The connection between Anti-Science and Anti-Education views.

@livinglava,

This is science... theories need to be tested. This is opposite of a "pointless philosophical debate".

Can you specify your bowling ball experiment? In order for you "principle" to be scientific... you need to clearly state what results of your proposed experiment would prove it to be wrong. Any scientific theory can be tested, and anyone who understands the theory can explain in detail an experiment to test it, and results that would prove it wrong.

What experimental results or evidence would get you to abandon your ideas?

You have invented a principle, and you are sticking to it in spite of any evidence to the contrary. That is not how science works.

1 Reply

Since this is a thread to defend Education....

Science education is particularly meticulous. Every principle you learn is proven. Every principle you learn as a student is proven mathematically (often having you do the work yourself step by step). Every principle you learn is proven by experiment (you either read the paper which provides the experimental setup and the data, or you do the experiment yourself).

Real scientists have an incredible wealth of experience to draw upon. It takes a lot of work to develop expertise, but it is invaluable if you want to do real science on any advanced level.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

There is no such thing as an object that can slow down without friction.

Here is the problem with inventing your own principles of science. It leads to things that are easily shown to be wrong.

Of course an object can slow down without friction. If a spaceship shoots their rocket against their current motion, it will slow down.

If you took Physics 101, you would do a bunch of problems with Newton's second Law (F = ma), and you would end up with an understanding that any force can slow down an object.

A first year Physics student would be able to describe an experiment to test his understanding, and list results that would (if measured) disprove the theory.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is science... theories need to be tested. This is opposite of a "pointless philosophical debate".

You're taking two things I said completely out of context here.

Quote:

Can you specify your bowling ball experiment? In order for you "principle" to be scientific... you need to clearly state what results of your proposed experiment would prove it to be wrong. Any scientific theory can be tested, and anyone who understands the theory can explain in detail an experiment to test it, and results that would prove it wrong.

You are a defense attorney, not a scientist.

I was just giving examples of empirical observations that would elucidate how momentum due to inertia interacts with friction.

Quote:

What experimental results or evidence would get you to abandon your ideas?

You have invented a principle, and you are sticking to it in spite of any evidence to the contrary. That is not how science works.

You don't abandon truth because someone tells you that science is about coming up with theories that you will abandon.

Can you name any scientific theory/principle/fact that you would abandon under some conditions? I bet you can't. Go ahead, try.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Can you name any scientific theory/principle/fact that you would abandon under some conditions? I bet you can't. Go ahead, try.

Any of them. You name one and I will explain the experimental results that would cause me to abandon them.

If you could show me mathematically where a "passive propulsion" is needed when solving Newton's laws or show me how the conform to Newtonian Relativity, then I will abandon my objection.

Or... if you can explain an experiment where "passive propulsion" can be measured or tested.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Since this is a thread to defend Education....

Science education is particularly meticulous. Every principle you learn is proven. Every principle you learn as a student is proven mathematically (often having you do the work yourself step by step). Every principle you learn is proven by experiment (you either read the paper which provides the experimental setup and the data, or you do the experiment yourself).

Real scientists have an incredible wealth of experience to draw upon. It takes a lot of work to develop expertise, but it is invaluable if you want to do real science on any advanced level.

Do you work for the marketing department of a university? You seem to be able to rattle on endlessly about how meticulous and rigorous science is without actually discussing any science.

It's like you want to sell science and education more than you want to have it.

You're like a person who wants people to go to church to contribute money and create church-construction projects, but who could care less about actual religious belief.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I am promoting science. I am promoting education.

Based on the title of this thread, I don't see how you could think otherwise.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here is the problem with inventing your own principles of science. It leads to things that are easily shown to be wrong.

Here is the problem with assuming that I'm investing my own principles: it's just your made-up assumption to 'prove' me wrong by saying that I make things up.

Quote:

Of course an object can slow down without friction. If a spaceship shoots their rocket against their current motion, it will slow down.

The rocket has to push against something, i.e. the propellant ejected from the rocket.

If there was no friction in a stream of water from a fire hose, firefighters wouldn't need to brace themselves against the recoil of the hose.

Likewise, if a bullet fired from a gun didn't exert friction against the exploding gun powder, the bullet wouldn't shoot out the barrel and the shooter wouldn't get knocked backward by the recoil.

