'Big Bang' actually 'Big Chill,' new theory says

[jobberone]

How did the universe begin? The Big Bang is traditionally envisioned as the moment when an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward, expanding in three spatial directions and gradually cooling down as it did so. Now, a team of physicists says the Big Bang should be modeled as a phase change: the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time, analogous to ice.
In the new study, lead author James Quach and colleagues at the University of Melbourne in Australia say the hypothesis can be tested by looking for defects that would have formed in the structure of space-time when the universe (http://www.space.com/13172-7-surprising-universe-facts.html)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png crystallized. The universe is currently about 13.7 billion years old.
"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Quach said in a statement. "Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises' into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorized this way, as the universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice (http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1773-water-strange-physics.html)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/22/big-bang-was-actually-phase-change/#ixzz24IjWQply

[WV Cowboy]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

[masomenos]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

I think you left out a few steps in between the sudden burst and life itself.

[speedkilz88]

I think you left out a few steps in between the sudden burst and life itself.So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

[zrinkill]

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

True story

[Doomsday101]

Warning guys do not get into religion

[masomenos]

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

Whoa, you just blew my mind.

[ScipioCowboy]

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

In the realm of cosmology and particle physics especially, there haven't been any substantial paradigmatic breakthroughs in a very long time. (And before anyone mentions it, I would point out that Higgs-Boson wasn't paradigm shattering. It was a long-awaited confirmation of what we already suspected was true.)

It's highly possibly that we haven't had any breakthroughs because we've reached the limits of that which our mind can append linear cause-and-effect relationships to. That's why we keep recycling metaphors. It's the same reason you can't have a conversation with your dog about quantum mechanics.

Everyone it privy to the same observational data. They're just structuring it differently.

[SaltwaterServr]

So does science, but then it's all about theories and hypothesis.

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

[Hoofbite]

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

In the realm of cosmology and particle physics especially, there haven't been any substantial paradigmatic breakthroughs in a very long time. (And before anyone mentions it, I would point out that Higgs-Boson wasn't paradigm shattering. It was a long-awaited confirmation of what we already suspected was true.)

It's highly possibly that we haven't had any breakthroughs because we've reached the limits of that which our mind can append linear cause-and-effect relationships to. It's the same reason you can't have a conversation with your dog about quantum mechanics.

I hear ya. When Roofus starts in on quantum mechanics, my brain just shuts off.

[cowboyeric8]

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Gravity doesn't exist, the earth sucks :D

[SaltwaterServr]

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

In the realm of cosmology and particle physics especially, there haven't been any substantial paradigmatic breakthroughs in a very long time. (And before anyone mentions it, I would point out that Higgs-Boson wasn't paradigm shattering. It was a long-awaited confirmation of what we already suspected was true.)

It's highly possibly that we haven't had any breakthroughs because we've reached the limits of that which our mind can append linear cause-and-effect relationships to. It's the same reason you can't have a conversation with your dog about quantum mechanics.

Speaking of quant, there was a great program the other day on Science demonstrating a particle acting as both a particle and wave at the same time. Pretty fascinating, despite me trying to comprehend it through West Nile.

EDIT: I wonder more if it isn't we can't comprehend so far as we can't muster the energies nor accept the costs of further testing to provide inspiration to new theories. I can only imagine the heights of discovery we'll explore once we start figuring out how to test that dark stuff 'em old scientific edumacated keeps yacking about.

[ScipioCowboy]

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Interestingly enough, the only people who deny the existence of gravity are scientists themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?pagewanted=all

[jimnabby]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.And thank you for playing "Really Bad Analogies!" Tell him what he's won, Joe!

[ScipioCowboy]

Speaking of quant, there was a great program the other day on Science demonstrating a particle acting as both a particle and wave at the same time. Pretty fascinating, despite me trying to comprehend it through West Nile.

That's not just a clash of metaphor. That's a breakdown of reality as we understand it.

:laugh1:

[Doomsday101]

I know you're upholding your moderator duties but reading this quick statement makes me also believe that you have one hell of a story about your thrilling escape from Jonestown.

I don't need to escape anything I walk through the front door. :cool:

[WV Cowboy]

And thank you for playing "Really Bad Analogies!" Tell him what he's won, Joe!

It's a perfect analogy, ... just as believable.

As a matter of fact, if I were giving odds, I would go with the Scrabble Boards.

:laugh2:

[Bungarian]

One of the most fascinating aspects of metaphorical descriptions such as the Big Bang or the Big Chill is when the metaphor becomes inseparable from the theory.

We often use metaphor as an aid to understanding. We draw comparisons between a process that is commonly understood (the metaphor) and a process that isn't so commonly understood (what we're seeking to understand). However, in the end, the goal is to understand the latter process without the aid of the former process (the metaphor).

However, in the realm of cosmology and particle physics, we're dealing with processes that nobody on this planet understands completely. Consequently, the metaphor are always getting conflated with the process we're seeking to understand.

In the realm of cosmology and particle physics especially, there haven't been any substantial paradigmatic breakthroughs in a very long time. (And before anyone mentions it, I would point out that Higgs-Boson wasn't paradigm shattering. It was a long-awaited confirmation of what we already suspected was true.)

It's highly possibly that we haven't had any breakthroughs because we've reached the limits of that which our mind can append linear cause-and-effect relationships to. That's why we keep recycling metaphors. It's the same reason you can't have a conversation with your dog about quantum mechanics.

Everyone it privy to the same observational data. They're just structuring it differently.

Or they made the whole thing up. We would never know. I am not saying I don't agree with the statements. I just find it funny that scientist can tell people with fair certainty what happened billions of years ago while many common things today go unexplained. They can be bold in their findings because no one can go back in time and check it.

[WPBCowboysFan]

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Its a theory that is tested and shown to be true on a daily basis. It can be observed. Butt, of course, some want to still call it a theory.

[WV Cowboy]

Or they made the whole thing up. We would never know. I am not saying I don't agree with the statements. I just find it funny that scientist can tell people with fair certainty what happened billions of years ago while many common things today go unexplained. They can be bold in their findings because no one can go back in time and check it.

Because they get more funding for more research if they push the findings others want them to find.

[jobberone]

Most scientists in that area will tell you that although the numbers are worked out pretty well there can be other explanations. In fact the numbers work out pretty well up to a very small fraction of a second after the 'Big Bang'. Brane theory has not been ruled out. I wish I knew more mathematics.

[ScipioCowboy]

Or they made the whole thing up. We would never know. I am not saying I don't agree with the statements. I just find it funny that scientist can tell people with fair certainty what happened billions of years ago while many common things today go unexplained. They can be bold in their findings because no one can go back in time and check it.

I don't believe they're just making things up. Everyone is privy to the same data. However, how we interpret the data depends on the lens through which we view it. And the shape of the lens is determined by the assumptions we hold.

Science holds certain assumptions, and we as a society regard these assumptions with a certain level of esteem because science has a knack for producing things that make our lives easier.

That's really what it's all about: What's the benefit?

[jobberone]

Because they get more funding for more research if they push the findings others want them to find.

The Standard Model of particle physics is still a theory because there are still some things which is does not answer well or at all. However, it has stood the test of time so far and goes a long way in explaining the world of the very small even if it doesn't address gravity, dark matter yada. It may evolve into something else or just get tweaked. Who knows. Difficult to dismiss it though.

[jwitten82]

Its a theory that is tested and shown to be true on a daily basis. It can be observed. Butt, of course, some want to still call it a theory.
A theory in science is NOT a guess.

[ScipioCowboy]

The Standard Model of particle physics is still a theory because there are still some things which is does not answer well or at all. However, it has stood the test of time so far and goes a long way in explaining the world of the very small even if it doesn't address gravity, dark matter yada. It may evolve into something else or just get tweaked. Who knows. Difficult to dismiss it though.

Because gravity has never been observed at the quantum level. Let that one sink in for a moment.

[jwitten82]

"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

[SaltwaterServr]

That's not just a clash of metaphor. That's a breakdown of reality as we understand it.

:laugh1:

Regardless, see if you can find "through the wormhole" and check out the particle physics one. great visuals of a silicon drop acting as both above an aqueous medium.

[SaltwaterServr]

Because they get more funding for more research if they push the findings others want them to find.

Absolute rubbish.

[burmafrd]

"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

That is why the whole Man Made Global Warming BS is just that.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down numerous times before man came around
But now suddenly we are responsible for this one? Total BS.

[jobberone]

Because gravity has never been observed at the quantum level. Let that one sink in for a moment.

And your point is? The fact we don't have a field and corresponding particle for gravity doesn't mean the Standard Model is greatly flawed.

100 years ago the universe was static and we thought our galaxy was it. Now there are at least 400 billion galaxies and we've moved on from the Brownian movement of pollen proving atoms to the Standard Model which describes the matter we deal with very well. And gravity still exists.

[ScipioCowboy]

And your point is? The fact we don't have a field and corresponding particle for gravity doesn't mean the Standard Model is greatly flawed.

Just that it hasn't been observed at the quantum level. I'm not questioning the validity of the Standard Model or the existence of gravity.

If gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level, the implications would be interesting. That's all.

Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how touchy people get during cosmological discussions.

[masomenos]

That is why the whole Man Made Global Warming BS is just that.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down numerous times before man came around
But now suddenly we are responsible for this one? Total BS.

Wait, so because something happened without human involvement in the past, there can't be an anthropogenic cause in the present?

That doesn't make sense.

[jobberone]

Just that it hasn't been observed at the quantum level. I'm not questioning the validity of the Standard Model or the existence of gravity.

If gravity doesn't exist at the quantum level, the implications would be interesting. That's all.

Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how touchy people get during cosmological discussions.

There is no reason for you to inject emotions into this when there is none. I'm merely having a nice debate. I have no idea what the heck gravity really is. Not my field although I try to understand it as much as I can. So I don't know what the implications are for the Standard Model without a gravity field and its associated particle. That's way beyond my pay grade.

[jobberone]

Again please leave religion out of this and every thread on this site. Let's don't get a nice thread closed. Thanks.

[ScipioCowboy]

There is no reason for you to inject emotions into this when there is none. I'm merely having a nice debate. I have no idea what the heck gravity really is. Not my field although I try to understand it as much as I can. So I don't know what the implications are for the Standard Model without a gravity field and its associated particle. That's way beyond my pay grade.

Was there reason to assume I was questioning the validity of the Standard Model?

[jobberone]

Was there reason to assume I was questioning the validity of the Standard Model?

I thought the Standard Model could predict a gravity field and 'gravitons'. That's how it relates to quantum physics supposedly. If that's out of date or disproved then forgive.

[jimnabby]

That is why the whole Man Made Global Warming BS is just that.
The planet has warmed up and cooled down numerous times before man came around
But now suddenly we are responsible for this one? Total BS.Hardly.

The fact that the planet has climate cycles independent of humans is not evidence that human activity cannot affect climate.

And this idea people have that climate scientists haven't thought about all this and incorporated it into their work is, frankly, baffling.

