News0 min ago
Questioning The Conclusions Of Science
This question arises from the discussion in R&S on the dubious practice of Water Divining. Sometimes the conclusions of science result not from positive evidence that the subject is invalid, but from absence of evidence. Whilst I know the scientifically minded will say ‘until evidence is forthcoming, I won’t consider the possibility’, but the question is do those who accept the conclusions of science ever waver and consider the possibility that evidence could exist that science has missed – or has overlooked – or is currently technologically incapable of recognising or testing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naturally, but rest assured that I know science is fallible -- so if ever it seems otherwise, it's the language, or my use of it, that's at fault and not my thinking. Some of these ideas aren't easy to express -- some are pretty much impossible -- especially when you start having to go further than expected, and I probably haven't always taken the time needed to tidy up my posts. Believe it or not, I've won competitions in the past for clear expression of scientific ideas, so I can do it.
Why the impasse?
Naomi, I get the sense that you accept ("believe", for want of a better word) what the anecdotees say and hence your position of being unable/unwilling to close the door to the concept of dowsing. But you also stated you want to understand why and how it works.
Q1. Is this curiosity in the hope that it may open the door to some hitherto mysterious unknown force, subatomic particle, human mental ability or whatever? (No need to be specific, or we'll just pick at it. A simple yes or no should suffice).
Q2. A field trial of Svejk or Mr P's abilities under entrely normal outdoor conditions would be the equivalent of you challenging their claims by saying "OK, show me!" Yes or no?
Q3. Whilst a successful field trial certainly adds to the pool of experimental evidence in the scientific literature, you acknowledge that a couple of successful demonstrations is just a single step along the path of outweighing the dozens of failed attempts currently documented and is unlikely to sway scientific opinion by very much? Y/N?
Q4. You also acknowledge that, despite success of the field trial, little or nothing has been discovered about the mechanism. Y/N?
Q5. You understand why scientists have to use a reductionist approach, even to the point of having to see what makes a phenomonon fail, in order to have anything to say about how/why it works? (Y/N or as many words as you like).
Naomi, I get the sense that you accept ("believe", for want of a better word) what the anecdotees say and hence your position of being unable/unwilling to close the door to the concept of dowsing. But you also stated you want to understand why and how it works.
Q1. Is this curiosity in the hope that it may open the door to some hitherto mysterious unknown force, subatomic particle, human mental ability or whatever? (No need to be specific, or we'll just pick at it. A simple yes or no should suffice).
Q2. A field trial of Svejk or Mr P's abilities under entrely normal outdoor conditions would be the equivalent of you challenging their claims by saying "OK, show me!" Yes or no?
Q3. Whilst a successful field trial certainly adds to the pool of experimental evidence in the scientific literature, you acknowledge that a couple of successful demonstrations is just a single step along the path of outweighing the dozens of failed attempts currently documented and is unlikely to sway scientific opinion by very much? Y/N?
Q4. You also acknowledge that, despite success of the field trial, little or nothing has been discovered about the mechanism. Y/N?
Q5. You understand why scientists have to use a reductionist approach, even to the point of having to see what makes a phenomonon fail, in order to have anything to say about how/why it works? (Y/N or as many words as you like).
Hypognosis, had other people not shown such great interest in this thread, the door would have been closed on it long ago. That said, it’s not a case of accepting what the ‘anecdotees’ say or otherwise, but of questioning why they say it at all.
Q1. No.
Q2. No. I’m not asking Svejk or Mr P to show me.
Q3. I’m not asking for a ‘demonstration’.
Q4. Should a field trial prove successful, the next step would be to investigate the mechanism.
Q5. In a failed trial there could be no investigation into ‘how/why it works’. That’s contradictory. It wouldn’t have worked. That, however, should not preclude conducting further trials under circumstances more aligned to those of the original claims.
Why the impasse? Because it all seems to have been said, and we’re now going around in circles. I’ve given my opinions, other people have given theirs, it’s been an interesting discussion, but frankly, I don’t think there’s anything productive left to say.
Q1. No.
Q2. No. I’m not asking Svejk or Mr P to show me.
Q3. I’m not asking for a ‘demonstration’.
Q4. Should a field trial prove successful, the next step would be to investigate the mechanism.
