William Shatner - Science is Science Fiction

[Paul4JC]

William Shatner - Science is Science Fiction

"Just give me one... other dimension, and the answer is “we can’t conceive of that.” (“That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.”) “ Well, It doesn’t mean it does exist.”

So I said to Dr. Kaku….what do you do when you get up in the morning doctor? What do you do; and he says, “it's all in my head. I think.” Well, I said how do you prove what you're thinking exists because it's all theory? He said, Well, I've got these very elegant numbers, equation eb divided the 7 of 4. It’s all in his head. How do you prove a black hole? How do you know those gravitational waves prove the collision of two black holes? (“Somehow eventually they are able to observe phenomena”) No! They can’t observe! it's too far away! it's too theoretical. How do we know what they're saying is true? You know what it really is? It’s all science fiction.”

“Science fiction says, this is a story that I'm making up and there's this thing called wormholes and that's a science fiction concept. Although these scientists say there are wormholes. How do you know?”

“The mystery of science fiction is what I'm talking about. Science and science fiction are essentially the same.”

 

[timothyu]

I see Spock's logic has rubbed off on him. Yes anything agreed upon on consensus alone is fiction. Then one group first by sheer numbers followed by tradition tries to control the narrative surrounding their consensus (until someone else comes along and either pokes a hole in it or adds an addenda - regardless, the old thinking will not go down without a fight). Look what is happening with the pandemic and even religion. Controlled narrative.

 

[Rachel20]

How do we know what we know? Exactly. That's why posts that take on an "omniscient narrative" feel drive me nuts.

My knowledge of this life is small
The eye of faith is dim
But tis enough that Christ knows all
And I shall be with him

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spacetime is a difficult concept for us lay people to understand. Shatner mentioned a 13.8 billion year old photon. That hits our eyes in his ramble of what he did not understand. Anyway for that photon no time at all has passed since it started its journey.

What Shatner needs to learn is the concept of evidence. Nothing in science is "proven". It is a bad term to use. Science is evidence based. But when all of the evidence supports one idea and one idea only one has a very high likelihood that that idea is correct. If he had asked about evidence he would have gotten quite a bit of it.

 

[public hermit]

Lol, Shatner might not be the best spokesperson for the virtues of science, which is a bit ironic.

 

[Fervent]

Spacetime is a difficult concept for us lay people to understand. Shatner mentioned a 13.8 billion year old photon. That hits our eyes in his ramble of what he did not understand. Anyway for that photon no time at all has passed since it started its journey.

What Shatner needs to learn is the concept of evidence. Nothing in science is "proven". It is a bad term to use. Science is evidence based. But when all of the evidence supports one idea and one idea only one has a very high likelihood that that idea is correct. If he had asked about evidence he would have gotten quite a bit of it.

The issue is that "evidence" is a slippery word. It is often used as if it is brute facts, but evidence requires theory not simply facts. And theory requires assumption. So ultimately, if we trace everything back to the initial point of justification we will find one of three things. An assertion, circular reasoning, or an appeal to infinite regress. And the whole of human knowledge is in a precarious place, because it rests either on one or some combination of these yet we recognize that any fact that follows from this initial justification must rest on more than one of these three things. So the entire field of human inquiry is built upon making a massive exception to what's supposed to be its guiding principle of not accepting anything without sufficient justification.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lol, Shatner might not be the best spokesperson for the virtues of science, which is a bit ironic.

Kind of like Bill Nye, that!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Spacetime is a difficult concept for us lay people to understand. Shatner mentioned a 13.8 billion year old photon. That hits our eyes in his ramble of what he did not understand. Anyway for that photon no time at all has passed since it started its journey.

What Shatner needs to learn is the concept of evidence. Nothing in science is "proven". It is a bad term to use. Science is evidence based. But when all of the evidence supports one idea and one idea only one has a very high likelihood that that idea is correct. If he had asked about evidence he would have gotten quite a bit of it.

I got the feeling Shatner is doing Shatner, his particular version of poetic speech. He likes the sound of his own voice. But so do I, so....

 

[Subduction Zone]

The issue is that "evidence" is a slippery word. It is often used as if it is brute facts, but evidence requires theory not simply facts. And theory requires assumption. So ultimately, if we trace everything back to the initial point of justification we will find one of three things. An assertion, circular reasoning, or an appeal to infinite regress. And the whole of human knowledge is in a precarious place, because it rests either on one or some combination of these yet we recognize that any fact that follows from this initial justification must rest on more than one of these three things. So the entire field of human inquiry is built upon making a massive exception to what's supposed to be its guiding principle of not accepting anything without sufficient justification.

I am sorry, but you do not appear to know what you are talking about. There are very few assumptions allowed in the sciences, at least in the sense that you appear to be using the word. And in the sciences the concept of scientific evidence is very well defined. In fact if you want to try to deny scientific evidence you need quite a bit of evidence of your own to do that.

