Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist
Mohammad Gill March 23, 2007
#70 Posted by khuram on April 3, 2007 11:00:28 pm
I have found following quote in the profile of another chowky.
``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...
I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.
All types of logic works only on sensory data.
There are two main types of ``sensory data``.
First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.
Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.
First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.
Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``.
Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.
Regards!
``It is by intuition that we discover and by logic that we prove.`` Henri Poincare, Mathematician...
I want to add that more prcise name of ``intuition`` is actually ``analogical inference``. Whereas branch of logic whose function is to ``prove`` is the ``deductive logic``.
All types of logic works only on sensory data.
There are two main types of ``sensory data``.
First type is ``ordinary or routine sensory information``.
Second type is ``planned``, or ``controlled``, or ``experimental``, or ``laboratory`` oriented sensory information or data.
First type generates ``analogical inferences``, or so-called ``intuitions``.
Then we confirm the validity of analogical inferences through ``controlled observations``, or ``experiments``.
Then we SHOULD apply deductive logic with the view to interpret the experimental confirmations. Then we should Prove our interpretation by using deductive logic.
Regards!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#69 Posted by freethinker on March 31, 2007 6:00:41 am
majumdar:
Thanks for referring to Somnium. I wasn`t aware of it. On searching on internet, I found Gale E. Christianson`s article ``Kepler`s Somnium: Science Fiction and the Renaissance Scientist.`` It was published in ``Science Fiction Studies, #8, Volume 3, Part I, March 1976,`` which gives a good account of Kepler`s biography as well.
Mohammad Gill
Thanks for referring to Somnium. I wasn`t aware of it. On searching on internet, I found Gale E. Christianson`s article ``Kepler`s Somnium: Science Fiction and the Renaissance Scientist.`` It was published in ``Science Fiction Studies, #8, Volume 3, Part I, March 1976,`` which gives a good account of Kepler`s biography as well.
Mohammad Gill
#68 Posted by majumdar on March 31, 2007 5:12:29 am
Gill sahib,
Was Kepler`s work ``Somnium`` the first work of science fiction.
Regards
Was Kepler`s work ``Somnium`` the first work of science fiction.
Regards
#67 Posted by khuram on March 29, 2007 12:05:22 am
@ Kaalchakara
If you want to know the difference between ``Knowledge`` and ``logic``, then please read my following article:
Human Knowledge and its Expression
Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.
Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.
Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.
Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.
Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.
I also can quote sayings of some renowned people, like who said lower-most level people think only about group and individual differences with respect to their wealth, outlook and beliefs. Midiocre people think only about solid, visible, or measurable or countable things. And the great people think about ideas etc. etc.
Regards!
If you want to know the difference between ``Knowledge`` and ``logic``, then please read my following article:
Human Knowledge and its Expression
Scientist do not know what is ``knowledge`` because Knowledge, being an abstract entity, is outside the scope of study of science.
Scientists do not study ``logic`` as well. Because they consider it something opposite to that something about which they know nothing i.e. ``knowledge``.
Even scientific theories take their birth iside of human mind. You cannot say that scientific theories come outside of mind. Mind is also an abstract entity. It is not the physical brain. Scioentists only study physical brain and they don`t study ``mind``. Study of physical brain only can tell reasons of some psychological or other neurological disorders etc. Study of physical brain cannot tell just how scientific or other theories take birth inside of ``mind``. Only study of ``mind`` can tell it.
Only Philosophers can know how any theory can take birth inside of mind. Because only they study such abstract things as ``mind``. So Philosophers can legitimately give their opinion on any theory including scientific theories as well.
Scientists are very poor in abstract conceptions. They can see only visible and solid things which they can count or measure. They become very happy if they successfully count or measure some solid or any detectable entity. That is why they study only mathematics. I was also very much inspired by mathematics when I was not mentally so mature. Just measuring and counting is not equivalent to ``knowledge``.
I also can quote sayings of some renowned people, like who said lower-most level people think only about group and individual differences with respect to their wealth, outlook and beliefs. Midiocre people think only about solid, visible, or measurable or countable things. And the great people think about ideas etc. etc.
Regards!
#66 Posted by khuram on March 28, 2007 11:31:41 pm
@ freethinker # 60
You just have presented few biased opinions of some (may be) renowned figures. They are not important to consider at all. Instead of saying X said this and that, please come to the point and try to prove that a raindrop which is attached to a windscreen of a moving car, can have its speed lesser than windscreen.
You just have presented few biased opinions of some (may be) renowned figures. They are not important to consider at all. Instead of saying X said this and that, please come to the point and try to prove that a raindrop which is attached to a windscreen of a moving car, can have its speed lesser than windscreen.
#65 Posted by khuram on March 28, 2007 11:20:52 pm
Re: # 59
OK. Now we are getting somewhere!
So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x
Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?
Khurram,
If you are trying to find ``rate of change of momentum``, you should try to find it in only one single of the obove entities. Which is only T2.
At time T2, value of momentum is x.
There is no question of T2 minus T1.
T2 itself has no breakup. T2 is a single point of time.
Secondly, it is also useless to see change of momentum of only one ball. Momentum of one ball can be changed only through the application of an already existing momentum. Total momentum however remains the same at any time.
OK. Now we are getting somewhere!
So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x
Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?
Khurram,
If you are trying to find ``rate of change of momentum``, you should try to find it in only one single of the obove entities. Which is only T2.
At time T2, value of momentum is x.
There is no question of T2 minus T1.
T2 itself has no breakup. T2 is a single point of time.
Secondly, it is also useless to see change of momentum of only one ball. Momentum of one ball can be changed only through the application of an already existing momentum. Total momentum however remains the same at any time.
#64 Posted by khurram on March 28, 2007 3:00:08 pm
Re #62 GT,
LOL!
I am afraid Mr Gill has now distracted us. :)
LOL!
I am afraid Mr Gill has now distracted us. :)
#63 Posted by KaalChakra on March 28, 2007 2:55:40 pm
Freethinker # 60
So true. Even a minimally acceptable philosopher must recognize that philosophy is logical, human, mental work that could proceed in any number of different ways (which makes philosophy very different from revelationary theology). Also, because of its speculative and mental nature philosophy can soar over and above different domains. Yet within the domain of knowledge identified by prevailing science, philosophy cannot contradict established scientific knowledge and principles, except by the mechanism of a philosopher working strictly as a scientist.
That must be so because otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish between knowledge & logic on one hand and deliberate deceit on the other, and between a scholar and a social charlatan. And we know for a fact that most people are simply trying to deliberate and work as honestly as they can.
So true. Even a minimally acceptable philosopher must recognize that philosophy is logical, human, mental work that could proceed in any number of different ways (which makes philosophy very different from revelationary theology). Also, because of its speculative and mental nature philosophy can soar over and above different domains. Yet within the domain of knowledge identified by prevailing science, philosophy cannot contradict established scientific knowledge and principles, except by the mechanism of a philosopher working strictly as a scientist.
That must be so because otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish between knowledge & logic on one hand and deliberate deceit on the other, and between a scholar and a social charlatan. And we know for a fact that most people are simply trying to deliberate and work as honestly as they can.
#62 Posted by GT on March 28, 2007 2:07:04 pm
Re: # 59
khurram,
I am eagerly waiting for this drama to end ...... I have bitten off all my nails ..... when will you ask for that dreadful division ..... when?
khurram,
I am eagerly waiting for this drama to end ...... I have bitten off all my nails ..... when will you ask for that dreadful division ..... when?
#61 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2007 1:46:56 pm
Correction:
In my last post, please read in continuation to my post #5:
Mohammad Gill
In my last post, please read in continuation to my post #5:
Mohammad Gill
#60 Posted by freethinker on March 28, 2007 1:44:54 pm
In continuation of my post#:
In my post#5, I had quoted from Steven Weinberg about philosophy. Allow me now to quote of Carl Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all times. According to E.T. Bell (Men of Mathematics, pp. 239-240), ``It will be of interest here to quote what Gauss thought of philosophers who busy themselves with scientific matters they have not understood. This holds in particular for philosophers who peck at the foundations of mathematics without having first sharpened their beaks on some hard mathematics. Conversely, it suggests why Bertrand A. W. Russerll, Alfred North Whitehead and David Hilbert in our own times have made outstanding contributions to the philosophy of mathematics: these men are (were) mathematicians.
Writing to his friend Schumacher on November 1, 1844, Gauss says, `You see the same sort of thing [mathematical inconsistencies] in the contemporary philosophers Schelling, Hegel, Nees von Easenbeck, and their followers: don`t they make your hair stand on end with their definitions? Read in the history of ancient philosophy what the big men of that day - Plato and others (I except Aristotle) - gave in the way of explanations. But even with Kant himself it is often not much better; in my opinion his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions is one of those things that either run out in a triviality or are false.```
Bell further wrote, ``When he (Gauss) wrote this Gauss had long been in full possession of non-Euclidean geometry, itself a sufficient refutation of some of the things Kant said about `space` and geometry, and he may have been unduly scornful.``
In spite of it, philosophy does contribute lot of useful things to the development of science but its formulations are not always correct and faultless.
Mohammad Gill
In my post#5, I had quoted from Steven Weinberg about philosophy. Allow me now to quote of Carl Gauss, one of the greatest mathematicians of all times. According to E.T. Bell (Men of Mathematics, pp. 239-240), ``It will be of interest here to quote what Gauss thought of philosophers who busy themselves with scientific matters they have not understood. This holds in particular for philosophers who peck at the foundations of mathematics without having first sharpened their beaks on some hard mathematics. Conversely, it suggests why Bertrand A. W. Russerll, Alfred North Whitehead and David Hilbert in our own times have made outstanding contributions to the philosophy of mathematics: these men are (were) mathematicians.
Writing to his friend Schumacher on November 1, 1844, Gauss says, `You see the same sort of thing [mathematical inconsistencies] in the contemporary philosophers Schelling, Hegel, Nees von Easenbeck, and their followers: don`t they make your hair stand on end with their definitions? Read in the history of ancient philosophy what the big men of that day - Plato and others (I except Aristotle) - gave in the way of explanations. But even with Kant himself it is often not much better; in my opinion his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions is one of those things that either run out in a triviality or are false.```
Bell further wrote, ``When he (Gauss) wrote this Gauss had long been in full possession of non-Euclidean geometry, itself a sufficient refutation of some of the things Kant said about `space` and geometry, and he may have been unduly scornful.``
In spite of it, philosophy does contribute lot of useful things to the development of science but its formulations are not always correct and faultless.
Mohammad Gill
#59 Posted by khurram on March 28, 2007 12:30:49 pm
Re: #58.
OK. Now we are getting somewhere!
So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x
Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?
OK. Now we are getting somewhere!
So,
T1 -> Before the instance of change = zero
T2 -> AT the instance of change = x
T3 -> After the instance of change = x
Now, can you explain what is T2 minus T1 ? Is it a non-zero value?
#58 Posted by khuram on March 28, 2007 12:21:03 pm
Re: # 57
[...] -- I am only asking about the momentum of the raindrop. If you believe in `instantaneous`` change from 0 to x, then you have to explain which of the 2 values applies at the ``instance of change``. 0 or x? it can`t have both , can it? -- [...]
Before the instance of change = zero (suppose drop was suspended)
AT the instance of change = x
After the instance of change = x
Because at the instance of change, drop shall acquire the same velocity of car.
How much the momentum of car will be affected...??? this issue requires ``quantitative`` analysis ... so this is the task of science and not the task of Philosophy.
Regards!
[...] -- I am only asking about the momentum of the raindrop. If you believe in `instantaneous`` change from 0 to x, then you have to explain which of the 2 values applies at the ``instance of change``. 0 or x? it can`t have both , can it? -- [...]
Before the instance of change = zero (suppose drop was suspended)
AT the instance of change = x
After the instance of change = x
Because at the instance of change, drop shall acquire the same velocity of car.
How much the momentum of car will be affected...??? this issue requires ``quantitative`` analysis ... so this is the task of science and not the task of Philosophy.
Regards!
#57 Posted by khurram on March 28, 2007 11:45:49 am
Re # 56.
Of course, I know that total momentum is conserved.
I am only asking about the momentum of the raindrop. If you believe in `instantaneous`` change from 0 to x, then you have to explain which of the 2 values applies at the ``instance of change``. 0 or x? it can`t have both , can it?
Of course, I know that total momentum is conserved.
I am only asking about the momentum of the raindrop. If you believe in `instantaneous`` change from 0 to x, then you have to explain which of the 2 values applies at the ``instance of change``. 0 or x? it can`t have both , can it?
#56 Posted by khuram on March 28, 2007 11:29:39 am
Re: # 55
``OK. Then what is the momentum at time T1? Is it 0 or x?``
Yar it is simple.
Total momentum before the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2
Total momentum at the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2
Total momentum after the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2
``OK. Then what is the momentum at time T1? Is it 0 or x?``
Yar it is simple.
Total momentum before the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2
Total momentum at the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2
Total momentum after the instance of collision = m1v1 + m2v2
#55 Posted by khurram on March 28, 2007 9:51:35 am
Re #54, khuram,
``There is no question of ``rate of change of momentum`` in the case of instantaneous shift in quantity of momentum.``
OK. Then what is the momentum at time T1? Is it 0 or x?
``There is no question of ``rate of change of momentum`` in the case of instantaneous shift in quantity of momentum.``
OK. Then what is the momentum at time T1? Is it 0 or x?
#54 Posted by khuram on March 28, 2007 8:25:20 am
Re: # 53
Your whole argument is that in a collision, momentum changes instantaneously. Newton`s laws are therefore disproved.
Collisions are not an exotic phenomenon. They have been studied by scientists since the beginning of mechanics. Don`t you think Newton`s laws would have been thrown out long time ago if your claims were true?
