Science, And What Science Isn't

[PoliticalChic]

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science is, and what it isn't.
The term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' facts that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'



Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science.'

But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism,
"Sciolism: A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability." sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary


Another word that applies to those willing to accept the absurd and call it knowledge.....'sophomoric: intellectually pretentious and conceited but immature and ill-informed."





1. Such wasn't always the overlay in socieity.....On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed.

In The Meaning of Everything, a book about the creation of the OED,Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”


Today we may have given up being racist and imperialist, and class-ridden....but much of our populace has also given up the sense that we are 'able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.'


They accept the absurd and call themselves wise.
SWAG is now accepted as 'science' by the sophomoric, afflicted with sciolism.

Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no. The problem is you are using a very broad brush to paint with. There are two schools of science, practical and theoretical. Calculus was, once upon a time, theoretical math because it had no purpose until they figured out it could be used for orbital mechanics.

Most science starts out theoretical and then morphs into practical applications. Some, like cosmology will probably exist as purely theoretical endeavors for the next thousand years or so, but quantum mechanics and the frame work of string and membrane theory will probably find applications within the next few years.

Let's be specific....I was in this thread.

Take post #48...would you care to do a "Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no" vis-a-vis the multiverse?

 

[Flopper]

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

When you're doing theoretical research, you are working with existing accepted scientific theories and a new hypothesis. There is usually little empirical evidence at this stage to support the hypotheses. Consensus with peers is essential to the viability of the new hypothesis and to moving on to gathering empirical evidence to support the hypotheses.

Once there is sufficient evidence, the real work begins, convincing peers, many of which may hold opposing opinions that this new hypothesis backed by the empirical evidence actually explains the phenomenon. This process of reaching consensus with peers can go on for years are even decades. Opposition will want more evidence and often competing hypothesis will emerge. Most hypothesis never become a new accepted theory.

Peer review and consensus is an essential part of science because the layman simply doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate scientific research. This must be done by peers. It is only through the consensus of those peers that we can have any confidence as to the validity of the new theory.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

 

[westwall]

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science is, and what it isn't.
The term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' facts that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'



Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science.'

But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism,
"Sciolism: A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability." sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary


Another word that applies to those willing to accept the absurd and call it knowledge.....'sophomoric: intellectually pretentious and conceited but immature and ill-informed."





1. Such wasn't always the overlay in socieity.....On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed.

In The Meaning of Everything, a book about the creation of the OED,Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”


Today we may have given up being racist and imperialist, and class-ridden....but much of our populace has also given up the sense that we are 'able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.'


They accept the absurd and call themselves wise.
SWAG is now accepted as 'science' by the sophomoric, afflicted with sciolism.

Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no. The problem is you are using a very broad brush to paint with. There are two schools of science, practical and theoretical. Calculus was, once upon a time, theoretical math because it had no purpose until they figured out it could be used for orbital mechanics.

Most science starts out theoretical and then morphs into practical applications. Some, like cosmology will probably exist as purely theoretical endeavors for the next thousand years or so, but quantum mechanics and the frame work of string and membrane theory will probably find applications within the next few years.

Let's be specific....I was in this thread.

Take post #48...would you care to do a "Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no" vis-a-vis the multiverse?

Yes, it is theoretically possible for a multiverse to exist. Perhaps that is the realm of God? The simple facts are we have no idea. We lack the instrumentation needed to be able to make the sort of discoveries that result in knowing.

Just think, 150 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that you could remotely control a model boat on a pond and yet that's exactly what Tesla did after dreaming of how to do it. That is the nature of genius.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

Who made GOD? Both silly unanswerable questions. I will take the side of science. And facts. not Dogma and guesswork. But we all die in the end, and what happens after THAT, science is a pathetic second place to religion. But I doubt man made religion has a clue to the soul and the afterlife, either. Artifice.

It seems that you have some sort of obsession with God, and religion.

I'm not sure why you believe that this is the appropriate venue to deal with your neurosis....

I'm gonna stick with my view that the examples I gave are absurd....and not science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a tongue-in-cheek reference to what science is, and what it isn't.
The term used is "SWAG."

It means a 'scientific wild ass guess."
It's meant to poke fun at folks who believe 'scientific' facts that are based on a confident and unquestioning belief,...sometimes called 'faith.'



Here's some examples of SWAG....

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.


What do these have in common?
All of 'em are of the modern fashion called 'science.'

But none of 'em are scientific....yet they are drooled over, praised,...accepted by the many infected with sciolism,
"Sciolism: A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability." sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary


Another word that applies to those willing to accept the absurd and call it knowledge.....'sophomoric: intellectually pretentious and conceited but immature and ill-informed."





1. Such wasn't always the overlay in socieity.....On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed.

In The Meaning of Everything, a book about the creation of the OED,Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”


Today we may have given up being racist and imperialist, and class-ridden....but much of our populace has also given up the sense that we are 'able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.'


