Gawking does not equate to  Science!

Observation is a mainstay of Mathematical 'physics'

Relativists maintain that observation is one of the pillars of the Scientific Method. The argument is that you
need to observe a phenomenon of nature before you can collect data (which apparently is also part of the
step known as observation. As always in the religion of Mathemagix, there are different definitions for the
same terms and every analyst understands something different. They all continue prodding like bumbling
fools as if nothing.

So let's get to the heart of it. Does the fact that you gawked for two hours at a bunch of birds necessarily
give you any insight as to why they fly around? Could it be that if you watched a pen fall to the ground
1000 times you could figure out why it doesn't fall to the ceiling? What if you repeat the experiment 1000
more times?

Of course, you can accurately measure the speed and acceleration and weight and distance of an object.
So far you have a description. You have yet to give a physical interpretation to the phenomenon.

Science without observation?

The skeptic is amused. He asks, "How can you do science without observing the phenomenon?:

Here we have to put his claim in its proper context.

Context # 1

Stephen Gawking never observed a black hole. Indeed, there is nothing to observe
because light allegedly does not come out of a black hole. Hans Bethe never
observed the nuclear reactions inside the Sun. And Homer didn't observe the Trojan
War, yet he wrote a couple of books about it. In fact, it is said that Homer was blind.
Any blind man is able to explain a phenomenon without opening his eyes. The job of
a scientist is not to gawk. His job is to explain!

Context # 2

The next claim is that at some point, at some time, someone had to observe a
phenomenon before anyone can give it a try and attempt to explain it. What would
there be to explain if no one had any experience with what we are allegedly trying to
explain?

Well, we observe life every day all around us. Therefore, a logical question people ask
is, "How did life start?" "Where did it come from?"

Let's first settle that no one has seen life start. No one has seen where it came from.
We are wondering not how life behaves every day -- which is a part of our daily
experience. We are asking about something that we have never observed: the origin of
life itself. We have seen births, but births sprout from fathers and mothers which in turn
came from grandfathers and grandmothers. The question is about the origin of the first
living entities and we surely have never seen those come into being. Many also ask about
the beginning of the Universe. No one has ever experienced that either. How did matter
come into being? Was it God? Or maybe it was Guth's Inflationary Theory which triggered
existence? In other words, we are trying to explain phenomena that we have never
observed, witnessed or experienced. Again, we do not need to observe the phenomenon
we are trying to explain. We can visualize it or conceptualize it.

The Scientific Method has no provision for observation. Science is not about staring, but about explaining a
phenomenon rationally. The Scientific Method consists of hypothesis, theory and conclusion. In the step
known as hypothesis we make assumptions, in the theory we explain, and in the conclusions we clarify our
interpretation. Nowhere is there a provision for observation.

Gawking and drooling are not behaviors people should be proud of, anyway. In the best of cases they are
signs of momentary stupidity. In the worst of cases, they may indicate incurable dementia. Your listener
would look more than foolish 'observing' your index finger when you're pointing at the Moon.

Yet the mathemagicians swear that 'science' is about gawking. The center of attention of Mathemagics is
observation itself. "We observed this. We observed that." It doesn't matter to the mathemagician whether
you have a rational theory. It matters that you made and documented an observation, that you followed
this up by collecting data and designing experiments and taking accurate measurements.

Observation = assumption

Let's use an example to get to the heart of what's wrong with the word observe as abused daily by the
establishment. The mathemagician boasts that he 'observed' a particle:

"Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson..."

We stand in awe of the mathemagician's X-ray vision. We wish we had such keen eyesight to see an
invisible particle such as the Higgs is alleged to be. Perhaps the authors of the article would be so kind as
to illustrate for us what they 'observed'. That way we can all see what the Higgs looks like. Is it two or
three dimensional? Is it round? Flat? Hook-shaped? How does the shape of the Higgs relate to its
properties?

Of course, when you read the article you discover that the alleged 'observation' was actually an inference.
The mathemagician ASSUMED that what he was staring at was a particle. What he actually observed with
his eyes -- like what we mean when we say that we observed a bird laying an egg -- we don't really know
because there's not a single picture in the entire article. However, we can pretty much deduce what the
mathemagician really meant from the countless papers and statements published by his guild...

"The ATLAS detector is a multipurpose particle physics apparatus... This mechanism,
which gives mass to massive elementary particles, implies the existence of a scalar
particle, the SM Higgs boson."

"We can’t see these particles with our eyes (or cameras) either!  So how do we OBSERVE
them?... we surround each collision point with a `detector’... Each sub-detector... can
detect electrical signals... Using the detectors to figure out which particles were produced,
where they went and how much energy they carried, we have the ingredients to make
some EDUCATED GUESSES about what may have occurred in a given proton-proton
collision."

"Most tracking devices do not make particle tracks directly visible, but record tiny electrical
signals that particles trigger as they move through the device. A computer program then
reconstructs the recorded patterns of tracks... Collating all these clues from different parts
of the detector, physicists build up a snapshot of what was in the detector at the moment
of a collision."

In other words, the mathemagicians have never seen an actual subatomic particle or even the trace it
allegedly leaves inside the chamber as it collides, explodes or decays. Instead, they begin with an
ASSUMPTION: that the invisible phenomenon they are gawking at is mediated by particles. This is their
starting point. They ASSUME that what is taking place in that ultra tiny, ultra swift world in front of them
is the collision of particles. Therefore, we have to start our analysis and objection of 'observe' a little
earlier.

