Welcome to the Technology & Science Forum :)

researchkitty

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
Now Toke N Talk can breath a little more......... For the technology geeks and science nerds, we present to you the Technology / Science Forum!

For the topics that are a little bit crazy, no opinions are ever moderated, but negative attitudes and trolling are, so remember the "please be constructive" and polite part and spread the love!

You can visit the new forum: https://www.rollitup.org/technology-science/ and subscribe to it too! :)

In September we got our glass forum. In November we got our Tech/Science forum. Good times. :hump::hump::hump:
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Is there actual science anymore or are we just using technology to create more technology?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Doer said:
Is there actual science anymore or are we just using technology to create more technology?
Click to expand...
Scientists and engineers are close family, but they aren't the same. There is vibrant science going on every day, like in biology and astronomy, but :cuss: consumer electronics get all the media attention. Jmo. cn
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
...the only technology most people are aware of are the devices, etc. that they are politely coerced into buying. Fortunately, no civilian is able to launch anything off of an iPad just yet. Imagine an iPad Jihad :shock:
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm suggesting that the instruments of science are technology brought forth
from the previous science. The fox guarding the hen house, the blind leading
the blind. I'm thinking the LHC looking into the muster point and not seeing
what they thought. Technology will enable even more power. Is that science?

Of course. It's the only science we know. But is that good enough? Or are we
stuck with science to ceate wonderful tech and weapons but naturally leads us
to only wonder about what we discovered with the technology?

It's a sort of Plato's Cave argument applied to science. Are we really looking in the right places, since we are limited to useable technology? Chasing Quantum Time
and not Quantum Mind, for example.

Sometimes I think we are creating our science as we go. Preception is Conception.

Really there is no science in direct observation any more. Humans are falible witnesses I'm not talking about the pesudo-sciences like paleotology. All hard science needs technology to do anything, these days.
 
researchkitty

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
I'm just happy that instead of Science threads being in the Spirituality forum, they now have the proper place, away from the religion section. :)
 
researchkitty

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
Its as much of a psuedoscience as how to grow weed! :) palentology is always evolution in my eyes, and thats the single most successful scientific fact with the most observable and tested evidence in all of human history.........
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I've just been reading Dawkins' "Greatest Show on Earth", and he advances the elegant and compelling argument that the case for unguided evolution can be made without *any* reference to the fossil record.
So imo paleontology is "off the hook" in re debates concerning origins.
I'm (perhaps naively) assuming that Doer isn't referring to questions of doctrine ... cn
 
researchkitty

researchkitty

Well-Known Member
Just because it "could" be discovered without fossils, doesnt mean that it couldnt be discovered with them either, so it lumps in the same pot to me =)
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I've just been reading Dawkins' "Greatest Show on Earth", and he advances the elegant and compelling argument that the case for unguided evolution can be made without *any* reference to the fossil record.
So imo paleontology is "off the hook" in re debates concerning origins.
I'm (perhaps naively) assuming that Doer isn't referring to questions of doctrine ... cn
Click to expand...
That was such a great book! I just bought my son a hard copy of Dawkins latest book, 'The Magic of Reality'. He loves it! It's a graphic book, with Dave McKean doing the illustration, and is written in a very easy, layman-friendly style, so even children can enjoy it. I encourage everyone to check it out...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Magic-of-Reality-ebook/dp/B004T4KR6A
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Doer, why do you consider paleontology to be a pseudoscience? cn
Click to expand...
Sorry, it seems like I used the wrong word. Pseudo is the moniker choosen
for Cold Fusion, all the way down to snake oil. "Cloaked in an appearance of science."

There is another word. Too far from school for me, but we discussed it on our paleo
forum and I have screwed up.

So, if I may, it's the other word, "indirect" perhaps? Meaning there is no direct way to carefully reconstruct how the "evidence" got there. Forensics is another example. The use of technology to perform scientific method. So, the articles I've read to try to find
that word <errrr> are even suggesting that "nothing" is science any more.

Much on point. All observations at the edges of science are in-direct and need the
tech from the previous generation. 2 tidbits.
-----------------------------------------
Palaeontological data are sparse and incomplete. Palaeontologists interpret new fossils based on previous fossils, even when they only have a few bones or bits, and rely on other bits from other locations for interpretation. Therefore, palaeontology is not a science.
-------------------------
Interpretation of results is something all scientists must do--but does archaeology rely too much on one person's opinions? We can measure as many projectile points as we like, we can run statistics on the measurements as much as we like, but in the end, we still have to rely on (past and present) interpretations to decide when a Clovis point is a Clovis point or simply Clovis-like.
--------------------------
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
So, religion aside, the indirect observations so-far point to an evolutionary process.
But, it says nothing about if there is "intelligent design" involved or not.
Here we swerve into the realm of "popular" (don't really care) science, conjecture and
supersition.

Let's swerve back.

The Hubble Constant. It's the basis of Big Bang theory. Un-deniably a direct observation, right? No, not really. It turns out the Constant is based on a constant
doppler effect. The Red Shift. Easy to explain when waiting for a train.

But, if space is filling in (Dark Energy) at an acellerating rate, there is no way to know if that rate is changing. Or if the speed of light is changing over galatic time. Don't laugh. The math here is much more elegant and we don't need no stinkin big bang.
Or, since gravity is un-defined and galaxy rotation is un-predicted, we have Dark Matter.

But, light is somehow effected by gravity even though it is massless. Huh?

So, how can light jump from the emitter and be instantaneously at the speed
of light? (what kind of acclerations are we talking about here, if any?)
NO MASS???.

Then how can it be bent by gravity? So, again my point. Aren't we only uncovering
new tech, with the old tech?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I think it is very important to distinguish tech from science. Science is the use of sensory information to build models for how stuff works. Technology provides improved sensors, but these serve the scientific method - not the other way around.

My take on paleontology is that it is solid science. Two facts stand out - isotopic dating has become good enough that we can date the age of enough fossils within a per cent or two. This allows building a trustworthy ladder of succession.
The other is that nowhere, not even once, has a "later" fossil been found out of place in an "early" stratum.

As for the Hubble constant ... the error bars on this derived quantity are still considerable. We don't have a way at this time to test for anisotropy (unevenness) across time or space, so the question is somewhat open. However our Hubble photos of very young, very distant galaxies behaving in an "ordinary" gravitational manner strongly suggest that any anisotropies are mild.
But using that to debunk the Big Bang??
How? and...
Why?
cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top