Forum accelerant (a question)

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 01, 2001 4:48 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bambibasher:
What the heck is going on with the forum here not much is really being said. As for the physics topic I finished taking Physics courses last semester at college and plan to never look back. Beginner level phyics is alright and the upper level stuff is cool but it just takes to much brain power and for some of us that is not an option. By the way Dave how's the family mine not yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can take a while for a forum to really get going. Plus, I haven't had new comics, which is what people in other forums often discuss. The other options I've seen discussed at length in forums are theoretical science, philosophy, politics, and religion... all of which I have opinions on despite being an expert in none.And as far as I know, the family's fine. Maybe Ann can weigh in on that one...--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but
unhappy about it.

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Tue May 01, 2001 5:52 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What the heck is going on with the forum here not much is really being said. As for the physics topic I finished taking Physics courses last semester at college and plan to never look back. Beginner level phyics is alright and the upper level stuff is cool but it just takes to much brain power and for some of us that is not an option. By the way Dave how's the family mine not yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The nice thing about advanced physics is that it's pure crap. If you have a powerful sense of denial and a firm conviction that you're right, you can brush off the really weird stuff like special relativity and go back to basics. (Einstein only proved that E=mc2; he didn't prove that light speed is constant relative to everything else, which is not only stupid-sounding but defies empirical evidence.) If I had anything remotely like a scientific ethic I'd be out there trying to prove Einstein wrong and shake up over half a century of distorted thinking in quantum physics.Lummox JR
not an accredited scientist

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 01, 2001 6:46 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
 If you have a powerful sense of denial and a firm conviction that you're right, you can brush off the really weird stuff like special relativity and go back to basics....If I had anything remotely like a scientific ethic I'd be out there trying to prove Einstein wrong and shake up over half a century of distorted thinking in quantum physics.Lummox JR
not an accredited scientist<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you really want a mind-bender, check out the Schlock Mercenary boards viewpoint on global warming -- specifically, the lack of a hole in the ozone layer and the impossibility of CFC's reaching it in the first place. You can find the info <A HREF="http://www.keenspot.com/KeenBoard/Forum ... 00415.html" TARGET=_blank>here</A>. Of course, none of these folks are professional environmentalists either, so I'm willing to take it with a grain of salt, but these guys make a lot more sense than most of the stuff I've heard spouted off by folks like Gore. Besides -- what'll be a bigger story for the nightly news? We're all gonna fry, or we'll continue just the way we are now? (Have you noticed? Every time they do a story on global warming and the consequences of a depleted ozone layer, they always include skin cancer -- a perfect way to show hot babes on the beach. Hmmmmm. Nah, the networks would never stoop to that.)--Strange/Dave
as cynical as I wanna be------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but
unhappy about it.

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Tue May 01, 2001 8:45 am

I've seen satellite photos of the hole in the ozone layer, so it's there all right, and there's skin cancer statistics in Australia to back it up. (The hole migrates quite a bit.) However I too have always wondered how gigantic chemicals could waft up through the atmosphere when they would tend to stay down near the planet surface. Sounds fishy to think they're responsible for the hole. Besides, chlorofluorocarbons are our friends.About global warming, it's not often discussed in mainstream media, but scientists over the last decade or so have been reversing or questioning previously held opinions on global warming. Many question such a thing is even happening; we have only 100 years of climatological data to go by. Many more wonder if CO2 is any significant factor at all, because we know from history that the planet has had warm and cold spells unrelated to any kind of pollution, probably caused by long-term cycles in solar activity. And then of course some have advanced the speculation that if global warming is real, glacial melts could release gasses that would increase pressure enough that sea level would go down, not up.Remember, we live in a world where paleontology is still considered a science despite the fact that it doesn't follow the scientific method and has no reliable means of backing up its claims. It's always been easy for the human race to embrace pop-culture factoids, especially if it's something they want to believe, over more rational approaches.Lummox JR

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 01, 2001 9:22 am

I'm not positive, but BoxJam -- you strike me as the sort of person who'll give me the benefit of the doubt if I admit that my admittedly unscientific mind tends to lean towards believing Lummox's view of the sciences, although I'm not committed to it; for one thing, it's the way I was raised, and that's a hard thing to set aside; for another, I think it's largely irrelevant to your point.Lummox, I think you'll give me the benefit of the doubt if I challenge the fundamental point of the argument here.If I understand both of you correctly, the only thing we can all definitely agree upon without any question is that some science is based on direct observation of some event, from which predictions are made and theories tested; other science is based on indirect assumptions about some event, from which predictions are made and, to hesitatingly accept a more skeptic-friendly term, speculations are tested.I believe, Lummox, that you would refer to the former as science (perhaps "hard science") but the latter as either not-science or "soft science". Would that be fair?I don't think BoxJam is intending to argue the scientific facts and interpretations, although I don't doubt he might be willing to do so. I think the issue he was addressing was that the delineation of science that you had drawn seemed rather narrow, considering much of the "hard science" we arrived upon today had to start as "soft science". In fact, I'd risk opening a new can of worms about historical revisionism and reinterpretation of past events (for example, did you know Christopher Columbus may have been a Jew and/or promised Ferdinand and Isabella to take some with him? Expulsion of Jews was a major event in that area in 1492... but I digress), but the issue as I see it is not whether or not paleontology is faulty, but the fact that science deals with testing assumptions through logical methods, which paleontology does. If there are errors, they seem lie in the givens, but the method by which they reach their results is still scientific. (Bear in mind I include "carbon-dating works in such-and-suck a manner" as a given, not as a method. The method is comparing this carbon-dated object to that carbon-dated object to look for similarities -- which they certainly do, and which they certainly find.)So -- how am I doing?--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Tue May 01, 2001 10:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Remember, we live in a world where paleontology is still considered a science despite the fact that it doesn't follow the scientific method and has no reliable means of backing up its claims. It's always been easy for the human race to embrace pop-culture factoids, especially if it's something they want to believe, over more rational approaches.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure what you're getting at here. I mean,
this seems pretty out-of-left-field.Anyway, I respectfully disagree.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.[This message has been edited by BoxJam (edited 05-01-2001).]

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 01, 2001 10:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BoxJam:
 Not sure what you're getting at here. I mean,
this seems pretty out-of-left-field.Anyway, I respectfully disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'll field this one -- briefly, though. Paleontology (sp?) is, in my opinion, a solid science. However, I've also had a lot of information provided to me over the years that suggests that some of the theories behind paleontology -- carbon-dating, macroevolution, for example -- have some statistically significant holes, which would naturally taint the results. In other words, "faulty given, faulty conclusion". Now, I'm not a scientist, so I won't claim to "know the truth" about evolution. My religious background makes me lean towards the spontaneous creation theory -- and there is a branch of science that purports to show evidence for creationism equal to or greater than that which supports the theory of evolution -- but my ultimate personally held belief is that (a) there is a God, (b) He created the universe, and (c) I wasn't there to see it happen, so I can't tell ya in absolutes. That is, of course, a personal belief, and I welcome differing opinions. (Maybe not as warmly as I welcome similar ones, but that's natural. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">)As I said, I'm not a scientist, so I can't explain the theories that claim to poke holes in the theory of evolution, but if you're really interested, I know where to get access to the information. I'll warn you, though, it's a lot like some conspiracy theories or political ideologies -- you'll probably tend to believe what already fits with your worldview. (By "you" I mean "anyone". Not just you, BoxJam. Heck, maybe not you at all.)I wish I could remember the exact quote and its source, but my feelings on the origin of the universe were expressed by some wise man of the past, who said something like:
"There are two possibilities -- that God exists, or that He doesn't. Either possibility is staggering."(I've heard this quote also applied to "life on other planets" and "life after death", so who knows...)--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Tue May 01, 2001 10:52 am

OK, it's a creationist view against
paleontology then.Why bring it up?
------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Tue May 01, 2001 11:15 am

I said paleontology isn't science because there's really no scientific method involved in it. Where's the hypothesis, and how can it be properly tested? Science is a process of observation and paleontology isn't a matter of observation but of determining, after the fact, what a fossil is or how it got there. I brought it up not to harp on the creation/evolution topic but to show that things are called science that aren't.What paleontology really is is an analytical process. Fossils are analyzed and compared to other fossils, known or very similar in structure or in other information. Yet, as Dave mentioned, many of the tools paleontology uses to make that analysis are flawed. Quite a bit of it is speculation.Many similar things can be said about forensics, except that forensics is a science of observation. Tendencies of chemicals to collect in certain organs, of gunpowder to spread in recognizable patterns, etc. are all based on a large body of true scientific study and applied to reconstruct a probable picture of an event based on its outcome. However we have no guides of observation for the fossilization process, nor for the changes rock could undergo over large spans of time.The parts of paleontology that reconstruct bones and draw conclusions about musculature based on muscle groups in existing animals, or to identify bactria and such based on similar bacteria, those aspects I would call hard science. Okay, so paleontology is half science, half speculation. It'd be nice if we could separate the two.Lummox JR