Q5. In a failed trial there could be no investigation into ‘how/why it works’. That’s contradictory. It wouldn’t have worked. That, however, should not preclude conducting further trials under circumstances more aligned to those of the original claims.
Why the impasse? Because it all seems to have been said, and we’re now going around in circles. I’ve given my opinions, other people have given theirs, it’s been an interesting discussion, but frankly, I don’t think there’s anything productive left to say.
beso
Dowsing (I prefer that term to divining for obvious reasons) is something that I have never been able to reconcile with my scientific mind.
I have actually done dowsing myself. I support the notion that it cannot be tested scientifically due to the observer effect which contrary to LazyGun's suggestion, cannot be eliminated by any scientific methodology.
I can tell you it is nothing to do with looking at the terrain.
I will post my experiences later. I have other commitments right now.
10:50 Sun 21st Jul 2013
Oooerr . . . hope he hasn't fallen in. :o/
Dowsing (I prefer that term to divining for obvious reasons) is something that I have never been able to reconcile with my scientific mind.
I have actually done dowsing myself. I support the notion that it cannot be tested scientifically due to the observer effect which contrary to LazyGun's suggestion, cannot be eliminated by any scientific methodology.
I can tell you it is nothing to do with looking at the terrain.
I will post my experiences later. I have other commitments right now.
10:50 Sun 21st Jul 2013
Oooerr . . . hope he hasn't fallen in. :o/
There are certainly plenty of examples of Science, or rather of scientists, missing something initially. One particularly amusing example came relatively early in the search for extrasolar planets. These can be detected, among other methods, by periodic changes in the brightness of a star. The time scale of the change is related to how far away the planet is, how large it is, and so on. Anyway, the assumption was that gas giants, the only things that could be detected at the time, had an orbit of about ten years at least, so you wouldn't need to check the star's brightness on time scales much more than every year or so (maybe six months to be on the safe side). So that's what this observatory did, and spent several years gathering this data. Then someone thought to have another look and noticed that the actual period for this particular system could be measured in days or weeks, and therefore that the planet was far closer to the star than had been thought possible. Imagine Jupiter where Mercury is and you get the idea.
This story is fairly typical and illustrates several points, including the fallibility of Science (because humans are the ones who do it, in the end, and humans are fallible), but also that Science is self-correcting and constantly improving and expanding. Any mistakes made along the way are almost invariably corrected by other Scientists. But it also illustrates some potential gaps. In the specific case above, we have a method of searching for planets by relying on those planets passing in front of the stars they orbit -- obviously, any planets that orbit their stars "side-on" relative to us can't be detected by this method. Other methods exist that can get around this problem, however, but supposing there were not, it would mean that some stars that did have planets would appear not to. What could we say about such stars? "They do not have planets," is obviously wrong in some cases. "They appear not to have planets," is more correct, and while in fact some do, many may not. But the statement is (i) falsifiable, and (ii) can be corrected later if there is a new method of detecting such planets. The falsifiability is key, and it is what makes Science so strong.
Long story short: it is only by questioning science that our knowledge moves on, but you also need to question that science scientifically. To date, no other approach has had any appreciable success.
This story is fairly typical and illustrates several points, including the fallibility of Science (because humans are the ones who do it, in the end, and humans are fallible), but also that Science is self-correcting and constantly improving and expanding. Any mistakes made along the way are almost invariably corrected by other Scientists. But it also illustrates some potential gaps. In the specific case above, we have a method of searching for planets by relying on those planets passing in front of the stars they orbit -- obviously, any planets that orbit their stars "side-on" relative to us can't be detected by this method. Other methods exist that can get around this problem, however, but supposing there were not, it would mean that some stars that did have planets would appear not to. What could we say about such stars? "They do not have planets," is obviously wrong in some cases. "They appear not to have planets," is more correct, and while in fact some do, many may not. But the statement is (i) falsifiable, and (ii) can be corrected later if there is a new method of detecting such planets. The falsifiability is key, and it is what makes Science so strong.
Long story short: it is only by questioning science that our knowledge moves on, but you also need to question that science scientifically. To date, no other approach has had any appreciable success.
@naomi,
firstly, thanks for your replies.
With regard to my question 5: - what I was getting at was that identifying inhibitory factors would be a key step in identifying the underlying mechanism.
If the scientist was able to show that applying strong electric or magnetic fields to the dowser inhibited their ability to locate a buried target then, by inference, they might infer that sensing very weak electromagnetic fields is part of the mechanism and that the interference was drowning it out.
Likewise, if studying the terrain is nothing to do with it, then they should be able to detect while blindfolded. (An assistant can notify them of when the wires cross).
@mibn
//I support the notion that it cannot be tested scientifically due to the observer effect which contrary to LazyGun's suggestion, cannot be eliminated by any scientific methodology.//
By 'observer effect', are you trying to say that (in bumper sticker format) "Dowsers only do it when no-one is looking"?
If not, can you (or anyone else) expand on what observer effect means? (I could look it up on wiki but I'd far rather have a conversation).
For instance, wasn't there a comment further back in the thread, to the effect that merely having 'disbelievers' stood nearby is enough to throw dowsers off their game? Was that the context of a previous reference to observer effect?
firstly, thanks for your replies.
With regard to my question 5: - what I was getting at was that identifying inhibitory factors would be a key step in identifying the underlying mechanism.
If the scientist was able to show that applying strong electric or magnetic fields to the dowser inhibited their ability to locate a buried target then, by inference, they might infer that sensing very weak electromagnetic fields is part of the mechanism and that the interference was drowning it out.
Likewise, if studying the terrain is nothing to do with it, then they should be able to detect while blindfolded. (An assistant can notify them of when the wires cross).
@mibn
//I support the notion that it cannot be tested scientifically due to the observer effect which contrary to LazyGun's suggestion, cannot be eliminated by any scientific methodology.//
By 'observer effect', are you trying to say that (in bumper sticker format) "Dowsers only do it when no-one is looking"?
If not, can you (or anyone else) expand on what observer effect means? (I could look it up on wiki but I'd far rather have a conversation).
For instance, wasn't there a comment further back in the thread, to the effect that merely having 'disbelievers' stood nearby is enough to throw dowsers off their game? Was that the context of a previous reference to observer effect?
I thought this thread had ended, but apparently not, so here goes.
Hypognosis //identifying inhibitory factors would be a key step in identifying the underlying mechanism.//
I think that’s jumping the gun. It first has to be established that something actually happens when certain people walk across fields with dowsing rods. The whys and wherefores would necessarily come later.
I’m intrigued by Mibs post. Come on Mibs – get your finger out! ;o)
Hypognosis //identifying inhibitory factors would be a key step in identifying the underlying mechanism.//
I think that’s jumping the gun. It first has to be established that something actually happens when certain people walk across fields with dowsing rods. The whys and wherefores would necessarily come later.
I’m intrigued by Mibs post. Come on Mibs – get your finger out! ;o)
As a complete layman- Can I ask if its a fair comparison here to compare quantum effects to all the paranormal phenomena that's been thrown in....?
Who can believe that one thing can exist in two places at the same time?
Who can accept that something can change a particle at potentially an immense distance and do so 'instantly'? Also faster than light!
What about the ability of particles to go through solid objects unresisted?
And what about a particle being changed or behaving differently- just through the act of observation?
ALL these thing to me seem far more strange and implausible than any paranormal phenomena!
Finally, I do believe that 'believers' have had some strange experience in their lives while the non-believers have not!
Who can believe that one thing can exist in two places at the same time?
Who can accept that something can change a particle at potentially an immense distance and do so 'instantly'? Also faster than light!
What about the ability of particles to go through solid objects unresisted?
And what about a particle being changed or behaving differently- just through the act of observation?
ALL these thing to me seem far more strange and implausible than any paranormal phenomena!
Finally, I do believe that 'believers' have had some strange experience in their lives while the non-believers have not!
jim360
Looks like mibs was just quoting beso.
17:03 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
Brilliant deduction, Jim.
naomi24
Question Author
I thought this thread had ended, but apparently not, so here goes.
Hypognosis //identifying inhibitory factors would be a key step in identifying the underlying mechanism.//
I think that’s jumping the gun. It first has to be established that something actually happens when certain people walk across fields with dowsing rods. The whys and wherefores would necessarily come later.
