Posts by EntirelyPossible

I specifically said (or meant to say) that people face ridicule when they propose ideas that go against mainstream science with no evidence or proof, or with a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence or predictive powers.

In that way, when their science holds, the new thing is accepted despite the controversy.

If their science holds and is testable, fasifiable, predictive and reliably provable by others, there IS no controversy.

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.

True. For instance, recently evidence that suggest the moon (of earth) was volcanically active recently (in geological timescales) was discovered on the FAR side of the moon. Bill Nye was on Fox News talking about it and one of the anchors suggested that might be related to global warming. Bill very politely told him the two were unrelated but he seemed unconvinced. He knew so little he wasn't even wrong (the Fox guy). He might as well have suggested that goldfish size in fishbowls affect the price of barrels of oil.

Just because you put forward an idea doesn't mean it is worthy of a response. It IS, however, sometimes worthy of ridicule. Bill Nye is a better man than I (but not a better poet, he doesn't even know it).

Questions ARE encourage. Intelligent questions. There IS such a thing as a dumb question :)

The kids are dragging me to toys R us to spend their money.

Better you than me, my friend. I am sitting in a bar in Austin drinking beer :)

78

Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible in

i started this thread to get a fresh start.

i know, there is another thread, but it was all over the place.

to that end, i would am going to paste a quote of shelby's from the other thread and try to stick to hashing that out.

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).

78

Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible in

i started this thread to get a fresh start.

i know, there is another thread, but it was all over the place.

to that end, i would am going to paste a quote of shelby's from the other thread and try to stick to hashing that out.

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.

78

Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible in

i started this thread to get a fresh start.

i know, there is another thread, but it was all over the place.

to that end, i would am going to paste a quote of shelby's from the other thread and try to stick to hashing that out.

EntirelyPossible

Glad to see my thread didn't die! I posted and then went to watch the PGA championship and kinda forgot about it. Great comments, all.

I did want to comment on something tec (welcome back from vacation, BTW!) wrote:

But you can be ridiculed, ostracised, looked down upon if you do not believe in the mainstream scientific findings... and if you are in school, then you can fail a subject.

Well, yes, you can. That really happens when you go outside of the mainstream with a wacky theory that doesn't fit the evidence and doesn't have any predicitive powers like a good hypothesis does. Science works by having new ideas, but those ideas have to 1)fit the evidence 2)be falsifiable and 3)be able to predict what will happen.

There is NOTHING wrong with saying you think something different that what's currently accepted, that's how science progresses. It's a building process where you build on what you know, sometimes tearing down what you know to build new in it's place, sometimes building upon what's already there. It's when there are none of the elements that make an idea "science" that people get ridiculed for pushing it.

As far as school goes, well, that's anything where you get tested for knowledge. It's no science so much but the nature of test taking.

4

A Philosopher of Religion Calls it Quits

by SixofNine in

jw
friends

the italicized text portion pretty sums up the way i feel:.

keith parsons announces that the case for theism is a fraud, and sparks a firestorm.. .

when philosophy professor keith parsons posted an announcement on his blog, the secular outpost, explaining why he had decided to abandon philosophy of religion, he expected only his handful of regular readers to take notice.

EntirelyPossible

Kind of like gay-for-pay pornstars

78

Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible in

i started this thread to get a fresh start.

i know, there is another thread, but it was all over the place.

to that end, i would am going to paste a quote of shelby's from the other thread and try to stick to hashing that out.

EntirelyPossible

I started this thread to get a fresh start. I would like to know exactly what Shelby's problem with the TV show is. I know, there is another thread, but it was all over the place. To that end, I would am going to paste a quote of Shelby's from the other thread and try to stick to hashing that out. I will request civility, specificity in language (so we all agree on the terms we are using) and not going OT.

I think it comes down to one word, Bohm... and it's not one that applies to me, in this instance: integrity. If religionists are expected to have some (and I believe they should be, given the number of people they wish to have follow them), I should think scientists just as much, if not even more so (they, too, want the world to "follow" them and their thinking. And I am NOT saying the world SHOULDN'T - that's another discussion entirely). To allow TV producers to just put stuff out there, willy-nilly, however... which is what you're suggesting (that "the TV producers make them do it!")... is, IMHO, a lack of integrity.

A couple of questions, Shel:

1) Specifically, what was wrong with the show?

2) Specifically, what do you think scientists should do differently with respect to the shows?

3) Do you think science is like religion and if so, why? Please be specific.

153

Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam in

jw
friends

if you have not seen it, it,s on the discovery station.

tonite, 8:00 pm west coast, two parts..

EntirelyPossible

However, from MY view, me, a lay person, I saw no difference in the PRESENTATION that science gave of its position, than religion does.

That, my dear, is because you are fundamentally (again) misunderstanding science.

Lets level set.

TV Shows about science are NOT science. Just like food using all the same ingredients but prepared by different people, some end results will be better and some will be worse that others. Complain about the editing to your hearts content. The show is NOT science, however. You can stop confusuing the two and complaining about both as if they are one in the same because they aren't.

Religion speaks in terms of truth for one reason, control. Yes, they do change what they are saying from time to time ONLY because overwhelming evidence exists that will make them look silly or to change their dogma to better suit the masses. That's it.

Science does NOT speak in terms of "truth" despite what you gleaned from the TV show. Science speaks in terms of hypothesis, theories, and presented understanding. The DIFFERENCE is that scientist (and lay people like myself) KNOW the single greatest truth, if there is on, is that we don't know everything, that we don't know yet what we don't know. Science readily admits new understanding will come along and theories will change. We look forward to it. It's what keeps it going.

To equate the two based on your impression of the editing of a TV show is using the wrong source material and making a faulty conclusion. It would be like going to court and representing yourself because you watched a lot of Law and Order.

Bottom line: I saw a show, made some comments (that you apparently don't like - so what...), and asked some questions.

If that was the bottom line, that would be fine, but that's not what happened. you use a TV show to judge science, equate it religion, backtrack and change the idea of what you wrote and the meanings of the words you used. For this reason, having a debate with you in a science thread is like trying to nail jello to a wall. You slip and slide around your words, meaning and ideas so much it's impossible to even know what you are saying then when you are called on it you play the victim card as if you being attacked.

I like you, Shelby, I think of you as a friend. As a friend, I will help you in the same way my best friend helps me. He calls me on my BS when he sees it and doesn't let me get away with it. As your friend, I am telling what I am seeing in this thread.

16