Objective Truth

You addressed evolution, nothing about computer models.

My reference says computer models are used in the application of the scientific method.
Computer models were used to add credence to the scientific view that rogue waves were not possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was no "scientific view", and the reason that computer models were so far off was, you guessed it, because there was no data to work with. And what is data? Quantitative observations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/sublimely-indifferent/story-e6frg8nf-1225961534306
Until recently science denied the existence of such waves. Yet a series of well-documented and expensive maritime disasters through the 1990s, together with advances in our understanding of complex systems, has forced a rethink.


~

http://www.damninteresting.com/monster-rogue-waves/
Despite these and other encounters with rogue waves, scientists long rejected such claims as unlikely. Anecdotal evidence is often unreliable, so researchers used computer modelling to predict the likelihood of such massive waves. Oceanographers’ findings indicated that waves higher than fifteen meters were probably very rare events, occurring perhaps once in 10,000 years. That all changed in 1995 when a freak wave hit the Draupner North Sea oil platform. The oil rig swayed a little, suffering minor damage, but its onboard measuring equipment successfully recorded the wave height at nineteen meters.
~ ~

Oceanographers are scientists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But you've just agreed that science doesn't make truth claims, so, you're quoting something which you should recognise as nonsense.
I'm about to go to bed, if you're leading up to something with this story about waves, please get to the point in your next post.

 

Science makes probability claims about, evolution, and rogue waves.

With the certainty they now claim that rogue waves exist, that is the certrainity they did not exist, prior to 1995.

Good night.

 

Incorrect. There was anecdotal evidence for the existence of rogue waves, before 1995, but there were no quantitative observations. So, the matter was outside the scope of science, because science requires quantitative observations.
I still dont know what you're getting at with this stuff, but, good night to you too.

 

Shipbuilders, sailors and many others directly connected to traveling by sea probably had no trouble believing that rogue waves exist. From personal experience with them, they had good reason to believe in such phenomena at the sea.

 

What a strange way to engage a conversation on objective truth.

When you say "science claims" what does that mean? Do you mean "science teaches.."? What does science teach about rogue waves, and what does that have to do with the subject matter of objective truth?

What are "probability claims"? If the weatherman says there's a 30% chance of rain, is that a probability claim? Again, what does a scientist's use of probability theory, as in weather forecasting, have to do with objective truth?

What "probability claims" are made about evolution? Darwin explained the evidence of evolution that he saw, and in part referred to the probability in the way traits are randomized, or that the struggle for survival has random factors, etc. But Darwin's discoveries are generally considered settled science, so it would be strange to call them "claims". Again, what is your point about evolution, or the teachings of science regarding evolution, that are relevant to a conversation about objective truth?

Finally, you raised the subject of computer simulations. Again, what does this have to do with objective truth? It seems strange to me that simulation would even come up in a discussion about truth. One of the first questions normally asked of a simulation is: how truly does it fit the phenomenon we are trying to model?

Who is "they" and what exactly is your gripe? That certain scientists are trying to understand and explain rogue waves? Do you want them to stop investigating?

:shrug:

 

The engagement started here.

I responded to a post, that seemed to need a response.
I simply provided a response, and the conversation continued on.

Scientiest investigated and studied rogue waves for many decades, and made the claim that they were so improbable as to be nonexistent.
They denied them with a scientific certainty (which is not absolute anything).

My point is, experience reveals objective truth, in cases where science is not able.
A small thing, but relevant to recognition of objective truth.

 

true

sometimes science needs the experience of others

 

But the article you cited says

This shows that the scientific method is the best method for identifying and describing phenomena. I don't get your point.

Since there can be no science without experience, your statement makes no sense. It is precisely because of experience, by observation and testing, that scientists are able to discover explanations for mysterious phenomena. It's apples and oranges to compare what someone experiences with what someone else discovers in terms of an explanation. The problem arises when a person having an experience attributes the explanation wrongly, by failure to follow the scientific method. The objective truth concerning the actual cause is then hidden by the subjective reasons for refusing scientific inquiry.

You refer to your earlier post where you said:

Here again you are confusing the experience of a wave with the attempt to discover its cause. The people caught in a rogue wave aren't experiencing the cause. They're experiencing the effect, a wave, one that could be caused by a seismic event or something else. They're not experiencing the seismic event or the "something else", just the wave.

