Saving posters from embarrassment on subjects they are ignorant of is one aspect of Zenoism, my stated Religion. Dismissing the rest of the personal attack as wrong headed, and not in the spirit of honest debate, it would be better to attack and dismantle the entire scientific method that has been built up with numerous iterations and revisions over the last 500 years. As imperfect as it is, which is true of all human endeavors - the self-correction measures built into the methodology has proven very useful and masterful in utility. The factual progress evident in everything from human health to industrial progress to better beer making speaks more volumes than can be put into words in a single post in a internet forum.

Equating science with a religion is simply silly. The very definitions are antithetical. And the structure of scientific methodology can not so easily be dismissed by some simple-minded editorial by one person or by a single organization. (Quote: A 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." [from post #8]). The focus of that criticism is on a very small percentage, of a very small percentage, of a specialty in research. Hardly a condemnation of the entire structure of science and its methodology.

However in the interest of a rebuttal to those that characterize science as a religion or castigate its results wholesale, I suggest a single book to read (others will follow as necessary), by the high-priest Carl Sagan:

Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark

An unfortunate circumstance that is difficult to correct. The lack of forceful critical thinking skills and its application to research is not fully implemented by some researchers. But note that the information is available. Many probably did not open or study them but the links provided in the OP have a wealth of useful and very practical and insightful information for the proper methodology to use in design and implementation of research studies. The utility of such information is basic to scientific methodology.

I'll go beginnings for you who lionizes the so called scientific method.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA3...es/light2c.gif

If I could draw the above I would but the reference of light passing through a prism should be clear and well known to any modern individual. Newton's idea is that light passes through the prism and in its passage breaks down into its parts of different colors.

Newton's thesis was that light carries the colors of the rainbow red, yellow, blue, etc..... which are within the light and spread their wings, fan like, after passing through the prism; or light "broken up".

This is of course presented in the physics books without question as the physicist(s) proceed to more important matters.

Now, I ask you, as a zealot and protector of the so called "scientific method", whether Newton was justified in his approach to the passage of light through the prism ?

Please note that the picture I have referenced does not show the colors together and they will come together, ala Newton , if the opening is narrowed to the proper size.

Of course there's more and I will give it, as best I can if you offer your considerations in the question.

Was Newton justified ?

I defer to Masque who is more qualified than I to answer this question in detail and accurately. Newton's work on optics is not something I am intimately familiar with.

Newton, being a good Christian, was automatically justified before the ultimate judge of the universe. So, yes, in that sense Newton was justified. I point out, in passing, that some scientists raised immediate objections to Newton's theory of action at a distance without an adequate explanation. He in fact admitted it was a justified criticism, I think. That however does not detract from the practical application of his derived equations. Or Maxwell's equations. Or Einstein's equations. Etc.

Many make the simple mistake of thinking that research and explanations are some final set of absolutes. That is completely wrong, and in fact is completely counter to the spirit and application of the scientific method itself. That this simple concept is so universally misunderstood is sometimes troubling. Which illustrates a great deal - that I leave to the readers to figure out. Consider it an exercise to sharped your reason and critical thinking skills.

I knew objections would be tossed out - that you precluded another introduction to the high priest Rudolph S. was quite polite of you. But I'm sure that is only temporary.

Design a research project(s) to prove that the scientific method does not hold, and therefore should be done away with or superseded by another method.

This may or may not be a "trick". Or a Troll. It certainly ain't Rock an' Roll.

You leave him out of this; got your zinger in and offered nothing, zero, zilch.

Do the thinking that you tell everyone else to do ":sharpen your reason and critical thinking skills" , how about you ?

The question I ask doesn't call for a fall back on authority ; I'm still waiting; the deflection to another doesn't stand.

What was the problem you have with Newton here? He went for the corpuscular theory of light that eventually ala Einstein (photons) proves right but his version couldn't explain interference and diffraction well even if it worked for other things and was abandoned 100 years later for Huygens' wave theory. Of course eventually both particle and wave duality is true for particles and light due to QM.

