Science, they're still learning

[ClakarEQ]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38807350/ns ... nce-space/

And it's stories like this that have me throwing many other stories from science into the fiction bucket, like how old the universe is, radiation foot prints from this or that from the big bang (yeah, ok, sure).

I completely recognize science has all sorts of facts and many are proven but the age of our solar system was also "proven" yet now they've found out to be wrong by at least 2 million years, at least right now, for all we know 2 years from now they'll find out it was off by 1 billion years.

Just found the read a bit interesting.

[Arlos]

Nothing in science is ever "proven". That's the common misconception. Just because everyone thinks that, though, doesn't make it any less wrong. The only places you can "Prove" anything are in mathematics and symbolic logic (which is really just another kind of math, in a way)

Also, lets consider this for a second, OK? The rock is 4.562 billion years old, as they said, 2 million years older than they thought the solar system was. Now, lets do a little bit of math here, shall we? Their old estimate would be that number, less 2 million years, thus 4.56 billion.

10% of 4.56 billion is 456 million. Hmmm, much bigger than 2 million.
1% of 4.56 billion is 45.6 million. Nope, still a lot bigger than 2 million.
1/10 of 1% (ie, 0.1%) of 4.56 billion is 4.56 million. Hey, we're getting closer!
5/100 of 1% (ie, 0.05%) of 4.56 billion is 2.28 million. Almost there!

If you plug in the actual numbers, 2 million is right about 0.0438% of 4.56 billion.

So, they're taking a number that was roughly 99.99562% correct and modifying it upward a tiny tiny fraction of a percent higher. If the weatherman says it's 100 degrees out, and it's actually 99.99562 degrees instead, do you scream at the television and deny the truth of thermometers? Give me a break. Yet here, they got the age of the solar system 99.99562% accurately, and it's making you doubt the validity of all scientific conclusions? What the FUCK are you smoking??

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

LOL @ Arlos, look I'm just trying to keep this forum alive. I got "poked" at a while ago as to why I don't post in here so, there ya go :p.

Considering we've only been here for 2mill or so years I figured it has some sort of relevance.

Also, it was more an example to show again that science, in a lot of ways is more a religion then, well "science".

You say the world is 4.5 bill years old but that is "proven" off the same content that just got corrected in that story. They don't really know if the world is 10bill years old, they're only basing the timeline off the material they "know" today, and that makes sense, but that doesn't equal correct. They don't really know and are using deductive reasoning with current technology to determine what they convey as fact. I'm pretty confident if I asked you how old the planet is you would say without question it is 4.5 bill years old and you would say it as fact, without question. Sort of reminds me of religious debates.

All kidding aside, if you asked someone in the "know" to prove Earth is 4.5 bill years old, all they could say is "Well with our current technology we think it's that old" they don't really know.

I mean the entire dating system used to calculate all this information is based on assumption, not fact, just that they assume nuclei don't leave rocks once they've gone in(cliff note comment there), they don't know this is fact, they're just guessing here.

There's been a good series on Discovery hosted by Morgan Freeman that I've caught a few episodes of and to hear the big name physicists debating all sorts of things that most people would say is "100% fact". There is really so little they know it's shocking in a lot of ways and I'm by no means educated in the realm of physics, quantum mechanics, etc.

I mean seriously, big bang, something so infinitely small yet so heavy it contained the entire matter of our universe and is only mathematically "proven" (well not really but a lot of science thinks this, not everyone though), do you realize how stupid that really sounds. O and yeah, like I can measure the radioactive / microwave foot print of that explosion and I can use the really cool telescope and see the end of the universe, well at least the light of what it looked like 14 bill years ago, or at least that's what we think because we only see "black" after that. Yeah and all that math stuff, well that assumes there were no anomalies to affect those micro / radio wave footprints and of course that all the logic and content we've used so far is flawless.

