Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[J Riff]

O yeah, but you need to get closer to the power structure to see how this stuff actually works. It's not an intellectual issue any longer, where the rubber meets the road. I have to talk about this kind of thing, publically, and it is absolutely no fun at all, and neither is diplomatic speech either - after a certain point. Again, not my ideas, just what people have enforced over the ages - and the wordGame that it creates - continuing on. Slavery abolished ? No.
Intellectually, I agree with all us sensible types.
Heck Parson, I have to talk about God too, and I'm not there by choice believe me. People get crazy, whattayagonna do?

 

[BAYLOR]

Imagine a tiny mite crawling up a Giant Redwood tree. To the mite the tree goes on seemingly forever, it sees and senses a tiny fraction of what going on around it. When it comes to understanding the universe around us, we have a similar problem to mite in that we see only a very small fraction of the universe.

 

[BAYLOR]

That doesn't get as much traction as it could because Christian creationists (who, IMO, make up the bulk of ID proponents) want a literal interpretation of Genesis. Accepting the Big Bang and a 13+ billion-year-old universe is Just Not Acceptable (tm).

In any case, it isn't an improvement. The ID proponents are always arguing that life (and intelligence) are spectacularly unlikely spontaneous developments (when they're not arguing that they're impossible), but an argument for a god or gods to kick-start the universe is essentially positing that having an intelligence around to do the deed is more likely than having a natural occurrence do the deed. Which flies in the face of their other, more important (to them) argument.

Bizmuth , for all of our scientific knowledge, there is very obviously a vast amount that we don't know and will probably never know. As to the existence of an afterlife or a supreme being, science cannot answer that question one way the other .

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

Bizmuth , for all of our scientific knowledge, there is very obviously a vast amount that we don't know and will probably never know. As to the existence of an afterlife or a supreme being, science cannot answer that question one way the other .

Well, see, that's the thing. Science doesn't try to. Science doesn't give a crap one way or the other. Science studies what is observable and reproducible. So far, science hasn't found anything that requires that particular hypothesis.

The problem isn't that science is anti-religion. The problem is that science is indifferent to religion, until and unless the theists can come up with a falsifiable test. So far, the theists have failed to do so, but continue to insist that we believe anyway, Or Else.

 

[BAYLOR]

Well, see, that's the thing. Science doesn't try to. Science doesn't give a crap one way or the other. Science studies what is observable and reproducible. So far, science hasn't found anything that requires that particular hypothesis.

The problem isn't that science is anti-religion. The problem is that science is indifferent to religion, until and unless the theists can come up with a falsifiable test. So far, the theists have failed to do so, but continue to insist that we believe anyway, Or Else.

Science deals in facts not truth. In my case I do believe in a god and a hereafter. I can't give you any kind of of an explanation as to why I do , other then faith and a basic gut feeling that there is more to our existence then this one life and it's observable facts. But I do accept evolution as a given and the fact the earth 4.5 Billion Years old and the Sun 5 Billion and universe being far older then that . I can encompass both science and belief .

 

[Stephen Palmer]

If I was to proffer a collective noun for a group of facts, it would be a truth.

 

[Cathbad]

If I was to proffer a collective noun for a group of facts, it would be a truth.

Facts most often require interpretation. They also might not be all the facts available. They may also be misstate. So I personally don't feel comfortable equating facts with truth. That's my illogical opinion.

 

[Parson]

O yeah, but you need to get closer to the power structure to see how this stuff actually works. It's not an intellectual issue any longer, where the rubber meets the road. I have to talk about this kind of thing, publically, and it is absolutely no fun at all, and neither is diplomatic speech either - after a certain point. Again, not my ideas, just what people have enforced over the ages - and the wordGame that it creates - continuing on. Slavery abolished ? No.
Intellectually, I agree with all us sensible types.
Heck Parson, I have to talk about God too, and I'm not there by choice believe me. People get crazy, whattayagonna do?

I must be dense because I cannot understand what you are saying here. ---- As nearly as I can discern, you feel like you are a slave because you have to address issues that the power structure of society mandates you speak about including God, in spite of the fact that you have no desire to consider these things? ---- I must be missing something can you restate this for me?

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

Facts most often require interpretation. They also might not be all the facts available. They may also be misstate. So I personally don't feel comfortable equating facts with truth. That's my illogical opinion.

This direction of discussion tends to devolve into an argument about definitions. Different people use different definitions of "truth", either with or without a capital T, to bolster their own POV. Trouble is, if you're all using a different definition, you're just talking past each other.

There are "facts", but they tend to be basic. FACT: things fall down. Because, FACT: massive objects attract other objects. Everything after than, in science, is theory. Theories may be so well-established that they might as well be fact, but they're still theories, not facts. Truth: Relativity seems to explain observations pretty well. Not Truth: Relativity is the truth. And no scientist worth a damn would make the latter statement. It's only those who rail against science who put those words in science's mouth (metaphorically speaking) so that they can knock down the straw person.

Scientists observe things, and say to themselves, "Why is that?", then try to come up with an explanation. The difference between science and non-science is that they then attempt to prove or disprove their theory. Any theory that doesn't survive the test either gets modified or chucked out entirely.

Baylor, I appreciate that you have your faith, and I'd never gainsay it. The difference between you and the types of fundamentalists that drive me buggy is that you clearly label it as faith. Faith is okay. It doesn't fall under the rubric of science because it doesn't operate under the rules of science.

 

[J Riff]

Noooo... I have to speak about stupidity... Nevermind.

 

[galanx]

Imagine a tiny mite crawling up a Giant Redwood tree. To the mite the tree goes on seemingly forever, it sees and senses a tiny fraction of what going on around it. When it comes to understanding the universe around us, we have a similar problem to mite in that we see only a very small fraction of the universe.

Nonsense. We know the Supreme Mite created us in Its likeness, and the Tree was created to support us.
Did It not create lichen for us to feed on, and crevices in the bark which are exactly the right size for us to take refuge in?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Facts most often require interpretation. They also might not be all the facts available. They may also be misstate. So I personally don't feel comfortable equating facts with truth. That's my illogical opinion.

Luckily science has the habit of checking the real world…

 

[Parson]

Nonsense. We know the Supreme Mite created us in Its likeness, and the Tree was created to support us.
Did It not create lichen for us to feed on, and crevices in the bark which are exactly the right size for us to take refuge in?

Clever, very clever!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

If I was to proffer a collective noun for a group of facts, it would be a truth.

I just stumbled across this quote from the great independent scientist James Lovelock, which pretty much encapsulates my own thoughts:

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth."

 

[Cathbad]

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth."

Now, that's something I can agree with!

 

[J Riff]

Iterate, iterate.... wait, I see something... up ahead... in the fog... it's ...(del by Govt. agency) Oh, its an explainable natural phenomenon, after all.
That I can believe in.

 

[galanx]

Clever, very clever!

Just a riff on Douglas Adams' Parable of the Puddle:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It seems we don't understand brown dwarfs
Sneaky brown dwarf gives us a bright flash and astroboffins are confused

Astronomers have discovered a brown dwarf star emitting flashes of light brighter than the Sun – even though it's not supposed to be able to do that.

Sort of solar acne.
Fortunately our sun's spots flares are better behaved. It is known that you'd not like a star much smaller than ours, because with less mass, the stellar flares are worse, thus a planet in the "goldilocks" zone of a red dwarf might get sterilised every million years or so.

Edit:
So perhaps it's not surprising the flares are severe, but the question is what is the underlying mechanism if a brown dwarf isn't having fusion? Jupiter is nearly big enough to be a brown dwarf, in the sense that the smallest found isn't a huge lot bigger.

 

[BAYLOR]

It seems we don't understand brown dwarfs
Sneaky brown dwarf gives us a bright flash and astroboffins are confused

Sort of solar acne.
Fortunately our sun's spots flares are better behaved. It is known that you'd not like a star much smaller than ours, because with less mass, the stellar flares are worse, thus a planet in the "goldilocks" zone of a red dwarf might get sterilised every million years or so.

Edit:
So perhaps it's not surprising the flares are severe, but the question is what is the underlying mechanism if a brown dwarf isn't having fusion? Jupiter is nearly big enough to be a brown dwarf, in the sense that the smallest found isn't a huge lot bigger.

Jupiters been described as a failed star. If it had about twice its current mass, it would have become a star?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If it had about twice its current mass, it would have become a star?

Maybe only a brown dwarf, possibly still a gas giant. They are described as "failed stars", Jupiter isn't a failed star, it's a gas giant. A common thing.