Yes if nature of motion is discrete, Newton`s Laws are then disproved. You say scientists have been studying the phenomenon of collision since long and they have not been uncomfortable with their understandings so far etc. This is NO solid point of yours. I already stated that scientists are perhaps sleeping. Otherwise, they shouldn`t have been so comfortable.
Try to think over the example of ``raindrop`` and ``windscreen`` of a fast moving car. If there is really any ``contact period``, then:
(i) We are having two connected objects.
(ii) One object (car) is pushing the other object (raindrop) in forward direction, from backside.
Over that so-called ``contact period``, velocity of raindrop is supposed to increase continuously from zero to (suppose raindrop was suspended in the air before collision) let`s say 100 km/hrs (i.e. equal to the velocity of car).
In that ``contact period``, car is moving with speed of 100 km/hrs. In the same ``contact period``, car is also pushing the raindrop. Under these conditions, it is impossible for the raindrop to move with any velocity which is lesser than the velocity of car.
Can you think that over that ``contact period``, car was moving with 100 km/hrs whereas raindrop was moving with 10 or 12 km/hrs...???
With these conditions, raindrop should have been ``over-taken`` by the windscreen. In other words, raindrop should have been left behind of the windscreen.
Idea of ``contact period`` is the outcome of the wrong assumption of continuous nature of motion. Reality is that all type of motion is only discrete.
Your words:
``The source of your confusion is that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are described as instantaneous because they are only interested in the states before and after a collision.``
Actually sources of my comprehensions may be deeper than advanced physics books. I read less and think more. Recently I had debate with those Quantum Physics type philosophers who are claiming to have known the ultimate reality. Here I am copying a relevant portion of my post:
``My contention is that space is NOT `composed` of waves but actually space just `holds` waves. Space is the name of nothingness. Space is the name of complete non-resistance for physical entities (waves: matter + energy). Space has no dimensions. Space has no measurements of its own. Space has no vastness. It is not right to say that space is finite or infinite. Because Space is ‘nothingness’. Space has no positive `existence`. Space, being complete non-resistance, neither attracts, nor repels anything. The main page of this site is showing amazement that how comes that matter is ‘suspended’ in space. For me, it is just due to the simple fact that space itself neither attracts, nor repels anything. So there is nothing to wonder for why objects are suspended in space.
We never measure `space`. We only measure `material entities`. For instance, 3 meters of `space` is not 3 meters of `space` in the real sense. 3 meters of space is actually just equal to 3 physical meters. In this way, neither we ever measure space, nor space can be measured. Only material entities can be measured. And since `space` is the name of complete non-resistance, so space offers no resistance even to the measurements of material objects, to their mutual distances or to any other form of their mutual interactions. And if there is `distance` between two material objects, it does not mean that any space of particular measurement `exists` between those two objects. Those two objects are away from one another with distance, which is equivalent to particular number of times a physical object such as a meter. As space is `nothingness`, so it should have no `dimensions` as well. We know of `dimensions` also only in terms of material objects. It is the `geometry` of physical objects, which makes us think as if space is having 3 (Some modern theories of Physics are advocating for even n-dimensions) dimensions.
So I have this type of objections in mind. For me reality is not space because it is a non-existent entity. Reality should be seen in those entities that positively exist. There are two things which are known to have positive existence which are: (i) matter and; (ii) Energy. And since both these things have been found to be made up of single entity i.e. ‘waves’, so instead of considering `space` to be the source of all reality, I think it better to consider `waves` as the source of reality. But we also should properly distinguish between existing entity and non-existing entity.
If waves only have discrete motion, then why to even talk of any kind of continuous physical motion at all? For me, all physical motion, including physical motion of ordinary objects is not continuous at all. All physical motion is discrete. Consider a simple situation. My car is moving at the speed of 100 Km/Hrs and it is raining outside. Suppose vertical velocity of a raindrop was 10 Km/Hrs whereas that drop had zero horizontal velocity. Now when that drop shall collide with my windscreen, it will at once acquire horizontal velocity of 100 Km/hrs. So obviously there has been a sudden change in the velocity of that drop. I can give many other simple such examples. Since the examples are too simple so I assume that readers shall understand at their own. So I confidently proceed that all physical motion is only discrete. Here Zeno`s famous paradox also can be very easily solved. Zeno had argued while assuming continuous physical motion and physical existence of `space`. But since space has no positive existence at all and the motion of physical objects is only discrete, so logically it is possible that material objects can cover distance and so reality is not static but reality is there in variations.
Your Question:
Meanwhile, you can perhaps answer a simple question.
If momentum of an object changes from 0 to x ``instantaneously`` , then what is the RATE of change of momentum? Is it zero? Is it infinite? Is it something else?
There is no question of ``rate of change of momentum`` in the case of instantaneous shift in quantity of momentum.
It is so because ``rate of change`` shall exist if there were any ``duration of time``. Rate of change has to do with T2 minus T1 sort of things.
In the case of ``instantaneous shift``, there is onlt T1 and there is no T2. With no T2, it means that there is no duration. It is not ``span`` of time. It is just a ``point`` of time. Time also should be discrete, after all.
And also remeber that attitude of Newton` laws towards Zeno`s Paradox is like an afraid peagon, who has closed its eyes and thinking that no obstacle exists.
Regards!
Your whole argument is that in a collision, momentum changes instantaneously. Newton`s laws are therefore disproved.
Collisions are not an exotic phenomenon. They have been studied by scientists since the beginning of mechanics. Don`t you think Newton`s laws would have been thrown out long time ago if your claims were true?
Yes if nature of motion is discrete, Newton`s Laws are then disproved. You say scientists have been studying the phenomenon of collision since long and they have not been uncomfortable with their understandings so far etc. This is NO solid point of yours. I already stated that scientists are perhaps sleeping. Otherwise, they shouldn`t have been so comfortable.
Try to think over the example of ``raindrop`` and ``windscreen`` of a fast moving car. If there is really any ``contact period``, then:
(i) We are having two connected objects.
(ii) One object (car) is pushing the other object (raindrop) in forward direction, from backside.
Over that so-called ``contact period``, velocity of raindrop is supposed to increase continuously from zero to (suppose raindrop was suspended in the air before collision) let`s say 100 km/hrs (i.e. equal to the velocity of car).
In that ``contact period``, car is moving with speed of 100 km/hrs. In the same ``contact period``, car is also pushing the raindrop. Under these conditions, it is impossible for the raindrop to move with any velocity which is lesser than the velocity of car.
Can you think that over that ``contact period``, car was moving with 100 km/hrs whereas raindrop was moving with 10 or 12 km/hrs...???
With these conditions, raindrop should have been ``over-taken`` by the windscreen. In other words, raindrop should have been left behind of the windscreen.
Idea of ``contact period`` is the outcome of the wrong assumption of continuous nature of motion. Reality is that all type of motion is only discrete.
Your words:
``The source of your confusion is that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are described as instantaneous because they are only interested in the states before and after a collision.``
Actually sources of my comprehensions may be deeper than advanced physics books. I read less and think more. Recently I had debate with those Quantum Physics type philosophers who are claiming to have known the ultimate reality. Here I am copying a relevant portion of my post:
``My contention is that space is NOT `composed` of waves but actually space just `holds` waves. Space is the name of nothingness. Space is the name of complete non-resistance for physical entities (waves: matter + energy). Space has no dimensions. Space has no measurements of its own. Space has no vastness. It is not right to say that space is finite or infinite. Because Space is ‘nothingness’. Space has no positive `existence`. Space, being complete non-resistance, neither attracts, nor repels anything. The main page of this site is showing amazement that how comes that matter is ‘suspended’ in space. For me, it is just due to the simple fact that space itself neither attracts, nor repels anything. So there is nothing to wonder for why objects are suspended in space.
We never measure `space`. We only measure `material entities`. For instance, 3 meters of `space` is not 3 meters of `space` in the real sense. 3 meters of space is actually just equal to 3 physical meters. In this way, neither we ever measure space, nor space can be measured. Only material entities can be measured. And since `space` is the name of complete non-resistance, so space offers no resistance even to the measurements of material objects, to their mutual distances or to any other form of their mutual interactions. And if there is `distance` between two material objects, it does not mean that any space of particular measurement `exists` between those two objects. Those two objects are away from one another with distance, which is equivalent to particular number of times a physical object such as a meter. As space is `nothingness`, so it should have no `dimensions` as well. We know of `dimensions` also only in terms of material objects. It is the `geometry` of physical objects, which makes us think as if space is having 3 (Some modern theories of Physics are advocating for even n-dimensions) dimensions.
So I have this type of objections in mind. For me reality is not space because it is a non-existent entity. Reality should be seen in those entities that positively exist. There are two things which are known to have positive existence which are: (i) matter and; (ii) Energy. And since both these things have been found to be made up of single entity i.e. ‘waves’, so instead of considering `space` to be the source of all reality, I think it better to consider `waves` as the source of reality. But we also should properly distinguish between existing entity and non-existing entity.
If waves only have discrete motion, then why to even talk of any kind of continuous physical motion at all? For me, all physical motion, including physical motion of ordinary objects is not continuous at all. All physical motion is discrete. Consider a simple situation. My car is moving at the speed of 100 Km/Hrs and it is raining outside. Suppose vertical velocity of a raindrop was 10 Km/Hrs whereas that drop had zero horizontal velocity. Now when that drop shall collide with my windscreen, it will at once acquire horizontal velocity of 100 Km/hrs. So obviously there has been a sudden change in the velocity of that drop. I can give many other simple such examples. Since the examples are too simple so I assume that readers shall understand at their own. So I confidently proceed that all physical motion is only discrete. Here Zeno`s famous paradox also can be very easily solved. Zeno had argued while assuming continuous physical motion and physical existence of `space`. But since space has no positive existence at all and the motion of physical objects is only discrete, so logically it is possible that material objects can cover distance and so reality is not static but reality is there in variations.
Your Question:
Meanwhile, you can perhaps answer a simple question.
If momentum of an object changes from 0 to x ``instantaneously`` , then what is the RATE of change of momentum? Is it zero? Is it infinite? Is it something else?
There is no question of ``rate of change of momentum`` in the case of instantaneous shift in quantity of momentum.
It is so because ``rate of change`` shall exist if there were any ``duration of time``. Rate of change has to do with T2 minus T1 sort of things.
In the case of ``instantaneous shift``, there is onlt T1 and there is no T2. With no T2, it means that there is no duration. It is not ``span`` of time. It is just a ``point`` of time. Time also should be discrete, after all.
And also remeber that attitude of Newton` laws towards Zeno`s Paradox is like an afraid peagon, who has closed its eyes and thinking that no obstacle exists.
Regards!
#53 Posted by khurram on March 27, 2007 3:22:11 pm
Re #49,
Your whole argument is that in a collision, momentum changes instantaneously. Newton`s laws are therefore disproved.
Collisions are not an exotic phenomenon. They have been studied by scientists since the beginning of mechanics. Don`t you think Newton`s laws would have been thrown out long time ago if your claims were true? The source of your confusion is that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are described as instantaneous because they are only interested in the states before and after a collision. They ignore the ``contact period`` . Also, they treat objects as point particles. All this is for simplification. In reality, there is a short contact period. The surface of the two objects interact. There is distortion at the surfaces. It`s the particles that constitute the surface that accelerate from 0 to x and pull along other particles that are bound to them by adhesive forces. The stress can break apart objects (especially, raindrops). These are pretty complex interactions and cannot be described simply. That is why elementary textbooks skip this part and deal only with the states before and after the collision. If you are interested in this subject you should look up more advanced physics texts.
Meanwhile, you can perhaps answer a simple question.
If momentum of an object changes from 0 to x ``instantaneously`` , then what is the RATE of change of momentum? Is it zero? Is it infinite? Is it something else?
Your whole argument is that in a collision, momentum changes instantaneously. Newton`s laws are therefore disproved.
Collisions are not an exotic phenomenon. They have been studied by scientists since the beginning of mechanics. Don`t you think Newton`s laws would have been thrown out long time ago if your claims were true? The source of your confusion is that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are described as instantaneous because they are only interested in the states before and after a collision. They ignore the ``contact period`` . Also, they treat objects as point particles. All this is for simplification. In reality, there is a short contact period. The surface of the two objects interact. There is distortion at the surfaces. It`s the particles that constitute the surface that accelerate from 0 to x and pull along other particles that are bound to them by adhesive forces. The stress can break apart objects (especially, raindrops). These are pretty complex interactions and cannot be described simply. That is why elementary textbooks skip this part and deal only with the states before and after the collision. If you are interested in this subject you should look up more advanced physics texts.
Meanwhile, you can perhaps answer a simple question.
If momentum of an object changes from 0 to x ``instantaneously`` , then what is the RATE of change of momentum? Is it zero? Is it infinite? Is it something else?
#52 Posted by khuram on March 27, 2007 12:52:27 pm
Re: # 51
That is interesting article but deals with a different issue.
BTW, what is the need of photograph in case of raindrop attached to windscreen? Can it have lesser velocity than windscreen itself...???
A raindrop attached to windscreen will not gain any speed less than the speed of car, right from the very first instance or moment! Its speed shall become equal to the speed of car in one step and not continuously...!!!
That is interesting article but deals with a different issue.
BTW, what is the need of photograph in case of raindrop attached to windscreen? Can it have lesser velocity than windscreen itself...???
A raindrop attached to windscreen will not gain any speed less than the speed of car, right from the very first instance or moment! Its speed shall become equal to the speed of car in one step and not continuously...!!!
#51 Posted by KaalChakra on March 27, 2007 11:30:40 am
Vanderbilt researchers had recently carried out some research on how falling raindrops interact with their targets.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/stories/rainsplash.html
There are also tons of high-speed images online that give better idea about what happens at moments close to collision.
(Math provides a model of reality. `In the limit,` the distinction between discrete and continuous becomes merely a matter of the resolution level of measuring instruments, at least in the simple newtonian world)
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/stories/rainsplash.html
There are also tons of high-speed images online that give better idea about what happens at moments close to collision.
(Math provides a model of reality. `In the limit,` the distinction between discrete and continuous becomes merely a matter of the resolution level of measuring instruments, at least in the simple newtonian world)
#50 Posted by sattar2 on March 27, 2007 10:22:22 am
#39 Urstruly,
I think you mean f=-kx
where `x` is elastic deformation in spring and `f` is the force required to maintain this deformation.
From where are you getting f=ka ....?
Bukhari? or Muslim?
Or did I misunderstand?
#49 Posted by khuram on March 27, 2007 10:14:25 am
@ Khurram
How can velocity change from zero to non-zero (or from one value to next) without acceleration?
I already stated that I consider discrete nature of motion to be more appropriate. Suppose I am driving car with speed of 100 km/hrs. It is raining out side. Suppose a downward falling raindrop had vertical velocity of 10 km/hrs whereas it had horizontal velocity of zero.
Now when this drop shall collide with windscreen of my car, it, at once shall acquire the horizontal velocity of 100 km/hrs. In a supposed condition, if that drop was just suspended in air (having zero horizontal as well as vertical velocity), again it at once shall acquire the velocity of 100 km/hrs exactly at the time of collision.
There can be no ``contact period`` in this case...!!!
Now I am driving a super heavy truck with speed of 100 km/hrs. You place a small wooden box before my way. I do not bother to apply brakes or to reduce speed and truck collides with the wooden box with the speed of 100 km/hrs. As a result, that wooden box shall acquire certain mv (i.e. NOT `ma`) and its velocity shall be more than 100 km/hrs becuse of lesser mass of box.
Here we can discuss the issue of ``contact period``. Can you think that velocity of that small box shall increase like 1, 2, 3,...,100 and then more than 100 km/hrs...??? Heavy truck is moving with exact 100 km/hrs. How can the ``contacted`` box have its speed less than 100 km/hrs...??? The transformation of speed of box from zero to 100 (actually more than 100) in a single step is obvious in this case.
In another occassion, I drop a rubber ball on ground. It shall be rebounced back after colliding with ground. In the downside movement, ball was ``accelerating``. Shall its velocity ``at once i.e. in a single step``, not reach to zero, at the time of collision with ground...???
I may not think so but suppose its velocity at once shall reach to zero from let`s say 20 km/hrs. In the same moment, the ball again shall acuire upward speed of exact 20 km/hrs from zero, in a single step; and shall start decelerating.
What is all this...??? I think all motion is only discrete and cannot be continuous. It is useless to try to find any acceleration in any ``contact period``.
Newton`s laws only can ``accelerate`` static objects ... they cannot put them to move with ``constant velocity motion``.
Whenever there is a change in velocity, there is change in momentum. And when there is change in momentum the rate of change of momentum (i.e. force) must be non-zero. It doesn`t matter whether the imparting object is accelerating or has a constant velocity.
What is ``application of momentum``? Do you mean ``transfer of momentum``? That is equivalent to imparting force. Remember, force is RATE OF CHANGE OF MOMENTUM. Force can NOT be non-zero when there is change of momentum. Instantaneous change of momentum would mean INFINITE acceleration and infinite force. That`s why there is no such thing in real life. There is always a non-zero `contact period` .
Issue of ``rate of change of momentum`` shall come if there is really anything like ``contact period``. I do not believe in the idea of ``contact period``. Momentum is imparted in a single ``instance`` which has no ``duration``. So there is only ``change in momentum`` and there is no such thing as ``rate of change of momentum``. If momentum can be imparted to a stationary object without the involvement of ``rate of change of momentum``, its meaning is that continuous velocity motion can be induced into a stationary object without the application of force.
Secondly if you look at the situation more closely, you will find that there is no change in total momentum.
Instantaneous change of momentum would mean INFINITE acceleration and infinite force.
Please try to explain your above words in the light of ``raindrop/ windscreen`` example given above. That was the case of ``instanteneous change of momentum`` but without any ``acceleration`` or ``force``.
Regards!
How can velocity change from zero to non-zero (or from one value to next) without acceleration?
I already stated that I consider discrete nature of motion to be more appropriate. Suppose I am driving car with speed of 100 km/hrs. It is raining out side. Suppose a downward falling raindrop had vertical velocity of 10 km/hrs whereas it had horizontal velocity of zero.
Now when this drop shall collide with windscreen of my car, it, at once shall acquire the horizontal velocity of 100 km/hrs. In a supposed condition, if that drop was just suspended in air (having zero horizontal as well as vertical velocity), again it at once shall acquire the velocity of 100 km/hrs exactly at the time of collision.
There can be no ``contact period`` in this case...!!!
Now I am driving a super heavy truck with speed of 100 km/hrs. You place a small wooden box before my way. I do not bother to apply brakes or to reduce speed and truck collides with the wooden box with the speed of 100 km/hrs. As a result, that wooden box shall acquire certain mv (i.e. NOT `ma`) and its velocity shall be more than 100 km/hrs becuse of lesser mass of box.
Here we can discuss the issue of ``contact period``. Can you think that velocity of that small box shall increase like 1, 2, 3,...,100 and then more than 100 km/hrs...??? Heavy truck is moving with exact 100 km/hrs. How can the ``contacted`` box have its speed less than 100 km/hrs...??? The transformation of speed of box from zero to 100 (actually more than 100) in a single step is obvious in this case.
In another occassion, I drop a rubber ball on ground. It shall be rebounced back after colliding with ground. In the downside movement, ball was ``accelerating``. Shall its velocity ``at once i.e. in a single step``, not reach to zero, at the time of collision with ground...???
I may not think so but suppose its velocity at once shall reach to zero from let`s say 20 km/hrs. In the same moment, the ball again shall acuire upward speed of exact 20 km/hrs from zero, in a single step; and shall start decelerating.
What is all this...??? I think all motion is only discrete and cannot be continuous. It is useless to try to find any acceleration in any ``contact period``.
Newton`s laws only can ``accelerate`` static objects ... they cannot put them to move with ``constant velocity motion``.
Whenever there is a change in velocity, there is change in momentum. And when there is change in momentum the rate of change of momentum (i.e. force) must be non-zero. It doesn`t matter whether the imparting object is accelerating or has a constant velocity.
What is ``application of momentum``? Do you mean ``transfer of momentum``? That is equivalent to imparting force. Remember, force is RATE OF CHANGE OF MOMENTUM. Force can NOT be non-zero when there is change of momentum. Instantaneous change of momentum would mean INFINITE acceleration and infinite force. That`s why there is no such thing in real life. There is always a non-zero `contact period` .
Issue of ``rate of change of momentum`` shall come if there is really anything like ``contact period``. I do not believe in the idea of ``contact period``. Momentum is imparted in a single ``instance`` which has no ``duration``. So there is only ``change in momentum`` and there is no such thing as ``rate of change of momentum``. If momentum can be imparted to a stationary object without the involvement of ``rate of change of momentum``, its meaning is that continuous velocity motion can be induced into a stationary object without the application of force.
Secondly if you look at the situation more closely, you will find that there is no change in total momentum.
Instantaneous change of momentum would mean INFINITE acceleration and infinite force.
Please try to explain your above words in the light of ``raindrop/ windscreen`` example given above. That was the case of ``instanteneous change of momentum`` but without any ``acceleration`` or ``force``.
Regards!
#48 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 9:56:26 pm
Re #46, khuram,
I don`t know where to begin!
How can velocity change from zero to non-zero (or from one value to next) without acceleration?
Whenever there is a change in velocity, there is change in momentum. And when there is change in momentum the rate of change of momentum (i.e. force) must be non-zero. It doesn`t matter whether the imparting object is accelerating or has a constant velocity.
What is ``application of momentum``? Do you mean ``transfer of momentum``? That is equivalent to imparting force. Remember, force is RATE OF CHANGE OF MOMENTUM. Force can NOT be non-zero when there is change of momentum. Instantaneous change of momentum would mean INFINITE acceleration and infinite force. That`s why there is no such thing in real life. There is always a non-zero `contact period` .
I don`t know where to begin!
How can velocity change from zero to non-zero (or from one value to next) without acceleration?
Whenever there is a change in velocity, there is change in momentum. And when there is change in momentum the rate of change of momentum (i.e. force) must be non-zero. It doesn`t matter whether the imparting object is accelerating or has a constant velocity.
What is ``application of momentum``? Do you mean ``transfer of momentum``? That is equivalent to imparting force. Remember, force is RATE OF CHANGE OF MOMENTUM. Force can NOT be non-zero when there is change of momentum. Instantaneous change of momentum would mean INFINITE acceleration and infinite force. That`s why there is no such thing in real life. There is always a non-zero `contact period` .
#47 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 9:39:05 pm
Re #45 plancherel,
What is the definition of force?
What is the definition of force?
#46 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 9:05:53 pm
``Second law dosen`t say like that ``if an object is subjected to a net positive force over a period of time, then that object shall continue to accelerate over that period of time````
It says exactly that! Once the force is withdrawn, acceleration is over.
BTW, more logical is to say, ``Once the continuous application of ``momentum`` is withdrawn, acceleration is over.``
Single application of momentum imparts continuous speed motion to a static object. Another application of same momentum to the already moving object would result in increase in speed. Still another application of same momentum to the already speedy object shall result in still more speed. This phenomenon of increasing speed is so-called ``acceleration``.
Now on the next moment, further momentum is not applied; then object shall not get still more speed ... means that now ``acceleration`` is over.
And about ``elementary mistake``:
Second law really doesn`t mention anything like time duration of the application of force. ``Force`` itself is equivalent to time duration of the application of momentum. You are wrong also because you are unaware about the concept of ``impulse`` in Physics. This concept ``impulse`` has been ``designed`` with the view to study cases of application of force during certain short durations. In my assessment, this concept is an incorrect attempt to account for why stationary objects start moving with constant velocity, instead of accelerating.
You are saying that only accelerating objects can impart force. Again that is incorrect. There is a difference between being subject to a force and imparting force. The travelling ball has energy. It transfers some of that energy to the 2nd ball. The 2nd ball`s momentum changes from 0 to non-zero during the time the balls stay in contact (this time is short but non-zero). The change in momentum is equivalent to force (by definition). Once the contact is over, the 2nd ball continues at constant velocity (or in real life, starts to decelerate due to friction) .
You may have been confused by the fact that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are treated as instantaneous and the period of acceleration is ignored. This is for the purpose of simplification only.
By definition, only an accelerating ball should impart force. There is no logical difference between subject to force and being imparting force. Both are equal to ma. Mere mv of one ball cannot induce any ma to another ball. mv can induce only mv.
Your words:
``The change in momentum is equivalent to force (by definition).``
You are totally wrong. Force is not equivalent to change in momentum. Force is equal to rate of change of momentum.
Consider the following words of your own:
From wikipedia,
``Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum with time:
F = dp/dt
Secondly I am having doubts in the ``non-zero`` contact period. As I believe in discrete nature of motion, so a stationary ball after having collided with a mv ball, shall at once acquire certain amout of mv.
In case if there is really a ``contact period``, I accept that acceleration shall exist over that contact period because it would be the case of continuous application of momentum.
In short, single application of momentum can:
(i) induce constant speed motion to a stationary ball.
(ii) increase (or change) speed of an already constant velocity object.
(iii) change the direction of a constant velocity object.
All the above things can be performed by application of mere ``momentum``. ``It mean that all the above things can be performed without the application of FORCE.
So at least first law of motion is wrong.
Above was the case of ``single`` application of momentum. In case momentum is continuously applied over a time period, then ball can be accelerated.
Regards!
It says exactly that! Once the force is withdrawn, acceleration is over.
BTW, more logical is to say, ``Once the continuous application of ``momentum`` is withdrawn, acceleration is over.``
Single application of momentum imparts continuous speed motion to a static object. Another application of same momentum to the already moving object would result in increase in speed. Still another application of same momentum to the already speedy object shall result in still more speed. This phenomenon of increasing speed is so-called ``acceleration``.
Now on the next moment, further momentum is not applied; then object shall not get still more speed ... means that now ``acceleration`` is over.
And about ``elementary mistake``:
Second law really doesn`t mention anything like time duration of the application of force. ``Force`` itself is equivalent to time duration of the application of momentum. You are wrong also because you are unaware about the concept of ``impulse`` in Physics. This concept ``impulse`` has been ``designed`` with the view to study cases of application of force during certain short durations. In my assessment, this concept is an incorrect attempt to account for why stationary objects start moving with constant velocity, instead of accelerating.
You are saying that only accelerating objects can impart force. Again that is incorrect. There is a difference between being subject to a force and imparting force. The travelling ball has energy. It transfers some of that energy to the 2nd ball. The 2nd ball`s momentum changes from 0 to non-zero during the time the balls stay in contact (this time is short but non-zero). The change in momentum is equivalent to force (by definition). Once the contact is over, the 2nd ball continues at constant velocity (or in real life, starts to decelerate due to friction) .
You may have been confused by the fact that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are treated as instantaneous and the period of acceleration is ignored. This is for the purpose of simplification only.
By definition, only an accelerating ball should impart force. There is no logical difference between subject to force and being imparting force. Both are equal to ma. Mere mv of one ball cannot induce any ma to another ball. mv can induce only mv.
Your words:
``The change in momentum is equivalent to force (by definition).``
You are totally wrong. Force is not equivalent to change in momentum. Force is equal to rate of change of momentum.
