Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087306 Posts in 72013 Topics- by 19243 Members - Latest Member: CABurton159
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Science for Dummies  (Read 2714 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:41AM »

This is why it's appropriate to accept the tenets of science that have survived the test of time as "established science", and current research with a grain of salt. That's why, quite unlike most religious doctrine, Science (reified) doesn't claim to be certain about findings, just that the given data were produced in the given manner. It's why we take all of science with at least a small grain of salt, even if only technically.
Well no... that's why science, nor it's tenants have any place in this at all.
You're just ignoring the whole uncertainty thing. Or rather, you're dramatically exaggerating it regarding science and dramatically minimizing it in regard to religion. Actually it's probably a better description to say you're coming at uncertainty from opposite angles when you consider religion vs. science. In the latter case you apparently need to believe it's a problem where it's not, and in the former you just seem to pretend it's not an issue when it is. This is because Science deals with empirical matters and religion relies on existing in the realm of unanswerable "questions" so it can presume to be providing "answers" to them. That's why it's always in conflict with Science as Science finds real answers, even if they may be tentative and limited and still uncertain, that expose Religion's "answers" for what they really are--presumptions ... or metaphors, but the believers who can't handle Science can't handle that obvious potential either.
 
You're talking about "questions" for which real answers can't be found (often designed that way, though likely not quite consciously) and claiming religion answers them. But you have no real validation of those alleged answers. You just choose to believe certain "answers" are true (thereby rejecting all the other "answers" for the same question--hence wildly different religions and wildly different franchises withing the same religions and all that). We can ask unanswerable questions and pretend we have an answer, but that's just faith/pretense and the Cosmos is under no obligation to appease our personal sentiments. The pretense is a refusal to accept the reality of the situation--the uncertainty.
 
Human brains don't actually provide for the certainty Religion (reified) presumes it offers--for the various "answers" various religions allege they provide their believers. At the very least it's a misuse of the term answer.
 
You're not suggesting anything here that's not part and parcel of Science though, you're talking about precisely why science and religion are antithetical paradigms.
Nor have I ever. Funny how the "science defenders" got all defensive in response to science's inability to answer religious questions. You're attacking science! By saying it is flawed? Science says that about itself. By saying it doesn't have all of the answers? Science says that by itself. So again... why keep bringing up science in response to religious discussion, as if it is the answer?
Again, Science (reified) doesn't claim or even try to answer religious (non-empirical) questions. It knows better because of its intellectual humility--its acceptance of reality and uncertainty. Religious apologists seem to generally need it to do so, but it doesn't. The problem is with the questions and Religion's presumption that it does answer them, and when our actual understanding grows and runs into religious "answers" that don't bear up under what we've actually, really learned from Science. Again, that's the point I'm making. You seem to be repeatedly arguing Science doesn't answer questions that it recognizes as non-empirical. The fact that Science doesn't deal with these questions isn't the issue, that Religion doesn't really answer them either, then refuses to accept the implications--the uncertainties--that come with it is the issue.
 
So yeah, that's the right mentality. It's also not the mentality virtually any believers apply to their religious matters of faith. It's precisely the opposite mentality, which is the point--the point of both religion and science. Science is about accepting and embracing uncertainty and the intellectual humility that it imposes, and religion is about faith and affirmation and rejecting the insecurity most feel when genuinely facing uncertainty.
That may be the theory, but in practice... science, by it's sheer scope these days, involves far more blind trust than religion ever will.
Except that Science (reified) rejects faith entirely. If you're not accepting the findings of Science tentatively you're doing it wrong. This is fundamental. If you don't (or won't) understand that, you're not even really talking about Science.

Meanwhile, intellectual humility is an actual tenant of christianity.
The appearance of it is, anyway--it's very important to appear and to feel intellectually humble while wildly presuming understanding of "questions" that can't really be answered and then dismissing a paradigm based upon actual humility which recognizes it can't presume to answer such "questions". This self-image of Religion just doesn't pass even slightly critical muster.
 
When Science (reified) is asked how it knows what it knows it can provide objectively repeatable, verifiable details and limitations.
When Religion (reified) is asked how it knows what it knows it offers faith and revelation--we just know ... we have a book we revere that says so ... if you believe as we do you can know too ... etc.
 