And yeah even though the entire universe began 14 bill years ago, our solar system was created 9 bill years after the big bang and earth was created 9.9 bill after the big bang, not 12, not 7, but 9 bill years ago, and our solar systems condensed to what it is today in less than 1 bill years. . . yeah ok that all makes sense?

But truth be told, I'm just trying to spew to keep some level of "chat" up in here.

/crazy talk off LOL

[Arlos]

You just remade the very first point I made in my post:




Everything in Science is a theory. EVERYTHING. It is our best guess at how things work, backed up with math and hopefully by experimentation and observational data.

For example: Einstein's theory of relativity. It describes how the universe works on a large scale. It makes certain predictions for how things work, including, for one example, the way the passage of time changes when you're going faster, which has been checked by putting atomic clocks on satellites (fast moving) and comparing what time they think it is to what time an identical clock on earth thinks it is. So it's well supported by everything we have observed so far, and things it has predicted but we hadn't seen yet have been confirmed as we've been able to see them.

Also, think of Quantum Mechanics. This theory describes how the universe works at the tiniest levels. Inside of atoms, and how everything works at the level of the tiniest particles. Yet again, it's really accepted, and been supported time and again by experimental data and observations. So, likewise to relativity, things it has predicted, but we hadn't seen yet, we've seen once we've done the right experiments, or developed the right means of looking.

So here we have 2 theories that are really well supported, make accurate predictions, and to the best of our knowledge describe the universe. Guess what, though: These two theories are utterly and totally incompatible with each other. Relativity completely breaks down when looking at small things, and visa versa. So we know for a fact there is something fundamentally wrong in one or both theories, because when you try and combine them, it simply doesn't work.

This is why they, along with everything else in science, is a THEORY, including things like plate tectonics.

So how is this different from religion, you ask? Well, in some extraordinarily fundamental ways, my good man.

Religion is based entirely on faith. You are expected to believe something just because. What you are expected to believe my or may not have any relation to reality, and is entirely immune to revision or questioning the base assumptions.

Science, every theory is based on observed or observable data, ie, things of FACT (like what temperature it is today, how far did the earth move during that earthquake, what wavelength of light are we seeing the light from that star, etc.) Every theory also makes predictions for how things behave, that we can then check, if we can come up with the right experiments. (like checking on time dilation by putting an atomic clock on a satellite, like I mentioned) If they find data that contradicts the theory, or experiments give different results than what is predicted by the theory, THEY ALTER THE THEORY.

To put it more simply: Scripture is viewed as unchanging and inerrant, and are wholly self-contained. Scientific theories change as often as is necessary to accommodate new facts we discover, and actually have predictions that can be externally checked.

Ultimately, faith and science are opposite sides of the coin from each other. Believing in one by no means prevents you from believing in the other, however. Many great scientists were highly religious persons. But science is NOT religion. They are fundamentally different things, at the most basic of levels. Theories changing to fit new pieces of data should give you GREATER faith in science, not less.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

yes, everything we "know" is only a theory. science's purpose, however, is to take a theory and either disprove it or refine it as much as possible with the technology available. science just corrected itself to be .0438% more accurate in this particular case, that's all

[Diekan]

You just remade the very first point I made in my post:




Everything in Science is a theory. EVERYTHING. It is our best guess at how things work, backed up with math and hopefully by experimentation and observational data.


-Arlos

That's not true. There is a distinctive difference between a law, theory and hypothesis. The scientific method is used to attempt to DISPROVE a hypothesis - when the experimenter fails to disprove his/her hypothesis then it eventually graduates to a "theory." Over time when enough empirical evidence as been amassed and enough irrefutable facts have been brought to light - it becomes a "law."

Hypothesis - Is derived from an observation. You notice an apple falling to the ground (you've made an observation), your hypothesis is "IF I throw something into the air, THEN it will fall back to the ground." That's not a theory - it's a hypothesis (which is more or less an IF / THAN statement based off observation).

So, through the scientific method you create a serious of experiments in an attempt to disprove your hypothesis. You never try to prove anything in science directly - rather - your proof is born from your failure to disprove.

