What is science and what constitutes it?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not actually true at all, really. Of course, there are many cosmologists and others who use the term "predict" to include e.g., "would require" (in the say that string theories "predict" supersymmetry because string theories require SUSY at a foundational level), or "in retrospect" (the way that the Dirac sea and his Hole Theory "predicted" both positrons and antimatter more generally), and worse. But the basis for multiverse cosmologies are largely about fine-tuning and unnaturalness, i.e., that the empirical and theoretical basis for the standard model of cosmology yields something that seems contrived, designed, unnatural, etc., in a number of ways that feel too uncomfortably similar to the introduction of pre-Copernican princniples which place us at the center of a universe:

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."
&

"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"
(emphases added)

Both quotes are taken from the editorial introduction to the volume
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.
A similar volume by some of the same specialists and some new contributors was produced two years ago and is worth reading: Fine-Tuning in the Physical Universe.

Or, more simply, from a series that is less intended for specialists (but still produced by an academic publishing company in a edited monograph/volume series, in way that peer-reviewed journals are) :

"'miraculous' features of the standard model that seem to be carefully designed for the existence of life can also be understood if we take the view that we live only in one of the many universes which satisfies the conditions for life to exist."
&
“Suppose there was only one universe. Then it would be very difficult to explain miraculous features of our universe, such as the structure of elementary particles and the value of the vacuum energy, without resorting to some sort of creator. In the multiverse picture, however, there are an enormous number (10^500 or more) of different universes, so some of them possess these miraculous features that lead to intelligent life, without a help of any creator. This, of course, does not prove that there is no such creator, but given that a goal of science is to try to understand our physical nature as much as possible without relying on such an almighty person, the approach of the multiverse is exactly that of science.” (emphasis added)

Quoted from
Y. Nomura (2018) Misconceptions about the Multiverse. In Y. Nomura, B. Poirier, & J. Terning (Eds.): Quantum Physics, Mini Black Holes, and the Multiverse: Debunking Common Misconceptions in Theoretical Physics (Part III: Misconceptions about the Multiverse). Springer.

Now, statements like the above are contentious, in that it is perfectly acceptable to feel that cosmological models which have fine-tuning, naturalness, and related issues are problematic without believing that they have anything to do with a designer (even if they appear to introduce design-like qualities). But the point is that the evidence for such models is based on aesthetics and intuition about existing, supported theories being too seemingly contrived or requiring too great a number of coincidences and so forth. It is only in the sense that multiverse cosmologies or aspects thereof are thought to (in some cases) remove these issues is it the case that they are "predicted". But by that logic, so is God. So no, they aren't predicted.

What some people don't understand is that science is in practice based on a variation of assumptions and some even conflate methodological and philosophical naturalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not actually true at all, really. Of course, there are many cosmologists and others who use the term "predict" to include e.g., "would require" (in the say that string theories "predict" supersymmetry because string theories require SUSY at a foundational level), or "in retrospect" (the way that the Dirac sea and his Hole Theory "predicted" both positrons and antimatter more generally), and worse. But the basis for multiverse cosmologies are largely about fine-tuning and unnaturalness, i.e., that the empirical and theoretical basis for the standard model of cosmology yields something that seems contrived, designed, unnatural, etc., in a number of ways that feel too uncomfortably similar to the introduction of pre-Copernican princniples which place us at the center of a universe:

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."
&

"To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"
(emphases added)

Both quotes are taken from the editorial introduction to the volume
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.
A similar volume by some of the same specialists and some new contributors was produced two years ago and is worth reading: Fine-Tuning in the Physical Universe.

Or, more simply, from a series that is less intended for specialists (but still produced by an academic publishing company in a edited monograph/volume series, in way that peer-reviewed journals are) :

"'miraculous' features of the standard model that seem to be carefully designed for the existence of life can also be understood if we take the view that we live only in one of the many universes which satisfies the conditions for life to exist."
&
“Suppose there was only one universe. Then it would be very difficult to explain miraculous features of our universe, such as the structure of elementary particles and the value of the vacuum energy, without resorting to some sort of creator. In the multiverse picture, however, there are an enormous number (10^500 or more) of different universes, so some of them possess these miraculous features that lead to intelligent life, without a help of any creator. This, of course, does not prove that there is no such creator, but given that a goal of science is to try to understand our physical nature as much as possible without relying on such an almighty person, the approach of the multiverse is exactly that of science.” (emphasis added)

Quoted from
Y. Nomura (2018) Misconceptions about the Multiverse. In Y. Nomura, B. Poirier, & J. Terning (Eds.): Quantum Physics, Mini Black Holes, and the Multiverse: Debunking Common Misconceptions in Theoretical Physics (Part III: Misconceptions about the Multiverse). Springer.

