nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What can science not explain?

kneemos

Dark matter.
Why nine out of ten people are right handed.
How the Suns corona is hotter than the surface.
Why we yawn.
Are some of the things beyond the wit of the learned lab coat wearing giant brains of our time.What other mysteries are we waiting patiently to have explained

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Depp

endacl wrote: »

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

Didn't realize they'd scientifically disproven the existence of a higher power?Must've missed that now! nice try though

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A blog piece? That is what you have? Hahah. I say "double blind study" and you respond with a blog piece advertising a book. Seriously. By all means purchase the book for me and I will review it for you. But until that time, if you have any links to an actual scientific peer reviewed study, not some book you are shilling, then let me know.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjE8bOhkMvLAhVEuw8KHRb1Cso4FBAWCBswAQ&usg=AFQjCNF132UHOfzchSDTMXLXD2GSwZDzLQ

nozzferrahhtoo

ardinn wrote: »

Is yawning not intended to try and keep us awake? We Yawn as a means of a very deep breath to take in a large gulp of oxygen to re-energize.

A lot of people think that alright, but there seems to be no truth to it and it does not affect oxygen levels in the body much at all. In fact a single deep breath is unlikely to do that.

One of the main reasons we think we yawn now is actually to cool down your brain. It causes both an increase of blood to the brain AND a cooling of that blood. And in experiments where they got two groups of people and warmed up the heads of the people in one group.... those people yawned a LOT more than the control group.

And when they then COOLED the heads of a group, the hardly yawned at all.

The experiments were also repliated in mice where yawning came when their head temperatures increased, and after the yawning a drop in temperature was observed.

So yeah, it seems like a natural heat sinking method and nothing to do with oxygen at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.espresearch.com/realityofesp/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj13ZWM38rLAhXEdg8KHZn4BMIQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYyEmau5NsuUv4j6jdR5lA7-hgOw

A blog piece? That is what you have? Hahah. I say "double blind study" and you respond with a blog piece advertising a book. Seriously. By all means purchase the book for me and I will review it for you. But until that time, if you have any links to an actual scientific peer reviewed study, not some book you are shilling, then let me know.

endacl

irishgrover wrote: »

God?

Explained

Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.

Into The Blue

Best reasoning I've heard on why our understanding in so lacking..

6.30 on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTZyVZBtP70

ardinn

Is yawning not intended to try and keep us awake? We Yawn as a means of a very deep breath to take in a large gulp of oxygen to re-energize.

At least thats what I was told!!!!!

Chris_Bradley

Women that have a pain in their bo**ox???

MoodeRator

Science cannot agree on an explanation for airplane flight!! Now think about that the nest time you are sitting on the runway

The secret to airplane flight? No one really knows

Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth

sleep well!

Steve012

ScumLord

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Absolutely it makes sense in terms of deploying our very limited resources. And in terms of the fact we do not really know what to look for. But not in terms of the fact that we honestly do not know what other life is possible, which is the point I was making merely to address the claim of how fine tuned for life the earth appears. It only appears like that because we are assuming one kind of life... the one we know of. But is that a safe assumption to make?

The earth life was born out of was vastly different to our own. The planet as we know it now was basically created by life. We wouldn't have an oxygen rich atmosphere for a start, life created that (at the detriment of most living things at the time). So even within the confines of what we know about life on earth there's a huge variety of conditions suitable for life. As well as looking for the obvious earth as it is today we could also be looking for the earth as it was a 3 billion years ago.

kneemos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure why it is hard to dispute. If someone claims to be psychic one simply has to ask them to be clear on what it is they claim to be able to do, then set up a double blind test condition in which you evaluate whether they are in fact able to do it.

And if they fail to do it, which they consistently do it seems, then I would consider their claims pretty well disputed.

The fact remains that under genuine test conditions we have found no evidence of such abilities in existence. Nor is there any coherent proposed mechanism by which such an ability would function. Nor is it congruent with anything else we do know to be true, quite the opposite.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.espresearch.com/realityofesp/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj13ZWM38rLAhXEdg8KHZn4BMIQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYyEmau5NsuUv4j6jdR5lA7-hgOw

Into The Blue

riffmongous wrote: »

The infinity solution always strikes me as a copout, 'we cant say and we probably never will be able to.. lets say its infinite and then this problem goes away'. This crops up a lot in physics and astrophysics

The reality is that even our greatest minds my never have the capacity to understand.

nozzferrahhtoo

ScumLord wrote: »

Even so, it still makes sense for the likes of NASA to stick to the criteria of earth life. Because we know what it looks like and how to narrow down the search.

Absolutely it makes sense in terms of deploying our very limited resources. And in terms of the fact we do not really know what to look for. But not in terms of the fact that we honestly do not know what other life is possible, which is the point I was making merely to address the claim of how fine tuned for life the earth appears. It only appears like that because we are assuming one kind of life... the one we know of. But is that a safe assumption to make?

We are coming up with creative ways of looking for life though. Not just limited to looking for earth like life. For example theories on how more advanced civilisation would service their power needs have us looking for certain kinds of super structures around stars. Something there was a big hoo-rah over recently when we thought we had actually found one.

And if any life tried to contact us then they would likely do so in a universal language such as mathematics. So we can look for that too. If we suddenly received radio waves coded into the first 25 prime numbers for example..... there would be little doubt it came from intelligent life regardless of whether it was like ours or not.

But as you say we might look directly at life some day and not even recognize it. It could be THAT different from us.

ScumLord

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But the real explanation is not that the hole was formed exactly to fit the puddle.... but the puddle arose and formed to fit the whole. The puddle, like most humans, has it exactly backwards. Life on earth rose into the conditions on earth. It is not that the earth is amazingly specific to house life as we know it, it is that life on earth was forged by that earth to fit it.

Even so, it still makes sense for the likes of NASA to stick to the criteria of earth life. Because we know what it looks like and how to narrow down the search. When it comes to other kinds of possible life forms we may not even know how to recognise them, nevermind find them. There's probably a huge variation and by searching for the styles of life we know we may come across something we weren't expecting.

TheLastMohican

Vinculus wrote: »

Was the big bang the first big bang or was there other big bangs before that big bang?

Let the Doctor explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYgOlqinH7A

Alf Stewart.

12Phase wrote: »

Why cats always land on their feet.

Seriously, scientists who have tried have been hissed at and very badly scratched...

And toast always lands butter side down.

I wonder if you sellotaped hot-buttered toast to a cats back and threw it out the window would the world combust?

nozzferrahhtoo

riffmongous wrote: »

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

The analogy is not perfect

Nor is it mine. But there is no perfect analogy for it that I have seen. But it helps. Where is Morbert when I need him? Does he not use boards.ie any more? He would be better at this bit than me.

endacl

riffmongous wrote: »

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

Opportunity for 'quirky book recommendation of the day'...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/433567.Flatland

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Imagine you were a two dimension being on the surface of a balloon. You could travel through the "space" you observe and never hit an edge. All that would happen is that if you pick and one direction and head off in that direction long enough, you would come back to where you started.

That is an analogy that has been used to try and explain the concept of "no edge" to our universe to people. It fairly melts my limited mental capacities to try and envision it though.

But there are still edges there in this example, only as a 2d being you cant observe them

nozzferrahhtoo

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.

There is a few errors in thinking inherent in that impression. But it is an impression most people share.

An example error in thinking there lies in the inherent assumption that life on earth is the exemplar of life. But we do not know this. It is the only example we know sure. But who knows what else there is in the set "life" and what conditions would be conducive to it.

Another error is that the conditions are not AS specific as you think. Look at the subset of Earth life called "Extremophiles". They are living and existing in environments much different to our own. This links back to the first error as we can see there are different forms of "life" that exist in different conditions. There is a range of conditions on this world, not a specific sets, and life arises in even the most extreme ones.

The comedy writer Douglas Adams made a good analogy here. Imagine a puddle in a hole somewhere that magically becomes conscious. The puddle would look at the hole it found itself in and think "Wow, it is amazing that this hole is the EXACT shape to fit my size shape and form!!!".

We humans think like that puddle.

But the real explanation is not that the hole was formed exactly to fit the puddle.... but the puddle arose and formed to fit the whole. The puddle, like most humans, has it exactly backwards. Life on earth rose into the conditions on earth. It is not that the earth is amazingly specific to house life as we know it, it is that life on earth was forged by that earth to fit it.

Finally the error in the impression is that it is earth-centric as a view. There is a whole continuum of conditions out there in the universe. All kinds of throws of the dice and worlds with varying attributes and conditions. So whatever the attributes are for the rise of life, there will be somewhere it could do so.

take everything wrote: »

It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer".

And I can see why it would illicit that thought in people. But when one considers the evolutionary path-way of things like an eye, it is remarkably simple and elegant. There is just as much requirement for a designer as there is evidence that was one. None. And that is before you mention the design flaws in such systems that show just how bungling a designer it would have had to have been.

demanufactured

Why Pikey's love the fightin.

ScumLord

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.

That's true, but at the same time since it got a start life has managed to find a way to survive in all sorts of places where we didn't think it could survive. Including spending time in outer space or frozen in ice for 30 years, coming back to life and breeding again. There are creatures on this planet that could survive being blown out into space and if it ever found somewhere warm enough to defrost it could maybe come back to life and start breeding again.

Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.

Eclipses would be one of those bizarre coincidences. The moon is just the right distance between the sun and earth to create perfect eclipses (on some parts of the earth). Although, it hasn't always like that, and won't always be like that as the moon is slowly moving away. But that makes it an even bigger coincidence, that it's happening at the time when there just so happens to be a sentient creature that can notice the difference and appreciate it. Our planets relationship with the moon could be a one in a billion thing that doesn't happen that often. Or it could be that the moon is a vital part of the equation that makes life possible and every planet with sentient life would have eclipses like ours.

endacl

take everything wrote: »

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.
Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.
It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer". But as Dawkins would say a complex creator would be even more unlikely logically.

Obviously there's the anthropic principle which makes sense but I still struggle with it. Either way it makes you remember how awesome life is.

The other way of looking at this, of course, is that life can emerge and has emerged from everywhere that conditions allow it to. Life is an emergent property.

take everything

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yeah if you change some of the fundamentals constants by even a tiny amount you don't get a universe that can support life.

Gravity appears to be fine tuned for a universe that can expand for billions of years but still be dense enough to form stars. Heavier atoms are made in stars, slight changes there means no carbon and for carbon based lifeforms that's not necessarily a good thing, also unless supernova's can explode the love doesn't get spread around.

Anthropic principle

Also the moon and our magnetic field have been very handy. Venus and Mars have lost their hydrogen. Both had oceans. Uranus has an axial tilt that would make life here interesting. The early earth would have had insane tides. But that may have mixed it up for life.

The fine structure constant is 137.035999139 and it drives physicists crazy.

There are some amazingly specific criteria that allow life on earth.
Can't remember the details but everything from the cosmic level down to how the moon orbits the earth (IIRC) etc. Whatever about the details it's mind-boggling to think of the unlikeliness of life.
It's one of those things (like the structure eye) that makes you think ”is there a designer". But as Dawkins would say a complex creator would be even more unlikely logically.

Obviously there's the anthropic principle which makes sense but I still struggle with it. Either way it makes you remember how awesome life is.

take everything

It can't explain experience.
What it's like to experience what and how someone else thinks and feels.

Everyone could be a zombie behaving as they do for all I know (solipsism).

I don't believe that probably to preserve my own sanity but it's not inconsistent with evidence.

nozzferrahhtoo

222233 wrote: »

Science can not explain or dispute if people can genuinely be psychic or if they just genuinely think they are psychic

Not sure why it is hard to dispute. If someone claims to be psychic one simply has to ask them to be clear on what it is they claim to be able to do, then set up a double blind test condition in which you evaluate whether they are in fact able to do it.

And if they fail to do it, which they consistently do it seems, then I would consider their claims pretty well disputed.

The fact remains that under genuine test conditions we have found no evidence of such abilities in existence. Nor is there any coherent proposed mechanism by which such an ability would function. Nor is it congruent with anything else we do know to be true, quite the opposite.

222233

Science can not explain or dispute if people can genuinely be psychic or if they just genuinely think they are psychic

sryanbruen

Science cannot explain why After Hours threads' titles are misleading and confusing :cool:

nozzferrahhtoo

Dughorm wrote: »

I don't consider a debate to be a pejorative term which it appears to me you make it out to be

Not implied by anything I wrote at all no. I never said, thought nor implied it was pejorative to describe it as "debate". Just that it is inaccurate to do so.

Dughorm wrote: »

This is all wonderful philosophy of science. Ohhh... objectivity v subjectivity? Hmm..... There's a lot here I don't agree with. Not because it's science, but because it's philosophy.

I am afraid it is not clear what, if anything, you are saying in these sections here I am afraid so I can not substantively parse it, let alone reply to it. You appear to think bringing the term "philosophy" into it is saying something but I am entirely unclear what you think it is.

Remember this is a thread about what Science "can not" explain. I can think of nothing in the natural world, including the things you appear to categorize under "philosophy", that is by any definition beyond the purview of science.

So as I say, I am entirely unclear what it is you think you are saying here. Perhaps my failing and not yours, who knows, but I am at a loss either way.

Dughorm wrote: »

Why does morality *have* to be subjective?

I am not so much saying it HAS to be as I am saying that at some point with the application of enough pedantry, we will find a point where it is.

Take one of the possible proposed definitions of morality I suggested.... not my actual definition just a simplistic one for example purposes.... the maximization of the well being of the maximum number of sentient minds.

Nothing about THAT is subjective really so much as the idea that that goal is one we should value at all in the first place.... certainly could be.

But that subjectivity does not put it beyond the purview of science and into the "can not explain" category that this thread is about. Because I see no reason what we value, and why, is beyond study or explanation.

Dughorm wrote: »

Why does all activity within the natural world *have* to be inside the realm of science?

I am not saying it "has" to be so much as I am saying I have seen no argument for why it is not. Perhaps it is not, but if that is so I have seen no reason yet to think so. I remain open minded.

But I repeat I see no argument that anything in the natural world is beyond the realm of science ultimately.

But I think it wonderful to watch how areas we once thought outside the realm of science coming very much into it. Art being the best example we have discussed so far. People used to think, and possibly most people still do, that science can say nothing about art, why we do it, why we like it, or why it is beautiful to us.

But a single hour spent listening to a single scientist like VS Ramachandran will instantly divest the average person of that illusion. There very much is a scientific theory of art in development, typing our appreciation to art very tightly into our understanding of neuroscience.