Theory - Anyway, so now you've taken buckets of several objects - apples; car batteries; feathers; whatever and set out to disprove your hypothesis - you throw each item into the air and sure enough it falls right back to earth. So, you've been unsuccessful in disproving your hypothesis - so you publish a paper. Now a few other scientists read your work and they too design other experiments to disprove your hypothesis - and they too fail to do such. Now you've got a theory. The theory of gravity (we'll call it).

Law - So now much time has passed and the theory of gravity has been scrutinized by hundreds of scientists, by engineers, by mathematicians, and so forth - now you have a law - the law of gravity.

Hypothesis - "If there are clouds in the sky, then it will rain" (You notice that every time there are clouds in the sky it rains).
Theory - Human evolution (there's enough science and evidence to support the hypothesis, but not enough to qualify it, indisputably, as a law).
Law - The law of gravity (several years of research, mathematics, trial and error by several disciplines support what was once a theory).

I realize that's very generic and simple - but I wanted to illustrate that not everything in science is a theory, which by the way is one of the most misused words in the vocabulary of science.

Another way to think of it is this: A hypothesis is an idea. A theory is an idea supported with some facts and scientific "proof." A law is indisputable.

[Arlos]

Ahhhh, but Gravity is still being debated as to how exactly it works. After all, why is it so much weaker than the other 3 forces?

Also, even laws in science undergo revision if new information comes along. Think about Newton's Laws, for example. Sure, they work, but only at relatively slow speeds. Ultimately, for all that they were viewed as inerrant "Laws" as you describe for a very long time, Einstein proved that they were merely a slow-speed subset of what ended up being General Relativity.

So in that you are incorrect. Just because we refer to something as a "law" doesn't mean it's "proven" in the way that a non-scientific person would view it, or in the same fashion that you can "prove" a mathematical theorem.

You are right, of course, about what a hypothesis is, of course. I over-simplified in my description. Indeed, a hypothesis is exactly what laypersons think of when they think of the word "theory", and I probably should have made that more clear.

Ultimately though, the point is: the discovery of a slightly older asteroid in no way invalidates our current theories about the age of the Solar System, it just required revising upward our estimated age by an infinitesimal amount.

-Arlos

[Jay]

LOL @ Arlos, look I'm just trying to keep this forum alive. I got "poked" at a while ago as to why I don't post in here so, there ya go :p.

Nobody should be "trying" to keep this forum alive. It should just be or should not be. If people felt compelled to discuss things with the NT community they would. Otherwise, I guess there isn't really anything worth talking about amongst each other aside from the occasional birthday wish, cool quotes from our favorite TV shows and left/right wing bashing. If anything, the only way NT will stay alive is for people to get comfortable talking about regular boring day to day shit.

As far as why you aren't getting certain things Clak, I don't get em either, but maybe that's why you and I aren't physicists =P There are people who know everything that is available to science today that STILL have arguments as to how things work so for you to come in with the limited knowledge you have on the subject and label it as something that throws science "into the fiction bucket" is pretty silly. That's like you arguing with a mechanic when all you know is what you learned in your first day of shop class.

[ClakarEQ]

While the post was more a keep alive ping, and I hear you re: it should either live or die, the forum that is, this OP article and recent shows I've seen regarding the science topics make me feel that science and religion should be treated "similar".

Look at quantum physics or quantum mechanics regarding atoms and the invisible connections they can generate over distance (i.e. beam me up scotty, aka teleporting), to the inability to understand gravity, or even something so simple as a magnet (e.g. science can not figure out why when you cut a magnet in half, does it still have two poles).

/spew off

Just know that folks do put faith in science, the acceptance of unproven science is faith. That being, you believe it what you're being told even though it can't be proven or disproven and all it has is a best guess. So regardless of the scientific opinion of a few here (/poke arlos) science and religion have close relations and IMO can be percieved to be similar.