Scientists know that they are human so they developed a definition of evidence that does away with as much bias as possible. To even have evidence one first needs a testable hypothesis. If the scientist cannot think of a valid test that could show him to be wrong he does not have evidence at all. After that it is simple. Scientific evidence is any observation that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. This may seem to be a rather low standard to you, but you need to remember that creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kind of like Bill Nye, that!

I don't know about that. Bill Nye seems to be doing a pretty good job. He did offend quite a few when he supported transgender people, but again he did that based upon what the scientific findings say about those people. Personally I disagreed with him at first but I have come around to realize that he is probably right there too.

 

[Fervent]

I am sorry, but you do not appear to know what you are talking about. There are very few assumptions allowed in the sciences, at least in the sense that you appear to be using the word. And in the sciences the concept of scientific evidence is very well defined. In fact if you want to try to deny scientific evidence you need quite a bit of evidence of your own to do that.

Scientists know that they are human so they developed a definition of evidence that does away with as much bias as possible. To even have evidence one first needs a testable hypothesis. If the scientist cannot think of a valid test that could show him to be wrong he does not have evidence at all. After that it is simple. Scientific evidence is any observation that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. This may seem to be a rather low standard to you, but you need to remember that creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.

"Very few" is not none, ultimately all of "the sciences" rest on foundational assumptions and the worth of what follows depends on their veracity...but there is no means by which to test them. Of course, given your emotional investment in the "truth" of science I don't expect you to be able to discuss the matter reasonably.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Very few" is not none, ultimately all of "the sciences" rest on foundational assumptions and the worth of what follows depends on their veracity...but there is no means by which to test them. Of course, given your emotional investment in the "truth" of science I don't expect you to be able to discuss the matter reasonably.

Perhaps you should state what you think some of the assumptions are.

The only ones that I can think of off the top of my head is that one assumes that the universe is explainable and that it makes sense. And using that assumption they have had fantastic success.

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps you should state what you think some of the assumptions are.

The only ones that I can think of off the top of my head is that one assumes that the universe is explainable and that it makes sense. And using that assumption they have had fantastic success.

The assumption that there is a principally mechanical explanation, that empirical data is reliable, that there is consistency to the universe such that it can be modeled by laws/these laws actually exist. All of which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable(after all, what science experiment has not failed for unexplained reasons in a high school chemistry class?) And there haven't been "results" so much as constantly moving the target.

 

[Petros2015]

What Shatner needs to learn is the concept of evidence. Nothing in science is "proven".

I thought this was pretty interesting

 

[Bradskii]

... but evidence requires theory not simply facts.

Whut? Evidence is the available body of facts (fossils, dna etc). They stand alone. A theory is an explanation of those facts (evolution). It connects the dots.

 

[d taylor]

-​

science is like a big ole kettle of deception with just enough of truth measured out to hook and to keep people deceived. As of late though it does not need much truth, just bigger and bigger lies.

Of course that was accomplished when science was able to take over The Bible as mans trusted source of truth.

Being able to develop rockets that they can shoot up into the sky, has helped masterfully in furthering these deceptions.

 

[Fervent]

Whut? Evidence is the available body of facts (fossils, dna etc). They stand alone. A theory is an explanation of those facts (evolution). It connects the dots.

No, evidence is not brute facts, it is the combination of the fact and an explanation of what it supposedly proves(aka the theory). Using forensics, the blood on the wall isn't evidence until it's combined with a theory of how it got there. Fossils don't become evidence until combined with geologic theories, dna doesn't become evidence until combined with theories of chemistry or biology. A bone is just a bone until there's a proposed explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The assumption that there is a principally mechanical explanation, that empirical data is reliable, that there is consistency to the universe such that it can be modeled by laws/these laws actually exist. All of which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable(after all, what science experiment has not failed for unexplained reasons in a high school chemistry class?) And there haven't been "results" so much as constantly moving the target.

Actually if laws regularly changed that would negate that assumption. No one has seen that. That is why "laws" are called "laws". If they are wrong they could find that out. But they have no way to test that directly except to find laws and see if there are any changes.

In other words those assumptions appear to be well justified. They are not the negative sort of "assumptions" that so many science deniers claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-​

science is like a big ole kettle of deception with just enough of truth measured out to hook and to keep people deceived. As of late though it does not need much truth, just bigger and bigger lies.

Of course that was accomplished when science was able to take over The Bible as mans trusted source of truth.

Since the Bible is regularly shown to be wrong when it comes to science and even history that was not unreasonable. Why do you think that it is a good idea to give the Bible credibility without testing it properly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, evidence is not brute facts, it is the combination of the fact and an explanation of what it supposedly proves(aka the theory). Using forensics, the blood on the wall isn't evidence until it's combined with a theory of how it got there. Fossils don't become evidence until combined with geologic theories, dna doesn't become evidence until combined with theories of chemistry or biology. A bone is just a bone until there's a proposed explanation.

Nope. Evidence consists of brute facts. The theory is the explanation of the evidence.