Quote:

If you took Physics 101, you would do a bunch of problems with Newton's second Law (F = ma), and you would end up with an understanding that any force can slow down an object.

Then why don't you understand friction plays a role in rocket propulsion?

Quote:

A first year Physics student would be able to describe an experiment to test his understanding, and list results that would (if measured) disprove the theory.

Ok, then how would you prove or disprove that rocket propulsion (or a gun shooting a bullet) involves friction? Go ahead, choose prove or disprove, either one.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are saying that any force is friction. This is a matter of definition. If you using that definition of "friction" than you are correct. That isn't the normal definition.

If any force is friction, then there will be no experimental way to differentiate between a frictional force or any other type of force. And of course it works then.

If you change the dictionary definitions of things, you can win any argument.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Any of them. You name one and I will explain the experimental results that would cause me to abandon them.

Why can't you decide which one?

Quote:

If you could show me mathematically where a "passive propulsion" is needed when solving Newton's laws or show me how the conform to Newtonian Relativity, then I will abandon my objection.

Inertia is what keeps a vehicle in motion in the absence of any other form of propulsion. It is why trains on rails are more fuel/energy efficient than motor-vehicles with tires. It is why you get less exercise riding a bike or skateboard the same distance at the same speed as walking/jogging/running.

You can do lots of calcuations to quantify what I just said, but it's not necessary because you can subjectively estimate the same calculations to the level of accuracy needed for a conclusion.

Quote:

Or... if you can explain an experiment where "passive propulsion" can be measured or tested.

Sure, go ride a bike on level pavement. When you stop pedaling and your inertia keeps you moving forward, that's inertia.

Your inertia is keeping you in motion as if you were pedaling (propelling yourself) even though you stopped. Active propulsion stopped, but passive propulsion kept you in motion. That is inertia.

0 Replies

I see what you are doing. You are changing the dictionary definition of the word "propulsion".

For most of us, propulsion means that a force is being applied (in which case Newton's Second law comes into effect).

If you define propulsion as a synonym for "inertia", then of course you are correct.

If you change the dictionary definitions of things you can win any argument.

There is no force necessary to keep an object in motion.

Are you stating that "propulsion" is a force? If you are then you are clearly wrong. If you aren't, then you aren't technically wrong, but it is ridiculous to go around changing the definitions of things.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I see what you are doing. You are changing the dictionary definition of the word "propulsion".

For most of us, propulsion means that a force is being applied (in which case Newton's Second law comes into effect).

If you define propulsion as a synonym for "inertia", then of course you are correct.

If you change the dictionary definitions of things you can win any argument.

There is no force necessary to keep an object in motion.

Are you stating that "propulsion" is a force? If you are then you are clearly wrong. If you aren't, then you aren't technically wrong, but it is ridiculous to go around changing the definitions of things.

Words are tools to convey meaning and explain things.

I am explaining how inertia works, i.e. its meaning, in terms of propulsion. When I use the word, "passive" in contrast to "active," it divides propulsion into forward-motion due to some active pushing vs. forward-motion due to inertia in the absence of active pushing.

You want to only use the word, 'propulsion' to describe active pushing, but then you have no way to explain what inertia is and what it does.

You have to use words creatively to explain things. Using words creatively isn't the same thing as changing what they mean. It involves recognizing that propulsion refers to forward-motion and that it can occur due to different causes.

You can't talk about 'active motion' and 'passive motion,' because motion is just motion. I.e. when you see a bus going down the road, you can't tell if it is coasting or if the transmission is engaged just by looking at it. You might be able to hear what the motor is doing if you listen closely, but otherwise you just see that it's in motion. It's different with someone riding a bike, because you can see whether they are pedaling or not; but if they could somehow disengage the bike chain and pedal without pushing the back tire, you would not be able to see if their propulsion was active or passive, though you would see that they are in motion.

Propulsion refers to the pushing that moves you forward, whereas motion just refers to the fact you are moving.

Therefore it makes sense to divide propulsion into active and passive forms to describe inertia as 'passive propulsion.'

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is no force necessary to keep an object in motion.

Force is not needed for propulsion, because inertia can propel you in the absence of force.

Quote:

Are you stating that "propulsion" is a force? If you are then you are clearly wrong. If you aren't, then you aren't technically wrong, but it is ridiculous to go around changing the definitions of things.

Now you're confounding the logical relationship between force and propulsion. Force is anything that causes an object to accelerate or decelerate. In that sense, pedaling a bike imparts force, as does hitting the brakes. That's why you can say someone is pedaling or braking 'forcefully.'

Propulsion just means that something is causing motion. Motion can't cause itself because causes have to be antecedent to effects.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Propulsion refers to the pushing that moves you forward, whereas motion just refers to the fact you are moving.

If by "pushing" you mean "applying force" then you are simply wrong.

If you mean something else by "pushing" then you are just being ridiculous.

1 Reply

Since this is a thread about Education... Let's talk about Education.

As I pointed out before, during a Physics education everything is proven step by step by mathematics and experiment. When you study Physics, you are gaining skills as well as knowledge.

I have both taken and taught Physics 101 at the University level. Physics 101 generally covers Newton's laws, optics and classical Thermodynamics. Students do much of the work themselves either confirming the theories, or developing the mathematics themselves. There is no time that a Physics professor will say "take my word for this" to his students.

Every human being comes to a study of science with intuitions that are scientifically wrong. By "wrong" I mean that they are not supportable by mathematics or by experiment. One of the results of a Physics 101 course is that these misconceptions are challenged. Every student comes to a point where something doesn't intuitively "make sense", but it is still scientifically correct. Professors specifically set up experiments to emphasize this experience not everything that seems right is scientifically correct.

This is important because some students in Physics 101 go on to more advanced Physics. These are the people end up designing airplanes, or inventing back-scattering techniques for machines to detect explosives (my friend does this) or designing semiconductors to make the next generation of the internet work. These people need to have real understanding, and a real set of tools, in order to do their jobs.

Living Lava is exhibiting a basic intuitive misunderstanding, he wants to say that something is needed, he calls it a "propulsion", is needed to keep an object in motion. He is playing around with the dictionary... but it is a common intuition that leads to problems in more advanced study of physics.

The process of science education includes gaining a set of tools that allow you to test your own beliefs and to discover when your current ideas are wrong. LivingLava is actively resisting this process. The fact that he can't give up his current basic misconceptions makes it impossible for him to move on.

And that is one reason that education is important.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Propulsion refers to the pushing that moves you forward, whereas motion just refers to the fact you are moving.

If by "pushing" you mean "applying force" then you are simply wrong.

If you mean something else by "pushing" then you are just being ridiculous.

Look at how you write and how you fail to convey anything except binary logic of yes/no.

You don't explain what you understand as 'pushing' OR what you understand as "applying force."

You just say they don't mean the same thing and anyone who disagrees with you is ridiculous.

There's no explanation in your writing. Just "if you say X then you're silly" without reasoning/grounding as to why you think you're right.

Being right is more than just insisting on definitional accuracy.

Somehow you have to convey meaning and explain things beyond defining words.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Since this is a thread about Education... Let's talk about Education.

As I pointed out before, during a Physics education everything is proven step by step by mathematics and experiment. When you study Physics, you are gaining skills as well as knowledge.

I have both taken and taught Physics 101 at the University level. Physics 101 generally covers Newton's laws, optics and classical Thermodynamics. Students do much of the work themselves either confirming the theories, or developing the mathematics themselves. There is no time that a Physics professor will say "take my word for this" to his students.

Every human being comes to a study of science with intuitions that are scientifically wrong. By "wrong" I mean that they are not supportable by mathematics or by experiment. One of the results of a Physics 101 course is that these misconceptions are challenged. Every student comes to a point where something doesn't intuitively "make sense", but it is still scientifically correct. Professors specifically set up experiments to emphasize this experience not everything that seems right is scientifically correct.

This is important because some students in Physics 101 go on to more advanced Physics. These are the people end up designing airplanes, or inventing back-scattering techniques for machines to detect explosives (my friend does this) or designing semiconductors to make the next generation of the internet work. These people need to have real understanding, and a real set of tools, in order to do their jobs.

Living Lava is exhibiting a basic intuitive misunderstanding, he wants to say that something is needed, he calls it a "propulsion", is needed to keep an object in motion. He is playing around with the dictionary... but it is a common intuition that leads to problems in more advanced study of physics.

The process of science education includes gaining a set of tools that allow you to test your own beliefs and to discover when your current ideas are wrong. LivingLava is actively resisting this process. The fact that he can't give up his current basic misconceptions makes it impossible for him to move on.

And that is one reason that education is important.

If you like education, try doing some online educating by explaining concepts instead of just putting people down.

All you do is promote academia by talking it up and putting people down whenever they want to discuss anything interesting.

To some people, you as well it seems, education is just a way of building up status so you can claim superiority over others.

If you really care about education, do something more with it than using it as ammunition in status competition.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I could try again to teach you something. I have tried, rather patiently, several times. The problem is you are unwilling to change any of your philosophical beliefs... any time scientific fact contradicts your pre-existing belief, you react badly and reject the science.

Of course the statement you are making about the dropping balls is a mathematical statement. When you say they fall in equal times, you are making a mathematical, measurable claim, no matter how simple it is.

Galileo went much further with his mathematical analysis. He derived the function f(x) = at^2 and wrote about it "Two New Sciences". The simpler point that you understand is a direct result of this equation. You can as a philosophical principal, but Galileo can go even further. He could calculate the distance a falling ball will travel in 1.5 seconds. And, his calculations could be confirmed (if real objects didn't conform to his theory, his theory would have been rejected).

Your rejection of mathematics is a rejection of Galileo.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I could try again to teach you something. I have tried, rather patiently, several times. The problem is you are unwilling to change any of your philosophical beliefs... any time scientific fact contradicts your pre-existing belief, you react badly and reject the science.

I don't think you understand any of what you're talking about well enough to be right, sorry.

That's why you need to learn to reason. If you progress in communication about a specific topic, one step at a time, you can avoid the pitfall that you constantly run into, which is you want to name some fancy academic complexification of something simple and then go on and on about how that's real knowledge and the simple version is just a dumbed-down thing offered to uneducated people to pacify them because they can't understand the real deal. You yourself once posted that facts stand on their own independently of each other and the broader theoretical contexts in which they are employed, but you can't seem to actually go step by step with facts and reasoning and build up a case for understanding that doesn't involve naming some academic dogma and then worshiping it without putting it to any productive use whatsoever.

Quote:

Of course the statement you are making about the dropping balls is a mathematical statement. When you say they fall in equal times, you are making a mathematical, measurable claim, no matter how simple it is.

Exactly, a mathematical claim about measurement that doesn't require any algebra, arithmetic, stopwatch, or anything else besides listening for whether the balls hit the ground simultaneously or with two separate sounds.

Quote:

Galileo went much further with his mathematical analysis. He derived the function f(x) = at^2 and wrote about it "Two New Sciences". The simpler point that you understand is a direct result of this equation. You can as a philosophical principal, but Galileo can go even further. He could calculate the distance a falling ball will travel in 1.5 seconds. And, his calculations could be confirmed (if real objects didn't conform to his theory, his theory would have been rejected).

It's fine to use the language of math to communicate with people who are fluent in it, but it's not necessary to be fluent in math critically think about and understand science.

I get that you love math, and it's similar to me to people who love(d) Latin and ancient Greek and other classical languages, but the reality is that you don't need to speak ancient Greek to study and understand ancient Greek philosophy and you don't need to to speak Latin to study and understand the Bible.

When you are communicating about science with a general public, you need to communicate in English or whatever language you are using, and if someone understands the algebra or calculus you want to use to explain something scientific, you can certainly do that.

But what you do, that is totally counterproductive to the mission of science and education; is you resist using the language you can communicate with others in (e.g. English) and instead tell them (in English) that they can't understand science because they need to learn math. That is just a diversion from discussing science.

Maybe they will come to want to learn more math from discussing science, but they might just be more interested in understanding how things work with measuring/quantifying it, and that is fine too. Think about it, you can understand lots about chemistry and the molecular level without quantifying the bond lengths or ionization energies, etc. You probably don't know exactly how much voltage it takes to break the electron bond between hydrogen and oxygen in a water molecule, but you still understand the basic mechanics that the electron stays in place to bond the ions until sufficient energy is absorbed by the bond to dissolve it and release the ions.

In short, math is a language that can be used fruitfully in some ways, but you shouldn't make too much of it and you shouldn't deny people who can't or don't want to use it the opportunity to think about and discuss science.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Nonsense. You can't even talk about the real Galileo.

1 Reply

The connection between Anti-Science and Anti-Education views.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know