But you're right that Religion doesn't really need to go there--it has the option of faith. It's just that the vast majority of believers seem to need it to go there--to intellectually reject faith while requiring it for their beliefs--utterly depending upon it while pretending they're not. Many believers just accept the true nature of their beliefs. They seem to be a lot more at peace with reality in my experience. Believers who can't do this seem more angry and frustrated and contentious with reality. They put a lot of effort into strange intellectual gymnastics that only appear to work to themselves and their Home Team--oddly others aren't nearly so impressed. It get interesting (and usually amusing) when competing franchises try to argue validity in a complete vacuum of veracity. It highlights these issues.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:16AM »

You're talking about "questions" that are defined so real answers can't be found and claiming religion answers them. But you have no real validation of those alleged answers. You just choose to believe certain "answers" are true (thereby rejecting all the other "answers" for the same question--hence wildly different religions and wildly different franchises withing the same religions and all that). Science deals with things that can be verified to the extent they can be verified and embracing the uncertainties because we have no means by which to know if "answers" really do answer the question we're asking or to what extent otherwise--we can only pretend if we need that reassurance--if we need to deny that uncertainty for whatever reason.
Well... no. How did we get here? How did it all begin? These are simple questions.

Science has no more real answer to these than religion. If uncertainty was truly as big of a matter as you suggest, than the answer of the poll in "how old the universe is?" would have been other, not billions of years. We always have uncertainty! but we're really just going to say X anyhow. Just like 60% of the population attends church every sunday.


And yet... you continue to actually avoid my questions in light of throwing out your own sentiments.

Religion and science often hit very different areas. Religion does not pretend to say How. It says who, or why. In the areas that are the biggest unknown, science has no way to prove either. It can't recreate the universe or build life in terms and periods we can understand. It's like trying to build a car, but never having that "moment of truth" of turning the key and driving it off to see if it works.

So why would science constantly come up as opposed to religion in religious questions? Unless... it is being treated as a similar faith based philosophy, and it is a comparison of one method over another...

Because really Byron, all you are talking here is not science, is not religion... it is your supposed view of "intellectual humility" with "critical thinking" and how that approach should govern our actions. Sounds an awful lot like philosophy... not science.



 

The appearance of it is, anyway
Nope... pretty inherent. Just look at the question of what is God? God is greater than we can comprehend. Welcome to REAL intellectual humility.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:20AM »

Well... no. How did we get here? How did it all being? These are simple questions.

Heh ... awesome.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:23AM »

Heh ... awesome.

They are, aren't they?

Inspired curiosity for thousands and thousands of years of people... We have attempted to find answers in religion, in science, in culture, in the dirt, in the cosmos... through all matters of our lives.

But the past is behind us, and nothing can bring that back again to really ever know. 
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Aug 29, 2017, 06:59AM »

Why do they even come up? You can reject religion without going to something else...
Good question.  From what I can see comparisons between religion and science are brought up more by the religious than by the atheist.  Like creating this thread.  Personally I would try not to sully science by comparing it to religion.  The concept is preposterous.

But here is the crux of it Bob.  With science you can verify the result/prediction (yeah, you may need to learn the science to do that) with religion you can't no matter what you learn.

You also keep insisting that trust is blind, like faith, no matter how often that it is pointed out to you that trust is earned.  It is not freely given as faith is.  Experience is required for trust to exist.  Further, I think you are using the wrong word by using 'trust' when talking about science.  The better word to use for science is confidence - not trust or faith.  Trust, at least to me, can only be used where the thing to be trusted has some autonomy.  Can I give you an example of using all 3 in single situation?

This on applies more to you than to me.  Your 16 year old son wants to borrow the car to take his girlfriend to the movies.  You say yes.  You trust your son to drive safely as he has demonstrated that several times in the past.  You have confidence the car is safe to drive because you use it all the time and it gives the same expected results.  You have faith that your God will let no harm come to your son and his friend.

Can you see the difference?

Faith is for Gods and is given freely.
Trust is for other people and is earned.
Confidence is for science and technology and comes about from the science/technology giving you the same, repeatable, predictable and verifiable results over and over again.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12310

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:07AM »


Religion and science often hit very different areas. Religion does not pretend to say How. It says who, or why.

When it says who or why it claims a very high degree of certainty. 

