26 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI can tell you sleep quite well at night. Ignorance is bliss.
I sleep quite well at night. I don't EVER worry about how old A&E are or were when they were decanted or whatever you think happened. It is just another creation myth, one of hundreds around the world. You just happen to be one of the billions who have been brainwashed into thinking that story is real. It is such a waste of brainpower.
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIt was Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's Theory. Things have come on a little and we do not refer to scientific theories as laws any more. There's no real difference between a theory and an hypothesis. In practice a theory is derived from a paradigm theory where the only thing really in question is the approximation used. We are aware that our paradigms (laws to you) could be wrong - which is why they are repeatedly tested - but they are generally treated as rigorously true when deriving longer range results. These theoretical results can be compared with experiments to provided a test of the underlying paradigms. An hypothesis is normally in regard of an experimental situation where we don't know how to apply our paradigm theories, so someone deduces a rule and calls it an hypothesis.
You are confusing Theory and Law.
There is both a Law of Gravity and a Theory of Gravity. You were talking about the Law of Gravity on Earth. The Theory of Gravity is for the Universe.
The Law of Gravity on Earth has been adequately tested on Earth to know that it is true for effects on Earth. The Theory of Gravity of the Universe has not been adequ ...[text shortened]... as to how things might work, but has not been tested by the scientific method.
The Instructor
We require of a theory that it accurately describes what we see, which in particle physics is pretty good. You've made some recent posts which seem to surround the possibility that the speed of light is different in different parts of the universe. The problem is that were the case then we would see lensing effects as the earth went round the sun. We don't see that so the conclusion is that - at least within the local group - the speed of light is not much different to what it is here.
The argument with global warming is over how representative the models, which are representations of theories, are of the climate. Most of the science is well understood, but that is different from being certain of a model, where issues of numerical stability become important. Climate models are no different, so there is scope for debate over how well the model works, but this is not the same as the underlying fundamental science being wrong, the problems in climate science resolve around resolution and the models missing possible effects such as additional carbon sinks.
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe hypothesis and resulting theories are dime a dozen. What science needs is practical applications. Otherwise science is no better than any other recreational activity,
It was Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's Theory. Things have come on a little and we do not refer to scientific theories as laws any more. There's no real difference between a theory and an hypothesis. In practice a theory is derived from a paradigm theory where the only thing really in question is the approximation used. We are aware that our p ...[text shortened]... around resolution and the models missing possible effects such as additional carbon sinks.
The Instructor
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo the science that discovered the electron in 1890 that led to all of our electronics today or the internet which was developed specifically so academic institutions could share data, all of that was just recreational frill. I see.
The hypothesis and resulting theories are dime a dozen. What science needs is practical applications. Otherwise science is no better than any other recreational activity,
The Instructor
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. That is the kind of practical science I mean. All this stuff about time travel, black and white holes, billions of years in the past, and evilution have no practical value and are only good for recreational discussions.
So the science that discovered the electron in 1890 that led to all of our electronics today or the internet which was developed specifically so academic institutions could share data, all of that was just recreational frill. I see.
The Instructor
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsFunny, I bet that's what a lot of folks thought about discovering the electron in century 19 too.
No. That is the kind of practical science I mean. All this stuff about time travel, black and white holes, billions of years in the past, and evilution have no practical value and are only good for recreational discussions.
The Instructor
Then there was the 'if man was meant to fly....' stuff you heard in century 19 also.
You can't tell about where things will lead when you do fundamental scientific research.
Maybe it could even prove there is a god. THAT you would accept.
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseIgnorance of the fact that even you believe in certain things that must be taken by faith. You don't have the intellectual ability to even look at things from a perspective you do not agree.
Ignorance of the veracity of the A&E story? Get serious. I got out of the religious game at the age of 8 and have been very happy with that decision ever since.
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by EladarWell I do that all the time, try to put myself in the other's shoes. That doesn't stop me from thinking they are full of shyte. You don't know much about me to be making sweeping statements.
Ignorance of the fact that even you believe in certain things that must be taken by faith. You don't have the intellectual ability to even look at things from a perspective you do not agree.
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI didn't say you'd agree with it. I simply asked you to see the logical result of a possible assumption. But hey, I guess some things are a bit beyond your grasp.
Well I do that all the time, try to put myself in the other's shoes. That doesn't stop me from thinking they are full of shyte. You don't know much about me to be making sweeping statements.
27 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYeah, I am SO stupit. Like I said, you know nothing about me. I had my nose rubbed close and personal in the warped minds of religious right wingers so I can pretty much know just what their personal assumptions were.
I didn't say you'd agree with it. I simply asked you to see the logical result of a possible assumption. But hey, I guess some things are a bit beyond your grasp.
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't recall you ever viewing things from my point of view. When did you last do that?
Well I do that all the time, try to put myself in the other's shoes. That doesn't stop me from thinking they are full of shyte. You don't know much about me to be making sweeping statements.
The Instructor