Philosophy of Science and Business

[vk6zgo]

And Archimedes?

VK6ZGO

[olsenn]

"You find something works,& you make a theory of why it works!
Your theory may imply that something else will happen,so you try it ,if it works,that implies that your theory is closer to correct than not."

Absolutely Correct!!! However, the problem arises when we spend so much time thinking about what the consequences of our theories are, just to find that there are no testable consequences of our theories and we have no real reason to believe our theories are closer to correct than not. The problem is that we become so hopful that we will descover our theory is correct that when we don't discover it's correct we don't throw it out because we've become too attached to it. Sometimes we actually find that our theories are wrong, but because we don't want to throw them out we just augment them with more theories.

I think we really need to get back to the basics and say what the hell can we use, and what can we take out of our science library and place in our philosophy one.

[don.r]

"You find something works,& you make a theory of why it works!
Your theory may imply that something else will happen,so you try it ,if it works,that implies that your theory is closer to correct than not."

Absolutely Correct!!! However, the problem arises when we spend so much time thinking about what the consequences of our theories are, just to find that there are no testable consequences of our theories and we have no real reason to believe our theories are closer to correct than not. The problem is that we become so hopful that we will descover our theory is correct that when we don't discover it's correct we don't throw it out because we've become too attached to it. Sometimes we actually find that our theories are wrong, but because we don't want to throw them out we just augment them with more theories.

I think we really need to get back to the basics and say what the hell can we use, and what can we take out of our science library and place in our philosophy one.

But that is not science. If you are too attached to your theory, then it is you who has a problem and not science. Theories are discarded all the time because they are proved incorrect, especially when under peer review. Furthermore, just because a theory is not useful at the moment does not mean it is incorrect and should be removed from the scientific literature.

[gregariz]

Science is a process of investigation to discover how the natural world works.

Engineering is a process of synthesis, using knowledge of how the world works to design useful things.

I would agree with that. This is probably not the place to argue for/against quantum theory. Although I use electromagnetics quite regularly, I find classical electromag is sufficient for most synthesis problems. There are only a few places in engineering where I have run across a need to understand some aspects of quantum theory, areas such as NMR. I think its worth noting that science and engineering qualifications are somewhat recent inventions. Everynow and then you'll come across an older engineer or maybe pickup a book written before the war. Often those people had degrees in Natural Philosophy rather than physics or engineering. They still exist but are few and far between.

Many of the victorian scientists we hail as genius's very often has broad philosophical interests, including social and natural philosophy. Engels of communist manifesto produced important works of  mathematics, Maxwell was a poet and bible thumper. In fact many of the great victorian scientific discoveries were documented in the Journal of the Royal Society, named of course the Philosophical Transactions.

[Time]

"You find something works,& you make a theory of why it works!
Your theory may imply that something else will happen,so you try it ,if it works,that implies that your theory is closer to correct than not."

Absolutely Correct!!! However, the problem arises when we spend so much time thinking about what the consequences of our theories are, just to find that there are no testable consequences of our theories and we have no real reason to believe our theories are closer to correct than not. The problem is that we become so hopful that we will descover our theory is correct that when we don't discover it's correct we don't throw it out because we've become too attached to it. Sometimes we actually find that our theories are wrong, but because we don't want to throw them out we just augment them with more theories.

I think we really need to get back to the basics and say what the hell can we use, and what can we take out of our science library and place in our philosophy one.

What?  I don't know any scientists who function like this.  Maybe a poor scientist will put his pride in front of knowledge.  I have been involved in high level scientific research for awhile now and one thing you quickly learn is that the unexpected is just as useful and exciting as the expected.  Reproducibility takes precedence over whether or not theory aligns with reality.  Clearly the experience you are drawing upon is too limited for you to be taken seriously here.

And as far as quantum entanglement is concerned, it was demonstrated in macroscopic diamond structures a few centimeters apart just this year.  They are already considering schemes for using this phenomenon as a way for next generation communication.  I believe the detection method is called the DLCZ scheme or something... the journal articles were put out in Science.  I am sure google could figure it out if you took the time.

[Mechatrommer]

hey! enjoy the dream! its only 70 years or so! and watch your step!

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Once again I recommend that anyone who wants to understand more about quantum theory, should watch the Richard Feynman lectures on QED at the University of Auckland (see link below). In these lectures Feynman does not claim he understands quantum theory, but rather suggests he has come up with a "dippy way" to make all the calculations and predictions come out in correct fashion, in much the same way as the Mayans were able to construct an astronomical calendar. Pay particular attention to his discussion of transmission and reflection in glass and the "how does it know" question. Here he uses the old "Principle of Least Action" to telling effect. Fascinating!

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

"Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."
Chief Dan George 1899 1981

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[BravoV]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Once again I recommend that anyone who wants to understand more about quantum theory, should watch the Richard Feynman lectures on QED at the University of Auckland (see link below). In these lectures Feynman does not claim he understands quantum theory, but rather suggests he has come up with a "dippy way" to make all the calculations and predictions come out in correct fashion, in much the same way as the Mayans were able to construct an astronomical calendar. Pay particular attention to his discussion of transmission and reflection in glass and the "how does it know" question. Here he uses the old "Principle of Least Action" to telling effect. Fascinating!

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

"Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."
Chief Dan George 1899 1981

Best Regards
Clear Ether

Dear Quote Master, quoting you with another famous quote .....

.....If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.....

I bet you must know this one ...

[SgtRock]

Dear BravoV:

--Yes, Sir, indeed I am familiar with that quote. He also said, when arguing with Heisenberg at the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons:

"I may have said something or other like that. Still it is all nonsense nonetheless."

"I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."
P. G. Wodehouse 1881 1975

Best Regards
Clear Ether