Debate between Jack Levy(JL) and Brad (BM) on a quote.....

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. - Stephen Jay Gould

Debate:
BM: Should string theory be taught then?

JL:Of course! Its a theory! The possibility of string theory being accurate or leading to a more accurate theory is highly probable. Compared or a theory that an apple will start to rise rather than fall, the two have no basis of comparison.

BM:How is string theory more likely to be true? A theory is developed based on testable hypotheses. String theory was not developed based on experimental observations. It's just a story to help tie certain perspectives in physics together. Science is supposed to be based on skepticism and string theory proponents are acting opposite to that approach.

JL:Any theoretical physics would suffer under those parameters. Even relativity begins to falter and, according to that standard, shouldn't be taught if we follow that logic. For that matter the theory of gravity should not be taught either, since our current understanding of it falls to the waste side once we get into the quantum state. Theoretical physics is full of thought experiments, minute (comparably) amounts of data and varying degrees of accuracy and is mostly based on mathematical computation and models based on observations.

Stephen Hawking would be out of a job if we followed that criteria as his landmark hawking radiation can not possibly (yet) be tested. Skepticism is great if you got the math to back up you postulation. String theory is a mathematically a plausible road to take...an apple rising on its own has little (i'll give it a little) to no plausible mathematical basis.

BM:That's why I'm wondering what the difference is between thought experiments in physics compared to any logic-based viewpoint? It seems like our understanding of the world can be completely different. The strings of string theory are just as likely to be seen tomorrow as an apple rising upwards. My frustration is that the filter for what is merited as physics is based on who you are in the field of physics rather than what you say.

Gould's quote that "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to without provisional assent" can negate so many viewpoints in physics. Yet, physicists use that argument to debunk other "unscientific" theories that were not created by reputable people in the field.

Physics is going through an identity crisis. People used to say "we are the hard science, the science of the observable and measurable." Now they realize that the scope of that science is limiting since it cannot explain all of the questions we hope to answer regarding our universe. So now it is more acceptable to think in a more philosophical framework about the physical world. Now people can have valid beliefs in physics without it needing to be tested.

Physics, just like any other type of knowledge-seeking, is a social activity. An apple can rise upward tomorrow just as easily as Hawking can change his mind on whether a supreme being is compatible with the science of our universe. The physics of the world doesn't change, but our perspectives do.

JL:Fact is extremely different than theory. What is theory cannot be accepted as fact scientifically speaking. Gould's quote is good for factual basis but can not be accurately applied to anything still in the realm of theoretical physics.

I will grant you the point that theoretical physics is leaning towards the realm of philosophical thinking to an extent; however we can not neglect the mathematical aspect which is the defining chasm between the two. The mathematics, models and data are what give the direction to the thought experiments and lead to better equipment for discovering truth. I disagree with the idea that physics is going through an identity crisis simply by understanding the intent of theoretical physics. its intent is to not say this is true and this is not, as you mentioned earlier the idea of any science is to be skeptical and experiment to show truth. As technology advances theory will move out of this field and into the field of observation and experimentation. Unless you are suggesting that we stop creating newer ideas simply because out technology is not as advanced as our motivation for thought?

Logic based view points would be the famous Schrödingers cat thought experiment, where logical deduction of obvious facts are interpreted to imply a reason for observed behavior (double slit experiment being one). However, we can not say why the particles behave the way they do other than to speculate theoretically and further research ways to measure the seemingly immeasurable i.e. the point where the particle becomes a wave and vice versa.

"An apple can rise upward tomorrow just as easily as Hawking can change his mind on whether a supreme being is compatible with the science of our universe. "

That statement is incorrect, as it would take serious mathematical computation and many models to postulate otherwise. At the time Hawking came up with the theory it was yet to be able to be tested and experimented (I am guesstimating in the mid 70's is when this was theorized but I may be off a few years). However recently experiments are showing this to be a real possibility, so almost 40 years later we have just begun to be technologically able to observe. Theoretical physics is the hypothesis of the greater scientific process which takes, as we have seen, many many years to follow through.

My point is that it is not simply "oh i changed my mind" it is more like "i think this, math supports me, let me check my math, yes its good, lets see if others can find a problem with my math, nope okay this is my theory!.....years later ok we have this new measuring device lets see if the theory was right, yes we see what my grandfather predicted the theory is now tested hypothesis and put through skepticism and repetition of experiments to validate the findings."

BM:Gould's quote is the opposite of being good for a factual basis. Gould even admits that scientific facts are not truths. “Facts” only state that we think an event is more likely to occur because we have observed it occur a certain way in the past. Gould even implies that there is a possibility, although not a probability, that an apple can rise upward.

I feel that you put too much faith in math and that math rules lining up is a sign that something is a law of nature. Math is just a bunch of rules based on symbols that we have assigned values to. Just like language and the rules of logic. Yet, the rules of logic can be flawed just like the rules of math. Mathematics is a logic game and the history of math has shown that the rules of math can change and the values we assign to mathematical concepts can change. Math is a human endeavor.

