Comments for The Use Of Uncertainty at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 26 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Fri, 24 May 2013 11:50:34 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21534 Didn't you write [b][i]this[/i][/b] just a couple posts above? [quote]In any case, we're utterly off point. I for one vouch to drop the subject now so we can return to discussing the article!![/quote] In my experience this usually means "look for my next post on this topic" and so it did. Imagine my surprise. - Caller X Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:51:42 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21514 Well then frankly I don't wish to discuss the matter further with you. Not that I care to engage further but you're simply constructing a strawman argument - every time a point is made, you put words in my mouth. You've now changed to rocketry / geosync when I was quite clearly discussing celestial bodies & have been since it was first mentioned. Even if you were correct, which I don't think you are, that never gives you the right to insult someone in civilised discourse. There is a way of putting your point forward without belittling people. It is also foolhardy to assume that you are more informed than your fellow discussionist. There's no need to reply - this thread is dead & I'd prefer not to continue in a discussion that lacks even basic respect. - drg85 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 22:04:57 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21502 You seem determined to come up with some context in which you're right. Mention of my own background was intended mostly to head off any more asinine Remedial Physics lectures, not solely to support my own points, of which it does a rather poor job. (Not that I appealed to authority on my own account.) You consulted the astronomy department and learn they use GR and LR in their research. (No less an "appeal to authority" than anything I said, but who cares?) Of course they do, but that's nowhere near the kind of thing I was talking about. You claim some background here yourself, so I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse. You also come up with papers on relativity wrt the precession of the orbit of Mercury. I know about that. I mentioned it myself. Perhaps you missed it. It's not easy to find information via Google on how relativity relates to orbital mechanics -- because it mostly doesn't -- so I don't have a handy link to give you. Best I can do in short order is a mention of it here: [url]http://www.physicspost.com/physicsforums/topic.asp-ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=9819.htm[/url]. Since you're at a university, I suggest you hit the library and examine textbooks on orbital mechanics. You will likely search them in vain for a detailed treatment on how to take relativity into account when launching rockets. Yet, somehow, we were able to put men on the moon. I will be the first to admit that my math is over 25 years stale here, so I'd have difficulty following a [i]truly[/i] technical discussion these days. Following the broad outlines isn't too hard though, and I can tell when relativity is being brought in. It pretty much isn't. Nor do I read (or even have access to) current papers. It's possible there are interesting theoretical treatments of the subject. If that's true, it has had no impact on how any working orbital analyst I know does his job. I brought this up originally as a "high-tech" example of where Newtonian mechanics are used and relativistic effects too insignificant to take into account. There are many, many others. Ballistics, for instance, or any other practical application of kinematics. Newton is far from replaced within, as I said before, the domain where other theories introduce no significant terms. Incidentally, yes, I am trying to be insulting. As it's a response to you being inadvertently insulting (although you don't seem to have noticed, and the inadvertence is assumed on my part) it may not be very fair of me, but I don't really care. - lytrigian Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:42:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21496 [quote]written by SeavyCarr, March 09, 2011 I am absolutely certain that Randi still has his million dollars. Wasn't the whole point of the challenge that Randi put his money where his mouth is...[/quote] I'm reasonably certain that a substantial portion of that sum didn't come from Mr. Randi. I could be wrong of course. I look forward to someone proving it. lytragian wrote: [quote]And yes. Exactly. The author is preaching at stultifying length to the choir here.[/quote] That is exactly the mission of and the problem with this site. It's just a big circle jerk. When was Mr. Randi's last magazine article or video interview that was not on this website? Anyone can send out a press release. - Caller X Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:02:41 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21495 [i]Please do me the favor of assuming I know what I'm talking about.