Are people against science?

Nick Dolan

Theres a thread over in the conspiracy theory section where we were going on about whether science cant be trusted . I thought it was odd that people were debating whether science was trustworthy when the main principles of science was supposed to be about evidence and logic in the first place . You see supporters of creationism , alternative medicines and E.T. visitation etc refer to "Conventional Science" as if mocking it or devaluing it. Outside of the most contenscious issues like creationism etc does anyone else see a growing trend to refer to science as a negative thing? Do people on the street assume that science and alternative theories have an equally valid basis? And if they do, what is their thought processes. How do they choose which thruth is truer?

Capt'n Midnight

once upon a time it was thought that the holes in the shells of Ammonites were caused by marine reptiles biting them as in this picture.



Then a young girl pointed out that wouldn't the shells break when bitten. After some humble pie it was realised that it was in fact snails that were boring the holes in the shells.


Point being that anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better idea can have it accepted in science. You don't need to be a scientist , all you need is to some theory or evidence that others can test or reproduce.



There are a lot of claims for alternative science that doesn't isn't significantly better than the placebo effect or the effects Maslow? found, (didn't he do the lighting study?) which is why you need double blind trials. In fairness IMHO clinical trials shouldn't be compared to just placebo's but also against the current best practice treatment. We don't need another patented pain killer that isn't any better than the generics, unless there are less side effects or some other benefit, but I digress.

bonkey

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Outside of the most contenscious issues like creationism etc does anyone else see a growing trend to refer to science as a negative thing? Do people on the street assume that science and alternative theories have an equally valid basis? And if they do, what is their thought processes. How do they choose which thruth is truer?

I don't think its a "negative" thing. I think, rather, its a case whereby enough effort has been put in by enough parties to confuse some issues, that many Average Joes are consciously or subconsciously at a point where they don't have the depth of knowledge to know or understand who is making an honest argument and who not, and rely instead of other factors...such as "gut feeling", who they find more trustworthy as a source, etc.

This isn't helped much by the absolutely woeful standard of reporting when it comes to scientific issues. Even where it should be a clear-cut case, the journalistic notion of "balanced coverage" tends to mean "present each side as equally plausible".

Nick Dolan

I dont think i worded the OP exactly right, i was trying to say how can people process "Well current knowlege say x=y, but this guy says x=z and ill believe him". And I think the whole confusion idea bangs it on the head there. Everyday you here some dumb survey, like 28% of people lost weight wearing yellow socks, and its thrown out like its some very big important research breakthrough . I think all that baloney keeps alive the idea of science and technology as wierdos in white coats swirling green goo in test tubes and not doing anything important

FISMA

I have seen a growing trend with what I call Scienticians and Scientists with an atheist agenda.

Scientists should only have an agenda to the data. Keep your personal beliefs about global warming, God, and all out of the data.

Some scientists are very quick to mock the religious. Science at its core is asks for faith/credulity in the same way as religion.

Consider what Astronomers have known for over 30 years: the universe:
(1) began, in a big bang,
(2) from a singularity, outside of time,
(3) that existed in superposition with itself (3).

(1) Sounds like the Bible was correct, the Universe had a beginning and was not cyclical. Don't forget that the term big bang was a slur against those that backed the Priest (Georges Lemaitre) since the beginning wasn't very big and there was no sound!

(2) The singularity sounds like one God. Since everything that ever was to be was co-located at that singularity, one could argue that this singularity had supreme knowledge, was all knowing, - an alpha and omega so to speak,

However, didn't Jesus claim that he and the father were one? What about the Holy Spirit? Ah ha! How can Christians explain that?

Well, Christians have been saying this for 2000 years and finally Quantum Mechanics has caught up.

Single objects can exist in multiple positions at the same time. Thus, the idea of One God existing in the form of Jesus and the Holy Spirit fits perfectly in the most accurate description of Physical systems that man has ever known: Quantum Mechanics.

Rather than accept what the Astronomical data shows, Astronomers have sat on the data as its implications are far too religious.

That's not science, it is activism. It is this type of "science" that is destroying the profession.

Another blow to science is the environmentalist zealots.

I cannot help but laugh at some of these Hummer hating environmentalists - most of which are pantheists without realizing it.

I point out that they worship mother earth, they have their own Pope (Al Gore) who is selling indulgences (carbon credits). They even have their own end of the world story - and guess what - it's a flood - how original!:)

The word Zealot is more than applicable to these dooms-dayer's as I am sure one of the defenders of the faith will soon show.

Science is only as good as the scientists.

Gurgle

It was a toss-up between replying to your post and deleting it.
Masochism won.

FISMA wrote: »

Science at its core is asks for faith/credulity in the same way as religion.

Exactly the opposite. Science requires that you question everything and only provisionally 'believe' the most tried and tested laws until something better comes along.

