The Half-Life Of Facts: Samual Arbesman

[Jamin4422]

This is a 12 min video but I think it is worth the time. We all talk about how facts in science do not last very long. Samual Arbesman actually applies Science to give Scientific facts a half life of about 45 years. He has a fresh perspective and some new ideas and that is nice not to have to go over all the same old junk all over again.

The Half-Life Of Facts: Sam Arbesman at TEDxKC - YouTube

NOTE: This is a TEDx video, people seem to be overlooking that.

 

[verysincere]

We all talk about how facts in science do not last very long.

No we do not. Promotional hype for a new book should not be confused with reality.

 

[RickG]

No we do not. Promotional hype for a new book should not be confused with reality.

 

[verysincere]

The book promotion is also off-topic. It has nothing to do with the creation-evolution debate.

The Theory of Evolution is even more solid today than it was 153 years ago. The 45 year "expiration of facts" of his book is arbitrary and pointless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is a 12 min video but I think it is worth the time. We all talk about how facts in science do not last very long. Samual Arbesman actually applies Science to give Scientific facts a half life of about 45 years. He has a fresh perspective and some new ideas and that is nice not to have to go over all the same old junk all over again.

To this, I can only site Isaac Asimovs famous letter to a English Lit. student:

The Relativity of Wrong - YouTube

The full text of the letter is here.

 

[Elendur]

To this, I can only site Isaac Asimovs famous letter to a English Lit. student:

The Relativity of Wrong - YouTube

The full text of the letter is here.

Thank you for that video.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a 12 min video but I think it is worth the time.

Thanks for sharing this, bro. It aligns with what I've been saying for years; mainly that facts grow stale quickly and have a short shelf life.

I agree with he adding Pluto and the Periodic Table into his lecture.

And as a side note, Aristotle stunted the growth of science for 2000 years with his "facts."

His reference to scientists being "excited" at facts being obsoleted is also noteworthy.

 

[Jamin4422]

To this, I can only site Isaac Asimovs famous letter to a English Lit. student:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

The full text of the letter is here.

Did you watch the whole video. He talks about that very same quote in the video. Maybe that is where you got it from. We can go with this though. So you do not think there is a right or wrong. You think we only have fuzzy logic and fuzzy concepts?

 

[Jamin4422]

No we do not.

This is a subject I have talked with many people on here. How we go from Darwinism to hyper Darwinism to a post hyper Darwinism. Things tend to change over time. Einstein had a new and a different theory of gravity. The old theory could get us to the moon. But to go beyond that required a new theory.

 

[verysincere]

This is a subject I have talked with many people on here. How we go from Darwinism to hyper Darwinism to a post hyper Darwinism. Things tend to change over time. Einstein had a new and a different theory of gravity. The old theory could get us to the moon. But to go beyond that required a new theory.

Details got added to the same equation whose factors only become significant at high speeds. You are exposing your ignorance of the physics. Newton wasn't wrong. He was quite right. Asimov understood the science. You do not.

 

[KimberlyAA]

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting video.

 

[Jamin4422]

You are exposing your ignorance

Thank you for sharing that with me. I want to thank you for always building me up and encouraging me in the Lord. What a breath of fresh air you are in a world full of people that just want to tear you down and belittle you.

 

[verysincere]

Thank you for sharing that with me. I want to thank you for always building me up and encouraging me in the Lord. What a breath of fresh air you are in a world full of people that just want to tear you down and belittle you.

The Book of Proverbs says it well:

9:7 He who corrects a mocker invites insult.
He who reproves a wicked man invites abuse.
9:8 Don’t reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you.
Reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
9:9 Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser.
Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.

19:25 Flog a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence;
Rebuke one who has understanding, and he will gain knowledge.

25:12 As an ear-ring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold,
So is a wise reprover to an obedient ear.

Whether or not you will learn from instruction depends upon how you choose to receive it. The fool considers rebuke and instruction to be discouraging and a "tearing down". But the wise one learns from rebuke and instruction and is encouraged and "built up" by it.

Had it not been for some harsh rebukes back in the 1960's, I might have remained an ill-informed young earth creationist---ignorant of both the Hebrew text of Genesis and the scriptural evidences along with the scientific evidence. But the strong rebukes of the wise broke through my hard shell and started me on a path of learning from God's Book of Scriptures and God's Book of Creation. Like a hog in the mud, I was mired in my own ignorance and resisted instruction. Harsh but instructive words woke me up to the truth. A flogging is not pleasant. But I'm thankful for it now. I could easily have wasted my life in ignorance of both the scriptures and the science. (Of course, I could have instead chosen to sulk in my own pity and I could have continually sought out the back-slapping, ignorance-affirming consolations of the like-minded. A fool in his folly has many friends who will tell him that he is wise, all while he and they refuse to learn.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you watch the whole video. He talks about that very same quote in the video. Maybe that is where you got it from.

I agree with the speaker that science changes - what is believed 100 years ago, might not be believed 100 years hence. And I believe him when he says that scientific knowledge has a half-life of 45 years.

What I disagree with, is when he says that knowledge today is going to become obsolete, or that knowledge in the past has become obsolete. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, has long been surpassed by quantum and relativistic mechanics, but it's by on means obsolete.

I also feel he should have clarified that it's not a question of jumping from factoid to factoid; to paraphrase Newton, we see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. Arbesman gave the (in my opinion wrong) impression that scientific progress means today's facts shouldn't be held in much regard, and instead we should embrace simply being part of the advancement.

I disagree that the number of species and chemical elements has changed; if his point is that what we know about the universe can change, which I agree with, those two are poor examples. His other examples on nutrition and disease are good examples, but the other two, not so much.

So, I cited Asimov's complete article because I think he does a far superior job of describing the idea, than does Arbesman. The latter seems overly focussed on facts being right or wrong, and doesn't make it clear that the process is one of scientific refining. Hence, Asimov's is better.

We can go with this though. So you do not think there is a right or wrong. You think we only have fuzzy logic and fuzzy concepts?[/quote]
I certainly think there is right and wrong, but I don't think it's boolean. 'Right or wrong' implies that something is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong, and the 'wrongness' of wrong things is equal. I don't believe that to be the case. Again, I can do nothing more than cite Asimov's superior words.

 

[Jamin4422]

9:7 He who corrects a mocker invites insult.

R U calling yourself a "mocker"?

 

[Jamin4422]

So, I cited Asimov's complete article because I think he does a far superior job of describing the idea, than does Arbesman.

Everyone seems to be overlooking that this is a TEDx video. They are not intended to be at the same standard as peer reviewed scientific articals. They are intended to stimulate thought, to get people thinking. Although he did write a book that will have to stand or fall based on it's own merit. I just wonder is this intended to be held to the standard of research science. Or is this intended to be more like journalism and even PBS, NOVA and the other shows we see on TV that is not exactly up to the full standard that you would expect at the university and in your text book and peer reviewed journals.

 

[And-U-Say]

This is a 12 min video but I think it is worth the time. We all talk about how facts in science do not last very long. Samual Arbesman actually applies Science to give Scientific facts a half life of about 45 years. He has a fresh perspective and some new ideas and that is nice not to have to go over all the same old junk all over again.

Utterly incorrect. A fact drawn from a good experiment lasts FOREVER. Our explanation of why that fact is the way it is changes as more facts are added to our understanding. Explanations continue to be refined, but facts last forever.

 

[CabVet]

Utterly incorrect. A fact drawn from a good experiment lasts FOREVER. Our explanation of why that fact is the way it is changes as more facts are added to our understanding. Explanations continue to be refined, but facts last forever.

Exactly, and I explained this to these guys a million times, but it does not seem to make any difference. I did this exercise with AV once, I am sure he completely forgot about it (either by choice or accident), but here it goes again:

Let's consider three people in a certain fictitious scenario. Professor X, Student A and Student B. Here are some FACTS:

1. Professor X teaches algebra in college.
2. Both students A and B are enrolled in his class.
3. Student A always turns in his homework on time and never misses a question.
4. Student B seldom turns in his homework and when he does several answers are wrong.
5. During mid-term, Student B sits behind Student A.
6. Both Students A and B get an A on their mid-term.

Based on the 6 facts presented above, Professor X concludes that Student B cheated on the mid-term, but he takes no action. Then, a few more facts come to pass before the finals:

7. Professor X finds out from a third party that Student B spent the entire week prior to mid-term studying in the library.
8. Student B starts to turn in homework regularly and it is all correct.
9. Student B seats far from Student A during the finals and still gets an A in his test.

Based on the 3 new facts, Professor X changes his conclusion and now thinks that student B did not cheat on the mid-term. Did facts 1-6 change? No, this is a genuine change in conclusion and not a single fact changed. It perfectly illustrates how change comes about in science, but I guess even with this easy scenario it is too much for some to understand.

With all that in mind, I would like to propose a challenge. Since everything in science is so bad and every "fact" changes in about 50 years, I propose that everyone that is sick should not go to the doctor. After all, modern medicine is wrong and will change in 50 years, so why bother?

 

[CabVet]

Boy, I actually watched the video, what a waste of time. It goes more or less like this:

FACT 1 – Heliocentrim and flat earth – Those are not facts, they are hypotheses.

FACT 2 – Beneficial radiation – this was never a fact.

FACT 3 – “Good foods” vs “bad foods” – they were never facts.

FACT 4 – …… you get the idea.

Not one, not a single one of those so-called “facts” were facts, they were actually hypotheses, conclusions based on either insufficient of erroneous data.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not one, not a single one of those so-called “facts” were facts, they were actually hypotheses, conclusions based on either insufficient of erroneous data.

There's that No True Scotsman rearing his head again.

Earth being our 3rd planet isn't a fact either, is it?

It is an hypothesis?