Entropy in everyday life

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 20, 2019.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You have not posed any objections to the thought experiment; you have only posed objections to your idea of a possible practical experiment.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Your thought experiment gets emptier and emptier. I have thought about possible objections to your thoughts.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You would be responsible for designing the experiment so that such factors as bias in the initial release are eliminated.
    If that creeps in as a bias, then you have failed to design the experiment properly. That's not a flaw in the principle.

    Teacher: "Designing a vapour chamber will show you subatomic particles."
    Student: "But how will you get a pure gas in the chamber without it leaking? ? If you can't do that. your theory of subatomic particles is just fantasy."
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    This is vacuous. I have listed the principles, you have not provided any refutation of the principles, you've only provided ideas of flawed experimental designs. (And I agree! Reject those designs that don't test the principle of interest.)
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I've already suggested an experiment that would potentially falsify your "principle" - and I have predicted the result.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It won't.

    If your experiment doesn't account for the meandering path of the cards possibly affecting the outcome , then it's a bad experiment. Design it properly.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Then fix the flaws. Don't throw science out with the bathwater.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    These are the odds.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    There are no flaws in the principles; only flaws in your experiment.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Huh? That's what I'm telling you, that the meandering path of the cards is likely to be a more significant factor than the weight.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yup. As I said, vanishingly small but not zero.
     
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    That's bad science. You make the theory fit the facts; you don't mangle the facts to fit the theory.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Except that the meandering is random, which means a larger enough sample size will eliminate it.
    Or, a smaller sample size, but a lower (though still not zero) probability of being sorted at the end.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You have no facts.


    You do the experiment to test the principle - the hypothesis.
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Is it? Or is it aerodynamically related to the weight? (A heavier card would dive faster and thus climb faster.) Is it possible that there is an inverse relationship?
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    But you've already declared your principle true.
     
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Yep, we would have to define it as such. (But, I think that would be the most logical starting point, just sayin')

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You're certainly welcome to test that too.

    You're still missing the point of the thread though.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I have asserted it and then I have defended it.
    There is no "declaration of true" in discussions.

    It stands unless defeated.
    You haven't defeated the assertions; you've created an experiment of your own design, and then attacked the flaws in that. A straw man.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Do you mind? We're trying to have a discussion here!

    (Haha. That's a joke.)
     
    sideshowbob and wegs like this.

Share This Page