FISMA wrote: »

Consider what Astronomers have known for over 30 years: the universe:
(1) began, in a big bang,
(2) from a singularity, outside of time,
(3) that existed in superposition with itself (3).

And this is where you've lost it.
1) Yes, there was a physical 'big bang'
2) This is a mathematical construct. Its not that the big bang happened 'outside of time' but that we consider it as time 0, i.e. that which occurred previously has no effect on the current state of the universe.
3) This is an abstract mathematical construct, not meant to represent how the universe is physically assembled. Its a tool to examine probability distributions.

The rest of your 'scientific' arguement is just taking scientific words out of context and applying them to your metaphysical constructs.

FISMA wrote: »

Single objects can exist in multiple positions at the same time.

No, they can't. They can have a probability distribution which allows for them to exist in a number of different places at any given time, but each individual particle only exists in one of them.

Thus your claim of religious implication is void.

FISMA wrote: »

I cannot help but laugh at some of these Hummer hating environmentalists - most of which are pantheists without realizing it.

Why is this funny?

FISMA wrote: »

I point out that they worship mother earth...

Change 'worship' to 'live on' and you may understand a bit better.

FISMA wrote: »

Science is only as good as the scientists.

Which is why every single successful scientist in the last 1000 years was either an aethiest or a believer who understood that religion and science are separate areas of study. They are neither contradictory or complimentary, they deal with entirely separate matters.

George Lemaitre was the very personification of this understanding. Whichever pope was knocking around Rome at the time became quite vocal in his agreement with Lemaitre's discoveries and the implications for matters of faith. He was quickly told by his scientific advisors to shut the fcuk up and leave science to the scientists.

I offer you the same advice

djpbarry

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I dont think i worded the OP exactly right, i was trying to say how can people process "Well current knowlege say x=y, but this guy says x=z and ill believe him".

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Everyday you here some dumb survey, like 28% of people lost weight wearing yellow socks, and its thrown out like its some very big important research breakthrough . I think all that baloney keeps alive the idea of science and technology as wierdos in white coats swirling green goo in test tubes and not doing anything important

If someone reads a headline in a paper that says "Scientists make breakthrough with weight-loss socks", they might think "fantastic - I don't have to get more exercise and change my eating habits, I just have to change my socks!" Logic gets pushed to the back of their minds because they hope they've found an easy, quick-fix solution to a problem.

I think most people believe that science and technology will solve most of our problems for us - we won't have to change the way we live - because it's a very convenient belief system. However, if science throws up some findings that may suggest we need to change how we live our lives, all of a sudden 'science' becomes a great big conspiracy, in which scientists are power-hungry doom-mongers attempting to gain control over every aspect of people's lives in some kind of Orwellian dystopia.

Nick Dolan

djpbarry wrote: »

Logic gets pushed to the back of their minds because they hope they've found an easy, quick-fix solution to a problem.

Ah the L word! Thats what i was trying to put into english. I didnt want to start a thread " gee, arent some people dumb" , more how does people logic work. Is it just religious fundementalists who scorn mainstream science or does everyone not from a scientific backround think its all voodoo. Ive come across alot of opinions here on boards that science has no more authority than non scientific thinking. I dont like that and usually weigh in thinking, if they want to ridicule mainstream science then im gonna stick up for it (cue the stirring music!). But maybe im too easily riled up about it

Johnny_Coyle

Gurgle,
You appear to be getting many fundamentals confused. I'll take on a few of the more obvious.

First, your reference to "time" is archaic. Einstein still rules over the Quantum boys until their Chroton or Q Field Theory is demonstrable. Short answer - there is space-time, not space and time, but one continuous space-time.

When there was a singularity there was no space so how could there be any space-time? I think that's what the original poster (OP) implied. That what/whenever the singularity was, it was pre-spacetime. I think the OP appears to be saying that the singularity is God. The same God of the old & New Testaments that claims to be timeless.

When you start your stopwatch at t=0 s, negative time may be thought of as that amount of time before you started your watch, as any secondary school Physics students understands from using the kinematic equations when they get a quadratic eq. However, there was no before the singularity as their was no space-time.

You're also getting your preDetection and postDetection confused when it comes to superposition. You are most definitely wrong here as superposition has been demonstrated in labs throughout the world.

With the singularity, we are dealing with preDetection. The singluarity may exist in superposition with itself, 2, 3, 4, whatever. Certain objects in the labs exist in thousands. It's a neat explanation for the Trinity that I have heard before.

Finally, did I read correctly? The OP speaks of faith, you disagree and say that you need to "provincially believe?" That sounds like faith to me.

Nick Dolan

you cant use the wackyness of quantum physics to prove God exists. thats like saying


My garden has a pile of rocks
Alice in chain really rocks
My garden is Alice In Chains


mind you if i found them dudes rocking out in the garden shed, Id be making tea full time to convince them to stay...........