Also, in that prior post you were responding to:

Are you wanting to form a connection between experiencing a tidal wave and a "religious experience"? Because they're different as night and day. One manifests in the sea, so it interacts with nature, and it's measurable, and the folks in the boat measure it well. Now satellites can help measure them better. Obviously this is entirely different than the belief that something actually happened (as during a hallucination) or the belief that something lucidly observed (such as the sun rising) is attributed to some arbitrarily chosen intangible cause, such as God.

 

@Aqueous --

My post was in response to Wynn's claim that the scientific method simply won't work for gaining "spiritual" knowledge. I was simply pointing out that without further clarification(such as which method for gaining knowledge would work) and explanation(of why the scientific method won't work) her argument is pointless and invalid. A waste of space.

 

objective truth

that when you pass , the Universe does not change

when my Father passed , water did not change , our atmosphere didn't change , soil didn't change , attitudes towards our planet didn't change

stars nor galaxies didn't change

nothing changed but my understanding of life

 

The scientific method is just fine for studying a phenomena. . . .if it even recognizes the phenomena.
For several hundred years, the SM failed to recognize them, were not possible to study, since they were denied.

Well, Shackleton had the experience, could not be scientifically verified, so was denied.
We can also say that computer models are substituted for actual experiences.
(See below, use of computer models)

You do not need the SM to experience a phenomena.
You want to say the SM explains the 'cause' of it, okay.

And you are confusing identifying an actual phenomena, with denying it's existence.
Once it is recognized, science does a fine job of studying it.
Science tried to study it, for many decades, and the best it could do was say 'Can't happen, with any reasonable probability.'

Well, it is a fact that science is not capable of recognizing all phenomena. That is no great statement, any reasonable person knows mankind has much to learn, and be validated by science.

In it's own sphere of influence, the natural world, it listened to the claims of a noted explorer, as well as hundreds of seamen, and said (in effect), 'Sorry, you are mistaken. We have studied the issue, and see no reasonalble way such a thing can happen.'

Until science validated rogue waves in 1995, the reports were no better than hallucinations.
The were not taken seriously by oceanographers.
They were, something else, but not what the people thought they were.
They could have been 100% accurate in their description, and it would not matter, it was not believable.
What is that but an hallucination?
From the viewpoint of the 'experts', mariners and others were either hallucinating, or just plain mistaken about what they claimed.

~ ~ ~

There is a new step in the scientific method that involves the use of computer models and simulation studies. When computer models are incorporated into hypothesis formulation, they can be used in simulation studies to test ideas before they are tried experimentally. An iterative feedback between these tests and current ideas allows for a preliminary refinement of hypotheses and development of more intelligent research protocols. In this way, computer simulation studies can serve as an intermediate step in the scientific method,. . . . . . . . . . . . .http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16363976

~ ~ ~

This book is an excellent philosophical appraisal of the roles played by computers in modern science. It discusses such computational methods as computer simulations, Monte Carlo methods, and agent-based modeling, making many important points about empiricism, realism, and epistemology in general. Its conclusions are defended by a rich set of scientific examples mostly taken from physics. I shall assess the conclusions according to how well they fit with the use of computational models in the two fields in which I have employed them myself, psychology and neuroscience.

Here are what seem to me to be the most important conclusions for which Humphreys argues. Scientific knowledge is not limited to what human senses can provide, because the senses can be augmented by instruments and new forms of mathematics. Instruments are property detectors, and we often have good grounds for believing that they succeed in detecting properties not directly observable. Just as instruments extend human observation, so computability extends the realm of mathematical representations. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24804-exten...nal-science-empiricism-and-scientific-method/

 

You do realize that every time someone in the past claimed this they were proven wrong, right? Just thought you might want to be aware of that.

 

The truth is out there!

Just break that sentence down, and it tells you all you need to know. Somehow I see words, and sentences as formulas. That small quote from somewhere really works as a complete formula.

 

Right. First you see something, then you seek to explain it. How else should it go? To explain something not observed, then wait for it to 'appear'?