Consider the following words of your own:
From wikipedia,
``Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum with time:
F = dp/dt
Secondly I am having doubts in the ``non-zero`` contact period. As I believe in discrete nature of motion, so a stationary ball after having collided with a mv ball, shall at once acquire certain amout of mv.
In case if there is really a ``contact period``, I accept that acceleration shall exist over that contact period because it would be the case of continuous application of momentum.
In short, single application of momentum can:
(i) induce constant speed motion to a stationary ball.
(ii) increase (or change) speed of an already constant velocity object.
(iii) change the direction of a constant velocity object.
All the above things can be performed by application of mere ``momentum``. ``It mean that all the above things can be performed without the application of FORCE.
So at least first law of motion is wrong.
Above was the case of ``single`` application of momentum. In case momentum is continuously applied over a time period, then ball can be accelerated.
Regards!
#45 Posted by plancherel on March 26, 2007 8:17:25 pm
Re: # 44
The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the force acting on it. And the constant of proportionality is the inertial mass of the object.
The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the force acting on it. And the constant of proportionality is the inertial mass of the object.
#44 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 2:06:42 pm
Re #43,
Exactly Mr Gill! That`s what I have been saying,
In the equation F = ma, force is DEFINED as ma (i.e. dp/dt = d*mv/dt = ma)
As the reference says, ``This is the only definition of force known in physics (first proposed by Newton himself``
There is no experimentation involved here.
Exactly Mr Gill! That`s what I have been saying,
In the equation F = ma, force is DEFINED as ma (i.e. dp/dt = d*mv/dt = ma)
As the reference says, ``This is the only definition of force known in physics (first proposed by Newton himself``
There is no experimentation involved here.
#43 Posted by freethinker on March 26, 2007 1:53:21 pm
khurram: #40
F=dp/dt is another way of writing F=mxa. You wrote:
p=mv,
then
dp/dt= d(mv)/dt = m x dv/dt = mxa,
because dv/dt = a, the acceleration.
This is my last post unless somebody wants to discuss the original article.
Mohammad Gill
F=dp/dt is another way of writing F=mxa. You wrote:
p=mv,
then
dp/dt= d(mv)/dt = m x dv/dt = mxa,
because dv/dt = a, the acceleration.
This is my last post unless somebody wants to discuss the original article.
Mohammad Gill
#42 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 1:43:59 pm
Re #35, khuram
Again, you are making very elementary mistakes.
``Second law dosen`t say like that ``if an object is subjected to a net positive force over a period of time, then that object shall continue to accelerate over that period of time````
It says exactly that! Once the force is withdrawn, acceleration is over.
Re: your snooker ball example.
You are saying that only accelerating objects can impart force. Again that is incorrect. There is a difference between being subject to a force and imparting force. The travelling ball has energy. It transfers some of that energy to the 2nd ball. The 2nd ball`s momentum changes from 0 to non-zero during the time the balls stay in contact (this time is short but non-zero). The change in momentum is equivalent to force (by definition). Once the contact is over, the 2nd ball continues at constant velocity (or in real life, starts to decelerate due to friction) .
You may have been confused by the fact that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are treated as instantaneous and the period of acceleration is ignored. This is for the purpose of simplification only.
Again, you are making very elementary mistakes.
``Second law dosen`t say like that ``if an object is subjected to a net positive force over a period of time, then that object shall continue to accelerate over that period of time````
It says exactly that! Once the force is withdrawn, acceleration is over.
Re: your snooker ball example.
You are saying that only accelerating objects can impart force. Again that is incorrect. There is a difference between being subject to a force and imparting force. The travelling ball has energy. It transfers some of that energy to the 2nd ball. The 2nd ball`s momentum changes from 0 to non-zero during the time the balls stay in contact (this time is short but non-zero). The change in momentum is equivalent to force (by definition). Once the contact is over, the 2nd ball continues at constant velocity (or in real life, starts to decelerate due to friction) .
You may have been confused by the fact that in elementary physics textbooks collisions are treated as instantaneous and the period of acceleration is ignored. This is for the purpose of simplification only.
#40 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 1:13:48 pm
Re # 38
Mr Gill,
From wikipedia,
``Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum with time:
F = dp/dt
The quantity p=mv (where m is the mass and v is the velocity) is called the momentum. This is the only definition of force known in physics (first proposed by Newton himself).``
Like I said, you picked the wrong example :)
``Definitions of parameters...........are deduced from observations and actual sensory experience``
I would be very interested in an example of this process.
Thanks
Mr Gill,
From wikipedia,
``Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum with time:
F = dp/dt
The quantity p=mv (where m is the mass and v is the velocity) is called the momentum. This is the only definition of force known in physics (first proposed by Newton himself).``
Like I said, you picked the wrong example :)
``Definitions of parameters...........are deduced from observations and actual sensory experience``
I would be very interested in an example of this process.
Thanks
#39 Posted by Urstruly on March 26, 2007 12:21:37 pm
``mass is defined as the ratio of force and acceleration.`
This is absolutely absurd - mass cannot be defined as such. The motion equation as applied to bodies suspended with springs is f=ka. In this case the k is not mass but spring constant, which is the product of mass and displacemment to which spring can be extended before getting permanantly deformed.
#38 Posted by freethinker on March 26, 2007 11:42:22 am
khuraam:
On the contrary, mass is defined as the ratio of force and acceleration. In the experiments, force and acceleration were measured; so they were already defined. m was the constant of proportionality in the relationship connecting force with acceleration. Definitions of parameters do not descend on human mind like wahi; they are deduced from observations and actual sensory experience.
Mohammad Gill
On the contrary, mass is defined as the ratio of force and acceleration. In the experiments, force and acceleration were measured; so they were already defined. m was the constant of proportionality in the relationship connecting force with acceleration. Definitions of parameters do not descend on human mind like wahi; they are deduced from observations and actual sensory experience.
Mohammad Gill
#37 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 11:03:39 am
Gill Sahib,
Thanks for presenting valuable details of Peer Review process. I think every journal is having its own criteria. What I had mentioned, I had read those points from the criterias of just two or three journals.
Secondly, I agree to regarding the role of definitions and concepts. But these definitions and concepts themselves can be more attributed to Philosophy rather than with science. What is mass, what is weight, what is inertia. These concepts are the products of human intellect and wisdom. Intellect and wisdom can work only on sensory data however. What I advocate is that exactly this should be the role of philosopher.
Principles involve determination of quantitative relationships between variables. So this is the task of scientists. I had written an article about differences of Philosophy and Science. Although some points are missing but I am copying it below:
Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:
Humans face many questions and Science and Philosophy are considered to be important sources for finding the answers to those questions. Problems or questions etc. are basically of two types i.e. objective and subjective. Science has found solutions to only a few of objective type problems. Rest of objective type questions as well as the whole sphere of subjective type issues still fall under the purview of Philosophy.
As far as ‘objective’ issues are concerned, their progress is visible to even uneducated or less educated people. Progress in subjectivity however is concerned with the intellectual insights of some individuals - I mean Philosophers or other Spiritualists. Subjectivity is not concerned with finding the definite answers to the issues/ problems but it is concerned with determining the nature, extent and types of those problems. So progress can exist, in subjective issues also. But this type of progress has to be invisible to Non-Philosophical/ Non-Spiritual type people.
And a very important function of Philosophy is to elaborate, explain and account for the general but vogue feelings of a common person. The common persons may not be conscious of those feelings before having read the Philosophy. But while reading the Philosophy, the reader must feel as if it were the same things that already should have been known to him.
Function of Philosophy is to draw theoretical pictures of whatever we observe or feel. Philosophy should be concerned as much with generating questions as to the finding of answers. As a matter of fact, Philosophical assertions cannot be regarded as objective truths. Philosophy is subjective by nature. To be subjective does not mean to be inferior. Fact is that to be ’subjective’ means to be ’superior’ … because only humans are subjective whereas computer can be regarded even as an objective thinker.
‘Science’ is basically whatever can be proved objectively. And whatever can be proved objectively, initially it was already known to humans in subjective style. General theory of Relativity is Science because it can be supported by objective evidence. But point is that Einstien had conceived this theory perheps in 1916 whereas its experimental proof was found in 1919. It means that before when this theory bacame ’science’ or that before when it could be proved objectively, it was already in the notice of humanity in subjective style.
In this way, science is only that portion of humanity’s subjective knowledge that could be proved objectively. And objectivity and truth are not Synonymous at all. Subjective ideas can be true whether or not they are supported by the objective evidence. During the period 1916-19, General Theory of Relativity had been remained such a subjective theory which was true in fact, despite the fact that no experimental proof had been found in that period.
Philosophy is much broader than science. Science is what questions have been objectively answered. Philosophy is what could be the more and more questions and what could be all the possible answers to those more and more questions. Philosophy takes precedence over science because it is Philosophy which has to raise questions and then to propose answers. Science takes only those answers, out of all the ‘proposed answers’, which can be experimentally proved by using the available experimental techniques.
Still another important difference between Science and Philosophy is the determination of quantitative relationships beween variables. Philosophy is NOT concerned with this activity whereas, in my assessment, Science overemphasizes the role and importance of this activity. In this way, Philosophy has to find the possible variables and to propose any possible relationships between those variables. Science then has to work out the exact quantitative relationship between those variables. Thus, in my assessment, the part of Newton’s second law which asserts the existence of positive relationship between force and acceleration, is Philosophical in nature. On the other hand, the formulation of exact quantitative relationship in the form of formula i.e. “F = ma”, is Scientific in nature.
And it is often said that Philosopher creates knowledge by mere ‘thinking’ whereas Scientist creates knowledge by ‘observing’. My point of view is that ultimate input for any kind of ‘thinking’ has to be found in ‘observations’. The role of philosopher is to systemetically shape the already existing observations into the form of Philosophical assertions regarding the existence of various inter-related variables. Scientist actually would purposefully ‘observe’ those already identified variables with the view to just test the already proposed kind of relationships between them. Galileo’s experiments about speed of falling objects having different weights as well as about the projectile motion were actually his purposeful attempts to just check the validities of the already established Greek Philosophical views regarding these matters.
Similarly, Michealsons & Morley’s experiment which led them to find the notion of ‘relative constancy of the speed of light’, was also basically their purposeful attempt to just check the validity of already existing philosophical type idea about the existence of ‘eather’. I am having the opinion that creation of Knowledge is not the role of Scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of Philosopher. The role of Scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas. Through experimentation (i.e. through purposeful observations), the scientist would bring refinements in many already existing vouge philosophical ideas by establishing the exact quantitative relationships between already existing variables.
There is another positive role of Scientist. He has to practically implement his so refined theories by inventing and applying new technologies also.
Thanks for presenting valuable details of Peer Review process. I think every journal is having its own criteria. What I had mentioned, I had read those points from the criterias of just two or three journals.
Secondly, I agree to regarding the role of definitions and concepts. But these definitions and concepts themselves can be more attributed to Philosophy rather than with science. What is mass, what is weight, what is inertia. These concepts are the products of human intellect and wisdom. Intellect and wisdom can work only on sensory data however. What I advocate is that exactly this should be the role of philosopher.
Principles involve determination of quantitative relationships between variables. So this is the task of scientists. I had written an article about differences of Philosophy and Science. Although some points are missing but I am copying it below:
Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:
Humans face many questions and Science and Philosophy are considered to be important sources for finding the answers to those questions. Problems or questions etc. are basically of two types i.e. objective and subjective. Science has found solutions to only a few of objective type problems. Rest of objective type questions as well as the whole sphere of subjective type issues still fall under the purview of Philosophy.
As far as ‘objective’ issues are concerned, their progress is visible to even uneducated or less educated people. Progress in subjectivity however is concerned with the intellectual insights of some individuals - I mean Philosophers or other Spiritualists. Subjectivity is not concerned with finding the definite answers to the issues/ problems but it is concerned with determining the nature, extent and types of those problems. So progress can exist, in subjective issues also. But this type of progress has to be invisible to Non-Philosophical/ Non-Spiritual type people.
And a very important function of Philosophy is to elaborate, explain and account for the general but vogue feelings of a common person. The common persons may not be conscious of those feelings before having read the Philosophy. But while reading the Philosophy, the reader must feel as if it were the same things that already should have been known to him.
Function of Philosophy is to draw theoretical pictures of whatever we observe or feel. Philosophy should be concerned as much with generating questions as to the finding of answers. As a matter of fact, Philosophical assertions cannot be regarded as objective truths. Philosophy is subjective by nature. To be subjective does not mean to be inferior. Fact is that to be ’subjective’ means to be ’superior’ … because only humans are subjective whereas computer can be regarded even as an objective thinker.
‘Science’ is basically whatever can be proved objectively. And whatever can be proved objectively, initially it was already known to humans in subjective style. General theory of Relativity is Science because it can be supported by objective evidence. But point is that Einstien had conceived this theory perheps in 1916 whereas its experimental proof was found in 1919. It means that before when this theory bacame ’science’ or that before when it could be proved objectively, it was already in the notice of humanity in subjective style.
In this way, science is only that portion of humanity’s subjective knowledge that could be proved objectively. And objectivity and truth are not Synonymous at all. Subjective ideas can be true whether or not they are supported by the objective evidence. During the period 1916-19, General Theory of Relativity had been remained such a subjective theory which was true in fact, despite the fact that no experimental proof had been found in that period.
Philosophy is much broader than science. Science is what questions have been objectively answered. Philosophy is what could be the more and more questions and what could be all the possible answers to those more and more questions. Philosophy takes precedence over science because it is Philosophy which has to raise questions and then to propose answers. Science takes only those answers, out of all the ‘proposed answers’, which can be experimentally proved by using the available experimental techniques.