I’m intrigued by Mibs post. Come on Mibs – get your finger out! ;o)
09:59 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
And I’m intrigued by Beso's post. Come on Beso – show us what yuh got! ;o)
Looks like mibs was just quoting beso.
17:03 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
Brilliant deduction, Jim.
naomi24
Question Author
I thought this thread had ended, but apparently not, so here goes.
Hypognosis //identifying inhibitory factors would be a key step in identifying the underlying mechanism.//
I think that’s jumping the gun. It first has to be established that something actually happens when certain people walk across fields with dowsing rods. The whys and wherefores would necessarily come later.
I’m intrigued by Mibs post. Come on Mibs – get your finger out! ;o)
09:59 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
And I’m intrigued by Beso's post. Come on Beso – show us what yuh got! ;o)
Fair enough, Naomi, it'll take some time to address each of Matheous' questions though. A lot of them appear to me to be misconceptions, though.
Most of your weird effects appear in Quantum Mechanics but this is a "nonrelativistic" theory -- that is, that don't fully describe what is going on because they ignore (special) relativity. Some of the weird effects are then similar to what you get in even Newton's theory of gravity. This has everything connected to everything else, everywhere, instantaneously -- so, if the Sun disappeared right now, according to Newton's theory the Earth would instantly respond. Indeed, we would also instantly notice if the galaxy Andromeda vanished, subtle changes in the gravity field occurring even as we could see the galaxy still there. But this is presumed to be a nonsense, as information is held to travel at no faster than the speed of light -- related to the "Principle of Causality". There's no proof that this is so, it's an assumption, but it does fit with all known experimental data so far.
In the same way, many of the weird effects of Quantum Mechanics are related to the fact that the theory in which these effects appear is incomplete. This is not to say that those stories are wrong -- it's just that you should be careful of the interpretation. That said, things are probably weirder in the full theory. Anyway...
"Who can believe that one thing can exist in two places at the same time?"
Presumably you are referring to the double-slit experiment, an electron particle interfering with itself as it passes through both slits at once? Thing is, that it was never just in one place to start with. I don't know quite how to continue that thought, but... the basic gist is that until you have observed the particle it could be anywhere (with varying degrees of probability for each location), and even on observing it there is an uncertainty in the position.
Also it's a matter of interpretation. The "truth", if there is such a thing, is that we try to make pictures out of what the mathematical equations tell us. All of those pictures are wrong, some are more wrong than others. For myself, I have great difficulty in this "it's a particle when you are looking at it" idea, because a particle is a crude approximation itself. Better to think of the electron as a wave, whose behaviour obeys the laws of quantum probability, but whose wave-like properties can be ignored in certain cases.
I don't know if this is the main-line interpretation, but it neatly sidesteps all apparent paradoxes that I know of, and also seems to be as close to the truth as possible. We don't know what an electron is. We do know how to describe it, to varying degrees of accuracy. At the level of the Schrodinger equation, the picture allows you to talk of the particle as if it is in two places at once, but then it's only a picture.
"Who can accept that something can change a particle at potentially an immense distance and do so 'instantly'? Also faster than light!"
The EPR Paradox, two particles that are part of the same system seemingly connected across any distance, instantly. The connection is real, the phenomenon has been observed, but it's not clear that any information travels faster than light. Suppose you have two particles, A and B, coupled together in this way, and you send B off to Mars where someone is waiting for it. Then look at A, and this will change the state of B too. But the person on Mars, looking at B, has no way of determining whether or not you looked at A. No information moves between the two places, but the result of B's experiment can be known before he performs it -- but not by the person himself. Neither do the experimenters have any control over the outcome, so there is no way for either person to tell if the other person has performed the experiment before he can find out by "at-light-speed" means. Again, care is needed in interpreting what is going on.
More to follow as I've run out of characters.
Most of your weird effects appear in Quantum Mechanics but this is a "nonrelativistic" theory -- that is, that don't fully describe what is going on because they ignore (special) relativity. Some of the weird effects are then similar to what you get in even Newton's theory of gravity. This has everything connected to everything else, everywhere, instantaneously -- so, if the Sun disappeared right now, according to Newton's theory the Earth would instantly respond. Indeed, we would also instantly notice if the galaxy Andromeda vanished, subtle changes in the gravity field occurring even as we could see the galaxy still there. But this is presumed to be a nonsense, as information is held to travel at no faster than the speed of light -- related to the "Principle of Causality". There's no proof that this is so, it's an assumption, but it does fit with all known experimental data so far.
