Question on basic Science

[lasthero]

I said the earth being flat was a theory at one time

It was never a theory. At least not a scientific one.

and now the telescope of NASA tells a different story

We knew the Earth was round LONG before we could verify it by telescopes.

So the roundness of the earth is wrong? The roundness of the earth is a fact.

A fact does not denote absolute proof in science. Science doesn't deal in absolute proof - EVERYTHING is tentative. Even the roundness of the Earth.

 

[SuperChristian25]

'Weren't'. Not 'wasn't'. And it doesn't matter.

I already observed that an hourglass with the same amount of sand took an hour to empty. Therefore, if I see an hourglass with the same amount of sand, that's half on both sides, it's reasonable to assume it's been emptying for half an hour, because it's been empty at the same rate the other hourglass has. The only reason this wouldn't be true is if some outside for affected the way the sand was falling, or if gravity or something is working differently in this particular spot - but until there's a reason to take such factors into account, I have no cause to assume the rate at which the hourglass is draining has been affected.

Excuse me for my writing as I am not english speaker.

First of all, this analogy already set up to prove it's 1 hour because of the name 'hourglass' which makes it flawed to begin with.

If we're going by this limited analogy, then it usualy timed out right, as long as the sand gets no moister and clumps. This depends on inside ambient temperature and outside combined.

Let's say we have a crime where a witness sees the defendant enter into victim's house with a knife. We know the defendant and the victim were having arguments and even made a few threats. After the defendant enters the house, we hear a scream, and the defendant is seen leaving with a bloody knife. The witness goes to check on the victim, and sure enough, he's been stabbed to death.

But the witness never saw the actual crime. All she can provide is circumstantial evidence surrounding it. Should her testimony be dismissed simply because she didn't see it happening with her own two eyes? Are the circumstances surrounding the incident not enough to draw a conclusion?

This is drawing conclusion via indirect evidence. But I don't think this is the issue though. The issue is that the hourglass analogy is flawed because you're using something that you know vs something you don't know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well that does actually make sense after re-thinking about it. It is through the process of falsification that we can come to know the truth.

That is the very attitude that Popper warned us against. Just because a hypothesis passes a test does not make it the TRUTH.

I said the earth being flat was a theory at one time, and now the telescope of NASA tells a different story. So then, a theory could become fact.

Theories don't become facts.

"And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

We observe that the Earth is round. It isn't a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

In terms of the supernatural/hypothetical entities of "science", the problem always seems to be step 5, when the experiment doesn't jive with the expectations.

Once again, they are hypothetical, not supernatural. Please keep your nonsense biases in the threads where they belong.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Well that does actually make sense after re-thinking about it. It is through the process of falsification that we can come to know the truth. Otherwise people would still believe in flat earth etc.

Indeed.

People still believe in Noah's Ark, and that the earth is roughly six thousand years, even though both are contradicted by evidence.

It's amazing how people can fool themselves into believing something that is clearly false.

 

[Stethacanthus]

I seem to understand that science deals with knowledge and that you have to observe the event occurring, then gather evidence to explain the event. Science is the search for truth. I've heard people say science measure uncertainty, nothing can be proven in science. Who in the world would do science via uncertainty? That's absurd.

Real science involves knowing. It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.. in this present state..otherwise it is not science.

What's your take on this?

Scientific knowledge is all tentative. That being said science can explain things that occurred before the scientific method was formed. For example we can determine how long a canyon took to form based on how long certain layers take to form.

 

[Strathos]

That's because you could directly observe it, which only takes place here and now. That is science.



No.

So then, let's say that a man punches you in the back when you're not looking. You turn around and accuse him of it, but he denies he did it. But you and him are the only ones there.

You turn around again, and then you feel him pull your hair. Turning to face him, he denies he did it. You then point out the strands of hair in his hand, strands which are the exact same color as your hair. He still says he didn't do it, and you can't prove it because you never saw him do it.

You turn around again, and the you feel a needle poke into your back. You turn around, and the man is holding a needle, with blood dripping off of it, and you have a needle-sized hole in your back, bleeding. But the man still says he didn't do it, and you can't prove it because you never saw him do it.

Then the man takes out a gun. But he assures you, he won't shoot you. After all, he has never harmed you before, why would he harm you now? He says this with an evil grin on his face as he loads the gun and aims it at you, then tells you it's okay, nothing will happen, just turn around.

I take it you would believe him?

 

[Michael]

Once again, they are hypothetical, not supernatural. Please keep your nonsense biases in the threads where they belong.

There is still no distinction since your "hypothetical" entities are often endowed with "supernatural" properties. Inflation supposedly causes "space" to expand and has some sort of exotic negative pressure capabilities. "Dark energy" supposedly causes space to accelerate and unlike any other energy that exists in nature it was also endowed with the supernatural property of negative pressure'. "Cold dark matter" can supposedly walk right through walls and spit out gamma ray's for breakfast! There's still no difference, and no way to individually or collectively falsify any of the various supernatural properties of those 'hypothetical' entities.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is still no distinction since your "hypothetical" entities are often endowed with "supernatural" properties.

