Civilization Among The Other Planets
- Thread starter LightningMcGreen
- Start date
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I see where you are coming from, but I think you just haven't taken the time to fully consider and understand the scientific method. Science is much more careful and precise than what you are describing. If a theory is proven false, it is false. You seem to be saying that is a theory is shown to be right 99 times, and wrong 1 time, it's still right. If we were not concerned with that one time, we would have stopped at 99. That one time shows us that the theory needs adjustment or in some cases abandonment. This concept of self correction is woven into the very fabric of science.
Technically, arriving at scientific fact is how things are found not to be false, in which case they are an approximation of the truth. I realize this doesn't sound like a distinction worthy of mention, but science is precise in it's goals and it's methods. Scientific facts always come with conditions and error bars, however tiny.
The scientific method demands that he be concerned with finding out if he was wrong. The way we do this is to design tests, experiments which can falsify the theory. We do not design tests simply to supply confirming evidence. We design tests which the explanation can fail or pass, and either result is desirable. For a theory to be accepted it must not only posses the ability to supply replicable results, it also must have considerable power to explain and to predict.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
why penguins? if you think of it, penguins need cold, so maybe obese humans would have evolved into penguins in order to accommodate for the cold...
but still, penguins do not fly, but they can swim a lot. swimming depending on the type of swimming, either sprinting or distance requires aerobic and anaerobic muscle physiology, so i still think penguins are well adapted for long water swim even though they cannot fly.
but still, penguins do not fly, but they can swim a lot. swimming depending on the type of swimming, either sprinting or distance requires aerobic and anaerobic muscle physiology, so i still think penguins are well adapted for long water swim even though they cannot fly.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
You don't prove theories. Ever. Theories are the highest levels of knowledge in science. Theories are made up of facts and laws but never become a 'fact.'
Of course he was convinced he was right. That's why it was so important to choose something in his theory that could be tested because if you can't tell other scientists how your theory can be proven wrong, then it really isn't a good theory. Falsification is an important step in the scientific method. Falsification means showing how something can be WRONG.
You are using the word prove in a colloquial sense, then yes, he was proven correct. However, I 'm talking in a strict scientific sense, the shift in the star supported the theory but it was not proven. I'm trying to teach you something here and instead of listening, you're arguing. We don't prove things in science. Science is about levels of confidence.
Why what theory of gravity was accepted and by who?
What is the widespread accepted one? Aristotle's view? Galileo's? Newton?
Do you understand the difference between the fact that we observe things fall to the earth and we call it gravity (or gravitation) and the theory of what gravity is? BTW, Newton did not propose a theory of gravity as in what creates the force, where it comes from, etc. The law of gravitation merely tells us mathematically how objects with mass behave.
Gravity has speed? The acceleration caused by gravity on earth is a measurement. It is based on the mass of earth. Gravity does not have speed. I hope we teach our children better than your understanding.
Heis and I were only trying to correct your misstatements about what is and isn't science. Yes, go ahead and talk about probability and statistics all day long. Science may use those as tools, but we were only taking exception to your comment about that this was what science is.
Change is good. You made it sound like there is a single correct answer not an ever changing range of answers depending on the numbers you decide to plug in, the only way we can handle statistical problems like this. Heis and I were just pointing out more variables, ignoring them because we haven't found out everything about them yet or because they can't be seen by Hubble or whatever you were trying to say didn't make sense. Remember, Heis wasn't arguing with you, he was offering up some good things to think about like the Drake equation. He was pointing out some things you said that were incorrect. You answered him back with the same incorrect ideas about science. That's the only reason I stepped in here. I don't like to see the fundamentals of science butchered, whether it's by a religious anti-evolutionist or a well-meaning stoner that is interested in science but still gets it wrong. Please watch this video
[video=youtube;ItxVLu8J_d0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxVLu8J_d0[/video]
I made honey oil for the first time so that's where I'm at.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Mindphuk:
But we don't even test most things more than once, in multiple conditions. Like I've never seen a Quantum Physics theory displayed two different ways, they figure out one way to do it. "That worked, so what we thought based on that is true." Like they have never shown that splitting atom thing to work with anything but gold foil. What if we use aluminum foil, because it didn't happen this time is it not true. ACCORDING TO SCIENCE: Nope, it's true. All because it worked with the gold.
