Forums → WEPR → Science Discussion Thread
| 13 | 6370 |
This thread was made in an effort to allow for discussion of more science-related topics without having to worry of being off-topic in the Religion Debate Thread.
Since this will be about topics and issues that can potentially, and often have been, studied and researched, it would be beneficial and appreciated if you can add links to articles and/or studies that can support your claims. It's not necessary, but it makes things easier, and you will be more convincing
- 13 Replies
Looping in @Last4Skull and @AClSllXVlll
We can continue our discussion of atoms, antimatter and all that here. I'll just copy my last post from the Religion Debate Thread over here, because I'm lazy ^^
Last4Skull:
Ahhhh the famous atoms. Honestly I'm sure all people here will be angry against me but x'D I'm wandering if they are really real, they were introduced by Greek and India philosopher.
So be prepared to hate me ! 3,2,1 maybe it's just chemist who used them for justifying their research ?
Nobody will hate you for that ^^ And it's good to question things and ask how we know of them. As ACISIIXVIII mentioned, atoms are largely proven to exist, and there's a lot you can read about how they were experimentally proven. Would it maybe change your mind to see a photograph of an atom? ^^
ACISIIXVIII:
If the proven equation goes against the previous theory, then most likely the theory will be thrown out, as a theory is pretty much the same thing as speculation or a proposed idea.
Not in science. What you're describing here as theory is what a scientist would call a hypothesis. A scientific theory is more than that.
As for antimatter, it is a theoretical substance, the term is used to describe something that, by nature, repels matter.
Antimatter can collide with matter, and when it does, both are annihilated, releasing energy. Antimatter can not only be observed, but has even been produced in some experiments.
I suppose I'd better get around to making that other thread, then.
@Hahiha Hahaha I laughed at the description x'D
Nobody will hate you for that ^^ And it's good to question things and ask how we know of them. As ACISIIXVIII mentioned, atoms are largely proven to exist, and there's a lot you can read about how they were experimentally proven. Would it maybe change your mind to see a photograph of an atom? ^^
Glad to hear that x'D Yeah I've already see that, I personally think they are real too I was just emitting a possibility, The point I was showing is how can we be sure of a source, it can be stupid but as I replied to Ac we can't trust anyone :/.
Technology have been really improved in a way that we can't really difference reality by fake things, so how can we be sure, does the bagage of someone who's know as a good scientist or a genius can really be a factor for trust him ?
I've personally suffering a lot by trusting people, I was and probably I'm always considered as "Naïve" not in a way that I'm stupid, but I give my trust easily because I don't suspect people to be as bad as they are x'D ( not in a way that I've been screwed by someone, I generally make their mask fall).
Beside of that I think it's a quality in someway because it make me more human in a way, it was what I was thinking by we're more and more robot.
I admit I wasn't clear I'm the first to explore and test things, what I had in mind is, we're are so much focused on that, that we ignore real problem, problem we can fight, all that money spend in research who don't really progress, if we unite all researchers in a way to helps people, it will be more useful in my opinion, when things will be better we can always researching more on previous stuff.
@Last4Skull
Here's something to keep in mind when you're thinking about these really difficult topics that require a lot of expertise. These are two different questions you can ask about a claim (say, whether atoms exist):
1) Can we know that atoms exist?
2) Is it reasonable to believe that atoms exist?
Alternatively: Is it unreasonable to believe that atoms don't exist?
The reason I bring this up is because some of the issues you raise address (1) - whether we can know a particular claim. The answer to this question ultimately comes down to what knowledge is. And this is a question in epistemology that is totally separate from the question of atoms. Things like whether we can trust experts, the processes by which we gather information, and whether we can be sure of a claim are all questions about knowledge.
Now, you might think "So what?". If we don't (or can't) know something, then that thing is in doubt. And if it's in doubt then it's not reasonable to believe it. So these two questions are really the same thing. Here are two responses worth thinking about.
First, knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty. You're absolutely right - it's possible this could all be a simulation. Maybe we're being radically deceived. But this possibility doesn't (and shouldn't) threaten our knowledge of certain things. You're right to think critically about certain claims, but once you reach the point of outright scepticism, you've missed something. Think about it this way. If you're looking for absolute certainty in order to know something, then you don't know very much at all. You can know that 2+2=4. But you can't know where you live, or what your name is, or whether it's safe to cross the street. That sort of scepticism has a lot of problems and shouldn't be embraced.
