As anything else? Certainly not. And in a universe where we all may be on hallucinatives (or a more gramatically correct derevation thereof) I believe math is the most accurate representation of reality that we have as the evidence is inherent to the system. A prime number (or whatever other-world title you wish to put to it) simply is, regardless of perception, language, or era. And I don't need to take that on faith, I can do the division myself to prove this fact and I know that, excepting any failure on my part, this fact will not be disproven at a later time.

Where the math does fail (and this may be what Jeb was alluding to) is where it does require our observational input in the equation. The best example of this is Einstein's cosmological constant.

The "truth" at the time Einsten began working on general relativity was that the universe was static. His reality did not fit his equations so he created this anti-gravity to make his formulas correct. When we discovered that the universe is expanding his calculations were proven incorrect (or not wholly correct). But it wasn't the math that had failed him. The math was pointing him in the right direction. It was his preconception of what reality is that ultimately led to his greatest failure.

Jeb's reasoning follows this logic here:




I think a system that is based on logical proof and material evidence cannot be said to be less valid than one that does not rest upon such proofs. Your argument also seems (to me) to make the assumption that pure belief is a single system. But within that system there exists thousands of different deieties and beliefs. Can they all simultaneously be correct and, at the same time, more correct that science? And what of non-secular faiths? Can these also be said to be more valid than science because they cannot be disproven? (This reply is as tounge-in-cheek as your initial statement).



You are correct sir.



Woah.



Actually, I believe that is what inflationary theory states. From any fixed point in space the universe is seen to expand in all directions and it isn't uniform. But again, that is our observation from Hubble. It may be entirely incorrect.



It did. Thanks.



I must respectfully disagree there. Speaking in general terms, there are degrees to these assumptions, each is not as vast as the other. I would consider an argument with less of these assumptions to be more valid but not necessarily more correct. Remember that in logic validity has nothing to do with truth.



I could just as truthfully state that paradoxes are a single lego that appears randomly throughout our system of reality without any omniscient intervention whatsoever.

Or could I?

To address specfically Mikael's follow up questions:

1.What happens if science can't explain a certain phenomenon? The effects can be observed, but there is really no explanation.

I'm not sure that I would say science "cannot" explain something. I think science could, if someone was so inclined, offer an explaination for every repeated observable event. How correct that explaination is indeterminate.

2. How big can the placebo effect be? It's often talked about effects like "20% better", or "increased by 35%". If the increase is 1000% better, would that be explained by placebo?

I think this depends entirely on the individual. Anything or any person that claims a specific "increase" would be speaking in very general terms. This effect arises from a persons expectations, confidences, etc. and can vary considerably from person to person.

So did this discussion arise from the assertion that science has not proven the placebo effect to be real or valid?

just a few quick notes:

Going back to Mikael's initial problem statment...
here is the original:
"Imagine something works time after time, repetedly, but it's not "proven scientifically".
1. Does it matter it's not proven scientifically?
... now let's do some science. First break down the problem into questions to explore:
0) What thing (is something) ?
1) Time after time for whom? and is the result or experience both qualitativly and quantitatvly the same? How can this be measured?
3) What is the hypothesis that you want tested?
4) By proven, do you mean that no evidence exists? No studies have been done? please explain.
5) Is this about some sort of subjective experience?

Mikael it is on you to fill in some details here.

Since the notion of 'placebo' was introduced, one might suspect the phenomena under consideration are subjective. The interface between subjective reality and common or social reality is both physical, linguistic and physiological. Way too much terrain to cover with anything but sweeping generalizations. Can we get some more details to focus on please?

the universe of discourse in mathematics is populated by formal ideals like line, point, number, set, operation, axiom, theorem and proof. The issue of making something that has arrithmatic, logic and is self consistant out of mathematical ideals was PROVEN impossible back around 1920. The map may be useful but it is not the terrain.

Sophism is are tedious today as it was back in Greece. Good exercise in typing and spell checking perhaps, but still unproductive.

Solipsism may help you feel more comfortable with your beliefs while it prevents you from seeking pertinant information about what is happening in the world around you.

