How to not fool yourself

[sjastro]

Wow -- just wow.

If you can't see crooks in your own backyard, I'm done.

Now I hope this is not a veiled personal attack on me.
Do I need to remind you of the trouble you got yourself into for labeling me as a crook for supporting Pluto's demotion.

It intrigues me not only do you have the inability of respectfully disagreeing with the science but have a need of questioning the morality, ethics and possible criminality of those over a trivial reclassification of an object in space.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science is either myopic, blind, or omniscient.

Take your pick.

It's just a method. Happens to be the most effective tool we have for learning about the physical universe. You're trying to make too much of it. It's methodologically no different than plumbing.

 

[The Barbarian]

From planet to dwarf planet is nothing more than a name change to reflect a more accurate astronomical understanding.

Which changes nothing at all but a name. For people who don't get what science does, maybe this matters. For the rest of us, it's inconsequential.

Being a planet is not really a state of being. It is instead a human construct, a categorical designation, and a slippery one at that. Which means that whatever Pluto actually is, its essential Plutoness, is not reliant on whether some humans who live billions of miles away from it decide to call it a planet.

Does it even matter what we call Pluto? Well, yes and no.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/pluto-planet-matter/398516/

Lots of bad, mostly inappropriate astronomy jokes here...

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a way of learning about how the universe, and life on our planet, came to exist and how they operate. It does this from a purely naturalistic standpoint. If you think that’s myopic, fine. It’s your prerogative. For sure, science isn’t perfect, but what human endeavor is? To me, it’s as obvious as the sun in the sky that a scientific outlook is infinitely more accurate, more reliable, and more useful than any ancient religious scriptures or beliefs have ever been.

Dress it up any way you want, it's still myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which changes nothing at all but a name.

I suppose I should learn to expect to hear that from those who call those other things "flying squirrels."

But for the record, it's more than a name change.

It's a number change as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just a method. Happens to be the most effective tool we have for learning about the physical universe. You're trying to make too much of it. It's methodologically no different than plumbing.

Pluto demoters can tell that to these guys:

There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification. Alan Stern, principal investigator with NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, derided the IAU resolution. He also stated that because less than five percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community. Marc W. Buie, then at the Lowell Observatory, petitioned against the definition.

SOURCE

Or will these guys put them in their place?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now I hope this is not a veiled personal attack on me.

You didn't even come to mind.

In fact, you've made it plain you're not even an astronomer.

Stick to headlights.

Do I need to remind you of the trouble you got yourself into for labeling me as a crook for supporting Pluto's demotion.

It was a hypothetical, and you know it.

In fact, it was a hypothetical you made up.

I called the IAU crooks, and you hypothetically injected yourself in with their mindset to see what I would call you.

You probably thought I'd contradict myself and make an excuse for you.

Mamma mia.

Give it up, chief.

It intrigues me not only do you have the inability of respectfully disagreeing with the science but have a need of questioning the morality, ethics and possible criminality of those over a trivial reclassification of an object in space.

Oh, please.

Again, stick to fixing headlights.

And have a happy new year!

 

[sjastro]

You didn't even come to mind.

In fact, you've made it plain you're not even an astronomer.

Stick to headlights.



It was a hypothetical, and you know it.

In fact, it was a hypothetical you made up.

I called the IAU crooks, and you hypothetically injected yourself in with their mindset to see what I would call you.

You probably thought I'd contradict myself and make an excuse for you.

Mamma mia.

Give it up, chief.



Oh, please.

Again, stick to fixing headlights.

And have a happy new year!

Once again your critical thinking skills are letting you down.
I'm not responsible in this thread for your "crooks in your own backyard" remark which was the point I was making and as history has shown is not only confined to astronomers but scientists who have to "fix headlamps."

Which do you think is more important a bunch of astronomers and planetary scientists voting on reclassifying Pluto which does not affect the quality of life of a single individual on this planet, or fixing headlamps which was a serious vehicle safety issue and if not resolved quickly would have led to Federal and State governments shutting down the production of Toyota Camrys in Australia and possibly saving lives in the process?

It was use of science that fixed the headlamp problem with engineering providing a supportive role.
Given you have blamed science for practically everything ranging from the Challenger and Hindenburg disasters to it rained on Tuesday, it wouldn't surprise me if headlamp failures fell in the same category.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's interesting that there isn't a desperate push to give Ceres its planet status back... I guess that wouldn't support a return to childhood rhymes or numeralogical associations with certain religious interpretations.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was use of science that fixed the headlamp problem with engineering providing a supportive role.

And I'll bet your department didn't have to rig a vote, violate its bylaws, keep key people out, and rile your governing bodies to do it, either ... did they?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's interesting that there isn't a desperate push to give Ceres its planet status back... I guess that wouldn't support a return to childhood rhymes or numeralogical associations with certain religious interpretations.

Someone once pointed out that the Periodic Table once started out with about ten elements.

It is now 120 or so.

What's the problem with naming other planets in our solar system?

 

[Shemjaza]

Someone once pointed out that the Periodic Table once started out with about ten elements.

It is now 120 or so.

What's the problem with naming other planets in our solar system?

We do name them, but there's a utility in having different labels for different types.

Ceres was re-defined as an asteroid after all the others in its orbit were discovered... these days it's often labelled as a dwarf planet like Pluto.

The other Kyper belt objects often have names, but as they are smaller, more recently discovered and less interesting than Pluto not many people know about them.

Personally I could see the utility in using different terms for gas and rocky planets... but there might be problems with the blurred line in between.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is a tempest not just in a teapot, but a thimble—and a tiny thimble at that.

it's in a space so small the oscillations are measured in units of h-bar.

I’d suggest that if astronomers offended by Pluto’s demotion can’t get a re-vote, then they should consider forming their own astronomical union and vote to restore Pluto’s previous status. I’d never pay dues to any organization that I thought was wrong-headed.

A la. Bender B. Rodriquez: Let's start our own astronomical union with blackjack and ..., nah, nevermind the astronomy. (There is a little more that goes in the ellipsis, but I don't know if it would violate the TOS.)

 

[partinobodycular]

In 1969, I submitted to my 9th grade science teacher a drawing of our solar system with Pluto as our ninth planet.

Was that good science?

I'm willing to bet that your ninth grade drawing of the solar system... using 1969's science, is still a whole lot closer than anything you could possibly do today... using 1611's KJV.

Or perhaps you'd prefer the periodic table, how many elements does your vaunted KJV tell us are in that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm willing to bet that your ninth grade drawing of the solar system... using 1969's science, is still a whole lot closer than anything you could possibly do today... using 1611's KJV.

Or perhaps you'd prefer the periodic table, how many elements does your vaunted KJV tell us are in that?

Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[partinobodycular]

Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

It seems to me that the problem with the bible lies in trying to use it as an authority on just about anything, and you're a perfect example why, whereas science provides us with a means of testing its validity, the bible provides us with no such control. It's right simply because @AV1611VET says it's right. Any authority that can't be tested, ultimately can't be trusted either.

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems to me that the problem with the bible lies in trying to use it as an authority on just about anything, and you're a perfect example why, whereas science provides us with a means of testing its validity, the bible provides us with no such control. It's right simply because @AV1611VET says it's right. Any authority that can't be tested, ultimately can't be trusted either.

There you have it, folks.

Science in a nutshell.

Science can't test the Bible, therefore the Bible ultimately can't be trusted.

Well, let me make one thing perfectly clear:

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

 

[Hans Blaster]

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

I thought I'd take a drive today instead. It'll get me back to my destination quicker (and I have too much luggage.)

 

[The Barbarian]

I suppose I should learn to expect to hear that from those who call those other things "flying squirrels."

?

But for the record, it's more than a name change.

Can you answer this question by Abraham Lincoln?
"If you count a tail as a leg, how many legs does a cow have?"
If you can, then you know why names don't matter to reality.

It's a number change as well.

?

Someone once pointed out that the Periodic Table once started out with about ten elements.

No. The first attempt at a periodic table, by Lothar Meyer, had 28 elements. Classical science in antiquity had 9 known elements until the medieval period, when there were about 13. In the 1600s, phosphorus was added. And the Andean Native Americans knew about platinum, which would bring it to 15. Then after the Renaissance, more became known.

There you have it, folks.

Science in a nutshell.

Science can't test the Bible, therefore the Bible ultimately can't be trusted.

You missed it one more time. The Bible isn't about making testable predictions about the physical universe; therefore, the Bible is not part of science.

 

[The Barbarian]

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

It's been a long and productive hike since the Ionian Greeks got it underway.

"If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton