I think the key point in determining how much knowledge of physics is required is what role the equations of the theory play in establishing whether or not the concepts employed by the theory are true or imaginary conceptions of reality. And what I’m arguing is that the only role played by the equations is in confirming the success of the theory.
So for my argument all I need to know about the theory is if it’s successful, and understand the ideas behind the concepts. So based on that I contend that the knowledge I do have of physics is sufficient. Knowledge of the equations doesn’t enter the picture really at all other than knowing whether or not they are successful.
Of course. Don’t know why that’s even in question? What have I said that would suggest I’m not open to scientific evidence? I think I’ve made it clear that I’m open to any evidence that is relevant.
I suspect that what’s holding things back is not so much a matter of a lack of knowledge of physics on my part, but that what I’m arguing is not being fully understood.
If scientific evidence is defined as facts established by science, i.e., objective and verifiable observation and/or detection, then there’s nothing complicated about that. All that involves is just knowing what the evidence is relevant to the question, i.e., what’s been observed or detected. What’s there to learn about that? Am I missing something?
And if you want to broaden it to information like the fact that certain mechanical theories in physics are successful and therefore can be evidence that the concepts they employ are true to reality, that only requires a knowledge of which theories are successful and what the concepts are that they employ.
There’s no reason that I can see a need for having an in depth knowledge of the equations and their applications. You seem to think otherwise. But so far as I’m aware, there isn’t any justifiable reasons to think that’s the case?
As a layperson I want to investigate for myself as best as I can the questionable claims of science to see if they hold water or not. From what I’ve seen so far it looks to me like there are some that don’t. But I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise as long as I’m presented with justifiable reasoning that make sense.
I think I’ve already done something previously, but in case I haven’t here it is.
There seems to be only one piece of scientific evidence that a successful mechanical theory in physics can provide in the case of questions about unverifiable reality, namely that its success is evidence that the concept it employs may actually capture a true depiction of unverifiable reality.
But to reach an informed conclusion there are also relevant observations and experiences that provide evidence that need to be considered as well. For example, the success of SR provides one piece of evidence that the concept of “time slowing down” actually represents a true depiction of what is actually causing the observed effects that the equations of SR accurately describe.
However, our perception of time is as a measurement composed of units of hours, minutes, seconds, etc., to keep track of when events happen in relation to the past, the present, and the future.
Also we observe that clocks run slower at different altitudes. Intuitively we would perceive that clocks running slow wouldn’t effect time itself, but simply affect the outcomes of measurements made being altered to some degree by the clocks not being able to remain in sync with each other at different altitudes.
Considering the one piece of evidence to support the actual slowing down of time itself as the explanation of time dilation, and the other evidence from observation and experience that supports clocks slowing down as the explanation, it seems the simplest and more reasonable explanation would be the latter.
That’s my argument. What’s yours?
The mechanical theories don’t address the unverifiable aspects of reality. They simply deal with verifiable reality. Time itself slowing down is not verifiable.
Concepts are not observations, simply conceptualizations of reality that may or may not be real. You can’t see time itself slowing down. So no matter what concept is being used in a theory, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t entail that it’s a true representation of unverifiable reality. The fact that the formulas work only provides evidence that the concepts may be true to reality. But that’s only one piece of evidence.
I never said reality is unverifiable. The existence of the sun is verifiable reality. I’m talking about proposed reality that isn’t verifiable. Time itself slowing down is an example of this. And if you could present me with relevant evidence to support your untestable belief about time itself being able to slow down that outweighs the evidence to the contrary, I would be compelled to change my mind about it.