Similar idea we practice at TopScore: all debates of a certain length should be stopped and followed up with a wager. This usually leads to people performing the experiment anyway because they want to get evidence for their wager.
I agree, in principle with the importance of empiricism and the imperative to test theories in addition to writing about them. I’m having a hard time connecting this to ideas I see people discussing on the Internet, however.
Can you give some examples of ideas that are discussed on the internet where people ought to put more effort into validating them empirically?
aristotle's theory was a very good fit for the information available to aristotle, and it took unusual geniuses (like archimedes or galileo) to come up with experiments which contradicted aristotle's theory, and it took thousands of years until someone (newton himself!) came up with a better paradigm. aristotle's theories survived because coming up with a better paradigm was really hard, and so even though people knew the theory had some flaws, they could not move past it without being conscious of stumbling into ignorance, where they didn't know what questions to ask
today, there are flaws with general relativity (although the theory is very elegant, and is an improvement on newtonianism in the same way newtonianism is an improvement on aristotelianism). we have observations which contradict its predictions which were unavailable in 1905 (https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightmare-what-if-we-just.html). but we cling to general relativity, having no better paradigm. certainly i am not smart enough to come up with ideas better than einstein's -- and i suspect, if i lived before newton, i would not have been smart enough to come up with ideas better than aristotle's
the point of this particular essay is not to shame us for our ignorance and stupidity, but rather to shame us for our certainty and hubris.
I'll read your linked defense of aristotelianism, which I love as an additional nuance to the whole story. It's beautiful and infuriating that we can be so *defensibly* wrong.
I didn't think about Aristotle's claims as only referring to properties of objects that have already achieved terminal velocity in their medium. It sounds like he is commenting on forces & acceleration, (because newtonian physics is so worried about these things), but that's just our frame. If you consider his comments as only referring to objects that have already achieved constant velocity in their fluid, then ofc it's accurate that a heavier body falls faster than a lighter body. It has a higher terminal velocity. And the "elements" theory makes sense (kinda) because it's essentially a buoyancy theory. Probably could have done without the 5 discrete categories, but still sensible enough.
For other readers: the high school science experiment where heavier and lighter objects "fall at the same speed in air" is actually showing that heavier and lighter
objects (and all objects) experience the same Force of Gravity, which leads to the same Acceleration in air (if they are the same shape and size, which means they experience the same air resistance).
HOWEVER, heavier and lighter objects *don't* have the same terminal velocity; because terminal velocity is proportional to weight, (the paper demonstrates how, you also might remember this from high school physics)
Similar idea we practice at TopScore: all debates of a certain length should be stopped and followed up with a wager. This usually leads to people performing the experiment anyway because they want to get evidence for their wager.
i like this.
I agree, in principle with the importance of empiricism and the imperative to test theories in addition to writing about them. I’m having a hard time connecting this to ideas I see people discussing on the Internet, however.
Can you give some examples of ideas that are discussed on the internet where people ought to put more effort into validating them empirically?
the heavier stone dropped off a cliff will probably have less air resistance, and probably fall slower!
(really good defense of aristotelianism here which has really affected how i think about science: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10964/4/Aristotele.pdf)
aristotle's theory was a very good fit for the information available to aristotle, and it took unusual geniuses (like archimedes or galileo) to come up with experiments which contradicted aristotle's theory, and it took thousands of years until someone (newton himself!) came up with a better paradigm. aristotle's theories survived because coming up with a better paradigm was really hard, and so even though people knew the theory had some flaws, they could not move past it without being conscious of stumbling into ignorance, where they didn't know what questions to ask
before einstein, people knew that newton's theories had flaws, but having no better theory, very intelligent people clung to newtonianism, coming up with bizarre work-arounds to insist that the paradigm still worked (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8b93/2d7c11869ed0b46b4b308c355e426e1b9fd7.pdf)
today, there are flaws with general relativity (although the theory is very elegant, and is an improvement on newtonianism in the same way newtonianism is an improvement on aristotelianism). we have observations which contradict its predictions which were unavailable in 1905 (https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightmare-what-if-we-just.html). but we cling to general relativity, having no better paradigm. certainly i am not smart enough to come up with ideas better than einstein's -- and i suspect, if i lived before newton, i would not have been smart enough to come up with ideas better than aristotle's
high quality comment! :)
the point of this particular essay is not to shame us for our ignorance and stupidity, but rather to shame us for our certainty and hubris.
I'll read your linked defense of aristotelianism, which I love as an additional nuance to the whole story. It's beautiful and infuriating that we can be so *defensibly* wrong.
damn this paper is really good tbh, faith in Aristotle restored:
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10964/4/Aristotele.
I didn't think about Aristotle's claims as only referring to properties of objects that have already achieved terminal velocity in their medium. It sounds like he is commenting on forces & acceleration, (because newtonian physics is so worried about these things), but that's just our frame. If you consider his comments as only referring to objects that have already achieved constant velocity in their fluid, then ofc it's accurate that a heavier body falls faster than a lighter body. It has a higher terminal velocity. And the "elements" theory makes sense (kinda) because it's essentially a buoyancy theory. Probably could have done without the 5 discrete categories, but still sensible enough.
For other readers: the high school science experiment where heavier and lighter objects "fall at the same speed in air" is actually showing that heavier and lighter
objects (and all objects) experience the same Force of Gravity, which leads to the same Acceleration in air (if they are the same shape and size, which means they experience the same air resistance).
HOWEVER, heavier and lighter objects *don't* have the same terminal velocity; because terminal velocity is proportional to weight, (the paper demonstrates how, you also might remember this from high school physics)
i've added an editor's note to the top :)