Physics, like any science, is just a certain way we assign values to what we observe. A good science allows multiple viewpoints so there is a larger discussion in the field regarding how we interpret the world around us. Saying an apple can rise upward is more valuable than saying “an apple always falls downward” since it challenges conventional viewpoints and leads to questions of “why can’t this happen?” rather than statements saying “we are fairly certain that the next apple to fall will fall downward since the apples we have observed so far have fallen downwards.” The “why can’t this happen?” questions have led to the most advanced scientific revolutions.

If the history of science is any indicator then the physics we currently study now, with all these complex math proofs, will be inadequate and wrong in the eyes of future physicists. Science needs to come to terms with what is it--a human process. We observe with our human senses and interpret with our human perspectives. We are the tools of science and we are terribly horrible at accuracy.

JL:Gould places the term fact in the reference of science and that is what I was referring to, his definition is a good one when referring to "fact" in science. I should have clarified that, I meant that Fact cannot be used to be accurately applied to anything still in the realm of theoretical physics. Sorry my mistake there.

I am not sure what you mean by the rules of math has changed? Rules have been added and new maths created but when has it actually changed. Math, form my understanding, is the only thing that has not changed since its initial inception, it continues to grow at a phenomenal rate and has become an integral part of everything we know. If you are considering additions to math, like the evolution of algebra into calculus and such, as change then I would disagree on the basis that the rules are the same for advanced and mediocre math, it is the difference of scope and analysis of the problems at hand. I put a lot of as you call "faith" in mathematics as it has never been wrong. Point out one time when correct math, with all the data, has been wrong (not statistics, thats a low blow)? Logical foundations give mathematics more than just certainty-they are a tool to investigate the unknown.

I disagree, you can say all you want that the apple will rise, however facts and proof of the phenomenon needs to be present for it to be valid to be taught. It would be like me bringing up the idea that you are going to turn the apple into a frog because you waved a wand. Should Harry Potter effects be taught in physics because someone thinks that it is possible but with no proof of the phenomena, either mathematically of via observation?

I agree that the "what if?/ why not?" questions most certainly drive science! That is the heart and soul of any science from social to physical ect. However, simply asking the question does not warrant the teachings of it until it has been through at the very least its first trial of research.

For anything in physics to be taught it has to be real physical science. Thus it has to be predictive. What matters most in science is not how you explain something, but how accurately you can forecast the outcome of an experiment. Theoretical physics, to that end, can not satisfy that prerequisite until it has been put through a proof. As technology is adept at the moment, mathematics and models are all we have. Show me a model that has an apple rise and I will say that its mechanism should be taught and researched until understood and replicated consistently.

Logic and math is the only basis of proof we have. Our own senses can be of hindrance to us so even observation is flawed. You said "Math is a human endeavor." True, however would you believe something you saw over logic? If you would, then you are saying that a magic show full of illusion is real, where as logic tells you that, there is no way that man just sawed her in half and put her together again. Thus logic would trump any observation made by out sense, as you said we are horrible at accuracy. You mentioned your frustration was with what was the "filter for what is merited as physics," that filter (for theoretical physics) is mathematics/ logic at least until we can experiment futher.

I challenge you to find a logical argument that is wrong, not a logical fallacy mind you. Find a real argument that follows the rules of logic that after verification proves to be wrong.

BM:You emphatically say that "what if?/why not?" questions drive science but then you say those question do not warrant teachings of those questions. What is science but a series of questions in search of answer? We should absolutely have our students challenge every theory, concept, and "fact" in a science for it to evolve successfully instead of just proselytizing them with rules which we believe to be true.

Even in math rules have changed. Just look at the history of infinity. Mathematicians believed that infinity could not exist. Both Plato and Aristotle wrote books defining the limit of numbers. Then the need for an infinity became apparent by Newton when creating rules for calculus. This changed both rules and major perspectives in mathematics.

Mathematics is just a language that humans have created to symbolize the world. It is a human creation. The rules of mathematics will change depending on whether you're looking at nature through a ten-base math system or a binary math system.

Even within the science of math there are hypotheses that cannot be proven. For instance, the Continuum Hypothesis which has actually been proven to not be approvable or disprovable. If math is the language of nature and there is a complete set of laws that can be described by math then we should be able to use math to describe everything. Except, ya know, some math hypotheses.

Math and physics are just as limiting as any set of logic or language rules humans create. Our best thing to do is to remain skeptics of current knowledge. If anything in the history of science teaches us it is that rules and theories change. Scientific perspectives are modified. And often, we are proven wrong. We want to teach our students to be the most bad-ass critical people possible. To see if we can see things from other perspectives, even if that means questioning what is up or down in their world.