In physics, the theory of relativity describes quantities and qualities that are INVARIANT between frames of reference. Angular momentum (rotations) can not be vanished by choosing a different frame of reference. This means there is no 'center' about which all other things rotate.

- got any more deletions and generalizations to display?

I completely agree with Jon in that this discussion, while entertaining, really can't go anywhere without narrowing the scope. Jon has asked and I have intimated more than once...just what the hell are we talking about?



Not entirely. Your statement is only completely accurate when applied to cartesian coordinates. Special relativity makes exceptions with covariant and contravariant quantities in non-cartesian space. (Whoops! I'm in over my head.) However I do see your point and it is a valid one. I think Jeb may have been speaking more philosophically.

But I got a D in physics.

Just a small example of something I think science can't explain. There are probably better example, but I can't think of one right now. The following example no professionals I can think of have been able to explain.

You have probably heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and that you have to eat breakfast in order to have energy to work during the day.

I used to believe that. During my school years I only failed to eat breakfast two or three times. But wait a minute... what happened those few times I did not eat breakfast? I was not as tired as I used to be... I had more energy... I was more mental alert in school... I did better in school... I performed better in the gymnastics...

I decided that I was no longer going to eat breakfast. I mean why would I continue to eat breakfast when it did not have the effects EVERYBODY said it would have, but in fact THE OPPOSITE effects? What I had been brainwashed with for years was not true, at least not for me. So I stopped eating breakfast, and surely I got permanently good results in my wellbeing and the things I mentioned above.

I have told countless people this since then, and people have reacted differently. Some have appeared shocked, and said:

"You HAVE to eat breakfast, it's the most important meal..."

Others have said: "I don't believe you!"

Yet others have said: "No no! Breakfast makes people perform better!"

I have also talked to doctors, scientists, dietists etc, and they can't explain it. They usually say one of th above things.

Now think about this:

Breakfast made me TIRED!

I did not give my body any energy in the morning, and yet I could work harder.

In the eyes of science less energy means you can't work as hard. Yet I could.

For a person that has studied health the above story is not a mystery. It's easy to explain using common sense. But for a scientist...

Mikael

"0) What thing (is something) ?"

A method for improving ones health I have discovered.



"1) Time after time for whom?"

For the person who discovers that it works time after time.



"and is the result or experience both qualitativly and quantitatvly the same?"

Since the body is not the same from day to day, it's not EXACTLY the same, but yes.



"How can this be measured?"

You notice a difference if you no longer have belly ache and feelings of vomiting, right?



"3) What is the hypothesis that you want tested?"

I don't know what that means.



"4) By proven, do you mean that no evidence exists? No studies have been done? please explain."

I don't think any studies have been done. Things like this are usually ridiculed, and thus not tested.



"5) Is this about some sort of subjective experience?"

Subjective in the same way that a freezing person finds a warm house comfortable.



"Since the notion of 'placebo' was introduced, one might suspect the phenomena under consideration are subjective."

Placebo is an easy way used by science to ridicule things they don't want to test for some reason.



"Can we get some more details to focus on please?"

I don't want to tell about it in public, since every attempt I have made has resulted in ridicule. If you contact me privately I can tell you.


Mikael

Dude. I know what you're talking about now.

You changed your avatar. That confused the hell out of me.

Mikael,

if something works reliably for you... great!
if it works reliably for somoeone else too.. great!
if you want help setting up an experiment to see if it works better than a placebo and better than no treatment too, let me know and maybe i can help design the study. the hard part is getting volenteers who will follow the protocal (doing as told), motivation is the key there.
-- your hypothesis is that your treatment works better than a) no treatment and b) placebo and a study could provide evidence of this.
Also, 'placebo' is NOT an excuse. It is a REAL (inert) treatment option that has been shown to have objective and subjective effect in an amazing amount of case studies. A few anti-depressants (SSRIs) were taken from the market after it was shown that they had less effect than a placebo. Nothing to excuse of joke about there.
Okay, it seems you have a hypothesis to test. Let's take this to PM for details. For general principles about what the testing process is and how it works we can probably bore the rest of the folks reading this thread to tears... and then do statistics

I knew you'd make me pin this stuff down, Burt.