Still another important difference between Science and Philosophy is the determination of quantitative relationships beween variables. Philosophy is NOT concerned with this activity whereas, in my assessment, Science overemphasizes the role and importance of this activity. In this way, Philosophy has to find the possible variables and to propose any possible relationships between those variables. Science then has to work out the exact quantitative relationship between those variables. Thus, in my assessment, the part of Newton’s second law which asserts the existence of positive relationship between force and acceleration, is Philosophical in nature. On the other hand, the formulation of exact quantitative relationship in the form of formula i.e. “F = ma”, is Scientific in nature.
And it is often said that Philosopher creates knowledge by mere ‘thinking’ whereas Scientist creates knowledge by ‘observing’. My point of view is that ultimate input for any kind of ‘thinking’ has to be found in ‘observations’. The role of philosopher is to systemetically shape the already existing observations into the form of Philosophical assertions regarding the existence of various inter-related variables. Scientist actually would purposefully ‘observe’ those already identified variables with the view to just test the already proposed kind of relationships between them. Galileo’s experiments about speed of falling objects having different weights as well as about the projectile motion were actually his purposeful attempts to just check the validities of the already established Greek Philosophical views regarding these matters.
Similarly, Michealsons & Morley’s experiment which led them to find the notion of ‘relative constancy of the speed of light’, was also basically their purposeful attempt to just check the validity of already existing philosophical type idea about the existence of ‘eather’. I am having the opinion that creation of Knowledge is not the role of Scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of Philosopher. The role of Scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas. Through experimentation (i.e. through purposeful observations), the scientist would bring refinements in many already existing vouge philosophical ideas by establishing the exact quantitative relationships between already existing variables.
There is another positive role of Scientist. He has to practically implement his so refined theories by inventing and applying new technologies also.
#36 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 10:58:28 am
Re #33
Mr Gill,
1. ``F = m x a ......``
lol! You picked the wrong example!
Here, force is defined as m x a.
2. The point I was trying to make was that when someone says that ``science is socially determined`` they are not saying that specific laws of science are socially determined. That would be too simplistic and obviously wrong. They are referring to the basic rules and definitions from which the laws were derived. Now, one may disagree with that too. But at least the argument is being correctly understood.
Mr Gill,
1. ``F = m x a ......``
lol! You picked the wrong example!
Here, force is defined as m x a.
2. The point I was trying to make was that when someone says that ``science is socially determined`` they are not saying that specific laws of science are socially determined. That would be too simplistic and obviously wrong. They are referring to the basic rules and definitions from which the laws were derived. Now, one may disagree with that too. But at least the argument is being correctly understood.
#35 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 10:44:35 am
@ khurram
``Ok I give you a ``Practical`` task....``
That`s easy. Just apply force and then remove it.
Yes it sounds very easy. But let me tell you that concept of ``force`` in Physiscs has no ``durational`` aspect at all. Second law dosen`t say like that ``if an object is subjected to a net positive force over a period of time, then that object shall continue to accelerate over that period of time``.
Second law simply says that a net positive force shall accelerate the object. Quantity of acceleration shall be directly proportional to the amout of force (with no mention of time duration) and shall be inversly proportional to the mass of object.
When force has been applied to a stationary object, and even if withdrawn at the same moment, that object should accelerate.
And Khurram Sahib, if we apply ``force`` and then remove it, the object shall not ``accelerate`` at all. Because then it shall acquire constant velocity motion. This behaviour shall go against second law because object must accelerate upon the application of net force.
I try to explain it somewhat differently. The real fact is that stationary objects can be made to move with constant velocity motion without the application of any net positive force at all.
Suppose an object `a`, let`s say a snooker ball, is moving with constant speed. Since it is moving with ``constant speed``, so it means that it is not under the influence of any net positive force because of being subjected to first law of motion. Its quantity of motion is described in terms of ``momentum`` which is equal to ``mv``.
Now suppose that ball `a` collides with a stationary snooker ball `b`. My question is that shall ball `b` move after collision or shall remain stationary even after collision...???
Practically, this ball `b` shall start moving.
But as per the first law of motion, this ball shall remain stationary because ball `a` has exterted NO force upon `b`.
See that the quantity of motion of ball `a` was equal to``mv``. Is ``mv`` equal to ``force``...??? Not at all...!!! Because ``force`` is equal to ``ma`` and not ``mv``. So ball `a` could not exert any ``force`` on ball `b`.
But still then, a stationary ball `b` can be made to move with constant speed because of such a ``collision`` which cannot be regarded as any application of force.
This is clear violation of first law of motion.
It has many other implications as well.
Do you really have some work against Special theory of Relativity? I would like to see it. Where can I find it?
I have not worked directly on Special Relativity. SR is actually based on the idea that relative speed of light with respect to a stationary or even a moving object, always remains constant. This phenomenon has been termed as ``relative constancy of speed of light``.
This phenomenon has been claimed to be discovered through an experiment which was conducted by Michealsons and Morley. I only have analyzed that famous experiment and has shown that idea of ``relative constancy of speed of light`` cannot be followed from the same experiment. In my opinion, that experiment was wrongfully and illogically interpreted. Due to this reason I always insist that the results of experimental verifications should be logically interpreted. This work is still on rough papers so I cannot show it right now.
Regarding other issues, I still don`t see your point. What are the scientists doing wrong? They are using as much logic as they need. The proof is the logical consistency of all their theories. Maybe, you can point out some logical errors of scientists.
Logical consistency of scientific theories has the meaning that logic has very much to do in the process of finding new theories.
My question is only that do scientists not openly disregard rational or logical inquiry? Do they not disregard theory of logic by not making it the part of syllabus of science? Scientists do behave like that and the only reason is the intellectual mistake as if there is some clash between rational knowledge and empirical knowledge, or as if empirical knowledge is superior to rational knowledge.
Regards!
``Ok I give you a ``Practical`` task....``
That`s easy. Just apply force and then remove it.
Yes it sounds very easy. But let me tell you that concept of ``force`` in Physiscs has no ``durational`` aspect at all. Second law dosen`t say like that ``if an object is subjected to a net positive force over a period of time, then that object shall continue to accelerate over that period of time``.
Second law simply says that a net positive force shall accelerate the object. Quantity of acceleration shall be directly proportional to the amout of force (with no mention of time duration) and shall be inversly proportional to the mass of object.
When force has been applied to a stationary object, and even if withdrawn at the same moment, that object should accelerate.
And Khurram Sahib, if we apply ``force`` and then remove it, the object shall not ``accelerate`` at all. Because then it shall acquire constant velocity motion. This behaviour shall go against second law because object must accelerate upon the application of net force.
I try to explain it somewhat differently. The real fact is that stationary objects can be made to move with constant velocity motion without the application of any net positive force at all.
Suppose an object `a`, let`s say a snooker ball, is moving with constant speed. Since it is moving with ``constant speed``, so it means that it is not under the influence of any net positive force because of being subjected to first law of motion. Its quantity of motion is described in terms of ``momentum`` which is equal to ``mv``.
Now suppose that ball `a` collides with a stationary snooker ball `b`. My question is that shall ball `b` move after collision or shall remain stationary even after collision...???
Practically, this ball `b` shall start moving.
But as per the first law of motion, this ball shall remain stationary because ball `a` has exterted NO force upon `b`.
See that the quantity of motion of ball `a` was equal to``mv``. Is ``mv`` equal to ``force``...??? Not at all...!!! Because ``force`` is equal to ``ma`` and not ``mv``. So ball `a` could not exert any ``force`` on ball `b`.
But still then, a stationary ball `b` can be made to move with constant speed because of such a ``collision`` which cannot be regarded as any application of force.
This is clear violation of first law of motion.
It has many other implications as well.
Do you really have some work against Special theory of Relativity? I would like to see it. Where can I find it?
I have not worked directly on Special Relativity. SR is actually based on the idea that relative speed of light with respect to a stationary or even a moving object, always remains constant. This phenomenon has been termed as ``relative constancy of speed of light``.
This phenomenon has been claimed to be discovered through an experiment which was conducted by Michealsons and Morley. I only have analyzed that famous experiment and has shown that idea of ``relative constancy of speed of light`` cannot be followed from the same experiment. In my opinion, that experiment was wrongfully and illogically interpreted. Due to this reason I always insist that the results of experimental verifications should be logically interpreted. This work is still on rough papers so I cannot show it right now.
Regarding other issues, I still don`t see your point. What are the scientists doing wrong? They are using as much logic as they need. The proof is the logical consistency of all their theories. Maybe, you can point out some logical errors of scientists.
Logical consistency of scientific theories has the meaning that logic has very much to do in the process of finding new theories.
My question is only that do scientists not openly disregard rational or logical inquiry? Do they not disregard theory of logic by not making it the part of syllabus of science? Scientists do behave like that and the only reason is the intellectual mistake as if there is some clash between rational knowledge and empirical knowledge, or as if empirical knowledge is superior to rational knowledge.
Regards!
#34 Posted by freethinker on March 26, 2007 10:01:14 am
A Rejoinder to my post#32:
Based on my information some ten years back, 2/3rd of the papers submitted for publication to ASCE were rejected. So the publication standards of the refereed journals are not lackadaisical.; they are strict but fair.
Mohammad Gill
Based on my information some ten years back, 2/3rd of the papers submitted for publication to ASCE were rejected. So the publication standards of the refereed journals are not lackadaisical.; they are strict but fair.
Mohammad Gill
#33 Posted by freethinker on March 26, 2007 9:44:51 am
Khurram: #12
I try to give my perspective on the questions that you raised in your post in the following:
1. You cannot derive scientific laws and theories simply from definitions. Definitions also take long time to become clear and generally accepted. I wrote in the article that Kepler had a sense of force of gravity but it was not clear to him how it worked. A couple of centuries passed before Newton was able to give his laws of motion.
For instance, according to Newton`s law of motion,
F = m x a
in which F= force, m=mass of a body and a= acceleration of that body. This law was established empirically by measuring the values of force and corresponding acceleration and then correlating them together. Only logic could not establish this law. Logic could only state that there was a relationship between force and acceleration but what precise relationship existed between the two, it wouldn`t be able to determine. even the assertion that there is a relationship between F and m could not be made without the benefit of observations.
2. Social changes in the 17th century Europe liberated science from the clutches of religion and the Church so that scientific work was done without any fear of retribution from religious authorities. Science needs to be likewise liberated from authoritative religion in the Muslim world.
Be well,
Mohammad Gill
I try to give my perspective on the questions that you raised in your post in the following:
1. You cannot derive scientific laws and theories simply from definitions. Definitions also take long time to become clear and generally accepted. I wrote in the article that Kepler had a sense of force of gravity but it was not clear to him how it worked. A couple of centuries passed before Newton was able to give his laws of motion.
For instance, according to Newton`s law of motion,
F = m x a
in which F= force, m=mass of a body and a= acceleration of that body. This law was established empirically by measuring the values of force and corresponding acceleration and then correlating them together. Only logic could not establish this law. Logic could only state that there was a relationship between force and acceleration but what precise relationship existed between the two, it wouldn`t be able to determine. even the assertion that there is a relationship between F and m could not be made without the benefit of observations.
2. Social changes in the 17th century Europe liberated science from the clutches of religion and the Church so that scientific work was done without any fear of retribution from religious authorities. Science needs to be likewise liberated from authoritative religion in the Muslim world.
Be well,
Mohammad Gill
#32 Posted by freethinker on March 26, 2007 7:42:45 am
khuram and other interactors:
Let me give some information regarding peer-reviewed papers. Khuram in his last post wrote as follows:
``Now I tell what is the ``logic`` of Science. If you go through the ``criteria`` of ``Peer Reviewed Science Journals``, you will find that in order to get your work published, it should contain handsome number of ``citations`` to already published works. This is just an easy way to ensure consistency in different scientific researches. Under this system, you only can ``cite`` already published theories but you cannot criticize already published scientific theories. If you ``criticize``, your work shall not be published. Simple is that. This process is like a valid argument which can have false premises or conclusions!!!! Even false things can have internal consistency. Example is such a valid argument which has false premises and conclusion etc.``
I don`t know which scientific journal he is quoting from. Usually the standards for peer-review of scientific papers are quite strict. I am speaking from my personal experience both as an author and a reviewer. I reviewed several papers for the journals of American Society of Civil Engineers (Journal of Hydraulic Engineering and Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering).Unless a paper contains author`s original work upgrading the existing status of knowledge, it is not accepted for publication. Review papers are accepted but they also should have up to date information.
A technical paper usually takes from 9 months to several years before it gets published. ASCE gets a paper reviewed by three independent reviewers whose identity is kept secret. If an author does not agree with a particular review and gives sound reasons for it, the paper is sent to another reviewer. If two reviewers recommend publication, the paper is published.
I am attaching in the following ASCE`s guidelines for authors and reviewers. I don`t want to bore the readers giving this lengthy extract from ASCE. Those of you who are interested to read the guidelines are welcome to do so, others can skip it.
Mohammad Gill
Ethical Standards for Publications of ASCE Journals
Preface
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) serves the civil engineering community and society at large in several ways, including the publication of technical journals that present the results of current engineering and scientific research and practice. Fundamental to that service is the responsibility of editors, authors, and reviewers to maintain high ethical standards relating to the submittal, review, and publication of manuscripts. These ethical standards derive from the ASCE`s definition of the scope of the journal and from the community`s perception of standards of quality for engineering and scientific work, and its presentation. The ethical standards that follow reflect a conviction that the observance of high ethical standards is so vital to the entire engineering and scientific enterprise that a definition of those standards should be brought to the attention of all concerned.
Ethical Standards
Obligations of Editors
1. The primary responsibility of an ASCE journal editor is to ensure an efficient and fair review process of manuscripts submitted for publication, and to establish and maintain high standards of technical and professional quality. Criteria of quality are originality of approach, concept and/or application; profundity; and relevance to the civil engineering profession.
2. An editor shall give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication and shall judge each on its merits without regard to any personal relationship or familiarity with the author(s), or to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, professional association, or political philosophy of the author(s).
3. The editor and editorial staff shall disclose no information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice regarding the publication of the manuscript is sought. The names of reviewers shall not be released by the editors or editorial staff.
4. An editor who authors or co-authors a manuscript submitted for consideration to the journal with which that editor is affiliated, shall not review that work. If after publication, the editor-author`s work merits ongoing scientific debate within the journal, the editor-author shall accept no editorial responsibility in connection therewith.
5. An editor shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. An editor shall not send a manuscript to reviewers who are known to have personal bias in favor of or against the author(s) or the subject matter of that manuscript.
6. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a submitted manuscript are confidential and shall not be used in the research of an editor or associate editor, or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author (s) and with appropriate attribution.
7. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the substance, conclusions, references or other material included in a manuscript published in an ASCE journal are erroneous, the editor, after notifying the author(s) and allowing them to respond in writing, shall facilitate immediate publication of an erratum. If possible, an editor shall also facilitate publication of appropriate comments and/or papers identifying those errors.
8. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that a manuscript or published paper contains plagiarized material or falsified research data, the editor shall forward such evidence to the Manager, Journals, for investigation by the ASCE Professional Conduct Committee.
Obligations of Authors
1. An author`s central obligation is to present a concise account of the research, work, or project completed, together with an objective discussion of its significance.
2. A submitted manuscript shall contain detail and reference to public sources of information sufficient to permit the author`s peers to repeat the work or otherwise verify its accuracy.
3. An author shall cite and give appropriate attribution to those publications influential in determining the nature of the reported work sufficient to guide the reader quickly to earlier work essential to an understanding of the present work. Information obtained by an author privately, from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties shall not be used or reported in the author`s work without explicit permission from the persons from whom the information was obtained. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, shall be treated in the same confidential manner.
4. The submitted manuscript shall not contain plagiarized material or falsified research data. ASCE defines plagiarism as the use of the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit to that source. The Society views any similar misappropriation of intellectual property, which may include data or interpretation, as plagiarism. [This definition is based on one used by the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. ASCE added the sentence on misappropriation of intellectual property.]
5. Fragmentation of research papers shall be avoided. An engineer or scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems shall organize publication so that each paper gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the general study.
6. It is inappropriate for an author to submit for review more than one paper describing essentially the same research or project to more than one journal of primary publication.
7. Scholarly criticism of a published paper may sometimes be justified; however, personal criticism is never appropriate.
8. To protect the integrity of authorship, only persons who have significantly contributed to the research or project and manuscript preparation shall be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author attests to the fact that any others named as co-authors have seen the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for co-authorship shall be included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name shall be given as an author or co-author. An author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts responsibility for having properly included all, and only, qualified co-authors.
9. It is inappropriate to submit manuscripts with an obvious commercial intent.
10. It is inappropriate for an author either to write or co-author a discussion of his or her own manuscript, except in the case of a rebuttal or closure to criticism or discussion offered by others.
Obligations of Reviewers
1. Because qualified manuscript review is essential to the publication process, all engineers and scientists have an obligation to do their fair share of reviews.
2. If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to fairly judge the work reported, the reviewer should immediately notify the editor and promptly return the manuscript.
3. A reviewer shall objectively judge the quality of a manuscript on its own merit and shall respect the intellectual independence of the author(s). Personal criticism is never appropriate.
4. A reviewer shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If a manuscript submitted for review presents a potential conflict of interest or the reviewer has a personal bias, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly without review and so advise the editor.
5. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a submitted manuscript are confidential and shall not be used in the research of a reviewer or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author and with appropriate attribution.
6. If a reviewer receives for review a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional relationship, the existence of this relationship shall be promptly brought the attention of the editor.
7. A reviewer shall treat a manuscript received for review as a confidential document and shall neither disclose nor discuss it with others except, as necessary, with persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted shall be disclosed to the editor.
8. Reviewers shall explain and support judgments adequately so that the editor and author(s) may understand the bases for their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported shall be accompanied by the relevant citation.
9. A reviewer shall call to the editor`s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published manuscript or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
10. A reviewer shall not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author(s) and with appropriate attribution.
11. If a reviewer has convincing evidence that a manuscript contains plagiarized material or falsified research data, the reviewer shall notify the editor and send the evidence to the Manager, Journals, for investigation by the ASCE Professional Conduct Committee.
Acknowledgments
The ethical standards reported herein were initially drafted using the ``AGU Policies and Procedures`` of the American Geophysical Union. ASCE acknowledges its appreciation to the AGU for granting permission to quote from that work.
Companion Papers
#30 Posted by khurram on March 26, 2007 7:34:40 am
Re: khuram,
Do you really have some work against Special theory of Relativity? I would like to see it. Where can I find it?
Regarding other issues, I still don`t see your point. What are the scientists doing wrong? They are using as much logic as they need. The proof is the logical consistency of all their theories. Maybe, you can point out some logical errors of scientists.
``First entity is raw sensory information ...`` .
What I am saying is that there is no ``raw`` sensory information.
``Ok I give you a ``Practical`` task....``
That`s easy. Just apply force and then remove it.
Do you really have some work against Special theory of Relativity? I would like to see it. Where can I find it?
Regarding other issues, I still don`t see your point. What are the scientists doing wrong? They are using as much logic as they need. The proof is the logical consistency of all their theories. Maybe, you can point out some logical errors of scientists.
``First entity is raw sensory information ...`` .
What I am saying is that there is no ``raw`` sensory information.
``Ok I give you a ``Practical`` task....``
That`s easy. Just apply force and then remove it.
#29 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 6:54:13 am
@ Khurram #17
``Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science``
Whatever gave you that idea!! It is not by accident that scientific theories are logically consistent. All scientists are well-grounded in mathematics which is a strict form of logic.
I already have mentioned the following in my interact # 13:
``Actually a functional human mind works logically. I remember I could write logical assertions in those times also when I knew nothing of the theory of logic. I still have premises-conclusion patterned my own writings of that time. Scientists are also sane persons in all respects. They may not formally know the theory of logic but unconsciously, they do keep scientific theories in proper logical order. I do not say that scientists are ``illogical``. If I thought so then why I tried to show in the previous interact that many many theories of science are the product of logic? Scientists are logical. I accept this. But they are logical just unformally and unconsciously. They do not know that they act, behave and think in accordence with the principles of logic. They disregard theory of logic on the basis of certain intellectual mistakes.``
Furthermore, my interact # 27 includes the following:
``Now I tell what is the ``logic`` of Science. If you go through the ``criteria`` of ``Peer Reviewed Science Journals``, you will find that in order to get your work published, it should contain handsome number of ``citations`` to already published works. This is just an easy way to ensure consistency in different scientific researches. Under this system, you only can ``cite`` already published theories but you cannot criticize already published scientific theories. If you ``criticize``, your work shall not be published. Simple is that. This process is like a valid argument which can have false premises or conclusions!!!! Even false things can have internal consistency. Example is such a valid argument which has false premises and conclusion etc.``
Secondly you say that scientists are expert of mathematics, which is strict form of logic.
Here I accept that scientists are expert of mathematics. But Mathematics is not the only ``strict`` form of logic. Deductive Logic is also strict form of logic. Inductive logic is lose form logic but most of our thinking exists in inductive form. Are scientists not interested in the facts regarding the characteristics of their own minds (i.e. thinking)...???
And I had written following words in my interact # 3:
``Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.``
Your words:
``But you and ``science`` still hold that Newton`s laws are still valid for the cases of ordinary massive objects having ordinary speeds. I do not even think so..``
They are `valid` in the sense of being good enough approximations for practical purposes. Nobody claims anything more.
Ok I give you a ``Practical`` task. There is a stationary object. Now I ask you to please make it move with constant velocity motion.
What you will do...???
(i) Either you shall not apply force.
Or
(ii) You shall apply force.
If you shall NOT apply force, then you could not change its state of rest. (as per first law)
If you shall apply force, then that object shall not move with constant velocity because as a result of force, it shall move with acceleration...!!!!!! (as per second law)
but your task was to make it move with constant velocity....!!!!!!
Motion has its very complicated dynamics. Physics has not been able to capture the real dynamics of motion.
Your Words:
``Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test ``
This is where I thought you were saying something different. Sensory Information is not the starting point. Sensory information itself is filtered based on some pre-existing basic rules. Where are these derived from?
If you just try carefully look, you shall see that ``filter`` (i.e. logical conclusions) is annexed to sensory information. First entity is raw sensory information which is then filtered by a logical mind and in this way gets ready for empirical verification.
Regards!
i
``Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science``
Whatever gave you that idea!! It is not by accident that scientific theories are logically consistent. All scientists are well-grounded in mathematics which is a strict form of logic.
I already have mentioned the following in my interact # 13:
``Actually a functional human mind works logically. I remember I could write logical assertions in those times also when I knew nothing of the theory of logic. I still have premises-conclusion patterned my own writings of that time. Scientists are also sane persons in all respects. They may not formally know the theory of logic but unconsciously, they do keep scientific theories in proper logical order. I do not say that scientists are ``illogical``. If I thought so then why I tried to show in the previous interact that many many theories of science are the product of logic? Scientists are logical. I accept this. But they are logical just unformally and unconsciously. They do not know that they act, behave and think in accordence with the principles of logic. They disregard theory of logic on the basis of certain intellectual mistakes.``
Furthermore, my interact # 27 includes the following:
``Now I tell what is the ``logic`` of Science. If you go through the ``criteria`` of ``Peer Reviewed Science Journals``, you will find that in order to get your work published, it should contain handsome number of ``citations`` to already published works. This is just an easy way to ensure consistency in different scientific researches. Under this system, you only can ``cite`` already published theories but you cannot criticize already published scientific theories. If you ``criticize``, your work shall not be published. Simple is that. This process is like a valid argument which can have false premises or conclusions!!!! Even false things can have internal consistency. Example is such a valid argument which has false premises and conclusion etc.``
Secondly you say that scientists are expert of mathematics, which is strict form of logic.
Here I accept that scientists are expert of mathematics. But Mathematics is not the only ``strict`` form of logic. Deductive Logic is also strict form of logic. Inductive logic is lose form logic but most of our thinking exists in inductive form. Are scientists not interested in the facts regarding the characteristics of their own minds (i.e. thinking)...???
And I had written following words in my interact # 3:
``Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.``
Your words:
``But you and ``science`` still hold that Newton`s laws are still valid for the cases of ordinary massive objects having ordinary speeds. I do not even think so..``
They are `valid` in the sense of being good enough approximations for practical purposes. Nobody claims anything more.
Ok I give you a ``Practical`` task. There is a stationary object. Now I ask you to please make it move with constant velocity motion.
What you will do...???
(i) Either you shall not apply force.
Or
(ii) You shall apply force.
If you shall NOT apply force, then you could not change its state of rest. (as per first law)
If you shall apply force, then that object shall not move with constant velocity because as a result of force, it shall move with acceleration...!!!!!! (as per second law)
but your task was to make it move with constant velocity....!!!!!!
Motion has its very complicated dynamics. Physics has not been able to capture the real dynamics of motion.
Your Words:
``Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test ``
This is where I thought you were saying something different. Sensory Information is not the starting point. Sensory information itself is filtered based on some pre-existing basic rules. Where are these derived from?
If you just try carefully look, you shall see that ``filter`` (i.e. logical conclusions) is annexed to sensory information. First entity is raw sensory information which is then filtered by a logical mind and in this way gets ready for empirical verification.
Regards!
i
#28 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 3:23:39 am
Re: # 22
``The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?``
That understanding might help keep the conflict between science and theology (if any) from being miscast as a conflict between science and philosophy. Thanks again.
Yes off course there are teleological and attitudnal conflicts between theology and Philosophy. Philosophy runs after deep and detailed comprehensions of concepts. The task before religious theology is to ensure complete compliance to official theological doctrines. Conflisct starts when philosophy, after having learnt basic things from theology, starts cricizing the theology. Since philosophy usually reaches to many deep comprehensions as well, so theology also takes many things from philosophy. But officially, theology cannot tolerate any form of deviance whether it is philosophical or scientific.
There had been many ups and downs of this conflict in Islamic world. Please see my following article about this issue:
Scientific Revolution and Muslim World.
Regards!
``The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?``
That understanding might help keep the conflict between science and theology (if any) from being miscast as a conflict between science and philosophy. Thanks again.
Yes off course there are teleological and attitudnal conflicts between theology and Philosophy. Philosophy runs after deep and detailed comprehensions of concepts. The task before religious theology is to ensure complete compliance to official theological doctrines. Conflisct starts when philosophy, after having learnt basic things from theology, starts cricizing the theology. Since philosophy usually reaches to many deep comprehensions as well, so theology also takes many things from philosophy. But officially, theology cannot tolerate any form of deviance whether it is philosophical or scientific.
There had been many ups and downs of this conflict in Islamic world. Please see my following article about this issue:
Scientific Revolution and Muslim World.
Regards!
#27 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 2:57:38 am
Re: # 26
Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent.
Yes I agree that official Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. But the same is also true for official science also, but in a somewhat different sense.
As a matter of fact, there are many many ``un-official`` scientists in our world who are presently thinking in opposite direction to many of ``empirically verified`` scientific theories. Once I contacted a responsible and renowned Pakistani figure of science. I wanted to get my work against Special Relativity Theory reviewed by him. He however told me that officially Special Theory still exists. But actually Special Theory is a closed case. He told me that now this theory is being taught only on secondary school levels. Secondly even 30 years back, science journals used to receive huge numbers of working papers intended to refute Special Theory but as a policy matter, science journals do not publish anything against Special Theory. The editors of science journals do not even bother to study those working papers and throw them to dust bin.