[/i] An appeal to authority on a Skeptics blog ? A little Ironic no ? :) In any case, this is getting pedantic and kind of insulting. While it is entirely not relevant this also relates to the area I work in and I could equally ask you to extend the same courtesy to me, or any other posters. Perhaps it wasn't your intention to come off as insulting but I must point out that is how it reads. But I'll assume good faith! But I did ask the astronomy and astrophysics team who work in my university (on the reasonable assumption they'd know better than myself) and they said they did indeed have to factor in SR and GR in certain cases. Here's just some discussions of that http://www.mendeley.com/research/firstorder-special-relativistic-corrections-keplers-orbits/ http://www.theeternaluniverse.com/2010/12/effects-of-special-relativity-on.html There's lot more in the Astrophysics journal results but it seems strange you're so dismissive. In any case, we're utterly off point. I for one vouch to drop the subject now so we can return to discussing the article!! All in favour :) ? - drg85 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:01:21 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21493 [i]"Please do me the favor of assuming I know what I'm talking about. This does relate to what I do for a living."[/i] An appeal to authority ? That's a little ironic on a Skeptic blog - In any case, I don't actually see what point you're arguing here - we're in agreement and it's gone far too off topic on what was a pedantic side note to begin with. In any case the astronomy research team with whom I work at my university have informed me that they do indeed often have to factor in relativity.. I did a quick google search and found a few articles to that effect.. http://www.mendeley.com/research/firstorder-special-relativistic-corrections-keplers-orbits/ http://www.theeternaluniverse.com/2010/12/effects-of-special-relativity-on.html There were plenty more when I searched through astrophysics journals but I think this argument is pointless. It just seems a little strange you're so dismissive when there's good evidence you shouldn't be. Incidentally, this also relates to my own field, the work I do for a living. May I ask if you're trying to be insulting or does it just read badly ? I'll assume good faith as I'm aware how easy it is to come off wrong in online discourse. Anyway, let's get back to the issue on hand. The finer points of SR and GR don't really need to be discussed here anymore. :) - drg85 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:48:29 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21490 [quote]Pedantic freshman physics crap? Oh dear. A little dismissive no? Anyway, we're getting off point. But incidentally, there are relativistic corrections in orbital mechanics - indeed, if I recall correctly to even get accurate GPS signals you need to use Einstein's Lorentz transforms rather than the pure classical form but this is utterly getting off point. [/quote] No. A lot dismissive. Please do me the favor of assuming I know what I'm talking about. This does relate to what I do for a living. I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but many of my co-workers are, and conversations with them are very educational. Not that any of this actually relates. If I were to ask one of them if he needed to take relativity into account, he would just chuckle and shake his head. First, they're not mainly Einstein's Lorentz transforms. They're Lorentz' Lorentz transforms. That's why they're called that. The versions derived by Einstein are sometimes called the Lorentz-Einstein transforms, but Einstein didn't invent them. Second, in the case of GPS we do have to make corrections based on both special relativity, which involves the Lorentz transforms, and general relativity, which does not. We need them for the extreme precision required for timing a radio signal from low earth orbit. Even the smallest error over that distance becomes large when you multiply by c. General and special relativity are therefore used to estimate the corrections needed to each satellite's onboard atomic clock. We do not actually need them for C&C. We don't even really need it for C&C of probes to Mercury, which is the main nearby context where general relativistic effects are measurable, since even then they're still very very small. And yes. Exactly. The author is preaching at stultifying length to the choir here. Being comfortable with uncertainty, with the lack of absolutes, is pretty basic to a skeptical mindset. At the same time, he did not frame his message in such a way that it's likely to be well-received by the people who really need it. - lytrigian Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:10:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21489 The sun does not revolve around the earth. It is the other way around! To be another pedant, neither is correct. The Sun and Earth both revolve around their common center of mass (barycentre). Given that the sun is a lot more massive than the Earth, (2E30 Kg vs 6E24 Kg)the center of mass is a lot closer to the Sun than the Earth - about 449 km from the center of the sun and well inside the Sun's radius. - Quidam Wed, 09 Mar 2011 09:19:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21485 Pedantic freshman physics crap? Oh dear. A little dismissive no? Anyway, we're getting off point. But incidentally, there are relativistic corrections in orbital mechanics - indeed, if I recall correctly to even get accurate GPS signals you need to use Einstein's Lorentz transforms rather than the pure classical form but this is utterly getting off point. In any case, the author may be preaching to the choir but people genuinely do some science as fickle and incorrectly see this as a weakness. We have two choices; we can dismiss them as ignorant / hold them in contempt or we can engage with them & clear up these misconceptions and help inform. The former option results in skeptics becoming a smaller & more elitist group, ultimately achieving nothing. The latter option means we can help people understand & make more informed choices. I really think the latter option is what we should be aiming at. - drg85 