And in some cases it does say how, or at least rejects a scientific answer on how. Example, a substantial number of denominations reject evolution and are certain that a global flood rather than plate tectonics shaped the current Earth.  An even higher percentage rejects climate change. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:11AM »

Einstein is one of the big figures in one of your models, but even as he put the math together for that, he searched for the greater theory of everything.
He continued to work the rest of his life on a grand unification theory (theory of everything is a misnomer).  A grand unification theory would bring together all 4 known natural forces into one model.  If it could be created, there is nothing saying that we could/would still not use different maths for dealing with different realms.  Today will have GR, SR and Newtonian mechanics.  We can show how each give the same prediction and/or breaks down to the appropriate model given the appropriate realm, so we still use all 3.  a convincing GUT will not change that.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: Aug 29, 2017, 09:54AM »

Good question.  From what I can see comparisons between religion and science are brought up more by the religious than by the atheist.  Like creating this thread.
I generally find the opposite. Most threads here concerning religion almost always devolve into science vs religion, even though they had nothing to do with science. But then, then perceptions are likely to vary from person to person, and I'm not about to count the threads of each. :)

But here is the crux of it Bob.  With science you can verify the result/prediction (yeah, you may need to learn the science to do that) with religion you can't no matter what you learn.
And when you can recreate the big bang, or watch evolution take a pool of group to a single celled critter to a multi-celled organism... sure. But the crux of it is... you can't. Now, this surely isn't applicable everywhere. I can easily perform some experiments and get results. But others... take too long or are too hazardous or violate ethical/legal standards. You are equating complex things with simple ones, and saying because the simple is easy so too is the complex.

A solar eclipse and saying whether a black hole exists in the center of a galaxy far far away both use physics... but one is easy to calculate and provable, and the other is much harder and theoretical.

It is those complex cases I am talking about. Which by your definition either calls the something other than science, or dramatically overstates what we can do to test them. And these are the same things that are often thrown up as a counter to religion.


You also keep insisting that trust is blind, like faith, no matter how often that it is pointed out to you that trust is earned.
Faith can be earned as well. Nor is it given freely. And it may be given as a result of experience. The simple reality is, if you know what will happen or are in control, there is no trust, no faith, no confidence.

Religious people often overstate their faithfulness because they consider it a virtue, and science orientated people often overstate their scrutiny and methods because they consider them virtues. The difference in truth is not all that far apart in approach. Most people don't participate in science, they just learn it. How many of the age of the universe people do you think know the calculations? Certainly not all. And most of the faithful have more faith in what they see and experience than what they don't. It's a good part of why the church killed their savior. So it goes.

This on applies more to you than to me.  Your 16 year old son wants to borrow the car to take his girlfriend to the movies.  You say yes.  You trust your son to drive safely as he has demonstrated that several times in the past.  You have confidence the car is safe to drive because you use it all the time and it gives the same expected results.  You have faith that your God will let no harm come to your son and his friend.

Can you see the difference?
In all three scenarios you have expectations, no practical control, you hope for a certain outcome, and you find out later if the situation worked as intended.

The difference, practically, is that you are attempting to use terms specifically appropriate to a concept. That's about it. You could also say you have faith that God will protect you on your drive to work, or that you have confidence you can make it there safely based on all the other times you have, or that you trust in your driving skills. 

Your distinction references the internal rationale of why you are safe, but the actual issue is the same regardless...

In all cases, you are not in control or present or directly validating/experiencing it and still hope/count on things to work as you hope/expect them to.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:05AM »

When it says who or why it claims a very high degree of certainty. 

And in some cases it does say how, or at least rejects a scientific answer on how. Example, a substantial number of denominations reject evolution and are certain that a global flood rather than plate tectonics shaped the current Earth.  An even higher percentage rejects climate change.

And psychology claims a control where there are really too many uncontrolled variables in play to begin to do so. Evolution claims a process that we can connect the dots, but not follow along a process, nor recreate because the changes span well over lifetimes of any scientists that could run a test it. And higher physics such as sting theory claims some number of dimensions, yet can't begin to say what those would be outside of their mathematical need to be for the sake of their calculations.

In these any many other instances, some certainty is inherent... in religion it is God. In science, it is that something can indeed be validated and our ability to do so. But a great deal of other certainty is not in the theory or practice, but in the person following it. A substantial number of denominations also say evolution can co-exist with their religious beliefs just fine, as they also have no problem saying there was a big bang... Because well, again, the religious scripts did not say how so much as who. And the scientific ones do not say why so much as what.

There are certainly parties on each side that find conflict with this, but there are also certainly parties on both sides that do not. Who is right? Does it matter?
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51144
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:21AM »

In many respects it does not matter.