The mathemagicians build machines which they call 'particle' detectors in order to confirm their foregone
conclusions: that they accelerated, collided and decayed particles. The hardware and software of these
machines are designed to treat every electrical signal, every blip, every bit of data as a particle. This
information is massaged by the computer and an image -- a DRAWING -- is made of what could likely
have taken place inside the chamber ASSUMING that the mediators were discrete particles. In other
words, not even the machine saw anything. It merely detects a signal, runs an algorithm, and calculates
an itinerary based on the speed, mass and energy fed into the computer, always assuming that the
mediator is a corpuscle or tiny speck. The computer DRAWS these images as curved lines which the
mathemagicians INTERPRET as representing traces of particles.

Observe = Proof

But then a good question is: Why would the mathemagicians use the term observe rather than the more
correct infer or assume if they did not see the actual event with their own eyes?

Well, if Einstein tells you that he personally observed a particle with his own eyes you would invariably be
questioning his integrity as a witness if you told him that he merely inferred or assumed that he was dealing
with particles. You are questioning his findings, the entire foundations of his theory.

How dare you question His Eminence! If our Lord Einstein tells you that he saw a particle you simply must
accept it and keep your insinuations to yourself! We are not talking here about the neighborhood wino who
boasts that he saw a Martian flying saucer in his back yard or that he observed Big Foot taking a dump
in the woods. We are talking about the greatest authority that ever lived: Albert Einstein! So please do us
a favor and take a few courses in Math at your local university and get a Ph.D. before allowing your
skepticism of this great man to run amok!

What the mathemagicians are doing in an underhanded way is introducing testimony. They are TESTIFYING
in order to compel the jury to see it their way. They are bringing authority to bear on the jurors, specifically,
expert testimony. The mathemagicians are preempting you, deterring collateral attacks on their findings.
You must accept their word. They are insinuating that they actually SAW particles with their eyes (which is
what most laymen understand by the word 'observe') when they really mean that they modeled and
simulated the experiment with particles. They are boasting that the machine showed unequivocal traces of
particles when they really should make it clear to their audience that the machine was programmed to treat
every blip as a particle. Unfortunately, people who can't think beyond their noses take these statements
literally and later spam the forums saying stupid things such as that 'particles have been proven to exist' by
the 'scientists' at CERN and SLAC. These great men of 'science' 'observed' them in their chambers and took
pictures of them.

By using the strategic word 'observe', the mathemagician is in effect precluding a challenge to his
assumption by treating particles as a fact. The particle mathemagician is saying that the issue of whether
the actors in his experiment are particles is non-negotiable. You cannot question that basic premise for
otherwise all of Quantum Mechanics suffers a sudden death... and they're not even going to be drawn into
that debate. As far as they're concerned, particles are facts! The mathemagicians were taught to repeat by
rote that particles have been proven. That battle was won by default decades ago when no one challenged
the irrational proposal and now we all have to live with it.

The mathemagicians are saying, in essence, that you can question whether the particle in question is the
Higgs or whether it has such and such mass or whether his calculation is correct, but not whether what
they observed were particles. The Standard Model is a done deal. The mathemagicians are not going to
erase it and admit the failure of Quantum Mechanics to explain subatomic phenomena rationally. They
would rather continue explaining irrationally and moving on with their work discovering new so-called
'particles' every day. The word 'observe' serves that purpose. They are telling you that they did in fact
observe particles in the chamber because that's what the machine told them. What they fail to tell you up
front and clearly is that the machine was programmed at the factory to treat every signal as a particle.

In the best case it seems to be a misuse of language; in the worst, it seems like false advertising. Shouldn't
they begin their presentations warning their readers that the theories and conclusions contained in the article
are contingent upon the assumption that they are dealing with particles?

Scientists don't gawk!

But let's look at 'observe' in light most favorable to the mathemagician and dismiss this as a petty semantic
argument. There is a more fundamental objection and it is that Science is neither about observing nor about
testifying. The mathemagician makes the error of treating Science like a lawyer treats Law. He believes
that his job is to persuade the jury. The mathemagician does so because he wants to get his name in light.
Contemporary Mathemagics glorifies celebrities. The purpose of studying by rote at the university is not to
understand how the Universe works, but to win a Nobel Prize, to be a somebody, to have NOVA and the
BBC and the Discovery Channel contact you to make a documentary. Celebrity brings in little science, but
it rakes in much money and fame.

It is for this purpose that the mathemagician introduces expert witnesses and biased testimony. The expert
is asked to testify to introduce authority into the matter. If Einstein tells the crowd that he saw a flying saucer,
he is likely to convince more people than if I told the crowd the same thing.

The real issue is that the presenter is trying to sway the jury with testimony. However, Science is not about
persuading. In Science, we merely explain so that the juror understands. What each juror decides to believe
after the show is over is his personal business and doesn't concern Science. Belief is a hallmark of religion.
 Gawking Steve Gawking
 No Gawking!!!

 "I'm observing...but I don't see anything."
The mathemagicians use the strategic
word 'observe' to insinuate that there is
nothing to argue. The particle
mathemagician has 'proven' the particle
because he 'observed' it (hint, hint, nudge,
nudge: saw it with his own eyes).
In reality, not one particle mathemagician
has ever seen a subatomic particle with
his eyes. 'Proof' of this is that not one
mathemagician can draw any of the
particles of the Standard Model.
The fact is that not one mathemagician has ever observed a subatomic particle with his eyes. All the
images of Quantum 'particle traces' from places like CERN and SLAC are computer-generated. The
systems are programmed to treat electrical signals as discrete particles and to draw them as such.
The mathemagicians ASSUME that they are dealing with particles and design their systems
accordingly. Later, they sell these assumptions to the public as proof and truth.
 To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:Rational Scientific Method