "Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." dont give up just because you were wrong wrighty, just give it another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 more for your perusal wrighty x III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day. Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way. In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena. An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.") The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 more for you wrighty "Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it." "The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 more university definitions to come wrighty, or do you propose you have a better definition of the scientific method? care to post a citation to support it? would you like to show us where the university of rochester has gotten this all so wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 here wrighty https://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/cd/2002/fs0266.pdf "Correlation of two variables cannot explain the cause and effect of their relationship. Scientists design experiments using a number of methods to ensure the results reveal the likelihood of the observation happening (probability). Controlled experiments are used to analyze these relationships and develop cause and effect relationships. Statistical analysis is used to determine whether differences between treatments can be attributed to the treatment applied, if they are artifacts of the experimental design, or of natural variation. In summary, the Scientific Method produces answers to questions posed in the form of a working hypothesis that enables us to derive theories about what we observe in the world around us. Its power lies in its ability to be repeated, providing unbiased answers to questions to derive theories. This information is powerful and offers opportunity to predict future events and phenomena." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 5 hours ago, wrighty said: This is what FE is all about. Trolling aside, it’s the intellectual pursuit of arguing the unarguable. You’re not allowed assumptions you can’t further evidence. You’re assuming the sun is far enough away that its rays are parallel. If you ditch that assumption Eratosthenes 7 degree measurement has (at least) two conclusions that can be made to fit the data. I doubt there are many flat earth ‘enthusiasts’ that believe the earth is flat. Given the number of contributions to this thread you could argue that Chinahand is a flat earth enthusiast. Neither he nor me believe it as a model of reality, and I very much doubt PGW does either. Manxy on the other hand... I understand that but eclipses indicate that the sun is a lot further away than the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, wrighty said: And that's me out. If you are such a religious adherent to one 'definition' of THE (sic) scientific method then I may as well be debating evolution with a young-earth literal-bible creationist. Your interpretation of what constitutes science is clearly flawed, or at least limited to stuff such as heating up a can of water and measuring the temperature change relative to how long you keep the gas on. We'll have to agree to differ on this - I'm sure we can agree that my interpretation of science leads to useful technological advancement and understanding of the world, and yours...how about 327 pages of comment on a chat forum that's read by about 5 individuals. Perhaps Chinahand will continue - he seems to have limitless patience. I've only dipped in over the last couple of days as I'm bored while ill off-work. Adios (signing off from the thread, not doing a Dilligaf style flounce from the site ) Labradoodle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/ " Scientific Method First published Fri Nov 13, 2015 "Science is an enormously successful human enterprise. The study of scientific method is the attempt to discern the activities by which that success is achieved. Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. How these are carried out in detail can vary greatly, but characteristics like these have been looked to as a way of demarcating scientific activity from non-science, where only enterprises which employ some canonical form of scientific method or methods should be considered science (see also the entry on science and pseudo-science). On the other hand, more recent debate has questioned whether there is anything like a fixed toolkit of methods which is common across science and only science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm Care to challenge this wrighty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.