|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2005 : 06:45:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
quote:
And when have you ever heard of science claiming that is the absolute truth? That is the exact opposite of science. Science is always changing, when it is wrong, that is. Whether science can discover absolute truth or not doesn't matter, that isn't what it is for.
See: Heliocentric vs. Geocentric, The Longitude Board, The Big Bang (when have you even heard anyone even CONSIDER there might be another non-creationist origin to the universe?), etc.
Hi, Giltwist I think your above reply is a bit unfair. For, while the Big Bang is generally accepted, no one claims that it is "absolute". Indeed, that no "non-creationist" universe origins have been put forward is more a testament to the Big Bang's ability to explain the data, not that scientists are holding to some pipe dream against reams of data which suggest a superior model.
And really, is the Helio- vs. Geocentric thing a fair argument? Were scientists-- using scientific principles and data-- aruing that the sun revolved around the earth?
Anyhow, it's good to have you here at SFN! (Perhaps you'll stick around a little longer than Franko!) |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 07:25:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
When you get to the point that you believe "gas makes cars go" because someone told you so, that's when I'm talking about science becoming a religion, in a sense.
This raises an interesting question, then. Say you are a molecular biologist who is well versed in the scientific process (as many molecular biologists are). Say, furthermore, that you have neither the time nor inclination to study the details of internal combustion. You do, however, know that gas makes cars go; and, given your knowledge of the scientific process that enabled that simplification to be stated, are you truly deifying science? quote:
Well maybe the hard/soft science is an important one then. I know that my chemistry professor used to complain about sociologists being satisfied with far lower strengths of correlation in data than he, as a chemist would. On the other hand, the same professor admitted that in organic chemistry, people who got a 50% yield on their efforts were lucky. But I think you are right that the soft sciences are probably a bigger source of science as a religion.
I disagree. There are fundamental problems with, as you put it, "strengths of correlation" in the softer sciences purely because of the data being analyzed. Physics, chemistry, etc. has the ability to test very focused and specific details, where sociologists, psychologists, etc. rarely have that luxury. Thus, the "softer" scientists are required, because of the nature of the systems, to accept smaller correlations. Since every "soft" scientist is completely aware of these problems, I don't see an instance of science as religion. quote:
Eh? What does his death have to do with anything? I was under the impression that AND, OR, NOR, and the like didn't really prove useful until their implementation in computers?
I think the point is that computers have been around a lot longer than many people seem to think. quote:
Here, I think, I'm dealing with a lack of advanced physics training, but from what I've gotten out of physics and general science classes and the couple of books I've read on the subject, all we've really got going for evidence of the Big Bang is universal expansion, cosmic background radiation, and some neat similarities in particle accelerators.
More or less. We can trace the origins of our universe based on this data to about 10^-43 seconds or so after the Bang, but before that, the matter is so dense that we have no theories to describe it. quote:
As thorough as I think we, as mathematicians and logicians, have been. I've yet to be exposed to how you can prove axioms without more axioms.
You definitely need to read Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. quote:
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 09:45:37 [Permalink]
|
Anybody but me notice Franco hasn't been back to defend or explain his position?
Well at least the discussion is progressing nicely after the fluff and nonsense concerning Logical Goddesses and creation of the universe/multiverse. (Lisa and beskeptigal might be one. )
A belated welcome to the SFN for Giltwist. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 10:38:41 [Permalink]
|
Thanks again for all the info on this, guys.
quote:
Indeed, that no "non-creationist" universe origins have been put forward is more a testament to the Big Bang's ability to explain the data, not that scientists are holding to some pipe dream against reams of data which suggest a superior model.
Well, I wasn't really suggesting that the Big Bang was a pipe dream. I was trying to illustrate that it just doesn't seem to be questioned all that much.
quote:
the matter is so dense that we have no theories to describe it.
