Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

How old do you think the universe is?

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 5:59pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,590 posts

just because it applies in court does not necessarily mean it applies to all situations.

It was a running metaphor for claims require evidence. Which -is- true. The greater the claim, the more evidence.

You may not need to provide evidence for everyday, unimportant things, like, "I saw a bird while driving to the mall." as that's something we see all the time. Now if you said, "I saw godzilla fighting king kong while driving to the mall" people are going to want to see pictures and evidence of destruction.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 6:16pm

MrMrE

MrMrE

3 posts

It was a running metaphor for claims require evidence. Which -is- true. The greater the claim, the more evidence

It wasn't the fact that he used  it outside a legal situation. I agree there are many places outside of court in which the metaphor can be used. But he was saying "God exists until it is proven that He does not." Not a completely accurate statement.

 

Posted Dec 21, '12 at 6:53pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

But he was saying "God exists until it is proven that He does not." Not a completely accurate statement.

It's not at all accurate of a statement.

Lets see what's been used so far in justifying God creating the universe.

"(7) I am entitled to my opinion (used to support the truth of the opinion).

    A quite common outcome in arguments between science and pseudoscience is when the person holding the failing position resorts to saying “…well, that is my view and I am entitled to my opinion.” This is often recruited in support of the argument being made, thus implying that ones entitlement is somehow important for the truth of the argument itself. Indeed they are entitled to their opinion, but their entitlements were never in question. We are all entitled to our opinions " but this has no consequence for the scientific truth of them and does not establish or justify the validity of them. So the problem here arises when one recruits the mere ‘entitlement’ (and no evidence) to a view, as some form of evidential support for the truth of the view. It is often used as a final defence mechanism when faced with quite strong counter-arguments and evidence.

    The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that your individual entitlement to hold a view is no indication at all as to its validity or truth " indeed, it is completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). When having a scientific debate, discussing evidence and theory, it makes no sense to recruit your human rights and ‘entitlements’ in defence of any view. It shifts the focus from one of science, evidence, and reason to one of human rights (see Whyte, 2005). This is an irrelevant and unhelpful tangent. You are of course entitled to hold any view you please, but it becomes a fallacy of reason to recruit that mere entitlement as some form of evidence in support of the truth of that view.

    Recruiting the ‘I’m entitled to my opinion’ stance in any debate is functionally equivalent to saying, ‘I am entitled to be wrong!’ Entitlements do not establish truth. Human entitlements and rights are irrelevant to a scientific debate based on facts, evidence and reason. A scientist may be entitled to his / her opinion of the facts, but their entitlements do not make them correct, their data and evidence makes them correct. A scientist is entitled to believe that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius, but the entitlement to that view does not make the scientist correct " the facts gained from scientific study provide evidence " which actually exists independent of anyone’s view of it. Therefore, it is sound reasoning, logic, and the recruitment of supportive empirical evidence of quality that makes an argument more likely to be correct."

We see this fallacy with "Because I believe he did."

"(2) Science cannot disprove the paranormal " therefore, this failure is, by default, support for the existence of paranormal phenomena.

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a number of central principles of science. It reflects a variety of logical fallacies and mistakes of reason. These include:

       1. argumentum ad ignorantiam;
       2.  a misunderstanding of the difference between the evidence of absence and the absence of evidence;
      3.  a misunderstanding of the principles of falsifiability and sufficiency;
       4. a shifting of the burden of proof.

    These, along with other contextual issues are discussed below.

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam basically means the argument to ignorance. The underlying fallacy from the argument to ignorance is when it is argued that something must be true, purely and simply because it has not been proved to be false (or vice versa). Carroll (2004) suggests, this fallacy could also be called the “fallacy from lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary” (Carroll, 2004; pp115). The fallacy of the argument to ignorance is not based in any one individual in an argument being ignorant " it is thus not directed to the individual. The notion of ignorance relates to the form of the argument itself. In this case, to there being ‘no evidence’ and thus, we are ignorant of the potential truth. The crucial point to keep in mind here is that an inability to disprove a claim does not automatically mean that the claim being made is true. An individual might make the claim that he / she can run the 100 metres sprint in under seven seconds (which would be the fastest ever recorded). However, if the person refuses to be tested in a race, our inability to falsify the claim does not make the claim true by default. If this was the case, anybody making a claim like this would be eligible for an Olympic gold medal, without ever having to run a single race!

    A similar fallacious argument to ignorance would be one that states “as nobody can prove God did not create the universe, it must therefore be true”. The lack of evidence means nothing either way. The fallacy also works in the other direction as well. For example, a statement like; “Of course apparitions do not exist, nobody has provided any proof that they are indeed real” is also an error in reasoning committing the same fallacy. In science, we can make the valid assumption that from the lack of evidence, something has not occurred. However, we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that it has not occurred.