Newton applied the scientific method because for the phenomena he had available it worked (reflection ok but refraction worked by claiming the wrong thing which he had no way to check yet anyway). But Young almost a century later made available more phenomena (ie interference double slit experiment, diffraction etc). So the theory was abandoned in favor of the wave theory.

In science we have the example of the easiest process of changing attitudes in all of human society. Nowhere else it is so easy to change your mind and embrace a better theory. In politics and in other activities it takes centuries if ever. All it takes is a great theory that does predict things people know and things they do not know (this is even more remarkable) and suddenly all will be embracing it in record time. Special Relativity was accepted very fast. GR took only 4-5 years also after it was available although many that knew better accepted it fast as well.

So Newton applied the method and it worked for his theory up to a point (ie reflection refraction etc prism due to different speeds in the medium explains also the separation of colors even if with the wrong direction for speed ie higher than vacuum). It wasn't meant to be a perfect theory. After all what on earth means did he have to study in serious detail the nature of light back then? His theory is better than no theory at all because it makes it easy to then converge to the wave theory with more confidence (at least for a while).


See also why he did what he did;

"Newton's corpuscular theory was an elaboration of his view of reality as interactions of material points through forces. Note Albert Einstein's description of Newton's conception of physical reality:

[Newton's] physical reality is characterized by concepts of space, time, the material point and force (interaction between material points). Physical events are to be thought of as movements according to law of material points in space. The material point is the only representative of reality in so far as it is subject to change. The concept of the material point is obviously due to observable bodies; one conceived of the material point on the analogy of movable bodies by omitting characteristics of extension, form, spatial locality, and all their 'inner' qualities, retaining only inertia, translation, and the additional concept of force.[5][6]"


Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opticks


"The publication of Opticks represented a major contribution to science, different from but in some ways rivalling the Principia. Opticks is largely a record of experiments and the deductions made from them, covering a wide range of topics in what was later to be known as physical optics.[1] That is, this work is not a geometric discussion of catoptrics or dioptrics, the traditional subjects of reflection of light by mirrors of different shapes and the exploration of how light is "bent" as it passes from one medium, such as air, into another, such as water or glass. Rather, the Opticks is a study of the nature of light and colour and the various phenomena of diffraction, which Newton called the "inflexion" of light.

In this book Newton sets forth in full his experiments, first reported to the Royal Society of London in 1672,[2] on dispersion, or the separation of light into a spectrum of its component colours. He demonstrates how the appearance of color arises from selective absorption, reflection, or transmission of the various component parts of the incident light.

The major significance of Newton's work is that it overturned the dogma, attributed to Aristotle or Theophrastus and accepted by scholars in Newton's time, that "pure" light (such as the light attributed to the Sun) is fundamentally white or colourless, and is altered into color by mixture with darkness caused by interactions with matter. Newton showed just the opposite was true: light is composed of different spectral hues (he describes seven — red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet), and all colours, including white, are formed by various mixtures of these hues. He demonstrates that color arises from a physical property of light — each hue is refracted at a characteristic angle by a prism or lens — but he clearly states that color is a sensation within the mind and not an inherent property of material objects or of light itself. For example, he demonstrates that a red violet (magenta) color can be mixed by overlapping the red and violet ends of two spectra, although this color does not appear in the spectrum and therefore is not a "color of light". By connecting the red and violet ends of the spectrum, he organised all colours as a color circle that both quantitatively predicts color mixtures and qualitatively describes the perceived similarity among hues."

Thanx Masque , impressive as always , but my question is "is this a good conclusion" by Newton in stating that the corpulses of color are within the light only to be released upon interaction with matter. Of course this is a theory which the moderns have no trouble dealing with, a speculation which has traveled through 500 years., so to speak.

"but he clearly states that color is a sensation within the mind and not an inherent property of material objects or of light itself."

And so we have material corpulses of "light color" which are really not in the light but a sensation within the mind ;ala Berkeley.

I won't (can't) go through each line you've written for that's not my purpose but what you have written displays the evolution of light theory from Newton's basic assumptions(matter of color in the light) which perforce has resulted in the wave/particle duality for light has been appreciated not only by materiality but by the non material such as waves. This of course, is a paradox but hooray for paradoxes.

