Why Science Fails Us

[GreyGeek]

Yes. But I don't mean the tools in the hands of man only but also that they might be the tools of some entity we still do not suspect.

I knew that you were implying the some diseases or events were caused and/or used by God to affect the course of human events. Such conclusions are obvious from Biblical accounts of them. The Ten Plagues, for example. But, like the plagues, each of them can be explained by naturally occurring phenomena. The plagues can be associated with a sequence of events following the volcanic explosion in the Agean sea at that time. About the only events which cannot be explained by natural causes are those that involve raising someone from the dead. A man who can do that has power over life and death. That Christ did that can not be proved, but only accepted by faith on the testimony of witnesses who described the acts. But, that is what Faith is; the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen. If it were knowledge then Faith wouldn't be required. As the Bible says, the Just shall live by Faith. As far as specific events are concerned, Jesus talked about the 18 who were killed when a tower collapsed on them, (Luke 13.4) and said that there was nothing special about them that couldn't happen to anyone else.

Do you think it's strange that almost at the very same moment(historically speaking not in terms of our short individual lives) a cure is found to treat successfully some dreadful disease another one, equally dreadful, pops up?

Not at all. Simultaneous discoveries, or serendipitous or not, happened frequently through history and does so today as well. Two different kinds of vaccines for Polio were discovered at the same time. Newton and Gauss discovered the methods of Calculus at about the same time, etc...

Remember this, it has been estimated that over 90% of ALL the scientists that ever lived are ALIVE TODAY! Let that soak in a minute. With so many scientists currently working on similar or the same problems it would not be surprising if the rate of simultaneous discoveries increased, and that discoveries of solutions occur simultaneously with appearances of problems. I have no doubt that even the most serious problem facing the world today, maintenance of our standard of living in the face of increasing shortages of fossil fuel, will be solved in time. All predictions of doom and gloom seem to ignore the ingenuity of man. After all, anything we think we can do we can do, right?

And, if the following graphs mean anything, the rates of discoveries, simultaneous and otherwise are going to explode. Knowledge will most certainly "be increased":

[SteveRiley]

As tools, scientific methods are indeed valuable but I'd like to point that science also is not free of bias and preconceptions

This is correct. Science is conducted by flawed, fallible human beings. Bias will inevitably creep in, just like with any other human endeavor. But science also knows this is a problem, and incorporates methods to detect and eliminate bias as much as possible. Consider, for example, randomized controlled trials, featuring large sample sets and double-blind experiments. It's through greater scientific understanding of the cognitive process that we can continually improve the quality of scientific research, even.

the fundamental one being, as far as I can recall, that we live in the universe that is without any meaning or purpose.

Yup. Atoms and molecules and elements and gasses and liquids and solids and stars and planets and rocks and plants and animals and people have no purpose. They just are. I have no problem with this. "Purpose" is a human abstraction, and is useful insofar as it allows individuals and societies to establish patterns and directions for themselves.

Matter before mind.

What else is there? If we consider "mind" to be some collection of ideas, where did those ideas originate? From a brain, a physical thing, composed of matter.

The other one being that it is possible to learn anything about the subject under investigation by dissecting it and not having any idea about its place and meaning in the scheme of things.

It seems you think these are opposites, when in fact one very useful mechanism for understanding a thing's place and meaning is by thorough examination of the thing, and the thing's surroundings.

Is it based on any solid indubitably proven facts or is it, this time, a scientific dogma?

How do you think "solid indubitably proven" facts are identified and then understood as such? Before the discovery of how to understand bias and preconception, there was hardly any basis by which to judge whether something was a fact. Now we know a lot better. As an example, physicians used to think themselves so superior to patients by virtue of the physician's standing in society that they were "above dirtiness." Patients died under the hands of their doctors because the doctors were spreading disease! When hospitals encouraged handwashing between patient visits, physicans mightily refused at first. Only when this procedure became mandatory and govered by regulation did hospital deaths plunge. This is pure science at work, overriding received wisdom.

By adopting such an attitude, what do you think, how far will your real knowledge and understanding of the world we live in (and yourself) advance?

Science is the only way to do exactly this: advance our knowledge and understanding. It will make a mistake here and there. And it will correct itself. That's why it works.

