Question on basic Science

[Michael]

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

I'm doing just fine. It's you that seems to be having trouble admitting to the obvious.

I will repeat the question again.

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

You mean like bigfoot sightings?

 

[Loudmouth]

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).

Can empirical observations be made outside of the lab? Yes or no?

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.

Again, supernatural does not mean what you think it means. String theory is a natural theory, not a supernatural one no matter how much you want it to be. It may be a bad theory, but that does not make it a supernatural theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm doing just fine. It's you that seems to be having trouble admitting to the obvious.

You mean the obvious as in empirical observations can be made outside of the lab?

You mean like bigfoot sightings?

I guess I will have to ask again.

Can empirical observations be made outside of the lab? Yes or no?

 

[Split Rock]

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?

Sfs gave you are very good answer. Science is not about a search for "truth." It is a tool for understanding the physical universe we are in. We say nothing is proven in science, because we cannot be 100% certain about any knowledge. That does not mean we cannot consider some knowledge to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes concepts like common descent and deep time. Such concepts are testable HERE and NOW because the past affects the present. In fact, events in the past shaped the present. Therefore, past events can be tested today.

That's their interpretation of it. It is a belief. Science is based on observable evidence that does not require faith. I can't test millions of years ago because I can't observe it. At least that's how I understands it. So I don't know why they called it science. They can have these theories about it but in the end it's just theories. Theories are not proven. What I'd like is for scientists to show me here and now in front of my own eyes, that these things actually happen.

There is no faith in science. Faith is believing in something you have no physical evidence for. DNA, rock formations and starlight are all things which we can study and test. Theories in science are the highest form of knowledge. Well supported theories like common descent and deep time are proven beyond any reasonable doubt, even if they are not proven 100%. That is the best that humans can do.

 

[Michael]

You mean the obvious as in empirical observations can be made outside of the lab?

You observe photons, nothing more.

I guess I will have to ask again.

Can empirical observations be made outside of the lab? Yes or no?

Astronomers claim to see invisible stuff in the sky the way that Bigfoot believers claim to see (and hear) Bigfoot in the wild. The common denominator is that neither one of them can show that their claim holds any water *in the lab* in controlled testing!

 

[Michael]

More importantly:

String theory demonstrates *conclusively* that science is *not* limited to 'falsifiable' beliefs, nor is it limited to claims that can be verified "here and now".

 

[Split Rock]

If geologists can't directly observe it then it can't be tested it could it?

Are you claiming that rocks cannot be tested?

That's different from the real science. The real science is here and now. Building computer, building bridges, cars, tech, etc.. I'm talking about real science. not faith.

You are refering to technology, which is based on science, but is not actually science.

I see. So science has no truth, just theories. You find that exciting? If it has no truth then forget it!

We recognize that people like yourself demand "The Truth," and want easy answers to everthing. "Where did humans come from? My god made us." The problem is, other people have different "Truth" depending on their faith and beliefs which differ from yours. So who's "Truth" is correct? The best you can do is agree to disagree. The worst is to start a war and kill each other. In science, we dispense which such things and that is why scientists of widely different faiths and beliefs can all (or almost all) agree on theories like evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

You observe photons, nothing more.

Again, this thread isn't about you, Michael.

If a researcher goes out into the field and measures the height of buch grass as it transitions between high desert and alpine ecosystems, is this not considered an emprical set of observations because it did not happen with the confines of a lab?

Astronomers claim to see invisible stuff in the sky the way that Bigfoot believers claim to see (and hear) Bigfoot in the wild.

Are radiowaves also supernatural because we can not directly see them?

 

[Michael]

There is no faith in sciecne. Faith is believing in something you have no physical evidence for.

I beg to differ with you as it relates to some branches of science, particularly astronomy and particle physics. SUSY theory is in fact an "act of faith' on the part of the believer, and it's already failed many so called "tests". Never the less, SUSY theory still has it's proponents, as do other exotic matter theories. Even the concept of "evidence" gets fuzzy when we start discussing exotic matter/energy theories.

String theory proponents are pretty much the scientific equivalent of any supernatural 'religion'. String theory is actually a pure form of faith with some math. It can't be falsified. It makes no actual testable predictions. People still devote their entire lives and professional careers promoting and writing about string theory none the less. Talk about faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

More importantly:

String theory demonstrates *conclusively* that science is *not* limited to 'falsifiable' beliefs, nor is it limited to claims that can be verified "here and now".

Or that String Theory does not qualify as a scientific theory. I guess you never considered that?

 

[Split Rock]

I beg to differ with you as it relates to some branches of science, particularly astronomy and particle physics. SUSY theory is in fact an "act of faith' on the part of the believer, and it's already failed many so called "tests". Never the less, SUSY theory still has it's proponents, as do other exotic matter theories. Even the concept of "evidence" gets fuzzy when we start discussing exotic matter/energy theories.

String theory proponents are pretty much the scientific equivalent of any supernatural 'religion'. String theory is actually a pure form of faith with some math. It can't be falsified. It makes no actual testable predictions. People still devote their entire lives and professional careers promoting and writing about string theory none the less. Talk about faith.

Do you really have to insert your doubts about Big Bang cosmology into Every single thread in the forum??? Did the author of the O.P. say anything about SUSY theory? If not, then please stop inserting it into the thread!

 

[Loudmouth]

I beg to differ with you as it relates to some branches of science, particularly astronomy and particle physics. SUSY theory is in fact an "act of faith' on the part of the believer, and it's already failed many so called "tests". Never the less, SUSY theory still has it's proponents, as do other exotic matter theories. Even the concept of "evidence" gets fuzzy when we start discussing exotic matter/energy theories.

String theory proponents are pretty much the scientific equivalent of any supernatural 'religion'. String theory is actually a pure form of faith with some math. It can't be falsified. It makes no actual testable predictions. People still devote their entire lives and professional careers promoting and writing about string theory none the less. Talk about faith.

So which is it? Has SUSY failed tests or not?

 

[Michael]

Again, this thread isn't about you, Michael.

When did I claim otherwise?

If a researcher goes out into the field and measures the height of buch grass as it transitions between high desert and alpine ecosystems, is this not considered an emprical set of observations because it did not happen with the confines of a lab?

Grass grows in the lab, and other places on Earth too. Where might I find and measure a "stingy" thingy related to string theory?

Are radiowaves also supernatural because we can not directly see them?

That's a terrible example. We can create radio waves in a lab in controlled experimentation, and we can in fact "see" (with the help of appropriate equipment) all sorts of wavelengths that our eyes cannot see directly. They do however have a tangible a measurable effect on atoms in the lab, so we can build 'cameras' that detect/see them.

 

[Loudmouth]

When did I claim otherwise?

In every post where you try to insert your attacks on the same tired windmills.

No, grass grows in the lab, and other places on Earth too.

We aren't talking about the measurement of grass in the lab. We are talking about the measurement of grass outside of the lab. Does that count as an empirical observation?

Where might I find and measure a "stingy" thingy related to string theory?

Why don't you ask the physicists. String theory is not the subject of this thread.

That's a terrible example. We can create radio waves in a lab in controlled experimentation, and we can in fact "see" (with the help of appropriate equipment) all sorts of wavelengths that our eyes cannot see directly.

But you can't directly see it which makes it supernatural just like dark matter, right?

 

[Michael]

So which is it? Has SUSY failed tests or not?

Spectacularly! It's failed three different tests in just the past 12 months in fact. It failed it's own "golden test" at LHC. It failed at LUX. It failed yet a third time in the experiments related to the roundness of electrons. For any *ordinary* theory, that would be "strike three" and the end of it, but not with astronomers. They'll continue to publish papers on the topic of exotic matter anyway, and they just make up something new and equally ridiculous when they finally run out of testable hiding places for SUSY sparticles.

God forbid they should actually consider using MHD theory, or include any current in their galaxy rotation models.

 

[Loudmouth]

Spectacularly! It's failed three different tests in just the past 12 months in fact.

Then SUSY is scientific. End of discussion.

 

[Michael]

In every post where you try to insert your attacks on the same tired windmills.

Boloney. I simply pointed out that SC was wrong on both points.

We aren't talking about the measurement of grass in the lab. We are talking about the measurement of grass outside of the lab. Does that count as an empirical observation?

Grass grows in the lab, and can be measured in the lab, as well as outside of the lab. What's your problem with string theory?

Why don't you ask the physicists. String theory is not the subject of this thread.

It is however a perfect example of why both of SC25's key assumptions were false assumptions. Science neither deals with absolute truth, nor does it always enjoy empirical support in the 'here and now'.

But you can't directly see it which makes it supernatural just like dark matter, right?

Nope. It has a direct effect on things in the lab, and it has a direct and measurable effect the AM band of the radio in my car. You're ignoring the difference between *empirical physics* (radio waves) and "science" that includes unfalsifiable stuff like string theory. They aren't one and the same thing.

 

[Michael]

Then SUSY is scientific. End of discussion.

I said *string theory* (as a whole) isn't falsifiable. Care to demonstrate otherwise? Supernatural constructs can always hide in the gaps, and that's *exactly* what string theory (and SUSY theory) does.

 

[Michael]

Do you really have to insert your doubts about Big Bang cosmology into Every single thread in the forum??? Did the author of the O.P. say anything about SUSY theory? If not, then please stop inserting it into the thread!

Actually the opening post made two erroneous claims:

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?

I simply pointed out that string theory (and other theories as well) demonstrates that both statements/assumptions are false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Boloney. I simply pointed out that SC was wrong on both points.

And then right in on your attacks on the same tired windmills just as you do in every thread no matter what the topic is.

Grass grows in the lab, and can be measured in the lab, as well as outside of the lab.

When you measure grass outside of the lab is that also an empirical measurement? Yes or no?

Nope. It has a direct effect on things in the lab,

Dark matter has direct effects on the path of starlight which is then measured in the lab.

You're ignoring the difference between *empirical physics* (radio waves) and "science" that includes unfalsifiable stuff like string theory. They aren't one and the same thing.

If string theory is unfalsifiable then it isn't a part of science. You seem to have a difficult time understanding how definitions work.