[ScipioCowboy]

I thought the Standard Model could predict a gravity field and 'gravitons'. That's how it relates to quantum physics supposedly. If that's out of date or disproved then forgive.

It absolutely does make those predictions. And based on our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model is unquestionably the most valid model.

However, like all of science, the Standard Model is subject to revision as new information and trains of thought become available.

Gravity undoubtedly exist. Consequently, if it doesn't exist at the quantum level, it overturns our "bottom-up" view of the universe. It would be a fascinating development.

[ScipioCowboy]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

If your point wasn't valid, science would have no need for discussions of a Multiverse.

[jobberone]

It absolutely does make those predictions. And based on our current understanding of the universe, the Standard Model is unquestionably the most valid model.

However, like all of science, the Standard Model is subject to revision as new information and trains of thought become available.

Gravity undoubtedly exist. Consequently, if it doesn't exist at the quantum level, it overturns our "bottom-up" view of the universe. It would be a fascinating development.

Ok, then I just didn't understand you. We're on the same page. Are you a physicist?

[WPBCowboysFan]

Hardly.

The fact that the planet has climate cycles independent of humans is not evidence that human activity cannot affect climate.

And this idea people have that climate scientists haven't thought about all this and incorporated it into their work is, frankly, baffling.

Still doesnt mean that man is actually affecting any climate change at all.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Still doesnt mean that man is actually affecting any climate change at all.

nor that we aren't

Big Bang is the only plausible answer to how our universe exists.

Unless some of the scientists here care to advise me of an equally plausible one.

[Hoofbite]

nor that we aren't

Big Bang is the only plausible answer to how our universe exists.

Unless some of the scientists here care to advise me of an equally plausible one.

See title of thread.

[ScipioCowboy]

Ok, then I just didn't understand you. We're on the same page. Are you a physicist?

No. They wouldn't hire me. I missed the height requirement. Gravity has not been good to me. That's why I question its existence at the quantum level, :)

[jimnabby]

Still doesnt mean that man is actually affecting any climate change at all.What doesn't mean it? The fact that people make really dumb arguments against anthropogenic climate change? Sure. Dumb, unsupported arguments aren't evidence one way or the other. There's a huge amount of actual evidence, however, that supports that hypothesis (and isn't consistent with the hypothesis that there's nothing new going on).

[burmafrd]

Hardly.

The fact that the planet has climate cycles independent of humans is not evidence that human activity cannot affect climate.

And this idea people have that climate scientists haven't thought about all this and incorporated it into their work is, frankly, baffling.

they cannot explain how the others happened; so why does anyone think they know why this one is happening?

Total BS

[CanadianCowboysFan]

See title of thread.

I think you know what I was getting at. Many here are skirting the issue while disagreeing with Big Bang, Big Chill, whatever because you know what they truly "believe".

[burmafrd]

What doesn't mean it? The fact that people make really dumb arguments against anthropogenic climate change? Sure. Dumb, unsupported arguments aren't evidence one way or the other. There's a huge amount of actual evidence, however, that supports that hypothesis (and isn't consistent with the hypothesis that there's nothing new going on).

actually the dumb arguements are from people that think man knows enough to say anything with certainty.

That is why MANY climate experts say the exact same thing;

We don't know enough yet to say how it happens

ANd your huge amount of evidence- that is a joke. Dig into some of those so called studies and there are so many ifs and maybes and such its ridiculous

And so much is dependent on the 'hockey stick'

And if that is proven wrong the whole theory dies.

When your theory is so dependent on one piece of evidence it is going to more than likely collapse one day

[jobberone]

No. They wouldn't hire me. I missed the height requirement. Gravity has not been good to me. That's why I question its existence at the quantum level, :)

:laugh2:

[ScipioCowboy]

I think you know what I was getting at. Many here are skirting the issue while disagreeing with Big Bang, Big Chill, whatever because you know what they truly "believe".

Actually, I'm less certain than I ever have been of "what you're getting at." And that's saying something.

[jobberone]

nor that we aren't

Big Bang is the only plausible answer to how our universe exists.

Unless some of the scientists here care to advise me of an equally plausible one.

Brane theory would be one.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

But Marine, at least you would agree man should do all we can to limit the effects we might be having on climate change.

I mean I am sure you recycle, reduce and reuse, n'est ce pas?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Actually, I'm less certain than I ever have been of "what you're getting at." And that's saying something.

Why do you disagree with the Big Bang, Big Chill, whatever theory of the origin of the universe (and no need to cut and past some quantum physics treatise you saw online to explain).

[burmafrd]

Brane theory would be one.

I saw what you did there

[ScipioCowboy]

Why do you disagree with the Big Bang, Big Chill, whatever theory of the origin of the universe (and no need to cut and past some quantum physics treatise you saw online to explain).

Why do you think I disagree with them?

[WPBCowboysFan]

Big Bang is the only plausible answer to how our universe exists.

- :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:




:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Why do you think I disagree with them?

That is a good French debate method, when afraid to answer, respond with a question.

You haven't stated what you think created the universe, just critique the well known and accepted theories. It is up to you to put forth a plausible theory in response.

[masomenos]

actually the dumb arguements are from people that think man knows enough to say anything with certainty.


As a general rule, science is more in the probability game than the certainty game.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

As a general rule, science is more in the probability game than the certainty game.

True. Nothing is ever certain but it is more probably than not that there has been evolution, that the Earth is 6 billion years old, that man used to be Apes and we all evolved from some single cell organism that existed few billion years ago.

Of course that can't be "proven" but it is as proven as anything can be.

[ScipioCowboy]

That is a good French debate method, when afraid to answer, respond with a question.

I would've answered your question if it had been valid question. Instead, it was based on faulty, leading assumptions, much like if I'd asked, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Obviously, you don't beat your wife so the question is misleading.

You haven't stated what you think created the universe, just critique the well known and accepted theories. It is up to you to put forth a plausible theory in response.The Big Bang has proved its mettle time and time again. It provides the most beneficial understanding of the Universe.

Fun fact: The Big Bang theory was originally devised by a Belgian Priest and astronomer named Georges Lemaitre.

[jwitten82]

True. Nothing is ever certain but it is more probably than not that there has been evolution, that the Earth is 6 billion years old, that man used to be Apes and we all evolved from some single cell organism that existed few billion years ago.

Of course that can't be "proven" but it is as proven as anything can be.
Humans are apes.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I would've answered your question if it had been valid question. Instead, it was based on faulty, leading assumptions, much like if I'd asked, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Obviously, you don't beat your wife so the question is misleading.

The Big Bang has proved its mettle time and time again. It provides the most beneficial understanding of the Universe.

Fun fact: The Big Bang theory was originally devised by a Belgian Priest and astronomer named Georges Lemaitre.

It was a valid question.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Humans are apes.

Some definitely are, EagleFan for instance.

[Cajuncowboy]

I think you know what I was getting at. Many here are skirting the issue while disagreeing with Big Bang, Big Chill, whatever because you know what they truly "believe".

We have to skirt it because the rules say we can't say what we truly believe but you can.

It works out great for discussion purposes doesn't it?

[jwitten82]

Actually, a very good analogy. To conjure up a notion that all beings that have been formed in the perfectness of their body's for adaption to their environment was simply happenstance is not only short sighted but completely out of the realm of possibility. Anything created needs a Creator.
What exactly do you mean "perfectness of their bodies"?

[Cajuncowboy]

Who created the creator?

Not going to get into it because the mods already said, as usual, we can't discuss our position.

[Cajuncowboy]

What exactly do you mean "perfectness of their bodies"?

Creatures are designed perfectly for their environment and they thrive in those environments.

[jwitten82]

Not going to get into it because the mods already said, as usual, we can't discuss our position.
The answers I usually hear for that questions are not that good.

[Cajuncowboy]

The answers I usually hear for that questions are not that good.

There is only one answer that is correct. And with that I am exiting this thread because there are some on here who try to get people banned or warnings because they are the only ones who can espouse their views but others can't.

Nice try though.

[jwitten82]

Creatures are designed perfectly for their environment and they thrive in those environments.
Evolution explains that.

[Cajuncowboy]

Evolution explains that.

You mean the "Theory" of evolution?

Bovine fecal matter.

[dexternjack]

Evolution explains that.
Evolution, but to be more precise, it is adaptation.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Creatures are designed perfectly for their environment and they thrive in those environments.

problem with that line is, if they were born perfectly for their environment, there would not be any changes necessary to them but they have changed through fluke, adaptation etc

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You mean the "Theory" of evolution?

Bovine fecal matter.

I know you were complaining above about not being able to discuss your position freely, but haven't you done just that by calling the accepted theory dung?

[jwitten82]

You mean the "Theory" of evolution?

Bovine fecal matter.
"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

[justbob]

Last warning --

[Cajuncowboy]

Last warning --

See.....

[jobberone]

I saw what you did there

:confused:

[SaltwaterServr]

You mean the "Theory" of evolution?

Bovine fecal matter.

All you need to disprove evolution is to find one fossil in the wrong rock strata. Just one.

So far evolution has passed with flying colors.

Moreover, I've done evolution experiments and seen it work in action. Two different experiments actually. One dealt with the genetic frequency of one set of alleles that corresponded with eye color in Drosophila melanogaster.

The other dealt with growing a certain strain of bacteria on glucose that could only metabolize glucose. I apologize for not remembering the strain right now. Then we transplanted the bacteria to galactose media completely free of glucose. Every bacterium should have died.

Instead, one colony in a billion survived. It was able to metabolize galactose on a very limited scale but after a few hundred life cycles, it continued to form colonies.

Evolution.

[dez_for_prez]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

Oh dear God, why can't there be a political zone. :bang2:

[SaltwaterServr]

they cannot explain how the others happened; so why does anyone think they know why this one is happening?

Total BS

Of course we can explain permutations in climatic change during the Earth's history. Your blanket statement is fundamentally flawed. If you think every scientist out there is going to agree to an explanation, well, I'll introduce you to the half dozen or so attorneys on CowboysZone.com who couldn't agree to everything during the lockout.

[Hoofbite]

Creatures are designed perfectly for their environment and they thrive in those environments.

What do you think about seasonal migrations? Personally, I think they make for some of the best scenes on the Planet Earth series.

And a follow up that might be slightly OT.

What do you think about global warming? Man made is it not? If not, what's the cause?

[kmp77]

"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

Thank you. I was about to post that. A scientific theory isn't a "theory" :lmao2: Certain groups of people always throw out that argument and look foolish every time :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Phoenix]

Nobody, NOBODY, can know. All these wild guesses out the butt are ridiculous. Maybe, just MAYBE, the universe has ALWAYS been here, huh? Maybe it HAD no beginning. And no end.

[ScipioCowboy]

Nobody, NOBODY, can know. All these wild guesses out the butt are ridiculous. Maybe, just MAYBE, the universe has ALWAYS been here, huh? Maybe it HAD no beginning. And no end.

That's called the Steady State Model.

Red shifted galaxies and background radiation rendered it obsolete.

[kmp77]

Nobody, NOBODY, can know. All these wild guesses out the butt are ridiculous. Maybe, just MAYBE, the universe has ALWAYS been here, huh? Maybe it HAD no beginning. And no end.

I don't think scientists spend their day making wild out of the butt guesses. They didnt throw a dart and land on big bang :) The mere fact the universe is expanding leads one to think it had a beginning....or at least was totally different billions of years ago.

[Phoenix]

That's called the Steady State Model.

Red shifted galaxies and background radiation rendered it obsolete.


That's what they want you to think! :D

[ScipioCowboy]

That's what they want you to think! :D

Man, I can't tell you how much I dislike "they." :p:

[baj1dallas]

fascinating theory. Difficult to wrap your brain around the idea of course. Vaguely similar to the multiverse theory, except with all the multiverses existing simultaneously within one...well whatever. I wonder if the building blocks they are talking about are strings, or something else.

[Phoenix]

I don't think scientists spend their day making wild out of the butt guesses. They didnt throw a dart and land on big bang :) The mere fact the universe is expanding leads one to think it had a beginning....or at least was totally different billions of years ago.


Intelligent Man has been around for what? A few decades? (Discounting Philly fans) Maybe a few more than that? And they (we) think we actually have one clue about the supposed origins of the universe, oh, about a zillion years before we or the dinosaurs ever got here? What if this "fact" that the universe is expanding isn't? How is that a fact by the way? Because one astronomer says so? I so wonder how that is a "proven fact" especially since what people "see" at the "edge" of the universe happened a zillion years ago. Or has light speed suddenly increased by a zillion-fold? Maybe the universe is actually contracting now but "we" will never know until another billion years when it hits our telescopes, and us...?

[baj1dallas]

Intelligent Man has been around for what? A few decades? (Discounting Philly fans) Maybe a few more than that? And they (we) think we actually have one clue about the supposed origins of the universe, oh, about a zillion years before we or the dinosaurs ever got here? What if this "fact" that the universe is expanding isn't? How is that a fact by the way? Because one astronomer says so? I so wonder how that is a "proven fact" especially since what people "see" at the "edge" of the universe happened a zillion years ago. Or has light speed suddenly increased by a zillion-fold? Maybe the universe is actually contracting now but "we" will never know until another billion years when it hits our telescopes, and us...?

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean nobody does. Try reading about the red shift from the assumption that it may be correct and see if that answers your questions.

[WV Cowboy]

A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

Not sure that bolsters your argument.

[WV Cowboy]

Oh dear God, ...

Just wondering, why do you call out to someone that you don't believe in?

[trickblue]

Intelligent Man has been around for what? A few decades? (Discounting Philly fans) Maybe a few more than that? And they (we) think we actually have one clue about the supposed origins of the universe, oh, about a zillion years before we or the dinosaurs ever got here? What if this "fact" that the universe is expanding isn't? How is that a fact by the way? Because one astronomer says so? I so wonder how that is a "proven fact" especially since what people "see" at the "edge" of the universe happened a zillion years ago. Or has light speed suddenly increased by a zillion-fold? Maybe the universe is actually contracting now but "we" will never know until another billion years when it hits our telescopes, and us...?

The funny thing is that it doesn't matter... you can't change the past...

I find history fascinating, but that's why it is history... it can't be changed...

We have people basing their whole lives on past scientific theory or theology, yet it doesn't matter... it can't be changed until we get the transporter from Star Trek and send Ensign Ricky to check things out...

[WPBCowboysFan]

Not sure that bolsters your argument.

Doubtful he can see that tho.

No matter how its is "worded" its still just a theory and because of that it is unproven. And he even admitted it is unprovable in this case.

Nuff said.

[Sam I Am]

Intelligent Man has been around for what? A few decades? (Discounting Philly fans) Maybe a few more than that? And they (we) think we actually have one clue about the supposed origins of the universe, oh, about a zillion years before we or the dinosaurs ever got here? What if this "fact" that the universe is expanding isn't? How is that a fact by the way? Because one astronomer says so? I so wonder how that is a "proven fact" especially since what people "see" at the "edge" of the universe happened a zillion years ago. Or has light speed suddenly increased by a zillion-fold? Maybe the universe is actually contracting now but "we" will never know until another billion years when it hits our telescopes, and us...?

Scientist use redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift). This should help explain how we know the Universe is expanding. (http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/basic/universe/howdoweknow.asp) I believe it will even show you how to measure it also. :)

[ninja]

Thank you. I was about to post that. A scientific theory isn't a "theory" :lmao2:

When is a theory not a "theory"? When it is a scientific theory:confused: :)

This engineer (do I qualify as a scientist?) has no idea what you mean.

Are you speaking of Theories vs. theorems

Theories are distinct from theorems. Theorems are derived deductively from objections according to a formal system of rules, sometimes as an end in itself and sometimes as a first step in testing or applying a theory in a concrete situation; theorems are said to be true in the sense that the conclusions of a theorem are logical consequences of the objections. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true and expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are incorrect, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often theories are corrected to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. An example of the former is the restriction of Classical mechanics to phenomena involving macroscopic lengthscales and particle speeds much lower than the speed of light.

"Sometimes a hypothesis never reaches the point of being considered a theory because the answer is not found to derive its assertions analytically or not applied empirically."

[zrinkill]

Why do you disagree with the Big Bang, Big Chill, whatever theory of the origin of the universe

Why do you agree? Have you done the testing yourself?

[trickblue]

"In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct."

Thank you. I was about to post that. A scientific theory isn't a "theory" :lmao2: Certain groups of people always throw out that argument and look foolish every time :lmao2: :lmao2:

But it's why they call it a "Theory"... so they can come back later and amend any new findings...

Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...

When they know for sure it will be labeled as "Law of Evolution" or "Theorem of Evolution"...

I'm not saying they are wrong, just providing the most common example... Scientists build in the "add more later" but many in the outside world take it for 100% accurate as new things are found...

[zrinkill]

Certain groups of people always throw out that argument and look foolish every time

What "groups"?

[jwitten82]

But it's why they call it a "Theory"... so they can come back later and amend any new findings...

Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...

When they know for sure it will be labeled as "Law of Evolution" or "Theorem of Evolution"...

I'm not saying they are wrong, just providing the most common example... Scientists build in the "add more later" but many in the outside world take it for 100% accurate as new things are found...
Theories don't become laws in science.
Read this http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law

[trickblue]

Theories don't become laws in science.
Read this http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/when-does-theory-become-law

Good read, which has nothing to do with the subject...

My point is that science will always "evolve" as more is known... in the mean time, the zealots tout every knew finding as 100% accurate when the day before they were touting previous findings as 100% accurate...

The bottom line is that none of us know the truth, we only speculate as we weren't there...

They funny thing is that BOTH sides rely on faith... one side embraces it, the other side criticizes it... but it is faith nonetheless...

Faith is wrongly accused of being overtly religious, but it isn't... it's very similar to trust...

[jwitten82]

Good read, which has nothing to do with the subject...

My point is that science will always "evolve" as more is known... in the mean time, the zealots tout every knew finding as 100% accurate when the day before they were touting previous findings as 100% accurate...

The bottom line is that none of us know the truth, we only speculate as we weren't there...

They funny thing is that BOTH sides rely on faith... one side embraces it, the other side criticizes it... but it is faith nonetheless...

Faith is wrongly accused of being overtly religious, but it isn't... it's very similar to trust...
Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.

[CashMan]

My favorite clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL5yplRHE9g

[trickblue]

Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.

Oh OK... Pluto says "Hey"...

[jwitten82]

Oh OK... Pluto says "Hey"...
What does Pluto have to do with faith?

[trickblue]

What does Pluto have to do with faith?

umm... don't turn this around... you said they have evidence to back up their theories...

When I was in school we were taught that Pluto was in our solar system... now it isn't. I bet the day before that revelation, you would have argued until blue in the face it was, then argued the opposite the next... Apparently their evidence was misguided...

This whole thread is about a new theory that conflicts with an old theory, yet you site them both as truth...

You have faith in their findings... like it or not...

[zrinkill]

Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.

Did you do the research yourself?

Or are you going by faith that these faceless scientist are telling you the truth?

[jwitten82]

umm... don't turn this around... you said they have evidence to back up their theories...

When I was in school we were taught that Pluto was in our solar system... now it isn't. I bet the day before that revelation, you would have argued until blue in the face it was, then argued the opposite the next... Apparently their evidence was misguided...

This whole thread is about a new theory that conflicts with an old theory, yet you site them both as truth...

You have faith in their findings... like it or not...
Pluto is still in our solar system, it's a dwarf planet.

[theogt]

Good read, which has nothing to do with the subject...

My point is that science will always "evolve" as more is known... in the mean time, the zealots tout every knew finding as 100% accurate when the day before they were touting previous findings as 100% accurate...

The bottom line is that none of us know the truth, we only speculate as we weren't there...

They funny thing is that BOTH sides rely on faith... one side embraces it, the other side criticizes it... but it is faith nonetheless...

Faith is wrongly accused of being overtly religious, but it isn't... it's very similar to trust...I think the only criticism is regarding faith in beliefs that aren't substantiated by observable or calculable facts.

[Ultimategamer5567]

Funny that any religious discussions are against the rules, but a Mod posts a story related to the Big Bang, which is a topic that almost always brings apon religious discussion and arguments.

I guess it can work as long as they always have a set of eyes hawking this thread, but it's still pretty risky.

[jwitten82]

Did you do the research yourself?

Or are you going by faith that these faceless scientist are telling you the truth?
The evidence is there for us to see.For example, if you want evidence for evolution just go to a museum and they have transistional fossils for you to see.

[jobberone]

fascinating theory. Difficult to wrap your brain around the idea of course. Vaguely similar to the multiverse theory, except with all the multiverses existing simultaneously within one...well whatever. I wonder if the building blocks they are talking about are strings, or something else.

That's an excellent question. When you know let me in and we'll share the Nobel prize. :D

[trickblue]

Pluto is still in our solar system, it's a dwarf planet.

Reclassified in 2006 as is only one of several large bodies in the Kuiper (sp) Belt. So they were wrong...

You are avoiding the pig picture by arguing semantics. So you aren't religious... who cares... but to pretend you have all of the answers via science is a foolish path to meander... NO ONE has all of the answers...

Just admit you are a man of faith, my friend, and we can move forward... ;)

[masomenos]

Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...



Pluto is still in the Solar System.

Regardless, it's a bad example because it's simply a matter of taxonomy; it's not as if astronomers said, "Hey, that thing we call Pluto? Yeah...so...we were wrong about it existing".

[Sam I Am]

Did you do the research yourself?

Or are you going by faith that these faceless scientist are telling you the truth?

Scientist pretty much patrol themselves. If someone says something that can't be verified, other scientists will not just call him out, but ridicule them to the point that some are forced to step down.

Ask Antonio Ereditato about it. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379)

If you are caught lying in the world of Science, your career would be over. Truth is what they are searching for. That is why they are scientist. :)

[jwitten82]

Reclassified in 2006 as is only one of several large bodies in the Kuiper (sp) Belt. So they were wrong...

You are avoiding the pig picture by arguing semantics. So you aren't religious... who cares... but to pretend you have all of the answers via science is a foolish path to meander... NO ONE has all of the answers...

Just admit you are a man of faith, my friend, and we can move forward... ;)
I never said I had all the answers. I admit that there are things that we do not know.

[trickblue]

I think the only criticism is regarding faith in beliefs that aren't substantiated by observable or calculable facts.

I can understand that, but how many years have we been looking for the so-called "Missing Link"?

I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, but up until this point the scientific world asks us to have faith that it exists...

I'm not taking one side or the other, I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those that claim absolute truth, absolutely...

[jwitten82]

I can understand that, but how many years have we been looking for the so-called "Missing Link"?

I'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, but up until this point the scientific world asks us to have faith that it exists...

I'm not taking one side or the other, I'm playing Devil's Advocate to those that claim absolute truth, absolutely...
They have found transistional fossils.
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

[zrinkill]

Scientist pretty much patrol themselves. If someone says something that can't be verified, other scientists will not just call him out, but ridicule them to the point that some are forced to step down.

Ask Antonio Ereditato about it. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379)

If you are caught lying in the world of Science, your career would be over.

So you have faith that scientist police themselves.

I am glad you believe that.

[zrinkill]

The evidence is there for us to see.For example, if you want evidence for evolution just go to a museum and they have transistional fossils for you to see.

You do realize that those are made of plaster ...... right?

[trickblue]

I never said I had all the answers. I admit that there are things that we do not know.

So how can you be so sure that your beliefs are superior to those of anyone else?

Science has long corrected itself over centuries... what we believe as truth today, my be "flat-earth" theory in 100 years...

My point is that so many people argue red-faced that they are right and the other side is foolish, when the most important thing in the world, another Lombardi trophy for the Cowboys, is forgotten in the mix...

[jwitten82]

So how can you be so sure that your beliefs are superior to those of anyone else?

Science has long corrected itself over centuries... what we believe as truth today, my be "flat-earth" theory in 100 years...

My point is that so many people argue red-faced that they are right and the other side is foolish, when the most important thing in the world, another Lombardi trophy for the Cowboys, is forgotten in the mix...
I agree.:D

[jwitten82]

You do realize that those are made of plaster ...... right?
You do realize that they can't send the original fossil to every museum..... right?

[zrinkill]

You do realize that they can't send the original fossil to every museum..... right?

Yes I do ...... I actually do have faith that they are sending accurate casts of creatures they think existed and how they think they looked.

[Sam I Am]

So you have faith that scientist police themselves.

I am glad you believe that.

Vs what? There are thousands of scientist all over the world. You believe every single one of them form all different countries around the world for whom most don't even know each other are all in cahoots? For what reason?

If you don't believe the results, you are more than welcome to verify their claims. Most of their research is posted in scientific journals. You are more than welcome to verify the claims. Most who dismiss scientific claims do not have any shred of hard evidence to do so and can't breakdown the scientific evidence they are denouncing. At least scientists lay their proof out on the table.

[jwitten82]

“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”- Dawkins

[Sam I Am]

“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”- Dawkins

:thumbup:

[zrinkill]

Most who accept scientific claims do not have any shred of hard evidence to do so and can't breakdown the scientific evidence they are accepting. At least I think scientist lay out all their evidence


Fixed

[jobberone]

Scientists have evidence to back up their theories. No faith required.

Of course they have faith. Faith and/or assumptions the observations are correct. That the best answer is the right one though other answers with less probability are in fact incorrect. Faith that the laws of the universe we observe are in fact the laws of all the universe or at least the one we live in. Faith that the entire whatever we see out there and in here is 'real'.

The fact we can see up to a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a second to the "Big Bang" doesn't mean we know for sure what happened before that or especially before the ?'time'? before that event occurred. Brane theory might be correct and there was no infinitely hot 'singularity' that popped into existence by whatever means. There may never have been a singularity even by the present best guess scenario. OTOH, perhaps something did pop into existence in OUR universe by whatever means of 'infinite density, heat, energy and pressure. We don't know so we keep looking into the very small and the very large slowly accumulating data and revising our theories.

There is no one 'Big Bang' theory and even if there was it doesn't fit all the data and/or there are holes and existing data that don't fit it.

[zrinkill]

“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”- Dawkins


Ahhh a quote from the king of secular bigots, Dawkins.

Surprised it took that long.

[Sam I Am]

Fixed

For Your Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals) Unlimited shreds of evidence. :)

[masomenos]

So how can you be so sure that your beliefs are superior to those of anyone else?

Science has long corrected itself over centuries... what we believe as truth today, my be "flat-earth" theory in 100 years...


Isn't that how knowledge is built?

Consider making a new recipe from scratch:

The first time you make something it's a bit of an experiment. The second time, you respond to the new information (e.g. it was a little dry, a little bland) and make refinements. You change the cooking temperature, you add some spice. After a series of refinements, you come up with a recipe you like and you keep it. Then maybe a friend introduces you to a new spice and you think, "Gee, that could make my dish better". So you add it in, but it doesn't come out quite right. So you make a few more small refinements in the constant pursuit of a better recipe.

It's just that the "recipes" for the various scientific disciplines have been undergoing refinements for the past 3000 years. To keep with the analogy: we're certainly eating a better meal than we were back then.

[jwitten82]

The quote is true no matter who said it.

[zrinkill]

For Your Information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals) Unlimited shreds of evidence. :)

Good old Wikipedia ...... making people think they are scientist since 2001.

[Sam I Am]

Good old Wikipedia ...... making people think they are scientist since 2001.

Umm, did you not read it? That page makes no claims. It just lists many scientific journals where scientific facts are printed.

Your deflection failed. ;)

[zrinkill]

The quote is true no matter who said it.

The opinion of a known bigot should never be used for anything ..... his opinion is worthless.

[jwitten82]

The opinion of a known bigot should never be used for anything ..... his opinion is worthless.
The opinion of a well respected scientist is not worthless.

[jimnabby]

umm... don't turn this around... you said they have evidence to back up their theories...

When I was in school we were taught that Pluto was in our solar system... now it isn't. I bet the day before that revelation, you would have argued until blue in the face it was, then argued the opposite the next... Apparently their evidence was misguided...What in the world are you talking about?

First of all, the reclassification of Pluto didn't come out of nowhere; there was a long, very public debate about it for many years. There was certainly no consensus that suddenly got overthrown, as you suggest.

Secondly, the debate was entirely about what to call Pluto. Reclassifying it didn't change its position in the solar system or its orbital mechanics or anything about it. It didn't alter a single scientific principle or theory. We've understood Pluto's place in the cosmos for a long time. There was no "revelation", just a big argument about terminology.

[zrinkill]

The opinion of a well respected scientist is not worthless.

It would be the same as having an anti gun activist opinion of the Dark knight shootings and why they happened.

I actually agree with most of the theories of evolution. I also happen to be a religious person.

I do not think one cancels out the other.

I also understand that if I lived a thousand years I would probably laugh about the things I believed in these days.

[trickblue]

Isn't that how knowledge is built?

Consider making a new recipe from scratch:

The first time you make something it's a bit of an experiment. The second time, you respond to the new information (e.g. it was a little dry, a little bland) and make refinements. You change the cooking temperature, you add some spice. After a series of refinements, you come up with a recipe you like and you keep it. Then maybe a friend introduces you to a new spice and you think, "Gee, that could make my dish better". So you add it in, but it doesn't come out quite right. So you make a few more small refinements in the constant pursuit of a better recipe.

It's just that the "recipes" for the various scientific disciplines have been undergoing refinements for the past 3000 years. To keep with the analogy: we're certainly eating a better meal than we were back then.

You are missing my point... the fact that science corrects itself is a good thing... and we are certainly better for it...

My point is those that argue it as infallible are ALSO missing the point...

Many things regarded as fact 100 years ago are now laughed at... and 100 years from now, many of the things science regards as truths likely will be laughed at as well...

It's why I never get the infallibility argument... to think we have it all correct at this point would make us incredibly arrogant...

This thread alone is challenging a "fact" that was regarded as truth by many for years...

The worst thing about this new theory? My favorite sitcom will have to be renamed to "The Big Chill Theory"...

[trickblue]

“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”- Dawkins

Is this the same Richard Dawkins that stated he couldn't be 100% sure God didn't exist last February? ;)

My point is, believe what you will, but don't discount other's beliefs as foolish just because they are different from yours. The very person you cite here, although he still believes it is highly likely that God doesn't exist, admitted that he can't be sure...

How can YOU be so sure?

The one thing that IS an absolute and that we can all get behind, is that the Redskins suck...

[jwitten82]

It would be the same as having an anti gun activist opinion of the Dark knight shootings and why they happened.

I actually agree with most of the theories of evolution. I also happen to be a religious person.

I do not think one cancels out the other.

I also understand that if I lived a thousand years I would probably laugh about the things I believed in these days.
It's not the same, the quote was a scientist talking about science.

[jwitten82]

Is this the same Richard Dawkins that stated he couldn't be 100% God didn't exist last February? ;)

My point is, believe what you will, but don't discount other's beliefs as foolish just because they are different from yours. The very person you cite here, although he still believes it is highly likely that God doesn't exist, admitted that he can't be sure...

How can YOU be so sure?

The one thing that IS an absolute and that we can all get behind, is that the Redskins suck...
He has always said that.

[masomenos]

You are missing my point... the fact that science corrects itself is a good thing... and we are certainly better for it...

My point is those that argue it as infallible are ALSO missing the point...

Many things regarded as fact 100 years ago are now laughed at... and 100 years from now, many of the things science regards as truths likely will be laughed at as well...

It's why I never get the infallibility argument... to think we have it all correct at this point would make us incredibly arrogant...

This thread alone is challenging a "fact" that was regarded as truth by many for years...

The worst thing about this new theory? My favorite sitcom will have to be renamed to "The Big Chill Theory"...

Maybe I've missed it but I don't see anyone claiming that science infallible. In fact, to be a scientist is to accept the fallibility of your discipline.

[zrinkill]

It's not the same, the quote was a scientist talking about science.

We both know what that quote was a shot at ........ lets not try to be cute.

[zrinkill]

Lunchtime over ...... gotta get back to work ....... you boys have fun.

[trickblue]

Maybe I've missed it but I don't see anyone claiming that science infallible. In fact, to be a scientist is to accept the fallibility of your discipline.

You need to reread this thread then, Mas...

[jimnabby]

You are missing my point... the fact that science corrects itself is a good thing... and we are certainly better for it...

My point is those that argue it as infallible are ALSO missing the point...That's a straw man. Nobody seriously argues that science is infallible.

Your Pluto example is still lousy, because that wasn't a debate about scientific truth at all - everyone was in perfect agreement about the facts.

[trickblue]

That's a straw man. Nobody seriously argues that science is infallible.

Your Pluto example is still lousy, because that wasn't a debate about scientific truth at all - everyone was in perfect agreement about the facts.

Straw Man? THis happens on a regular basis around here... "I'm right, your wrong... SCIENCE" is pretty common...

Explain how my Pluto example is lousy since it rewrote science books... it changed perceived facts... as this new theory will if accepted...

[jimnabby]

Is this the same Richard Dawkins that stated he couldn't be 100% sure God didn't exist last February? ;)

My point is, believe what you will, but don't discount other's beliefs as foolish just because they are different from yours. The very person you cite here, although he still believes it is highly likely that God doesn't exist, admitted that he can't be sure...

How can YOU be so sure?What's the problem here? He's just being a good scientist. It's simply impossible to prove a negative, and he knows it.

I can't prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow (I conclude it by induction, which is not proof), but I will certainly "discount others' beliefs as foolish" if they believe that it won't in the absence of any compelling supporting evidence.

[trickblue]

What's the problem here? He's just being a good scientist. It's simply impossible to prove a negative, and he knows it.

I can't prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow (I conclude it by induction, which is not proof), but I will certainly "discount others' beliefs as foolish" if they believe that it won't in the absence of any compelling supporting evidence.

SO many of you are missing the point... Dawkins is largely considered to be the premiere atheist in the world, but is not 100% sure God doesn't exist, yet many on here leave no possibility that they are wrong...

You have no idea what I believe, but I can assure you I keep an open mind to all possibilities...

Any of our core beliefs can change tomorrow given new discoveries/happenings...

[jwitten82]

SO many of you are missing the point... Dawkins is largely considered to be the premiere atheist in the world, but is not 100% sure God doesn't exist, yet many on here leave no possibility that they are wrong...

You have no idea what I believe, but I can assure you I keep an open mind to all possibilities...

Any of our core beliefs can change tomorrow given new discoveries/happenings...
That has always been Dawkins stance on god.

[trickblue]

That has always been Dawkins stance on god.

My point... he leaves open the opportunity that he is not 100% correct...

Some on here don't...

[masomenos]

You need to reread this thread then, Mas...

Sorry, I went back through and I didn't see it. Even CCF said, "Nothing is for certain".

On a day-to-day basis, we make probalistic assumptions about things. As a basic example, when we go to turn on a light switch, we are certain the light will turn on. We don't check the plug, the breaker, the bulb and the wiring first. We simply accept that everything is likely to work. Occasionally it won't work and we figur out what's wrong and fix it. But moving forward, that isolated case doesn't make us reevaluate our assumption. We continue to accept the probability that the light will turn on when we flip the switch as being nearly certain.

Science is kind of the same. Some things are accepted as being absolutely true even though there is the possibility that they aren't. But that's how it has to be. Accepting sound assumptions and moving forward is the only way to progress - either by further reinforcing the assumptional foundation or by not having the foundation hold up to further stress.

[AmarilloCowboyFan]

SO many of you are missing the point... Dawkins is largely considered to be the premiere atheist in the world, but is not 100% sure God doesn't exist, yet many on here leave no possibility that they are wrong...

You have no idea what I believe, but I can assure you I keep an open mind to all possibilities...

Any of our core beliefs can change tomorrow given new discoveries/happenings...

Wouldn't he then be agnostic and not athiest?

[jimnabby]

Straw Man? THis happens on a regular basis around here... "I'm right, your wrong... SCIENCE" is pretty common..."I'm right, you're wrong, and here's the science that supports my argument" is not a statement that science is infallible. Far from it.

Explain how my Pluto example is lousy since it rewrote science books... it changed perceived facts... as this new theory will if accepted...Changing Pluto's label changed not one "perceived fact". We've understood Pluto's orbit for decades and known that it differed from those of the 8 planets. We've understood for decades that there are similar objects to Pluto out there. The issue came down to: do we label all these things as planets, do we keep labeling Pluto as a planet for purely historical reasons, or do we change Pluto's label? None of this had any impact on scientific knowledge or "perceived facts".

The debates over what to name newly discovered elements (notably Seaborgium) also caused rewriting of textbooks, but it would be silly to argue that they changed "perceived facts".

[ScipioCowboy]

Since we've moved on to discussing science from a methodological perspective, I should point out there's an entire field of scholarly writing dedicated to critiquing the methods and mode (including peer review) that the scientific community uses to establish fact.

Some of the big names in the field are Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and Alan Gross.

These people aren't religious. They aren't necessarily scientists. They're just academicians. Some of their conclusions are positive. Some aren't. Their work is a little dry at time, but it's interesting if you're into that kind of thing.

[jwitten82]

Wouldn't he then be agnostic and not athiest?
He's agnostic atheist.

[dez_for_prez]

Just wondering, why do you call out to someone that you don't believe in?

That was part of the joke.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

But it's why they call it a "Theory"... so they can come back later and amend any new findings...

Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...

When they know for sure it will be labeled as "Law of Evolution" or "Theorem of Evolution"...

I'm not saying they are wrong, just providing the most common example... Scientists build in the "add more later" but many in the outside world take it for 100% accurate as new things are found...

Pluto is still in the solar system, they just don't consider it a planet anymore.

[casmith07]

Gravity is a theory so feel free to jump out of any airplane at any time to test it.

Airborne! Death from Above!

[zrinkill]

Airborne! Death from Above!

Nice.

[trickblue]

Sorry, I went back through and I didn't see it. Even CCF said, "Nothing is for certain".

On a day-to-day basis, we make probalistic assumptions about things. As a basic example, when we go to turn on a light switch, we are certain the light will turn on. We don't check the plug, the breaker, the bulb and the wiring first. We simply accept that everything is likely to work. Occasionally it won't work and we figur out what's wrong and fix it. But moving forward, that isolated case doesn't make us reevaluate our assumption. We continue to accept the probability that the light will turn on when we flip the switch as being nearly certain.

Science is kind of the same. Some things are accepted as being absolutely true even though there is the possibility that they aren't. But that's how it has to be. Accepting sound assumptions and moving forward is the only way to progress - either by further reinforcing the assumptional foundation or by not having the foundation hold up to further stress.

You have to bull through the qualifiers, Mas... by that I mean...

I'm not trying to be rude, but your wife is ugly...
With all due respect, you are stupid...
Your mother wears army boots... just sayin'...

How does it apply in here?

Well nothing is 100% certain... except that you are wrong and I'm right...

Again... how many in here on Monday, would have argued in defense of Big Bang until they were blue in the face... how many of those would argue in defense of Big Chill today...

The point? They may have been 100% wrong on Monday and 100% right today. They were just as wrong as those they argued against a few days ago...

[trickblue]

Pluto is still in the solar system, they just don't consider it a planet anymore.

Exactly...

Pluto was classified as the ninth planet shortly after its discovery and remained so for 75 years but on August 24, 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) decided on a new definition of "planet" which does not include Pluto. Pluto is now classified as a "dwarf planet" as a class distinct from "planet."

[masomenos]

Well nothing is 100% certain... except that you are wrong and I'm right...



Again, no one is saying that.

You can believe that the things which you believe are true and still be open to contradictory evidence. Arguing a position doesn't mean you are certain of the positions veracity, it just means you think it's the most likely answer. It means, based on your understanding of th evidence, Position X makes the most sense.

People who understand science know that sometime being wrong is a part of the deal. All you can do is hope that when you're wrong that you realize it sooner rather than later. There is nothing to be gained from a dogmatic defense against overwhelming evidence.

[masomenos]

Exactly...

Pluto was classified as the ninth planet shortly after its discovery and remained so for 75 years but on August 24, 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) decided on a new definition of "planet" which does not include Pluto. Pluto is now classified as a "dwarf planet" as a class distinct from "planet."

That doesn't mean anything though. It's like if the League of Linguistics (LoL) got together and decided to reclassify the sound [a] (think: pot, father, honor, etc) from being lax, low-back monopthong to being a lax, low-central monopthong.

It wouldn't change the fact that the [a] sound is still made and still made in the same way. It couldn't be used to show that linguists didn't know what they were talking about. It wouldn't have any bearing on anything other than the way [a] was listed in textbooks.

It would be meaningless. The Pluto argument is a bad one.

[SaltwaterServr]

It would be meaningless. The Pluto argument is a bad one.

Horribly bad one. I actually laughed when I saw that added into the conversation. No longer in the solar system? :lmao2:

If someone wanted to look wholly ignorant while trying to bolster their position and ended up exposing they didn't even have a cursory understanding of a very simple concept in planetary science, well, they achieved it. Then coming back and inferring that Pluto was in the Kuiper Belt and therefore not in the solar system...:lmao: THEN further digging the hole that it was going to require wholesale reexamination of planetary science textbooks because the classification of Pluto was some ominous grand change to science. :lmao2: :lmao:

As for science policing itself, one has to look no further than the examination of the case for the faster-than-light neutrino and in 2010 the case of a micro-organism incorporating arsenic into its DNA in place of another element. Both were widely discussed and tested. Moreover, in my examination of evaporation/condensation models for desalination, I've found several instances of one research group contradicting other group's previous findings.

Science is built on previous science; no research lives in a vacuum. Once you incorporate findings from previous experiments into your own, you'll find out if their data (which is published and raw data can be generally available) was valid or not. Taking it a step further, findings for one type of system will often be employed in other systems to see if the original experimental design and conclusions are applicable across a wider spectrum of disciplines. Therein, a finding or group of findings is either held to be true or discredited.

One thing that many here who have no science background and probably couldn't spell out the steps to the scientific method are missing is that it is hammered into you at an early stage of your science career that a result IS a result whether or not it upheld your original hypothesis or not. Hence, the inclusion of a null hypothesis in your experimental design and architecture. You either prove a hypothesis or you discredit it. Either result is acceptable and furthers the depth and breadth of scientific knowledge.

Heck, I bet all but a few here could tell the correct order of sections for a journal article and which two major publications require their own format.

[masomenos]

no research lives in a vacuum.

Tell that to the guys at the Dyson R&D lab.


:D

[SaltwaterServr]

Tell that to the guys at the Dyson R&D lab.


:D

HA! I was thinking someone was going to mention Dyson or Hoover when I wrote it. ;)

[dexternjack]

Horribly bad one. I actually laughed when I saw that added into the conversation. No longer in the solar system? :lmao2:

If someone wanted to look wholly ignorant while trying to bolster their position and ended up exposing they didn't even have a cursory understanding of a very simple concept in planetary science, well, they achieved it. Then coming back and inferring that Pluto was in the Kuiper Belt and therefore not in the solar system...:lmao: THEN further digging the hole that it was going to require wholesale reexamination of planetary science textbooks because the classification of Pluto was some ominous grand change to science. :lmao2: :lmao:

As for science policing itself, one has to look no further than the examination of the case for the faster-than-light neutrino and in 2010 the case of a micro-organism incorporating arsenic into its DNA in place of another element. Both were widely discussed and tested. Moreover, in my examination of evaporation/condensation models for desalination, I've found several instances of one research group contradicting other group's previous findings.

Science is built on previous science; no research lives in a vacuum. Once you incorporate findings from previous experiments into your own, you'll find out if their data (which is published and raw data can be generally available) was valid or not. Taking it a step further, findings for one type of system will often be employed in other systems to see if the original experimental design and conclusions are applicable across a wider spectrum of disciplines. Therein, a finding or group of findings is either held to be true or discredited.

One thing that many here who have no science background and probably couldn't spell out the steps to the scientific method are missing is that it is hammered into you at an early stage of your science career that a result IS a result whether or not it upheld your original hypothesis or not. Hence, the inclusion of a null hypothesis in your experimental design and architecture. You either prove a hypothesis or you discredit it. Either result is acceptable and furthers the depth and breadth of scientific knowledge.

Heck, I bet all but a few here could tell the correct order of sections for a journal article and which two major publications require their own format.
That pretty much sums it up. I will add that a "hypothesis" in science is an educated guess. This is broken down into a null and alternate hypothesis. A null hypothesis can never be proven, only rejected or failed to be rejected.

I have written many evidence-based research articles throughout college, mostly on genetics or for my wife in nursing research. Each project is built around previous studies and expanded upon. Science is ever-changing and there is always going to be contradiction from several sides.

[jimnabby]

...a result IS a result whether or not it upheld your original hypothesis or not. Hence, the inclusion of a null hypothesis in your experimental design and architecture. You either prove a hypothesis or you discredit it. Either result is acceptable and furthers the depth and breadth of scientific knowledge. Small quibble here. Experimental results are either consistent with a hypothesis or inconsistent with it. They don't "prove" it - there may be many other hypotheses with which they are equally consistent. Given enough clever experiments and enough data, you can get pretty darned confident in the correctness of your hypothesis, though.

There are other possibilities, of course: the data could be too noisy to say with any confidence whether it's consistent with your hypothesis. The experiment could be poorly conceived or executed, leading to misleading interpretations of the results. The biggest thing I find that people don't appreciate about science until they do it is that 90% of the work is designing the experiment so that it addresses the right question.

[WV Cowboy]

That was part of the joke.

That was supposed to be a joke? I don't think so.

[SaltwaterServr]

Small quibble here. Experimental results are either consistent with a hypothesis or inconsistent with it. They don't "prove" it - there may be many other hypotheses with which they are equally consistent. Given enough clever experiments and enough data, you can get pretty darned confident in the correctness of your hypothesis, though.

There are other possibilities, of course: the data could be too noisy to say with any confidence whether it's consistent with your hypothesis. The experiment could be poorly conceived or executed, leading to misleading interpretations of the results. The biggest thing I find that people don't appreciate about science until they do it is that 90% of the work is designing the experiment so that it addresses the right question.

Small, but significant. Thanks for adding that. Even in some published articles I've seen (cough, Chinese state-sponsored, cough) there is significant flaws in their design. They've left more than one variable out there in the design and then a subsequent set of experiments by the same research group in the same design will slightly alter the design enough that its not the same experiment, but they report all the data together! Irritating and annoying to say the least.

That pretty much sums it up. I will add that a "hypothesis" in science is an educated guess. This is broken down into a null and alternate hypothesis. A null hypothesis can never be proven, only rejected or failed to be rejected.

I have written many evidence-based research articles throughout college, mostly on genetics or for my wife in nursing research. Each project is built around previous studies and expanded upon. Science is ever-changing and there is always going to be contradiction from several sides.

Precisely. Science and the scientific method is designed by its very nature as a self-check.

[trickblue]

Horribly bad one. I actually laughed when I saw that added into the conversation. No longer in the solar system? :lmao2:

If someone wanted to look wholly ignorant while trying to bolster their position and ended up exposing they didn't even have a cursory understanding of a very simple concept in planetary science, well, they achieved it. Then coming back and inferring that Pluto was in the Kuiper Belt and therefore not in the solar system...:lmao: THEN further digging the hole that it was going to require wholesale reexamination of planetary science textbooks because the classification of Pluto was some ominous grand change to science. :lmao2: :lmao:

As for science policing itself, one has to look no further than the examination of the case for the faster-than-light neutrino and in 2010 the case of a micro-organism incorporating arsenic into its DNA in place of another element. Both were widely discussed and tested. Moreover, in my examination of evaporation/condensation models for desalination, I've found several instances of one research group contradicting other group's previous findings.

Science is built on previous science; no research lives in a vacuum. Once you incorporate findings from previous experiments into your own, you'll find out if their data (which is published and raw data can be generally available) was valid or not. Taking it a step further, findings for one type of system will often be employed in other systems to see if the original experimental design and conclusions are applicable across a wider spectrum of disciplines. Therein, a finding or group of findings is either held to be true or discredited.

One thing that many here who have no science background and probably couldn't spell out the steps to the scientific method are missing is that it is hammered into you at an early stage of your science career that a result IS a result whether or not it upheld your original hypothesis or not. Hence, the inclusion of a null hypothesis in your experimental design and architecture. You either prove a hypothesis or you discredit it. Either result is acceptable and furthers the depth and breadth of scientific knowledge.

Heck, I bet all but a few here could tell the correct order of sections for a journal article and which two major publications require their own format.

I meant a planet in our solar system...

Talk down to people much? The only point I am trying to make is that science is ever evolving... and is not locked in solid for every argument...

I think I've kept things friendly but if you want to change the tone, so be it...

[jimnabby]

I meant a planet in our solar system...

Talk down to people much? The only point I am trying to make is that science is every involving... and is not locked in solid for every argument...

I think I've kept things friendly but if you want to change the tone, so be it...Your point is valid. Your example was poorly chosen.

A few points:
1. Arguments supported by evidence are better than those unsupported by evidence.
2. Arguments supported by scientific evidence are better than those unsupported by scientific evidence.
3. We can't just throw up our hands and give up because it's possible that scientific consensus will change sometime in the future. We need to make decisions and take action based on our best, most current model of how the world works. In the long run, we'll be better off that way, even if a few of those premises turn out not to have been 100% accurate.
4. It's unreasonable to ask people to load up all their statements with caveats. If I say, "I'm right that vaccines don't cause autism and you're wrong to say they do", sure, maybe I should technically say, "The results of the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies to date are inconsistent with the idea that there's a causal link between vaccines and autism, and the few studies that suggest such a link have been debunked and discredited, as have the mechanisms for such a link proposed by the very few proponents of the existence of a link (many of whom have a very clear financial interest in perpetuating belief in the link), and therefore, with the full understanding that there is a very slight possibility that future data may come to light that renders what I now say inaccurate, I must express my disagreement with your view on the matter." But I'm not going to.

[burmafrd]

The smartest people on the planet once thought it was flat
the smartest people on the planet once thought the sun revolved around the earth
The smartest people on the planet once though man would never fly

The smartest people on the planet once thought man made the earth warm up

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The smartest people on the planet once thought it was flat
the smartest people on the planet once thought the sun revolved around the earth
The smartest people on the planet once though man would never fly

The smartest people on the planet once thought man made the earth warm up

are you trying to claim that scientists are dumb?

In any event, I trust you are recycling every can, bottle etc you can, n'est ce pas?

[Hoofbite]

The smartest people on the planet once thought it was flat
the smartest people on the planet once thought the sun revolved around the earth
The smartest people on the planet once though man would never fly

The smartest people on the planet once thought man made the earth warm up

So what you're saying is.........because a bunch of people who were pooping into holes in the ground were proven wrong, people who have spent their entire lives in academia and research will also be proven wrong.

Makes sense.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

So what you're saying is.........because a bunch of people who were pooping into holes in the ground were proven wrong, people who have spent their entire lives in academia and research will also be proven wrong.

Makes sense.

I don't blame some for refusing to accept science re evolution and big bang/big chill whatever regarding man existing or how the universe was created.

[jimnabby]

The smartest people on the planet once thought it was flat
the smartest people on the planet once thought the sun revolved around the earth
The smartest people on the planet once though man would never fly

The smartest people on the planet once thought man made the earth warm upWow, you couldn't possibly have that more backwards.

The "smartest people on the planet" concluded that the planet wasn't flat. Everyone else said they were nuts for a long time.

The "smartest people on the planet" concluded that the earth revolved around the sun. They were excommunicated and worse.

I don't know of a time when the "smartest people on the planet" thought man would never fly. Heck, Da Vinci designed flying machines. I'm pretty sure it was "everyone else" who said man wasn't meant to fly.

Those views you refer to changed because scientists were willing to challenge conventional wisdom, sometimes at great personal risk.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I was having a bad day. This thread made me laugh, however.

[baj1dallas]

But it's why they call it a "Theory"... so they can come back later and amend any new findings...

Science is not an "Exact Science" so to speak when it comes to history... heck, Pluto was in our Solar System until 2006...

When they know for sure it will be labeled as "Law of Evolution" or "Theorem of Evolution"...

I'm not saying they are wrong, just providing the most common example... Scientists build in the "add more later" but many in the outside world take it for 100% accurate as new things are found...



Science isn't an answer or a set of laws. It isn't a philosophical explanation. It has nothing to do with "faith" or religion.

Science is a method. A method for describing the natural universe. Everything in science is based on hypothesis. Hypothesis that explains the natural "world". If it cannot be tested, it is not science. Science is the method of describing or characterizing naturally occuring phenomena via measurable evidence. A "scientific law" is not just a proven "theory".

[baj1dallas]

That's an excellent question. When you know let me in and we'll share the Nobel prize. :D

hah I darn near flunked out of quantum physics so no Nobel prize for me :P

[justbob]

Discuss all you want to ---but back off the personal jabs

[trickblue]

Science isn't an answer or a set of laws. It isn't a philosophical explanation. It has nothing to do with "faith" or religion.

Science is a method. A method for describing the natural universe. Everything in science is based on hypothesis. Hypothesis that explains the natural "world". If it cannot be tested, it is not science. Science is the method of describing or characterizing naturally occuring phenomena via measurable evidence. A "scientific law" is not just a proven "theory".

Never said it had to do with religion... I said it had to do with faith...

Faith is practiced every day by most everyone, but is usually only used in a negative connotation against religion...

I wish people would READ my posts instead of picking out key words to go in to attack mode...

I'm not singling you out baj... I've just noticed SOME replies are picking up key words and taking things out of context...

[jobberone]

Never said it had to do with religion... I said it had to do with faith...

Faith is practiced every day by most everyone, but is usually only used in a negative connotation against religion...

I wish people would READ my posts instead of picking out key words to go in to attack mode...

I understood what you were trying to say and I understand your restraint because you are a moderator.

However, the personal attacks are going to stop here and now. There will be no further warnings.

[dez_for_prez]

Never said it had to do with religion... I said it had to do with faith...

Faith is practiced every day by most everyone, but is usually only used in a negative connotation against religion...

I wish people would READ my posts instead of picking out key words to go in to attack mode...

I'm not singling you out baj... I've just noticed SOME replies are picking
up key words and taking things out of context...

Are you argueing, everyone has faith, some just have it in science?

[justbob]

Are you argueing, everyone has faith, some just have it in science?

Nope- that would be another thread

[trickblue]

Are you argueing, everyone has faith, some just have it in science?

Nope... arguing that everyone has faith... it's a basic human trait...

[justbob]

Nope... arguing that everyone has faith... it's a basic human trait...

They're only seeing what they want to see Trick

[ScipioCowboy]

One point about evolution: We tend to think of evolution in purely biological terms; however, at the most fundamental level, evolution is simply a process of change and describing how changes come about.

In addition to biological evolution, there's stellar evolution, planetary evolution, etc. etc.

Science seeks to explain all phenomena as an evolutionary process. Consequently, evolution isn't just the best possible explanation. It's the only possible explanation in a scientific context. That's because science seeks to reduce everything into predictive, cause-and-effect models.

This is a philosophical position known as Methodological Naturalism. It's provided a highly beneficial and highly informative means of examining the world.

However, it does break down in certain instances, such as understanding the behavior of humans or intelligent agents in general. That's because the models we use to predict human behavior actually influence that behavior once they become public knowledge. You see this affect in economics all the time. That's why economic is often described as the dismal science. See my sig quote.

[masomenos]

Nope... arguing that everyone has faith... it's a basic human trait...

I'd be willing to agree with that but with caveat. Faith can mean multiple things. In the most general sense, faith simply means complete trust. To steal an example from one of my earlier posts, every time I stand up to toggle a light switch I am taking a small leap of faith. I trust that the light will turn on.

In a more specific sense, when referring to religion (which I will only mention right there, mods) faith means something else. It is trust based on spiritual conviction.

I would agree that everyone has the first kind of faith but not the second.

[SaltwaterServr]

One point about evolution: We tend to think of evolution in purely biological terms; however, at the most fundamental level, evolution is simply a process of change and describing how changes come about.

In addition to biological evolution, there's stellar evolution, planetary evolution, etc. etc.

Science seeks to explain all phenomena as an evolutionary process. Consequently, evolution isn't just the best possible explanation. It's the only possible explanation in a scientific context. That's because science seeks to reduce everything into predictive, cause-and-effect models.

This is a philosophical position known as Methodological Naturalism. It's provided a highly beneficial and highly informative means of examining the world.

However, it does break down in certain instances, such as understanding the behavior of humans or intelligent agents in general. That's because the models we use to predict human behavior actually influence that behavior once they become public knowledge. You see this affect in economics all the time. That's why economic is often described as the dismal science. See my sig quote.

Evolution, the change of frequency of any set of alleles within a population. :p:

[trickblue]

I'd be willing to agree with that but with caveat. Faith can mean multiple things. In the most general sense, faith simply means complete trust. To steal an example from one of my earlier posts, every time I stand up to toggle a light switch I am taking a small leap of faith. I trust that the light will turn on.

In a more specific sense, when referring to religion (which I will only mention right there, mods) faith means something else. It is trust based on spiritual conviction.

I would agree that everyone has the first kind of faith but not the second.

The two are not different, Mas...

You know me to be reasonable person... I think BOTH sides have carved out a difference which isn't warranted...

Faith is faith is faith... it's not a religious term... it's a way of life and we all do it on a daily basis...

We have faith in the brakes on our cars... we have faith in our friends... we have faith in our family... we have faith in our football team (ok... I know that one has been tough lately)...

That's all I have been saying...

Again, science is paramount in our society, but things taken for scientific truth today may not be relevant in 100 years...

[ScipioCowboy]

Evolution, the change of frequency of any set of alleles within a population. :p:

If you can work alleles into a casual conversation, you win the Internet. Literally. I mean, Al Gore sends you three free interwebs in the mail.

True story.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Nope... arguing that everyone has faith... it's a basic human trait...

This is true. You can find it in every culture known to man. More importantly, you can find men having faith within the present culture in spite of science. There is no a culture known to man that didn't have faith. One of the most interesting philosophical lecture I ever heard was on this topic.

[trickblue]

If you can work alleles into a casual conversation, you win the Internet. Literally. I mean, Al Gore sends you three free interwebs in the mail.

True story.

He worked it in... he's a smart guy... no doubt...

I'm certainly not a scientist, but I remember the classes I had to take...

Are his diploids homozygote or heterozygote? Do his alleles match or not...

Homologous chromosomes are a weird thing...

I am no expert, but I am not totally foreign to this stuff... it would be like him trying to discuss the utility industry with me...

He would have some valid points, but wouldn't get the whole picture unless he was in the industry...

I have never claimed to have all of the answers, but I know enough to get into the fray...

[masomenos]

The two are not different, Mas...

You know me to be reasonable person... I think BOTH sides have carved out a difference which isn't warranted...

Faith is faith is faith... it's not a religious term... it's a way of life and we all do it on a daily basis...

We have faith in the brakes on our cars... we have faith in our friends... we have faith in our family... we have faith in our football team (ok... I know that one has been tough lately)...

That's all I have been saying...

Again, science is paramount in our society, but things taken for scientific truth today may not be relevant in 100 years...

I have to disagree. If you go through the works of religious scholars and philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, you read a lot about the intersection of faith and reason. One of the things that comes out of that is contrasting forms of knowledge. Religious faith isn't mere trust, it is considered to be "revealed knowledge". It is truth, absolute and certain. Knowledge based on reason is different, it is knowledge based on probability.

So, when I'm toggling my light switch my faith, my trust, that the light will turn on is faith based on reason. My faith is falliable and my knowledge uncertain. Religious faith is neither of those things.

Where as a failed result of going 10 days without my light switch working properly will make me stop flipping the switch, something else happens with religious faith. When confronted with unbearable circumstances, Job's faith remains. When given an order to sacrifice his son, Abraham's faith remains. When Daniel is thrown to the lions, his faith remains. Religious faith is faith that is not contingent on changing circumstances because it is faith in truth, not probability, not reason. It is often faith in spite of reason.

Religious faith is much stronger than conventional faith or trust and I absolutely don't think they can be considered the same thing.

[SaltwaterServr]

The two are not different, Mas...

You know me to be reasonable person... I think BOTH sides have carved out a difference which isn't warranted...

Faith is faith is faith... it's not a religious term... it's a way of life and we all do it on a daily basis...

We have faith in the brakes on our cars... we have faith in our friends... we have faith in our family... we have faith in our football team (ok... I know that one has been tough lately)...

That's all I have been saying...

Again, science is paramount in our society, but things taken for scientific truth today may not be relevant in 100 years...

Ah, nevermind.

[trickblue]

I have to disagree. If you go through the works of religious scholars and philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, you read a lot about the intersection of faith and reason. One of the things that comes out of that is contrasting forms of knowledge. Religious faith isn't mere trust, it is considered to be "revealed knowledge". It is truth, absolute and certain. Knowledge based on reason is different, it is knowledge based on probability.

So, when I'm toggling my light switch my faith, my trust, that the light will turn on is faith based on reason. My faith is falliable and my knowledge uncertain. Religious faith is neither of those things.

Where as a failed result of going 10 days without my light switch working properly will make me stop flipping the switch, something else happens with religious faith. When confronted with unbearable circumstances, Job's faith remains. When given an order to sacrifice his son, Abraham's faith remains. When Daniel is thrown to the lions, his faith remains. Religious faith is faith that is contingent on changing circumstances because it is faith in truth, not probability, not reason. It is often faith in spite of reason.

Religious faith is much stronger than conventional trust and I absolutely don't think they can be considered the same thing.

You are falling into the adage that faith is always religious... it is not...

I stated earlier that both sides have warped the term... faith is faith... it is not a religious term...

You are mixing the noun faith with the verb faith... faith is a verb, primarily... and as you stated earlier, trust....

I maintain that belief in science is faith/trust...

[trickblue]

Ah, nevermind.

U mad bro?

You post a long long diatribe, then replace it with this because you consider me ignorant?

At what point have I been disrespectful. I offer an alternative and you treat me like a dunce...

I am educated... as you are... why the disrespect? Have I ever been disrespectful to you?

You have NO idea of my beliefs... but you want to force yours on me...

I digress, you talk down to me and infer I am ignorant...

I am MORE than happy to talk utilities with you... want to talk pt/ct ratios? kVar? kVarh? Voltage? System Frequency? Billing? kWh? pcf? Power Factor? Intervals? MDM? ODM? Demand Response? On Demand? Smart Grid? AMR? AMI? PLC? PCN? HAN? Balance? RTU? TF?

I can go on...

My point is that you came in to belittle in a thread that had some healthy posts going on...

I could laugh you out of this forum on my industry... but I wouldn't... I would engage you and attempt to answer your questions...

You? Not so much...

[SaltwaterServr]

I maintain that belief in science is faith/trust...

It has nothing to do with faith and trust, only what can be observed, quantified, verified, and replicated. As a scientist you have a reasoned expectation to believe that the work you're citing is true to the best of the previous experimenter's ability and you have a reasoned expectation to work to disprove it as well.

As a research scientist, you take absolutely nothing on faith. It isn't part of the vernacular, and very nearly an obscenity. If I walked into a working lab tomorrow morning, started designing an experimental model, submitted it, was asked to defend the design, and my best answer was "I have faith it will work", I'd get laughed out of the room.

[masomenos]

You are falling into the adage that faith is always religious... it is not...

I stated earlier that both sides have warped the term... faith is faith... it is not a religious term...

You are mixing the noun faith with the verb faith... faith is a verb, primarily... and as you stated earlier, trust....

I maintain that belief in science is faith/trust...

No, I've already said that faith is a common element in our day-to-day lives. I just don't think religious faith is the same as more conventional faith.

Faith isn't a verb though, it's always a noun. You show faith. You have faith. You reestablish faith. You can't say, "I faith you" like you can say, "I trust you".

[trickblue]

No, I've already said that faith is a common element in our day-to-day lives. I just don't think religious faith is the same as more conventional faith.

Faith isn't a verb though, it's always a noun. You show faith. You have faith. You reestablish faith. You can't say, "I faith you" like you can say, "I trust you".

It's a verb... and a noun... like many words in our language...

[SaltwaterServr]

U mad bro?

You post a long long diatribe, then replace it with this because you consider me ignorant?

At what point have I been disrespectful. I offer an alternative and you treat me like a dunce...

I am educated... as you are... why the disrespect? Have I ever been disrespectful to you?

You have NO idea of my beliefs... but you want to force yours on me...

I digress, you talk down to me and infer I am ignorant...

I am MORE than happy to talk utilities with you... want to talk pt/ct ratios? kVar? kVarh? Voltage? System Frequency? Billing? kWh? pcf? Power Factor? Intervals? MDM? ODM? Demand Response? On Demand? Smart Grid? AMR? AMI? PLC? PCN? HAN? Balance? RTU? TF?

I can go on...

My point is that you came in to belittle in a thread that had some healthy posts going on...

I could laugh you out of this forum on my industry... but I wouldn't... I would engage you and attempt to answer your questions...

You? Not so much...

You've been disrespectful without even realizing it. "Faith" is a foul and disgusting word when it comes to scientific research. The example of Pluto you tried to use was born out of ignorance. Pluto's been disputed as being a planet since the day it was discovered but you use it as a fact that science is based on erroneous "faith" that what we consider truth today will be invariably false or greatly modified tomorrow. The position you're debating from is fundamentally flawed because you're ascribing expectations of observed behavior to "faith".

You know why I don't discuss utilities? Because I don't know **** about them. That's the difference here. I know enough to know that I don't know anything about it whereas...

[masomenos]

It's a verb... and a noun... like many words in our language...

It's not - I even checked my big, hard-bound physical dictionary. Can you use it as a verb?

[SaltwaterServr]

It's not - I even checked my big, hard-bound physical dictionary. Can you use it as a verb?

Nope. It's only a noun.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

[trickblue]

You've been disrespectful without even realizing it. "Faith" is a foul and disgusting word when it comes to scientific research. The example of Pluto you tried to use was born out of ignorance. Pluto's been disputed as being a planet since the day it was discovered but you use it as a fact that science is based on erroneous "faith" that what we consider truth today will be invariably false or greatly modified tomorrow. The position you're debating from is fundamentally flawed because you're ascribing expectations of observed behavior to "faith".

You know why I don't discuss utilities? Because I don't know **** about them. That's the difference here. I know enough to know that I don't know anything about it whereas...

Faith is foul and disgusting... interesting since we all use it on a daily basis...

So let me ask you something... you consider me foul and ignorant, but instead of engaging me, you attempt to make fun of me...

That is the difference between you and me... I stated if you wanted to talk utilities, I would try to help you out... you belittle and attempt to make fun of me... n'est pas?

I have not stated any beliefs in this thread... I have only played Devil's Advocate to absolute truth...

I have stated from the beginning in this thread that nothing is absolute. The retorts have been that I am an idiot, ignorant etc...

I'm not an idiot even though you have implied I am... my family has a doctorate, RN and 3 Masters...

Why not share knowledge and discuss things?

[trickblue]

It's not - I even checked my big, hard-bound physical dictionary. Can you use it as a verb?

Nope. It's only a noun.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

My point exactly... semantics... having faith is not just nounville...

Do you golf or play golf?

[trickblue]

You've been disrespectful without even realizing it.

So, again, I am ignorant?

[masomenos]

My point exactly... semantics... having faith is not just nounville...

Do you golf or play golf?

Trick, can you provide a sentence where faith is used as a verb?

[SaltwaterServr]

Faith is foul and disgusting... interesting since we all use it on a daily basis...


Within the context of scientific understanding, yes. However, you've missed the point I was trying to get across and convoluted it into something else entirely.



So let me ask you something... you consider me foul and ignorant, but instead of engaging me, you attempt to make fun of me...



Again, missing the point. I consider the concept of faith being a cornerstone of science foul, borne of ignorance, and borderline insulting. Twice in this one post already you've misconstrued concepts and ideas I'm conveying and yet you want to be engaged???



That is the difference between you and me... I stated if you wanted to talk utilities, I would try to help you out... you belittle and attempt to make fun of me... n'est pas?



This follows along with the same reasoning that I don't bother debating the Second Amendment with any passion with a gun control advocate or debating global warming here with those who are diametrically opposed to the evidence as presented in peer-reviewed journals. The positions are too far apart and no one is going to convince either side of anything.

You've come off as ignorant of the scientific method and the thought process behind science as well. Moreover, your example of Pluto reinforced that you didn't have any idea what you were talking about in your own chosen example. Furthermore, you've shown twice in this post I'm quoting that you can't figure out what I'm saying.


I have not stated any beliefs in this thread... I have only played Devil's Advocate to absolute truth...

I have stated from the beginning in this thread that nothing is absolute. The retorts have been that I am an idiot, ignorant etc...


You've stated plenty of beliefs in how the world of science works. You've described them from your own point of bias and have done so while showing no grasp of the concepts within your own example.



I'm not an idiot even though you have implied I am... my family has a doctorate, RN and 3 Masters...

Why not share knowledge and discuss things?

Because you keep missing the point wholly.

Golf is both a verb and a noun. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/golf?__utma=1.422765489.1322388657.1336292385.1345 784895.112&__utmb=1.2.10.1345784895&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1329388141.74.3.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(org anic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=http://thesaurus.com/&__utmv=-&__utmk=54978219)

Faith is only a noun. Why should I bother to further annoy myself with this when you express such ignorance that could be so easily dispelled if you even bothered to do a quick search on what is and isn't a verb and noun??? :bang2:

My point exactly... semantics... having faith is not just nounville...

Do you golf or play golf?

What??? Semantics has nothing to do with it. Did you completely miss that point as well? Sheesh.

[trickblue]

Trick, can you provide a sentence where faith is used as a verb?

Again... you are playing semantics... faith is a noun by definition but very much a verb by practice...

Let's go back to the original thread... we have a paradigm shift on science...

Bait and switch does not change the fact that "Scientific Fact" on Monday does not match "Scientific Fact" on Tuesday...

As I have said, my whole point has been that science is not absolute and evolves... what I have gotten in return is insults and ugly pm's...

You guys want to focus one one thing while ignoring the elephant in the room... do you not see this?

[trickblue]

Within the context of scientific understanding, yes. However, you've missed the point I was trying to get across and convoluted it into something else entirely.

Why are you ignoring the fact you made fun of me? You sure are selective in your responses...

Again, missing the point. I consider the concept of faith being a cornerstone of science foul, borne of ignorance, and borderline insulting. Twice in this one post already you've misconstrued concepts and ideas I'm conveying and yet you want to be engaged???

Confused

This follows along with the same reasoning that I don't bother debating the Second Amendment with any passion with a gun control advocate or debating global warming here with those who are diametrically opposed to the evidence as presented in peer-reviewed journals. The positions are too far apart and no one is going to convince either side of anything.

Good decision...

You've come off as ignorant of the scientific method and the thought process behind science as well. Moreover, your example of Pluto reinforced that you didn't have any idea what you were talking about in your own chosen example. Furthermore, you've shown twice in this post I'm quoting that you can't figure out what I'm saying.

And you are so indoctrinated in your agenda that you can't see what the Hell I am talking about...

You've stated plenty of beliefs in how the world of science works. You've described them from your own point of bias and have done so while showing no grasp of the concepts within your own example.

My whole point is that people arguing absolutes look like fools... how do you not get this?

Because you keep missing the point wholly.

No... you pick out key words... YOU don't get it...[/quote]

Golf is both a verb and a noun. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/golf?__utma=1.422765489.1322388657.1336292385.1345 784895.112&__utmb=1.2.10.1345784895&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1329388141.74.3.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(org anic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=http://thesaurus.com/&__utmv=-&__utmk=54978219)

Faith is only a noun. Why should I bother to further annoy myself with this when you express such ignorance that could be so easily dispelled if you even bothered to do a quick search on what is and isn't a verb and noun??? :bang2:

I apologize... you are the smartest guy in the world... I guess words don't evolve... I defer to you as you are the smartest guy in the world...

I have still not personally insulted you... why do you continue to insult me?

I think the thing that pisses me off most about this thread is that I always liked you, but you have demonstrated yourself to be an arrogant, pretentious bastid with little regards for other views...

I have a different opinion (or do I) and you proceed to attempt to dress me down...

You can't provide any banter, but rather "I'M RIGHT"... it's sad, really...

You define intolerant to the hilt... it's sad really... as you have no idea what I believe... just diggin' in against anybody you perceive to be different...

I will pray for you... if I believe in a God that is...

[masomenos]

I'm not just playing semantics but I'm tired and I have faith (:D ) that this thread will be closed when I revisit it. Trick, I enjoyed our debate. Have a great night.

[trickblue]

I'm not just playing semantics but I'm tired and I have faith (:D ) that this thread will be closed when I revisit it. Trick, I enjoyed our debate. Have a great night.

As you know, Mas... I am a reasonable guy...

I get tired of being pigeonholed... the assumption that I am closed-minded pisses me off...

I believe in gay marriage... why? because the Constitution deems all men are created equal...

In my opinion, marriage is a religious institution... has no place in our laws... yet it is there...

The very argument is ridiculous... all unions should be civil... with NO tax breaks...

I believe there should be a flat tax... flat is fair... and we all should pay it...

[trickblue]

Within the context of scientific understanding, yes. However, you've missed the point I was trying to get across and convoluted it into something else entirely.

Within context... isn't this the whole argument?

Again, missing the point. I consider the concept of faith being a cornerstone of science foul, borne of ignorance, and borderline insulting. Twice in this one post already you've misconstrued concepts and ideas I'm conveying and yet you want to be engaged???

You are mixing opinion with belief...

This follows along with the same reasoning that I don't bother debating the Second Amendment with any passion with a gun control advocate or debating global warming here with those who are diametrically opposed to the evidence as presented in peer-reviewed journals. The positions are too far apart and no one is going to convince either side of anything.

I would be interested in discussing your Second Amendment beliefs...

You've come off as ignorant of the scientific method and the thought process behind science as well. Moreover, your example of Pluto reinforced that you didn't have any idea what you were talking about in your own chosen example. Furthermore, you've shown twice in this post I'm quoting that you can't figure out what I'm saying.[/quote}

Wanna talk or run me down?

You've stated plenty of beliefs in how the world of science works. You've described them from your own point of bias and have done so while showing no grasp of the concepts within your own example.

Talk or hit and run?

Because you keep missing the point wholly.

This is the thing that gets me... my whole point has been that science evolves... you guys go in to attack mode politically...

Golf is both a verb and a noun. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/golf?__utma=1.422765489.1322388657.1336292385.1345 784895.112&__utmb=1.2.10.1345784895&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1329388141.74.3.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(org anic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=http://thesaurus.com/&__utmv=-&__utmk=54978219)

Faith is only a noun. Why should I bother to further annoy myself with this when you express such ignorance that could be so easily dispelled if you even bothered to do a quick search on what is and isn't a verb and noun??? :bang2:



What??? Semantics has nothing to do with it. Did you completely miss that point as well? Sheesh.

[SaltwaterServr]

Within context... isn't this the whole argument?



You are mixing opinion with belief...



I would be interested in discussing your Second Amendment beliefs...

I'm INCREDIBLY salty when it comes to mixing/accrediting faith with science. 'Bout the long and short of it.

[The30YardSlant]

Trying to believe that "an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward" ... and formed the universe, the sun and moon, the earth and life itself as we know it, ... is like trying to believe if you threw 1,000 scrabble board games into the air they would land and form the Webster's dictionary.

Not really, considering the current universe is the only one you know. It's not like there was a "universe blueprint" that just so happened to be achieved.

Not to mention that this is a gross oversimplification which leaves out billions of years worth of steps.

Also, this idea that science and faith are incompatatible is ridiculous.

[arglebargle]

Google 'Faith is a verb' and you can see where that's coming from.

Me, I like Science, especially Mad Science.

IBtL!

[ScipioCowboy]

I don't want to put words in Trick's mouth, but I think he's saying that faith is an actionable item, not a literal verb. In a similar vein, the Big Chill is not literally saying the universe is a frozen block of ice. It's a metaphor.

[BrAinPaiNt]

WOW

Closed