We are but a grain of sand...
- Thread starter Brian D
- Start date
Please don't say that. It's more like that there is generally a poor understanding and/or acceptance of scientifically established facts among the public. There are several examples I could cite--but then we'd be going into politics and religion--where many men have gone before and have gotten their ears boxed.
We went to the same planetarium. "There is no center!" is the meme in our family for crazy.
Think about this. With each new technological innovation there is a waste by product. Will we manage the waste responsibly enough to make it to the next generation?
Im thinking at some point to travel either fast or through time will involve generating waste gravity. Based on broscience aquired on Nova and Discovery large amounts of gravity will be needed or generated in future projects.
I can only imagine how difficult it will be to place objects back into a stable orbit after some idiot forms a temporary black hole on the outer edges of the solar system. Or the warp drive of an alien vessel speeding up the moon by 100mph.
That is not true. But, there is still, today, a profound misunderstanding of science.
- Will (Dragonfly)
Gene, is it a greater amount of "Bad" science, or just greater access to science in general.
"Bad" science seemed to occur all the time as I studied. We just let it go and adjusted our parameter/input and started again using the information that worked and discarding that which did not. As a result we improved. I was told it is called the scientific method.
Feels like today the scientific method has been clouded by the "science du jour" method.
"Bad" science seemed to occur all the time as I studied. We just let it go and adjusted our parameter/input and started again using the information that worked and discarding that which did not. As a result we improved. I was told it is called the scientific method.
- The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
A lot of the science fiction writers who write stories about hollowing out asteroids and flying generations to distant planets have PhDs and day jobs as scientists and professors teaching physics, so I'm pretty sure the science there is quite sound.
They often have a recurring theme of finding a mythical mother planet named "Earth", so you have a point about not ruining what we have now.
They often have a recurring theme of finding a mythical mother planet named "Earth", so you have a point about not ruining what we have now.
You folks haven't been much on diversity of thought in recent years, but you can still memorize and regurgitate a script like nobody's business!
What you folks are likely seeing as "bad science" is what some call "consensus science." Does having a "scientific consensus" actually mean having a consensus opinion of scientists? The whole impetus for the global warming issues is that its supposed causation (anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions) represents a consensus of scientists opinion acted upon by Government regulation. As Einstein so famously said: "A consensus of 100 scientists can be undone by a single fact." and "Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head!" The scientific method is about the discovery of the facts (truths) of the natural world. The explanation for them is a theory or hypothesis, either of which is ultimately rejected if new facts are discovered that contradict those explanations for the known ones.
Last edited:
If you take politics, religion, and sex off the table everyone is deprived of the most interesting conversationPlease don't say that. It's more like that there is generally a poor understanding and/or acceptance of scientifically established facts among the public. There are several examples I could cite--but then we'd be going into politics and religion--where many men have gone before and have gotten their ears boxed.
Problem is that there is no consensus on what constitutes a "fact".
Nope, because I see you over there!
Too late, they already did visit and left quickly.
or they found another place among the 10^150 power of destinations.
_____
Science is the study of repeatable events! Defining a scientific principle is normally done to help predict future repeatable events.
Where mankind gets into trouble is to Extrapolate beyond known data or to Assume things hold constant or are always True.
We attempt to MODEL natures behaviors from Scientific Principles.
When those MODELS fail, we should change the Model, but today, we want to change the world to fit our Models.
Frustration and Controversy begins here.
________
Every Hurricane season I try to use Real Data to help me understand what the News and NOAA are afraid to tell us {they don't want to be wrong}. NOAA's Models are at least 5-8 days accurate forecasting and only share that with First Responders. We get Probability Bands on the News.
Still we do have known Scientific Principles that work on Hurricane Modeling, but not enough to Extrapolate beyond a few days.
______
We are smart enough to predict the Moon phases and rising times. Guess what we have learned about our Moon?
It has an orbital decay of 2 inches per year. So some day that decay will change our Science on Moon rising times.
_____
Thanks for the rant, because they "Predicted a Hard Freeze Tonight". Too cold to go sailing.
Jim...
That is inductive science--the science of Newton, for example; aka empiricism. His laws were corrected via deductive science--the science of Einstein and the rationalists.
That is because Facts don't need consensus.
Whenever I hear the "consensus" shows that Pepsi Lite tastes better than Diet Coke, I know there are no Facts.
When I hear that fresh water freezes at≈ 32°F on the earth, I don't need a consensus on that. That is a repeatable Scientific Fact!
Now we are have Newton who proposed a Model. Proceeded to test his basic theory. We sent Men to the Moon using Newton's Inductive Science. Course Corrections were insignificant or could be minor adjustments.
When Newton's Models proved true, we now call them Newton's Laws!
Jim...
Those of us who do "true science" know it takes a chart to prove a theory.
I’ll note that even after 10 years, this data still has not been dis-proven by the science community, which we interpret as implicit acceptance of it’s Truth.
I’ll note that even after 10 years, this data still has not been dis-proven by the science community, which we interpret as implicit acceptance of it’s Truth.
Attachments
How long did it take for the data of Ptolemy's theories to be disproved?
- Will (Dragonfly)
Good discussion. I've had trouble keeping up. Science and the use of science is a very important topic to me. My education is in sciences, and more and more, recently I'm hearing those who didn't follow a science education, cite science (Mostly incorrectly) to support their opinions. Here's one thing that drives me crazy. Someone will say that the science on an issue is settled. That is a tip off that the speaker doesn't understand science. As was stated eloquently in post #43 by KG, all that is necessary to upset settled science is a single fact that does not fit the orthodoxy. Real science is a method to arrive at useful conclusions and to ask the next questions - nothing more. Newtonian physics is an example. As mathmatical and empirical methods improved data appeared that couldn't be explained by Newtonian physics. Scientists had to amend "Settled Science" to fit new data. Chemistry is another example. Chemistry 101 taught the atom theory - the Bohr's model if I remember. Chemistry 102 started with forget that - it was just a way to make some basic predictions useful for predicting behavior of some materials. Now you have to learn another model. And finally physical chemistry. There is no such thing as "Settled Science." Science is an ongoing process of discovery.