Many things in religion have been proven to be true (no I'm not talking about walking on water), just as many things in science have been proven to be true, however both have many things unproven, yet we are to believe science over religion by default it seems /shrug. There is no proof to the age of our planet, just some data based of what they think is "correct", there is no proof of the big bang, no proof of the solar systems age, etc etc. if you follow my flow here :p yet look at how pointed folks can get over, the "OOO c-mon it's science, it has to be true" part.

EDIT
before I get railed on the magnet part, this was in reference to why don't monopole magnets exist, why can't we make them, etc

[Tikker]

Science you can test


Religion you can't


They aren't remotely the same

[Harrison]

That's a rather simplistic view of a very complex subject.

[Tikker]

Yup

[ClakarEQ]

Actually you can't test all science and if you (the science only folks) can't see a parallel between religion and science, even just a little, then you are no different than a religious zealot who thinks science is a fraud. So philosophically speaking, they are similar.

[Arlos]

Uh, *ALL* of science is based on that which is testable, observable, describable and predictable. Have you never heard of the Scientific Method?

Religion, on the other hand, is ENTIRELY issues of faith. Remember, do not mix up history with religious belief.

Did an individual named Jesus live in the Jerusalem area at around what we now call 20-30AD? Matter of history. Can be researched.

Was that individual the Son of God? Matter of faith. No way whatsoever to test or check this objectively.
Did that individual die and then get resurrected 3 days later? Yet again, matter entirely of faith, no way for any sort of objective checking.

Was there a city named Jericho with impressive walls there in the area when the israelites were moving into the area? Matter of historic record. Archaeologists can check this and research it.

Did the "Power of God" knock down the walls after the Israelites blew ram horns 3 times? Matter of faith, no way whatsoever to test, check or verify this.

Does God exist? No way to test this whatsoever. There is nothing to observe, no experiment to run, nothing.
What does God look like? Can you describe him? Can you predict his actions? No. Element of faith.

Ultimately, that's what faith *IS*: a belief in that which is unknowable and unprovable and inherently untestable. There *IS* no test you can design to test God. Faith is therefore outside the purview of the Scientific method, and is wholly different than science.

Just because *YOU* might not understand some scientific theory, when research physicists or some other discipline asks you to believe in a scientific theory, and thus YOU would have to take it on faith, does *NOT* mean that the theory ITSELF is based on faith in any way, shape, or form. It's just that YOU aren't a PhD research physicist and don't understand the theory, know all the math and testing that has gone into it, etc. Hell, I don't understand the guts of, say, String Theory either, since I'm no PhD physicist either. That doesn't mean that all of that evidence and observational data isn't available for me or you to go look at if we were ever to wish to see it. Hell, I'd have to take it on faith that what the mechanic is pointing to in my engine is, say, the water pump and not some other engine part, since I don't know engines in the least. That doesn't mean that auto mechanics is the same as religion, simply because my lack of knowledge means I have to take things an expert tells me on faith, now does it?

So, if you don't see the difference between issues of religion, which by definition *EVERYONE* must take on faith, and issues of science, which are based on provable observed fact and by experimental results, but which laypersons must take the results on faith because they lack the appropriate knowledge, (but where that knowledge IS available) then there is no help for you. You have simply made up your mind, and no amount of fact will dissuade you.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

Actually you can't test all science and if you (the science only folks) can't see a parallel between religion and science, even just a little, then you are no different than a religious zealot who thinks science is a fraud. So philosophically speaking, they are similar.

that doesn't even make sense

[ClakarEQ]

Arlos, perhaps you need to understand what science and faith mean in the context I'm using them because you're really falling off the deep end here. You seem to be hung up on the religious connection you're making. I am saying followers of science require faith just as followers of Buda require faith. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend.

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Science (hmm strange no mention of scientific method, and even when you get the definition of that method, oddly, no mention of proof /shrug)
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

It's simple, I don't know why you keep trying to disprove your faith in science.

