The Burden of Proof

[ChristineM]

correct Christine!

So the sand castle is built by a person(intelligent agency).... and the wind (entropy/ nature) gradually knocks it back down..

I knew you were beginning to come around ..

And still, there is nothing in science to prevent it happening naturally, which is what i said at the start.

I knew you never bothered trying to understand what is written.

 

[ChristineM]

"My problem"? I'm sticking with the experts: "This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism."

I provided expert comment from a scientist - (astronomer), you provide Wikipedia, which is in no way is expert and can be edited by any Joe bloggs.

However, agreed that the orbit of Mercury cannot be accurately predicted by Newton's laws as they stand. Newton's laws work in the environment they were designed for.
If all factors are taken into account, including those that were unknown to Newton the problem goes away.

Or are you saying that Newton, being of a religious bent should have precoged space time and accounted for it in his equations?

 

[Nous]

I provided expert comment from a scientist - (astronomer), you provide Wikipedia

No, neither of these is a Wikipedia article:

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct.​

Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

Abraham Pais notes that the discovery that General Relativity correctly predicted Mercury's precession was “by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all his life.”

And you haven't shown that using Newton's formalism can account for the discrepancy. It's exactly as I said from beginning: there are certain empirical findings that violate Newton's law.

 

[ChristineM]

No, neither of these is a Wikipedia article:

And you haven't shown that using Newton's formalism can account for the discrepancy. It's exactly as I said from beginning: there are certain empirical findings that violate Newton's law.

My apologises, looks like a wiki article

I never said Newtons theory does account for the difference, i said, take account of all factors and it does


In Physics a "theory" is a mathematical model based on various assumptions and valid for a limited range of physical conditions. Newton's laws are a mathematical model that is limited to non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields, and within those limits it is exceedingly accurate. There is no sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein.
Newtonian gravity vs. general relativity: exactly how wrong is Newton?

 

[ratiocinator]

The other paradox is creation without creativity, the infinite regression of natural mechanisms that require being supported by more natural mechanisms.
, automated laws ultimately writing themselves in the absence of any genuinely creative power.

As I said, I don't know why there are laws and I see no reason to resort to just-so stories that lead to an exactly equivalent problem.

Whether we label it supernatural or not is semantics, the fact remains that creative intelligence is a phenomena that we know exists, and has a capacity to solve the creativity problem that nature alone simply does not

Creative intelligence does exist but only in association with highly complex physical objects that are clearly the result of the physical laws. We have good evidence for how basic physical laws produce the complexities of chemistry and biology and ultimately intelligent beings.

Positing an intelligence as the source of said laws turns all the evidence we have on its head.

And, as I said, it doesn't explain anything really. You end up with something that all our evidence suggests needs a physical object to produce, somehow magically existing, for no reason, and without a anything physical at all produce it.

Even accepting that for a moment, we then you have all the same problems you started with: it magically made itself, or popped out of nothing for no reason, or has been around forever for no reason...

 

[Nous]

There is no sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein.

There is the fact that Newton's theory does not provide an correct prediction of Mercury precession whereas Einstein's theory does. There is no rational reason to try to deny or cover over that fact.

 

[ChristineM]

There is the fact that Newton's theory does not provide an correct prediction of Mercury precession whereas Einstein's theory does. There is no rational reason to try to deny or cover over that fact.

Other than it not being relevant to 17th century understanding

 

[Nous]

Other than it not being relevant to 17th century understanding

"17th century understanding" is the context in which Newton's law was formulated. That doesn't change the fact that Newton's formalism doesn't accurately predict Mercury's precession.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"17th century understanding" is the context in which Newton's law was formulated. That doesn't change the fact that Newton's formalism doesn't accurately predict Mercury's precession.

Not quite sure why it is so important to continue harping on that, since mercury's nearness to the deep gravity well of the Sun brings it into a slightly relativistic state, which Newton would not have known about or understood. Does it make you feel better to find that Newton is thus "wrong?" After all, without bothering with relativity, Newton's equations have taken us to most of the planets in our system.

 

[Nous]

Not quite sure why it is so important to continue harping on that, since mercury's nearness to the deep gravity well of the Sun brings it into a slightly relativistic state, which Newton would not have known about or understood. Does it make you feel better to find that Newton is thus "wrong?"

Christine is the one who wants to try to make a claim about Newton's theory that is contrary to the truth. Ask her.

 

[ChristineM]

"17th century understanding" is the context in which Newton's law was formulated. That doesn't change the fact that Newton's formalism doesn't accurately predict Mercury's precession.

And you're point is what? That Newton knew nothing of space time. Yes we know that. And factor in way was unknown at that time and look, magic happens

 

[ChristineM]

Christine is the one who wants to try to make a claim about Newton's theory that is contrary to the truth. Ask her.

Nice to see you praying to others about me. How many of you, do you tell your buddies god well your other half performed in bed last night?

And you are one of those who can only think in historical absolutes and ignores later thinking

 

[ChristineM]

Nice to see you prattling to others about me. How many of you, do you tell your buddies god well your other half performed in bed last night?

And you are one of those who can only think in historical absolutes and ignores later thinking

 

[Nous]

And you're point is what? That Newton knew nothing of space time. Yes we know that. And factor in way was unknown at that time and look, magic happens

My point is what I've said about a half dozen times already: Newton's formalism doesn't accurately predict Mercury's precession. Let me know you are able to assimilate it.

 

[ChristineM]

My point is what I've said about a half dozen times already: Newton's formalism doesn't accurately predict Mercury's precession. Let me know you are able to assimilate it.

I have already said from day 1 that factoring in what was then unknown solves the program of Mercury, let me know when you learn to read.

 

[Nous]

I have already said from day 1 that factoring in what was then unknown solves the program of Mercury

"Factoring in what was then unknown solves the program of Mercury"? What do you "factor in" to Newton's equation in order to correctly predict Mercury's precession? Show it.

 

[ChristineM]

"Factoring in what was then unknown solves the program of Mercury"? What do you "factor in" to Newton's equation in order to correctly predict Mercury's precession? Show it.

Space time. Why is it so hard? A problem exists, an unknown variable is found, that variable provides the solution. Why are you so insistent on denying new knowledge?

 

[Nous]

Space time.

I guess I need to repeat: Show it.

 

[ChristineM]

I guess I need to repeat: Show it.

Space time? Wow you don't want much do you?

 

[Logikal]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God? [\QUOTE].

Well there is a HUGE distinction between rational folk from irrational folk. The irrational folk usually fall in the category of "too emotional". That is these folk let the emotions rule with very little filter. These folk are likely to give in to popular opinion around them, famous slogans, kiss ups to authorities, etc. The issue is that they GO IN TOO HARD with these things. The rational person would not put these things high on the priority list.
For RATIONAL folk he or she HAVE GOOD REASONS for making ANY CLAIM. Thus the answer you received before that BOTH parties have the burden of proof is correct when you are dealing with RATIONAL people. GOOD REASONS are required to be true claims. So right from the start as in mathematics all numbers without a sign in front of them are POSITIVE numbers likewise truth values for claims. Unless you distinctly say the following claim is false then your claim will be received as positive and true by most native speakers of English.

The science guys are just trying to pull authority saying that THE OTHER GUY ALWAYS HAS the Burden of proof. Why not make these guys KING while we are at it? Why would a rational person make the claim "there are pink unicorns orbiting Saturn" in the first place? Is he just exercising his freedom of speech? If so, then he should not be taken seriously and the claim is irrelevant since he was not serious to begin with the claim.

Rational folk do not sit around and do stupid stuff because its legal for them to do so. Try to be a rational person not a jerk: you know the clown that drives on a 65 mile per hour highway driving 20 miles an hour JUST BECAUSE. . . and then have the NERVE to tell other people to go around!

Secondly science guys usually use the term OBJECTIVE differently than the correct philosophy context: Objective does imply the truth value is INDEPENDANT of the observer BUT IT ALSO expresses that the truth value of a claim is CONSTANT and never changes. Thus an objective true claim can never be false once the proper specifics are revealed. Emotional folk always try to run the general scenario with a specific reply with a specific answer but are shifting the mood of discourse. This is a no no. You cannot go general vague when YOU ARE AWARE OF SPECIFIC DETAILS. Rational folk by being rational are not allowed to withhold relevant information which the emotional folk do to win debates.