[GreyGeek]

...
How do you think "solid indubitably proven" facts are identified and then understood as such? Before the discovery of how to understand bias and preconception, there was hardly any basis by which to judge whether something was a fact. Now we know a lot better. As an example, physicians used to think themselves so superior to patients by virtue of the physician's standing in society that they were "above dirtiness." Patients died under the hands of their doctors because the doctors were spreading disease! When hospitals encouraged handwashing between patient visits, physicians mightily refused at first. Only when this procedure became mandatory and governed by regulation did hospital deaths plunge. This is pure science at work, overriding received wisdom.


Science is the only way to do exactly this: advance our knowledge and understanding. It will make a mistake here and there. And it will correct itself. That's why it works.

Excellent points. Are you sure you are not covering up a science background in your vita to avoid the label "Geek"?


Even now, more than 200 years after Newton's presentation of his three laws in Principia, which I have next to me and am in the process of re-reading, scientists are still checking the inverse relationship between the force of attraction between two bodies and the square of the distance between them. Is it exactly 2.0, or is it some value minutely different? 2.000000000000001, or 1.9999999999999999998, for example. Such small differences could hold significant clues about the behavior matter. When scientists were analyzing the components of the atmosphere, they were always off by a fraction of a percent. Most ascribed it to experimental error. Argon was discovered by Ramsay and Lord Rayleigh because they would not accept an error of less than 1% in the atomic weight of Nitrogen while analyzing samples of Air.

However, the first sign that science has switched from experimentation to faith is when hypotheses become unfalsifiable. Such hypotheses are supported by appeals to authority, or by ad hoc arguments which change with the criticism, and with mind numbing propaganda attacks using emotionally charged words to attack "deniers". AGW is one such hypothesis, IMO.

[rms]

I knew that you were implying the some diseases or events were caused and/or used by God to affect the course of human events. Such conclusions are obvious from Biblical accounts of them. The Ten Plagues, for example. But, like the plagues, each of them can be explained by naturally occurring phenomena. The plagues can be associated with a sequence of events following the volcanic explosion in the Agean sea at that time. About the only events which cannot be explained by natural causes are those that involve raising someone from the dead. A man who can do that has power over life and death. That Christ did that can not be proved, but only accepted by faith on the testimony of witnesses who described the acts. But, that is what Faith is; the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen. If it were knowledge then Faith wouldn't be required. As the Bible says, the Just shall live by Faith. As far as specific events are concerned, Jesus talked about the 18 who were killed when a tower collapsed on them, (Luke 13.4) and said that there was nothing special about them that couldn't happen to anyone else.

No, I am not mixing religion into this although it might seem so, because we know next to nothing about the real substance buried in the depths of The Holly Bible. It's all written in parables for which we were never given the keys to understand them and, according to my knowledge, New Testament was written some 200 years after the events it, supposedly, describes.

I just can't help being trilled by the beauty and complexity of this best of all worlds and cannot accept that it was all an accidental creation of blind forces. Just think of the subtle complexity in your own body, of the many sub-systems composing it working in harmony, it's hard to believe it is not a master-piece of some unknown genial master-engineer for God knows what reason.

[SteveRiley]

I just can't help being trilled by the beauty and complexity of this best of all worlds and cannot accept that it was all an accidental creation of blind forces.

I suspect you'd enjoy reading the works of Chet Raymo. His writing evokes a strong sense of wonder and awe at the majesty of the beauty of the universe, without resorting to supersition (unlike, say, Francis Collins).

Just think of the subtle complexity in your own body, of the many sub-systems composing it working in harmony, it's hard to believe it is not a master-piece of some unknown genial master-engineer for God knows what reason.

Actually, order from chaos is a well-understood phenomenon. Complexity frequently emerges on its own. Have you ever been in an auditorium full of people applauding, and for no apparent reason, the applauding moves from random claps to a shared rhythm?

Here's another example. 14 billion years ago a massive explosion heaved the universe into existence. The resulting cataclysm generated trillions of arbitrary combinations of a little bit of this and a smidgeon of that, over and over and over again for nine billion years, mostly with no results. An infinite universe, expending so much energy...for nothing.

Then finally, four billion years ago, on an orbiting rock that formed 500 million years prior, one random combination figured out how to make copies of itself and combine with other similar combinations. These combinations mounted a successful struggle against the universe's default entropy. And thus an atmosphere formed on that orbiting rock, from which developed oceans, which in turn gave life to life.

Random? Totally. That's what makes it so amazing!

[rms]

Actually, order from chaos is a well-understood phenomenon. Complexity frequently emerges on its own. Have you ever been in an auditorium full of people applauding, and for no apparent reason, the applauding moves from random claps to a shared rhythm?

Yeah, happens each and every the time I go to a concert. I believe it is one of those mob-psychology phenomenons, nothing to do with order emerging from chaos.

Then finally, four billion years ago, on an orbiting rock that formed 500 million years prior, one random combination figured out how to make copies of itself and combine with other similar combinations. These combinations mounted a successful struggle against the universe's default entropy. And thus an atmosphere formed on that orbiting rock, from which developed oceans, which in turn gave life to life.

Random? Totally. That's what makes it so amazing!

I think what is most amazing about it is that consciousness was created. A property totally lacking in matter as we know it or usually take it. What a result from blind and unconscious processes!!!

[GreyGeek]

...
Actually, order from chaos is a well-understood phenomenon. Complexity frequently emerges on its own. ....

That I doubt.

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/498

Here's another example. 14 billion years ago a massive explosion heaved the universe into existence. ....!

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/513

[SteveRiley]

Actually, order from chaos is a well-understood phenomenon. Complexity frequently emerges on its own.

That I doubt.

Why? Perhaps these reports, of an experiment involving the dis/orderliness of swinging pendulums, might change your mind.

http://www.physorg.com/news63381025.html
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...6_chaosfrm.htm

[Snowhog]

See Chaos theory - Wikipedia

[woodsmoke]

Hi
interesting stuff on chaos.

This post should not be taken as a point of departure from the ongoing discussion, it is intended a small intro about chaos for the people who are not familiar with it.

For the uninitiated to chaos theory. It is not about what the average person would think. Consider smoke rising from a cigarette held motionless or a stick of incense. The "rules" about what happens as the smoke is "rising" are well known and from them one can make good predictions. Then there is a "transition" and then the smoke "spreads out". Again, the "spreading out" rules are well know, and given that other perturbances are not involved, then one can, again, make good predictions.

The nut of it is in the transition from the first case to the second case. Recent work has advanced the models on this but they are not written in stone...or smoke!

Here is DaVinci's illustration of how he thought things worked, and in main, they "do" work that way, but when people started really looking at it, the thing about chaos came to the fore:



Although this is not a real picture, I spent waay too much time looking for a REAl picture... it illustrates the general idea.



A very good introductory text, first in paper and now in electronic form is: Chaos: Making a New Science by Glick

Again, this post is for the uninitiated to chaos and should not be taken as a point of departure from the ongoing discussion.

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Why? Perhaps these reports, of an experiment involving the dis/orderliness of swinging pendulums, might change your mind.

http://www.physorg.com/news63381025.html
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...6_chaosfrm.htm

Actually, they emphasize the point I made. Both articles are about the same research:

...According to a computational study...
... working on their model ...
...Research on the role of disorder in complex systems is quite new and not well understood. Wessel hopes that one day its theoretical understanding will be better than it is today....
...A vital similarity between the model system and neurons is that they are both “nonlinear” — meaning that there is not a linear, or straight-ahead,...

As the Club of Rome "study" on the "Limits to Growth" proved, given a computer, a mathematical model and the ability to assign values to what ever and how many variables one wants to use, one can make a model produce any result. The use of Neurons as an "example" was more than just a stretch, considering that, and I am translating, the role of disorder is their system is not only "not well understood", they don't even have an operational definition (i.e. clue) which could be used to map further research toward deriving a mathematically sound model.

Their report reminded me of the work by Dr. Ed Lorenze from MIT, which proves why we can only predict the weather with any accuracy for a few days. His "butterfly" oscillator is an attractor:

"The equations that govern the Lorenz oscillator are:







where σ is called the Prandtl number and ρ is called the Rayleigh number. All σ, ρ, β > 0, but usually σ = 10, β = 8 / 3 and ρ is varied. The system exhibits chaotic behavior for ρ = 28 but displays knotted periodic orbits for other values of ρ."

