• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Have Message Boards Ever Contributed To Science?

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A lot of topics are brought up here, and I wonder: has there ever been a known case where extensive discussion on a message board has brought forth an idea, thought or line of reasoning, that helped form a new theory, update an existing one, or disprove one that currently exists?

Like here, for example, there's a lot of intelligent people, who discuss certain topics, and possible answers to things that may not have a clear answer. Is it possible that at one point or another, that someone may have said something that if read by the right scientists, would cause a lightbulb to go off, and publish something new and insightful? Or do you ever think it may happen in the future?
 

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟25,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I will have to look it up later but for now let me just say that i remember reading about a blog which together with its readers in the messages below it came up with a new easier way to solve a mathmatical problem.

Does that make the answer yes?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is it possible that at one point or another, that someone may have said something that if read by the right scientists, would cause a lightbulb to go off, and publish something new and insightful?
Excellent word choice -- :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟29,653.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The internet was originally created (among other things) as a means of keeping scientists at various institutions in contact with each other.

There were message boards before the web came along.

I imagine some good science got done using the net back in the day.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think the answer is a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no. For instance, many scientists throughout history have communicated through letters, periodicals, emails, seminars, etc. So, much the same way we rarely see any one discovery or scientific advancement being attributed to any one specific discussion in a letter, debate in a seminar, or conversation over a few beers, communication of any kind between scientists absolutely help science along.

In reality, science rarely has that 'lightbulb' moment and instead the knowledge and insight comes after a long, arduous road of hypothesizing, testing, calculating, verifying, retesting, experimenting, etc. So, it's hard to attribute any one particular step in the process as being the 'defining' factor in bringing a new idea to light. Having said all that, I do believe that through conversations, debates, etc in online forums, the seed of an idea or catalyst for invention has been definitely born at some point, and most likely, more than once.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Dialogue (dialectic) is fundamental to philosophy (Socrates only engaged in dialogue and never wrote).

I have learned a great deal from exposure to diverse ideas on internet message boards and I continue to learn or else I wouldn't be here.

Who cares about contribution to science? Is contribution to science even possible? :scratch:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1900

"Everything of importance has been said before, by someone who did not discover it." -- Alfred N. Whitehead, mathematician/philosopher, 1947

"Scientists generally have little historical sense, so that each single generation knows little of the struggles and inner difficulties of the former generation. Thus it happens that many ideas at different times are repeatedly conceived anew, without the initiator knowing that these subjects had been considered already before." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1954
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Who cares about contribution to science? Is contribution to science even possible? :scratch:
:doh:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1900
Who ate his words when quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particles physics, genetics, etc, came a few years round the corner.

"Everything of importance has been said before, by someone who did not discover it." -- Alfred N. Whitehead, mathematician/philosopher, 1947

"Scientists generally have little historical sense, so that each single generation knows little of the struggles and inner difficulties of the former generation. Thus it happens that many ideas at different times are repeatedly conceived anew, without the initiator knowing that these subjects had been considered already before." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1954
"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" - Isaac Newton, 1676.

My quotation is older, do I win? Ah, but wait, I didn't quote mine or cherry-pick out-of-context quotes, darn...
 
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Who cares about contribution to science? Is contribution to science even possible? :scratch:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1900
Like Wiccan pointed out, quantum physics, nuclear physics, particles physics, etc., were discovered after that quote.

"Everything of importance has been said before, by someone who did not discover it." -- Alfred N. Whitehead, mathematician/philosopher, 1947
Wrong. The term "Big Bang" came two years after, and new ideas concerning it have been added since then. And the Big Bang would qualify as something of "importance" in science.

"Scientists generally have little historical sense, so that each single generation knows little of the struggles and inner difficulties of the former generation. Thus it happens that many ideas at different times are repeatedly conceived anew, without the initiator knowing that these subjects had been considered already before." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1954
Albert wasn't saying that new things wont be discovered, just that a lot of "discoveries" are unknowingly recycled. Furthermore, we've been to the moon since then, and actually studied lunar soil.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,815
6,372
Erewhon
Visit site
✟1,203,866.00
Faith
Atheist
Albert wasn't saying that new things wont be discovered, just that a lot of "discoveries" are unknowingly ecycled. Furthermore, we've been to the moon since then, and actually studied lunar soil.

Naw, silly. It was all filmed in a studio in Burbank.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Who ate his words when quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particles physics, genetics, etc, came a few years round the corner.
Those were all rediscovered already by the time Lord Kelvin was born.

"We get a sense that the significance of [Laird] Scranton's work, he is showing that, he is showing in a way that's practically incontrovertible, that the ancients had our science." -- John A. West, egyptologist, December 2003

Quantum Mechanics

"Democritus [said], that there is but one sort of motion, and it is that which is vibratory." -- Plutarch, historian, 1st century

Nuclear Physics

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

Particle Physics

"... his [Democritus's] ... atoms are infinite in number ... and [he] compares them to the motes of air which we see in shafts of light coming through windows ...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On the Soul, 350 B.C.

Genetics

"... it is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from one kind and a man from another ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"Empedocles, then, was in error when he said that many of the characters presented by animals were merely the result of incidental occurrences during their development; for instance, that the backbone was divided as it is into vertebrae, because it happened to be broken owing to the contorted position of the foetus in the womb. In so saying he overlooked the fact that propogation implies a creative seed endowed with certain formative properties. Secondly, he neglected another fact, namely, that the parent animal pre-exists, not only in idea, but actually in time. For man is generated from man; and thus it is the possession of certain characters by the parent that determines the development of like characters in the child." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" - Isaac Newton, 1676.
Prisca sapientia ftw.

"This question of measurement is only one example of Newton's faith in the prisca sapientia of Ancient Egypt. He was also convinced that atomic theory, heliocentricity and gravitation had been known there [See McGuire and Rattansi (1966, p. 110)]." -- Martin Bernal, historian, 1987

My quotation is older, do I win? Ah, but wait, I didn't quote mine or cherry-pick out-of-context quotes, darn...
You cherry picked your quote out of context.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Like Wiccan pointed out, quantum physics, nuclear physics, particles physics, etc., were discovered after that quote.
Erroneous. See reality posted above.

Wrong. The term "Big Bang" came two years after, and new ideas concerning it have been added since then. And the Big Bang would qualify as something of "importance" in science.
Wrong. The Big Bang is an ancient hypothesis.

"... so far as time is concerned we see that all with one exception are in agreement saying that it is uncreated; in fact, it is just this that enables Democritus to show that all things cannot have had a becoming: for time, he says, is uncreated. Plato alone asserts the creation of time, saying that it had a becoming together with the universe, the universe according to him having had a becoming." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.

Furthermore, we've been to the moon since then, and actually studied lunar soil.
Already done in ancient times.

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted ... that the moon contained houses...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"Galileo thought, or at least claimed, that he had discovered the mountains of the moon. But he had simply rediscovered ancient knowledge that was lost." -- Jonathan Henry, philosopher, Galileo's Rediscoveries, April 2010
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

shinbits

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2005
12,245
299
44
New York
✟14,001.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wrong. The Big Bang is an ancient hypothesis.
Wrong. The evidence for it isn't.

Already done in ancient times.
Lolz, seriously? We went to the moon in ancient times? We studied lunar soil in ancient times? We discovered water on the moon in ancient times?

Hmm....
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The evidence for it isn't.
There isn't any evidence for it.

"If you want to find evidence refuting Big Bang Theory, just point a telescope at the sky!" -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

We went to the moon in ancient times?
"He [Anaxagoras] asserted ... that the moon contained houses...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Were we on the Moon in 2309 B.C.?

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

We studied lunar soil in ancient times?
"Galileo thought, or at least claimed, that he had discovered the mountains of the moon. But he had simply rediscovered ancient knowledge that was lost." -- Jonathan Henry, philosopher, Galileo's Rediscoveries, April 2010

We discovered water on the moon in ancient times?
"He [Democritus] said that the ordered worlds are boundless and differ in size, and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, but that in others, both are greater than with us, and yet with others more in number. And that the intervals between the ordered worlds are unequal, here more and there less, and that some increase, others flourish and others decay, and here they come into being and there they are eclipsed. But that they are destroyed by colliding with one another. And that some ordered worlds are bare of animals and plants and all water." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"He [Anaxagoras] asserted ... that the moon contained houses...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Were we on the Moon in 2309 B.C.?

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.


"Galileo thought, or at least claimed, that he had discovered the mountains of the moon. But he had simply rediscovered ancient knowledge that was lost." -- Jonathan Henry, philosopher, Galileo's Rediscoveries, April 2010

Do I have this right? You don't believe in plate tectonics because you think that some evidence "falsifies" it, but you do believe that humans went to the moon 2000 years before Christ?

And among the evidence you find compelling is a quote from a 3rd century historian quoting an earlier philosopher?
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
Do I have this right? You don't believe in plate tectonics because you think that some evidence "falsifies" it, but you do believe that humans went to the moon 2000 years before Christ?

And among the evidence you find compelling is a quote from a 3rd century historian quoting an earlier philosopher?
I gave up on this guy when he quoted a line from a play by Euripides as if was scientific evidence of something or other. I don't even remember what now. I just thought, OK no point in any further discussion with AoS.
 
Upvote 0

DontTreadOnMike

Eddaic Literalist
Jan 28, 2010
1,316
69
✟31,936.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
has there ever been a known case where extensive discussion on a message board has brought forth an idea, thought or line of reasoning, that helped form a new theory, update an existing one, or disprove one that currently exists?

NO.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Do I have this right? You don't believe in plate tectonics because you think that some evidence "falsifies" it
I think all evidence falsifies plate tectonics not some.

If by "some" you mean "all" then yes you have it right.

"The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

but you do believe that humans went to the moon 2000 years before Christ?
I'm not putting a date on it but it I do believe humans visited the moon in remote antiquity.

"This book [We Are Not the First] is about penicillin before Fleming, about airplanes before the Wright Brothers, about the moons of Jupiter before Galileo, about voyages to the moon before Apollo probes, about the atomic theory centuries before Rutherford, about electric batteries before Volta, about computers before Wiener, about science before this Science Age." -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

And among the evidence you find compelling is a quote from a 3rd century historian quoting an earlier philosopher?
Correct. I consider history to be evidence.

"... I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0