See, that's another thing I don't get. If all the matter of the universe was cramped together into a little clump, wouldn't it classify as a singularity and, therefore, have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light? In other words, for the universe to have expanded seems to mean that things DID go faster than the speed of light?
quote:
By the way, I am “enjoying the insignificant sliver of time I have” by engaging in this discussion and by “wasting time speculating about” the nature of the universe.
Oh, so am I. I don't get mental aerobics very often, but I think the whole concept of delayed gratification would be baulderdash if there wasn't something more to life than a couple of branes smacking together.
quote:
Anybody but me notice Franco hasn't been back to defend or explain his position?
I actually get that a regularly on The Nexus. Despite my tolerant attitude towards the esoteric, when people make lengthy soap box speeches then dissapear, I kick it off my site. I've had some interesting ones over the last eighteen months -- a guy who tried to post a whole book of his that was incomprehensible to even me, a guy who believes that he is the parallel incarnation of Neo in this dimension, a guy who believes that God is zero, et cetera.
|
 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 11:04:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I must concede that I can't prove God by any measure far beyond Aquinas, but that doesn't mean I can't still want there to be some great Creator. If the universe is one great cosmic accident, why am I wasting time speculating about it when I should be out there enjoying the insignificant sliver of time I have to do so. So, while you are saying mundane until proven divine, I'll say divine until proven mundane. I think, though, that we can both agree that we need to keep looking for an answer, regardless.
I would say, the 'magnificent' rather than 'mundane', and that divinity as it is described is not necessary in the natural world. In it's own right, the summer tick that you pick from your leg with a curse is a marvel of natural engineering, far beyond the computers and their programs that describe it. As were it's forebears that evolved into it. Enjoy that sliver of time. If indeed divinity exists, it will manifest itself in due course, unaided by our pathetic ceremonies of blood and blather.
quote:
Anybody but me notice Franco hasn't been back to defend or explain his position?
Well at least the discussion is progressing nicely after the fluff and nonsense concerning Logical Goddesses and creation of the universe/multiverse. (Lisa and beskeptigal might be one.)
I have noticed.
It is written in The Book of Piscivorus that if one wishes to start a fight, a puglist gathering is a not the wisest place to do so unless one is armed with a machine gun. It is further advised that one should keep a low profile when seated in front of the trombone player.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 11:11:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
Oh, I thought you were calling ME a postmodernist and, hence, summarily wrong. Sorry about that.
My apologies, as well, for not being clear.quote:
I would still like to hear your take on Kuhn, though.
To be honest, I've not read the book. I've read a review, and several critiques of postmodernism which mention the book, and they were more-or-less all in agreement that the postmodernists have glommed on to Kuhn's book as "evidence" that science has no more epistemological value than any other method of knowing. And one critique went so far as to discuss how annoyed Kuhn was by that. (It was also the article from which I learned the joke about how the fastest way to clear a room at a cocktail party is to say the word 'epistemology'.)quote:
Well, it was just a concrete example I'd heard yesterday. It doesn't have to be color. It could be anything, really. But you raise a good point about the usefulness of simplification. But I think simplifications like that might be part of the problem of science as a religion. When you get to the point that you believe "gas makes cars go" because someone told you so, that's when I'm talking about science becoming a religion, in a sense.
Here's the real problem (as I see it): you want the average Joe to know and understand the difference between "the truth" and "The Truth." But in reality, the distinction makes absolutely no difference to the vast majority of people.
An example of why science doesn't attempt to discover "The Truth" is that the basic premises of science tell us that we cannot possibly hope to discover that what we think of as "reality" is actually a computer simulation (like in The Matrix). Even if we escape from the simulation, we can't tell if we're not simply stuck in a higher-level simulation. But this is largely of interest only to philosophers of science and stoned college kids.
The average person on the street sees "reality," and acts within it, to the best of their abilities, and doesn't even bother to think that it might not be "real," no more than they think about why their favorite color is whatever it is. And for all practical purposes, there is no difference between reality and Reality (again with the capitalization).
And so, "gas makes a car go" is perfectly acceptable, and isn't taken on "faith," but instead beacuse for most intents and purposes, it's true. The exceptions occur when no oxygen can mix with the gasoline, but nobody expects their personal vehicle to work underwater or in outer space. And nobody processes a statement like "gas makes a car go" in the same manner they do the "revealed truth" of religions. The former is materialistic and trivial, the latter affects their "everlasting souls."quote:
Well maybe the hard/soft science is an important one then. I know that my chemistry professor used to complain about sociologists being satisfied with far lower strengths of correlation in data than he, as a chemist would.
I know that medicine - for example - often relies on p-values of 0.05 to establish significance (a 1-in-20 chance that a positive result is random), while physicists, I'm told, routinely use p-values of 0.0001 or lower (one chance in 10,000).quote:
On the other hand, the same professor admitted that in organic chemistry, people who got a 50% yield on their efforts were lucky. But I think you are right that the soft sciences are probably a bigger source of science as a religion.
I'm not sure that was my point. More just that conclusions based on "soft sciences" are necessarily more susceptible to change, yet at the same time often more strongly held by their proponents. Dogma, in that "I am definitely right about this," instead of a religious view of the scientific process itself.quote:
quote:
Apparently not. George Boole died in 1864.
Eh? What does his death have to do with anything? I was under the impression that AND, OR, NOR, and the like didn't really prove useful until their implementation in computers?
Actually, I got my timeline wrong. Seems that Babbage's analytical engine came along before Boolean algebra. But the impression I got from Boole's biography was that his algebra was created to further formalize logic, just as mathematics were already formalized.
And those particular operations (AND, OR, and the like) have usefulness in parsing logical statements, well outside of computers. There is, of course, a big difference between "P1 AND P2, therefore C," and "P1 OR P2, therefore C."quote:
Here, I think, I'm dealing with a lack of advanced physics training, but from what I've gotten out of physics and general science classes and the couple of books I've read on the subject, all we've really got going for evidence of the Big Bang is universal expansion, cosmic background radiation, and some neat similarities in particle accelerators.
Well, the cosmic microwave background radiation was a prediction of Big Bang theory long before the CMB was discovered. The fact that it was found, and at the right temperature, is a huge validation of Big Bang theory. But, as others have already mentioned, there's more to it than that.quote:
So, what you are saying is that, in and of itself science is on the ball, but when humans come into the picture, things can go bad. I'd agree with that. The problem is that we can't do science without involving humans but more on that in a second.
I agree completely, but it's important to distinguish between humans failing to do science properly, and failures of science itself. Equating the two is the problem behind your concerns about "gas makes a car go."quote:
I definately agree with this up to a point, otherwise my university education wouldn't have focused on them ;) However, both are axiomatic systems. As thorough as I think we, as mathematicians and logicians, have been. I've yet to be exposed to how you |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 11:22:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
See, that's another thing I don't get. If all the matter of the universe was cramped together into a little clump, wouldn't it classify as a singularity and, therefore, have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light? In other words, for the universe to have expanded seems to mean that things DID go faster than the speed of light?
That's what "Inflationary Theory" is all about. Right now, the universe is expanding (at it's outermost "edges," from our point-of-view) at the speed of light. But to get as large as it is - and to overcome the initial gravity well - spacetime itself expanded faster than lightspeed for a very brief period at the beginning of time. Note that this does not violate the speed of light as a "universal speed limit" for matter, energy or information travelling within the universe, as it instead relates to the very "fabric" of the universe itself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 11:43:40 [Permalink]
|
Its more like it is fillied with empty spaces which are all inflating, not just expanding at the edges. It seems that inflation is an unmeasurable property of intergalactic voidspace.
If we have the raisin bread model and we put 26 raising in the loaf all in a line representing a line of galactic clusters across the universe.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
While the bread rises, raisin A and B move away from each other at speed 1, while Raisin A znd Z move away from each other at speed 25, so objects far away from the other are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light, not because they are moving that fast but because the spaces between them are growing and the number of spaces is vast.
Edit: After the singularity/bigbang point thing releases its matter the pressure and explosion would drive the initial expansion, as the expansion slowed the voidspaces began to develop, from the predicted warm spots in the CMB, gravity slowed the expansion until the dark energy of voidspace became greater than that of the collapsing tug. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 06/10/2005 11:50:16 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 13:12:31 [Permalink]
|
I didn't fully understand the point that Dave and BPS are trying to explain until I read this article, which of course appeared in theSkeptic Summary.
Edit:
quote:
Notice that, according to Hubble's law, the universe does not expand at a single speed. Some galaxies recede from us at 1,000 kilometers per second, others (those twice as distant) at 2,000 km/s, and so on. In fact, Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years.
Does this prediction of faster-than-light galaxies mean that Hubble's law is wrong? Doesn't Einstein's special theory of relativity say that nothing can have a velocity exceeding that of light? This question has confused generations of students. The solution is that special relativity applies only to "normal" velocities--motion through space. The velocity in Hubble's law is a recession velocity caused by the expansion of space, not a motion through space. It is a general relativistic effect and is not bound by the special relativistic limit. Having a recession velocity greater than the speed of light does not violate special relativity. It is still true that nothing ever overtakes a light beam.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/10/2005 13:24:51 |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 13:53:54 [Permalink]
|
It seems to me that something like this might actually enable future physicists to travel faster than light. If we could control the expansion of space, then we could make pockets of space through which we could travel faster than the space around it.
Of course, you'd probably age faster too. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 16:31:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
It seems to me that something like this might actually enable future physicists to travel faster than light. If we could control the expansion of space, then we could make pockets of space through which we could travel faster than the space around it.
I believe this is what Star Trek's "warp drive" is all about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 21:12:36 [Permalink]
|
Yep.... Warp drive!
Damn bunch of geeks that live in this forum....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2005 : 22:34:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Damn bunch of geeks that live in this forum....
Actually, I live in Virginia... I just spend all my time here in the forums. An important distinction, not unlike the science-vs.-human error thing, above.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 13:20:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's what "Inflationary Theory" is all about. Right now, the universe is expanding (at it's outermost "edges," from our point-of-view) at the speed of light. But to get as large as it is - and to overcome the initial gravity well - spacetime itself expanded faster than lightspeed for a very brief period at the beginning of time. Note that this does not violate the speed of light as a "universal speed limit" for matter, energy or information travelling within the universe, as it instead relates to the very "fabric" of the universe itself.
A couple of days ago Ricky tempted a bunch of us from another forum to this one, and I succumbed. Learned much already. For one thing, I honestly didn't realize there was such a thing as evangelical skepticism.
Anyways, when one says that spacetime itself expanded faster than lightspeed, what is that speed relative to? Some kind of absolute-like backdrop upon which space-time exists?
Another question: With the big bang hypothesis as described above, is there a maximum redshift expected with the theory?
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2005 : 13:50:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And so, "gas makes a car go" is perfectly acceptable, and isn't taken on "faith," but instead beacuse for most intents and purposes, it's true.
Yes. Tagging things with names like 'gas' is convenient and practical, but it seems to me that in other cases it could dampen the skeptical spirit.
For instance: An apple falls to the ground and a boy asks why. The answer comes back swift and sure: "Gravity". Whew, soleved that one. But of course why or how does gravity even exist?
Furthermore when we discover new phenomena that can't seem to be explained by existing known principles, we invent more tags like "dark matter" or "dark energy". But when does it stop?
Occam's razor seems to be getting duller and duller in a universe that appears to defy the simple explanation.
Will we soon be introducing a principle called the "life intiation and organization principle" as another tag to 'explain' the biological life phenomenon which one day we well may find is not explainable with the known laws of physics?
I guess what I'm saying is this: It doesn't hurt that much to come up with new 'laws' which seem to be required as time goes on. And it satisfies the mind with the *appearance* of an explanation. So is it such a transgression if someone decides and believes that the ultimate explanation for all those laws is God himself. I mean, what's one more Tag? :)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