The issue is when Science makes a discovery that a Religion refuses to accept.  The people who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and who convolute all kinds of things to "prove" it.

Religion is mainly useful as a guide to properly living with everybody else.  It teaches us to respect each other and to be kind to each other.  Science is not so benign; especially if you look at how Evolution works.

There are things in Science that blow my mind.  I don't understand String Theory.  The mathematics loses me at the first integral sign.  But if the guys who know what's going with it can predict real observations with it, I'm cool.  I accept the 14 billion year estimate as the age of the universe because I don't have a better one and I know the 6000 value is wrong.

Incidentally, we can model Evolution with relatively short-lived forms like fruit flies.  Scientists have watched as fruit fly traits change in response to changes in environment.

If somebody comes up with a better reason for the changes than Evolution or some flood that we seem not to have concrete evidence of, I'm all ears.  But I also reject that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle that walks through the cosmos. :)
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #50 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:25AM »

He continued to work the rest of his life on a grand unification theory (theory of everything is a misnomer).  A grand unification theory would bring together all 4 known natural forces into one model.  If it could be created, there is nothing saying that we could/would still not use different maths for dealing with different realms.  Today will have GR, SR and Newtonian mechanics.  We can show how each give the same prediction and/or breaks down to the appropriate model given the appropriate realm, so we still use all 3.  a convincing GUT will not change that.

It's quite the presumption to say how what you don't know will impact what you do. Quite confident, without the experience or knowledge you say would be required for confidence.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:27AM »

I generally find the opposite. Most threads here concerning religion almost always devolve into science vs religion, even though they had nothing to do with science.
Like BillO I don't see that happening either. What I do see is that there's a tremendous amount of resistance from some believers whenever anyone questions religious epistemology. I can see how it might be easy to conflate science and critical thinking.
 
But then, then perceptions are likely to vary from person to person, and I'm not about to count the threads of each. :)
Ah ... go for it! We have a three day weekend coming up.
 
And when you can recreate the big bang, or watch evolution take a pool of group to a single celled critter to a multi-celled organism... sure. But the crux of it is... you can't. Now, this surely isn't applicable everywhere. I can easily perform some experiments and get results. But others... take too long or are too hazardous or violate ethical/legal standards.
Those would be mathematical models then I gather ... more highly theoretical stuff, which in science means we're looking into it to see what we can find that might refute this notion rather than this is what we believe ... we take it on faith.
 
It is those cases I am talking about. Which by your definition either calls the something other than science, or dramatically overstates what we can do to test them. And these are the same things that are often thrown up as a counter to religion.
It calls for the acceptance of uncertainty. That's not a thing in science--not a problem at all. It's a state in which we exist--fundamental to human nature. Religion generally has a far greater issue with uncertainty, as in, often it just doesn't accept it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:35AM »

Like BillO I don't see that happening either.
Well... you are so infatuated with your epistemology you miss quite a lot really.

Those would be mathematical models then I gather ... more highly theoretical stuff, which in science means we're looking into it to see what we can find that might refute this notion rather than this is what we believe ... we take it on faith.
Yes... like the big bang theory, which is formed of and supported by calculations. And how much are those all really looked into? As BillO said in another thread: "However, this repeated success in their predictions does not give us any right to put faith in them, but it does allow us to build a confidence in them.  When they have never proved wrong repeatedly we begin to stop verifying them through other means each time we use them."

Science can't progress unless at some point it takes some things as assumptions and moves on. The more complex, the more assumptions.

 
Religion generally has a far greater issue with uncertainty, as in, often it just doesn't accept it.
Except for all of the numerous places it does... Though you seem to regularly dismiss those. Likely the result of an observation bias. Which is the fault of the person, not the approach they follow.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:36AM »

It's quite the presumption to say how what you don't know will impact what you do. Quite confident, without the experience or knowledge you say would be required for confidence.
Yes, it is isn't it?  Well, it's actually not a real stretch.  Any new theory MUST agree whit the old theories where their results are correct.  Just like several pages of GR beaks down the F=dP/dt where Newton's equation gives the correct result.  You see, we've been down this path many, many times before.  If what ever becomes 'The GUT' does not agree with newtons 2nd law when dealing with the motion of a, let say, soccer ball, then it is wrong and we go back and try again.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:39AM »

Yes, it is isn't it?  Well, it's actually not a real stretch.  Any new theory MUST agree whit the old theories where their results are correct.  Just like several pages of GR beaks down the F=dP/dt where Newton's equation gives the correct result.  You see, we've been down this path many, many times before.  If what ever becomes 'The GUT' does not agree with newtons 2nd law when dealing with the motion of a, let say, soccer ball, then it is wrong and we go back and try again.
Unless the reason those other theories haven't been able to work as a GUT before is because there is something off, and they need to adapt. Which, yes... the road is well travelled. And if they were all correct, they should conceivably work as one now...
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:40AM »

In many respects it does not matter.