My OP was just to point out that even if the date of the planet was off by a fraction of a fraction, it was still off. Does that not give you pause to question science, just as folks would question Christians on Jesus walking on water (two spectrum extremes, I know)? or are you the lemming that just believes all what science says because you assume all science is somehow proven; similar to a religious lemming that believes all they're told because, well, that's all they're told?

I have faith that science will determine why gravity exists.
I have little faith that science knows the age of the planet.
I have no faith that science has proven the big bang took place and one day, they will find some new thing, that proves my position (e.g. how wrong they are).

Do you still not follow?

EDIT
Tikker, you don't know what you're talking about stop being a tool and provide value, what are you the next harrison or something? (sorry Harri, minor jab at you :p)

[Arlos]

You stated that there is, if I may quote:

a parallel between religion and science

I state that given the way that is put, that you are flatly wrong. You are mixing up definitions of faith and using them interchangeably, when that is completely incorrect.

By the way you are defining it, there is exactly the same parallel you are making between religion and science there between auto mechanics and religion. I don't know all of the parts of my car's engine, or what all the parts that make up the transmission are, so I have faith in my mechanic that what he points at is indeed the air system vacuum pump and not some other pump for a different system entirely, for example. Is that faith in any way the same sort of faith that is involved in religion? FUCK NO.

Religious faith asks for belief with *NO PROOF* whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Squat. Nada. Fuck all.

What you are, in your mixed up way, referring to as scientific faith, is a matter of lack of knowledge of given facts and/or an inability to understand how it's all put together, just like my lack of knowledge of auto mechanics. That doesn't mean there is no proof, or that you couldn't go find out that information for yourself, though, just like I could go look up an engine schematic and see for myself what that gizmo was. Your utter lack of understanding of the mountains of evidence and supporting data behind the big bang theory does not somehow invalidate it. Certainly the theory will evolve over time, and become more refined, just as the theory of Continental Drift was refined into modern Plate Tectonics theory. Doesn't mean that continental drift didn't and doesn't happen, just that they didn't have the full picture.

It's as simple as this: With science, there is experimentation, observational evidence, and predictive theories, whether you know them properly or understand them.
With religion, there is blind faith in the unknowable and unprovable and untestable.

Put better, perhaps: Science deals entirely with what and how. What is out there, how it got to be that way, what it is, how it works. Religion deals with WHY. Why are we here. Why do bad things happen to good people. etc.

They are fundamentally different things, no matter how much you may wish to conflate them, with your mixed-up definitions. NO matter how much you try and definite them the same, faith in an expert who knows more on a subject than you do is *NOT* the same thing as religious faith. Period. End of story. Even Websters disagrees with you.

-Arlos

PS: In no way am I anti-religion. I am a religious person myself in many ways, even if I'm not christian. There is no barrier to being both religious and scientifically inclined. They simply are utterly different things, that deal with utterly different questions.

[Tikker]

i THINK he's trying to say that since you don't actually test all the scientific laws/theories/etc YOUR OWN DAMN SELF that you just have faith that they're accurate

ie, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there, does it make a sound?

[Dimuza]

I just hope the argument keeps up. It's more entertaining than most threads recently.

Hail, Satan! Boooo, Michio Kaku!

[Arlos]

i THINK he's trying to say that since you don't actually test all the scientific laws/theories/etc YOUR OWN DAMN SELF that you just have faith that they're accurate

Yeah, that's exactly what he's trying to say. The problem is, he's completely mixing up 2 wildly separate meanings for the word "Faith", and making claims based on that definition confusion. It's like a manager telling a subordinate to grill the guy there for an interview, only to show up in the conference room to find a long-pig BBQ, but saying those two meanings of "grill" were interchangeable.

Like I said, using his method, auto mechanics = religion, because I don't understand all of how my car's engine/transmission/etc works myself, but I have faith that my mechanic does, and can fix things when they break. So, since I trust in the expert knowledge of my mechanic, that's the same as believing that god exists and created everything.