That's hyperbole. How can anyone study surface waves without a network of radio buoys or satellite...something modern. Plus you need seismic monitoring stations to detect whether or not a quake triggered it. Where do you come up with the idea that for hundreds of years the scientific method denied the study of tidal waves? You are mixing a lot of different ideas together: science (a field), the scientific method (a principle), tidal waves (rare events in remote parts of the world) and some kind of authoritarianism (?) in which things go unstudied because they are denied...?

What do you mean denied? No one believed that he was hit by a wave? Or no one was sure whether it was a tsunami or not?

Again, hyperbole. Why not just say it transparently? Computer models are tools, nothing more, to estimate how real systems behave. What's wrong with that?

No, you need the phenomena to start the scientific inquiry. Without phenomena, there would be no science. And science begins with experiencing phenomena.

Yes, science is the way we discover and explain the causes of mysterious phenomena.

Oh, no, I'm clear on that. Science has done a remarkable job of identifying rogue waves, and setting up sensors to detect them. There's no denial going on whatsoever.

If you mean scientists go to work on a problem after it's brought to their attention, then I would agree with that.

No. Here's what science says about rogue waves:

citing
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/18_3/18.3_muller_et_al.pdf

The point was that science is the best method for discovering truth, not whether science knows all truth.

You mean somebody said something to Shackleton? That doesn't have much to do with other scientists or the scientific method, that's just some particular individuals. Who knows what was said to Shackleton, and by whom, but those conversations aren't relevant to to the question of whether the scientific method is the best way to gain knowledge of something, which is the comment that precipitated your remarks.

I'm not sure what you mean. Huge waves were recorded in the 1800s, crashing over the top of a lighthouse. And above I gave you another example from the 1920s. As far as what happened in 1995, maybe you mean:

You mean they only had testimony as evidence.

Believable or not, based on all the evidence scientists had to corroborate the anecdotal evidence, it was incumbent for the unbelievers to change their view and accept the best evidence available--courtesy of science.

Experts are wrong all the time, even medieval scientists were wrong in proving that the planets travel in cycloids. But it was the best information available, which is as good as it gets.

The rest of your post speaks to computer simulation, which is a tool, nothing more. In some cases it's considered vital to saving lives, such the models that predict dangerous weather conditions. Thus, the objective truth, that a person's life will soon be in danger, was made available to the populace of New Orleans in time for them to leave town before Katrina hit.

I'm sure many of them are grateful to scientists and their machines.

 

Well, first of all there are more experiences than 'seeing'.
Seeing is one type of observation.
So, does one have to observe something to attempt to explain it? Of course not.
The scientists who tried to explain rogue waves did not experience them but tried to verify or explain them. As a result of various studies over many dedades, their scfientific studies said they were virtually impossible.

Hindsight is 20/20.
My position is 'Here is what happened concerning rogue waves as reported and the scientific inquiry that followed. Science, using all of he tools and techniques available, determined that rogue waves were virtually impossible, so such reports were mistaken.'
The response is 'Well, that should not have happened.'

I seem to have an advantage over you in that I did considerable research, and it seems you did not.

You statement "things go unstudied because they are denied....", does not apply to rogue waves.
It is a false statement, in this case.
They were studied, extensively, using various methods, by many groups (generations) of scientists, and discalimed.

Oceanorgraphers are scientists, yes?
When at work they use the scientific method, yes?
Science/scientists, followers of science, are very good at saying,
'Gosh we got it wrong, but. . . now, with more informtion, we got it right'.
This is one such example.

Rogue waves, as reported by mariners and explorers, would be a very serious issue, and cost not only lives, but a bunch of money.
It is not reasonable to believe that such events were not studied to the fullest extent reasonably possible to confirm or deny. Yet that is what you would have us believe.

Here is one such study, that says in essense, 'Not an issue, due to the extremely low probability.'
http://www.ifremer.fr/web-com/stw2004/rw/fullpapers/haver.pdf

Please do not be so obtuse.
I mean that Shackleton described a rogue wave event he experienced, and it was denied. Not 'a wave'. Who would deny a person on a ship experienced a wave event.

You say this, as if science does not normally rely on 'tools'.

Science always relies on tools, and sometimes the techniques and tools yield false results.
Ancedotal evidence is not 'scientific'.
Ancedotal evidence convinced the mind of Shackleton and others of the truth of rogue waves, and the scientific tools and techniques denied it, said so unlikely as to be unreasonable.

