Mach Effect progress

[KitemanSA]

Lord Jesus, please give us some new physics with an experimental proof before the theoretical model instead of the other way around.

Theory ALWAYS precedes proof.

I do not agree. Ideas preceed experiments and experiments generate Theories. It has been like this for most of human discoveries.

"Discovery" is not theory nor is it proof. Discovery is DISproof. Disproof generates the need for new theory, but if you believe that the fact that a new theory covers know fact is somehow "PROOF"... whew! You need to rethink this.

[GIThruster]

Once the old theory is discarded, at least by some, a new theory is posited that covers the new data.

Kite, this is very close but backward.

Its only once the current scientific paradigm has been show to be coming up short for a very long time--again and again and again and again, we find the current paradigm is not answering the real questions--that we even begin to consider a new paradigm.

Otherwise, you're dead on.

[Giorgio]

Theory ALWAYS precedes proof.

I do not agree. Ideas preceed experiments and experiments generate Theories. It has been like this for most of human discoveries.

"Discovery" is not theory nor is it proof. Discovery is DISproof. Disproof generates the need for new theory, but if you believe that the fact that a new theory covers know fact is somehow "PROOF"... whew! You need to rethink this.

Your logic is correct if we talk about an existing theory. Than you can disproof it either with a new theory or a new experimental result.
But what I was discussing about is the coming of new physics through a working experiment, like it was in the dawn of human science.
You can't apply your logic in this case.

Edited to fix typos.

[KitemanSA]

Your logic is correct if we talk about an existing theory. Than you can disproof it either with a new theory or a new experimental result.

Hmmm. Please show me one instance where new theory disproved old. New finding (discoveries, experimental results...) can provide contradictions that disprove old theory, but all NEW theory can do is do a better job of explaining the current facts.

But what I was discussing about is the coming of new physics through a working experiment, like it was in the dawn of human science.

"New Physics"? Please name one instance where any experiment did anything but disprove old "physics" (being the way people view the physical world).
And you say the "dawn of human science" as if that defined the first instance of a current theory. Not so. People have had theories (dogma, paradigm, world view, call it what you will) back to the inception of humanity, and possibly before. Science is just a better way to validate such theories.

You can't apply your logic in this case.

Because the case doesn't exist, IMHO.

[rcain]

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov

[KitemanSA]

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov

Right up there with, "the machine ran fine but the experiment didn't work".

[rcain]

LOL

...or 'i just need another million dollars to be sure...', or 'that was "my" theory, but everyone said i was a lunatic...'.

[Giorgio]

Your logic is correct if we talk about an existing theory. Than you can disproof it either with a new theory or a new experimental result.

Hmmm. Please show me one instance where new theory disproved old.
New finding (discoveries, experimental results...) can provide contradictions that disprove old theory, but all NEW theory can do is do a better job of explaining the current facts.

Bad choice of words from me, I should have written "oppose" instead of "disproof". My thought anyhow should be clear enough.

But what I was discussing about is the coming of new physics through a working experiment, like it was in the dawn of human science.

"New Physics"? Please name one instance where any experiment did anything but disprove old "physics" (being the way people view the physical world).

I named some before. Archimede, Newton and Galileo as example didn't disprove any old physics when they made their experiments and derived their theories and formulas. They observed and showed us new physics which was under the eyes of everyone but not seen by anyone.

Define what does it mean for you "the way people view the physical world" because it does not make much sense to me in the contest of this discussion.

And you say the "dawn of human science" as if that defined the first instance of a current theory. Not so. People have had theories (dogma, paradigm, world view, call it what you will) back to the inception of humanity, and possibly before. Science is just a better way to validate such theories.

What a bad definition of science. I could never agree on this.

Science is not what allows you to validate your belief or theories.
Science is what allows you to describe nature and what surrounds you. Everything else are just personal beliefs that "might" become science if you are able to validate them.

The "dawn of human science" happened several times in the last 3000 years. Every time we started to observe nature and question it (instead of simply accepting it) we had a dawn for science and an improvement for our civilization. Every time we stopped observing we had a dusk and a slow down.

[ladajo]

Why?
Because
Maybe
Maybe not
Why not?
Why?

The circle of science...

On a more serious note, I like the discussion thread above. I think that scientific discovery comes from two angles, one being "why is that?", the other being, "what was that?". The differences laying in finding(or not) what we looked for vice finding(or not) something we weren't. I guess another angle could be the "could it? approach.
I do not think it is chicken or egg as is seemingly argued above, it is all about the pursuit of an answer to a question. The source of the question does not really seem to matter, but the integrity of the answer does.
Philospher I am not.

[GIThruster]

Philosopher maybe not, but certainly you understand the spirit of scientific inquiry.

[chrismb]

Please name one instance where any experiment did anything but disprove old "physics" (being the way people view the physical world).

I named some before. Archimede, Newton and Galileo as example didn't disprove any old physics when they made their experiments and derived their theories and formulas.

Quite so. But more so...actually, there are two such cases that apply, in the one case a person has jumped sooo far ahead of the pack that all of a sudden they are doing something that appears to be missing out several steps, until the 'others' catch up. This can apply in engineering also.

The other is simply that someone is first with a new insight. All ideas were thought by a first individual. A fact easily forgotten in a society that presumes new science will come along regularly as if by magic and by no real effort on anyone's behalf. The western societies we live in do not show a proportionate regard to its scientists and engineers that yield the advances demanded by the masses.

I make it a point of interest to think about how new ideas come to people. It is such an ignored part of human achievement I find it rather odd that it is rarely examined in detail, but I guess it is understandable because until you have, or have been presented with, a new idea then you've no idea what it is! Then once you know it, you know it. Consequently, I don't think people actually go looking for that step between 'not having' and idea and 'having' an idea because it is seen as being instantaneous. I rather think it is seen as 'inevitable' that someone, somewhere, will come up with a new idea because people always have done in the past. It is not inevitable, it happens rarely to rare people, and it is generally not given due credit by the greater 'un-washed' of society.

In such cases, things which are completely new pop into existence, and that therefore satisfy the criterion above.

[KitemanSA]

"New Physics"? Please name one instance where any experiment did anything but disprove old "physics" (being the way people view the physical world).

I named some before. Archimede, Newton and Galileo as example didn't disprove any old physics when they made their experiments and derived their theories and formulas.

I'm not all that up on Archimedes the scientist. He was a pretty good naturalist, but... As for Galileo, what theory did he propose? I know he made many observations that contravened existing (dogma, paradigm, whatever) of the way the world worked. But I don't know of any theory he developed. Enlighten me please? (Just wikied him and it looks like his only theory (cause of tides) was a dud. Seems he was a MUCH better naturalist than theorist.)
But your Newton example doesn't support your contention. In his case he observed data that contradicted the prevailing theory (dogma, paradigm, whatever) of the way the world worked. Having become satisfied that the current theory was flawed, he came up with a new theory (His theory of gravitation) that covered the facts as he saw them. After a long period of experimental "support", his theory was later disproved and gave way to newer theories.

[nogo]

As for Galileo, what theory did he propose?

The Law of Inertia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Classical_inertia

[TallDave]

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." ~Isaac Asimov

Agreed. The progress of science has been driven by unexpected observations that had to be explained by new theories.

[icarus]

Yes, well. As opposed to the unexpected theories that had to be explained by new observations.