Vince Pitelka on mon 24 oct 05
Dave Finkelnburg emailed me with a good point. In my last message on =
this subject I said "The scientific method is often severely flawed." =
and that was careless. A more appropriate and accurate statement would =
be "The results derived from the scientific method are sometimes =
severely flawed." Scientists are very capable of interpreting =
experiments and evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. With the =
best scientists, any preconceived theories or conclusions are probably =
based on extensive experience that results in a healthy intuition, and =
ultimately the scientifically derived factual data probably supports =
those theories and conclusions. It's the careless and impulsive ones =
who get into trouble by misinterpreting evidence. The history of =
science illuminates a great deal of misdirected interpretitive licence. =
John McPhee's book "The Great Basin" includes a section on the history =
of geology, and my goodness, some of the theories that have been widely =
accepted as fact. When you look at the evolution of science over the =
last few centuries, you have to question where we really are now in =
terms of scientific understanding. How much of what is currently =
accepted as scientific fact is actually based on misdirected =
interpretitive licence? It's something to consider.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 25 oct 05
Dear Vince Pitelka,=20
The key to Good Science is its ability to refute a hypothesis, not to =
prove it (not everyone will agree with me on this but I do like Karl =
Popper). The more a hypothesis withstands the assault of experimental =
investigation, the better are its chances of becoming an acceptable =
Theory.
There is a wonderful German Paper on the nature of salt glaze chemistry. =
The ideas are plausible until you realise that the authors did not =
include a control experiment, one which reacted water and salt in a an =
environment which excluded Silica. That factor leads to the refutation =
of our popular hypothesis.
To be Scientific about "S" Cracks you need to postulate two entities, a =
point from which the crack can propagate and an energy source to drive =
it. When those are found you have an answer. Several things can stand in =
the first position. I thing particle segregation is a strong contender =
but there are other likely candidates. The driving force is well =
documented and described in our clayart archives.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
=20
Ivor and Olive Lewis on tue 25 oct 05
Dear Vince,
I forgot to remind you.
Good Scientific Inquiry has its safe guards. It is subject to scrupulous =
Peer Review.
Need I say more
Best regards,
Ivor
Vince Pitelka on wed 26 oct 05
Ivor Lewis wrote:
"I forgot to remind you. Good Scientific Inquiry has its safe guards. It is
subject to scrupulous Peer Review. Need I say more?"
Dear Ivor -
I wish it were that simple. In a previous message I said that the history
of science is dotted with examples of flawed interpretive licence in
interpreting scientific results. One would hope that rigorous peer review
would identify those instances, but the history of science is also filled
with examples where rigorous peer review simply turned out to be a
supportive club of peers. Also, there are so many examples where new
science was condemned and belittled despite very strong supporting proof.
Conservatism is rampant in every field, perhaps more in the sciences than
many fields. All scientists have pet theories, and none like to see their
life's work challenged or supplanted by the next generation. The whole
system is such that it is not impossible to influence peers to such a degree
that flawed science is accepted as credible.
I heartilly support and believe in the scientific method. Our technological
civilization and scientific knowledge result from the validity of the
scientific method. That does not exclude the fact that the scientific
method has been and will be abused. For some scientists, their own personal
theories, and the attention they get because of those theories, are much
more important than fact.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
David Beumee on thu 27 oct 05
The proof of a great scientist is the ability to give up a lifetime of work when his or her hard-earned hypothesis has been proven wrong or replaced by better science or new discovery.
David Beumee
Lafayette, CO
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Vince Pitelka
> Ivor Lewis wrote:
> "I forgot to remind you. Good Scientific Inquiry has its safe guards. It is
> subject to scrupulous Peer Review. Need I say more?"
>
> Dear Ivor -
> I wish it were that simple. In a previous message I said that the history
> of science is dotted with examples of flawed interpretive licence in
> interpreting scientific results. One would hope that rigorous peer review
> would identify those instances, but the history of science is also filled
> with examples where rigorous peer review simply turned out to be a
> supportive club of peers. Also, there are so many examples where new
> science was condemned and belittled despite very strong supporting proof.
> Conservatism is rampant in every field, perhaps more in the sciences than
> many fields. All scientists have pet theories, and none like to see their
> life's work challenged or supplanted by the next generation. The whole
> system is such that it is not impossible to influence peers to such a degree
> that flawed science is accepted as credible.
>
> I heartilly support and believe in the scientific method. Our technological
> civilization and scientific knowledge result from the validity of the
> scientific method. That does not exclude the fact that the scientific
> method has been and will be abused. For some scientists, their own personal
> theories, and the attention they get because of those theories, are much
> more important than fact.
> - Vince
>
> Vince Pitelka
> Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
> Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
> vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
> http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
> http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
2ley on thu 27 oct 05
From: "David Beumee"
> The proof of a great scientist is the ability to give up a lifetime of
> work when his or her hard-earned hypothesis has been proven wrong or
> replaced by better science or new discovery.
Unfortunately, no one told Einstein that. He carried his conviction that
quantum physics was wrong, even though it was based on an outgrowth of his
works. Fought it tooth and nail.
Philip
Jim Murphy on thu 27 oct 05
Hi Philip,
FWIW, Quantum Physics is based on the "probability" of something occuring.
Therefore, Eintein was indeed correct in debating those who claim the
"findings" of Quantum Physics research are "factual".
How many new "particles" has Quantum Physics "produced" to date ??? [More
will be "found" as the probabilities of locating them are "tweaked"]. ;o)
Back to ceramics !
Best wishes,
Jim Murphy
on 10/27/05 9:56 AM, 2ley at 2ley@MCHSI.COM wrote:
> Unfortunately, no one told Einstein that. He carried his conviction that
> quantum physics was wrong, even though it was based on an outgrowth of his
> works. Fought it tooth and nail.
>
> Philip
2ley on thu 27 oct 05
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Murphy"
> Hi Philip,
>
> FWIW, Quantum Physics is based on the "probability" of something occuring.
Not quite. It's actually based on the probability of the location of the
particle, not on a particular event. And it has, in fact produced a great
number of advances. Furthermore, it's the only theory that stands up in the
face of experimental data.
>
> Therefore, Eintein was indeed correct in debating those who claim the
> "findings" of Quantum Physics research are "factual".
The problem wasn't that he was debating, it was that he was unable to find
any flaw in their theories, but rather only managed to refine them.
>
> How many new "particles" has Quantum Physics "produced" to date ??? [More
> will be "found" as the probabilities of locating them are "tweaked"]. ;o)
You really need to rethink your position. All of the quantum particles
you're questioning have been shown to be repeatable in laboratory
experiments. This isn't a matter of a bunch of people "tweaking" results,
it's a matter of verifiable scientific experiments.
Those experiments have led to huge advances in technology, and in our
understanding of how things work within the universe.
Philip
Jim Murphy on thu 27 oct 05
Hi Philip,
I'll bet we share a mutual understanding of Quantum Physics' "limitations".
And [with absolute certainty] we'd agree on the need to be aware of any &
all limitations of measurement tools, e.g. "probability", used to support
data [or generate data for that matter] - whether applying Quantum Physics
or other scientific techniques.
Fortunately, SEMs, TEMs, and the like are sufficient even for nano-scale
ceramics. There's no need to resort to "probability theory" here.
Now, about those S-cracks ............................................. :o)
Besy wishes,
Jim Murphy
| |
|