Now, statements like the above are contentious, in that it is perfectly acceptable to feel that cosmological models which have fine-tuning, naturalness, and related issues are problematic without believing that they have anything to do with a designer (even if they appear to introduce design-like qualities). But the point is that the evidence for such models is based on aesthetics and intuition about existing, supported theories being too seemingly contrived or requiring too great a number of coincidences and so forth. It is only in the sense that multiverse cosmologies or aspects thereof are thought to (in some cases) remove these issues is it the case that they are "predicted". But by that logic, so is God. So no, they aren't predicted.

I was talking about inflation theory.


It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.[21]



Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space


Please also note that I specifically stated that it is PLAUSIBLE.
I also explicitly stated that I don't "believe it" / accept it as true / fact.

I merely said that it is PLAUSIBLE in context of current research and knowledge.
Gods are nothing close to that level.

I was replying to a statement that I find it easier to believe in a multiverse then to believe in creation gods. The answer is YES I DO and I explained why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was talking about inflation theory.


It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.[21]



Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space

Yeah, but the problem with those models are that they claim something which apparently can't be observed.

 

[Native]

What the heck are you talking about?
Did you hit the wrong reply button?

Yet another personal comment

 

[Native]

A multiverse that produces many space-time continuums (infinite or otherwise), is plausible, since we have relatively well-supported cosmological theories that naturally predict such. I don't "believe" that to be fact / true. I just understand that in context of our current knowledge, it is at least plausible.

Shouldn´t that be "speculative"?

There is nothing of the sort to support the idea that there is just this one space-time bubble and that it was created by some incomprehensible self-refuting entity.

This is not much different from the idea of a Big Bang.

 

[Native]

I was replying to a statement that I find it easier to believe in a multiverse then to believe in creation gods. The answer is YES I DO and I explained why.

In several ancient mythical/cosmological cultural telling of the creation, they have this to be eternal and infinite of nature and with an eternal transformal process of formation > dissolution > and re-formation as a cycle and re-cycle of everything.

This is by all means more logic than the speculations in modern cosmological science - and it even obeys the laws of energy conservation - which cannot be said by the Big Bang theory.

There is more logics in the ancient myths than in modern cosmological science if understanding the mythical language and its cosmological extent in these 3-4-5 thousand year old telling.

This is especially why modern science needs more natural observers and pondering philosophers in modern science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I merely said that it is PLAUSIBLE in context of current research and knowledge.
...

It is reasonable, but not predictable as as science per observation.

 

[cladking]

A multiverse that produces many space-time continuums (infinite or otherwise), is plausible, since we have relatively well-supported cosmological theories that naturally predict such. I don't "believe" that to be fact / true. I just understand that in context of our current knowledge, it is at least plausible.

There is nothing of the sort to support the idea that there is just this one space-time bubble and that it was created by some incomprehensible self-refuting entity.



I don't wonder about that. I understand your strawmanning ways.

You're a believer.

You so strongly believe there is no God you'll grasp at any straw that offers an alternative. But this isn't what makes you a "believer". You're a believer because you don't understand how science works and must take most things on faith. You have faith in efficacy and accuracy of scientific enquiry. You have faith that Peers will root out and expose any evil.

 

[cladking]

In the multiverse picture, however, there are an enormous number (10^500 or more) of different universes, so some of them possess these miraculous features that lead to intelligent life, without a help of any creator.

It would require 4.2 x 10 ^ 750,000 times as many monkeys and typewriters just to get War and Peace.

Surely cosmologists can't calculate how big an atomic collision has to be to create a new universe.

I seriously doubt any universe is sufficiently large to express the number of all universes in any media even using scientific notation.

 

[cladking]

This is especially why modern science needs more natural observers and pondering philosophers in modern science.

The problem here is simple; all ideas are individual.

