Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sizemik

  Science does ask some serious questions of traditional religious beliefs such as the Bibles creation account, the flood etc. But it certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist. That in itself does not prevent a scientist from voicing that belief and presenting the science that led him to that conclusion. Such a conclusion is still an opinion or contention, when taken to that level of implication, and can still be disagreed with for lack of scientific proof and nothing else. But scientist are allowed to have opinions too . . . and it's not entirely their responsibility to intrepret it on our behalf. We can take or leave what lies beyond the facts. Perhaps that's where science and religion differ a little fundamentally.

  Leading edge science will always have more contention surrounding it, as traditionally held beliefs are challenged. But again it's the challenge or demand for validation, that is the mechanism by which evidence is produced. Most of the scientific community recognises this, and engages in, and invites criticism. No scientist expects to publish findings and be immediately hailed some sort of hero. He normally expects and invites critique . . . in order for his work to undergo validation. If something is presented which flies in the face of current understanding and is light on evidence, it will be labelled "whacky", because in that context it probably is . . . but this does not mean it won't survive the validation process.

  It seems it's hard for some to get their head around the fact that criticism, contention and disagreement doesn't lessen the value of accepted science . . . it enhances it. The same should be true of religion if it's founded in fact.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  You ARE supposed to believe what mainstream science determines to be true... or you face those things that I listed above.

  Then science would never progress. You can't have it both ways, to say that science progresses (which it obviously does) AND that you can never have new ideas.

  Question though - aren't all ideas that go against mainstream scientific findings/acceptance considered wacky? Otherwise they would be IN mainstream science, wouldn't they? Pretty sure 'earth is round' was a wacky idea when it was first presented. Evolution as well. Until the evidence lined up behind the idea.

  Nope. It's perfectly fine to say "We thought X based on this evidence, but now, with more evidence, this hypothesis fits what we see better and can predict Z." Of course some people way disagree, but if the evidence fits and the new hypothesis accurately predicts what happens, it gets a serious look and become more developed.

  For instance, back in the day (you know, 10 years ago) it was thought that feathers were rare on dinosaurs. Now with more evidence, more fossils, better technology to detest the presence of fossilized skin and feather, it appears they were pretty commonplace. What you seem to think that ideas happen and then get presented and there is no evidence maybe there is some. What happens is the opposite, newer evidence or information leads to the new hypothesis that fits the old AND new information and can make some predictions about what may be found or discovered next. When you have evidence, the hypothesis is tested and weighed against that evidence until it becomes obvious whether it is correct or not.

  Sometimes this takes years, sometimes not. It seems odd that you would suggest ideas would in mainstream science before evidence or information exists to lead one to draw that conclusion or create the hypothesis. Don't put the cart before the horse.

  Dark matter and enery were proposed to deal with certain observations that didn't match what was mainstream cosmology. As better instruments were built and better measurements taken, it became clear something was going on that we couldn't see or detect before. Now, after test after test and measurement after measurement has been taken, it has become clear that something that ACTS like matter and energy that we can't see or directly detect is manipulating the matter we can see. Is it really matter and energy? Don't know. Matter and evergy that is not visible would explain the effects, but with better instruments we may discover it is some type of field effect rather than energy and matter. For not the hypothesis fits what we see and can predict other things as we look around.

  It seems strange to thing that someone would think of dark matter and dark energy without observing something that would make them think of it.
• 

  tec

  It seems it's hard for some to get their head around the fact that criticism, contention and disagreement doesn't lessen the value of accepted science . . . it enhances it.

  It isn't hard to get one's head around this. But not everyone believes this, or at least follows this. Otherwise no one would be ostrasized, ridiculed, or critisized for disagreeing with something in mainstream science, or for presenting an opposing view. Their questions, doubts, etc, would always be encouraged. But this is not always the case, and the person criticizing doesn't always know anything more than the person questioning. They've just put their faith in a particular theory or scientist and do not like that to be disagreed with.

  The same should be true of religion if it's founded in fact.

  Of course. I agree. But again, the people are the ones who take offense to somethign they value being questioned or disagreed with. Not all (in either camp - science or religion), but certainly some in both camps.

  A lot of this disagreement, I think, has everything to do with what Curtains posted at the beginning of this thread, btw. I don't know why you can't see the similarities in the following of either camp. Unless you think I'm saying more than what I actually am: that these similarities invalidate science?

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  okay i feel i am drowning in a swamp of bullshit.

  Tec, in response to my question:

  Could you give one solid example of a specific scientific idea in physics we are "supposed to believe", and some information of why you see the scientific community is trying to enforce that belief, and how?

  You gave two examples:

  • A bunch of schoolchildren telling a child the moon rice from the ocean.
  • Evolution, if we do not believe it we will be: "ridiculed, ostracised, fail in school, etc."

  now the first example is so redicilous i hardly need to address it. clearly the teachers did not represent the scientific community in any meaningfull way.

  The second example is not about an idea in physics, and fail as well for that reason. Secondly it is much to broad: Many renowed biologists have different ideas about aspects of evolution, so it need to be more exact. but cross it out - we are discussing mr. hawkins, so i want an example from physics.

  I really want to know if you made the comparison between scientfic community and WTBS (both rely on new light) without any factual basis before i can respond, so let me by this reask the above question.
• 

  tec

  Then science would never progress. You can't have it both ways, to say that science progresses (which it obviously does) AND that you can never have new ideas.

  I don't understand what you mean here. You agreed (I think) that people face ridicule for not believing mainstream science. But people who think something outside or opposing of mainstream science and are intent to speak about it, prove it, whathaveyou... just do so regardless of that ridicule, ostracism. In that way, when their science holds, the new thing is accepted despite the controversy.

  It seems odd that you would suggest ideas would in mainstream science before evidence or information exists to lead one to draw that conclusion or create the hypothesis

  I don't think that can happen. I just think that what some see as evidence, others dismiss. So that person digs in their heels to build upon their theory, which if valid eventually gains standing in the scientific community. So it was always true... but until the equipment or the data supported it MORE, it was 'wacky'.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  bohm

  tec:

  I don't think that can happen. I just think that what some see as evidence, others dismiss. So that person digs in their heels to build upon their theory, which if valid eventually gains standing in the scientific community. So it was always true... but until the equipment or the data supported it MORE, it was 'wacky'.

  its the last word which you need to substantiate: Today there is for instance 5-10 ideas or something like that for what dark matter is, so clearly we are in the "pre-accepting" phase. Which of those are being considered wacky? On the other hand, scientists will (in my experience!) often be very polite and say an idea is "interesting". those who propose the ideas will propose their ideas with all kinds of "buts" and "ifs".

  so why "wacky"? where do you get that from?
• 

  tec

  okay i feel i am drowning in a swamp of bullshit.

  And I feel that you are completely biased on this topic and so not reading what I wrote... but that doesn't make me right either.

  Tec, in response to my question:

  Could you give one solid example of a specific scientific idea in physics we are "supposed to believe", and some information of why you see the scientific community is trying to enforce that belief, and how?

  You gave two examples:

  A bunch of schoolchildren telling a child the moon rice from the ocean.

  Evolution, if we do not believe it we will be: "ridiculed, ostracised, fail in school, etc."

  now the first example is so redicilous i hardly need to address it. clearly the teachers did not represent the scientific community in any meaningfull way.

  The teachers (science teachers) told the child the moon rose from the ocean, or some other such nonsense. So it was accepted science then. Obviously ridiculous now that we know better. Teachers are supposed to be teaching accepted science, yes?

  The second example is not about an idea in physics, and fail as well for that reason. Secondly it is much to broad: Many renowed biologists have different ideas about aspects of evolution, so it need to be more exact. but cross it out - we are discussing mr. hawkins, so i want an example from physics.

  First, who says we're discussing Hawkins? I responded to EP's question concerning similarities between science and religion. Physics is not the only class of science. I don't know anything about physics, so I can't give you what you want. Nor would I have tried to engage in such a topic, knowing my own limitations.

  Hopefully that clears up what seems to be a big misunderstanding in our communication.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  The kids are dragging me to toys R us to spend their money. So I have to leave off for an hour or so. Will continue this later. Have fun.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  It isn't hard to get one's head around this. But not everyone believes this, or at least follows this. Otherwise no one would be ostrasized, ridiculed, or critisized for disagreeing with something in mainstream science, or for presenting an opposing view.

  *sigh*.... once again, NOT TRUE! It's when those ideas are presented in a vacumn without evidence or predictive analysis powers, without supporting proofs, that they get that treatment. I could present an idea that there was liquid water flowing in rivers and seas on the surface neptune, but without some damn good evidence i should RIGHTLY be ignored. Why? Becaus neptune is 1)as far as we can tell too cold for liquid at a surface temp of -220C and b)a gas planet.

  If I had evidence, from say, a satellite or probe or empirical measurements, that would be a different story, but to make the claim without any of those...well, why wouldn't I be laughed out?

  BTW, Netpune was the first planet predicted to exist before it was directly observed. It was predicted to exist based on the orbits of other planets and the maths, a good example of a hypothesis based on observation and evidence with a predictive power that was correct :)

  So it was always true... but until the equipment or the data supported it MORE, it was 'wacky'.

  No, it may start as wacky, but, like most things, changed over time from something wacky into something that was as correct as we could tell it to be. It's not like flipping a switch or everyone gets a memo "BTW, this is now true, the old is now false". It's a science, but there is a social evolution aspect to it since, after all, people are involved.

  BTW, sometimes we know something we thought was right is wrong, without knowing what the right thing is until someone comes up with it. Sometimes there may be competing ideas. Eventually, getting more evidence will sort them out. Sometimes things we thought were wrong turn our to be right, or at least partially right (see Lamarck and gene expression as an example).
• 

  sizemik

  I just think that what some see as evidence, others dismiss. So that person digs in their heels to build upon their theory, which if valid eventually gains standing in the scientific community. So it was always true... but until the equipment or the data supported it MORE, it was 'wacky'.

  I think this is more commonly applied with fringe scientists who are light on evidence, and are so disconnected from current evidence that they are deserving of the label. Science is not overshadowed by the religious intolerance of the "flat earth" era any longer.

  The scientific community can still be divided on some issues but nowadays that tends to accelerate the validation process.

  Even if your description (above) was typically what takes place, is that not more desirable than giving credibility to any and every "whacky" idea that people dream up? Even harsh criticism still serves as the impetus for validation of sound scientific theory. If someone labels a theory as "whacky" the response is singularly one of "find the evidence and validate it" . . . and come back when you have.