Capt'n Midnight

Johnny_Coyle wrote: »

Finally, did I read correctly? The OP speaks of faith, you disagree and say that you need to "provincially believe?" That sounds like faith to me.

I assume you read correctly and then choose to ignore the evidence.

Gurgle wrote: »

Exactly the opposite. Science requires that you question everything and only provisionally 'believe' the most tried and tested laws until something better comes along.

Please let me know which religion you requires you to question everything and then to switch beliefs as and when better theories and proofs become available.


Thing about science is that if you or anyone can prove reproducibly that science is wrong about something then science has to accommodate that. Many religions have conflicting beliefs, as a general rule they don't change them to accommodate other religions.

FISMA

Religions have fundamentals which may not be questioned. This is commonly referred to as dogma. Dogma is the Greek for belief.

Science, at its core, has fundamentals which may not be questioned.

Mathematics is much the same. Referring to a Calc book, look at any proof. All start with an arbitrary statement you must take on faith: let, suppose, given, if, ... Again, a fundamental doctrine. Lesson learned: I can show how x is true, just don't question y.

For example, Gurgle, what IS mass? What IS Force? What IS Energy. What IS time?

Please spare me the text book - embarrassing definitions of, respectively: measurement of inertia, a push or pull, the ability to do work, and oscillations within a theoretical atom.

Short answer: we do not know what mass IS, or Force IS, or Energy IS. Instead, we know them by what they do. We define them, make measurements, objectify, quantify, and mathematize. It is doubtful that such a system could ever know the mind of God so to speak. Keep in mind that Physics is the study of the natural world. Physics is Greek for natural. By its own definition, it lacks the ability to analyze the supernatural.

Let's take an oversimplified example. A Force by my finger is applied to a block/mass and it accelerates.

"Why" did the mass accelerate? We do not know: there is no knowable link between cause and effect. MetaPhysicists do "why." Physicists, acknowledge that the mass' acceleration was the effect and that the cause was the applied Force of the finger.

It accelerated because you touched it, right? Wrong. My finger never came in contact with the block - so says atomic theory.

But electrons have electric fields which cause repulsion, that's why the mass accelerated. Well, (1) it's still called atomic theory for a reason and (2) fields are a construct that we made up. The field is our attempt at an explanation. It is not that the explanation is that there is a field. The field is there because we say so.

The point here is that there is a level at which you cannot question. These so called primitive concepts are taken by credulity, which is the scientists way of taking it by faith.

If you question F = ma we can quickly get mired down into a state of uselessness. If you accept F=ma we can literally do things that are out of this world.

Perhaps, that's God's point. Don't question the fundamentals, just have faith, and you can move mountains.

FISMA

Easy there Capt'N. You are using evidence and proof as if they were the same thing. I hope you're not a lawyer or a judge or else we'll all be guilty!

Example. Many scientists believe in evolution because of evidence such as dna.

However, scientists cannot test that we come from chimps, nor can they replicate that we come from chimps. Chimps have never been observed to become sapiens. Thus, we cannot prove that we come from Chimps -hence the reason we call it the Theory of Evolution.

I think you are all getting confused between proving in the colloquial sense and Proving in the absolute sense. Concisely: I believe that science is chock full of proofs, however, cannot Prove a single thing.

I am not trying to be picky, however, if science is going to analyze the ultimate - God, then shouldn't it be able to stand up to its own tests?

Does that make sense or shall I clarify?

If anyone believes that anything can be Proven, in the absolute sense, please devise a simple test and I will demonstrate that although we may prove something, you can never really Prove anything.

Again, do you trust your memory? What's your scientific test to see if our memory is working properly?

Nick Dolan

FISMA wrote: »

Science, at its core, has fundamentals which may not be questioned.

wrong right off the bat. Science has fundementals proved, religion has fundamentals told. Not the same thing

it's still called atomic theory for a reason and

misunderstanding of the word theory

The point here is that there is a level at which you cannot question. These so called primitive concepts are taken by credulity, which is the scientists way of taking it by faith.

Incorrect

2Scoops

Science: observation/prediction based on evidence.
Religion: belief in religious ideas not supported by evidence.

Simple as that, really. Perhaps the latest few posts in this thread are better off in one of the religion threads (we all know the one ), since they are merely hamfisted digs at atheism and nothing to do with the OP or, indeed, popular science!

On topic, I agree that irresponsible reporting of science, where both 'sides' of every argument are presented rather than the actual evidence, will lead people to write off science as unclear on issues when it really isn't. Even on some of the other forums here you get qualified people trotting out the tired old chestnut "you can find a reference for anything" - a superficial conclusion that ignores quality of evidence and data. If the qualified people can't be arsed looking at the evidence, what hope has Joe Soap?