There are other threads for where this nonsense is discussed.

 

[Michael]

There are other threads for where this nonsense is discussed.

I was simply pointing out that 'science' isn't limited to lab demonstrated physics. Atheists (and SC25 in this case) often mistakenly assume that science is always empirical and it's various popular theories enjoy empirical support. Often times, as with the case of exotic matter theories, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was simply pointing out that 'science' isn't limited to lab demonstrated physics. Atheists (and SC25 in this case) often mistakenly assume that science is always empirical and it's various popular theories enjoy empirical support. Often times, as with the case of exotic matter theories, nothing could be further from the truth.

Empirical is not defined as "what is observed in a lab". Empirical observations are repeatable observations made by the senses, and they can include observations produced by nature outside the controlled conditions of lab.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is still no distinction since your "hypothetical" entities are often endowed with "supernatural" properties. Inflation supposedly causes "space" to expand and has some sort of exotic negative pressure capabilities.

Exotic is not the same as supernatural. The basic properties attributed to this form of matter and the consequences of them for space-time follow directly from Einstein's equations. These things are described and explained using natural laws, not supernatural ones.

 

[Michael]

Exotic is not the same as supernatural.

You are just as incapable of getting space to do any supernatural expansion tricks in the lab as I am incapable of getting a 'supernatural' concept of God to show up in the lab. In terms of demonstrated physics in the lab, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

The basic properties attributed to this form of matter and the consequences of them for space-time follow directly from Einstein's equations. These things are described and explained using natural laws, not supernatural ones.

Yes, it's possible to indeed stick "magic" into a GR formula, and make all sorts of clams about magic too. So what? The bottom line is your supernatural/hypothetical claims are absolutely and entirely impotent when it comes to having any effect on a photon in a lab. You supernatural claims just come with nifty (and useless on Earth) maths. In the case of exotic matter theories, the maths can't even be used the falsify the concept *outright*, they can only falsify one energy spectrum, and the claims of exotic forms of matter in the scientific gaps continue unabated.

In the case of string theory, it *doesn't even make* any testable predictions in the first place, and it can be made to do just about anything and everything in terms of the various mathematical options.

How would you even falsify string theory? Is it actually even a form of 'science' without any falsification mechanism?

 

[Michael]

Empirical is not defined as "what is observed in a lab". Empirical observations are repeatable observations made by the senses, and they can include observations produced by nature outside the controlled conditions of lab.

Oh look at that light shining in the sky: God did it!

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh look at that light shining in the sky: God did it!

And this is why you can't be reasoned with.

 

[Michael]

And this is why you can't be reasoned with.

All the various "supernatural/hypothetical" constructs of astronomy are entirely based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy, exactly like my example.

How can string theory even be considered a "scientific" theory when it doesn't even make any testable predictions, and it's maths can be manipulated to do anything and everything? It's the ultimate *unfalsifiable* claim!

 

[Loudmouth]

All the various "supernatural/hypothetical" constructs of astronomy are entirely based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy, exactly like my example.

How can string theory even be considered a "scientific" theory when it doesn't even make any testable predictions, and it's maths can be manipulated to do anything and everything? It's the ultimate *unfalsifiable* claim!

Again, there are other threads dealing with this nonsense. This is yet another example of why you can't carry on an adult conversation.

Do empirical observations include observations made outside of the lab? Yes or no?

 

[Michael]

Again, there are other threads dealing with this nonsense. This is yet another example of why you can't carry on an adult conversation.

Bah! You're just miffed because I'm right, and you're getting all huffy about it.

Do empirical observations include observations made outside of the lab? Yes or no?

All you have are observations of photons. Anything else is a pure affirming the consequent fallacy on your part.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bah! You're just miffed because I'm right, and you're getting all huffy about it.

Yet another example. Why can't you have an adult conversation?

All you have are observations of photons. Anything else is a pure affirming the consequent fallacy on your part.

I will repeat the question again.

Do empirical observations include observations made outside of the lab? Yes or no?

 

[Michael]

The point of my comment was this:

Real science involves knowing. It's got to be testable, repeatable HERE and NOW.. in this present state..otherwise it is not science.

What's your take on this?

SC was wrong on both points. Science is not about 'knowing' nor does it have to be repeatable 'here and now' (as on Earth in the lab).

In fact string theory demonstrates that the atheist urban legend about a theory needs to be falsifiable to be a form of "science' is absolutely false. String theory has no possible falsification mechanism in fact. Furthermore it's maths are variable so as to be capable of conforming to anything and everything. It's the ultimate supernatural/unfalsifiable theory in fact.