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Wed May 02, 2001 12:29 am

Well, in theory I wouldn't have a problem
with that, except:1) somehow I'm not seeing the difference
between a science and a field which uses
the scientific method.2) You seem to be implying that this other
form of study is less than science. Not just
different, but less.Is archaeology a science?------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Wed May 02, 2001 12:54 am

I don't have anything
worthwhile
to contribute to the discussion right
now, but
I'd like to point out that
BoxJam's posts contain
counterintuitive stops within them, suggesting a sort of poetry.
Perhaps
it
may
be
slightly reminiscent of
e e cummings or the
beat poetry of the sixties.--Strange/
Dave
------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.
Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

Pronto# · Post by **Pronto#** » Wed May 02, 2001 4:22 am

Dave, you've always exhibited an ability to yank a topic right off itself. Well done, Grasshopper!

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Wed May 02, 2001 5:50 am

Umm... I think I get it.Yeah, I'd say it's my definition of "science" that's the main point of contention here. Still I'm not sure you could call the "soft science" science; it's based on hard science but it's a different sort of investigative process. Science in my view would be the process of discovering and applying models to classify and predict a range of similar events, whereas a more forensic approach would be to use those models to try to work back from effect to cause. (Ironically the latter is sometimes the first step in the former, by taking an existing model and modifying it or by coming up with one from the results.)About the reliance on faulty givens, there's another point that troubles me: I would think a true forensic-style analysis would leave all possibilities open, not rely on one set of givens. Or, its results should be postulated in such a way as to call attention to the givens. I think a big problem is that a lot of people hear that such-and-such is a scientific result and then accept it as fact, whereas any good scientist will agree that even "fact" (scientific fact, that is) isn't immune to revision.Here's an interesting question: If a new dating system was developed that dated samples from the last 4,000 years or so accurately, but dated a chunk of rock at 10,000 years where geology and paleontology agreed it was 2 billion, would the measuring system be considered flawed and discarded or would people question two other sciences? In my experience the word "science" carries a lot of weight but people tend to forget that its results can always be questioned; I think many would assume the measurement was wrong. There's also academic pressure to consider; in general academia hates iconoclasts unless they shed a novel light on their field that gets the pubilc's attention and therefore ensures more interest in their research. (Kind of makes me wonder if this scenario ever happened. The only discoveries that make the news are the ones people feel they can publish.)Lummox JR

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Wed May 02, 2001 7:53 am

I don't mean to imply that applications are "less" than science, per se, but they are indeed different. (To hop briefly back onto the creation/evolution slant, I've said often that neither viewpoint is the realm of science because of the observation caveat. Or for a nice analogy: Natural selection is to evolution as science is to application.)Archaeology... under the definition of science as a process of observation, no, it wouldn't be a science. It is, however, a study, and a quite interesting one at that. It does fit into the same category as a lot of other fields, such as paleontology, most of astronomy, forensics....
Hmm. Perhaps we could call application-driven pursuits "studies", but then of course science is a form of study too, so the terms would overlap.Several of those fields I find fascinating, particularly astronomy. Astronomy has an interesting distinction in that it seems to cover both disciplines, the observation and the application. There are times when we can directly observe stellar events, though they are rare. The rest of the time, astronomers rely on previous data, knowledge of physics and chemistry, and other such scientifically-derived models to speculate about what they see.Lummox JR

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Wed May 02, 2001 8:47 am

Somebody Strange - I think you did a great job of summing things
up.Lummox - First, I'll try to answer your direct
questions.1) Hopefully, the 10,000 year old rock would
leave both methods of dating in question.2) The Uncertainty Principle is a fact of
observing nature, and not a problem of
measurement instruments disturbing the
measured:
<A HREF="http://www.honors.unr.edu/~fenimore/wt2 ... #principle" TARGET=_blank>http://www.honors.unr.edu/~fenimore/wt2 ... inciple</A> What you're describing, not being able to
have a conclusion without an assumption (in
this case, the given that light behaves how
we think), is something else.Every proof in the world has givens. They
have to.
****
The main point I'd like to make, however,
is that I think you've made it impossible for
studying the past to be a science. By
discounting observations of fossils as 'not
observations,' and discounting predictions
about future fossils as something less than
the scientific method, you've made it
impossible to approach fossils scientifically.The same argument could be made for long-
term evolution, origins of the solar
system - anything that can't be 're-done'
in some beakers.So what rigors should those studies meet?
Do you have any suggestions about how to
determine our history scientifically?
------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.[This message has been edited by BoxJam (edited 05-02-2001).]

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Wed May 02, 2001 10:44 am

Yep, that was exactly my point, that the term "science" just doesn't cover the sort of analysis with which we attempt to look back into the past. It describes analysis of phenomena under controlled experimental conditions. One is observation, the other application.I don't think our history can be studied scientifically because such a study would not be science but an attempt at reconstruction using science. There is a process involved that uses logic, and relies on the results of scientific study to draw its conclusions, but because it uses a different method and approach it should be described by a different term.Lummox JR

Pronto# · Post by **Pronto#** » Thu May 03, 2001 12:51 am

I'm having a problem understanding why you are dividing science into "the observation and the application". Could you go over that bit one more time?And as to the rarity of stellar events:
Daily isn't often enough?
And close! 8 minutes (there abouts) if yer an energetic little particle.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Thu May 03, 2001 3:32 am

>>Or for a nice analogy: Natural selection is to evolution as science is to application.So, I *think* you're saying natural selection
is observable and testable, evolution is a
conclusion drawn on knowing natural selection
exists.Is that right?Anyway, I think that just because testing
hypotheses in the fields of astronomy,
paleontology, etc., is *difficult*, isn't
reason to say they're not sciences.They test what they can, they're always
trying to think of new ways to test
hypotheses, and recognize a lot more things
as scientific tests than you do.The reason is one that's way, way up there in
this thread- it's not cheating to base
hypotheses on some of your data, then test
it on the rest. That's not application, as I
understand it from your analogy.Looking for consistency among results is a
sort of science. Paleontologists look for
consistency, or breaks from consistency, all
the time with the same tests, or among
different types of tests.They just have to be clever about it.Were dinosaurs warm blooded or cold blooded?
Well, it finally occurred to somebody that if
they were warm blooded, vegetarian dinosaurs
would have to outnumber carnivorous dinosaurs
in biomass about 20 to 1, whereas with cold-
blooded, you'd expect 5 to 1.Then they went and looked at the data they
had, and vegetarians outnumber carnivorous,
taking size into account, about 20 to 1.To me, that's a test, and I think to you, it
would not be.To me, it's further a test to observe whether
future fossils found continue to hold this
ratio, and to you, it wouldn't be (I think).------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Thu May 03, 2001 6:22 am

I think that could be counted as a test, just not a test under the scientific method. What's happening here is that data isn't being collected to create a model, but a model is being applied to check the significance of data. I think it all stems from the direction of the research, you see.
What I would call "science" by the strict definition would be those experiments which attempt to build a model under well-known conditions. The model can be further tested under other known conditions. When a model is found to be generally sound, its data can be used in some cases to attempt to determine the conditions that led to a particular result, keeping in mind of course that in such a situation many different variables can interact.The idea that dinosaurs are warm-blooded could still be called a hypothesis, but the method used to test it is different than actually checking a living dinosaur's temperature. I wouldn't call this the scientific method, but something else. Again I say the big difference between methods is that one is an observed cause leading to an observed effect, deriving a model for the event, whereas the other is an observed effect and a model, and those two are used to derive a probable cause.Lummox JR------------------
It's the 21st century; where's my flying car?

Bambibasher · Post by **Bambibasher** » Thu May 03, 2001 8:35 am

My question would be what is the definition of science? I don't believe it can be constrainted to only one thing or job. I don't believe the biology and polyscience are within the same category and should both be sciences. However, at the same time they are both working on similar principles. That's just what i am thinking although i could be wrong.