In the same way, many of the weird effects of Quantum Mechanics are related to the fact that the theory in which these effects appear is incomplete. This is not to say that those stories are wrong -- it's just that you should be careful of the interpretation. That said, things are probably weirder in the full theory. Anyway...
"Who can believe that one thing can exist in two places at the same time?"
Presumably you are referring to the double-slit experiment, an electron particle interfering with itself as it passes through both slits at once? Thing is, that it was never just in one place to start with. I don't know quite how to continue that thought, but... the basic gist is that until you have observed the particle it could be anywhere (with varying degrees of probability for each location), and even on observing it there is an uncertainty in the position.
Also it's a matter of interpretation. The "truth", if there is such a thing, is that we try to make pictures out of what the mathematical equations tell us. All of those pictures are wrong, some are more wrong than others. For myself, I have great difficulty in this "it's a particle when you are looking at it" idea, because a particle is a crude approximation itself. Better to think of the electron as a wave, whose behaviour obeys the laws of quantum probability, but whose wave-like properties can be ignored in certain cases.
I don't know if this is the main-line interpretation, but it neatly sidesteps all apparent paradoxes that I know of, and also seems to be as close to the truth as possible. We don't know what an electron is. We do know how to describe it, to varying degrees of accuracy. At the level of the Schrodinger equation, the picture allows you to talk of the particle as if it is in two places at once, but then it's only a picture.
"Who can accept that something can change a particle at potentially an immense distance and do so 'instantly'? Also faster than light!"
The EPR Paradox, two particles that are part of the same system seemingly connected across any distance, instantly. The connection is real, the phenomenon has been observed, but it's not clear that any information travels faster than light. Suppose you have two particles, A and B, coupled together in this way, and you send B off to Mars where someone is waiting for it. Then look at A, and this will change the state of B too. But the person on Mars, looking at B, has no way of determining whether or not you looked at A. No information moves between the two places, but the result of B's experiment can be known before he performs it -- but not by the person himself. Neither do the experimenters have any control over the outcome, so there is no way for either person to tell if the other person has performed the experiment before he can find out by "at-light-speed" means. Again, care is needed in interpreting what is going on.
More to follow as I've run out of characters.
Its a shame you're not religious Naomi. I'd put you're name forward for beatification.;)
Couldn't resist highlighting this gem from one of our leading AB 'scientists./// I do not see how electrical 'fields' can be generated by water bodies and I don't see how bone would react mechanically to a stationary field and if it did how the minute flexing of bone would have a significant effect on the musculature.. Even if it did it would surely make the rods move in the same direction and not cross, To me it doesn't even seem to be a starter. ///
Really Jom, you honestly think that 2 rods held in opposite hands and subjected to the same stimuli would move in the same direction? I'm not a scientist but then I don't have to be to see they would both turn in(ie cross) or both turn out. Or not move at all, of course.
I wouldn't normally highlight such muddled thinking but you appear to be using the fact that they DON'T turn in the same direction to dismiss that avenue of investigation.
Apologies if I haven't explained the above to you very well. Perhaps some of your fellow 'scientists' could make it clearer.
Couldn't resist highlighting this gem from one of our leading AB 'scientists./// I do not see how electrical 'fields' can be generated by water bodies and I don't see how bone would react mechanically to a stationary field and if it did how the minute flexing of bone would have a significant effect on the musculature.. Even if it did it would surely make the rods move in the same direction and not cross, To me it doesn't even seem to be a starter. ///
Really Jom, you honestly think that 2 rods held in opposite hands and subjected to the same stimuli would move in the same direction? I'm not a scientist but then I don't have to be to see they would both turn in(ie cross) or both turn out. Or not move at all, of course.
I wouldn't normally highlight such muddled thinking but you appear to be using the fact that they DON'T turn in the same direction to dismiss that avenue of investigation.
Apologies if I haven't explained the above to you very well. Perhaps some of your fellow 'scientists' could make it clearer.
"What about the ability of particles to go through solid objects unresisted?"