They accept the absurd and call themselves wise.
SWAG is now accepted as 'science' by the sophomoric, afflicted with sciolism.

Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no. The problem is you are using a very broad brush to paint with. There are two schools of science, practical and theoretical. Calculus was, once upon a time, theoretical math because it had no purpose until they figured out it could be used for orbital mechanics.

Most science starts out theoretical and then morphs into practical applications. Some, like cosmology will probably exist as purely theoretical endeavors for the next thousand years or so, but quantum mechanics and the frame work of string and membrane theory will probably find applications within the next few years.

Let's be specific....I was in this thread.

Take post #48...would you care to do a "Weeeeeelllllll, yes, and no" vis-a-vis the multiverse?

Yes, it is theoretically possible for a multiverse to exist. Perhaps that is the realm of God? The simple facts are we have no idea. We lack the instrumentation needed to be able to make the sort of discoveries that result in knowing.

Just think, 150 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that you could remotely control a model boat on a pond and yet that's exactly what Tesla did after dreaming of how to do it. That is the nature of genius.

Then, surely, you would agree that I may be able to spin straw into gold.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try...but you wouldn't succeed.

a. Multiverse theory is a case in point....it originated in order to hide the fact that conditions for life on our planet are just too darn coincidental to be random. The fundamentalist atheists had to find a way to explain same, so came up with the absurdity that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of laws of physics.
Did I happen to mention that I can spin straw into gold?
" …some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720
Article written by a physicist.



b. Peer review is bogus as well. Where there is funding and/or career status at stake....well, scientist are simply human beings, too.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles smashes peer review ring - The Washington Post



In short....don't be afraid to use your head in the future: if an idea is simply absurd...don't be afraid to say so.

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

 

[MaryL]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

Who made GOD? Both silly unanswerable questions. I will take the side of science. And facts. not Dogma and guesswork. But we all die in the end, and what happens after THAT, science is a pathetic second place to religion. But I doubt man made religion has a clue to the soul and the afterlife, either. Artifice.

It seems that you have some sort of obsession with God, and religion.

I'm not sure why you believe that this is the appropriate venue to deal with your neurosis....

I'm gonna stick with my view that the examples I gave are absurd....and not science.

Well, those very examples you gave ARE science. You make the judgments. Science is about what is practical and real and what works, in the here and now. Theories like such and such or so and so will be proven or discarded. They will live on if true, it's a living thing that time will prove one way or the other. That is all have to say on this topic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

Who made GOD? Both silly unanswerable questions. I will take the side of science. And facts. not Dogma and guesswork. But we all die in the end, and what happens after THAT, science is a pathetic second place to religion. But I doubt man made religion has a clue to the soul and the afterlife, either. Artifice.

It seems that you have some sort of obsession with God, and religion.

I'm not sure why you believe that this is the appropriate venue to deal with your neurosis....

I'm gonna stick with my view that the examples I gave are absurd....and not science.

Well, those very examples you gave ARE science. You make the judgments. Science is about what is practical and real and what works, in the here and now. Theories like such and such or so and so will be proven or discarded. They will live on if true, it's a living thing that time will prove one way or the other. That is all have to say on this topic.

See....that was the point of the OP....there are dopes who are clueless as to what science is.
Raise your paw.

 

[Hollie]

The internal combustion engine, Computers, the internet, scientific mumbo jumbo. But they work. Some wisenheimer even came up with splitting atoms, or rockets. Somehow, all those scientific hunches worked because they were true. The catholic church punished some scientific minds for not conforming and stating contrary opinions. String theory, multi universes, what else should we believe? Sharia law, inflexible hoodoo and stone people to death if they don't conform?

Here's a plan: I'll be responsible for what I actually post....not everything you can imagine being posted.

SWAG:

The Mulitiverse Theory
String theory
The Higgs boson
The universe created out of nothing.

Who made GOD? Both silly unanswerable questions. I will take the side of science. And facts. not Dogma and guesswork. But we all die in the end, and what happens after THAT, science is a pathetic second place to religion. But I doubt man made religion has a clue to the soul and the afterlife, either. Artifice.

It seems that you have some sort of obsession with God, and religion.

I'm not sure why you believe that this is the appropriate venue to deal with your neurosis....

I'm gonna stick with my view that the examples I gave are absurd....and not science.

Well, those very examples you gave ARE science. You make the judgments. Science is about what is practical and real and what works, in the here and now. Theories like such and such or so and so will be proven or discarded. They will live on if true, it's a living thing that time will prove one way or the other. That is all have to say on this topic.

See....that was the point of the OP....there are dopes who are clueless as to what science is.
Raise your paw.

There actually was no point to this thread. That's a common theme to your threads of phony cut and paste "quotes".

 

[edthecynic]

Then, surely, you would agree that I may be able to spin straw into gold.

Newton was an Alchemist.
Would you call him a scientist or a religious cult leader?

 

[Flopper]

If you're suggesting that peer review be replaced by laymen review, that is truly absurd.

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

 

[ScienceRocks]

And so going back to god is somehow better. Sounds like the ISIS to me.

 

[Flopper]

And so going back to god is somehow better. Sounds like the ISIS to me.

Religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Muslim, or whatever is an obstacle to the advancement of civilization. When the vision for the future is the afterlife and the hope for the present is to turn the clock back, there is little chance for the advancement of civilization. Thankfully, there are relative few fundamentalist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I said no such thing....which leads me to believe my post hit a nerve.

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

"As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it."

I'd agree.

But I don't choose to even call it a theory....not if 'science' is connected to the term.

There is a disreputable motive attached that, for me, deprives it of the honorable appellation 'science.'



"...the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse."
Here's where we part company.....there will never be any such 'evidence.'

 

[Steven_R]

Then, surely, you would agree that I may be able to spin straw into gold.

Newton was an Alchemist.
Would you call him a scientist or a religious cult leader?

Truth be told, I'm not sure Newton was an alchemist so much as on the ground floor of chemistry. He had the tools of alchemy but was looking for answers.

There was a pretty good episode of Nova about it a while back.

 

[Flopper]

If as you said, "Peer review is bogus as well", then what is the alternative?

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

"As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it."

I'd agree.

But I don't choose to even call it a theory....not if 'science' is connected to the term.

There is a disreputable motive attached that, for me, deprives it of the honorable appellation 'science.'



"...the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse."
Here's where we part company.....there will never be any such 'evidence.'

There are two meanings for word theory; one the scientific and the other is the colloquial. The media and many scientists will tag a hypothesis as a theory with little or no supporting evidence. Only after there has been substantial peer review and wide acceptance by the scientific community should the work be consider a scientific theory.

• A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
• An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

The problem with the multiverse theory is that it is not one theory but two. In one version the term means that our universe spanning 42 billion light years is only one of a number of universes, possibly an infinite number. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. This view is accepted by most cosmologist.

Others define multiverse as a completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life.

There isn't much evidence to support either version of the theory. In my mind multiverse is simply an idea that seems to explain some phenomena. However, this is the way that many accepted scientific theories begin.

Does the Multiverse Really Exist - Scientific American

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll await your explanation for why you support the multiverse theory before we go on to other topics.

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

"As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it."

I'd agree.

But I don't choose to even call it a theory....not if 'science' is connected to the term.

There is a disreputable motive attached that, for me, deprives it of the honorable appellation 'science.'



"...the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse."
Here's where we part company.....there will never be any such 'evidence.'

There are two meanings for word theory; one the scientific and the other is the colloquial. The media and many scientists will tag a hypothesis as a theory with little or no supporting evidence. Only after there has been substantial peer review and wide acceptance by the scientific community should the work be consider a scientific theory.

• A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
• An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

The problem with the multiverse theory is that it is not one theory but two. In one version the term means that our universe spanning 42 billion light years is only one of a number of universes, possibly an infinite number. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. This view is accepted by most cosmologist.

Others define multiverse as a completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life.

There isn't much evidence to support either version of the theory. In my mind multiverse is simply an idea that seems to explain some phenomena. However, this is the way that many accepted scientific theories begin.

Does the Multiverse Really Exist - Scientific American

"but the same laws of physics operate in all."

False.

It is an attempt to run from what is patently absurd.

 

[Flopper]

I didn't say I supported or opposed the theory. There isn't enough evidence yet. Although the theory might explain the gravitation pull, the radiation data isn't sufficient.

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

"As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it."

I'd agree.

But I don't choose to even call it a theory....not if 'science' is connected to the term.

There is a disreputable motive attached that, for me, deprives it of the honorable appellation 'science.'



"...the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse."
Here's where we part company.....there will never be any such 'evidence.'

There are two meanings for word theory; one the scientific and the other is the colloquial. The media and many scientists will tag a hypothesis as a theory with little or no supporting evidence. Only after there has been substantial peer review and wide acceptance by the scientific community should the work be consider a scientific theory.

• A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
• An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

The problem with the multiverse theory is that it is not one theory but two. In one version the term means that our universe spanning 42 billion light years is only one of a number of universes, possibly an infinite number. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. This view is accepted by most cosmologist.

Others define multiverse as a completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life.

There isn't much evidence to support either version of the theory. In my mind multiverse is simply an idea that seems to explain some phenomena. However, this is the way that many accepted scientific theories begin.

Does the Multiverse Really Exist - Scientific American

"but the same laws of physics operate in all."

False.

