Scientific ideas & theories on the universe - Page 8

Song · #**106** 07-09-2018, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

(sorry, I seem to be making enemies!).

No you're not making enemies. It's perfectly normal to have disagreements and misunderstandings.

RedJoker · #**107** 07-09-2018, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

I missed this post. (sorry, I seem to be making enemies!). I stand by truth. It is consistent. It does not falter. In speaking of our existence we all seem to reach out for answers. That is our curiosity. Considered truth doesn't count. What is real remains today and 200 years from now. I guess it is up to us to discover it.

I feel like you are hinting at something we are not allowed to discuss here. If you are, I guess we'll all just have to move on our merry way.

I played guitar on my front porch tonight and learned a new song. That may or may not be true. It's just a theory based on the evidence at hand.

Dirk Hofman · #**108** 07-09-2018, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

Right. I like how science judges science. Is it the end-all of the 'theory'? It is a point along the trail be it right or wrong that is walked. Many times science has had to check their compass. I'm glad they are still exploring. We've come a long way. But we haven't reached camp.

Science is a method for arriving at an understanding of the natural world. It is the best way we have at arriving at such understanding. It is not a destination, a conclusion, or infallible. It is a process. There is no camp.

The need for perfect answers is something science can't help with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

I am a humble 'colloquial' citizen. Since when did science replace 'theory' with fact?

There is nothing negative or humble about the word colloquial. As for the latter I don't understand the question.

I would suggest looking up the definition of a scientific theory to get a better understanding, but several folks have done a pretty good job of explaining it here. Not sure I understand the pushback, it's pretty straightforward.

Jobe · #**109** 07-09-2018, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedJoker

I feel like you are hinting at something we are not allowed to discuss here. If you are, I guess we'll all just have to move on our merry way.

I played guitar on my front porch tonight and learned a new song. That may or may not be true. It's just a theory based on the evidence at hand.

Pictures and a YouTube for verification. This could be world changing!

RedJoker · #**110** 07-09-2018, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

Pictures and a YouTube for verification. This could be world changing!

Possibly world changing, but not in a good way. My dogs, who normally love me, decided they needed to hang out on the back porch tonight.

Jobe · #**111** 07-09-2018, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

Science is a method for arriving at an understanding of the natural world. It is the best way we have at arriving at such understanding. It is not a destination, a conclusion, or infallible. It is a process. There is no camp.

The need for perfect answers is something science can't help with.

There is nothing negative or humble about the word colloquial. As for the latter I don't understand the question.

I would suggest looking up the definition of a scientific theory to get a better understanding, but several folks have done a pretty good job of explaining it here. Not sure I understand the pushback, it's pretty straightforward.

OK. Yup. It's all pretty 'straightforward'. No need to discuss as science can't help with 'perfect answers'. Even though that is what they shoot for everyday.

Dirk Hofman · #**112** 07-09-2018, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

OK. Yup. It's all pretty 'straightforward'. No need to discuss as science can't help with 'perfect answers'. Even though that is what they shoot for everyday.

It strikes me that you're trying to add confusion and doubt where none is warranted. What you're saying is simply untrue. Quite to the contrary, science revels in the fact that the process is always open to new information. To most people that is its obvious strength. To those seeking absolutes, it is apparently frustrating.

Certainly there are those in the business of offering unchallengeable, perfect answers, but science is certainly not in that business.

The best answers? Yes, if the question has to do with the examination of the natural world. Perfect and unchallengeable? No. I don't know where one would get that idea.

Jobe · #**113** 07-09-2018, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

It strikes me that you're trying to add confusion and doubt where none is warranted. What you're saying is simply untrue. Quite to the contrary, science revels in the fact that the process is always open to new information. To most people that is its obvious strength. To those seeking absolutes, it is apparently frustrating.

Certainly there are those in the business of offering unchallengeable, perfect answers, but science is certainly not in that business.

The best answers? Yes, if the question has to do with the examination of the natural world. Perfect and unchallengeable? No. I don't know where one would get that idea.

Hi Dirk. To me the mission of science is to seek the absolute. It must be there. We seek it knowing there is an answer. But it is a sneaky rascal.

Tico · #**114** 07-09-2018, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

Hi Dirk. To me the mission of science is to seek the absolute. It must be there. We seek it knowing there is an answer. But it is a sneaky rascal.

Careful.
Black and white expectations on these matters are not realistic or workable.

Absolute is a warm and fuzzy idea, but the closest to absolute that is possible is what is considered reasonably true today based on today's best evidence.
... that is until tomorrow, when what was considered to be true yesterday is updated because a better reason replaced yesterday's best reason.
That's a good system, not a bad one.

A bad (not to mention arrogant) system insists absolute truth is knowable and eternally unchangeable.

Long ago the sun revolving around the earth was accepted as absolute fact.
After all, the sun rose in the east and set in the west.
The sun's path made it seem like it was revolving around the earth ... at least to those of my modest IQ.
If I lived back then I would have accepted that; it made sense.

But in time better evidence was discovered from greater minds than mine.
I know, I know, it's hard to image there could be greater minds than our own.
But ... so much for insisting on absolutes.

Basalt Beach · #**115** 07-09-2018, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

'No need to discuss as science can't help with 'perfect answers'. Even though that is what they shoot for everyday.'

It has been said perfect answers only exist in the mind, and no where else. Now, if you looking for the perfect guitar answer, the AGF classifieds are a good place to start. I also do not ever recall reading or hearing a researcher or scientist claim they shoot for perfection every day. I am not sure the same can always be said for some musicians. Lastly, all this reminds me of what I read today, that science does not care what anyone believes, and the answer as to why, is not perfect, however it is probably rooted in the scientific method.

robj144 · #**116** 07-09-2018, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

Hi Dirk. To me the mission of science is to seek the absolute. It must be there. We seek it knowing there is an answer. But it is a sneaky rascal.

Not really. Quantum mechanics, which is an incredibly well tested theory which has never been proven wrong to date, is built on probabilities and not absolutes.

Jobe · #**117** 07-09-2018, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robj144

Not really. Quantum mechanics, which is an incredibly well tested theory which has never been proven wrong to date, is built on probabilities and not absolutes.

Yes but the game is limited within the rules. The rules are absolute. The game allows for all kinds of flex but you can never go out of bounds. We need to discover the boundaries. I've tested them. Didn't work so well. There seems to be a limit even at the quantum level. That remains a quandary.

BradleyS · #**118** 07-09-2018, 11:55 PM

I have answers to the questions you seek...and more.

N+1 · #**119** 07-10-2018, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

To me the mission of science is to seek the absolute. It must be there. We seek it knowing there is an answer.

That is not the mission of science. Truly, it is not. Science proceeds by trying to falsify its theories. If the theories fail the tests, they're discarded or modified. If they succeed, they live to fight another day. We can be sure if a theory is false (if it fails a test), but we can never be sure that a theory is true (because we don't know what future testing may reveal).

There can be no search for an absolute in science (unless you regard the falsification of a theory as an absolute). It doesn't work that way. What we do get, as time goes on, are scientific models that are better at predicting the behaviour of nature. Theories are predictive models. They are not the thing itself.

In all this, don't forget what that enigmatic philosopher Wittgenstein said :
"We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all." I am oddly reassured by that, as I sip my morning coffee, wondering why the action on my 914 has dropped by 0.5mm.

robj144 · #**120** 07-10-2018, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobe

Yes but the game is limited within the rules. The rules are absolute. The game allows for all kinds of flex but you can never go out of bounds. We need to discover the boundaries. I've tested them. Didn't work so well. There seems to be a limit even at the quantum level. That remains a quandary.

You've tested the boundaries of quantum mechanics?