The Science Loop: How Biased Thinking Is The Seed Of Junk Science
In an article in The Skeptical Inquirer May/June 2019 issue, an author dissects a Flat Earther school board presentation,seemingly surprised that it was “intelligently designed,” as if the key issue with junk science such as the flat earth model was the low intelligence, or poor communication skills, of its adherents.
What is at the root of junk science, however, is neither stupidity nor lack of sophistication but the intellectual entrenchment due to a set of cognitive biases shared by scientists and laypersons alike.
John P.A. Ioannidis, a Stanford physician-scientist who has been studying scientific scholarship for years, defined bias as “the combination of various design, data, analysis, and presentation factors that tend to produce research findings when they should not be produced.”
In the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge, the two most problematic sources of distortion are confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.
Confirmation bias occurs when one pays attention to information that supports prior beliefs while rejecting anything that may challenge or oppose them.
Motivated reasoning is a strategy to deal with challenging or opposing data by fitting them in so that they support — or at least do not contradict — the existing worldview.
There is nothing simplistic or unintelligent about the process of shoring up an entrenched belief through the use of cognitive biases.
In fact, Stony Brook political scientists Charles Taber and Milton Lodge noted that in all academic disciplines “(r)esearch findings confirming a hypothesis are accepted more or less at face value, but when confronted with contrary evidence, we become “motivated skeptics” (…), and only when all the counter arguing fails do we rethink our beliefs.”
University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, the creator of the Centre for Open Science, and first author of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines — intended to curb motivated reasoning through best practices for research design and dissemination — explained the process to journalist Philip Ball.
Whether one is a scientist or not, “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization,” or fitting what one thinks one observes to what one wants to see. Whereas confirmation bias is a filtering mechanism, motivated reasoning both filters and distorts the influx of new information.
Taber and Lodge extended their observations of biased thinking to non-scientists as well, finding that, in fact, “those who feel the strongest about the issue and are the most sophisticated — strengthen their attitudes in ways not warranted by the evidence.”
Thus, our Skeptical Inquirer journalist should not have been surprised by the apparent cleverness of the flat earth presentation. It probably took a fair amount of commitment to the cause, and flat-out creativity, to contrive convincing arguments.
How can scientific practice and science dissemination be made more independent of cognitive biases or social and intellectual entrenchment?
One tentative answer is that sticking with best practices will allow science to self-correct through ongoing refutation and discussion.
The scientific method, at least as framed by the philosopher Karl Popper (pictured top), appears to limit bias by specifying that scientists first seek to falsify or disprove their hypotheses, and only then attempt to find support for — but never “prove” — them through different sets of experiments.
Scientists often develop hypotheses inductively — from examples to generalizations — based on observations.
Induction, however, may be used not only to identify new ideas but also to “prove” shaky theories because it cannot confirm the absolute truth of a statement. Popper’s famous example of this is the black swan problem.
If all observations of swans are of white ones, the inductively based hypothesis on swan pigmentation will have to be: “All swans are white.”
But this is a hypothesis: the best guess based on preliminary data. Until one observes a black swan, one cannot falsify — or refute — this hypothesis by providing evidence to the contrary.
It is essential that when one sets out to test the “all swans are white” hypothesis, one does so with data not used to formulate it. This gives one a fair chance to see whether the hypothesis may be refuted.
Science still never “proves” anything, merely provides evidence-based theories that get more sophisticated and better at predicting the real world through deductively formed hypotheses.
This inductive-deductive loop (see graphic) is the basis for much work in the sciences and social sciences: One observes and inductively develops some insights and hypotheses based on the preliminary data.
These give rise — deductively — to hypotheses that are subjected to falsification using entirely new data. If these hypotheses cannot be falsified, there is a chance one has a valuable insight that still needs a whole lot more testing.
So far, so good. Nosek, however, pointed out a common violation of this falsification process:
“One basic fact that is always getting forgotten is that you can’t generate hypotheses and test them with the same data. (…) At present we mix up exploratory and confirmatory research.” When scientists do that, motivated reasoning can take over experimental design or data analysis. In such cases, according to Nosek, “we have already made the decision about what to do or to think, and our ‘explanation’ of our reasoning is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do — or to believe — anyway.”
Nosek and others have studied cognitive biases that influence the design of experiments and the interpretation of data.
Publication and funding biases researched by Ioannidis distort the availability and reporting of results, adding social and political dimensions to the distortions of science. The practice of science is, indeed, socially determined.
Thomas Kuhn described this social culture of scientific research as a framework of “normal” science punctuated by paradigm shifts when new ways of thinking first disrupt, then displace, the orthodoxies.
The epidemiologist Ludwik Fleck had made similar observations about “closed systems of opinion” decades before Kuhn.
Fleck noted that these systems were self-reinforcing socio-cognitive constructs that resisted outlier ideas with “tenacity.” Thus, the question of bias in science may not necessarily be a problem with the inductive-deductive method but with the human tendency to act … human.
