| Author |
Message |
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3299
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:06 am
|  |
I've witnessed and been involved in several interesting discussions that have become quite heated on these forums in the past.
What's interesting is that often, opinions are supported by some form of evidence. Not always good evidence but evidence nonetheless. However, what's more interesting is the amount of credibility people give that evidence and the assumption that because it's scientific evidence, it must be correct now, always and ever. I have a scientific background and I know that not to be true. I have the scientific evidence to prove it ;-)
But what really interests me is the way some people ignore the fluid and dynamic nature of science, the fact that scientists quite like to be wrong and no scientist worth his/her salt ever claims absolute certainty on any single or even multiple pieces of evidence.
So the next time you base an argument on scientific evidence, no matter how convincing the evidence is, no matter how much you believe the evidence, no matter how much you want to believe the evidence, just remember to keep an open mind and hedge your bets in the discussion.
No scientific discussion is settled nor would we want it to be.
Just a bit of fun but interesting browsing |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10591
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:25 am
| |
Would you mind telling this to about 90% (not a scientific percentage) of the other scientists.
I agree with you though. It is my understanding (have to be careful here) there is only one constant in nature and that is change. |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26185
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:32 am
| |
Come on now most scientists think they are greater then anyone else and they know everything!
That is as long as it is in a book now when it comes to common sense that's a whole nother story!
Now back to our regularly scheduled daily events. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3299
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:48 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Come on now most scientists think they are greater then anyone else and they know everything!
|
I disagree. I think that the media misrepresents massively with misleading headlines. Now since most but not all find out about advances in science through the media, it gives the very distorted view that scientists think they know everything. They don't and most will admit that. In fact not knowing is what drives them.
One of the silliest headlines I saw was some years ago when the media reported that scientists discovered that the universe was bigger than previously thought. Well they already thought it was infinite so how could it be bigger?
What the story really was that the age and expansion rate of the universe had been underestimated by around 15% or so. The misleading headline is poor reporting by the media.
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: |
Now back to our regularly scheduled daily events. |
Of course. Reviewers are rubbish, some people have had a BDE, BME, BYE, WDE, WME. Blooming reviewers haven't got a clue. Why have they rejected my photo? Declining sales... |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3299
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:53 am
| |
| rudyumans wrote: | Would you mind telling this to about 90% (not a scientific percentage) of the other scientists.
I agree with you though. It is my understanding (have to be careful here) there is only one constant in nature and that is change. |
I think it's the same old story that a few wronguns give the rest a bad name. You are probably right about the only constant though. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10591
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:00 am
| |
| pjmorley wrote: | | rudyumans wrote: | Would you mind telling this to about 90% (not a scientific percentage) of the other scientists.
I agree with you though. It is my understanding (have to be careful here) there is only one constant in nature and that is change. |
I think it's the same old story that a few wronguns give the rest a bad name. You are probably right about the only constant though. |
Scientists don't have a bad name with me. On the contrary.
The only ones I have reservation about are the ones with egos too big for their own good and who take credit for something they didn't do, but you find those people everywhere. |
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2408
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:00 am
| |
| pjmorley wrote: |
No scientific discussion is settled nor would we want it to be. |
I suppose it really depends on the subject of the discussion. For instance the subject of creationism vs evolution. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10591
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:07 am
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | pjmorley wrote: |
No scientific discussion is settled nor would we want it to be. |
I suppose it really depends on the subject of the discussion. For instance the subject of creationism vs evolution. |
It is not that black and white. There are many scientist who argue for both and the same with many religions people. (i am one of them)
Having said this, if this thread goes into this direction, I am out of here |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26185
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:11 am
| |
Remember when Black Holes were theories?
And now we know they exist and have built a Hadron Collider to try and replicate one. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3299
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:14 am
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | pjmorley wrote: |
No scientific discussion is settled nor would we want it to be. |
I suppose it really depends on the subject of the discussion. For instance the subject of creationism vs evolution. |
I would argue that a belief in a creator isn't scientific rather it is a matter of faith and philosophy. Unless you include the 'theory' of intelligent design in that but it's not really the same thing. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10591
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:17 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Remember when Black Holes were theories?
And now we know they exist and have built a Hadron Collider to try and replicate one. |
I don't think they want to replicate a Black Hole. First, they have to know what a black hole exactly is and it seems a little dangerous undertaking as well.
The Hadron Collider is an accelerator for the purpose to study particle behavior. |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26185
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:21 am
| |
| rudyumans wrote: | | ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Remember when Black Holes were theories?
And now we know they exist and have built a Hadron Collider to try and replicate one. |
it seems a little dangerous undertaking as well.
|
Yeah because Black Holes swallow up things and get bigger and what would happen if they actually had one form?
What would it swallow up first and could it be stopped? |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26185
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:22 am
| |
We have the Jefferson Lab that has an accelerator as well but it is currently broken at this time. |
|
pjmorley
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 3299
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:23 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | Remember when Black Holes were theories?
And now we know they exist and have built a Hadron Collider to try and replicate one. |
To some extent, they still are so their existence is implied with mathematics and observation of matter around a black hole. It's currently not possible to view one but you can measure their gravitational effect for example. |
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2408
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:35 am
| |
| pjmorley wrote: |
I would argue that a belief in a creator isn't scientific rather it is a matter of faith and philosophy. Unless you include the 'theory' of intelligent design in that but it's not really the same thing. |
I was actually referring to the use of science to try and disprove a matter of faith or philosophy.
It is not unusual for scientist to believe, as a matter of faith, that science is the answer to all and philosophy or "faith" has no place. And I say they believe it as a matter of faith because they can neither prove nor disprove their belief through science. Sort of like an oxymoron :) |
|
| |
|
Log in