Nick Dolan

I like arguing , so digs against science are very welcome here!

djpbarry

FISMA wrote: »

If you question F = ma we can quickly get mired down into a state of uselessness. If you accept F=ma we can literally do things that are out of this world.

You seem to be ignoring the obvious here. Yes, equations such as the above are merely human constructs, but they are tried and tested human constructs. The fact that we do not understand everything about the interactions involving force and mass does not invalidate the relationship. If such a construct is demonstrably flawed, then it is either refined or replaced with a new construct. As has already been stated, the same could not be said of religion.

Take another example – the theory of gravity. Yes, it is just that, a theory, because nobody really has a clue how gravity works. All we know is that it works. Does that mean that we should ignore the evidence that our understanding of gravitational mechanics is pretty accurate (based on predicted/actual satellite trajectories, for example), or do we dispense with the law of universal gravitation because we do not fully understand what gravity is?

FISMA wrote: »

However, scientists cannot test that we come from chimps, nor can they replicate that we come from chimps. Chimps have never been observed to become sapiens. Thus, we cannot prove that we come from Chimps -hence the reason we call it the Theory of Evolution.

Indeed, it’s just a theory. Based on the available evidence. So what?

FISMA wrote: »

I think you are all getting confused between proving in the colloquial sense and Proving in the absolute sense. Concisely: I believe that science is chock full of proofs, however, cannot Prove a single thing.

Nothing can be proven to be 100% accurate, no. However, many things can be demonstrated to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

This would appear to be an old trick of the religious: science does not understand everything, ergo, God exists.

nozzferrahhtoo

djpbarry wrote: »

This would appear to be an old trick of the religious: science does not understand everything, ergo, God exists.

Or put another way, which I think is closer to the point…

“Because something can not be explained… it can be explained”.

I wish I had a euro for every time people have presented the lack of evidence for an explanation as evidence for their own explanation.

I have seen it done in religion (if god did not do it then what did) in talk of ghosts (we can not explain why that chair moved by itself therefore it must be ghosts) and even conspiracy theories (they are not releasing the minutes of that meeting there, so this is proof that the agenda I am telling you they have is the one they have).

Gurgle

FISMA wrote: »

What's your scientific test to see if our memory is working properly?

I think therefore I am.

FISMA wrote: »

Please spare me the text book - embarrassing definitions of, respectively: measurement of inertia, a push or pull, the ability to do work, and oscillations within a theoretical atom.

If you can't understand these 'embarrassing' definitions, there really is no justification for you to be posting here.

They aren't descriptions or measurements, they are definitions. By definition that means that the definition is the definition.

Take the speed of light, it was measured with greater and greater accuracy in m/s up to 1983, then it was decided to redefine the meter based on the speed of light as this was more accurate and precise than the previous base used (distance from the equator to the north pole).

Now the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s and a meter is defined as exactly the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds.

BTW the second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the transition between levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

These aren't 'measured' values with a margin of error / a limit in precision or accuracy. They are finite and complete definitions.

Capt'n Midnight

FISMA wrote: »

Religions have fundamentals which may not be questioned.

Actually you'll find that religions question each other. If the fundamentals were universal and unquestionable then there would only be one religion.

Science, at its core, has fundamentals which may not be questioned.

nope everything is up for grabs,

Mathematics is much the same. Referring to a Calc book, look at any proof. All start with an arbitrary statement you must take on faith: let, suppose, given, if, ... Again, a fundamental doctrine. Lesson learned: I can show how x is true, just don't question y.

it took a LOT of work to finally 1+1=2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." – Volume I, 1st edition, page 379
The proof is actually completed in Volume II, 1st edition, page 86

If you question F = ma we can quickly get mired down into a state of uselessness. If you accept F=ma we can literally do things that are out of this world.

Perhaps, that's God's point. Don't question the fundamentals, just have faith, and you can move mountains.

Every physicist knows F=ma is wrong.
It's just an approximation that is only used at non relativistic speeds. :rolleyes:


BTW individual atoms have been visualised by electron microscope, but the theory of gas pressure had more or less confirmed the size of atoms long before.

Capt'n Midnight

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I like arguing , so digs against science are very welcome here!

It's the science forum
arguing and digs have no place

please stick to facts and logical arguments

Capt'n Midnight

FISMA wrote: »

However, scientists cannot test that we come from chimps, nor can they replicate that we come from chimps. Chimps have never been observed to become sapiens. Thus, we cannot prove that we come from Chimps -hence the reason we call it the Theory of Evolution.

Few of us ignore Gravity even though it's also only a Theory that we can't prove.

Also we did not evolve from chimps. To suggest this means you either don't understand the theory of evolution or are deliberately misrepresentating it. Neither deserve any respect.

Evolution suggests that we and chimps / bonobos had a common ancestor several million years ago, it does not suggest that we are direct descendents

If anyone believes that anything can be Proven, in the absolute sense, please devise a simple test and I will demonstrate that although we may prove something, you can never really Prove anything.

I'm taking that to mean you can disprove any proof of God.


Were you planning to use Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems perhaps ?

El Siglo

Capt'n Midnight I must say, great posts! I thoroughly enjoy reading them, really interesting so they are.

Nick Dolan

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's the science forum
arguing and digs have no place

please stick to facts and logical arguments

What I meant was I go on other threads and rain on a few peoples parade now and again so i feel its only fair to let others have there say here. The anti science opinions (for want of a better word) can be usually shown to be not well based in fact and an indicator of some other agenda, religion or spiritualism or conspiracy, whatever. And maybe people reading the thread with no interest in science at all will get a better view of science as a method not just another set of beliefs. (Cue inspirational music!) A little bit of argument spices things up a bit, i think anyway.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html




just found this article

Johnny_Coyle

OP - you seriously wonder why scientists are losing their esteemed place in society's hierarchy? Consider the following.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Point being that anyone who comes up with a demonstrably better idea can have it accepted in science. You don't need to be a scientist , all you need is to some theory or evidence that others can test or reproduce.

Wrong. You cannot test a theory. You cannot reproduce a theory. That's why scientists call it a theory. You look at the data, attempt to see patterns, examine evidence, and try to fit the pieces together. Evidence is something that supports the theory. It does not offer proof.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I like arguing , so digs against science are very welcome here!

Again, you wonder why people are losing faith (pun intended) in scientists and science. Perhaps, it has to do with all of the squabbling and bickering - like that you have encouraged.

Gurgle wrote: »

I think therefore I am.

Please tell me you forgot the - I am joking icon. I was actually looking forward to someone providing some test that could demonstrate such.

Gurgle wrote: »

Now the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s and a meter is defined as exactly the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds.

This is so wrong I am hoping that I mis-read.

1) We do NOT know EXACTLY at what speed light propagates a vaccuum. I bet it is close to what you said, however, what you have provided is the current best measurement and is not EXACT.

Gurgle wrote: »

BTW the second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the transition between levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

You're missing FISMA's point. FISMA (I just got it F = ma!) asked you what time IS. You provided a way to measure a second. What is time? You have not answered that. Do you believe in chronons?

Gurgle wrote: »

These aren't 'measured' values with a margin of error / a limit in precision or accuracy. They are finite and complete definitions.

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. They are measured values! There is a margin of error. There is a limit of precision. Their definitions will change in the future - thus, they are not complete.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

it took a LOT of work to finally 1+1=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." – Volume I, 1st edition, page 379
The proof is actually completed in Volume II, 1st edition, page 86

Your "proof" clearly states that "when arithmetical addition has been defined." Again, we must arbitrarily agree upon something - definition of addition.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

The anti science opinions (for want of a better word) can be usually shown to be not well based in fact and an indicator of some other agenda, religion or spiritualism or conspiracy, whatever.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html

Your responses have been childish at best and offer no rebuttal. You disagree without support as if your single words merit themselves. I do however, agree that you have accomplished your mission of encourage arguments and spicing things up - troll on.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A
BTW individual atoms have been visualised by electron microscope, but the theory of gas pressure had more or less confirmed the size of atoms long before.

Now that's just cute Capt'n - [sic] "visualised." You almost make it appear that we can see atoms, which we cannot. Or maybe that we can see atoms with an SEM, which we cannot. Check your wavelengths, the SEM cannot see an atom. However, correct, atoms may be visualized. But so to can dinosaurs be visualized in Jurrasic park. Neither, are really being seen. You should probably do another google search.

Also, Capt'n atoms do not have a definite shape

Finally, we come to the absolute worst quote of the day for which the poster receives the maximum amount of confused icons of 15

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every physicist knows F=ma is wrong.

Terrible, terrible, and terrible. However, Capt'n you do get an award, here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0 (safe to open)

Fair enough Capt'n. You did follow up with

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every physicist knows F=ma is wrong.
It's just an approximation that is only used at non relativistic speeds.

F=ma is not wrong. It is correct. It is provable and reproducible in labs throughout the world, and outside of the world. True, when you are very small (Quantum) or very fast, the law needs to be tweaked. However, it is not wrong. It is not an approximation. You may have to approximate your measurements, however, F=ma does not.

Finally, Nick with respect to your provided link, a wise man once asked a question that I now ask you:

What is the truth?

Slan agus abhaille lads!

djpbarry

Johnny_Coyle wrote: »

You cannot test a theory. You cannot reproduce a theory.
...
F=ma is not wrong. It is correct. It is provable and reproducible in labs throughout the world, and outside of the world.

:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

Johnny_Coyle wrote: »

Wrong. You cannot test a theory.

A theory cannot be proved, it can only be disproved. In science if anyone, anyone at all, produces reproducible evidence that a theory is wrong then the theory will have to be modified to accommodate that evidence. A good theory will allow predictions, you test the theory by seeing if evidence matches the predictions.

Please refrain from commenting on what theories until you learn the basics.

Please tell me you forgot the - I am joking icon. I was actually looking forward to someone providing some test that could demonstrate such.

there is a theory that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, complete with fossils and populated by people with fake memories.
This theory can't be disproven since it makes no predictions that can be tested, so it's scientific value other than as a thought experiment is negligable.

1) We do NOT know EXACTLY at what speed light propagates a vaccuum. I bet it is close to what you said, however, what you have provided is the current best measurement and is not EXACT.

two points
Read up on Maxwell, you can calculate the speed of light without measuring it.
The definition of meter and second are based on electromagnetic radiation. For the second you count microwaves, for the meter you count wavelengths.

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. They are measured values! There is a margin of error. There is a limit of precision. Their definitions will change in the future - thus, they are not complete.

the speed of light given is +/- 1.6 meters per second, but that's more to do with the accuracy with which can describe the speed of light than our understanding of it. An example here is saying that water boils at 100C when in reality the difference in atmospheric pressure means that a full kettle will boil at nearly a milikelvin lower one that's almost empty one

Your "proof" clearly states that "when arithmetical addition has been defined." Again, we must arbitrarily agree upon something - definition of addition.

just what do you think they were doing for the first 378 pages ????
I've mentioned Gödel
and besides you've taken it totally out of the original context

Or maybe that we can see atoms with an SEM, which we cannot. Check your wavelengths, the SEM cannot see an atom. However, correct, atoms may be visualized.

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

Also, Capt'n atoms do not have a definite shape

Learn about electron shells, S,P,D and then about hybridisation

F=ma is not wrong. It is correct. It is provable and reproducible in labs throughout the world, and outside of the world. True, when you are very small (Quantum) or very fast, the law needs to be tweaked. However, it is not wrong. It is not an approximation. You may have to approximate your measurements, however, F=ma does not.

mass increases when velocity increases.

Capt'n Midnight

In the past science / engineering improved peoples lives enormously. Just look at the epidemics of the nineteenth century. We got radio , aeroplanes, cars, telephones , plastics (Bakelite) , vaccines against smallpox , refrigeration , electricity in the home in a relatively short time. And wars mainly affected soldiers or the civilians of other countries. And they didn't have the vote.

Later on we got weapons of war that were used on civilians a lot closer to home. We got espionage. We were getting diminishing returns on health schemes, which means the benefits aren't as obvious as before.

People in general are less trusting of authority than before, or at least are more able to be vocal about it than before. Must look up a snipped I heard on the radio about there only being 11 democracies in 1941 and you can be very sure freedom of speech was limited in many of those. Science is about questioning things so maybe in a way it's good.

But the media do have to take a responsibility when offering balance on opposing views, as giving equal airtime implies equal legitimacy. Fine if it's a political party, not so fine if you are comparing a regulated system with demonstrated benefits with something that works on a feel good factor.

Nick Dolan

Johnny_Coyle wrote: »

Again, you wonder why people are losing faith (pun intended) in scientists and science. Perhaps, it has to do with all of the squabbling and bickering - like that you have encouraged.

Your responses have been childish at best and offer no rebuttal. You disagree without support as if your single words merit themselves. I do however, agree that you have accomplished your mission of encourage arguments and spicing things up - troll on.

I dont see how encouraging opposing views (like your own) can be seen as trolling. As for being childish, i present to you my rebuttal!!

dermothickey

to the OP, My uncle used to say scientists are educated lunatics. Just his opinion on science in general. My other uncle used to call them apprentice sorcerors What we generally have is a lack of trust in the men behind science, probably due in a small way to who is sponsoring science the studies etc. Some murky ground there cos from my limited understanding scientists get sponsored to do research and the results that come out often can be a matter of getting a drug out in the market. Or in the case of tobacco 2 very different opposing views from one group to the other.

In a way it is very similar to some religions where for example if you take a passage from the Bible, put 10 of the top theologians in the room you end up with 10 different opinions. Opinions being the key word here. In science it's proof or theory really.

El Siglo

dermothickey wrote: »

to the OP, My uncle used to say scientists are educated lunatics. Just his opinion on science in general. My other uncle used to call them apprentice sorcerors What we generally have is a lack of trust in the men behind science, probably due in a small way to who is sponsoring science the studies etc. Some murky ground there cos from my limited understanding scientists get sponsored to do research and the results that come out often can be a matter of getting a drug out in the market. Or in the case of tobacco 2 very different opposing views from one group to the other.

In a way it is very similar to some religions where for example if you take a passage from the Bible, put 10 of the top theologians in the room you end up with 10 different opinions. Opinions being the key word here. In science it's proof or theory really.

Scientific research is funded, but I'd hardly call the EPA, SFI, IRCSET etc... to be some clandestine bodies under the guise of the Illuminati. Scientific research has to be in some way verifiable, you can't just come out with something only to then find out that it was a fluke or you were telling porkies. Yes, people should have trust scientific research and results but you question them with informed critique. I'll give you an example;

Suppose Mr. Ford writes an article detailing research he has done which shows that CO2 emissions over the last 200 years are not 'unnaturally' high and that he has carried out research on palaeoclimatology from the Eocene epoch in which temperatures were massively higher than present and that CO2 levels were in the order of >500ppm etc...

Now suppose Mr. Green comes along, examines Ford's evidence and gives it a good scrutiny, now ignoring the fact that Ford looked at a totally different time period that has absolutely nothing to do with even the Pleistocene or Holocene, but he specifically picks on the CO2 aspect. Green conclusively shows that the isotope of carbon known as 12C is consistently rising and has a strong correlation with CO2. And that this form of carbon is only ever found in fossilised carbon, like coal and oil. And that evidence strongly points to the fact that CO2, although not as high as Ford's estimates, is still increasing with the release of fossilised carbon, and this indicates strongly that anthropogenic activities are causing this release etc...

Now, there's two arguments, equally valid (to a point). The point being, unless you want to be ostracised in the scientific community and have your work called into question (both by fellow academics and your employer), then it doesn't pay to mess up the research or produce shoddy or shady work. Eventually, you'll get caught and be 'shown up'. The example I've used here shows that, it's always good and extremely necessary and pertinent to challenge scientific view points and question data. The key bit is this though, don't do it because you hear it on the news or you read it on boards or it's from some rather dodgey or politcally-economically/financially motivated individual. Question the results with your own work, or peer-reviewed work of others. The underlined bits are also important, you should never, ever make clear cut statements about something because it's harder to prove than disprove. That's a very important point to remember, and you don't need to be a scientist to know that one.

FISMA

Not trying to be offensive, however, many/most of the posters in this thread have totally missed my point. Also, I did not want to condescendingly ask anyone if they were still in secondary school or an undergrad. Fortunately, they have answered the question themselves.

Nick Dolan wrote: »

as coincidence would have it Im one exam away from completing a second Second year at college. To be honest im really looking forward to not having to shove stuff into my brain for a few weeks.

Nick, we understand, not a problem, your quotes are what is expected at this level. We will not ask you to put much more into your head. We will ask for less to come out - just kidding. Good luck with your second second year -Third times a charm!:D - just kidding.

Johnny_Coyle wrote: »

Wrong. You cannot test a theory. You cannot reproduce a theory. That's why scientists call it a theory.

Johny, did you really mean this in the general sense? Point of clarification: some theories can be tested, others cannot. Big bang and evolution will always remain as theories as they are past events. Those events cannot be reproduced or observed. Thus, I agree, that these theories cannot be tested or reproduced.

Other theories that are limited in outcome say by our technology or understanding, may be proven in time.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A theory cannot be proved, it can only be disproved.

Once upon a man named Gallileo believed that the solar system was not geocentric but heliocentric. Gallileo had a theory, based upon experimental data and wanted to teach his findings in Catholic Learning Institutions. As you probably have not heard, the Church said you CAN teach this, but only as a theory, unless you have proof.

Gallileo insisted that he be allowed to teach his theory as fact without proof. The controversy that followed I am sure you have heard, at least one side at of.

Later on, by direct observation, measurement, and tests, it would be shown that that Gallileo's theory was correct. His theory was proven.

Some theories can be proven, others, especially when it comes to a one time past even, like the big bang or evolution, will never be proven.

I think a few people need to "read up."

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Learn about electron shells, S,P,D and then about hybridisation

At this juncture, I can no longer say that you are missing the point but trying to avoid it.

There is atomic theory. The electrons are modeled in orbitals and give the atom its "shape'. The shape is NOT DEFINITE. We model the object to better understand and teach it. These are not definite shapes but a probabilistic model of theoretical objects.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

two points
Read up on Maxwell, you can calculate the speed of light without measuring it.

To which equation are you referring - Ampere's, Faraday...? I will assume you are going to a crossed fields example. You may not need direct measurement of light, but measurements are needed. That is the point - something was measured. To get v = E/B you have to now measure two things. More measurements = more error. More error because of the inherent inaccuracy of measuring.

If you disagree with the OP that you can measure c without making any measurements whatsoever, please provide a link/experiment.

Actually, never mind. I read your link as shown below. One question - did you?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

This was supposed to be evidence to support your claim that

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

... individual atoms have been visualised by electron microscope.

Again, do you understand that it is impossible to see an atom? They may be visualized, but not seen. What filled shells are shown in your link, the I, B, or M shell?

Perhaps, djpBarry would care to comment on Capt'n's quotes. I find myself agreeing with dj's quotes, however, I think you missed the point that I was trying to make.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Every physicist knows F=ma is wrong.

I think I will end it here. What more can anyone say about a comment like this.

Nick Dolan

FISMA wrote: »

Not trying to be offensive, however, many/most of the posters in this thread have totally missed my point. Also, I did not want to condescendingly ask anyone if they were still in secondary school or an undergrad. Fortunately, they have answered the question themselves.

Nick, we understand, not a problem, your quotes are what is expected at this level. We will not ask you to put much more into your head. We will ask for less to come out - just kidding. Good luck with your second second year -Third times a charm!:D - just kidding.

Both sneaky and very condescending. What comes out of my head is better than what comes out of your head

djpbarry

FISMA wrote: »

Point of clarification: some theories can be tested, others cannot. Big bang and evolution will always remain as theories as they are past events. Those events cannot be reproduced or observed. Thus, I agree, that these theories cannot be tested or reproduced.

Why can they not be tested? Surely as new evidence arises, a theory may be 'tested' to gauge whether said new evidence supports/contradicts the theory in its present form? For example, the advent of genetics and molecular biology has had a significant influence on the theory of evolution.

FISMA wrote: »

Once upon a man named Gallileo believed that the solar system was not geocentric but heliocentric. Gallileo had a theory, based upon experimental data and wanted to teach his findings in Catholic Learning Institutions. As you probably have not heard, the Church said you CAN teach this, but only as a theory, unless you have proof.

Gallileo insisted that he be allowed to teach his theory as fact without proof. The controversy that followed I am sure you have heard, at least one side at of.

Later on, by direct observation, measurement, and tests, it would be shown that that Gallileo's theory was correct. His theory was proven.

That is an altogether different version of events to that with which I am familiar. However, it is inaccurate to state that Galileo’s theory has been 'proven' - there is merely more evidence to support his theory than there was during his lifetime. It is also inaccurate to state that Galileo wished to teach his theory 'as fact without proof' - he simply wished to present the strong evidence he had obtained that suggested the Earth was not at the centre of the solar system. Or to put it another way, substantially more evidence existed to support his heliocentric theory than existed to support the church's geocentric teachings.

Capt'n Midnight

FISMA wrote: »

Not trying to be offensive, however, many/most of the posters in this thread have totally missed my point. Also, I did not want to condescendingly ask anyone if they were still in secondary school or an undergrad. Fortunately, they have answered the question themselves.

LOL

Johny, did you really mean this in the general sense? Point of clarification: some theories can be tested, others cannot. Big bang and evolution will always remain as theories as they are past events. Those events cannot be reproduced or observed. Thus, I agree, that these theories cannot be tested or reproduced.

A good scientific theory makes predictions which you can observe.
If the observations don't match predictions then you have to modify the theory. ( excluding observational error of course )

This means that the theory of the big band and evolution will be dropped if someone finds some compelling counter evidence.

Other theories that are limited in outcome say by our technology or understanding, may be proven in time.

If it is possible to prove something then by definition it is not a theory.

Later on, by direct observation, measurement, and tests, it would be shown that that Gallileo's theory was correct. His theory was proven.

Some theories can be proven, others, especially when it comes to a one time past even, like the big bang or evolution, will never be proven.

I think a few people need to "read up."

You have already been asked not to comment on theory until you learn the basics.

You have shown that you still don't understand or wish to use the correct meaning of the word theory in science.

Capt'n Midnight

FISMA wrote: »

Not trying to be offensive,

At this juncture, I can no longer say that you are missing the point but trying to avoid it.

There is atomic theory. The electrons are modeled in orbitals and give the atom its "shape'. The shape is NOT DEFINITE. We model the object to better understand and teach it. These are not definite shapes but a probabilistic model of theoretical objects.

You still don't grasp the concept that in science everyone knows that we will drop a theory if a better one comes along.

To which equation are you referring - Ampere's, Faraday...? I will assume you are going to a crossed fields example. You may not need direct measurement of light, but measurements are needed. That is the point - something was measured. To get v = E/B you have to now measure two things. More measurements = more error. More error because of the inherent inaccuracy of measuring.

If you disagree with the OP that you can measure c without making any measurements whatsoever, please provide a link/experiment.

You quoted me as saying Read up on Maxwell, you can calculate the speed of light without measuring it.I did not say you could measure the speed of light without some measurements. You implied I said that.

Again, do you understand that it is impossible to see an atom? They may be visualized, but not seen. What filled shells are shown in your link, the I, B, or M shell?

I said atoms could be visualised. You then implied that I said they could be seen.


There is a saying that you should never argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Whatever about that, science has no room for dishonesty. Neither has this Forum.