This is the true face of ``science``.
The second point also deserves comments. It states: ``The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent.``
Now I tell what is the ``logic`` of Science. If you go through the ``criteria`` of ``Peer Reviewed Science Journals``, you will find that in order to get your work published, it should contain handsome number of ``citations`` to already published works. This is just an easy way to ensure consistency in different scientific researches. Under this system, you only can ``cite`` already published theories but you cannot criticize already published scientific theories. If you ``criticize``, your work shall not be published. Simple is that. This process is like a valid argument which can have false premises or conclusions!!!! Even false things can have internal consistency. Example is such a valid argument which has false premises and conclusion etc.
Regards!
Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent.
Yes I agree that official Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. But the same is also true for official science also, but in a somewhat different sense.
As a matter of fact, there are many many ``un-official`` scientists in our world who are presently thinking in opposite direction to many of ``empirically verified`` scientific theories. Once I contacted a responsible and renowned Pakistani figure of science. I wanted to get my work against Special Relativity Theory reviewed by him. He however told me that officially Special Theory still exists. But actually Special Theory is a closed case. He told me that now this theory is being taught only on secondary school levels. Secondly even 30 years back, science journals used to receive huge numbers of working papers intended to refute Special Theory but as a policy matter, science journals do not publish anything against Special Theory. The editors of science journals do not even bother to study those working papers and throw them to dust bin.
This is the true face of ``science``.
The second point also deserves comments. It states: ``The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent.``
Now I tell what is the ``logic`` of Science. If you go through the ``criteria`` of ``Peer Reviewed Science Journals``, you will find that in order to get your work published, it should contain handsome number of ``citations`` to already published works. This is just an easy way to ensure consistency in different scientific researches. Under this system, you only can ``cite`` already published theories but you cannot criticize already published scientific theories. If you ``criticize``, your work shall not be published. Simple is that. This process is like a valid argument which can have false premises or conclusions!!!! Even false things can have internal consistency. Example is such a valid argument which has false premises and conclusion etc.
Regards!
#26 Posted by khuram on March 26, 2007 2:18:27 am
@ freethinker #24:
[...] -- There are not many conflicts between pre-postmodern philosophy and science. Conflicts between the two mostly arise in interpreting and extrapolating the scientific theories. Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent. -- [...]
Here I am in need to clarify my ideological background. But before it I also should clarify that even ``Postmodern Philosophy`` is not having any serious conflict with science. Let me admit that Philosophy already has completely surrendered before science in 20th century. I am NOT representing any conventional philosophy like pre-postmodernism or post modernism. Neither of them are having any clash with science. Let me also state that Philosophy is not the name of ``pre-postmodernism`` or ``postmodernism``. Philosophy is the name of logical study of facts and ideas.
I know that Will Durant already stated that physical sciences have taken the problems of Philosophy and have solved them using its own methods. In this way Philosophy itself has lost all its importance because now onward, important things are only physical sciences. Major attacks on Philosophy came from the side of Philosophers themselves. Positivist Philosophy favoured extreme type of ``laboratory experimental method`` and rejected any logical inquiry by calling it mere speculative. Linguistic Philosophy rejected all the metaphysical inquiries and favoured only experimental verifiability of concepts. Science completely won the bettle against philosophy because Philosophers themselves surrenderred before science. Both Positivists and Linguistics rejected Epistemological inquiries also. Will Durant also disregarded Epistemology and even the theory of logic. I was however never convinced by these philosophies like Positivism or Linguistics. My main area of interest is still Epistemology. But my comprehension of even Epistemology is also complete non-conventional. I have tried to understand Epistemology in the light of basic concepts of Cultural Anthropology. I am therefore representing a whole different type of Epistemology which doesn`t exist anywhere else. Cultural Anthropology was developed on to its present tone by Sir James Frazer at the end of 19th century and in early 20th century. Realistically speaking, old big names of Epistemology were not familiar to Cultural Anthropology. On the other side, it should be difficult to deny the importance of any influence of the works of Sir James Frazer. His work (i.e. Golden Bough) could influence theory of Epistemology as well. As a result of this work, it was not very difficult to judge just how do we think and just how new ideas or new theories come to human mind. My main research in Epistemology is that just how do we think, what we can think, what we cannot think, just how new ideas or theories come to human mind etc. Let me also clarify that science is officially unaware of just how any new idea or theory comes to human mind. I shall be thankful to the respected chowk members if anyone could show me any scientific theory which might have explained the issue of just how new ideas or theories come to humam mind. Karl Popper also faced this problem but he could not find any satisfactory solution. His opinion was: ``there is no logical method for the acquisition of new concepts``.
In science, it is the ``scientific research method`` which attempts to discover new theories. I realized, while evaluating ``scientific research method`` that it had no answer to question that from where ``hypothesis`` comes. Science works on hypothesis but does not know where it comes from. I am, having the opinion that ``hypothesis`` comes from ``mind``. But study of ``mind``, being an ``abstract`` entity, is outside the scope of science. So science, in my honest assessment, doesn`t know where ``hypothesis`` comes from.
Secondly, at first I was inspired by ``Idealism`` and ``Pure Rationalism``. But soon after studying ``Cultural Anthropology``, I realized that ``Pure Rationalism`` is actually a misleading ideology. I already have explained just how ``Pure Rationalism`` is a misleading ideology, in some of my previous interacts in another chowk article about ``strings theory``. Let me also clarify that any other branch of Philosophy still has not rejected ``Pure Rationalism`` on those grounds which I presented in my those previous interacts. ``Pure Rationalism`` is really practically impossible to exist because it really goes against the hard limitation of ``Deductive Logic``, which itself is supposed to be the main piller of ``Pure Rationalism``. The ``discovery`` of that ``hard limitation of deductive logic``, to some extent, is my original discovery. It was officially known that information of ``conclusion`` has to be already contained in ``premises``. Another guiding factor for me was a statement of David Hume which asserted that ``Rational Judgment is just an association of distinct sensations``. So in this way, finally I found that not a single word of ``conclusion`` can come from outside of ``premises``. At first I tried to apply this result on the ``Pure Rational`` Philosophy of Hegel, which led me to the rejection of ``Pure Rationalism``.
What I know out of the study of ``Epistemology`` is that human knowledge consists of three layers which are (i) instinctive, (ii) perceptional and; (iii) reason based. All types of human knowledge belongs to either one or more of these three basic layers. ``Instinctive`` and ``perceptional`` knowledge are inferior to ``reason based knowledge`` because ``reason based knowledge`` can be found only in humans whereas perceptional and instinctive knowledge is shared by humans and animals both. All of the ``organized human knowledge`` actually belongs to the layer of ``reason based knowledge``. ``Reason based knowledge`` itself is not more than logical conclusions (i.e. all types of logic including deductive, inductive and analogical) derived out of basic perceptional knowledge.
After it, I came to know that Will Durant had severly criticized and disregarded the theory of logic on the basis of those points which could not convince me. I also came to know that ``Science`` also emphasizes on so-called ``Empirical Knowledge`` and erroneously degrades all forms of ``Rational Knowledge``. In this way, science is actually going against superior form of knowledge which is ``reason based knowledge``. So, this clash between science and philosophy has been started on chowk. Therefore it shall be useless to try to find roots of this clash in the philosophy of ``Postmodernism``.
On chowk, I am struggling against science with the view to restore the importance of Philosophy. I am having interactions with many Philosophers of world as well and I am also struggling against them because they are the people who have completely surrendered before science. In fact, Philosophy has died in our contemporary world. Philosophy is having no real task before it. For example, what Linguistic Philosophy has assigned task to Philosophy is just to do ``linguistic analysis of words of language`` with the view to refine or clarify already available concepts. I was also inspired by the works of Pakistani writer Syed Ali Abbas Jalapuri. He also assigns very limited task to philosophy which is to just determine the social values in the light of scientific discoveries. I am having the opinion that to discover new ideas and theories is actually the task of philosophy and not the task of science. Science only experimentally verifies the philosophical discoveries. Galileo only had experimentally verified already established Greek Philosophical views. Johannas Kapler also just experimentally verified philosophical type views of Copernicus. Michealsons and Morley just had experimentally verified already established philosophical type view about the existence of ``Eather``. The same experiment later on served as the foundation stone of Einstien`s ``Special Theory of Relativity``.
Currently, Philosophers all over the world are preaching the false idea that we should stop thinking and should do only experiments without any prior thinking. I am having the view that we should not stop thinking because we can think. Our thinking still can produce many new ideas. To be able to `think` is an important faculty of human mind. Humans should pay proper respect to their own unique faculty. Now science openly makes fun of act of thinking by calling it ``arm-chair philosopher`s activity``. Science forgets that Einstien was also an arm-chair thinker. And surely, I had learnt the idea of ``Theoretical Scientist`` out of the writings of Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. We also should try to know what is thinking? how do we think? what is the process of our thinking? etc. etc. These are the tasks of Philosophy and are not the tasks of Science. Theories come from thinking process and not come from physical laboratories. Human thinking process is different from the process of ``scientific research method``. Thats why, I am against currently established ``scientific research method``.
And recently I have found some solid points against ``Idealism`` as well. It was due to this reason that I asked question about the continuous or discrete nature of ordinary motion in my previous interact. And ... agar sirf kaam chal rahe hon to science ka masla khatam ho jata hai. With this attitude, science cannot reach to any final theory.
Regards!
[...] -- There are not many conflicts between pre-postmodern philosophy and science. Conflicts between the two mostly arise in interpreting and extrapolating the scientific theories. Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent. -- [...]
Here I am in need to clarify my ideological background. But before it I also should clarify that even ``Postmodern Philosophy`` is not having any serious conflict with science. Let me admit that Philosophy already has completely surrendered before science in 20th century. I am NOT representing any conventional philosophy like pre-postmodernism or post modernism. Neither of them are having any clash with science. Let me also state that Philosophy is not the name of ``pre-postmodernism`` or ``postmodernism``. Philosophy is the name of logical study of facts and ideas.
I know that Will Durant already stated that physical sciences have taken the problems of Philosophy and have solved them using its own methods. In this way Philosophy itself has lost all its importance because now onward, important things are only physical sciences. Major attacks on Philosophy came from the side of Philosophers themselves. Positivist Philosophy favoured extreme type of ``laboratory experimental method`` and rejected any logical inquiry by calling it mere speculative. Linguistic Philosophy rejected all the metaphysical inquiries and favoured only experimental verifiability of concepts. Science completely won the bettle against philosophy because Philosophers themselves surrenderred before science. Both Positivists and Linguistics rejected Epistemological inquiries also. Will Durant also disregarded Epistemology and even the theory of logic. I was however never convinced by these philosophies like Positivism or Linguistics. My main area of interest is still Epistemology. But my comprehension of even Epistemology is also complete non-conventional. I have tried to understand Epistemology in the light of basic concepts of Cultural Anthropology. I am therefore representing a whole different type of Epistemology which doesn`t exist anywhere else. Cultural Anthropology was developed on to its present tone by Sir James Frazer at the end of 19th century and in early 20th century. Realistically speaking, old big names of Epistemology were not familiar to Cultural Anthropology. On the other side, it should be difficult to deny the importance of any influence of the works of Sir James Frazer. His work (i.e. Golden Bough) could influence theory of Epistemology as well. As a result of this work, it was not very difficult to judge just how do we think and just how new ideas or new theories come to human mind. My main research in Epistemology is that just how do we think, what we can think, what we cannot think, just how new ideas or theories come to human mind etc. Let me also clarify that science is officially unaware of just how any new idea or theory comes to human mind. I shall be thankful to the respected chowk members if anyone could show me any scientific theory which might have explained the issue of just how new ideas or theories come to humam mind. Karl Popper also faced this problem but he could not find any satisfactory solution. His opinion was: ``there is no logical method for the acquisition of new concepts``.
In science, it is the ``scientific research method`` which attempts to discover new theories. I realized, while evaluating ``scientific research method`` that it had no answer to question that from where ``hypothesis`` comes. Science works on hypothesis but does not know where it comes from. I am, having the opinion that ``hypothesis`` comes from ``mind``. But study of ``mind``, being an ``abstract`` entity, is outside the scope of science. So science, in my honest assessment, doesn`t know where ``hypothesis`` comes from.
Secondly, at first I was inspired by ``Idealism`` and ``Pure Rationalism``. But soon after studying ``Cultural Anthropology``, I realized that ``Pure Rationalism`` is actually a misleading ideology. I already have explained just how ``Pure Rationalism`` is a misleading ideology, in some of my previous interacts in another chowk article about ``strings theory``. Let me also clarify that any other branch of Philosophy still has not rejected ``Pure Rationalism`` on those grounds which I presented in my those previous interacts. ``Pure Rationalism`` is really practically impossible to exist because it really goes against the hard limitation of ``Deductive Logic``, which itself is supposed to be the main piller of ``Pure Rationalism``. The ``discovery`` of that ``hard limitation of deductive logic``, to some extent, is my original discovery. It was officially known that information of ``conclusion`` has to be already contained in ``premises``. Another guiding factor for me was a statement of David Hume which asserted that ``Rational Judgment is just an association of distinct sensations``. So in this way, finally I found that not a single word of ``conclusion`` can come from outside of ``premises``. At first I tried to apply this result on the ``Pure Rational`` Philosophy of Hegel, which led me to the rejection of ``Pure Rationalism``.