They aren't unresisted. If you throw a particle at a wall, it can appear to pass though that wall as if it was not there, but the probability is that it won't. If the wall is sufficiently thick, then out of a stream of millions of such particles not much more than one or two would pass through. The deficiency is in thinking too classically about things -- of course if you hit a ball at a wall it will just bounce back, but when you do the maths and allow for quantum effects this was merely the overwhelmingly most likely result. In fact it's possible to estimate the probability that a football can pas through a brick wall, I believe I have done so somewhere on this site, but the number is so infinitesimally tiny as to be zero. The problem again is that the classical, common sense world was only ever an approximation. A thumping good one, but an approximation nonetheless, and sadly it's about this approximation that we have based our ideas of what should and should not happen.
" And what about a particle being changed or behaving differently- just through the act of observation?"
I don't think you can say that the particle changes or behave differently. The picture that I was introduced to that is in some way useful is to think of a coin that has just been tossed. Until you catch it, or until it hits the floor, you don't know whether it will be heads or tails. Once you catch it, however, it has to be one or the other. So the "observation" of catching a coin has "forced" it to be heads or tails, but previously it could have been either. There is more going on than just a coin toss, of course -- but the analogy is reasonable enough. Quantum systems can be in any one of several states, until you observe which state it is in, when it has to be in one of them. When you look at enough systems, the outcomes will match what you might expect from the probabilities. So if there were three equally likely states then the results will divide roughly evenly between these three states.
" ALL these thing to me seem far more strange and implausible than any paranormal phenomena!"
What is going on is that we have a set of mathematical equations that very accurately describe what is going on in the world of the very small. The pictures they paint are odd, but some of the oddness is because we are trying to match these systems with things we are more familiar with, that often don't match at all. The key differences with paranormal phenomena -- at least, for now -- are that we already have both the maths to describe viable theories, and the experimental data to back up these theories. While it is weird, it also works, and passes the scientific test, again and again, with flying colours. Many paranormal phenomena so far have not passed these tests, for whatever reason.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I hope this answers your questions, Matheous, feel free to ask more, but ultimately you need to be able to use and understand the mathematical equations, rather than the English language, to describe what is going on.
They aren't unresisted. If you throw a particle at a wall, it can appear to pass though that wall as if it was not there, but the probability is that it won't. If the wall is sufficiently thick, then out of a stream of millions of such particles not much more than one or two would pass through. The deficiency is in thinking too classically about things -- of course if you hit a ball at a wall it will just bounce back, but when you do the maths and allow for quantum effects this was merely the overwhelmingly most likely result. In fact it's possible to estimate the probability that a football can pas through a brick wall, I believe I have done so somewhere on this site, but the number is so infinitesimally tiny as to be zero. The problem again is that the classical, common sense world was only ever an approximation. A thumping good one, but an approximation nonetheless, and sadly it's about this approximation that we have based our ideas of what should and should not happen.
" And what about a particle being changed or behaving differently- just through the act of observation?"
I don't think you can say that the particle changes or behave differently. The picture that I was introduced to that is in some way useful is to think of a coin that has just been tossed. Until you catch it, or until it hits the floor, you don't know whether it will be heads or tails. Once you catch it, however, it has to be one or the other. So the "observation" of catching a coin has "forced" it to be heads or tails, but previously it could have been either. There is more going on than just a coin toss, of course -- but the analogy is reasonable enough. Quantum systems can be in any one of several states, until you observe which state it is in, when it has to be in one of them. When you look at enough systems, the outcomes will match what you might expect from the probabilities. So if there were three equally likely states then the results will divide roughly evenly between these three states.
" ALL these thing to me seem far more strange and implausible than any paranormal phenomena!"
What is going on is that we have a set of mathematical equations that very accurately describe what is going on in the world of the very small. The pictures they paint are odd, but some of the oddness is because we are trying to match these systems with things we are more familiar with, that often don't match at all. The key differences with paranormal phenomena -- at least, for now -- are that we already have both the maths to describe viable theories, and the experimental data to back up these theories. While it is weird, it also works, and passes the scientific test, again and again, with flying colours. Many paranormal phenomena so far have not passed these tests, for whatever reason.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I hope this answers your questions, Matheous, feel free to ask more, but ultimately you need to be able to use and understand the mathematical equations, rather than the English language, to describe what is going on.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.