And thank you, the Scientific Method is what I meant. I couldn't remember it. But we're still talking about scientific fact here. And my "theory" did come with conditions, which I described.
I'm pretty sure most scientists with a theory are "Checking their math" when they try to prove or disprove. So they think they have the right answer, but they want to know for sure. I'm sorry, but when I do any chemistry I am assuming I was correct in my science and math when I take a hit of the hash. If I felt I did it wrong, I wouldn't risk the hit.
But it only has to explain and predict situations that are implied by it.
And please don't hate me after this, I'm enjoying the debate. I feel both sides learn in debate, as long as they aren't in turmoil after.
But we don't even test most things more than once, in multiple conditions. Like I've never seen a Quantum Physics theory displayed two different ways, they figure out one way to do it. "That worked, so what we thought based on that is true." Like they have never shown that splitting atom thing to work with anything but gold foil. What if we use aluminum foil, because it didn't happen this time is it not true. ACCORDING TO SCIENCE: Nope, it's true. All because it worked with the gold.
And thank you, the Scientific Method is what I meant. I couldn't remember it. But we're still talking about scientific fact here. And my "theory" did come with conditions, which I described.
I'm pretty sure most scientists with a theory are "Checking their math" when they try to prove or disprove. So they think they have the right answer, but they want to know for sure. I'm sorry, but when I do any chemistry I am assuming I was correct in my science and math when I take a hit of the hash. If I felt I did it wrong, I wouldn't risk the hit.
But it only has to explain and predict situations that are implied by it.
And please don't hate me after this, I'm enjoying the debate. I feel both sides learn in debate, as long as they aren't in turmoil after.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Mindphuk:
Theories are not the highest level. The "Theory of Evolution" will remain a theory, until it is proven by the "missing link".
But he was proving himself RIGHT not WRONG.
And science does prove things. They are not seeking the missing link to Prove themselves WRONG, they are not looking for black holes to prove they DON'T exist. Your trying to teach me something, but what your trying to teach me is as harder to accept as true as the way Quantum Physics works, and the proof for that is even terrible. And it actually has evidence.
The theory of Gravity was accepted by the world, BECAUSE THEY COULD SEE THAT THINGS FALL.
The widespread accepted one? You haven't heard of GRAVITY?
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF GRAVITY IS. Newton said that there was a force PULLING everything. And we all accept it. It was Newton who said it. And Newton who promoted it.
Look up the speed of gravity. Everything falls at the same rate. Which is gravities speed. It's like 9 miles an hour. I hope our children can think better than you, I don't care what their taught, as long as they have cognitive activity above yours. Comprehend man.
I was talking about science at the times I was talking about science. Again, you misunderstand. I was TALKING ABOUT STATISTICS, AT THE PARTS THAT SAY STATISTICS.
I made a single correct answer because my point was a little bigger than the math. I used math that isn't in the middle of a massive shift, to bring about conversation dealing with the belief of life on other planets, and the possibilities of diversity.
I'm sorry your stuck in the introduction, maybe you'll make it a little further one day.
Theories are not the highest level. The "Theory of Evolution" will remain a theory, until it is proven by the "missing link".
But he was proving himself RIGHT not WRONG.
And science does prove things. They are not seeking the missing link to Prove themselves WRONG, they are not looking for black holes to prove they DON'T exist. Your trying to teach me something, but what your trying to teach me is as harder to accept as true as the way Quantum Physics works, and the proof for that is even terrible. And it actually has evidence.
The theory of Gravity was accepted by the world, BECAUSE THEY COULD SEE THAT THINGS FALL.
The widespread accepted one? You haven't heard of GRAVITY?
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE THEORY OF GRAVITY IS. Newton said that there was a force PULLING everything. And we all accept it. It was Newton who said it. And Newton who promoted it.
Look up the speed of gravity. Everything falls at the same rate. Which is gravities speed. It's like 9 miles an hour. I hope our children can think better than you, I don't care what their taught, as long as they have cognitive activity above yours. Comprehend man.
I was talking about science at the times I was talking about science. Again, you misunderstand. I was TALKING ABOUT STATISTICS, AT THE PARTS THAT SAY STATISTICS.
I made a single correct answer because my point was a little bigger than the math. I used math that isn't in the middle of a massive shift, to bring about conversation dealing with the belief of life on other planets, and the possibilities of diversity.
I'm sorry your stuck in the introduction, maybe you'll make it a little further one day.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Not entirely correct imo. Theories are formulated with and tested by the most basic scientific action: the controlled observation. (Typically "experiment" is the word used, but I consider astronomy to be hard science, and most astronomical and astrophysical insights cannot be tested by experimentation. Instead, astronomers, like their secret partners in photoreconnaissance establishments, rely on high-resolution remote imaging.)
Quantum mechanics is the math at the heart of quantum physics. The math evolved simultaneously in two very different notations: Heisenberg et al. developed matrix mechanics, while Schroedinger et al. developed wave mechanics. They proved convergent and equivalent, but they came from different processes.
cheers 'neer
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Gravity waves travel at c, the speed of light in vacuum.
Everything does not fall at the same rate. Were i to jump from an airplane, my initial falling speed would be near zero. i would accelerate to 120-180 miles an hour before achieving a steady state in which gravitational force is balanced by atmospheric drag.
Things accelerating at a fixed rate - different question. On Earth's surface we have the serviceable illusion that gravity is uniform, even though a gravimetric reading in Mexico City (9.779 m sE-2) and Helsinki (9.781 m sE-2) would be measurably different.
1200 miles up, Earth's gravitational pull is less than 60% of the surface value.
~the munchies just hit - brain going into idle~
cheers 'neer
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Don't bother. I tried to help but he is unteachable. My question is why does he think this way? How can someone be so arrogant about the shit he's so wrong about?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
He's actually talking about G. I was only trying to get him to recognize it's acceleration not speed he was talking about. He missed that. Don't confuse him with the details.
bigbillyrocka
Well-Known Member
This made me think of aliens and how I think WE are the aliens. I think its us from the future. Reason we (they) dont make contact is due to the huge changes it would cause. A ripple effect if you will. The signs are all over ancient ruins and heiroglyphics. Just a thought. A high one
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Ok, maybe they have found recent evidence. But that only proves that what I'm saying is true. Things are definitely accepted by science before they are proven beyond a doubt to be true.
Newton proved that what your saying is wrong in the past. He dropped two things and they fell equally.
I posted that shit to continue on a conversation about aliens, please get off my dick and say something cool that you thought anthropologically about aliens. Or go ride someone else, somewhere else. This isn't my thread and this isn't cool.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Mindphuk, i have added things of substance and have responded well to your follow up response about genes and obesity.
Why is that you think obesity does not affect our genes?
Why is that you think obesity does not affect our genes?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
We might be the aliens. But even if we are, we can't harness light travel. The fastest we know how to make something go is by making a HUGE explosion under it. we would have to meet another race before we could come back, or it would have to be ridiculously into the future, ad their just coming back to kill specific butterflies or Beatles, and chop down certain trees. (or is it dark:burn down the right house, kill the right guy) to alter their history drastically.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I realize your math was simply a premise intended to lead to deeper conversation about alien life, and in that sense it was arbitrary. I was only trying to help you reach a better approximation by giving you information it appeared you were unaware of. Doing so revealed a much more serious misunderstanding of science and knowledge, along with a reckless attitude. You seem to misinterpret everything from biology to physics to quantum theory, indeed you misunderstand the very process we use to study these fields. For the scope of this thread perhaps this is a trivial point. But in defense of science and in response to your certainty I must at least implore you to put some serious study into the scientific method, as understanding the process is necessary to understand the results. This thread is about theoretical speculation, and you seem to be having a pleasant and productive discussion so I wont derail it by correcting you here, but don't expect to be excused in any science related threads for spreading false information without being adamantly corrected.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Whatever. Your ridiculous. You go study the scientific method, and look at history. It's not false. It's been true for hundreds of years until the past couple decades, and it's simple. And EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT, so it was a easy base for discussion. I was just pointing out some old math, that proves we should have been believing this for at least the past 100 years. I'm sorry that you got all but hurt because of the discoveries of the past couple decades, but that's no the topic here. Now...
SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALIENS OR GO AWAY.
SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALIENS OR GO AWAY.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I study the scientific method daily, what do you suppose I need to concentrate on? I have pointed out areas you may want to study, such as falsification as it applies to burden of proof. I will happily check my understanding of the scientific process if you want to be more specific about where I am misguided.
What you are describing is a positivist view of the scientific method, which was abandoned long ago in the name of self correction. The approach modern science takes to hypothesis is that you try to prove it wrong, and from the results you form a new hypothesis. This is because if you try to prove it right, you never know if one more experiment may prove it wrong. If your hypothesis is that all the balls in an enclosed box are white, and you pull out one white ball, you just proved your hypothesis correct. If you do this 99 times, you have proved yourself right 99 times. Does this mean you have really proved that all the balls inside are white? What if #100 is blue? For this reason, this is not the most responsible approach to finding truth. We can be more careful and increase our chances of finding mistake if we actively look for them. When we fail to find them, IOW if all the balls we pulled out were indeed white, how can we be even more sure that we haven't made an error. We give the box to someone else and have them attempt to find a mistake. Maybe they will find a colored ball when we couldn't. If they can't, they replicate and confirm our results. This is peer review, another important step to scientific consensus.
You could compare the differences in these approaches to the difference between civil and criminal court. One attempts to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, the other attempts to prove only a probability. In the end, a positivist approach tells us only what is likely, where as a critical rationale approach tells us what has survived a system of rigorous dispute and verification. One operates on hope, the other operates on doubt. That of course is not to say there are no positivist elements incorporated in science today, but it is not the heart of it's practice.
So when it comes time to test our hypothesis we design an experiment intended to expose possible mistakes, or to confirm theoretical predictions (because failure to realize those predictions indicates a mistake). In this sense, the goal of science is to prove itself right by failing to prove itself wrong. In this context, it doesn't make sense to say science is searching for the missing link in order to prove evolution as fact. Evolution predicts some things that are missing, so we search for them in an attempt to expose error, but of course we have found many so called missing links in the form of transitional fossils.
Science is much more fastidious and concerned with accuracy than you give it credit for. Maybe it would help you understand the facts we do have and therefore make your speculation about alien life more fulfilling if you keep this in mind.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
But you haven't given a single thing to back up anything you say. You call your words facts and back them up wit a video. Show me a quote, tell me a for instance like I did over and over. And study history, and how people have treated the scientific method. I think your stuck in miracle science world. If that's specific enough for you GO DO IT.
I don't care if that shit was abondoned long ago. I can use it, and many GREAT PEOPLE do. So I decided to use it for a small discussion. SO WHAT??I'm sorry I'M SORRY. Please stop this.
PLEASE STOP RAPING THIS THREAD.
I AM SORRY EVERYONE. I will think about aliens tonight, and try to redeem this stupid shit I just made any subscribers go through.
I don't care if that shit was abondoned long ago. I can use it, and many GREAT PEOPLE do. So I decided to use it for a small discussion. SO WHAT??I'm sorry I'M SORRY. Please stop this.
PLEASE STOP RAPING THIS THREAD.
I AM SORRY EVERYONE. I will think about aliens tonight, and try to redeem this stupid shit I just made any subscribers go through.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find most people participating in this thread do not mind my interjections, and indeed I announced my intentions to cease, which was answered with provocation. I also think you are confusing me with someone who posted a video, I did no such thing. I did provide sources for my explanation of reasoning behind falsification, sources which included history, and I gave you a 'for instance' with the example of the balls.
I think understanding science is an important prerequisite to having serious discussion about alien life, since evidential speculation is likely to be the most accurate. I have enjoyed what you have offered so far, and only wanted to inform you of possible errors, a service I hope others provide me. I see you have a genuine appreciation of science and a strong interest in this subject, I hoped it might further your interest and foster your appreciation to explain your misconceptions. I speak with frankness and without kid gloves, because we are all adults, but I did not intend to insight defensive hostility.