I really like your reference to Aristotle in his appreciation of light which gives rise to an appreciation of light and darkness and the non material aspect of light. I'm not going yin/yang here but my question is again, is the assumption correct, not theoretically correct but are there other approaches to the dilemmas of light and color which could be relevant even with the theoretical mind set ?

The assumption that I could make is that light in its interaction with substance is causal to color ; if I get hit with a baseball on the arm the reddened area and congestion and consequential black and blue panorama did not come from the baseball (not hidden within) but are the consequence of the strike of the baseball.

And so, without saying or attempting to theorize as to the nature of light I do have some insight into color which is related to the light and the matter (darkness) within. This is what the light/darkness interaction points too, not some effervescent theoretical abstracted idea but the reality of the questions of that to which we see.

As a scientist, immersed within the "scientific method" I have let the experimental findings "speak to me" and am attempting to not let my predilections overwhelm my scientific approach.

This leads to the scientific dysjunction leading from Newton and especially Francis Bacon which mandates, whether believed or not, that particles are absolutely necessary for our science is the science of a weighty particulate even if we theorize about "waves"; heaven forbid if we ever lose the particle.

The scientific method is: "do not let the findings be clouded by your own predilections except remember, "the weighty particle is primary and cannot be denied".

Another approach to the "scientific method" is to allow the experiment to speak to the experimenter without preconception. I believe the baseball analogy fits this approach by necessity. There were scientists at that time who denied Newton but of course are lost in the historical maelstrom .

The most important aspect of this is what hasn't been said and that is the relation of thinking to the modern scientist. the modern scientist, perforce, doesn't think, for his idea is that he displays "facts" as those scientists who paraded in Philadelphia a little while ago were signing.

Don't get me wrong, I know that scientists do think but with the extra added burden of the particulate which is consequential to Newton and Bacon. they are chasing their tail and if they do catch it blood will flow.

The official science of the studies and ersatz experiments demands the particle and so we have really, really bright men and women kowtowing to an impossible approach but w wonderfully terrific theoretical approach but thinking, which is the basis of knowledge, left at the door.

Some have stated that science has its own "black robed" monsters for they(some) have insight into the workings of the modern science which is :

THE DOGMA OF EXPERIENCE

Whereas in previous times the religious were immersed within the :

THE DOGMA OF REVELATION

The bolded part is true. But blindly speaking from ignorance is not a wise thing to do. If I personally knew more of Newton's theory of light I could speak to it. I don't have unlimited time to study up on every subject - including all the varied ones that interest me. And I think that is true of many people, though it is not admitted as much as it should be.

And there is no shame in deferring to authority, that you know is good and knowledgeable, especially in specialties. It is useful to allow the experts to speak so a reasonable judgement by all can be made. That is how many court proceedings operate and it is a most useful way at getting as close to the truth as possible. And that is part and parcel to critical thinking skills - allowing the experts/specialists to give their all, and then have the skills to then make a critical assessment yourself upon the given evidence. One other aside, that is most important in critical thinking skills, is knowing your own limitations. Here also many fail and end up talking through their hats.


Besides:

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Mine too, hence my reply to your completely false statement.

No one is doing anything of the sort. I'm equating the faith you place in science with religion. Science is a tool of epistemology, useful for some very narrow endeavors; it is useless for most things. It is greatly overused and does tremendous damage when it is. Science's usefulness in narrow physical inquiries (physics, chemistry, mechanistic biology) has led to its importance to technology, and hence its large impact on our lives. But most use of science is improper and far outside of the scope in which it is useful. Specifically, the probable truth we place on the outputs of science is religion in nature; most published science is wrong, yet we give it weight as probable truth. It's one of the bizarre elements of the modern age.

These are false statements also. The majority of published non hard science (physics/biology/chemistry/geology) is false.

You're not even refuting anything I've said. You appear to talking to a your personal caricature of a science hater, rather than a person who loves and follows the scientific method more than you do (and pursued a physics degree to further that very love). In fact, I'm approaching the viability of scientific output using the scientific method; you're approaching it as a religion, making absurdly false statements like the below:
Most published research is false. Get your head around it.