The Scientific Method # 9

And the last round :

Hi,

Good reply.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Point Taken.

I fully agree with just one reservation, that being your statement-"potential to
Explain natural phenomena."

What are the terms of this explanation? It is easy to say that there is another
way which is better, but you have, till now, offered no requirements from this
radical new method. What is your requirement from this explanation.

What it seems is that you are being nihilistic. You are basically refusing to
Accept any form of proof or explanation. When will you consider a phenomenon
reasonably explained? In what fundamental way will this non-scientific method
of enquiry that you arre seeking difer from the scientific method.?

Just a thought, is this some kind of philosophical socialism?? You know like-
"Science may be correct, but what right does it have to CLAIM that it is correct".
I a thinking of James taggart's thoughts towards Hank Rearden (Atlas Shrugged)
here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does this sound similar to what I have written above?

Read further only after you have read the previous stuff carefully.

We do require a multi-disciplinary approach, but all these disciplines have to
be scientific.

Allow me to explain this.

Most of the aspects of the SPIRITUAL disciplines and schools of thought claim
the existence of the paranormal. Now I am the first to admit that one of the biggest
Drawbacks of science at this time is its inability to fit in our CONSCIOUSNESS
in its frame work.

Just as clearly, our consciousness (aatmaa, soul whatever) is almost the only thing
That the metaphysical disciplines deal with.

I believe that these other schools you keep bringing up are just peddling a twisted
Variant of science right now. Given science's continuous quest to expand its influence,
I belive some things are possible:-

1. That these fields are proven wrong.

2. That it is PROVEN, that these can not be proved/quantified and have to understood
only empirically .e.g. (and this is a somewhat retarded example) :Science may concern
Itself with finding the weight of our souls. Later it may be realised that the concept
of "weight of consciousness" (assuming consciousness and soul to be the same thing)
doesn’t make sense.
It is like the heisenberg's principle- if you cant measure both speed and location of
a particle accurately, it is proven that it is not a failing of your method of measurement
but because of a PROVEN NATURAL PRINCIPLE that it just cant be done.

3. This is the most likely one: That these schools are quantified, and bought into the
fold of science. That is what has happened historically as bastions of mysticism have
fallen to the advances of science. From astronomy to evolution, the same story has been
Repeated in most fields of study that we now associate with science. The holy grail of
Science, in my opinion, is that it should know/explain everything that it can, and to
conclusively prove that what it can not explain can not be explained.

But before any sort of idea about consciousness can be accepted,
it has to fit into the scientific method. It has to be willing to obey the
Hypothesis-experiment-observe-deduce-huypothesise cycle.

The Scientific Method # 8

Sankara's reply :

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.

The Scientific Method # 7

My work :

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

Kis~

The Scientific Method # 6

Sankara answers :

<<<<<<<
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? (jogging)

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).

Chalo, expecting a massive mail from you


Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan

And again a followup mail saying :

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.

The Scientific Method # 5

My reply:

Hi,

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 Kapra'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.

The Scientific Method # 4

Parry and thrust from shankar :

<you 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.

Its already been a long mail, rest in next.

Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan

And the missive immediately following this reads thus :

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?

Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan

The Scientific Method # 3

My elaborate reply to the original question:

Hi,

"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
phneomenon 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
extended 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 colleges. 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.

Kis~

The Scientific Method # 2

My first reply:

Hey,

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??

Kis~

And to this mail, shankar replied :

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?


Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan

The Scientific Method # 1

What follows is series of emails tossed between Me and Shankara (Similar to the series on the TAo of Physics). This post contains the mail stating a question regarding the scientific method posed by shankar. Posts following this on have all the back and forth.

Kislay,

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?

Best Regards,
Sankara Narayanan

Tomorrow

Copied without permission from Mr.Abhinav Gupta's Orkut profile.

Around the corner I have a friend,
In this great city that has no end,
Yet the days go by and weeks rush on,
And before I know it, a year is gone.

And I never see my old friends face,
For life is a swift and terrible race,
He knows I like him just as well,
As in the days when I rang his bell.

And he rang mine but we were younger then,
And now we are busy, tired men.
Tired of playing a foolish game,
Tired of trying to make a name.

“Tomorrow” I say! “I will call on Jim
Just to show that I’m thinking of him.”
But tomorrow comes and tomorrow goes,
And distance between us grows and grows.

Around the corner, yet miles away,
“Here’s a telegram sir,” “Jim died today.”
And that’s what we get and deserve in the end.
Around the corner, a vanished friend.