Empirical evidence and the scientific method

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by VK6FLAB, Jan 5, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: l-assoc
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    "She turned me into a NEEWWT!"
     
  2. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    BUT, we got better ... ! :p:D
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    W1YW likes this.
  3. WA7AXT

    WA7AXT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    This is a very interesting topic. In a strange way, is it not philosophical? I believe the study of science used to be called philosophy? There's abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning involved. We must know that science never "proves" anything, it merely shows likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is; we start out learning math as an absolute: 2+2 = 4; counting number math. Then comes square root. Wow, the square root of 4 is 2. Nice. But what about the square root of 3. Awe nuts! Then we have irrational numbers, "imaginary numbers", and then pi and circular measurement; and then calculus: limits; the slope of the curve, derivitaves . . . etc. . And then math turns into something that is no longer "exact" .

    Now we need to figure out how long to make that 80 meter dipole. We have the "formula" that supposedly flawlessly lets us find the "correct" length. But we do not live in a perfect world. So enter empirical evidence and experience in the real world. That "formula" is not "exact" in all cases. We might settle for a 1.01 to 1 swr. But how accurate is the measuring instrument? Plus or minus what? How precise is the measuring? Maybe an swr of 1.25 to 1 is ok?

    We have to settle for darn close in this world. Keep the finals from burning out, and radiate acceptable quality signals. Fiddle with the antenna, make it better. See what happens. That's the fun of it.
     
    KG5CJA likes this.
  4. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    It became 'physics' as opposed to 'natural philosophy' starting with Galileo and Newton:)

    The issue is not mathematico-deductive vs inductive; its failure of the OP to recognize that all of this is part of the scientific method. He separates it out.

    There is no 'mystery'.

    Are we saying that its valid to make observations and come up with rules of thumb?

    You bet!

    ...and THEN see how it fits within an extant body of analytically driven knowledge.

    Observation drives hypothesis (es). Hypothesis (es) drive analytics and predictions. Predictions consort to data. And data is the Ockham's razor between one hypothes(es) and others.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    AC0OB likes this.
  5. VE3BXG

    VE3BXG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

     
  6. WA6AM

    WA6AM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ok...….now everyone break up into groups of 10 or less and go continue these discussions on the air.
     
    VK6APZ, KG5CJA, W1YW and 1 other person like this.
  7. WB5WPA

    WB5WPA Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's a good way to "get voted off the island".
     
  8. W8LV

    W8LV XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Funny... In School, I was shown a balanced transmission line, connected to an RF Source. A lightbulb connected to a pair of alligator clips was moved up and down said open transmission line, and the distance between any of the two "brightest" points found were measured to find a wavelength. With a tape measure. Just a plain old tape measure.

    I sure am glad that I observed this, BEFORE reading some antenna advertisements... ;-)

    73 DE W8LV BILL
     
  9. KC8UD

    KC8UD Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is why its called AMATEUR radio.
     
  10. WB5WPA

    WB5WPA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Its a big tent. Sometimes top-loaded, sometimes base-loaded.

    The alternative is to spend 65 some odd dollars (maybe more now) for a license that has to be renewed every two years, and may be subject to review before renewal each term. And then you may not be able to "talk" to anybody else.
     

Share This Page