My Tektite Poll

[AV1611VET]

Do you know for a fact that tektites are formed via the Terrestrial impact theory?

I'm not asking if you're convinced, I'm asking if you know.

If you do know, can you convince those who think otherwise?

Before you answer, qv please:

Tektites are natural glass rocks up to a few centimeters in size, which most scientists argue were formed by the impact of large meteorites on Earth's surface.

Can you quell those arguments with what you know?

Also from the same source:

Though the meteorite impact theory of tektite formation is widely accepted, minority theories propose alternate ideas of tektite formation.

Are you able to convince the minority of your peers that they are wrong -- and convince them so convincingly, that if they still disagree, you can show disingenuity?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Are you able to convince the minority of your peers that they are wrong -- and convince them so convincingly, that if they still disagree, you can show disingenuity?

Sorry I have no credentials whatsoever in the field of geography so I cannot do it.

The only thing I might competently comment on is knowledge.

Do you know for a fact....

What actually counts as "knowing for a fact" will have to be defined I suppose, we need an idea of the amount and type of skill* generally required to meet this threshold, i.e for a true justified belief to reach that status.

So can the OP give some instances of genre defining or paradigmatic "knowing for a fact" so that we can see if geologists' putative knowledge of tektites is analogous?


*rational behavior appropriate to gaining true beliefs, or technical ability, as opposed to fortune or luck

 

[Cabal]

Are you able to convince the minority of your peers that they are wrong -- and convince them so convincingly, that if they still disagree, you can show disingenuity?

If disingenuity is shown in the nay-sayer, will it be accepted and remedied? If they're not prepared to even acknowledge the possibility (*ahem*) then there isn't much point.

Also, do the nay-sayers have an alternative explanation for how tektites arose, or is NUH-UH! their only hand?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I voted "yes," because I prayed about it and was told in a vision I was right. Then I wrote it down and Documented my vision.

 

[RickG]

Science doesn't work by polls. Enough said.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't work by polls. Enough said.

Try again, chief:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.

The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.

Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."

A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

 

[RickG]

Try again, chief:

That was not a poll AV. It was a conference in which the description of Pluto did not fit the scientific description of a "true" planet. The members agreed with the science and voted to down grade Pluto from a planet. Had scientists known what they know now when Pluto was discovered, it never would have been called a planet in the first place.

Nevertheless, you are free to still refer to it as a planet. No science was changed in that vote. Deal with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was not a poll AV.

It was still a vote -- albeit a rigged vote.

It was a conference in which the description of Pluto did not fit the scientific description of a "true" planet.

You call that a 'conference'? did you actually read Laurele's post? q.v. the 2nd sentence.

The members agreed with the science and voted to down grade Pluto from a planet.

I wonder why?

Had scientists known what they know now when Pluto was discovered, it never would have been called a planet in the first place.

Yes, I'm familiar with Tombaugh's Folly.

Nevertheless, you are free to still refer to it as a planet.

Why, thank you -- I don't feel locked out.

No science was changed in that vote.

Because science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle?

Deal with it.

There are some who are actually doing just that, if you read the Wikipedia article on it.

The Illinois legislature, the Arizona legislature (or is it New Mexico?), and some in California.

There were also protests by some, and I believe "pluto" was made the 2006 word-of-the-year in mockery of the IAU's decision.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Speaking of rigged votes, the council of Nicea comes to mind.

 

[Jazer]

Do you know for a fact that tektites are formed via the Terrestrial impact theory?

800,000 years ago Zircons. That would be Homo Heidelbergensis.
The era we are currently in began 12,900 years ago with nanodiamonds.

 

[Cabal]

Try again, chief:

Terminology =/= science.

Fail, try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of rigged votes, the council of Nicea comes to mind.

Just don't call what you do 'science' and what others do 'religion' and expect us to play along.

 

[RickG]

It was still a vote -- albeit a rigged vote.

That's a serious accusation AV. You might want to think about what you just said, and I'm not talking about forum rules.

You call that a 'conference'? did you actually read Laurele's post? q.v. the 2nd sentence.

Where scientists meet and present research papers, yes AV, that is what is termed as a professional scientific conference.

I wonder why?

I already told you. What part of "it doesn't meet the criteria for a planet" don't you understand. The criteria already existed, they didn't just make it up.

Yes, I'm familiar with Tombaugh's Folly.

It wasn't a folly, it was cutting edge science of the time.

Why, thank you -- I don't feel locked out.

Just saying.

Because science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle?

Only in your imagination.

There are some who are actually doing just that, if you read the Wikipedia article on it.

So deal with it.

The Illinois legislature, the Arizona legislature (or is it New Mexico?), and some in California.

Ten to one says those are "conservative" movements. Conservatives generally have a lot of trouble dealing with science, especially climate science, for example.

There were also protests by some, and I believe "pluto" was made the 2006 word-of-the-year in mockery of the IAU's decision.

Million to one odds that not one of them even knows the criteria that defines a planet. They are crying because those mean old scientists took they candy away, boo hoo.

 

[razeontherock]

I voted "yes," because I prayed about it and was told in a vision I was right. Then I wrote it down and Documented my vision.

 

[razeontherock]

Speaking of rigged votes, the council of Nicea comes to mind.

They voted on tektites? It wasn't even controversial

 

[razeontherock]

800,000 years ago Zircons. That would be Homo Heidelbergensis.
The era we are currently in began 12,900 years ago with nanodiamonds.

They didn't have Geico commercials that long ago, silly!

 

[Jazer]

They didn't have Geico commercials that long ago, silly!

The Geico commercial was Neanderthal Man. Heidelbergensis was before Neanderthal. Heidalbergensis may not have had his own commercial so he may not have been as popular.

 

[razeontherock]

Diamonds won't even buy you a commercial anymore?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I picked "other", because I have no idea what a tektite is. Not that it makes any difference, this being a biased poll that no decent statistics organisation would ever accept.