Second, it can be reasonable to believe stuff that falls short of knowledge. Maybe you think that scientific study just can't lead to knowledge. Fair enough. But there are still certain things that are reasonable to belief within this domain. In other words, the possibility that this is a simulation doesn't undercut the reasonableness of the belief that atoms exist. Believing what an expert tells you is reasonable -- even if that expert ends up being wrong. On the other side of the coin, refusing to believe expert testimony or widely held scientific claims seems unreasonable. This is true even if they've been wrong in the past (as they have been).
An analogy here might be helpful. Suppose you got into a serious car accident while making a right turn. As a result, you refuse to make right turns any longer. You'll drive miles out of the way, making only left turns, in order to get where you're going. You've literally driven around the block to get next door because it was a right turn. This sort of behaviour seems unreasonable - even with the background information of your previous accident. We might be able to understand where you're coming from, but we would still call you unreasonable in this case. And this is precisely because there are other options available to you besides driving around and making a bunch of left turns. In the same way, even if you think that scientific claims are suspect, you would be unreasonable to refuse to believe them.
@moegreche Hey there Hahaha ! I was wondering if you will join . First of all I want to say that I've really appreciated the way you explained it, the parabole between the car accident and the scientists was very cool x'D !
In the same way, even if you think that scientific claims are suspect, you would be unreasonable to refuse to believe them.
I agree, I think we shouldn't don't believe them but instead always have our own thoughts on the questions too, rather than just take all scientists claim as only reality ^^
You're right too on outright scepticism. It's never a good things to be extremist on something, but it's a good thing to remade even the basis in question at least it's what I think. It's always a question of balancing for finding an equilibrium.
Thanks for sharing your point of view ^^
First, knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty. You're absolutely right - it's possible this could all be a simulation. Maybe we're being radically deceived. But this possibility doesn't (and shouldn't) threaten our knowledge of certain things. You're right to think critically about certain claims, but once you reach the point of outright scepticism, you've missed something. Think about it this way. If you're looking for absolute certainty in order to know something, then you don't know very much at all. You can know that 2+2=4. But you can't know where you live, or what your name is, or whether it's safe to cross the street. That sort of scepticism has a lot of problems and shouldn't be embraced.As the resident extreme skeptic, I'm going to have to challenge this notion. Knowledge isn't just being pretty sure we have the right idea. One of the most fundamental requirements for knowing something is that it is actually true, which is not at all the case with much of what usually passes for knowledge. Whatever problems skepticism may have, the one you've addressed is a nonissue: We do not require knowledge of any of these things to function, as we have just as much certainty in them as we would anyway. I see no possible value to asserting that we know these things aside from being more easily understood by those who cannot distinguish between "truthiness" and fact, which is, if anything, a perpetuation of their misconception.
Technology have been really improved in a way that we can't really difference reality by fake things, so how can we be sure, does the bagage of someone who's know as a good scientist or a genius can really be a factor for trust him ?
What do you mean by not being able to differ between real and fake things? Can you give an example?
As for trusting a scientist or not, that is what peer review is about. It isn't an absolute guarantee, but you need the approval of other experts in your domain of study to even get something published in respectable journals, and a single study is not proving anything yet. You need a certain amount of research done on a topic to validate it scientifically, and when most experts support a scientific theory you can be sure that the brightest heads on that topic spent a lot of time testing it. It isn't about trusting a single person, but about realizing that a whole bunch of experts spent a lot of time examining it.
I want to come back to something you said about atoms: as you noted correctly, Greek and Indian philosophers were the first to introduce the notion of atoms. However, I think it should be made clear that their views of atoms were founded in philosophy and theology (so-called 'atomism'); they had no idea how atoms really looked like or whether they actually existed. It is only much later, a little more than two centuries ago, that we see the first evidence-based model by John Dalton. What I'm trying to say is, our current knowledge of atoms is not based on ancient Greek or Indian philosophies, but on observation and deduction, later confirmed experimentally.
Also, if you don't mind me asking, why did you say that atoms might be like miniature versions of ourselves, and where did you get that idea? I'm curious because it sounds a lot like an other older hypothesis that turned out to be incorrect.
I admit I wasn't clear I'm the first to explore and test things, what I had in mind is, we're are so much focused on that, that we ignore real problem, problem we can fight, all that money spend in research who don't really progress, if we unite all researchers in a way to helps people, it will be more useful in my opinion, when things will be better we can always researching more on previous stuff.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. Fundamental/basic research is not only important in its own right (out of a curiosity to explore how the world works), but is also the prerequisite for applied research. It's true that many results of fundamental research don't have a direct use for society (and it's a good thing; research should not be driven by a need for direct benefits), and many people think it's not worth it if they can't see a use to it (even when there actually is one). But not only is it part of our culture and thus inherently important to our society, it is also the basis on which applied sciences stand, from which the knowledge needed to produce and innovate comes. You cannot say "Let's stick with applied sciences only until things get better", because then you would eventually run out of ideas.
What do you mean by not being able to differ between real and fake things? Can you give an example?
What I had in mind, nowadays people can arrange all things, pictures, video, it's hard to have no doubt on a thing, and I'm very suspicious about thing, the fake guy recently about water didn't help me x'D
Even what we're considering as facts can be wrong, and last but not least.. People tends to be buyable, and scientists need money for their research, so.. They can be afford for being more on the side on theirs investors. I'm not telling they are all corrupted but it's something I can't forget when I think about that ^^.
, but you need the approval of other experts in your domain of study
It you want my opinion into, it's a double-edged in my opinion because that make clan and if you're not in Accord with your pairs, you're threatened as an heretic like religious does in the past, subventions are done and your own credibility broken...
but on observation and deduction, later confirmed experimentally.
Thanks for explanation on that point, As I said I think there are real, but it's good to even questioning about the basics, I haven't the luck to manipulate them so it's always a micro doubt in my mind x'D.
[Quote]Also, if you don't mind me asking, why did you say that atoms might be like miniature versions of ourselves, and where did you get that idea? I'm curious because it sounds a lot like an other older hypothesis that turned out to be incorrect. [/quoted]
I have to agree that I'm confused with that too x'D, I was answering something to Ac maybe I've made a mistake, I was thinking they was a part of some components like carbon, oxygen, azote, phosphor,hydrogen and calcium and if I'm correct we're made of them ?
That's was I was thinking by saying they were like a zoom of us, but I agree it's not very clear x'D, I've to agree it's been a long time I didn't really studied the subject so my memory can be broken x'D sorry if it's the case Hahaha.
As for your last argument. Yeah I agree, I wasn't said that like an extreme but my point was more of focus major reasearch in priority, although I agree with your point of view, if some intese reasearch can save some life doesn't it's better to focused on before it's too late ?
Another point I want to discuss is the "You're not worthy to live point" some people suffering and if they can't make money of healing you they just take no effort at all, like if life wasn't important..
It's can be rude said in that manner but I think we're just some livestock for some people :/
As always thanks for taking time to argue with me ^^
People tends to be buyable, and scientists need money for their research, so.. They can be afford for being more on the side on theirs investors.No, they really can't. If a researcher publishes a falsified report, everyone who tries to put that information to use will find that it doesn't work. Then someone does a repeat experiment and confirms that it doesn't work. Then the researcher's reputation is at risk. If they falsified something particularly important, they may be forced to resign in disgrace, which is not something they can afford.
It you want my opinion into, it's a double-edged in my opinion because that make clan and if you're not in Accord with your pairs, you're threatened as an heretic like religious does in the past, subventions are done and your own credibility broken...Uh, no. The whole point is to learn things. No one cares much whether you support one theory or another, so long as you present your findings in proper scientific format. Tampering with your data, trying to validate pseudoscience, and failing to cite your sources are what damage your credibility.
Another point I want to discuss is the "You're not worthy to live point" some people suffering and if they can't make money of healing you they just take no effort at all, like if life wasn't important..I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with science, but if they can't get the money from somewhere, they probably won't be able to help anyone for very long.
No, they really can't. If a researcher publishes a falsified report, everyone who tries to put that information to use will find that it doesn't work. Then someone does a repeat experiment and confirms that it doesn't work. Then the researcher's reputation is at risk. If they falsified something particularly important, they may be forced to resign in disgrace, which is not something they can afford.
If I can give you some examples of what I was thinking, Ogm stuff, something like volkwasgen scandal about diesel, in these cases people are really good at hide the reality..
no. The whole point is to learn things. No one cares much whether you support one theory or another, so long as you present your findings in proper scientific format. Tampering with your data, trying to validate pseudoscience, and failing to cite your sources are what damage your Credibility
I agree with the whole point, however what's is considering as pseudo science ? I know you're not agreeing with that but in my opinion actual science seems to don't recognize some phenomen who are maybe real, and as you said the whole point is to learn things, if something is ignored because it's not a evidence in science, I think it's too bad..
I don't think source are the key because in my opinion we can't trust anyone.. So what's a good source ? :x
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with science, but if they can't get the money from somewhere, they probably won't be able to help anyone for very long.
That's why I think money is the bane of humanity.. It's just a way to slow down discovery and make people suffering in my opinion..
If I can give you some examples of what I was thinking, Ogm stuff, something like volkwasgen scandal about diesel, in these cases people are really good at hide the reality..No, they aren't. They tried to cheat the system with a bit of clever programming on a product marketed to the public. Later, a team of researchers tried to put that product to use, only to find that it didn't actually work properly. Then other researchers did some repeat experiments and confirmed that this was the case. All of their findings were published, bringing public and government scrutiny onto VW, both damaging their reputation globally and forcing some CEOs to resign in disgrace. VW couldn't pay any of those people off because they (VW) had no idea any of them (the researchers) would be looking at on-road performance until it was too late.
I agree with the whole point, however what's is considering as pseudo science ? I know you're not agreeing with that but in my opinion actual science seems to don't recognize some phenomen who are maybe real, and as you said the whole point is to learn things, if something is ignored because it's not a evidence in science, I think it's too bad..Please refer to the section under the heading "Pseudoscience". If it has no evidence, it shouldn't be treated as fact. If someone wants to test it, they're welcome to do so.
I don't think source are the key because in my opinion we can't trust anyone.. So what's a good source ? :xYou still have to cite them so people can see where the information came from.
That's why I think money is the bane of humanity.. It's just a way to slow down discovery and make people suffering in my opinion..I think you may be missing the point. If the people who do this work have too little income, they will have to rely on others to supply them with resources they need to do their work, meaning that the suppliers are supplying at a loss, which means that they need to be supplied by someone else for everything they need to do their jobs. People are rarely that charitable or that reliable.
No, they aren't. They tried to cheat the system with a bit of clever programming on a product marketed to the public. Later, a team of researchers tried to put that product to use, only to find that it didn't actually work properly. Then other researchers did some repeat experiments and confirmed that this was the case. All of their findings were published, bringing public and government scrutiny onto VW, both damaging their reputation globally and forcing some CEOs to resign in disgrace. VW couldn't pay any of those people off because they (VW) had no idea any of them (the researchers) would be looking at on-road performance until it was too late.
What I was trying tell you it's, it can make years for impostors to be disclaimed, meanwhile all people think that what they argue is true.
please refer to the section under the heading "Pseudoscience". If it has no evidence, it shouldn't be treated as fact. If someone wants to test it, they're welcome to do so
First of all, thanks for time you've spend into, it's well made in my opinion because it explain very well the whole point of science.
I've just two things to says about,
First is about a quote you cited talking about things happened by chance what's you thought about luck ? I'm personally thinking luck isn't real. Same for time, it's just a concept we make for faciliting ours life plan about night cycle and day cycle.
You still have to cite them so people can see where the information came from.
Sure but I see two problems here, what if it's something new, and what's if some people discredit your sources, if a truth came from a "non credible" source does that mean it's absolutely false ?
People are rarely that charitable or that reliable.
Agree.. But if we were searching for improvement, discovering, and comprehension about our world why do we need to ourselves putting obstacles in our way ?
Material stuff should be shared between all for experimenting, as for people who pick up ressources, they can have service offered on return, same as helpers who invest their time into the projects, so if anyone find his count, why money should be a problem ?
Money is just an intermediate way of exchange and it doesn't need to be the ruler of our world.. There a plenty alternative, and they are more human than money slavery in my opinion..
If people were less individual world could be better in my opinion.
What I was trying tell you it's, it can make years for impostors to be disclaimed, meanwhile all people think that what they argue is true.If nobody pays attention to the thing they're peddling as fact, yes. In this example, people just assumed that the test results were close enough to on-road results, Volkswagon executives assumed that nobody would bother checking this because it didn't affect vehicle performance. Not checking is unscientific, however, as it ignores a whole wilderness of variables by assuming they are the same.
First is about a quote you cited talking about things happened by chance what's you thought about luck ? I'm personally thinking luck isn't real. Same for time, it's just a concept we make for faciliting ours life plan about night cycle and day cycle.Time is a bit more complicated than that, but yes, it is a conceptual thing. Luck is just nonsense.
Sure but I see two problems here, what if it's something new, and what's if some people discredit your sources, if a truth came from a "non credible" source does that mean it's absolutely false ?1 Then you have fewer sources to cite.
2 It doesn't matter.
You must be logged in to post a reply!