If he had made only an extremely small error in describing the system at the beginning, his predictions will soon be wildly incorrect. Some systems will diverge very quickly while others will be more stable and predictable for longer than others. If the divergence from nearby states is small over time, the system will be more stable and predictable. Sticking with the weather instead of their pendulums, if two weather predictions are made based on two similar initial weather condition and the predictions are still similar after running for some time, then we can have more confidence in that prediction as compared to a prediction based on two similar weather states that diverge greatly when the simulation is run. The length of time for which a chaotic system is accurately predictable is known as the Lyupanov time, after the Russian mathematician who developed the function. A system with a longer Lyupanov time is more stable. Some electrical circuits have Lyupanov times measured in milliseconds, weather predictions is in days and our solar system has a Lyupanov time of around five million years. Even our solar system, is chaotic and in time will become unpredictable, and Newton never suspected.

We can lengthen the Lyupanov time by getting more accurate information on the system. The more accurate our information on the weather system at the initial point, the longer the Lyupanov time we can expect. The difficulty is that gaining that information become more difficult exponentially. In other words, to double the Lyupanov time requires ten times the energy and to triple it takes 100 times the energy.

When Ed Lorenz’s three equations are graphed on a three dimensional chart (one dimension for each of the x,y and z variables), a very interesting picture emerges. Because the variables are interactive there are many states that the system can not move towards. For example, when the temperature is increased, the pressure will also be affected, so there are combinations of temperature and pressure that can not co-exist. The graph below charts what is known as an attractor, because the system is pulled, as if by some sort of magnet into certain viable states.



Even a very small change in initial conditions can drastically alter the later state of a complex system. This is known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. While in theory a chaotic system might be deterministic (i.e. could be calculated if we had enough accurate data), we find that in the real world we cannot predict a chaotic system. No matter how accurately we measure the initial conditions of a complex system, we can always measure it more accurately and that difference, however small will lead to a significantly different outcome. It means we can never absolutely predict the outcome for any real world complex system. Even the planets in our solar system, which appear to be deterministic, will eventually become unpredictable.

If you take the driving force away from a driven chaotic system, like a pendulum, it will return to a stable state. You can do that by adding another force, even a random or chaotic one, if the average energy added to the chaotic system is out of sync with the force driving it, thus reducing the drive. That is not Entropy reversing itself any more than a moth changing color from white to black and back to white again, just because a village started burning coal and then stopped, is an example of Evolution.

The two MIT symposium video clips on the Second Law and Statistical Mechanics and Cosmology point out, especially in the Q&A and discussions at the end, that even now, experts are not unanimous about the Second Law in relation to reversible or irreversible statistical or cosmological systems. They monitored stability using Lupanov (they omitted the 'y') times. The consensus is only in basic applications to classical mechanics, using Energy, Power, Work, Gibbs Free Energy, Enthalpy, Information and other properties of matter that are very accurately measured and reproducible.

An interesting question, which reflects on that pendulum model, and the reason why I cited those clips, is because the question is raised that if the Universe originated from the Big Bang, at a single point, in an instant flash where, for that infinitesimally short time, it existed as some uniform "proto matter", was Entropy zero at that point? How can we prove it? The Second Law states that the only process which can occur naturally are those for which the Entropy of the Universe increases. All others are prohibited (i.e., never have been observed after nearly 300 years of searching). We are talking real world processes, not computer models. With computer models we can live on Pandora and fight corporate goons for control of our planet by setting on the backs of flying dragons and shooting poisoned arrows at them. Or, contrary to the lessons shown by Dr. Lorenze, we can "predict" climate 50 years from now, especially if we are allowed to pick or manufacture our data. So, how does the Entropy of the Universe diminish, even locally, to allow more ordered states or objects to appear? If I shake a billiard table with a set of balls freshly ordered by the triangle they will scramble. How long will I have to shake them in order that they spontaneously return to their original triangle setting, if ever? Statistical mechanics says never. S = kLn(W) says that the bigger W, the bigger S. W is the number of states a system can achieve, i.e., randomness.

I'm beginning to wonder. Time to stop typing...