What I know out of the study of ``Epistemology`` is that human knowledge consists of three layers which are (i) instinctive, (ii) perceptional and; (iii) reason based. All types of human knowledge belongs to either one or more of these three basic layers. ``Instinctive`` and ``perceptional`` knowledge are inferior to ``reason based knowledge`` because ``reason based knowledge`` can be found only in humans whereas perceptional and instinctive knowledge is shared by humans and animals both. All of the ``organized human knowledge`` actually belongs to the layer of ``reason based knowledge``. ``Reason based knowledge`` itself is not more than logical conclusions (i.e. all types of logic including deductive, inductive and analogical) derived out of basic perceptional knowledge.
After it, I came to know that Will Durant had severly criticized and disregarded the theory of logic on the basis of those points which could not convince me. I also came to know that ``Science`` also emphasizes on so-called ``Empirical Knowledge`` and erroneously degrades all forms of ``Rational Knowledge``. In this way, science is actually going against superior form of knowledge which is ``reason based knowledge``. So, this clash between science and philosophy has been started on chowk. Therefore it shall be useless to try to find roots of this clash in the philosophy of ``Postmodernism``.
On chowk, I am struggling against science with the view to restore the importance of Philosophy. I am having interactions with many Philosophers of world as well and I am also struggling against them because they are the people who have completely surrendered before science. In fact, Philosophy has died in our contemporary world. Philosophy is having no real task before it. For example, what Linguistic Philosophy has assigned task to Philosophy is just to do ``linguistic analysis of words of language`` with the view to refine or clarify already available concepts. I was also inspired by the works of Pakistani writer Syed Ali Abbas Jalapuri. He also assigns very limited task to philosophy which is to just determine the social values in the light of scientific discoveries. I am having the opinion that to discover new ideas and theories is actually the task of philosophy and not the task of science. Science only experimentally verifies the philosophical discoveries. Galileo only had experimentally verified already established Greek Philosophical views. Johannas Kapler also just experimentally verified philosophical type views of Copernicus. Michealsons and Morley just had experimentally verified already established philosophical type view about the existence of ``Eather``. The same experiment later on served as the foundation stone of Einstien`s ``Special Theory of Relativity``.
Currently, Philosophers all over the world are preaching the false idea that we should stop thinking and should do only experiments without any prior thinking. I am having the view that we should not stop thinking because we can think. Our thinking still can produce many new ideas. To be able to `think` is an important faculty of human mind. Humans should pay proper respect to their own unique faculty. Now science openly makes fun of act of thinking by calling it ``arm-chair philosopher`s activity``. Science forgets that Einstien was also an arm-chair thinker. And surely, I had learnt the idea of ``Theoretical Scientist`` out of the writings of Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy. We also should try to know what is thinking? how do we think? what is the process of our thinking? etc. etc. These are the tasks of Philosophy and are not the tasks of Science. Theories come from thinking process and not come from physical laboratories. Human thinking process is different from the process of ``scientific research method``. Thats why, I am against currently established ``scientific research method``.
And recently I have found some solid points against ``Idealism`` as well. It was due to this reason that I asked question about the continuous or discrete nature of ordinary motion in my previous interact. And ... agar sirf kaam chal rahe hon to science ka masla khatam ho jata hai. With this attitude, science cannot reach to any final theory.
Regards!
#25 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 4:56:36 pm
Thanks, Gill Sahib. We agree.
If ``postmodern philosophy`` is the new label for whatever shouldn`t be called philosophy, then ofcourse, philosophy by definition has nothing to do with it.
If ``postmodern philosophy`` is the new label for whatever shouldn`t be called philosophy, then ofcourse, philosophy by definition has nothing to do with it.
#24 Posted by freethinker on March 25, 2007 4:08:02 pm
kaalchakra:
There are not many conflicts between pre-postmodern philosophy and science. Conflicts between the two mostly arise in interpreting and extrapolating the scientific theories. Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent.
I don`t know if I have answered your question adequately or not because I did not fully understand your question.
With regards,
Mohammad Gill
There are not many conflicts between pre-postmodern philosophy and science. Conflicts between the two mostly arise in interpreting and extrapolating the scientific theories. Philosophy does not reject a theory which is verified by empirical evidence. The scientists use as much logic as is needed in formulating their theories which are logically consistent.
I don`t know if I have answered your question adequately or not because I did not fully understand your question.
With regards,
Mohammad Gill
#23 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 3:17:34 pm
Raw_Dust
If you are reading this, you might notice some resonance between the (rather poorly stated) argument in # 18 and the notion of wyrd you were mentioning somewhere else (so you can see, the reference here is not to some fate or kismet, but to an overarching, timeless ordering and regulating cosmic principle that is at once `divine` and `logical.`)
If you are reading this, you might notice some resonance between the (rather poorly stated) argument in # 18 and the notion of wyrd you were mentioning somewhere else (so you can see, the reference here is not to some fate or kismet, but to an overarching, timeless ordering and regulating cosmic principle that is at once `divine` and `logical.`)
#22 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 2:59:39 pm
Khuram Sahib
Goodnight. Would be great to hear your views tomorrow on the issue raised in # 14:
``The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?``
That understanding might help keep the conflict between science and theology (if any) from being miscast as a conflict between science and philosophy. Thanks again.
Goodnight. Would be great to hear your views tomorrow on the issue raised in # 14:
``The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?``
That understanding might help keep the conflict between science and theology (if any) from being miscast as a conflict between science and philosophy. Thanks again.
#21 Posted by khuram on March 25, 2007 2:38:25 pm
Re: # 12
Khurram
I do not mean that laws of science are just derived out of basic definitions. But basic definitions do have role. Galileo did not know the concept of gravitational force, so just because of it, he could not reach to the precise statement of first law of motion; even though actually he was the person who performed those experiments which ultimately resulted in first law by Newton. Do you think that Newton could reach to laws of motion if he didn`t know basic concepts of ``inertia``, ``acceleration``, ``force`` etc. etc. ...???
Now I cannot write any more because becoming sleepy, so shall discuss your other points tomorrow. One thing which I can add now is that these ``basic`` definitions are also not any final word or reality. You are right that these things are good only for practical purposes. Jab hamarey kaam chal rahe hain to in cheezon ko charrney ki kia zaroorat hai...??? This is the attitude and behaviour of science. Attitude of Philosophy is whole different. It even questions the existence of ordinary visible things. Philosophy has nothing to do with practical matters. Philosophy runs after detailed comprehensions. If science is like a more efficient computer, philosophy is like somewhat duffer human!
One thing I wanted to ask from you and Gill Sahib, or from any other person well conversant with Physics. My question is about ordinary motion of ordinary visible objects. Question is that Accoring to Physics, ordinary motion has to be ``continuous`` or can be ``discrete``? I had read out of lectures of Dr. Abdul Salam that spherical rotational motion such as swing of cricket ball has to be discrete and cannot be continuous. My own idea is that all the motion whatsoever, has to be discrete and cannot be continuous. But I do not know official point of view of Physics regarding all types of motion. I do think however that Newton`s laws might have been based on the conception of ``continuous`` motion.
Thanks in anticipation for guidance in this matter.
Regards!
Khurram
I do not mean that laws of science are just derived out of basic definitions. But basic definitions do have role. Galileo did not know the concept of gravitational force, so just because of it, he could not reach to the precise statement of first law of motion; even though actually he was the person who performed those experiments which ultimately resulted in first law by Newton. Do you think that Newton could reach to laws of motion if he didn`t know basic concepts of ``inertia``, ``acceleration``, ``force`` etc. etc. ...???
Now I cannot write any more because becoming sleepy, so shall discuss your other points tomorrow. One thing which I can add now is that these ``basic`` definitions are also not any final word or reality. You are right that these things are good only for practical purposes. Jab hamarey kaam chal rahe hain to in cheezon ko charrney ki kia zaroorat hai...??? This is the attitude and behaviour of science. Attitude of Philosophy is whole different. It even questions the existence of ordinary visible things. Philosophy has nothing to do with practical matters. Philosophy runs after detailed comprehensions. If science is like a more efficient computer, philosophy is like somewhat duffer human!
One thing I wanted to ask from you and Gill Sahib, or from any other person well conversant with Physics. My question is about ordinary motion of ordinary visible objects. Question is that Accoring to Physics, ordinary motion has to be ``continuous`` or can be ``discrete``? I had read out of lectures of Dr. Abdul Salam that spherical rotational motion such as swing of cricket ball has to be discrete and cannot be continuous. My own idea is that all the motion whatsoever, has to be discrete and cannot be continuous. But I do not know official point of view of Physics regarding all types of motion. I do think however that Newton`s laws might have been based on the conception of ``continuous`` motion.
Thanks in anticipation for guidance in this matter.
Regards!
#20 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 2:20:14 pm
ooops, please read that as ``will there still remain fundamental contradictions between philosophy and science?`` sorry about that typo.
#19 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 2:12:27 pm
Gill Sahib,
If you find time, I would still be interested in your opinion on: If Theology is not mixed up with philosophy (by the simple rhetorical trick of each being labeled as the other), then will there still remain fundamental contradictions between the two? Or could they then become necessary complements of each other?
Thanks in advance.
If you find time, I would still be interested in your opinion on: If Theology is not mixed up with philosophy (by the simple rhetorical trick of each being labeled as the other), then will there still remain fundamental contradictions between the two? Or could they then become necessary complements of each other?
Thanks in advance.
#18 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 1:02:57 pm
Reality is God. It is self-generative (Swaym bhu).
LOL.... Ignore that random thought.
Khurram, the two are mutually constrained in a circular, regenerative fashion. The key seems to be to bear in mind the word ``constrained,`` and not replace it by ``determined.``
Constraint + Creativity seems to constitute most of causality.
Finally,
``Sensory information itself is filtered based on some pre-existing basic rules. Where are these derived from?``
Most importantly, probably, from Kaalchakra (LOL), Time - individual and collective accretions of the past, and the connective leaps the bits of the past sometimes allow us to make into the future (the dance of creativity), the guiding principles of it all being survival, happiness, and transcendence (what we mythically call satyam, shivam, sundaram).
LOL.... Ignore that random thought.
Khurram, the two are mutually constrained in a circular, regenerative fashion. The key seems to be to bear in mind the word ``constrained,`` and not replace it by ``determined.``
Constraint + Creativity seems to constitute most of causality.
Finally,
``Sensory information itself is filtered based on some pre-existing basic rules. Where are these derived from?``
Most importantly, probably, from Kaalchakra (LOL), Time - individual and collective accretions of the past, and the connective leaps the bits of the past sometimes allow us to make into the future (the dance of creativity), the guiding principles of it all being survival, happiness, and transcendence (what we mythically call satyam, shivam, sundaram).
#17 Posted by khurram on March 25, 2007 12:46:15 pm
Re #13 khuram,
I guess you are not really saying what I thought you were saying when I wrote #12.
``Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science``
Whatever gave you that idea!! It is not by accident that scientific theories are logically consistent. All scientists are well-grounded in mathematics which is a strict form of logic.
``But you and ``science`` still hold that Newton`s laws are still valid for the cases of ordinary massive objects having ordinary speeds. I do not even think so..``
They are `valid` in the sense of being good enough approximations for practical purposes. Nobody claims anything more.
``Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test ``
This is where I thought you were saying something different. Sensory Information is not the starting point. Sensory information itself is filtered based on some pre-existing basic rules. Where are these derived from?
I guess you are not really saying what I thought you were saying when I wrote #12.
``Contemporary science disregards logic and do not treat logic as integral part of science``
Whatever gave you that idea!! It is not by accident that scientific theories are logically consistent. All scientists are well-grounded in mathematics which is a strict form of logic.
``But you and ``science`` still hold that Newton`s laws are still valid for the cases of ordinary massive objects having ordinary speeds. I do not even think so..``
They are `valid` in the sense of being good enough approximations for practical purposes. Nobody claims anything more.
``Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test ``
This is where I thought you were saying something different. Sensory Information is not the starting point. Sensory information itself is filtered based on some pre-existing basic rules. Where are these derived from?
#16 Posted by khurram on March 25, 2007 12:39:02 pm
Re #15, ``Social constructionists would view all reality as socially constructed. Even theology (unless some social constructionist sets us right). ``
Indeed!
This begs the question of what is `true` and `real` in these social constructions.
Also, if reality is derived from social relationships, then what are the social relationships derived from?
Indeed!
This begs the question of what is `true` and `real` in these social constructions.
Also, if reality is derived from social relationships, then what are the social relationships derived from?
#15 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 12:27:00 pm
Khurram
Social constructionists would view all reality as socially constructed. Even theology (unless some social constructionist sets us right).
Social constructionists would view all reality as socially constructed. Even theology (unless some social constructionist sets us right).
#14 Posted by KaalChakra on March 25, 2007 12:05:36 pm
khuram
The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?
freethinker
If we took theology out of philosophy (as and when the two are ``mixed up``), will there still remain any inherent conflict between science and philosophy?
The theologians of the Christian church with which I was associated despised philosophers and decried philosophy. Are there any attitudinal and teleological conflicts between theology and philosophy? How about in the world of Islam?
freethinker
If we took theology out of philosophy (as and when the two are ``mixed up``), will there still remain any inherent conflict between science and philosophy?
#13 Posted by khuram on March 25, 2007 11:37:11 am
There is confusion in your thinking. Science is constructed both by rational arguments and empirical evidence. Science needs both of them. Pure rationalism can (and frequently does) lead to more than one rational conjecture, hypothesis, or philosophical theory, if you will, but science uses only that theory which is supported by empirical evidence. So there is no conflict between science and philosophy on that account.
I thought that I was talking with a person to whom I already discussed the issues of rational vs empirical. I already had stated in one of my previous intereacts the following true procedure that science should follow:
I thought that I was talking with a person to whom I already discussed the issues of rational vs empirical. I already had stated in one of my previous intereacts the following true procedure that science should follow: