hi

read the scientific method blogs, bottom up.

from part 1, 2 .... , final.

thanks for reading

Scientific Method - Final Part

SHANKARA WROTE:

Hi Kislay,

You have mentioned about the "process of drawing a map" and have equated it to the mathematical method of representing it in terms of symbols and formulae.i believe your analogy is incorrect.

The natural phenomenon is the territory. The process of enquiry is the conceps of drawing a map. Sceintific model of enquiry is just one of the ways of drawing a map. The problem with your argument is that you are equating one of the instances of the class with the class itself. This
probably comes from the belief that it is the only instance possible. It is precisely this dogma that I am uncomfortable with. Just as scientific enquiry, we can possibly have some other kinds of enquiry, which though may not be as popular as scientifc one, yet may have the potential to explain natural phenomena.

The reason for such a belief stems from the fact that scientific inquiry has advanced quite a lot and is now capable of explaining many concepts. But this alone does not give us the justification to claim that it IS THE ONLY MODE OF ENQUIRY POSSIBLE. I think, what we require is a multi disciplanary approach. We need to draw lessons from metaphysics, easterm mysticism and others schools of thought. Or in fact, a systematic study of Vedas should also help us understand many natural phenomena. Its not without reason that Dayanand Saraswati asked us to go back to the vedas.

Scientific Method- Part 6

KISLAY WROTE:

Hi,
ALL RIGHT, it took me one night to see why your second arguments about the map And the map maker sounds so plausible even though I know it is crap. But I think I finally got it. So here goes.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1.You believe maps are not independent of territory. Perfectly agree, 100%. But you also seem to suugest that territory is not independent of maps. It is this backward mapping from concepts to reality that I object to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You misunderstood me about the two way mapping. What I meant was that if I Understood a map, I could picture the territory by using it. Also if I was actually Standing in that territory, I would be able to visualize what part of THAT PARTICULAR MAP it is. The territory is definitely completely independent of the map. It Would exist independent of the existence of any map.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. you believe maps are true representation of territory. I contest this. Maps are just a perspective of the map-maker about the territory. If map maker changes, so does the map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now this is what was bugging me. What you are saying is true. But here you are being inconsistent with your own initial problem statement, viz, the ability of science to help explain phenomena.If the map maker changes, so does the map. Correct. But it still remains a map. Situation being analogous to multiple scientific theories to explain a single phenomenon, One or more of which may be fully or partioally correct.

What you ORIGINALLY said that is there a way of doing this without maps at all. You wanted something which would put you yourself IN the territory, instead of you having to infer the territory from the map.
Change the map maker as many times as you will, you still need a map.

Maps are representations their makers perspective on the teriitory??? As both you and I agree, The territory is a fact. It does not brook any perspective on it. All you can do is choose HOW to represent this fact. The map maker has to present his Key to the map in advance. He may be Somewhat incorrect. Some road may be longer or shorter than what it appears to be in the map.Then the maker has to make the effort of corrcting his map as soon as such a flaw is found.
What I mean to say is:
You may find faults with a map or a map maker, but you can not fault the CONCEPT OF DRAWING MAPS To represet territory. The only way for you to actually BE IN THE TERRITORY to use your mind to Understand a map.

What you are saying about locality maps is bullshit. I don't need a map of my locality Because I already have it in my head. And the map in my head has much more detail than Would be found in a usual map, but it's a map a map nonetheless. Everytime I take a left from the paan waala to reach the playground I am referring that map subconsciously.

But I will need that locality map if you want to know what is the cumulative length of all the roads in my colony. It is requied for quantitative measure.

Similarly, what suport tools do you want to do away with? Since you are very comfortable with English can you do away with the grammar or punctuation??? If you are very worried about Delta T Then allow me to remind you that as far as understanding the territory of natural phenomena goes You don't need that abstraction. It comes into the map only when you try to obtain a quantitative measure of phenomena. It is like scale of the map, not required if you want only a general layout Of the territory but required if you want to measure it.

I hope THAT has killed your little unscientific rebellion.

Scientific Method- Part 5

SHANKARA WROTE:
<<<<<<<
In what terms will I know it? In what terms will I describe it? Other than probably Saying "I'm moving damn fast!!!!!" which doesn't mean anything.That's what I mean when I say that understanding presupposes a mode of expression.
>>>>>>>>.

Well, nobody is doubting the fact that we need symbols to convey the ideas. The question that I am posing is, are these symbols adequate( or rather necessary) to describe the phenomenon. Just because of the fact that we make use of mathematical symbols does not mean that mathematical symbols alone can describe it. It just proves that we are used to mathematics so much that, we find it difficult to understand anything without symbols.

Also u need mathematical symbols only if u want to express your motion in terms of mathematical symbols. Say, you are running, can you not compare your running speed at different points in time? Can you not know when you are jogging and when sprinting? Do you need mathematical symbols to realize that there is some change in velocity? You may argue that, u may not be able to specify the speed at a particular point in time. But is not "speed at a particular instant" itself a construct of mathematics? Suppose man has not invented mathematics. U are not aware that there is something called speed, vector velocity etc. Can you not intuitively tell that a state of rest is different from a state of motion or for that matter, a state of higher velocity ( sprinting ) is different from a state of low velocity?

Just to prove my point, why does a deer run very fast when it sights a predator?. When it is sure that it is relatively safer, it slows down. You may argue that it does not need to communicate like humans do. We make this statement because it does not communicate like the way we do. Its quite possible that it is aware of its "speed" and uses a system of symbols and signs that is quite different from us and also tells this to its "friends".
So to experience motion or to understand motion, I believe, mathematical symbols are no neccessity. But if we want to describe motion so as to fit it into the mathematical framework that we have built up, I think we need mathematics.

Also your statement that I am moving damn fast makes a lot of sense if you can convince yourself that there are alternate ways of describing it other than X km/hr. I am moving damn fast says that

1. I am moving
2. I am sprinting, probably running at my maximum speed. ( I know my maximum speed intuitively but I don't know what is it in km/hr. depending upon your point of interest, you can consider it as half full or half empty).

Now talking of Capra's "map for territory"

I am perfectly with you on the fact that mathematical symbols are like the maps. It seems, u have not correctly understood my objection. My objection is not against symbols as representation of the phenomenon. My
objections are

1.You believe maps are not independent of territory. Perfectly agree, 100%.But you also seem to suugest that territory is not independent of maps. It is this backward mapping from concepts to reality that I object to.

2. you believe maps are true representation of territory. I contest this. Maps are just a perspective of the map-maker about the territory. If map maker changes, so does the map.

Now coming to the need for maps.

I believe maps are not essential. You can still understand without the maps. Just to prove my point, Do u need a map of your colony? Don't u feel u know more than what the map actually tells u? So should we not do a similar
thing in science as well. When we have understood certain phenomena, should we not
try to do away with the support tools just like we are doing away with the locality maps? This has been the crux of my argument so far. I believe if one can explain a phenomenon or for that matter, a concept when he can
define it without any jargon.

Scientific Method- Part 4

KISLAY WROTE:

Writing this after reading both your mails.

>>>>>>>>>>
Can you not describe your motion at every single instant of time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
In what terms will I know it? In what terms will I describe it? Other than probably Saying "I'm moving damn fast!!!!!" which doesn't mean anything.That's what I mean when I say that understanding presupposes a
mode of expression.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
what do I do if I want to know its motion both in space domain and time domain simultaneously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Suppose you want to tell what an elephant looks like from front and behind.Can you say it using a single language construct? You will have to say it in 2 different statements.
Man you can know it but HOW WILL YOU SAY/EXPRESS IT? All external symbols and formulae are means to conveying that to-fro motion of the pendulum. You are falling into Capra's "map for territory".
Trap - thinking that symbols mean something independently of the phenomena they are attached to. They do not. They are a map using which you have to visualise the territory.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Another point with the usage of mathematics for this approximation. Science in its attempt to make a discrete event as continuous as possible, introduces the concept of "dt" or 'delta t'. Science has not given a
scientific, mathematical definition of 'delta t'. The definition is of intuitive nature and to make it mathematical, have introduced the idea of limits. (tending to zero but not equal to zero. Is it not a proof enough of the inadequacy of science to explain phenomena?
>>>>>>>>>>>
"Delta t" is a way of saying that however small a change is, maths can track it. Observe that the Final deliverables of maths, i.e., equations, don't have deltas in them.
V = u + at ---------- 1
may be derived using delta but as an 'end-user', you are free to enter any random time instant/interval in this equation. Delta T is way of modelling an arbitrary precision time interval.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you not describe your motion at every single instant of time? When you are doing a scientific analysis, are you not taking snapshots at discrete intervals and then trying to construct a continuous picture out of it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes I am. And I can tell you that I am successful because now you can enter any value of t in Equation 1 and the answer would be correct. I would consider that damning evidence in favour of the scientific method!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>
We both know that y(t)= A sin(w*t) is different from y(t) = A'cos(w'*t). When I say understanding it,I mean I should be able to able to identify that there is some difference between these two, without constructing their
equations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Without showing me the equation, what will you say? How would you convey to me the difference between the two?

>>>>>>>>>>>
Can we define acceleration as something more than dv/dt?
>>>>>>>>>>>

Well we definitely can!!!! All bike/car enthusiasts define it as 0 to 100 kmph in x seconds. Even here you see that all these guys need this figure to express how fast a bike is, and looking at this figure( the analog for physics equations), a bike enthusiast will know how slow or fast a bike is.

Scientific Method- Part 3

SHANKARA WROTE:

<Doyou want to know its location 3 seconds from now?>>

Contrast this approach with the approach that I am talking about.Instead of analysing the motion of particle, u somehow transfer yourself into the particle. Its like u have got into the particle and moving along with
it.Would not your understanding of the motion of particle now would be better than what it was with the external analysis by scientific method? Can you not describe your motion at every single instant of time? When you are doing a scientific analysis, are you not taking snapshots at discrete intervals and then trying to construct a continuous picture out of it? At the first time, the difference is huge because the intervals are large. You refine the process by decreasing the inter-frame interval and come closer to a continuous motion at every attempt. However hard you may try u will never get a really continuous motion as you there is a fundamental conflict between the two objects (one is discrete and other continuous . To get a truly continuous frame, you need to have the inter-frame interval zero, which is not possible in scientific analysis.

Another point with the usage of mathematics for this approximation. Science in its attempt to make a discrete event as continuous as possible, introduces the concept of "dt" or 'delta t'. Science has not given a
scientific, mathematical definition of 'delta t'. The definition is of intuitive nature and to make it mathematical, have introduced the idea of limits. (tending to zero but not equal to zero.) Is it not a proof enough of the inadequacy of science to explain phenomena?

To give you a even better idea of what I am talking about, say Kislay is in motion. I capture all his movements for about one hour and apply scientific analysis on it. I have a wealth of information about Kislay's movement.
I know what was your velocity at a particular time period ( I still doubt, if science can provide me the information at a particular instant) and you will not be aware. Yet, I believe you can understand your motion in a much
better sense that I can I ever hope to do. You can, if you want, describe your motion at a particular instant of time while I cant.

Now coming to the SHM problem, what do I do if I want to know its motion both in space domain and time domain simultaneously? Can science answer it ? When I say I want to understand the phenomenon, I mean I should be able to visualize it without any need for external symbols or formulae. What I mean by understanding SHM, is I should be able to imagine myself as the pendulum and feel its to- fro motion as if I am the pendulum.

We both know that y(t)= A sin(w*t) is different from y(t) = A'cos(w'*t). When I say understanding it,I mean I should be able to able to identify that there is some difference between these two, without constructing their
equations.

Don't u think, we should have a website, that explains these physics concepts in an intuitive way. Can we define acceleration as something more than dv/dt?

Scientific Method - Part 2

KISLAY WROTE:

"The essence of the phenomenon" and "I mean can u feel its motion?" make your mail sound very Hegelian.
Hegel was a philosopher who said that it is futile to analyse. If you analyse the motion of billiards balls striking each other on the billiards table, then you are incorrect in doing so as you are only analysing your
own concepts (like force, momentum etc.) and not "the essence of the phenomenon", as you have put it. The Analysis doesn't help you know the events reality, to feel it.

So much for Hegel. You might like to read him.

I feel that you are not asking your questions properly. What, precisely
do
you mean when you say "understand" the motion of a particle in space? Do
you
want to know with what it will move in the next split second? Do you
want to
know its location 3 seconds from now? There is no pooint saying I want
to
understand the particle. It has nothing to understand. Scientific
enquiry
will answer the questions you pose to it. Different questions asked of
the
same phenomenon will yield different answers, but that is not because
the
phnomenon has changed or science is wrong, but only because a different
question.

BTW you might want to ask yourself-what it is that you mean by the
essence
of the phenomenon?

Consider a wave on a string. What is the nature of this phenomenon? If
you
observe the wave in time domain, it appears as a disturbance flowing
from
one point in space to another. If you observe it in space domain (i.e.
observe any point on the string), it appears as plain SHM. So this is
not a
fallacy of science. You ask different questions, you get different
asnwers.

It must be said here that the concept of understanding presupposes a
mode of
expressing that understanding. All the equations and formulae are that
mode
in science. The real problem, when you ask questions like this "essesnce
of
phenomenon", is that you haven't grasped the mapping from equation to
phenomenon. Think of this like ED- "a cube is lying on ite edge with one
of
the face at 45 degrees to VP....". To solve this we need to visualize
this.
THAT is the essence of the phenomenon that is this cube. Analogy can be
exztended to physics. You can be said to understand only when you know
the
mapping both ways and go from one expressions to the other easily.

This, incidentally, is the great problem of how to teach Physics in a
better
way in our schools and coolleges. So many people I have met know all the
equations for light cones but can not map it to an intuitive concept.

Hope this doesn't sound gibberish.

Scientifc Method - Part 1.

This series of blogs is the outcome of discussions that i had with my friend Kislay Verma. It isin the form of emails exchanged thru and forth.

First mail is mine. Then we reply alternately.

Shankara wrote:

Let me pose this question to the objectivist.
Do u think, scientific analysis can help us understand an object?
Or you believe, scientific analysis is far from perfect?

KISLAY WROTE:

In my opinion, both your statements are correct.

Vis-s-vis the second statement, I would like emphasise that I don't mean
that the process of scientific enquiry is wrong.
By the process I mean the hypothesise-test-conclude-rehypothesise(if
wrong) process. What I mean is that we may not at all times know what
questions to ask and how to ask them. This might introduce problems in
the scientific process.

Am I clear or do I need to write one of my trademark massive mails?

SHANKARA WROTE:

I do not mind your trademark massive mails.

But do you think, certain formulae and certain equations can capture the
essence of the phenomenon?

Say for example, u want to understand the motion of a particle in space?
What do u think will be the best way to "understand it". By
understanding
it, I mean can u feel its motion?