[SteveRiley]

Well, I thought I had begun wrapping my brain around some of the basic ideas, but I see there's more uncertainty than I was initially aware. I'm glad to see there's some formal research going on...time to find a decent book or two on the subject!

[GreyGeek]

I forgot to mention something, as usual.

The world was, previously, in a more ordered state. For example, the oil was located only in certain small locations. Where and the amounts might be random, but they are where they are in the quantities they are. By exploiting that oil we've increased its "W". It is now in more states (literally, or locations), and gas pumps than it ever was before, and LOTS of it has been converted into even more disorder by virtue of that fact that its atoms, with the addition of Oxygen, have been rearranged as CO2 and H2O and scattered to the four corners, from the depths of the sea to the edge of space and beyond. The energy it contained has, eventually, been converted into IR, which was, is and will be radiated into space, forever lost. So, the net Entropy of the Universe has irreversible increased because of our oil consumption.


Wait, can't we capture CO2 out of the air or scrub it from the smoke stacks of coal burning electric power plants, combine it with H2O and convert it back into hydrocarbons and recycle it? The Second Law say no. Not at 100%. No process which converts energy into work can operate over or even at 100%. There will always be a certain percentage of energy in the fuel which will end up in the low temperature reservoir, forever lost to future use. Here on Earth the low temperature reservoir is the ambient air temperature. The exhaust of any engine must be at or above that temperature. We can't put refrigerators on the exhausts of engine, but we can increase the temperature of combustion of the fuels ... until it gets so hot that Nitrogen starts burning with Oxygen to form Nitrous Oxide ... smog, which eventually forms Nitric acid. That limits improving our efficiency by increasing the numerator of the efficiency equation (%Eff = ((Thigh - Tlow) / Thigh) The processes which collect, compress, and convert CO2 and H2O to Methane will take more energy than the Methane it generates will provide. That's spending a dollar to save a dime. Even if the conversion process were 100% it would be spending a dime to save a dime. The conversion process much consume less energy than the Methane generated. Like gamblers in Las Vegas who get 94 cents back on each dollar they gamble, eventually they'll lose all their dollars. Another energy source must supplement or replace the energy that drives the processes which trap CO2, add water to it, and catalyze them into Methane. Nuclear. Not if I can help it. Solar? Obviously. But, if we are going to do that let's just dump the coal and go straight solar.

BTW, why grain alcohol will never replace gasoline? It takes seven gallons of ethanol to replace one gallon of gasoline, because Ethanol's net energy is only 25K BTUs, the majority being used to distill the Ethanol. Just to grow enough corn to replace the oil we import would take 44 million more acres of good land than the total of friable land in the US. The ONLY reason it went on as long as it did was because certain folks were given government subsidies to build commercial Ethanol stills, 18 of them here in Nebraska, all but one out of business.

Just one last quick thought -- how as the Entropy of humanity changed? S = kLn(W). Can it be reversed?

(I've got to stop talking about Thermodynamics .... I loved to teach that stuff and find it hard to quit.)

[HalationEffect]

Every time anyone mentions entropy and the laws of thermodynamics, it always brings to mind one of Asimov's short stories - namely The Last Question.

The question of the story is "How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?", and is asked of the most powerful computer (MultivAC) in existence at the time. Its response is that it has insufficient data for a meaningful answer. The question is asked many times in many different ways by many different people, but the answer is always the same. Over the course of aeons, computing / AI technology advances in leaps and bounds and humanity also evolves, eventually becoming non-corporeal energy beings and ultimately merging into a single unified entity. By this time trillions of years have passed and all the stars have consumed their fuel, even protons are beginning to decay.

Humanity asks the question once more of the Cosmic AC (which now exists outside of the normal 3+1 dimensional space-time), but it is still unable to answer. Humanity and the Cosmic AC merge. Time passes, as the merged entity (now calling itself only "AC") ponders... and discovers the answer...

The final line of the story is And AC said: "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light--

[rms]

Humanity asks the question once more of the Cosmic AC (which now exists outside of the normal 3+1 dimensional space-time), but it is still unable to answer.

That would be even greater miracle than solving entropy problem. What was created must be within space and time dimensions. Still, a very amusing story. +1