Yes, it is probably the "most" accurate we have, and you are right later about what I meant by the "inaccuracy" of math, by comparing it to my statement of science. Math, in and of itself, is just a tool, (like science). Numbers can be used many different ways, to state many different things, but the numbers must mean something to be used in science, and the moment they actually mean "anything", math (or perhaps I should say the use of math), become wholly inaccurate. Basically, it still depends on the assumed facts that we plug into it, even if (like in quantum physics), the facts aren't facts, per se, but probabilities. Also, 1+1 may always equal 2, but anyone who’s gone deep enough into mathematics (I am not one of them), knows that's not always true, and that really gives me a headache.

Well, not really, but I'll have to pin down the statement. I'm talking about ANY pure belief (i.e. I believe something just because I do), not any particular “set” of beliefs. If I believe something "just because I do", while someone else believes something because he says he has proof; then the "belief" is not based on fallacy, because faith requires and claims no proof. If I believe something because I think I have "proof", then since there is no real proof for even proof, the belief is based on a fallacy. Like your arguement, this is largely tongue in cheek, but I do feel it is a good point to ponder. Many believers, after all, do claim some type of proof, and many scientists know good and well there is no real proof of anything, therefore my argument is based on extremes that rarely exist except perhaps in highly delusional people.


They could all be correct, including science, yes. Remember, my statement isn't really aimed at the ultimate concept of science (which is just the study of the universe, just like any religion or form of mysticism), but at the idea that statements of science are any kind of proof (which really just exists in our own minds). Science doesn't really make that assertion, it just appears too, because many take it that way.


It could very well be incorrect (though it's fascinating that they're finding it true from Hubble’s perpective), but my point is really more the concept I see in my head, if that makes any sense.

This is the type of thing where the severe extremes must be brought into play, if for nothing else than to give perspective. You see, although there may very well be degrees to assumptions, they can only be know from omniscient perspectives (from which nothing would be an assumption anymore), and therefore we cannot judge the degrees of assumptions, we can only "decide" on likely-hoods.

Case in point: because the Earth being flat was once considered to be obvious , then any concepts agreeing with Earth being flat would have been considered high possibility assumptions, while the guy over there saying, “I can sail around the Earth, because perhaps the Earth is really round”, would be a low possibility assumption. The discoveries (latest assumptions) of the round Earth, and Sun as the center of the system, have flipped assumptions on their heads. Tomorrow, we could all wake up, realize that the world was all a hologram created by ourselves a million years in the future, that time had been running backwards all this time, and we were just about to create the universe in reverse. Needless to say, there would be another sudden paradigm shift in the "degrees" of assumption. What if you found out that you were only awake while you were dreaming etc., etc. These are severe, and ridiculous extremes, but the point is that if we can't really know anything, then even "degrees" aren't really possible. In essence, we choose the degrees ourselves.
Did that make any sense?


You could indeed, but you'd just be saying the same thing. I just said God. I think I did another diatribe a long time ago, stating that God, reason, the universe as a whole etc. were synonymous, and therefore “omnicient intervention” wasn’t inteneded to be applied, but God just sounds much better in the quote.



Sable

*attempting to make the discussion more concrete* (I have a B.A. in philosophy so I love this kind of thing, but I'd like to see this thread take a more specific turn).

Interesting philosophical discussion. I'm curious why this question was originally posed? Was there a specific situation you had in mind? And what is the link to conjuring?

Philosophy?

Man, we're talkin' science.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sable

Dang. Jon sounds like an honest to goodness scientist. What is it you do Jon?



I like that! Can I use that?

For the record I must confess I also thoroughly enjoyed your Lego comment. I just couldn't resist playing devils advocate on that one.

Although I think the Devil prefers tinker toys.

I'd like to think you were all talking sense.
But I can't prove it,
Paul.