Can be personal or external but what is something (you believe/see reflected so strongly in reality) AND (!(OR) the world of ideas)

AND but not OR

Please stick to that which you are confident about and holds to at least the spirit of the question

  • folaht@lemmy.ml
    11·
    3 months ago

    1. The ‘assumption as hypothesis’ should be replaced with a ‘picture gallery of relevant objects and dynamic object group concepts (tornado’s, fire), with a description and argumentation why you think these objects or concepts are relevant’ as hypothesis.

    2. Before hypothesis, an incubation phase should be added where you start with an event that led you to making a hypothesis for your new theory that either led to a (perceived) discovery of ‘a lack of information’, ‘an external error’ (the theory doesn’t match your observation) or ‘an internal error’ (the theory says A on page 28, but !A on page 76 in the author’s previous book without acknowledging the inconsistency).

    3. This also means that during the new method, the entire paper should be inspected for internal errors by going through a complete list of fallacies and checking each sentence for any internal inconsistencies, unaddressed external inconsistencies and any absences of information.

    4. And this means that a glossary should be added that’s similar to the hypothesis, except the terms are without argumentation for why it should be included the new theory.

    These might look like small nitpicks, but this ‘fallacy checking’ and ‘explain by picture’ method can turn into a philosophy of it’s own that’s more fundamental than ‘the laws of physics’.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      2·
      3 months ago

      A lot of this seems pretty reasonable, but I’m not sure I’m fully grasping what you mean by this:

      The ‘assumption as hypothesis’ should be replaced with a ‘picture gallery of relevant objects and dynamic object group concepts (tornado’s, fire), with a description and argumentation why you think these objects or concepts are relevant’ as hypothesis.

      • folaht@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 months ago

        I got that part and most of it from another person, though I added a bit here and there.
        So this part has been a bit confusing for me as well, but I think that once you have done your
        ‘perceived discovery of external error’ by dropping metal balls from where the author’s claim doesn’t match your observation,
        you will need to list all the things that you think are relevant to what led up to your discovery.

        Now I stole the above image from wikipedia, but it’s stuff like that that I assume you should have a gallery of,
        so that everyone and your grandmother knows what we’re talking about and don’t mistake it for anything else.

        So one’s list (the hypothesis) should at least consist of

        1. The leaning tower of Pisa (A nice little picture, where it’s located)
        2. A big metal ball (what it’s made of, where did you get it)
        3. A small metal ball
        4. Planet Earth
        5. The air (and why you think that’s relevant)
        6. The dropping mechanism (I’m assuming one’s hands)
        7. The exact section (book, page, paragraph) where it says that they should be falling at different speeds
        8. The above image showcasing what and a video of you dropping the balls

        And that’s for the observation that lead to the perceived discovery of external error.
        Then you will need to add to the list of what your experiments need.
        You know, a stopwatch, more objects, 3D models of those objects,
        a better dropping mechanism and a 3D model of that so that people can recreate your experiment,
        an air chamber, where you can increase and decrease the pressure.
        Stuff like that.

          • folaht@lemmy.ml
            1·
            3 days ago

            The issue here is whether or not you are talking about something concrete or abstract and in current physics there’s a lot of concepts that are being treated as if they are objects.

            It’s as if you were reading a scientific paper where meteors are losing materials due to rocks breathing or birds flying into certain directions due to winds howling.
            Winds don’t howl, rocks don’t breathe.
            Poetry does not help one understand the fundamentals of how physics work.
            And I argue that this kind of fallacy is rampant throughout the physics community.

            I (and some others similarly) suggest that there should be a systemic rules to prevent that from happening.

            Here’s my proposal:

            1. Every sentence in the entire paper needs to be checked for fallacies and if they contain them, then they need to be crossed out with a red pen.
            2. This checklist of fallacies should be universal, thus not be part of a blind peer review where the peer could uphold his or her own logic.
            3. Every fundamental concrete word can be drawn with a shape.
            4. Every fundamental relational abstract word can be drawn with shapes and arrows.
            5. Every fundamental dynamic abstract word can be drawn with multiple frames.
            6. Other fundamental words are names.
            7. Words that are abstract cannot use verbs or properties that belong to concrete words, just like non-organism cannot use verbs or properties that belong to organisms.