The thing is, trust in an expert on a subject where you COULD find all the information out yourself if you had the time, smarts and inclination is not even remotely the same as faith in the divine. The divine is, by definition, unknown and unknowable. It's just not at all the same thing.

-Arlos

[Tossica]

Not quite, Arlos. In the end, your car is fixed.

There is a lot of bogus science out there. There are a lot of scientists that make ridiculous claims and there is a lot that can never be proven so it takes a certain amount of faith in order to believe it.

[ClakarEQ]

Yes dimuza, I am doing this for the pure entertainment at this point (actually since the second or maybe third post it went into the entertainment / troll bucket for me).

No, actually arlos you're just lost in what I'm trying to say and even when I supply you with the definitions I'm using as they are meant to be used you still can't see it.

This as ZERO to do with "ME" or you or what you think or what I think or what we both know.

I have faith that God exists
I have faith that science knows the age of our planet

Are you saying the EXACT same definition of faith can NOT be used in those two sentences? You Arlos, YOU made the issue up in your own mind and extended to a place that I never intended. I never said science was faith or that religion was not. All I keep saying is if you follow science and believe all that science says then you have faith in science and that is similar to the faith one has in any religion.

Science does NOT test all the laws you all seem to think. You should really get your heads out of the sand on that one. Scientific methods do not require proof across all aspects of science, that is why there are things called theories, hypothesis, etc etc. Are you going to say every theory is PROVEN to be true? You fell so far off the deep end on this one it really is funny.

If you believe every stitch of what science says, then you are following science through faith PERIOD 100% fact. EXACTLY as the same defined faith someone's has towards religion. If you can't see it, then that is your problem. I'm not the only one that has made this connection or statement either and I don't believe I'm in a minority regarding the similarities of science and religion.

But I accomplished what I wanted out of this and it was to bring back the "action" if you will of this forum.

However I'll digress and take Jays advice, let it die.

EDIT
Tossica, THANK YOU, that is exactly what I've been trying to get these guys to "see".

[Reynaldo]

I'm on the science is a faith of sorts side as well.

It's like if you said it's proven that an egg dropped from 100 feet onto concrete will always break. The one time it doesn't break completely invalidates saying that's a law or fact. So anything based on that law going forward is also inherently flawed. So fast forward thousands of years of theories / laws based on previously accepted laws or facts that are potentially flawed = no thanks.

A lot of it's great and useful but there's definitely a large amount of faith involved saying that generations upon generations of things accepted as proven most likely aren't 100% factual.

[Arlos]

I have faith that God exists
I have faith that science knows the age of our planet

Are you saying the EXACT same definition of faith can NOT be used in those two sentences?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

In line 1, you're believing in something unknown, unknowable, unprovable, untestable, and otherwise in the realm of pure belief and philosophy. Religious faith is blind faith. That doesn't make it wrong or lesser, but it does make it different than faith in an expert.

In line 2, you're trusting in the accuracy of an expert, just like you may trust the weatherman when he says it's likely to rain tomorrow. He may not always be right, just like science gets things wrong occasionally (like Newton was wrong in the grander scheme of things), but it still deals with the realm of the tangible, testable, and predictable.

Hell, the very definition of faith that YOU POSTED listed those two meanings of faith as separate and different.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Right. Definition 1: I have faith/trust that the experiments conducted were performed by competent and educated persons with extensive knowledge on the subject.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Right. Definition 2: a separate definition of the word, which is why it's listed as definition 2 and not in the same sentence as definition 1.

The word fire.. when you let someone go from a job, are you engulfing them in flames? No, fire has multiple meanings. If your nose is running, are you going to go out and buy your snot a fresh pair of Nikes? Of course not, that's ridiculous. You're a smart man, so I'm sure you're aware of the complexity of the english language and the fact that there are hundreds of words within our language that are applied differently and mean different things.

Not to mention that within the very source you provided your definitions from, you glided over the other definitions that specifically mention religious faith and their different meanings.

3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.