The concept that there are concrete laws of nature in both physics and math is the worst mental state to put our students in. We want them to test new ideas, challenge current ones and we cannot do that by telling them that this is how the world works because symbols that we assigned a numerical value to proves it is so with rules that we created. It is wonderful when a set of human created rules can fit some people's perspectives of the world around us. It's not great for us to say that those rules are the default state of our world.

JL:There is nothing implying empathy on my part in relation to the "What if/ Why not?" questions. They are truly and absolutely the foundation for the area we have come to know as science. I still proclaim that they are not something we should teach. We should teach the asking of the questions, of course! Without teaching students to ask those questions we will become scientifically stagnant. However, we should not be teaching questions like "Why don't jolly ranchers grow on trees?" Does that question really deserve equal time in the class room as say the question “Why do germs make us sick” or “What is the magnetic poles shifted here on earth?” We would never get anywhere if every single question ever asked was taught to every student. My point is that simply asking the question does not merit scientific teaching, you must first as the question, conclude that it is a valid question by understanding the implications, and then explore via the scientific method. My jolly ranchers question sounds more like an advertisement for the hard candy (which are awesome) than as a suspect phenomenon, and thus should not warrant teaching to a student in biology.
Your example of infinity is flawed, in the sense that just because the concept was not known worldwide, does not negate the mathematical implications that had already governed the laws of nature. Of course we had to learn the concepts, us learning the concept does not mean that the math has changed, it just means that we had not learned that idea yet. For example, god as the prime mover, as a scientist you cannot ever say with 100% fact that there is not god. Just because we do not understand the concept and its implications does not mean that some day it won’t be discovered, as the Mayans implied god might be in the numbers. But just because we do not know that math yet, does not mean that it is not acting on the natural world. As you point out, math is just a human created symbolist system, but that system is what allows us to share and logically deduce the actual phenomena that we see.
Your point is a epistemological, do we know that our math is right, is the nature of our math the same as natures math. In that respect math has “changed” in the sense that sometimes our math is inadequate to describe the universe around us. “The rules of mathematics will change depending on whether you're looking at nature through a ten-base math system or a binary math system. “That line is without a doubt wrong in every way. The maths that you described are following every single rule the same exact way. I can make the same computation, come up with the same exact and precise answer with either system. The only thing that makes them different would be that I can do ten based usually in my head and binary I need to write down. For example, when you figure out on a binary clock what time it is, you are simple converting between two systems but the answer is still the same.

Your example of the CH is a logical fallacy, as you say that it cannot be proven or not and that since math should be able to describe everything, and yet it can’t describe its own hypothesis. It is a fallacy because as I previously said, math sometimes needs new maths to adequately describe the universe, and your misconception is that to prove or disprove anything we need accurate math to describe the conditions, and because it is unable to be proven, we obviously do not. I am not proficient with the CH concept, however, I am pretty sure it has to do with set theory (don’t quote me) and if that is the case then our current understanding of sets just do not satisfy, in analogy we need to learn to understand infinity for that new math to be invented so that CH is then proven or disproven. However our current set theory suffices for most calculations. Just like algebra suffices for most everyday computation but to figure out how to launch a shuttle you need calculus. Calculus isn’t even the end of it I am sure, as some of the computation that we may need for interstellar travel, or worm hole creation or some other really cool thing, we may need a new math which can more accurately describe the conditions that we encounter. Let’s call that math Jackulus! Jackulus will follow the same logical barrier that cal and algebra do, that does not make it a change to the basis of math, just an addition to the way we commutate and understand nature. There is not one argument or example shows a change in how new maths operate different than old ones. Just like me may need new words for new social interactions, when Webster’s dictionary added the text phrase “LOL” did that change English in its foundations, no or course not. It merely added to the existing framework to allow for better communication of ideas. That’s what happens when new math is added.

If any teacher ever says this is how the universe operates and that point is final, I want to kill them. However, when a teacher says this is how physics works, this is what you need to learn how to do then that is what the student should learn. If they find a problem with the science, then yes ask about it, and if you can show (with proof) that something is wrong then the kid gets a nobel because he furthered the science to better understanding. However to question physics by saying for example, the law of entropy is wrong, and not show, that does not say that everyone should now learn that entropy is wrong simply because some student questioned it. That’s preposterous! However if one day our current understanding of entropy is shown to be wrong either through models or observations and experiments then yes now it should be proven wrong. Don’t discourage the question, but if someone is saying something is wrong demand some sort of proof that we can all analyze and see for ourselves.

Humans did not create the rules; we weren’t even around when the rules happened! Humans try to understand the rules, and that’s where your argument falters, in thinking that we somehow have a say in the rules is saying that we are the prime movers. If we made the rules then we should be able to break them…just like social laws…man made them and man can break them. We can only look at the laws of nature, and describe them to the best of our ability and as ability and mathematical vocabulary grows we understand it better.