It is an attempt to run from what is patently absurd.

Well, just a few thousand years ago, the bulk of our scientific knowledge would be proclaimed to be absurd; invisible organisms floating around in the air causes disease or the earth rotates and travels around the sun, absolutely absurd.

However, I do believe multiverse is a bit of a cop out. We can't explaining the paradox surrounding a gravitational singularity so we postulate a place where the laws of physics don't apply. I certainly wouldn't support this theory with so little evidence but I wouldn't close my mind to the possible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So...you're one of those who'll believe anything......

It's a free country....currently.

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

"As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it."

I'd agree.

But I don't choose to even call it a theory....not if 'science' is connected to the term.

There is a disreputable motive attached that, for me, deprives it of the honorable appellation 'science.'



"...the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse."
Here's where we part company.....there will never be any such 'evidence.'

There are two meanings for word theory; one the scientific and the other is the colloquial. The media and many scientists will tag a hypothesis as a theory with little or no supporting evidence. Only after there has been substantial peer review and wide acceptance by the scientific community should the work be consider a scientific theory.

• A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
• An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

The problem with the multiverse theory is that it is not one theory but two. In one version the term means that our universe spanning 42 billion light years is only one of a number of universes, possibly an infinite number. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. This view is accepted by most cosmologist.

Others define multiverse as a completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life.

There isn't much evidence to support either version of the theory. In my mind multiverse is simply an idea that seems to explain some phenomena. However, this is the way that many accepted scientific theories begin.

Does the Multiverse Really Exist - Scientific American

"but the same laws of physics operate in all."

False.

It is an attempt to run from what is patently absurd.

Well, just a few thousand years ago, the bulk of our scientific knowledge would be proclaimed to be absurd; invisible organisms floating around in the air causes disease or the earth rotates and travels around the sun, absolutely absurd.

However, I do believe multiverse is a bit of a cop out. We can't explaining the paradox surrounding a gravitational singularity so we postulate a place where the laws of physics don't apply. I certainly wouldn't support this theory with so little evidence but I wouldn't close my mind to the possible.

Let's get you on the record: you're suggesting that there will be some universe in which light and heat are unrelated, where objects are repelled from the center of a planet's mass, and where light does not travel at 186,000 mps.

A simple 'yes' will do.


Which is more likely....those 'facts' or my explanations as to the basis of these absurd notions,and that they not be classified as 'science'?

 

[Flopper]

As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it.

The problem with the multiverse of course is not that you can’t directly observe it, but that there’s no significant evidence for it's existence nor is there a feasible way of testing it. This reminds me of Heliocentrism first proposed by the Greece around 300 BC. There was no way to gather any real evidence at the time. It was 1800 years later that the work of Kepler provided the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse

"As I said, I neither support or oppose the theory. At this point the theory is an explanation with little evidence to support it."

I'd agree.

But I don't choose to even call it a theory....not if 'science' is connected to the term.

There is a disreputable motive attached that, for me, deprives it of the honorable appellation 'science.'



"...the evidence need for acceptance of the theory. Hopefully it won't take long to for multiverse."
Here's where we part company.....there will never be any such 'evidence.'

There are two meanings for word theory; one the scientific and the other is the colloquial. The media and many scientists will tag a hypothesis as a theory with little or no supporting evidence. Only after there has been substantial peer review and wide acceptance by the scientific community should the work be consider a scientific theory.

• A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
• An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action

The problem with the multiverse theory is that it is not one theory but two. In one version the term means that our universe spanning 42 billion light years is only one of a number of universes, possibly an infinite number. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. This view is accepted by most cosmologist.

Others define multiverse as a completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life.

There isn't much evidence to support either version of the theory. In my mind multiverse is simply an idea that seems to explain some phenomena. However, this is the way that many accepted scientific theories begin.

Does the Multiverse Really Exist - Scientific American

"but the same laws of physics operate in all."

False.

It is an attempt to run from what is patently absurd.

Well, just a few thousand years ago, the bulk of our scientific knowledge would be proclaimed to be absurd; invisible organisms floating around in the air causes disease or the earth rotates and travels around the sun, absolutely absurd.

However, I do believe multiverse is a bit of a cop out. We can't explaining the paradox surrounding a gravitational singularity so we postulate a place where the laws of physics don't apply. I certainly wouldn't support this theory with so little evidence but I wouldn't close my mind to the possible.

Let's get you on the record: you're suggesting that there will be some universe in which light and heat are unrelated, where objects are repelled from the center of a planet's mass, and where light does not travel at 186,000 mps.

A simple 'yes' will do.


Which is more likely....those 'facts' or my explanations as to the basis of these absurd notions,and that they not be classified as 'science'?

NO! That means I am making no such suggestion. There is not enough evidence to support the theory. That doesn't mean my mind closed to the possibility.