So who among those scientists studying black holes have experienced them? Rubish.
Science does not (always) begin with actual experience.
What nonesense.
Science often begins with results, and says 'What caused this?'
The phenomena is discovered after scientific inquiry.

It seems obvious to me this is mistaken.
It is not 'the' way, merely 'a' way.
Rogue waves were discovered by human experience.
Science may have provided an explaination, but it did not provide the discovery.
Hindsight provides the verification what I say is true.

Again I must point out that for many decades scientists denied the existance of rogue waves.
I do not deny your 20/20 hindsight.

No, I mean rogue waves were brought to the attention of scientists, they were costing lives, and money, so scientists studied them, and felt there was no need to change procedures, until 1995 and the light bulb came on, so to speak.

Surely we can agree that the best method is not the only method. That is my point.
The best method is not the only method.

It seems so simple to me.
Sometimes the best method gets it wrong. Neither you nor anyone I have ever heard from says science is perfect, and yet when I suggest that in some cases another system got it right, and science got it wrong, I'm mistaken.
That is not rational.

See above.
Many lives have been saved, many dollars, since the scientific recognition of rogue waves.
I said in my first post, being the 'best' is not being the 'only'.

That is what precipitated this discussion.
This was studied within the monetary limits of science.
Theoretical models demonstrated that that such events were so remote that even spending billions of dollars to save lives would not be productive.
I am not suggesting that we give up on scientific inquiry in favor of ancedotal evidence.
I am saying history has demonstrated that ancedotal evidence of human experience has shown to be true, what science denied.
This is exceptionally true when science lacks the tools or information necessary to contradict ancedotal evidence.

'Huge waves' are not the same as rogue waves.
They had more than testimony.
They had the the SM, with it's limitations, with it's models, computer and otherwise. They had the incentive of lives and money, to resolve the issue, to build ships better, stronger, and the result was no changes were made, since rogue waves were denied.
The structure of oil rigs has greatly improved since the scientific recognition of rogue waves.
There was real motivation, to resolve the issue. This was not some hypothetical quandry with no real significance.

Here is the heart of the matter.
The 'best evidence available'.
This speaks volumes.
For the individual, 'experience' is often the 'best evidence available', and yet it means little to others who have not had the same experience.


Many of those in the scientific community believe that if it can not be demonstrated to a scientific certainty, it is not true, valid, objective, whatever.
It was demonstrated to a scientific certainity that rogue waves were so extremely unlikely that the various reports were not actual occurences, not experiences of objective truths.
They were, mistaken beliefs (and yet this was not true)

It is a shame the SM did not have the capability to recognize the truth value of the early accounts of rogue waves. So many more lives could have been saved.

 

I believe you are saying, 'Eventually science gets it right.'

This would be along the lines of 'Science is a self correcting system.'

You have looked into your crystal ball, and seen the future. Good for you.


I was speaking in the present tense, and where we are today is that science is not now, today, as I type, capable of recognizing all phenomena.

As for your crystal ball and the ability to forecast the future with absolute certainty, I doubt it.

I believe it will always be true, in the infinite future, that it will not be possible for science to recognize all phenomena.
Always a new horizon out there.
If you think about it, I believe you will agree.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/science/11wave.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Over the centuries, many accounts have told of monster waves that battered and sank ships. In 1933 in the North Pacific, the Navy oiler Ramapo encountered a huge wave. The crew, calm enough to triangulate from the ship’s superstructure, estimated its height at 112 feet.

In 1966, the Italian cruise ship Michelangelo was steaming toward New York when a giant wave tore a hole in its superstructure, smashed heavy glass 80 feet above the waterline, and killed a crewman and two passengers. In 1978, the München, a German barge carrier, sank in the Atlantic. Surviving bits of twisted wreckage suggested that it surrendered to a wave of great force.

Despite such accounts, many oceanographers were skeptical. The human imagination tended to embellish, they said.

Moreover, bobbing ships were terrible reference points for trying to determine the size of onrushing objects with any kind of accuracy. Their mathematical models predicted that giant waves were statistical improbabilities that should arise once every 10,000 years or so.
That began to change on New Year’s Day in 1995, when a rock-steady oil platform in the North Sea produced what was considered the first hard evidence of a rogue wave.