Re: Lightspeed exceeded

"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jonah Thomas wrote:

Your claim is clearly that Vessot chose to interpret the outcome
of the experiment as a confirmation of GR, not because the data
showed it to be the only possible conclusion, but because Vessot
was biased and got the results he wanted.

You were wrong.

See, this is another example of your basic misunderstanding of
scientific method.

If you do the experiment, and the result comes out the way your
theory predicts, that's a confirming instance. It does not mean that
your theory was correct.

Of bloody course no experiment can prove a theory correct!

So this confirming instance does not prove my theory correct. It is only
a confirming instance.

Previously I wrote:
| An experiment cannot 'verify' a theory, it can only 'confirm'(or
| falsify) it. It can however 'verify' a specific prediction of a
| theory.
|
| Gravity probe A verified GR's predictions for the rate of the maser
| during the probe's flight, and thus it didn't falsify GR, but
| confirmed it.

Exactly! And Vessot's example fit my predictions, so it does not falsify
my theory but confirms it.

It does not mean that you got your result for the reasons you think.


??? What does this mean? "the reasons you think", what reasons are
that?

The fact that Vessot's example confirms my theory does not mean that the
results came out that way because Vessot was biased etc. For all I know
he could have been doing his science correctly. Nevertheless it is a
confirming instance because the observable results came out as I
predicted.

It's only a confirming instance -- the results came out as you
predicted.

You are talking nonsense.
It is utterly irrelevant what I, Vessot, or anybody else 'predicted'
or expected the outcome of the experiment to be.

How can that possibly be irrelevant?

GR was confirmed because its predictions was in accordance with
the measurements.

Exactly! And my theory was confirmed for exactly the same reason.

If I said that people who had biases could never ever do an
experiment and get correct results, then Vessot's work would
disprove my theory assuming that his results are actually correct.
But I did not say that.

Didn't you?

I did not. If you could depend on biased people to never ever get a
correct result from an experiment, then you could put them to work doing
experiments and know that whatever they concluded had to be wrong. But
of course that does not work. Biased observers are undependable that
way.

You are now fleeing your own words, which is a typical crackpot
behaviour.

These are your words about Vessot's gravity probe A experiment:

Jonah Thomas wrote:
| Once he believed that GR was true and thought in its definitions,
| his ability to think about useful tests for it was deeply
| compromised.

Yes, I stand by that. Nothing to flee there.

Jonah Thomas wrote:
| If you have one theory that you believe is true and another theory
| that you believe is false, the experiments you design to test
| between them may not be worth doing. Your biases will get in your
| way when you design and carry out the tests.

Yes, I stand by that. What are you on about?

Jonah Thomas wrote:
| He did believe in GR, he
| performed an experiment designed to confirm GR, and he interpreted
| the results in ways that did confirm GR. He decided that the errors
| compared to theory were not important. Just as I predicted.

Yes, this is clearly true. You have no grounds to disagree.

Your clearly claimed that Vessot chose to interpret the outcome
of the experiment as a confirmation of GR, not because the data
showed it to be the only possible conclusion, but because Vessot
was biased and got the results he wanted.

No, you take it too far. There's a strong possibility of that result,
but you cannot depend on biased observers to always bias their results.
It isn't like their bias is an aristotelian quality. "They have the
quality of bias, therefore they will exhibit bias always and forever,
just as a brave man must always be brave and a red coat must always
demonstrate the quality of redness." No, you are making a strawman
argument and trying to tell me that I believe something that surely even
you would see is stupid.

In other words, you claimed that Vessot's experiment didn't satisfy
the requirement of the scientific method.

Not so, I do not know the details of his experiment. I only know that
the results came out as I predict they would tend to from his bias, and
so this is a confirming instance of my theory.

You were wrong, a fact you now are fleeing.

You are being very silly. Why should I flee a confirming instance of my
own theory? It is your lack of understanding of scientific method that
leads you to these silly mistakes.

Do you get it now? Do you see how your attitude has been
fundamentally unscientific?

I have now finally got that you are a crackpot.

So, unable to refute or even to understand my argument, you are reduced
to namecalling.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... So this confirming instance does not prove my theory correct. ... And Vessot's example fit my predictions, ... results came out that way because Vessot was biased etc. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Earthquake Dart Board update
    ... > Just an update about my Earthquake Dart Board "predictions". ... > Enough time has elapsed that I've started confirming the ... > that are deemed 'significant' and posted on the daily webpage. ... > Not all quakes make it onto the daily list. ...
    (sci.geo.earthquakes)
  • Re: Definition of A Field
    ... >> Confirming some of the predictions of SR is not a good way to falsify ... > a way to falsify it. ... > And these experiments were empirical tests of SR, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Definition of A Field
    ... >> Confirming some of the predictions of SR is not a good way to falsify ... > a way to falsify it. ... > And these experiments were empirical tests of SR, ...
    (sci.physics)