The issue is when Science makes a discovery that a Religion refuses to accept.  The people who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old and who convolute all kinds of things to "prove" it.

Religion is mainly useful as a guide to properly living with everybody else.  It teaches us to respect each other and to be kind to each other.  Science is not so benign; especially if you look at how Evolution works.

There are things in Science that blow my mind.  I don't understand String Theory.  The mathematics loses me at the first integral sign.  But if the guys who know what's going with it can predict real observations with it, I'm cool.  I accept the 14 billion year estimate as the age of the universe because I don't have a better one and I know the 6000 value is wrong.

Incidentally, we can model Evolution with relatively short-lived forms like fruit flies.  Scientists have watched as fruit fly traits change in response to changes in environment.

If somebody comes up with a better reason for the changes than Evolution or some flood that we seem not to have concrete evidence of, I'm all ears.  But I also reject that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle that walks through the cosmos. :)
Good! Good!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:45AM »

I generally find the opposite. Most threads here concerning religion almost always devolve into science vs religion, even though they had nothing to do with science.
Like BillO I don't see that. What I do see is some believers getting very defensive whenever reasonable standards of epistemology are applied to religious claims. It's similar, but it's critical thinking, not science. They do overlap though--science uses critical thinking, religion maneuvers around it. So it seems like science and critical thinking are the same thing sometimes, but it's more about epistemology. The problems arise when believers want others to derive the same sense of validation from maneuvering around critical thinking as they do adhering to it.
 
But then, then perceptions are likely to vary from person to person, and I'm not about to count the threads of each. :)
Go for it! We have a three day weekend coming up ... eh?
 
And when you can recreate the big bang, or watch evolution take a pool of group to a single celled critter to a multi-celled organism... sure. But the crux of it is... you can't. Now, this surely isn't applicable everywhere. I can easily perform some experiments and get results. But others... take too long or are too hazardous or violate ethical/legal standards. You are equating complex things with simple ones, and saying because the simple is easy so too is the complex.
And how do religious claims about the world and the cosmos stand up under those same standards?
 
A solar eclipse and saying whether a black hole exists in the center of a galaxy far far away both use physics... but one is easy to calculate and provable, and the other is much harder and theoretical.
Exactly. This is why Science(reified) separates degrees of certainty and never presumes to quite reach 100%. What would be the equivalent of much more theoretical (technically I think it would be more accurate to say hypothetical here though) in religious doctrine and why?
 
It is those complex cases I am talking about. Which by your definition either calls the something other than science, or dramatically overstates what we can do to test them. And these are the same things that are often thrown up as a counter to religion.
Except that Science isn't claiming anything beyond the evidence--it doesn't say we should just believe in more hypothetical aspects of science. They're accepted as hypothetical even if there's pretty good reason to think they probably do represent reality pretty well.
 
The crux here seems to be about accepting vs. denying uncertainty.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:47AM »

Unless the reason those other theories haven't been able to work as a GUT before is because there is something off, and they need to adapt.
Well, no.  They work where they work and that's pretty much it.  If the new theory is to be accepted it must agree with these others where they have demonstrated they work, or it will not be accepted.  This is a fact.

GR, SR and Newton's laws all work as a set.  As I said before, once you do the math for each situation they simplify out.  If you are mad enough to apply GR to find the acceleration due to kicking a soccer ball, you will see, as you do the math, it will just simplify out to F=dP/dt.

It is suspected that QM will to, but we can't, at this point in time, do the math.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Online Online

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7139
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: Aug 29, 2017, 12:21PM »

I'm sorry Bruce, but it sits on the backs of elephants who stand on the giant turtle while it swims through the universe!
Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Aug 29, 2017, 12:34PM »

I'm sorry Bruce, but it sits on the backs of elephants who stand on the giant turtle while it swims through the universe!

I thought there was something amiss about that one.
 
Good to see why my instincts were squirming ...
 
Bruce was just talking crazy ... heh.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: