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

[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?

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... 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.

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.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

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

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

 

[Tabascocat]

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

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... 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.

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.

 

[JD_KaPow]

...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?

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... 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.

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...

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.