Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' to Caltech

[SSDD]

They said net transfer.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...the second law has not been changed to state net anything.

 

[SSDD]

Photons are measured by detectors made of matter. Photons only interact with matter, not other photons.

No...there is a minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to "click"...and they call that a photon...what it is, however, is simply the minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to click..the rest is fiction.

Photons are part of a story that is used to explain what we can observe...who knows how many other possibilities there are that would explain what we observe that we have not even begun to consider...you can accept the story if you like...but that is what it is...a story. Personally, I will wait till science advances enough that we don't have to rely on a story.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They said net transfer.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...the second law has not been changed to state net anything.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...

Much like you say you believe it means one-way emissions.

 

[SSDD]

They said net transfer.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...the second law has not been changed to state net anything.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...

Much like you say you believe it means one-way emissions.

Since it doesn't say net...and the language of science being what it is...till it says net...it doesn't say net. If it meant net...then the statement of the second law would say net...it doesn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They said net transfer.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...the second law has not been changed to state net anything.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...

Much like you say you believe it means one-way emissions.

Since it doesn't say net...and the language of science being what it is...till it says net...it doesn't say net. If it meant net...then the statement of the second law would say net...it doesn't.

Since it doesn't say net...

is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

Please, contact GSU and tell them about the error on their site.
Be sure to post your exchange in full.

Be sure you explain Einstein's error as well.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

I'm sure they'll devote at least a full page of their site to your brilliance.
Smarter than Einstein? Hell, they'll give you a couple of pages.
Maybe rename the site in your honor?

 

[SSDD]

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

And that statement is based on which observations and measurements?....oh...that's right...NONE... It is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.....while the second law of thermodynamics is based on every observation and measurement ever done...

 

[IanC]

Photons are measured by detectors made of matter. Photons only interact with matter, not other photons.

No...there is a minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to "click"...and they call that a photon...what it is, however, is simply the minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to click..the rest is fiction.

Photons are part of a story that is used to explain what we can observe...who knows how many other possibilities there are that would explain what we observe that we have not even begun to consider...you can accept the story if you like...but that is what it is...a story. Personally, I will wait till science advances enough that we don't have to rely on a story.

Falling back to your magic theory again, eh.

Oh well.

 

[IanC]

Anyone have any comments on the topic of the thread? Feynman's speech, correctly using the scientific method, or even my borehole example?

 

[SSDD]

Photons are measured by detectors made of matter. Photons only interact with matter, not other photons.

No...there is a minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to "click"...and they call that a photon...what it is, however, is simply the minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to click..the rest is fiction.

Photons are part of a story that is used to explain what we can observe...who knows how many other possibilities there are that would explain what we observe that we have not even begun to consider...you can accept the story if you like...but that is what it is...a story. Personally, I will wait till science advances enough that we don't have to rely on a story.

Falling back to your magic theory again, eh.

Oh well.

The only thing I am "falling back" on is the fact that there is a minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to click...that minimum amount is what you are calling a photon. It isn't...it is just an amount of light. Photons are theoretical particles with no actual evidence of their existence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

And that statement is based on which observations and measurements?....oh...that's right...NONE... It is an assumption based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.....while the second law of thermodynamics is based on every observation and measurement ever done...

And that statement is based on which observations and measurements?....

Right, Einstein didn't use anyone's actual observations and measurements when he was doing his work, and you're the only one who ever noticed.

Any of the other scientists who ever discussed matter at equilibrium ever use measurements?
Or is equilibrium something that's never been observed either?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They said net transfer.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...the second law has not been changed to state net anything.

They...being someone making a statement about what they believe about the second law...

Much like you say you believe it means one-way emissions.

Since it doesn't say net...and the language of science being what it is...till it says net...it doesn't say net. If it meant net...then the statement of the second law would say net...it doesn't.

Since it doesn't say net...

is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

Please, contact GSU and tell them about the error on their site.
Be sure to post your exchange in full.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone have any comments on the topic of the thread? Feynman's speech, correctly using the scientific method, or even my borehole example?

Probably not.

 

[IanC]

Photons are measured by detectors made of matter. Photons only interact with matter, not other photons.

No...there is a minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to "click"...and they call that a photon...what it is, however, is simply the minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to click..the rest is fiction.

Photons are part of a story that is used to explain what we can observe...who knows how many other possibilities there are that would explain what we observe that we have not even begun to consider...you can accept the story if you like...but that is what it is...a story. Personally, I will wait till science advances enough that we don't have to rely on a story.

Falling back to your magic theory again, eh.

Oh well.

The only thing I am "falling back" on is the fact that there is a minimum amount of light that will cause a detector to click...that minimum amount is what you are calling a photon. It isn't...it is just an amount of light. Photons are theoretical particles with no actual evidence of their existence.

Riiiiiight. And there have been no experiments or observations ever made. Only WAGs.

 

[IanC]

Anyone have any comments on the topic of the thread? Feynman's speech, correctly using the scientific method, or even my borehole example?

Probably not.

Sad but true

 

[westwall]

Feynman laid down rules on how not to fool yourself when doing science. Google and read the speech.

Fast forward a few decades and compare climate science. They have stepped into all the pitfalls.

I am not going to rehash everything I have written over the last eight years but I will point out what happened to a minor proxy.

Boreholes show a general relationship to temperatures. There have been tens of thousands of them done. In the 90's, ~15,000 were averaged and the graph showed a warmer MWP. In the early 00's, Mann's hockey stick needed propping up and a new borehole graph was presented using only ~500 holes. It stopped before the MWP and showed a classic hockey stick shape. In the later 00's, the same author produced yet another graph using about 1500 holes. This time the MWP was evident but cooler than the present.

These three papers were all peer reviewed and written by a noted expert in the field. If there can be such wildly divergent conclusions based on the same trove of evidence, by the same author, how can we say the 'science is settled'? I hope you noticed that the first paper used most of the available data, the second only a small fraction, and the third slightly more.

Cherrypicking and dodgy methodologies are the hallmarks of climate science. Any preformed conclusions can be reached by choosing the preferred data and using the preferred methodologies.

Not only have they stepped into them, they have decided to falsify data to support their now well failed theories. Now it's all about politics, and nothing about science.

 

[IanC]

Feynman laid down rules on how not to fool yourself when doing science. Google and read the speech.

Fast forward a few decades and compare climate science. They have stepped into all the pitfalls.

I am not going to rehash everything I have written over the last eight years but I will point out what happened to a minor proxy.

Boreholes show a general relationship to temperatures. There have been tens of thousands of them done. In the 90's, ~15,000 were averaged and the graph showed a warmer MWP. In the early 00's, Mann's hockey stick needed propping up and a new borehole graph was presented using only ~500 holes. It stopped before the MWP and showed a classic hockey stick shape. In the later 00's, the same author produced yet another graph using about 1500 holes. This time the MWP was evident but cooler than the present.

These three papers were all peer reviewed and written by a noted expert in the field. If there can be such wildly divergent conclusions based on the same trove of evidence, by the same author, how can we say the 'science is settled'? I hope you noticed that the first paper used most of the available data, the second only a small fraction, and the third slightly more.

Cherrypicking and dodgy methodologies are the hallmarks of climate science. Any preformed conclusions can be reached by choosing the preferred data and using the preferred methodologies.

Not only have they stepped into them, they have decided to falsify data to support their now well failed theories. Now it's all about politics, and nothing about science.

Yup. Feynman is spinning in his grave. He fought for better School Texts in Cali but found it impossible to beat the bureaucrats.

 

[mamooth]

Anyone have any comments on the topic of the thread? Feynman's speech, correctly using the scientific method, or even my borehole example?

I commented on all of the above. Got no response. Typical of deniers.

If you see someone invoke Feynman to back them up, there's a 99% chance you're looking at some flavor of pseudoscience cultist. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't will invoke appeal to authority fallacies, among conspiracy theorizing and other sleaze tactics.

 

[westwall]

Anyone have any comments on the topic of the thread? Feynman's speech, correctly using the scientific method, or even my borehole example?

I commented on all of the above. Got no response. Typical of deniers.

If you see someone invoke Feynman to back them up, there's a 99% chance you're looking at some flavor of pseudoscience cultist. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't will invoke appeal to authority fallacies, among conspiracy theorizing and other sleaze tactics.

Only a true idiot can make the claim that Feynman, a true genius, is a pseudo scientist. And you who resort to the appeal to authority logical fallacy at every turn trying to make the claim that we do it is hilarious. This is what Feynman had to say about your silly way of doing things. A few seconds over a minute destroys your claims in an instant.

 

[SSDD]

Only a true idiot can make the claim that Feynman, a true genius, is a pseudo scientist. And you who resort to the appeal to authority logical fallacy at every turn trying to make the claim that we do it is hilarious. This is what Feynman had to say about your silly way of doing things. A few seconds over a minute destroys your claims in an instant.

If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.....and if you have to falsify experiments in an attempt to convince people , it is wrong and fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Only a true idiot can make the claim that Feynman, a true genius, is a pseudo scientist.

Good thing nobody did that, eh?

I didn't say Feynamm was a pseudoscientist. I said pseudoscience cranks often invoke him for phony appeals to authority, because they can't talk about actual science.

Like deniers, for example. All of the data contradicts your kook theories. That means your kook theories are wrong. Like Feynman says, it is as simple as that. The data says you're full of shit, hence you are full of shit. Screaming conspiracy theories about how all the data is faked won't change that, it just makes you look like an even bigger fraud.

It's not going to get any better for you. Since your authoritarian coup is failing now, you won't be able to send the real scientists to TheGulag. Denier dreams of a Stalinist utopia with Lysenkoist pseudoscience are dead, and the deniers themselves will gradually die off, being how most of them are really old. Science advances one funeral at a time.