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:00:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21481 I know exactly what you mean. There is a great deal of public ignorance out there. The conversation I mentioned above actually happened yesterday. Our realtor was the one complaining about how science is always changing and I had to explain to her why that was the case. She's an intelligent woman, but scientifically ignorant in many respects. - FledgelingSkeptic Wed, 09 Mar 2011 05:18:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21478 "We can’t be absolutely certain there is no god, no “memory retention” in water, no fairies, no Loch Ness monster, or psychic abilities." I am absolutely certain that Randi still has his million dollars. Wasn't the whole point of the challenge that Randi put his money where his mouth is and gave people the opportunity to prove the existence of forces that he (and many of us here) do not "believe in"? I'm quite happy with the Universe working on the four known forces but if anyone wants me to accept a fifth or more, then I'm going to want the facts, the experiments, the science, the maths, the proof. Give me these and I still won't "believe in" another force, I'll just accept it as real and invest in some revised physics textbooks. - SeavyCarr Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:38:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21477 @drg85: Why do you start off "trying not to be a pedant" and then spout off a bunch of pedantic freshman physics crap? Einstein did not replace Newton. As you say, Einsteinian mechanics reduce to Newtonian in most phenomena on a human scale, and a great many that are not. We therefore still use Newtonian mechanics. For instance, when orbital analysts are calculating the parameters for the orbit needed to place a probe into so that it ends up on Mars, do they start with Einstein's equations and then let terms drop out when they are seen to be insignificant? No, that would be a stupid waste of time, and make some calculations so complex as to be almost unworkable. They already know those terms will be insignificant. So they [i]start out[/i] with Newton. Newton still works, and that's all we ask of a theory. In fact, Newton's "Laws" (within, yes, the domain where they are good approximations as delimited by Einstein on one end and quantum mechanics on the other) have been so thoroughly tested for so long that they're as certain as anything we know, and more certain than most. @FledglingSkeptic: If you know people like that then I have to believe you, but I'm not certain they're even heading in the right direction. - lytrigian Wed, 09 Mar 2011 03:12:19 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21473 I agree. Uncertainty and skepticism is good. 'Nuff said. - vino Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:07:30 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21472 Actually, trying not to be a pedant here but Einstein replaced Newton twice - Einsteinien mechanics is the more predictive improvement of Newtonian mechanics, which factors in relativistic factors. This was special relativity. With general relativity, which describes gravity as a consequence of curved space-time in the presence of mass, he effectively improved Newton's law of gravitation and could explain phenomena that evaded description with the older theory. This is the epitome of science - of course, Einstein's laws reduce in both cases in classical mechanics for many human phenomena. But Newton's laws breakdown at high speeds etc, so Einstein's relativistic versions are the gold standard, the now general form. Perhaps these too will be refined. But yes, Einstein certainly did replace Newton. That's scientific progress. Also @ FledglingSkeptic - you're absolutely right, and anyone who teaches science will back you up. Many people see the constant developments in science as proof 'science doesn't know what it's talking about' and it can be frustrating. I encountered this when I was teaching on the side during my undergraduate degree in physics. I found the confusion usually stemmed from those individuals being unaware how the self correcting nature of science actually works & how we go on best evidence. Once I'd explained this, they usually saw the point. I saw a similar pattern from certain students (usually of a devout religious background) when I was finishing my PhD - and this could be dealt with my engaging with rather than sniffing at. Yes, some people do see science as 'wrong' because it isn't absolute and constantly changes with new evidence. But the best way to change their mind is to explain to them why this is its greatest strength. - drg85 Wed, 09 Mar 2011 01:14:44 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21471 It depends on what you mean by 'belief'. When mentioned in the context of religion, it usually means 'belief without evidence' and in many cases it implies 'belief contrary to evidence' whereas in science the word implies 'belief due to evidence'. Many religious people like to use this imprecise language to imply that religious beliefs have the same validity as scientific beliefs. - MadScientist Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:41:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21469 "Uncertainty is why Einstein could replace Newton." I know that didn't come out of the front end of the bull. Take a physics course. [quote]I actually think there's some merit to this comparison. Newtonian mechanics is exceptionally accurate [what do you mean by this] in our human experience; for sub-luminal speeds [remember this] and medium sized macroscopic objects it's all you need. We can compute and predict most mechanics with it at our human scale. But of course, this all breaks down on the sub-atomic scale [you are just an RCH away from saying "quantum mechanics" which is the first refuge of people who don't know what they're talking about] OR at speeds approaching the speed of light [still sub-luminal, no?] and all sorts of staggering things take place. The relativistic mechanics of Einstein do indeed correct the classical Newtonian forms but I think the author's point is had we been 'certain' in absolute terms that Newton's forms were perfect and certain for all cases then the deeper truth that Einstein showed wouldn't have emerged. Science by its nature is self-correcting and theories are constantly refined, which of course wouldn't happen if we treated every new discovery as certain in the unchanging sense of the word. I think the author uses uncertainty in this context to mean 'constantly refining' as opposed to certainty being blind convinction something is true. And as science is willing to throw away a cherished theory when the evidence contradicts it, this shouldn't ever happen.. except of course in Maths, where proof IS certain[/quote] What is your position on the Epps Convergence? [quote]@Caller X: Again you're complaining about "filler" articles. I haven't seen any submissions from you that I know of. If you're not happy with the content, do something about it. Send me a good skeptically-themed article at blog@Randi.org[/quote] I think it would be redundant to submit an article about filler articles. But I'm glad to see that you are now soliciting "good" articles. Here's an article: Can you know something that isn't true? Discuss. Shortest article ever. - Caller X Tue, 08 Mar 2011 21:53:26 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21468 @ lytrigian: You say you hope that no skeptic considers science to be an absolute. The problem is that, as someone who talks to people who are new or just learning about skepticism, I see this all the time. Not everyone DOES understand that science is not an absolute. As a matter of fact I've met people who think that it is and complain when scientists come back later with an adjusted or new theory. This is a pretty common complaint. @Caller X: Again you're complaining about "filler" articles. I haven't seen any submissions from you that I know of. If you're not happy with the content, do something about it. Send me a good skeptically-themed article at blog@Randi.org - FledgelingSkeptic Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:58:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21467 What you say here is beside the point. Einstein didn't "replace" Newton in any sense of the word. - lytrigian Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:55:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21466 [i]"Uncertainty is why Einstein could replace Newton." I know that didn't come out of the front end of the bull. Take a physics course. [/i] I actually think there's some merit to this comparison. Newtonian mechanics is exceptionally accurate in our human experience; for sub-luminal speeds and medium sized macroscopic objects it's all you need. We can compute and predict most mechanics with it at our human scale. But of course, this all breaks down on the sub-atomic scale OR at speeds approaching the speed of light and all sorts of staggering things take place. The relativistic mechanics of Einstein do indeed correct the classical Newtonian forms but I think the author's point is had we been 'certain' in absolute terms that Newton's forms were perfect and certain [i]for all cases[/i] then the deeper truth that Einstein showed wouldn't have emerged. Science by its nature is self-correcting and theories are constantly refined, which of course wouldn't happen if we treated every new discovery as certain in the unchanging sense of the word. I think the author uses uncertainty in this context to mean 'constantly refining' as opposed to certainty being blind convinction something is true. And as science is willing to throw away a cherished theory when the evidence contradicts it, this shouldn't ever happen.. except of course in Maths, where proof IS certain :) - drg85 Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:36:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1237-the-use-of-uncertainty.html#comment-21465 [quote]The sun does not revolve around the earth. It is the other way around! [/quote] Furthermore, an elephant and a feather [i]don't[/i] fall at the same speed anywhere on the earth's surface. Even if there was a vacuum chamber large enough so that you could suspend a (hopefully dead and freeze-dried) elephant in order to conduct this experiment, I'm pretty sure this has never actually been done, and ALMOST certainly never will be. It's not very important, but I personally despise back-formations like "orientate". We go from "orient" to "orientation" and back again; "orientate" is a stop along the way that we never need to make. It's not wrong, just ugly to me, not unlike "different to". You seem to be arguing (at length, indeed, ad tedium) a point that doesn't need to be made, at least not to anyone here. I would hope that no one who claims the label of "skeptic" thinks of science as some absolutist system of Platonic truths. The only claim that seems to be taken seriously (in general; there are weirdos everywhere) is that it's the best we can do when it comes to finding out how things really work -- or, to put it more broadly, modeling nature in such a way that we can reproduce or predict phenomena given the necessary conditions. So your penultimate paragraph seems especially pointless. - lytrigian Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:22:11 +0100