While I sympathize and even agree with your point I don't believe it would help science in any way because the individuals creating hypotheses and inventing experiment are different than those trying to keep science grounded in the real world. Peer review (if it were relevant) is a failure and it would be even worse if philosophers contributed.

What we need instead is more teaching in metaphysics starting at a young age and more study of philosophy and the history of science and nature of paradigms. Then we need to invent a scientific language where more words have a fixed meaning that can be used in both science and philosophy. We need to bring back applied science and deemphasize technology and engineering. We need a citizenry who can smell Look and See Science and a media that don't lie about the difference.

We have severe problems and the only real and only long term solutions are in education.

 

[cladking]

In a very real way we do live in a multiverse.

Every event is influenced by everything in existence and everything that has come before. A butterfly consciousness unfurls its wings in China creating a new universe where 10 days later a hurricane forms in the Atlantic.

This is the nature of reality and it is highly complex. Freud nor any supercomputer can ever psychoanalyze the butterfly to predict the weather. Reality is far more complex than people realize because we each see what we want to believe. We are afraid of the unknown so we latch onto omniscience. We are homo omnisciencis and despite the simple metaphysics (and consciousness) that operates our science it is barely understood. It is a problem of perspective largely; just as you can't see consciousness from the inside it is hard to see how science works.

 

[cladking]

You have faith that Peers will root out and expose any evil.

They will probably not root it out. Egyptology doesn't seek evidence to show they are wrong and when it arises they refuse to let it be published.

Every Peer has a career and a place in the pecking order. The last thing most will want to do is jeopardize their standing and income by promoting a truth that doesn't kowtow to every assumption.

 

[wellwisher]

Here is my definition for science that I cobbled together in another thread:

"Science is a professional discipline and system of knowledge, the purpose of which is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena in accordance with strict principles and standards that mitigate the inherent fallibility and bias of an investigator."​

Science is improved philosophy. Both have been about trying to answer fundamental questions, it is just that science puts principles and standards in place to actively mitigate the fallibility and bias of the human investigator.

If the goal is to understand objective reality, then science is required. If one wants to debate subjective things for which there is no right or wrong answer, or you want to speculate beyond the current limits of what our current level of science can explain, then your choice is traditional philosophy.

The most important tool of science is consciousness, since this allows us observe and analyze. Yet, there is no consensus science definition for consciousness. This means we have no scientific way to know if our consciousness tool is properly calibrated. Like with a scale or GC, that is not properly calibrated, there can be a bias that we cannot control or see.

If you were a scientist who had an ambition to become plant manager, your consciousness would be split between the truth of nature and the needs of company politics. If you also worked for a tobacco company, you may not allow yourself to think in terms of lung cancer, but will try to design experiments to avoid this, since you know who butters your bread. You can still do good sanitized science to help your career ambitions.

One major problem faced by all of science, is science is not self sufficient when it comes to resources. Resources primarily come from government, business and private donations. There are two sets of needs; politics to get and keep resources, and the philosophy of science to do good science.

Any expert in any field is well aware of the exceptions to any theory in vogue. These exceptions is why alternate theory appear. However, to get resources you will often need to stay within the consensus theory program, to make it easier for the layman money givers, to follow the science.

It is not a good fund raising strategy to show how a main theory is lacking, since this gets too complicated and the consciousness of the money manager may not be willing to leave the easier box of consensus, where he can appear more in control. Bad theory can linger longer than it should, since there are other needs to tend to. Consciousness tries to accommodate all these needs, so bias can form, with no good scientific way to calibrate consciousness for pure science. If you buck the system, even for truth, it will throw you.

If you look at statistical modeling, this is a useful tool for approximating complex situations in science, such as life. But this is also the tool of choice that is used by politicians, marketers, pollsters and gambling casinos. This tool is the least separated from the laymen money managers. It is less about reason and more about a procedure link that is common to all these.

This tool bias makes it hard for pure science to appear. COVID became more about various scientists taking sides, instead of all working of the truth; consciousness bias due to casino math. The math thinks for you, even allowing opposite studies to appear; ambiguous, with the situation allowing politics to tip the scales. How can you calibrate with fuzzy dice data? Science wants hard data but fuzzy dice adds an element of subjectivity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like and better are subjective and for science there is no one only objective method. There are variants and all are in part social, cultural and so on.

Yes. I will sometimes post a generalized flow chart of the scientific method, but I almost always point out that it is not written in stone.

Some of the principals tend to be almost invariant. The observations that provide evidence need to be repeatable, and one must take not only meticulous notes of one's observations, but of one's methodology as well. That allows others to both repeat the work and possibly confirm it or deny it, and to analyze one's work to make sure that the results were due to the principles being analyzed and not due to the method used.

And then of course publishing those results. Claiming to have a "scientific discovery' but not being open about it are mutually exclusive ideas.


So we will never repeat the Big Bang, but we can make observations and tell others how those observations were made so that they can repeat them, Abiogenesis can almost certainly not be repeated because existing life will consume the materials that could lead to new life and abiogenesis itself is a process that would have taken millions of years. Something not repeatable in the lab. But just because those events cannot be repeated the evidence for them can be repeated. You of course know this. This is more for those here that do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They will probably not root it out. Egyptology doesn't seek evidence to show they are wrong and when it arises they refuse to let it be published.

Every Peer has a career and a place in the pecking order. The last thing most will want to do is jeopardize their standing and income by promoting a truth that doesn't kowtow to every assumption.

It is easy to make that claim.

\How would you support it? Why should anyone believe you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. I will sometimes post a generalized flow chart of the scientific method, but I almost always point out that it is not written in stone.

Some of the principals tend to be almost invariant. The observations that provide evidence need to be repeatable, and one must take not only meticulous notes of one's observations, but of one's methodology as well. That allows others to both repeat the work and possibly confirm it or deny it, and to analyze one's work to make sure that the results were due to the principles being analyzed and not due to the method used.

And then of course publishing those results. Claiming to have a "scientific discovery' but not being open about it are mutually exclusive ideas.


So we will never repeat the Big Bang, but we can make observations and tell others how those observations were made so that they can repeat them, Abiogenesis can almost certainly not be repeated because existing life will consume the materials that could lead to new life and abiogenesis itself is a process that would have taken millions of years. Something not repeatable in the lab. But just because those events cannot be repeated the evidence for them can be repeated. You of course know this. This is more for those here that do not.

Yeah, that is part of it. But there is also the difference between physics and theoretical physics and how some people confuse hypothesis, model and theory and even confuse physics and theoretical physics.

 

[MikeF]

The most important tool of science is consciousness, since this allows us observe and analyze. Yet, there is no consensus science definition for consciousness. This means we have no scientific way to know if our consciousness tool is properly calibrated. Like with a scale or GC, that is not properly calibrated, there can be a bias that we cannot control or see,

If you were a scientist who had an ambition to become plant manager, your consciousness would be split between the truth of nature and the needs of company politics. If you also worked for a tobacco company, you may not allow yourself to think in terms of lung cancer, but will try to design experiments to avoid this, since you know who butters your bread. You can still do good sanitized science helps your career ambitions.

One major problem faced by all of science, is science is not self sufficient when it comes to resources. Resources come from government, business and private donations. There are two sets of needs; politics to get the resources, and the philosophy of science to do good science.

Any expert in any field is well aware of the exceptions to all theories in vogue. This is how alternate theory appears. However, to get resources you will need to stay with the consensus program to make it easier for the layman money givers to follow the science. It is not a good fund raising strategy to show how a main theory is lacking, since this gets too complicated and the consciousness of the money manager may not be willing to leave the easier box of consensus. Bad theory can linger longer than it should, since there are other needs to tend to. Consciousness tries to accommodate all these needs, so bias can form, with no good scientific way to calibrate consciousness for pure objective truth. We have other human needs.

IMO

Consciousness is not a magical thing separate from the physical structures of the central nervous system. Consciousness is a direct expression of the physical state of the CNS. We can see that changes to the physical state through illness, disease processes, or injury can dramatically alter the function of the CNS and the underlying mind or personality expressed by that central nervous system.

So yes, as you describe, our minds are not perfect tools, the exact pattern of our neurons are unique to each of us, so we are all unique and different based on wiring alone. On top of this, we change and adapt base on our experiences. Science specifically acknowledges these fallibilities and attempts to mitigate them.

All the problems you describe above are problems faced by every human endeavor because, surprise, human beings are involved.

How does science try and get beyond this problem of the individual being an unreliable observer, subject to bias, indoctrination, false belief, self-deception, delusion and other mental illnesses? Science gets beyond the problem of the unreliable observer through intersubjective corroboration.

By comparing the observations and analysis of many observers over time, we begin to build a picture of what is reliably true. Since each observer is unique and is not fallible in the exact same way, we can begin to tease out the truth by comparing and contrasting these many unique observations. The knowledge we hold is held with degrees of confidence. Given the observations of billions of people over hundreds of thousands of year, we hold our general perception of the macroscopic world around us with great confidence. And since observers have to observe/experience a phenomena and have that experience corroborated for it to be collectively known, the harder it is to observe a phenomena, the harder it is to gain confident knowledge of it. This would delineate the edge of our scientific understanding and beyond this would simply be the unknown.

It is only under the principles and standards of scientific investigation that we can begin to mitigate and overcome our individual fallibilities. The track record is clear, scientific investigation is our best avenue for discerning objective truths, despite the fits and starts, delays, and dead ends.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO

Consciousness is not a magical thing separate from the physical structures of the central nervous system. Consciousness is a direct expression of the physical state of the CNS. We can see that changes to the physical state through illness, disease processes, or injury can dramatically alter the function of the CNS and the underlying mind or personality expressed by that central nervous system.

So yes, as you describe, our minds are not perfect tools, the exact pattern of our neurons are unique to each of us, so we are all unique and different based on wiring alone. On top of this, we change and adapt base on our experiences. Science specifically acknowledges these fallibilities and attempts to mitigate them.

All the problems you describe above are problems faced by every human endeavor because, surprise, human beings are involved.

How does science try and get beyond this problem of the individual being an unreliable observer, subject to bias, indoctrination, false belief, self-deception, delusion and other mental illnesses? Science gets beyond the problem of the unreliable observer through intersubjective corroboration.

By comparing the observations and analysis of many observers over time, we begin to build a picture of what is reliably true. Since each observer is unique and is not fallible in the exact same way, we can begin to tease out the truth by comparing and contrasting these many unique observations. The knowledge we hold is held with degrees of confidence. Given the observations of billions of people over hundreds of thousands of year, we hold our general perception of the macroscopic world around us with great confidence. And since observers have to observe/experience a phenomena and have that experience corroborated for it to be collectively known, the harder it is to observe a phenomena, the harder it is to gain confident knowledge of it. This would delineate the edge of our scientific understanding and beyond this would simply be the unknown.

It is only under the principles and standards of scientific investigation that we can begin to mitigate and overcome our individual fallibilities. The track record is clear, scientific investigation is our best avenue for discerning objective truths, despite the fits and starts, delays, and dead ends.

All fair and well. But the world is not just made up of objective truths. So a part of it is to learn not to use science for that which is subjective and where there is no objective truth.

 

[MikeF]

All fair and well. But the world is not just made up of objective truths. So a part of it is to learn not to use science for that which is subjective and where there is no objective truth.

Yes, for human beings, there is more to our experience than the objective truths of reality. For some things, there is no right or wrong answer. There is no such thing as a universally best song, most beautiful something, etc. Any opinion or preference of an individual would be valid to that individual.

However, in interpersonal and group interactions, political consensus is required. Here, although rules and morays for society are subjective, having a scientifically objective understanding of human behavior would allow one to make a more informed subjective decisions in this arena.

When subjective wants and desires conflict, there needs to be a mechanism (or realistically, mechanisms) to reconcile those conflicts. Since science is about solving problems in spite of our human fallibilities, I would think it best that scientific principles and standards be applied to these mechanisms as well.

I guess the short answer is, if problem solving is required, then science is required.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, for human beings, there is more to our experience than the objective truths of reality. For some things, there is no right or wrong answer. There is no such thing as a universally best song, most beautiful something, etc. Any opinion or preference of an individual would be valid to that individual.

However, in interpersonal and group interactions, political consensus is required. Here, although rules and morays for society are subjective, having a scientifically objective understanding of human behavior would allow one to make a more informed subjective decisions in this arena.

When subjective wants and desires conflict, there needs to be a mechanism (or realistically, mechanisms) to reconcile those conflicts. Since science is about solving problems in spite of our human fallibilities, I would think it best that scientific principles and standards be applied to these mechanisms as well.

I guess the short answer is, if problem solving is required, then science is required.

It doesn't help to study subjectivity with science if you think you can do it better. How? Because better is still subjective. We are playing the Is-Ought problem. You can't solve that with science.