    One mistake related to the argument to ignorance is to falsely interpret the absence of evidence as being equal to that of there being evidence of absence. Clearly they are not equal. The crucial point is that although science may not be able to disprove a claim, this is not evidence in support of the claim. Science accepts claims, not just on the basis of the absence of evidence but mainly on the presence of confirming evidence (i.e., positive evidence). There must be positive empirical evidence for accepting any claim or argument as being true. The lack of any evidence itself is not direct support of an alternative paranormal theory. It is completely neutral on the matter. The absence of evidence for Creationism does not, on its own, provide support for the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution requires its own positive evidence to establish it as a truth. The confusion over the absence of evidence being the same as evidence of absence is also related to some misunderstandings over the notion of falsification in science.

    The principal of falsifiability states that in order for any claim to be held as a scientific truth " it must be falsifiable. That is to say, we must be able to test it and falsify it. The rule of falsifiability is an assurance that if the claim being made is indeed false, then the evidence will show it is false; and if the claim is true, then the evidence will not disprove it. In the latter case we can accept the claim as a provisional account of ‘truth’ until such time as further evidence is produced which disproves it (thus, it is a provisional truth). Therefore, the rule of falsifiability makes the explicit commitment that the evidence must matter and has to matter in a well reasoned scientific argument. If we cannot test the claim being made then that claim is no more true, than it is false. The problem with pseudoscience is that many of their claims are not testable " yet this absence of evidence is often taken as direct support for the claim. As noted above, if the absence of disconfirming evidence were to be taken as proof for a claim, then it is conceivable that we could show anything to be true " even when it is totally false. In addition to this, Lett (1990) notes, this type of faulty reasoning is also related to the concept of ‘sufficiency’. That is to say, any evidence recruited in support of a claim must be sufficient to establish the truth of that claim, in the manner in which it was made. The absence of disconfirming evidence for a particular claim, is not sufficient on its own to establish the truth of that claim. This type of reasoning is also relevant to a related error, that of it being up to science to disprove the existence of the paranormal. The discussion above shows clearly why this type of reasoning is incorrect and not a viable criticism of science at all.

    Finally, another error in reasoning underlying these types of arguments relates to the burden of proof. It is not the job of science to disprove such claims (any claims). Indeed, science maintains that this is logically impossible. The burden of proof always rests with those making the claims. In other words the claimant must furnish the claim with good quality evidence, reason and logic. If a scientist argues that all species evolve through a process of natural selection, then he / she needs to support that claim with positive evidence for that process. If a parapsychologist argues that the mind is separate from the brain and can survive bodily death, then he / she also needs to support that claim with positive evidence. It is unsound to argue that the absence of evidence alone, due to:

     1.   a failure of science disproving claims; and
      2.  shifting the burden of proof onto others, somehow supports the claim being made.

    The burden of providing positive evidence lies with those making the claims."

We see this fallacy with "I said it means that things are True until proven False."

Source

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 2:45am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

shape of the universe.

can you link me that link you gave me about this again.
not all astronomers have the same idea. what shape was it you said?

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 3:02am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

can you link me that link you gave me about this again.
not all astronomers have the same idea. what shape was it you said?

I don't remember which link that was, but one of your links from back on page 6 makes mention of this.

"4. …nailed down the curvature of space to within 0.4% of "flat" Euclidean."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Basically being in a flat universe we are likely not going to experience a Big Crunch but instead continue to expand experiencing a heat death of the universe. This will be because the matter/energy in the universe will be to far apart from one another to be able to interact.

I suppose one possibility would be that the universe in a previous incarnation was  spherical instead of flat and the universe in that shape went through a Big Crunch, only to expand back out flat. That might make for an interesting hypothesis to look into.

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 3:15am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Basically being in a flat universe

i know some scientist/astronomer that does not have the idea that it is flat.
it was indeed a sphere he was talking about. but not the "big rip" kind.

thx for the info, i'll come back on it when i know more.

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 9:45am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

i know some scientist/astronomer that does not have the idea that it is flat.
it was indeed a sphere he was talking about. but not the "big rip" kind.

Sphere would result in a Big Crunch. A Big Rip would be likely if the universe was hyperbolic.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Hyperbolic_triangle.svg/500px-Hyperbolic_triangle.svg.png

One of the main reasons we think the universe is flat is because a flat universe is the model that best fits what we really see in the microwave background radiation.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/wmap1.jpg
For further comparison.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/map472.jpg

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 10:33am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

do you know if there is a 3d version of the CMBR pics?

what we have is our sky. but nothing els. (i have no access to search options myself atm. sorry)

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 12:07pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

do you know if there is a 3d version of the CMBR pics?

This seems to be the best I can find in terms of 3D. It also gives a rendering of how we collect this information. From this the previous map I used is the 3D map spread out into a 2D form, like a flat global map.
Complete whole picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Since on the topic of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this was something the Big Bang had predicted would exist before we found it.

 

Posted Dec 22, '12 at 12:18pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

i can't use flash atm. i'll check the link when i can.

 
Reply to How old do you think the universe is?

You must be logged in to post a reply!