Slashdot Mirror
Earth, a Giant Pinball Machine
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have long probed Earth's interior by monitoring seismic waves (if earthquakes don't make them, they can be induced with explosives, and one nuke test actually triggered an earthquake!), which reveal the inner structure of the planet. But what if the method is wrong? LiveScience reports on a new study suggesting Earth is like a pinball machine, with sound waves careening around before they get to the surface. What is interpreted as a broad layer change could be nothing more than a localized density variation."
How is this a troll? If our method is wrong, but we just adjust the model (it's not exactly relevant here because the actual problem is not accurately described in the article), we may still get the approximation to reality incorrect.
The problem is simply that the solutions generally found are not necessarily unique, if one assumes a very simple model and doesn't apply additional, independent knowledge to the problem.
However, as another person posted, the reality is that "we've" been doing a pretty good job for a while, and the reason is that "we're" not doing seismology blindly--there is other information that helps to correct misunderstandings or non-uniqueness to JUST the seismological data.
For example, knowing the chemical composition or temperature (e.g., from volcanic eruptions) helps to pin down the more accurate solution to the seismic data.
Also, the experiments were done with a single wave source, and generally we use multiple sources, which will help to clarify the structure of the region of interest.
The structure of the Earth is very similar to what we "see" using the combined data sets that make up "seismological remote sensing".
I dare to imply that Occum's razor and the scientific method could need reform, even giving a reasonably likely situation in which this could occur. And having done so makes me a troll?
The scientific method coupled with peer review is wonderful, it has brought us far. Unfortunately it is inherently flawed.
It is flawed because the scientific method relies on the belief that when all evidence is presented the conclusion one logically arrives, which fits all said evidence and symptoms, is the correct one.
The problem with that is that all the cards don't always have only one possible resolution, even if there is only one we can think of at the moment. It's perfectly possible for an incorrect premise to yield correct results. It's perfectly possible for it to do so for 5000 yr, or 10,000, or 10,000,000. The more cards are on the table, the more closely that incorrect premise will be to the FUNCTION of the correct premise but the cards are not always enough to reach the correct premise. The closer the function of false premise is the function of the correct premise, the longer it takes for a decidedly provable evidence of falsehood to appear.
I submit the following premises.
1. The scientific method is flawed due to the assumption that all evidence which can be collected will ultimately yield a correct premise.
2. The closer a false theory is in FUNCTION to a correct theory, the longer it takes to discover a discrepancy in the theory.
3. A false theory which has been adjusted to provide a function which fits new evidence is no closer to being a correct theory, contrary, it is closer to providing the FUNCTION of the correct theory, this in turn triggers assertion 2.
4. Man is inherently flawed, possibly due to our short lifespans and the inevitability of death, and believes that a premise which has not been disproven given a length of time should be attributed credibility.
5. When a premise has attained credibility, other premises that depend on a solution to the evidence it appears to solve will rely on it more and more blindly. This results in more false premises which are close in function to correct premises.
6. Premises arrived at via premise 5 can be correct or incorrect, because they are based on the function of the original premise. This can make the original false premise more difficult to discover.
7. Because of premise 6, a functioning premise having been derived from a premise DOES NOT constitute a reduction in the odds the original premise is false.
8. Because of premise 4, when man encounters a premise as described in premise 2, man will take the most dangerous of false premises and will end up adjusting it, causing premise 3 to take effect. In turn this lengthens the lifespan of the false premise more securely rooting premise 4 and ensuring that this cycle will repeat.
9. Occum's razor is a false premise. Since the CORRECT answer to a problem can be more complex than a false one, and since there is more than one answer which can resolve a given set of evidence, it's perfectly plausible, in fact likely that Occum's razor is regularly used to cut away correct answers. Further premise 4 increases this likelihood.
10. These premises taken together present an unresolvable situation.
Due to human flaws, and flaws in our standard methods, we've unintentionally implemented a hack. That allows us to base further progress on false premises which emulate the function of correct premises. While this certainly results in accelerated tangible progress, ultimately this string of false premises MUST FAIL to be extendable and we will achieve the limits we can progress to using this system.
Although we can't resolve this problem via any solution I am able to think of. What we can is patch the human flaw in the system. We can do this by submitting the same findings to peer review we do now, but doing so again at intervals in the future, assuring as much material is re-reviewed in light of new e