The self-corrective mechanisms in science show evidence that despite individual cognitive biases and socially-induced systemic distortions, researchers following the scientific method are still our best bet for a sustained methodology of discovery.
Remember the heated debate over the cause of ulcers? It was a big deal in the mid-1980s, at least for Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall, two Australian researchers who, after refuting the consensus hypothesis that stomach acid caused ulcers, were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for their work showing that bacteria such as Helicobacter pylori were responsible for the condition.
The ulcer case is by no means an anomaly. Scientists are reacting to biased work all the time.
In March 2019, ecologist Atte Komonen and his colleagues corrected the “strongly popularized unsubstantiated claims” about the imminent extinction of insects that, nonetheless, made waves earlier in 2019 in a peer-reviewed journal and in the media.
The methodological flaws of the original study included a biased literature search: “By including the word (declin*), there is a bias towards literature that reports declines (…) If you search for declines, you find declines.”
Even Ioannidis’ research sustained constructive criticism by Steven Goodman and Sander Greenland who wrote, echoing Popper, that instead of proving that “most published claims are untrue,” Ioannidis showed “that no study or combination of studies can ever provide convincing evidence.”
Enforced consensus and unmitigated social, professional or financial pressures are bound to distort the processes of questioning and falsification.
There are, therefore, likely to entrench the cognitive biases of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. And biased science is the seed of junk science that germinates under the conditions of intellectual or political polarization.
Joanna Szurmak is a Research Services Librarian, University of Toronto Mississauga and a Ph.D. Candidate, Science & Technology Studies, York University
Read more at Financial Post
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
James McGinn
| #
Fleck noted that these systems were self-reinforcing socio-cognitive constructs that resisted outlier ideas with “tenacity.” Thus, the question of bias in science may not necessarily be a problem with the inductive-deductive method but with the human tendency to act … human.
Academics become highly emotional when confronting evidence that contradicts long held beliefs. Read this thread to see how an academic completely breaks down when confronting contradictions to long held assumptions about a very common chemical:
Robin Bedford’s detailed dispute of James McGinn’s refutation of the standard model of hydrogen bonding between water molecules
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/hlb8csWSbpI
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Robin
| #
No, academics such as Robin Bedford get slightly emotional when confronted by such utter, utter, utter groundless fuckwittery peddled by a schizophrenic moron (how’s “Claudius” doing now he’s been banned from quora as well as you Jimmy?) with as much basic science know-how as an ant. Jimmy, sometimes when scientists are telling you that you are talking shite, it’s not because they are resisting outlier ideas with tenacity, it’s because you are genuinely talking shite. Had you ever actually stopped to consider that possibility? No of course you haven’t because you are “right” whereas the whole scientific community is “wrong”, so you will continue to hold on with tenacity to your outlier “idea” in the face of all dats, evidence and experiment. You will even go so far as to lie, by saying that such and such hasn’t been measured and can’t be measured when it can and routinely is. Dress it up how you like, populate whatever fora you wish, but at the end of the day your theories are simply shite dressed up as science. That is real pseudoscience.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robin,
Thanks for your comments to (or about) James McGinn. I need to research who Robin Bedford is and attempt to find where your previous conversations with him have been.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Chemistry’s Blunder:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics/20kYTZgv6B0
James McGinn / Self Declared Genius
Reply
James McGinn
| #
JMcG:
Robin, seeing that my scheme to besmirch science has been thwarted, might you take pity on me and allow me to ask you one last question: do you disbelieve in electrical gradient cancellation in general? Or just when it is applied to hydrogen bonding between water molecules?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
“What is at the root of junk science, however, is neither stupidity nor lack of sophistication but the intellectual entrenchment due to a set of cognitive biases shared by scientists and laypersons alike.”
I completely agree.
“All motion is purely relative and so there can be no preferred reference frame”.
Another example of bias, and “opinion” forced into the interpretation of Special Relativity.
After all, where is the experimental proof of this “belief”, or the mathematical imperative?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Ken,
You wrote: “Another example of bias, and “opinion” forced into the interpretation of Special Relativity. After all, where is the experimental proof of this “belief”?”
Einstein has stated (somewhere?): “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right,; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Some scientists, like Einstein, know that science (observations, experimental results) can never prove a scientific theory (idea) to be the truth; but observations, experimental results, can prove a scientific theory (idea) absolutely false.
Based upon your quote, I must conclude you are not a scientist that Einstein was.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James DeMeo
| #
With due respects, Michelson-Morley never got a “null” result, but an ether wind of 5 to 7.5 km/sec. Dayton Miller’s ether-drift work, atop Mt. Wilson over four seasonal epochs, identified an average 10 km/sec. ether wind. Many ether experiments claiming negative results actually got positive results, but were ignoring their own data, expecting ether velocities of hundreds of km/sec by prevailing Newtonian expections of a static ether. Einstein knew all this, but ignored it.
