Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087399 Posts in 72027 Topics- by 19247 Members - Latest Member: jasonsato1
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Science for Dummies  (Read 2720 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:23PM »

I'm sorry Bruce, but it sits on the backs of elephants who stand on the giant turtle while it swims through the universe!
Your both wrong, It's on Atlas' shoulders!
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.

*
Offline Offline

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


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:31PM »

Your both wrong, It's on Atlas' shoulders!

It all comes down to presuppositions, doesn't 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 #62 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:38PM »

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.

Interesting.

Never heard of a take on science/math before where everything known is considered a set and fully works, and what is to come must flow with that. Regardless of them not fully working together at different levels or realms. Just the sentiment that what is known is positively correct and what is to come must treat it that way...

Interesting.

Heck of a confidence there.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51146
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:48PM »

If Model 1 works in Condition A and Model 2 works in Condition B but they don't overlap, we know our models are incomplete.  Need for more research.

But if I'm in Condition B, I'm going to use Model 2 while if I'm in Condition A I'm going to use Model 1.  If I'm on the border, I'll try both and see what works best.

Science creates models to describe occurrences and then tries to figure out exactly how the models work.  Newton didn't start by postulating the existence of Gravity.  He started with observations on falling objects and tried to come up with a rule that explained them.
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 #64 on: Aug 29, 2017, 01:58PM »

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.

Meh, as you say "In many respects it does not matter." Those that say the earth is only 6,000 years old often have no need to deal with how old the earth is anyhow. Those who say it is older... often have little practical application for that either.

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.
In which case, why is it even worth saying the universe is 14 billion years old?

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.
Yes and no... very simplistic example that doesn't model much really. Honestly ecoli and resistance is a better example, but that can easily just be a survival mechanism.

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. :)
In this case, evolution actually has much more practical impact across the field of biology... so it's a bit more difficult to say "why bother"... but the relevance is rather limited to that field. Does it matter that Bubba doesn't support it?

Overall, as a society... our world is filled with technology and fancy whizz gadgets and information that races around the world, but our concepts and ways of talking are still very rudimental and ego-centric. I come back to the example of "up". If you say look up, instantly we know what you are saying... however conceptually, there is no up or down... simply away from or towards a mass of gravity. And we learned about the earth being round, what, 500 years ago? Gravity is now a kid's book with an apple falling on newton's poorly drawn head.

Seems a bit odd to say that we don't need to care about very fundamental concepts such as that... but everyone must get on board with scientific theories so complex that the response to being to understand them is to go take graduate courses...




ps. should note, per up and the earth being round... there are still people that fully believe otherwise. And they can still be quite productive members of society... even if flat wrong on the basics such as that.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #65 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:25PM »

Just the sentiment that what is known is positively correct and what is to come must treat it that way...

Interesting.

Heck of a confidence there. ,
You have a really odd way of looking at things.  If something is right, it's well, right.  I'm not sure how you don't get that.

Let me try one more time, then I have to move on.

If Newton's 2nd law says it takes 1 N of force to accelerate 1 kg of mass at a rate of 1 M/s2 ... and it actually does ... and it's actually correct for anything going up to, hmmm let's say, 30 kM/S and as far way from the Sun as Earth.  Well, if your new GUT gets a substantially different answer under those conditions then it's wrong, because we know Newtons 2nd law is correct.

So, where would you need to use SR?  Well, if the 1 kg of mass was traveling at 300 kM/S WRT the observer the error in Newton's 2nd law would be about 1 in 1 Million.

Where would you need to use GR?  If the 1kg mass was at Venus' orbit from the sun the error in Newton's 2nd law would also be about 1 in 1 Million.
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 #66 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:57PM »

You have a really odd way of looking at things.  If something is right, it's well, right.  I'm not sure how you don't get that.
Likely because of two things...
1. I don't understand the concept of "right" in this context. I understand, it gets the result I want. That said, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
2. I work in systems and models and components every day. Complex ones. And frequently, given tech pushes these days... have to join them together, or work on a larger system, but one module at a time. Many of these modules work fine, but as they are maintained or developed... small changes happen. Some, no big deal. Easy peasy and done. Others... require a drastic rewrite/reorg. Now... when the latter happens, the functionality is still often similar or the same... but how it gets there... very different approach.

Now... I know I like to keep it simple when I talk, but truth is... I'm probably somewhere in the top 5% of programmers, though it becomes a bit hard to say where due to my self teaching. I handle issues like this on a regular basis. And from what you're telling me... my approach works! Any greater system must respect my approach! Well... no. Any greater system might need to get numbers similar to yours, but your approach is irrelevant. The other common problem with related systems that can't come together into one, is that they are so focused on their individual components and how they do things, they can't see a bigger picture. But that often happens, and often because they are created small to large, not large to small...

Otherwise... you talk about the margin of error as if that's small? That seems big enough to indicate something's off...

But that's just me.

My experience in complex systems tells me they aren't finished while there are still known problems, and the longer a problem is out there... the more it suggests it is a big problem rather than small, and require a approach change rather than a quick adjustment.
« Last Edit: Aug 30, 2017, 04:33AM by B0B » Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

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


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:40PM »

You have a really odd way of looking at things.

You can be very kind sometimes Bill.
 
It's an endearing quality.
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
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

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


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: Aug 29, 2017, 07:42PM »

Meh, as you say "In many respects it does not matter." Those that say the earth is only 6,000 years old often have no need to deal with how old the earth is anyhow. Those who say it is older... often have little practical application for that either.

But it most certainly does matter in terms of responsible and even reasonable civics, and being good neighbors and all that. Ultimately that's the Real Issue™.
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
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: Aug 29, 2017, 10:07PM »

Your both wrong, It's on Atlas' shoulders!

Nah, you're all wrong.  Its turtles all the way down!
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: Aug 30, 2017, 04:18AM »

Nah, you're all wrong.  Its turtles all the way down!
Oooooo! good song!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gBV-Nzq7Pg

"I've seen Jesus play with flames in a lake of fire that I was standing in
Met the devil in Seattle and spent 9 months inside the lion's den
Met Buddha yet another time and he showed me a glowing light within
But I swear that God is there every time I glare in the eyes of my best friend
Says my son it's all been done and someday your gonna wake up old and gray
So go and try to have some fun showing warmth to everyone
You meet and greet and cheat along the way
There's a gateway in our mind that leads somewhere out there beyond this plane
Where reptile aliens made of light cut you open and pull out all your pain
Tell me how you make illegal something that we all make in our brain
Some say you might go crazy but then again it might make you go sane
Every time I take a look inside inside that old and fabled book
I'm blinded and reminded of the pain caused by some old man in the sky
Marijuana, LSD, Psilocybin, and DMT
They all changed the way I see
But love's the only thing that ever saved my life
So don't waste your mind on nursery rhymes
Or fairy tales of blood and wine
It's turtles all the way down the line
So to each their own til' we go home
To other realms our souls must roam
To and through the myth that we all call space and time"

Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #71 on: Aug 30, 2017, 04:26AM »

But it most certainly does matter in terms of responsible and even reasonable civics, and being good neighbors and all that. Ultimately that's the Real Issue™.

Only if in turn, you feel that religious folk should press their religion on you every chance they get. Because as much as you view it is responsible civics for your to preach your philosophy, so too do many evangelicals call it the same to preach theirs.


Which comes back to the initial point... why counter religion with science, or science with religion? Each are their own respective concepts, rarely contradictory, and rarely relevant to each other. As much as people go with the flow in science, such as Bruce saying 14 billion years is better than 6,000, many too do the same with religion. Well, if the principals are good anyhow, what's the downside to claiming God?

Seems like most just want to take to conversation to areas they are familiar with... for religious, it's religion. For science folk, it's science.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12313

View Profile
« Reply #72 on: Aug 30, 2017, 05:00AM »

Well, if the principals are good anyhow, what's the downside to claiming God?

 

Is there a downside to denying God, if He's real?  Sure.  The harm is probably limited to one person at a time though.

Is there a downside to denying climate change, if it's real? 

For some weird reason, "claiming God" has come to include denying substantial parts of science. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

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


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: Aug 30, 2017, 05:25AM »

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.
Meh, as you say "In many respects it does not matter." Those that say the earth is only 6,000 years old often have no need to deal with how old the earth is anyhow. Those who say it is older... often have little practical application for that either.
But it most certainly does matter in terms of responsible and even reasonable civics, and being good neighbors and all that. Ultimately that's the Real Issue™.
Only if in turn, you feel that religious folk should press their religion on you every chance they get. Because as much as you view it is responsible civics for your to preach your philosophy, so too do many evangelicals call it the same to preach theirs.
Do you really think that's the only scenario in which it matters (I mean in the context established of course)?
 
But I don't disparage those who try to evangelize out of genuine concern for their fellow humans (rather than for self-affirmation). I appreciate the sentiment even. If they did so every chance they got it would clearly be counterproductive in that sense though, and would be a pretty strong indication it would be about their own need for affirmation. So you're arguably at least slightly right, but you have how the appropriate motivation would generally manifest all wrong--seems more like you're trying to score a point for the Home Team in as ideologically hostile a manner as you can (breaking out that silly, off scale ruler yet again).
 

Which comes back to the initial point... why counter religion with science, or science with religion?
It's about responsible/functional epistemology, which is largely about being very vigilant to take measures that counter human brain owners' natural inclination to fool ourselves. This is how science works, and it's the opposite of how faith works (though that's being redefined, which is a good thing ... a very good thing).
 
Each are their own respective concepts, rarely contradictory, and rarely relevant to each other.
NOMA, eh? That's quite arguable, at best.
 
As much as people go with the flow in science, such as Bruce saying 14 billion years is better than 6,000, many too do the same with religion. Well, if the principals are good anyhow, what's the downside to claiming God?
Civically, likely none ... assuming the principles are good. That's a pretty freakin' huge "If" there! What good people who are believers believe and say and do fits well into this apologetic, but what ugly minds believe and say and do often doesn't. When I was a believer I was probably even less inclined to try and give the Dark Side of Our Nature such a clear pass.
 
Seems like most just want to take to conversation to areas they are familiar with... for religious, it's religion. For science folk, it's science.
No, it's about appropriate, responsible, consistent standards. That's where pretty near all the contention and clashes tend to be.
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: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #74 on: Aug 30, 2017, 05:38AM »

Otherwise... you talk about the margin of error as if that's small? That seems big enough to indicate something's off...
That's at 300 Km/S - compare that to the the moon missions that went at 11 kM/S - that's the fastest man has ever gone.  I'm sure when we get our spaceships going 300 kM/S we'll break out the SR and won't have a problem.  As for me, nothing in my life has a relativistic error greater 3x10-13 so I'm not going to worry about it.  I'll just keep using Newton's 2nd law.

Done with this subject - on to the next.

So Bob, what's this thread really all about?  Are you saying science is useless?  That we should just forget about it and live like they did in the bronze age Levant?
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 #75 on: Aug 30, 2017, 06:48AM »

If they did so every chance they got it would clearly be counterproductive in that sense though, and would be a pretty strong indication it would be about their own need for affirmation.
 
...

It's about responsible/functional epistemology. ... It's about appropriate, responsible, consistent standards. That's where pretty near all the contention and clashes tend to be.
It would be clearly counterproductive... All in all, very little difference between your approach, and a evangelical who consistently demands you follow religious principal and beliefs at every turn. You continually insert your own needs in a conservation and demand it be about your approach and your way. Also, spot on per the need for affirmation. 

Because... if you look around... the only one talking about epistemology... is you.

Have fun.  Hi
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: Aug 30, 2017, 07:02AM »

So Bob, what's this thread really all about?  Are you saying science is useless?  That we should just forget about it and live like they did in the bronze age Levant?
Not useless at all. We have quite a number of things through science. Though... there are times I look at the amish and wish for a slower, simpler life. I just can't deal with the heavy religious control of that approach, unfortunately.

That said, science often has very little answer for religious questions. At best, there are complex theories that cannot be really tested and take years and years of study to understand, much less practice in.

Which means basically...

 - God created the universe!
 - No, the universe started with the big bang. (which actually is not a contradiction, nor rules out God actually causing this big bang...)
 - What the heck is the big bang?
 - A big explosion that started everything.
 - You're gonna have to explain that...
 - You would have to go to school for years to understand.
 - You calling me stupid?
 - No, it's just very complex. We have to study and calculate and test...
 - You can test the creation of the universe?
 - In pieces and small parts...
 - so... no then.
 - Science is important!
 - Phooey. God is good. That is all.

Which often results in insults and divisions. Somehow, me not buying or respecting theoretical science that has no application to me is taken as an insult and me saying all science is bad. And I can certainly say, if you tell many country folk around me.... you'll need years of schooling to understand, that comes off as an insult as well.

Meanwhile, these ideas
a) don't actually contradict each other
b) neither is fully testable
c) neither is really applicable in most life situations

So why bring up one in response to the other at all really? What is the application of bring up science in a religious discussion, or religion in a science one... aside from say Byron's obsession with preaching his particular philosophy, or an evangelical preaching theirs? Overall... seems much more effective to focus on practical implications of either as they are relevant and leave the high theories out of it. I'm sure some obscure religious event way back when is likely to get non-religious eyes to roll, and if someone tells me there is 26 dimensions, but can only recognize 4 of them... I'm only going to laugh. But religion does often have very good morals and ethics per social order, and science has many practical benefits for technology.
Logged
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: Aug 30, 2017, 07:38AM »


 Are you saying science is useless?  That we should just forget about it and live like they did in the bronze age Levant?

Science is useless in regards to spiritual matters. Would you use your scientific Volt-ohm meter to trouble shoot your plumbing?

I thought that open minded liberals, etc, always bragged about having shades of gray, and not being 'binary' in its approach to things, yet all I see here on these topics is 'binary' conclusions. Howz that?

Are you really suggesting that people who may disagree with you want to live like they did in the bronze age? Really? Is that how open discussion goes?


Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: Aug 30, 2017, 08:01AM »

And I can certainly say, if you tell many country folk around me.... you'll need years of schooling to understand, that comes off as an insult as well.
It is not intended as an insult.  Well, how do you resolve this then?  How can you explain things when it really does take years of schooling to understand?

Your a programmer, right?  How would you go about explaining inter-process communication techniques to a lawyer?  Or give him the layman's explanation of stateful packet inspection and how that relates to secure network communications?  Or the algorithms a real-time operating system uses to determine process run-time slices?  Or what strategies massively parallel systems use to vectorize code for the most efficient and expedient processing?  For every answer you give him he'll have another 3 questions.  At some point you'll just have throw up your arms and tell him you can't give him your 30+ years of education and experience so he can understand this stuff and that he'll just have to take your word for it or go and get a similar education.

I'm just not sure how to take your comment here.  Either you are being completely arrogant assuming you and your country buddies should be able to understand theoretical physics, or you think physicists are simpletons and their subject is trivial and everyone should be able to understand it all in a few simple sentences.

If that's the case, why don't you ditch your keyboard and your country buddies get down off their tractors and the lot of you go invade the ivory towers of theoretical physics.  It's such simple stuff and top guys can make 7-figure salaries.  Just stop by Toy "r" Us on the way and pick up some of those pop-up physics texts, I'm sure you'll have all down pat by the time you pull up to the university parking lot.

 Yeah, RIGHT.


Utter rubbish.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3270

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: Aug 30, 2017, 08:12AM »

Science is useless in regards to spiritual matters. Would you use your scientific Volt-ohm meter to trouble shoot your plumbing?

I thought that open minded liberals, etc, always bragged about having shades of gray, and not being 'binary' in its approach to things, yet all I see here on these topics is 'binary' conclusions. Howz that?

Are you really suggesting that people who may disagree with you want to live like they did in the bronze age? Really? Is that how open discussion goes?



I have no idea what you're ranting about Dusty.  I don't use science to answer religious questions, and I don't bring up science as an alternative to religion.  I am totally disinterested in the answers to religious questions.  I use science as a tool to model nature and provide useful information and predictions about it.

The discussion was going nowhere.  I feel Bob believed he could attack science by using his typical technique of refusing to accept answers to his queries and doubling down with other slightly different questions, as usual.  We got precisely nowhere because my initial answers were correct.  I just ended up repeating over and over again in different ways and words hoping he would get it.  He probably does, but he's just being ... Bob.

I still don't have a clue what this thread is about.  Read the thread.  Do you have a clue what Bob's aim was?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: