Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Compromising Logic And Reason?
If the scientific method and maths are the product of logic and reason, is it unreasonable to suspend this belief on occasion, when dealing with logic and reason defying phenomena as found in quantum theory, black holes and singularities?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No.Where do you get the idea that such phenomena you mentioon defy logic or reason?
We cannot explain them yet. Science cannot explain them yet. That does not mean that science never will, or that we will never understand such phenomena - and if we ever wish to gain a true understanding, a true appreciation of such events, the very last thing we need to do is to throw logic and reason out of the window.
The story of humanities development over the last few centuries has been, in a very large part, the application of the scientific method, the appliance of logic and reason.
We cannot explain them yet. Science cannot explain them yet. That does not mean that science never will, or that we will never understand such phenomena - and if we ever wish to gain a true understanding, a true appreciation of such events, the very last thing we need to do is to throw logic and reason out of the window.
The story of humanities development over the last few centuries has been, in a very large part, the application of the scientific method, the appliance of logic and reason.
OK - Its defies your understanding, and feels intuitively wrong. Come to that,it seems strange to me. Just because you or I do not understand it does not mean that no one will, either now or in the future. Several ABers have shown an appreciation and understanding of physics well beyond mine, and to them, such a concept will not defy logic or reason.
No one says that we should automatically be in a position to understand everything. Much of the more complicated stuff will require a lifetime of work to understand - a lifetime of applying logic, reason and rationality ;)
No one says that we should automatically be in a position to understand everything. Much of the more complicated stuff will require a lifetime of work to understand - a lifetime of applying logic, reason and rationality ;)
Our experience of everyday life is based on things happening in an environment of non-extremes and so, when dealing with things at a sub-atomic level or at a cosmological scale or close to absolute zero or any other state far removed from the world in which we live, it's not logic or reason that need to be suspended but the human expectations that things will happen in a way similar to those to which we are accustomed.
You sound as if you've been listening to theoreticians!
The scientific method is not based on logic and reason - that was the basis of greek and philosophy that was overthrown by the Baconian Scientific method
It's based on experiment and observation.
There is masses and masses of experimental evidence to support quantum mechanics. Non-locality of particles like electrons can also be demonstrated and virtual particles via the Casimir effect.
We have much less observational evidence for black holes. Enough to know they exist. We see stars orbiting giant black holes at the centre of galaxies and can therefore calculate their masses.
As for singularities - these do not exist. They are where the maths gives you infinities. That means that there is new physics going on there that we don't understand. We've never seen it and can't really talk about it. We use the word singularity really as a shorthand to mean this point where the physics changes in a way we dont understand.
The scientific method is not based on logic and reason - that was the basis of greek and philosophy that was overthrown by the Baconian Scientific method
It's based on experiment and observation.
There is masses and masses of experimental evidence to support quantum mechanics. Non-locality of particles like electrons can also be demonstrated and virtual particles via the Casimir effect.
We have much less observational evidence for black holes. Enough to know they exist. We see stars orbiting giant black holes at the centre of galaxies and can therefore calculate their masses.
As for singularities - these do not exist. They are where the maths gives you infinities. That means that there is new physics going on there that we don't understand. We've never seen it and can't really talk about it. We use the word singularity really as a shorthand to mean this point where the physics changes in a way we dont understand.
...they are made out of "hot air", in other words they probably dont exist. If there was a black hole at the centre of our galaxy we would see gravitational lensing of the light from the stars that orbit the centre, but we dont. Also, some boffins worked out that it would be impossible for a black hole to ever form in the first place... http://news.sciencema...07/06/21-01.html?etoc
Cosmology is full of fantastical nonsense these days. Just like dark matter and dark energy, black holes are born out of desperation to keep old theories alive when conflicting observations pop up. Dark matter was invented to keep the standard gravity-only model of galactic motion alive when stars were found to orbit the galactic centre differently than expected. The theorists would rather invent some exotic form of matter than admit that their model is wrong. If they considered electromagnetic forces too (the forces that result from electric charge separation in plasma), then there would be no need to invent some exotic form of matter or posit that supermassive black holes exist at the centres of galaxies. (see http://www.plasmacosmology.net)
When there's a risk of it hurting the egos of the theorists, Occam's Razor goes out the window.
Cosmology is full of fantastical nonsense these days. Just like dark matter and dark energy, black holes are born out of desperation to keep old theories alive when conflicting observations pop up. Dark matter was invented to keep the standard gravity-only model of galactic motion alive when stars were found to orbit the galactic centre differently than expected. The theorists would rather invent some exotic form of matter than admit that their model is wrong. If they considered electromagnetic forces too (the forces that result from electric charge separation in plasma), then there would be no need to invent some exotic form of matter or posit that supermassive black holes exist at the centres of galaxies. (see http://www.plasmacosmology.net)
When there's a risk of it hurting the egos of the theorists, Occam's Razor goes out the window.
Impossible for a Black Hole to form in the first place ??
scowie is talking utter nonsense. Plasma cosmology is rubbish invented by people who have no idea what they are talking about. It is inconsistent with accepted theory.
I do agree however that Dark Matter is only a hypothesis. Cosmologists will tell you that too. But until a better hypothesis is put forward that is all we have.
scowie is talking utter nonsense. Plasma cosmology is rubbish invented by people who have no idea what they are talking about. It is inconsistent with accepted theory.
I do agree however that Dark Matter is only a hypothesis. Cosmologists will tell you that too. But until a better hypothesis is put forward that is all we have.
Plasma cosmology was invented by plasma physicists who saw similar structures in space to what they saw in their plasma experiments in the laboratory. 99% of the universe's matter is in the plasma state btw (not counting the made-up rubbish like dark matter and dark energy, of course). It was devised in order to make up for the deficiencies of "accepted" theory.
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.