Originally Posted by rroseperry
I'm sorry, what am I neglecting? I don't think I am dismissing people's perceptions in these threads.
In my experience, there are no scientific truths, sans quotes. Science is about what is and I have spent a goodly part of my own life trying to understand scientific explanations of the world we live in, specifically in biological sciences. I am no coming into this scoffing at science or thinking that our current knowledge is all there is or ever will be.
The theories of special and general relativity were solutions to observed phenomena. Einstein didn't pull them out of thin air. It was his insight that brought together theoretical and empirical work by Albert Michelson, Hendrik Lorentz, and Henri Poincaré. There was evidence, just no good theory to unite it in satisfactory way until 1905.
Science can most certainly question our observations and perceptions. You should go over to the thread with the TED talk, where scientists showed how when people thought they were drinking expensive wine, pleasure centers in their minds lit up that were not affected when they thought they were drinking plonk.
The theories of General and special relativity (more on general relativity than special) was "based" on the work of mathematicians and scientists before Einstein BUT his theories did not develop from them directly. The theory of General Relativity was constructed by knowing a head of time what a solution needs to looks like. If you are a scientist and accustomed to solving Differential equations, you should know that there are various ways of solving differential equations, but there are no rigid analytical methods (meaning you can just plug and chug your way through any problem and get an analytical solution). What you do instead is assume a possible solution and "test" or demonstrate that the solution is a possible solution to the problem. This is also how String theory, M Theory, etc... have been developed. So, yes the solutions are based on previously known information and as you state observed phenomena. But understand that the solutions he used for his initial special relativity were actually from "defunct" solutions from Maxwell. The reason those solutions were neglected and in fact discarded until Einstein, is because they relied on the speed of light being constant. Einstein stated, that the speed of light is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT, in his paper without justification -he claimed that it must be so. While there were measurements indicating that the speed of light did not change (eg. Michaelson Morely (sp) experiment). Those were never actual experiments that a scientific method (should one exist) would call a proper experiment because the purpose of the experiment was different from trying to prove or disprove that the speed of light is constant. As you should know, the Michaelson Morely (sp) experiment is actually a very famous null result, they were trying to find the Aether and could not detect it. Einstein made his declaration of the universality of the speed of light as a constant in vacuum, without experimental data. He stated it must be and therefore the following physical laws follow. In fact, this is what separated Einstein from previous physicists who performed countless experiments and formulated scientific laws to govern the behavior of the phenomenon they observed. Einstein did not perform experiments.
If that does not bother you, just ask why the speed of light must be constant. I've asked every physicist, professors and researchers alike, that I have come across, and no one knows (after you bug them enough for the cause). They simply know that it must be the case because the "truth" that ensues from that assumption matches experimental results. But that is unfortunately a logical fallacy. Most modern Physical theories were all developed in a similar way, make an assumption to obtain a particular solution and determine if such a solution agrees with experimentation. This has happened as I stated since Einstein, to QED, to String Theory and any and forms of Theories of Everything today. And therein lies your, I suppose, ignorance in the matter. You are neglecting the view that science is not correct. While science does correct it self, it usually occurs in lifetimes, as Kuhn writes, it is not that the new scientific theory surpasses the old, rather it is the old scientists die out and the new ones continue with the newer scientific theory. And of course if you do follow Einstein, you would know that he is a prime example of this notion. Although he brought quantum theory into life, he detested it, and spent his lifetime rejecting it. Plank out lived Einstein and the young men and women who accepted quantum theory continued to spread it while the remaining scientists upholding Newtonian Mechanics died out.
And of course you misread or neglected what I wrote regarding the difference between the ability of science to question our perceptions. It is not that science cannot question what it is that we perceive (eg. optical illusions), rather science cannot question whether we had them or not (the existence of the phenomenon). And the reason why I claim that no AxB testing will ever prove if someone has heard something is not that the test is not scientific enough, it is simply that you cannot obtain a scientific conclusion (even with the most perfect test) that they did not perceive anything.
And I think that many here agree that the testing can lead to the conclusion of placebos. But if placebo's can cure cancer, if they can allow me to get a root canal without novocaine, and allow me to do what I could not otherwise do, then why do people scoff at it? If the placebo is caused by a cable, and it allows me to hear more, is that not worth it? If a sugar pill can cure me of an illness, isn't it worth it? Just because you cannot explain it with your "Science," does it mean that I am not cured, or that I am not hearing something? And for those who claim that every test has never come out positive for the snake oilers, can they not simply claim that the presence and pressure of others decreases/eliminates the placebo effect of the cable? And do you not realize that calling something a placebo is simply labeling something that science does not understand. Furthermore, scientists call it a name so that it can nicely fit it into a little box and forget about it, just like the anomalies that ultimately lead to modern scientific theories today.
If you believe you know science, ask yourself and please write what is the scientific method and what is your methodology for cable science, it should be helpful in furthering the discussion of cable science.
Edited by pdupiano - 8/5/11 at 9:51pm