Armchair scientific deductions

skwinty (Steve) · #1 27-03-2008, 07:37 AM

Zuts, post 11..
" Of course they had no real scientific method and Plato believed that it was possible to deduce all there was to know from an armchair.

Undeniably, Einstein was a scientific genius.
His laboratory was the mind. His revelations came from from thought experiments. To quote Einstein:

" The sense experiences are the given subject matter, but the theory that shall interpret them is man made. It is the result of an extremely laborious process of adaptation, hypothetical, never completely final, always subject to question and doubt"

So perhaps Plato was right in that is possible to deduce all there is to know from an armchair.

sheeny (Al) · #2 27-03-2008, 08:00 AM

Only to a point, Steve!

It's a bit hard to accurately determine the speed of light from a thought experiment alone, for example. Ultimately, a practical experiment has to be done to measure it, and more to determine that it is constant relative to the observer. Then, the thought experiments can take place to develop hypotheses, make predictions and devise new experiments.

The two go hand in hand!

Al.

Zuts · #3 27-03-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheeny

Only to a point, Steve!

It's a bit hard to accurately determine the speed of light from a thought experiment alone, for example. Ultimately, a practical experiment has to be done to measure it, and more to determine that it is constant relative to the observer. Then, the thought experiments can take place to develop hypotheses, make predictions and devise new experiments.

The two go hand in hand!

Al.

I agree 100 percent. The theoretical physicists make all sorts of grand predictions, none of which are on solid ground until the theoretical physisicts come along and test them. These tests then open up fresh new paths for the theoretical physicists to wander and so on...

Einstein was correct about special relativity, but until he was shown to be correct what was the point of it and why should someone prefer his theory to some other theory without a verifiable experimental basis.

It took literally thousands of years to rid the world of Aristotelian physics, it would have been discounted much sooner if someone earlier on could have shown it to be false.

Paul

skwinty (Steve) · #4 27-03-2008, 05:16 PM

At the end of the day it all comes down to the mind.
Thought processes are the prime movers for any scientific endeavour.
You must first sense the problem, formulate the problem, formulate the solution. formulate the test equipment and only then can you put the theory into practice for verification.
I also suspect that when we view the theoretical physicists of today, very few are of the calibre of Einstein.
When Eddington sent his results confirming Einstein's theory of gravity bending light, Einstein was unmoved. When he showed the results to his colleagues, they jumped for joy. When asked why he was unmoved, Einstein replied "Because I knew the theory is correct".

GeoffW1 (Geoff) · #5 27-03-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

So perhaps Plato was right in that is possible to deduce all there is to know from an armchair.

He was, he has often been misunderstood: It is possible to deduce all there is............. to know when seated in an armchair!!!!

I believe he didn't mean ALL there is to know

Cheers

skwinty (Steve) · #6 27-03-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheeny

Only to a point, Steve!

It's a bit hard to accurately determine the speed of light from a thought experiment alone, for example. Ultimately, a practical experiment has to be done to measure it, and more to determine that it is constant relative to the observer. Then, the thought experiments can take place to develop hypotheses, make predictions and devise new experiments.

The two go hand in hand!

Al.

Hi Al/Paul
Yes you have a valid point about the two going hand in hand.
Maxwell calculated the speed of light in 1873, Michelson measured it in 1879 some 6 years later.
My point is , man came to this earth, naked with nothing.
Any thing we see and know today owes its existence to the thought processes of man before any piece of measuring or test equipment.
Of course this does not apply to all men, only those who diligently applied their minds to explaining the experiences of the senses.

Peter Ward · #7 27-03-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

So perhaps Plato was right in that is possible to deduce all there is to know from an armchair.

This reminds me of some lines by Douglas Adams in one of the Hitch-hikers guides. The race that lived on a planet perpetually shrouded by cloud.....

Built a space ship.

As they punched through the atmosphere....the unexpected and majestic Universe unfolds...but it didn't fit at all with their view of their Universe. It had to go!

Doug Adams is surely missed.

skwinty (Steve) · #8 27-03-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

but it didn't fit at all with their view of their Universe. It had to go!

Doug Adams is surely missed.

you are so right. Doug Adams is missed.
I wonder how long it will be before Einstein's armchair science will have to go because it doesnt fit the expected social profile.
So far even his biggest blunder has been shown to be not a blunder.
Just a name change.

gman (Grant) · #9 27-03-2008, 10:18 PM

Plato absolutely had one thing right for this thread,
"Necessity is the mother of all invention"

skwinty (Steve) · #10 27-03-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gman

Plato absolutely had one thing right for this thread,
"Necessity is the mother of all invention"

I thought that was Frank Zappa.

PS Your signature "The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us will go to the stars " reminds me of the Jehovahs Witnesses who say that only the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel will go to the stars and the rest of humanity stay here on Earth

gman (Grant) · #11 27-03-2008, 10:52 PM

Funny you should say that.
My Brother in Law is one.
I call him my Jo Ho Bro.
He tries with all the religious stuff but I keep telling him he is barking up the wrong tree.
The quip in my sig is something I had read years ago.
I know it is a variation of part of the Gospel according to Mark in the bible, but hey, I like it.
Not that there is anything wrong with being religious

skwinty (Steve) · #12 28-03-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

This reminds me of some lines by Douglas Adams in one of the Hitch-hikers guides. The race that lived on a planet perpetually shrouded by cloud.....

Built a space ship.

As they punched through the atmosphere....the unexpected and majestic Universe unfolds...but it didn't fit at all with their view of their Universe. It had to go!

Doug Adams is surely missed.

Hi Peter
Doug only made one error in his stories.
He missed it by five.