Printable View
I have seen, touched and experienced teapots. So have you. They are real. Repeatably demonstrable as existing. You don't even need an advanced degree to explain a teapot, or how it came into existance.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Thus I postulate it is far more likely, and scientifically valid that somehow a teapot got into orbit in outer space than microscopic black holes exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
I warned you!
YouTube - Oingo Boingo "Weird Science"
Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
It also used to be theorized that the sun revolved around the Earth.
Until it was later determined that they were looking at things all wrong.
That's all I'm saying here guys. Indirect proof of a theory ("hey look, the sun comes up and then goes down again, it is obviously rotating around the Earth!") is all fine and good, until either A: you prove that it is true, or B: you realize that it wasn't quite right to begin with.
What I am trying to get at is the way that the research is presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by holli4pirating
eg. You buy one lottery ticket, of which one million are sold.You have a one in a million chance of winning or bugger all! Now if you buy two tickets the hard facts are your chance of winning is still bugger all.
But you can twist this information to make it appear appealing,eg.You are now twice as likely to win or you have now increased your chances of winning by 100%. Technically this is not lieing but it is not giving you the true picture and this is how junk science works at making things appear better or worse than they actually are to suit an agender.
I personally like scientific stuff especially theoretical science, all that what if or what would happen conjecture, makes for good conversation :) So long as they don,t try telling me it,s fact.
Interesting thread. There are a couple of things that I find important that I haven't seen discussed.
First, true science never proves anything. Science only seeks evidence that says something about a theory. It doesn't matter if it is positive evidence, which supports a theory, or negative evidence, which questions a theory.
Second, science never really observes anything. Even if we think that we did, it is impossible. There is some reality out there, but we cannot actually see it. And we can only describe what we do see. Even if we could see what was out there, we know that the act of viewing it would distort it. Because of these limitations, there will always be error associated with everything studied empirically. Error means that the results might be wrong.
Because of this problem, science is only concerned with ordering knowledge to an acceptable amount of error. This is why mathematics is not considered a science. In math, things can be proven. Science can only say something like we are 99%, 99.9%, or 99.99% confident that evidence supporting a theory isn't just an error. The community that interprets the science is responsible for determining what level of error is acceptable. It varies from discipline to discipline.
Because this error exists, science can never really say that it has proven anything. By replicating results over and over, science yields additional support that can reduce error. However, it is impossible to ever get rid of it completely. Even the most supported theory might be wrong.
This idea of 'acceptable' is at the crux of the difference between science and psuedo-science. What is in fact scientific is determined by standards of the scientific community. Psuedo-science is anything that simply claims to be scientific while failing to comply with these standards. It really has nothing to do with science being 'right' and psuedo-science being 'wrong'.
Aussie, while I do agree that science must not manipulate data in order to spin results, does that mean that anyone who does not spin data is a scientist? Certainly a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one I'd say.
Some very interesting points, captain, but dare I say, you've wrapped up with something akin to "science is what scientists say it is." Who are these "scientists," how do you know who is or isn't a "scientist," and what do they say "science" is?
That is precisely the point. A cobbler trying to figure out the best way to resole shoes, provided he acknowledges validity issues with his research and presents his findings to the cobbling community for scrutiny is a scientist. But even if all the other cobblers agree that he has really worked something out, he hasn't proven anything.
I am not familiar with the microscopic black holes and the evidence about them, but I think I should set some simple scientific facts straight. In USA this is introductory level physics that any science, engineering, bio-, premeds etc. students have to pass.
And you are implying that the mass is a constant. That's what Newthon thought, but it's been over 100 years that the observations (yes indirect) have been that this equation is not really correct, especially for velocity close to the speed of light. Now an easy way is to deal with that is to make the mass also increase with the velocity, so you have seemingly as simple equation as before, but it is just hiding something a lot more complicated, namelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Code:p=m v/\sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
(c is the speed of light, and m is now constant again as it used to be in Newton's time)
And actually it is correct, the sun does rotate around the earth - motion is relative. But there is a difference between the frame of reference attached to the Earth, the one attached to the Sun, the one attached to the center of the galaxy, or to any other galaxies, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
The point is that you can name things any way you like, but what is important is what that naming actually means.
I think most people will agree with the need of critical thinking, what I'm having problem here is your choice of examples illustrate your points pretty poorly.
In the case of the Sun and the Earth the critical approach of science is what's behind the understanding of inertial and non inertial frames of reference, and that was driven by... yes, you got it, indirect observations :p
Is that the full story? I don't think so, more indirect observations with better precision and it is very likely there is something else happening too.
Being dismissive is fairly easy and can be somewhat effective, but you better make sure you're right, because when you're not it's rather embarrassing.
Point #1 was not about whether that equation was correct or not (thank you for the update, though), but rather trying to explain that the story about these little protons in the LHC having the same energy as a mosquito in flight was a bit of a song and dance by the LHC media relations team to placate the hoi polloi. So, if you plug in the numbers in your updated equation, you still have these protons travelling at extremely high speed, and thus possesing enough energy to smash each other to bits, right? Isn't that the whole point of a particle accelarator? To impart extreme velocity to stuff?Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
The point I was trying to make was that scientists make the story fit what they want it to often times,
Nice points in regard to frames of reference. But how is directly observing planets in motion fall under the category of indirect observation?