Now, if you get your “information” about such things from the “skeptics” or “Wikipedia” then of course you will be totaly ignorant of the facts of science history, wrongly distorted by nearly everyone. Einstein spoke well on many things, but his work on relativity was violated back in 1887, and later up into the 1930s. The cosmic ether of space was detected, repeatedly, thereby proving light-speed was variant depending upon preferred cosmic directions.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
According to Jerry you are not the scientist Einstein was which means you could well be a real scientist.
The result of Einstein’s theories is the abandoning or reason by physics. Without reason there is no possibility of proving something wrong. Instead of reason as a determinate of truth experts, like Einstein, reveal reality. If he asserts that E=mc^2 and results from reality disagree with him you invents a magical invisible particle (the neutrino) and change observable reality to conform the truth of the expert.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James & Robin,
Another source of junk science, that affects your theories of the ware molecules, is the use of an assumption known to be wrong and then believe that the conclusion is right.
A prime example of this is the model of the atom. The location electrons in an atom is based on the probability of finding an electron in that area. This has resulted in a model where the atom has s, p, and d shells projecting from the nucleus. The calculating of the probabilities begins with an assumption that the atom does not exist in a magnetic field since a magnetic field will cause the atom to take a path perpendicular to the magnetic field. This means the model atom does not exist on Earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy, or anywhere in the observable universe. All the atoms we encounter will be shaped like our solar system consisting of a disk of negative electrons with a magnetic field perpendicular to the disk. With such a model the atom will have directional forces (electrical and magnetic(energy)) that will interact with the forces of other atoms. Covalent bonds are not a result of “shared electrons” (ridiculous) but because atoms flip and their magnetic field bond to each other. Gaps in the outer shell of the orbiting electrons allow the atoms to mesh like gears reducing the distance between the magnetic poles and producing stronger bonds. This is why in a molecule consisting of two atoms, the atoms spin on opposite directions. The magnetic and electric fields of atoms combine to form molecules with their own fields.
Herb
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Are there any instances of breaking a molecule using just magnetic forces?
(I’ve searched using many variants of “breaking molecules using just magnetic forces” and found nothing.)
Reply
Robin
| #
Hi Herb,
Sorry but you assumptions and subsequent conclusions are incorrect. The atomic orbitals you refer to are for the hydrogen atom or hydrogenic single electron systems only. For multielectron systems things get more complex. Part of the complexity is how the electromagnetic field produced by each electron affects every other electron. Both the theory and modelling of multielectron systems is well established, including the modelling of multielectron systems in magnetic fields, and fits very well with experimental data (see, for instance density functional theory modelling of NMR spectroscopy). The idea of atoms “sharing” electrons in a covalent bond is what you are taught at high school, because jumping straight into the interpretation of wavefunctions using either a molecular orbital or valence bond theory (or qtaim, if you are a can) at that level is simply not possible. However, you will need to read up on these yourself before you try and dismantle the quantum theory of chemical bonding and try and replace it with one based on some notion of magnetic cog wheels.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Sorry but you assumptions and subsequent conclusions are incorrect.
Like you have a clue.
The atomic orbitals you refer to are for the hydrogen atom or hydrogenic single electron systems only.
The subject under discussion is water, H2O.
For multielectron systems things get more complex. Part of the complexity is how the electromagnetic field produced by each electron affects every other electron.
Yes. And this is the error Pauling made in regard to H bonding of water molecules. He failed to take into account the effect of the electromagnetic fields from adjacent water molecules. And that has resulted in a flawed understanding of the collective behaviors of the H2O molecule:
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
Both the theory and modelling of multielectron systems is well established,
LOL. (So, supposedly this means we can assume you goons didn’t make any errors). Is it believed because it is right or is it believed because it is established? And do you even know the difference and why the difference matters?
including the modelling of multielectron systems in magnetic fields, and fits very well with experimental data
Explain what steps you’ve taken to eliminate confirmation bias?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The location of electrons in an atom is based on the probability of finding an electron in that area. This has resulted in a model where the atom has s, p, and d shells projecting from the nucleus.
JMcG:
Yes, and as Robin pointed out, these are the shells associated with hydrogen only.
Herb:
The calculating of the probabilities begins with an assumption that the atom does not exist in a magnetic field since a magnetic field will cause the atom to take a path perpendicular to the magnetic field. . . . All the atoms we encounter will be shaped like our solar system consisting of a disk of negative electrons with a magnetic field perpendicular to the disk.
JMcG:
Okay, but, aren’t electrons themselves the cause of said electric fields? More specifically, you are assuming their orbit to be locked in on the nucleus. What mechanism do you envision to cause this?
And, how does all of this coincide with current models? For example, how does your model reconcile the the observational data that seems to confirm the three dimensionality associated with steric numbers and underlying tetrahedron of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, and neon:
https://youtu.be/BM-My1AheLw?t=99
Herb:
With such a model the atom will have directional forces (electrical and magnetic(energy)) that will interact with the forces of other atoms.
JMcG:
And you are saying that if they didn’t the forces would be unable to interact with each other?
Herb:
Covalent bonds are not a result of “shared electrons” (ridiculous) but because atoms flip and their magnetic field bond to each other.
JMcG:
This is interesting. I say that even though it is not clear to me why you seem to think that this must be true. (But that doesn’t mean it is wrong/mistaken.)
Herb:
Gaps in the outer shell of the orbiting electrons allow the atoms to mesh like gears reducing the distance between the magnetic poles and producing stronger bonds. This is why in a molecule consisting of two atoms, the atoms spin on opposite directions. The magnetic and electric fields of atoms combine to form molecules with their own fields.
JMcG:
Herb, let me ask one question in an attempt to find some reconciliation between what you are saying and what the current paradigm is saying about all of this. In the link above you should find some discussion of VSPR theory. One of the assumptions of such is that electrons that are in the same shell (valence) will try to get as far from each other as possible, and this is what underlies the three dimensionality of atoms (and the tetrahedral aspects of C N O Fl Ne). Are you saying this is wrong/mistaken?
(This is not to say that they would not also be effected by electric fields external to them.)
And if what you are saying is true would this not preclude the existence of the three dimensional tetrahedron?
James McGinn / Self Declared Genius
Reply
Hi James
| #
Hi James,
Hydrogen, helium, lithium, an beryllium only have electrons in s shells. If these electrons were not on the same plane the electric repelling force between them would cause interference changing their speed and direction. If they were all in the same plane they would maximize the distance between them keeping the repelling forces, distance, and velocity constant as well as a constant attractive force between the electrons in a shell and the protons of the atom’s nucleus..
An electron traveling in a circular path (held by the attraction of the protons in the nucleus) would represent a current moving in a solenoid and produce a magnetic field so not only hydrogen but the next three elements would have directional forces from a circular disk with a negative charge and magnetic fields perpendicular to that disk. If you believe that larger atoms are formed by the combining of smaller atoms how would any additional electrons overcome the magnetic and electrical forces of these basic building blocks?
If larger atoms were formed with a surrounding shell of negative particles (current model) this would create a repelling force between neighboring atoms far greater than the attraction of electrons to the distant protons contained in the nucleus of neighboring atom. What would cause these atoms to form into a molecule or friction?
If the magnetic forces between atom were to align north south the repelling force between their electron disks would also align producing a maximum repelling force. A more stable structure would form if the atoms could alter their position to minimize the repelling force between them. In the case of pure carbon where all the atoms are the same size this would form an atom in the center of a cube where the North Pole of its magnetic field was attracted the the south poles of the 4 atoms above it while its South Pole was attracted to the North Pole of the 4 atoms below it. This offset structure would minimize the repelling force between the atoms.This would explain the tetrahedral shape of carbon structures and how they can form Buckey balls.
When atoms of different sizes combine there would be a shift in the combined magnetic and electric fields producing molecules with different shapes.
In order for atoms to combine into covalent molecules their sizes and energy must be able to mesh.Helium is an inert element, or is it the most reactive element but because of size constraints it can only combine with other helium atoms or hydrogen atoms. Is helium 1 really helium di hydrogen with the same molecular weight and inert properties of helium but a different field structure?
Herb
Reply
James DeMeo
| #
Very disturbing that anyone desiring the end of scientism and junk science would cite an article from Skeptical Inquirer, a dirty rag dedicated to slandering research that goes against the mainstream, no matter how valid or well-proven. Applauders of book-burning, and excusers of imprisonment of medical pioneers. Western science lost its path after the two world wars, went off into a cul-de-sac of Medievalism, even as refinements of existing discovery sustain the illusion of “progress”. How many know what they do not know? Or even understand that question. How much of conventional science theory is promoted on mainstream media with emotional zeal and a “we know everything” attitude that has made groups like Principia-Scientific necessary. Beware to all, allow the “skeptics” into your organization will destroy it. That’s their mission, but will mask as “rational critics”, hiding the dagger.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
JD:
Very disturbing that anyone desiring the end of scientism and junk science would cite an article from Skeptical Inquirer, a dirty rag dedicated to slandering research that goes against the mainstream, no matter how valid or well-proven.
JMcG:
I couldn’t agree more. Skeptic organizations tend to attract the dumbest of the dumb–the brain-dead, beady-eyed, science believers. More specifically, they attract certainty seeking morons who see science as a path to truth the same way some see the bible or other religious text as the path to truth/certainty.
JD:
Western science lost its path after the two world wars, went off into a cul-de-sac of Medievalism, even as refinements of existing discovery sustain the illusion of “progress”.
JMcG:
I agree. The human flaw is inherit to academia. Academia has no choice but to appeal to the public. And the public likes stories, analogies and simple, dumbed-down models that result in some facsimile of certainty that warrants them not thinking.
JD:
How many know what they do not know? Or even understand that question.
JMcG:
Exactly! The morons never ask themselves this question. They seem to never comprehend that most of the things they believe are dependent on assumptions that are hidden in models. And if you point this out to them they break down emotionally (ie. Robin Bedford).
JD:
How much of conventional science theory is promoted on mainstream media with emotional zeal and a “we know everything” attitude that has made groups like Principia-Scientific necessary.
JMcG:
Unfortunately PSI has a conservative agenda that renders the feckless on many of the real underlying issues, like the water structure problem.
You might find this link interesting:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17185
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Philosophers of Science,
I review a brief history of what we now generally refer to as SCIENCE. I do this because I cannot understand how a philosopher, who is not a SCIENTIST, can know what science is. I do this because I question if the philosophers of science referred by Joann Szurmak have done the intensive physical labor of the chemical qualitative analysis, by their rational thoughts, which Marie Curie did to isolate the ‘new’ element—RADIUM—and a bismuth compound containing the new element POLONIUM from pitchblende?
I question if you philosophers of science remember the history of the atom and the physical labor performed by several alchemists which allowed John Dalton, based upon the Scientific Laws (The Conservation of Matter and The Law of Definite Proportions) plus his experimental results which established The Law of Multiple Proportions) to finally conclude (1803) that atoms are not endlessly divisible as had been concluded, on the basis of rational thought by Greek philosophers nearly 2000 years earlier.
But then for nearly a century chemists and physicists had little idea what an atom physically was. But then a new physical phenomena termed radioactivity was accidentally observed. Which allowed the observation (Gold foil experiment) that the tiny atom must be mainly empty space with a tiny, tiny nucleus relative to the tiny, tiny volume of the atom. Can a philosopher of science rationally explain how solid gold foil is mainly empty space? I ask this question because it seems there seem to be too many classical physicists who reject the quantum mechanical ideas of modern physics because the quantum phenomena predicted cannot be rationally explained by anyone.
But we all must admit that the discovery (observation) of the phenomena of radioactivity has revolutionized physics.
With the result there were many quantum (modern) physicists and chemists and technologists involved in the Manhattan project which produced the bombs which ended WWII. Then there were the modern physicists and chemists and technologists who were involved the experiments and design projects which produced the space program which quickly caught up and surpassed the Soviet Union’s space program.
I call attention to these scientists and technologists because I doubt if many of these people with such well known significant achievements would agree with the ideas of these philosophers of science.
Richard Feynman maybe is the closest to a philosopher scientist of whom I am aware. In the first lecture of The Feynman Lectures On Physics he taught: “The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: ‘The test of all knowledge is experiment’.
And he, in 1974, delivered the commencement address at Caltech title Cargo Cult Science. This title because he considered there were activities which were becoming too common that appeared to be based upon the methods of SCIENCE but were not.
A brief portion of his address was: “But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of learning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have eliminated. Detail that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is a more subtle problem. When you have to put a lot of ideas together to make any elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.” (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”, 1985)
I close with the question: How can a philosopher, who is not a SCIENTIST, know what science actually is? Especially so when there is so much cargo cult science which is being accepted as actual SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Science is a development of philosophy so asking how a philosopher know what science really is, is like asking how a dermatologist can know what medicine is. Science is a search for truth based on observable reality. DeCarte’s philosophy began with trying to distill what was real and because the senses can be fooled he did not trust them which resulted in his basic truth being, I think therefore I am. The physical sciences are developed by the belief in observations and experimentation that can be repeated and verified by others. The interpretation of these observation is an effort to find some basic truth or law that produces these observable results and can explain or predict other occurrences and these interpretation are open to alternate explanations. The photoelectric effect is a fact or data.while the creation of the photon is interpatation of this data and can be challenged. A perfectly acceptable alternate explanation is that the photoelectric effect is just another version of the piezo electric effect where a manual distortion of a crystal produces an electric current just as the distortion by light does. These are philosophical interpretations of non disputed data.
Your contention that a scientist must do the work to be able to interpret the results is nonsense. Exactly what experiments did Einstein, who you never as a scientist, do? Your acceptance of quantum physics as being true is not based on explaining data but using data to support your belief. Quantum physics was postulated because the accepted laws of physics did not appear to apply at the atomic level. Rather than looking for other interpretations or laws that would be consistent with the new observations a new physics was created especially for the unexplained data. In this physics all answers are right and.It is just a magic spell used to support a theory from any unexplained challenges or data. The fundamental assertion of quantum physics that the universe is designed to conform with our standards for what is large or small is truly asinine and bespeaks an arrogance in the belief in our interpretation of observations that is the antithesis of science.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Science is a development of philosophy.”
Philosophers, like you, write about what they (you) think. And no one does question the fact that philosophers and you think. But what you think could be wrong, just as bodies twice as heavy, fall twice as fast was easily proven by experimental observations to be a false idea. Just as the earth does not move was easily proven to be false by Galileo and the observations he made with his telescope. That matter is endlessly divisible was proven to be false by experimental results which were summarized by the Law of Conservation of Mass, Law of Definite Proportions, and the Law of Multiple Proportions.
There is a huge difference between the rational reasoning of philosophers and the experimental results (which must be reproducible) of the scientist.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I am quite sure my theories will be shown to be wrong. The problem with philosophy/science is that the information we have is so limited and our ignorance so vast that the best we can do is to propose new ideas to account for new discoveries. Asteroids should not orbit other asteroids according to the accepted theory of gravity. It is the resistance to accept new data and the attempt to find excuses to account for new data that causes science to turn into religion.
Have you considered that if Galileo had tested a hollow cannon ball against a solid one the air resistance would cause the hollow one to fall slower and we might still believe that heavier objects fall faster? Instead of using balls of equal size Galileo chose to use the parameter of equal density and got the correct answer. When experiments are designed there are assumptions made that affect the results.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“Have you considered that if Galileo had tested a hollow cannon ball against a solid one the air resistance would cause the hollow one to fall slower.”
I will play the fool by asking: If the rate of falling does not depend upon the mass of the falling body, why would the identically sized and shaped bodies have a different air resistance?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Its not that they have different air resistance, it is that the force of the air pushing back on the falling object is able to produce more of an effect on a smaller mass. You need more energy to accelerate/decelerate a larger mass and overcome its inertia than than a less massive object. This is why the caveat “in a vacuum” is added to the law “All objects will fall at the same rate.”
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Must admit that you make a good point. I must imagine that the ‘skin’ of the hollow cannonball becomes very thin to ‘see’ it. And I know that Galileo allowed there might be a difference, when the two bodies of different masses were dropped, of when they struck the ground.
And what you draw our and my attention to seems to be of fundamental importance in understanding the influence of clouds upon the atmosphere’s circulation. Which I have frequently pondered.
The question is: How do the differences of atmospheric pressure at the earth’s surface, which we observe ‘drive’ atmospheric circulations, form? I ponder what the role of clouds are. I consider the cloud droplets, must be more dense that the atmosphere which seems to support them. So it seems the droplets must be continually falling through the atmosphere at some rate which we know is related to their size (mass). So, does the presence of cloud, as the droplets fall, increase the atmospheric pressure at the surface?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Water droplets in the atmosphere are more dense than the gases but the kinetic energy of the gas molecules are greater than the kinetic energy of the water droplets.(100 C oven versus 100 C pot of water. Both have the same total energy being transferred to the thermometer (temperature) but because there are more water molecules transferring kinetic energy than gas molecules the kinetic energy of the gas molecules must be greater.) As kinetic energy is transferred to the water droplets the droplets become smaller and are able to be suspended in the atmosphere by the gases.
Atmospheric pressure is the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere so if the droplets grow larger or smaller the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere doesn’t change just their appearance as clouds. There are times when rain drops fall but never reaches the surface because they evaporate before reaching the ground.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb.
“Water droplets in the atmosphere are more dense than the gases but the kinetic energy of the gas molecules are greater than the kinetic energy of the water droplets.”
In science ‘kinetic energy’ has been defined as being 1/2 x mass x velocity^2. Thus, your statement is true because a water droplet (composed of many water molecules) has a mass as many times greater than a water molecules as there are water molecules in the water droplet. And this has nothing to do with the temperatures of the droplet or the molecule if the ‘temperatures’ of these two different bodies are the same.
Yes, some scientists have concluded, based upon observations of gases, that the temperature of a gas of many, many molecules is proportional to the ‘average’ kinetic energy of the molecules of the gas phase of matter and that the mass of the gas molecules is not a factor.
“One of the great insights into the world of molecules was the hypothesis suggested by the Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro in 1811. Another half-century was to pass before the suggestion and its import in molecular theory were generally recognized.” Genera; Chemistry, Gordon Barrow
This import was that in 22.4 liters of any gas molecules at a gas pressure of one atmosphere and a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius there are 6.02 X 10^23 molecules. And given our experiences of the atmosphere and its ‘winds’, does one need to be a genius to conclude that the individual velocities (and speeds) of this many molecules are likely random and not identical.
Given this effort of Avogadro and many other previous scientists, it seems very arrogant of you to say I do not believe that temperature of a cloud water droplet, or a solid snowflake, not falling rapidly is not that of the many more gas molecules which compose that atmosphere.
I have to trust these efforts of the scientists of the past.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I will once again try to explain why temperature is not an accurate indication of kinetic energy for the different states of matter..
If two thermometers are recording the same temperature the mercury (or other media used) in the thermometers have received the same amount of heat, causing the mercury in both thermometers to expand the same.amount and record the same temperature. Agreed?
Since the areas of the thermometer designed to absorb heat is the same in both thermometers in order for the heat reaching the mercury to be the same both areas must receive the same kinetic energy (1/2 m times V^2). Agreed?
In a liquid, like water, the entire area will be bombarded by molecules transferring heat to it. In a gas the molecules are far apart meaning much of the area is not being bombarded by molecules. Water at sea level has a mass of 1 million grams/m^3 while air at sea level has a mass of 1.1 grams/m^3. The mass of the water molecules transferring kinetic energy (1/2 m times V^2) is one million times the mass of the sparce gas molecules transferring kinetic energy to the thermometer. If the one million molecules are transferring the same energy as the air molecule to the thermometer the velocity of the air molecule must be greater than the velocity of the water molecule by a factor of the square root of 1 million. So if the total heat recorded by the thermometer (temperature) are the same the fewer molecules in the air must have greater kinetic energy than the more numerous (more mass) molecules of water. 1 mole of liquid water does not have a volume of 22.4 liters.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Cannot agree with your opening statement because I do not understand what the issue is. Which seems to be nothing new or unique these days.
To me the central issue about the GHE is temperature. And I do not need to know what temperature is to measure it. And I do not need to know what the temperature is, I want to know what the temperature I measure, or someone else measures, is of and how it got to be the temperature measured.
To quantitatively measure temperature requires an instrument. In the beginning this instrument was called a ‘thermometer’. Any quantitative instrument must be calibrated with some agreed upon standard. In the case of the thermometer the standard was and is the melting point of pure water and the boiling point of pure water in contact with an atmosphere whose pressure is one atmosphere.
It is easy to calibrate a thermometer the melting point of water but not so to precisely calibrate it to the boiling point of water for a couple of reasons. Which you will only understand if you have learned the procedure to determine the boiling point of any liquid. So I ask have you been taught how to determine the boiling point which also requires a calibrated Torricelli mercury barometer that most chemistry laboratories of the past usually had just for this reason? I primarily ask this question about the measurement of temperature to learn your level of experiences in making elementary, but critically important, quantitative scientific measurements. Regardless of what the measurements were.
Maybe you are asking me: Is the temperature of a cloud droplet or of an even smaller condensation nuclei the same as the molecular gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which surrounds these particles which are not gases? For I ask myself this question.
I am sure you ask the question: Do water molecules begin to heat the atmosphere immediately after sunrise because these molecules absorb a portion of the solar radiation’s infrared radiation?
These are simple elementary questions I can understand: Can you understand why I ask them?
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The reason I stress that temperature is not an accurate measurement of kinetic energy (even though it is used as a comparison of kinetic energy) is because object transfer or radiate energy not temperature. To understand how the atmosphere works this distinction must be understood. As I was trying to point out, if both the gases and the water droplets in the atmosphere have the same temperature the gas molecules will have more kinetic energy than the water droplets and will transfer kinetic energy to the water droplets The liquid water will absorb heat from the gases and store energy. When the kinetic energy of the gas molecules drop at night, when the sun is no longer adding energy to them, the water droplets will transfer kinetic energy back to the gas molecules. In order to get an accurate picture of the kinetic energy and flow of energy in the atmosphere you must use the universal gas law to determine the kinetic energy of gas molecules at different altitudes, not the measured temperature.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I cannot understand: “The reason I stress that temperature is not an accurate measurement of kinetic energy (even though it is used as a comparison of kinetic energy) is because object transfer or radiate energy not temperature. ”
In particular: “because object transfer or radiate energy not temperature”.
Please review this and confirm that you have written what you intended to communicate.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry’
Yes I intended to say that objects radiate or transfer energy not temperature. As an example I would cite your discussion on the calibration of thermometers. As long as there is ice in water, transferred energy will result in ice melting not in a temperature increase. 100 C water will absorb 540 calories of energy while the temperature remains constant.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb.
“When experiments are designed there are assumptions made that affect the results.”
No, the result of an actual experiment is an actual result and no assumption is going to change what is the observed result of the experiment.
Einstein proposed that gravity could bend light. So, the next total solar eclipse some astronomers made efforts to observe the light of a star which they knew would have to pass by the sun at a very near distance, which star light could ever to seen unless there was a solar eclipse. And they observed that the light of the star was bent just as predicted by Einstein’s idea.
Einstein did not consider that the astronomers’ experiments (plural as I assume that there were several independent observations along the predicted path of the eclipse for one could not predict if cloud might prevent any observation) proved his idea to be the truth, but he knew there were no experimental results which proved his idea to be wrong,
For Einstein was not a philosopher who assumed his ‘rational thoughts’ prove any idea to be false or true.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What I was trying to point out was that when Galileo setup his experiment he took into account various factors. If he were trying to determine that an objects mass did not effect the rate of fall a proper procedure would be to eliminate all other variables to assure the results could only be a result of a difference in mass. One of those variable which he didn’t consider was size. If he had used objects of equal size and shape but with different masses the observed result would be that the heavier object fell faster, just as everyone said. It was fortuitous that the variable he chose to be constant was density which resulted in the experiment giving the right results.
There is a glaring error in your contention that the bending of light around the sun is a result of gravity exerting a force on the zero mass of a photon. That error is a common one in that when people do experiments to confirm a theory. When the experiment gives the expected results they assume it supports the theory and fail to consider other possible explanations. It is established (Zeeman and Stark effects) that light speed is affected by the electrical and magnetic fields it encounters so there would be a bending of light nearer the sun because of the stronger electric and magnetic fields. This bending by a force other than gravity is never accounted for by the experimenters. If it was included the bending of the light would not agree with Einstein’s prediction and another imaginary particle or force like the neutrino would have to be created to make reality conform to Einstein.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
The question is: How do the differences of atmospheric pressure at the earth’s surface, which we observe ‘drive’ atmospheric circulations, form?
JMcG:
This is part of the right question. But it’s the easy/obvious part. The part that is more difficult is difficult because it is so subtle that nobody ever mentions it. Let’s split the question up into two parts:
1) What initiates differences of atmospheric pressure in the troposphere?
2) What maintains differences of atmospheric pressure in the troposphere?
(Note: The “troposphere is the lowest layer in the atmosphere. It is the layer where we have storms and, at the top of the troposphere, jet streams.)
Do not assume that the answer to 1 and 2 above is the same.
I suspect that the three of us, (Herb, Jerry, and myself) can easily agree that the answer to #1 is differential heating/cooling (exacerbated by geographic factors) associated with the fact that the sun does not shine equally on all parts of the globe at the same time. But what about #2?
Think about it. What physical principles/notions would be employ to even begin to answer #2?
James McGinn / Self Declared Genius
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I have only read to: “(Note: The “troposphere is the lowest layer in the atmosphere. It is the layer where we have storms and, at the top of the troposphere, jet streams.)” But now I see that there is little beyond this generalization but another generalization.
Herb referred to a specific, detailed, system which I could not question. I started this comment to point out jet streams are very localized ‘currents’ of atmosphere whose specific locations are not limited to the top of the troposphere and are seldom observed anywhere in the troposphere in much of the troposphere (the tropics) where the troposphere is the ‘thickest’.
And it is #1 which I ponder because I do not claim to understand the specific reasons (explanations) how the observed horizontal atmosphere pressure gradients form at the surface to produce the extreme winds which we associate with a ‘storm’. A tornado ‘cloud’ which does not touch structures built on the surface can cause no destruction. A tornado is a very short-lived atmospheric event. Can you tell us the specific relationship of a jet stream to a tornado?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Jerry,
The entire atmosphere is moving east faster than the surface of the Earth. This was shown when the radioactive clouds from nuclear testing orbited east and why weather patterns move east. The greater the altitude the greater the eastward velocity of the atmosphere. Winds are where part of the atmosphere is moving faster than the rest of the atmosphere transferring energy to equalize the energy in the atmosphere.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
1) What initiates differences of atmospheric pressure in the troposphere?
2) What maintains differences of atmospheric pressure in the troposphere?
As I indicated, we all know the answer to the first question, differential heating/cooling. But the second question is typically ignored/misunderstood.
Think about it. What physical principles/notions would be employ to even begin to answer #2?
The answer to the second question mostly has to do with the fact that gases have no structural integrity and, therefore, there is no means to maintain the energy of a flow over long distance.
If you were to artificially attempt to resolve this issue one method you might employ is to build a pipe with a smooth inner surface stretching thousands of miles. The air moving through the pipe would be isolated from friction and dispersement of its energy. Depending on the difference in air pressure from one end of the pipe to the next, the air will begin to acceleratee faster and fast, unhindered from the air friction that would otherwise prevent the achievement of high wind speeds.
A vortice is a pipe that forms naturally. It’s formation is a result of the fact that the structural rigidity that is apparent on the surface of water is but a hint of the structural properties that themselves become maximized on wind shear boundaries, forming the basis of the structural pipes that form naturally in the atmosphere, vortices. We can think of a vortice as a entity that conserves wind shear.
A tornado is just a vortice that forms close to the ground.
All movement of the air in the troposphere is the result of vortice activity. Vortice activity is extremely common and at all scales, but we only notice the ones that are at our scale.
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17125#p125306
excerpt:
Vortices are the pressure relief valves of the atmosphere. You see, without vortices differences of pressure would be much greater on this planet due to the fact that gases alone cannot stream. Streaming requires structure to isolate the flow of the stream from the natural friction and dispersion associated with the gases. Sheaths of vortices literally spin up on wind shear boundaries in the atmosphere. In other words, when you see a tornado you are seeing something that is more than just N2, O2, H2O and trace elements. The “more” you are seeing is a consequence of H2O nanodroplets spinning up on wind shear boundaries. Specifically, the surface tension of the H2O is maximized under wind shear conditions to produce a plasma of surface-tension-maximized H2O. And it is this plasma that forms the sheaths of vortices, including tornadoes. This plasma isolates the flow and provides a slick inner surface, allowing winds to accelerate up to 300 mph.
Meteorology is replete with all kinds of pseudoscientific notions intended to placate the public by appealing to the lowest common denominator of our anecdotal perceptions. It is a conversation. It is not real science. The diatribe of conversational BS that emanates from their collective orifices should be ignored. They are not seeking empirical truth they are seeking a consensus to drown out the observations that they have systematically failed to explain.
James McGinn / Super Genius
Reply