Science, And What Science Isn't

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

So....you're fine with the idea that I can spin straw into gold.



Tell me...how did you get to the point where you refuse to use your own experience and intellect?

 

[Dante]

Now rightwingers like PoliChiclet will explain how the science at NASA is NOT science

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

Hey Poli, please refute one single NASA climate science fact. Just one. Come on ...we know you can do it

just one

 

[Dante]

10. There are several reasons for so many falling all over themselves to extol, to praise.....dare I say 'worship' the 'science' of SWAG....'scientific wild ass guess' kind of science....such as these:

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



a. There are more working 'scientists' today than ever before...and they all need to put food on the table. Scientists they may be, but they are a variety of entrepreneur....they need employment, grants, stipends, etc. You get same by publishing 'research,' by thinking up avenues to investigate that haven't been investigated to death.
The irony is that many claim to be anti-capitalism.

Probability or even possibility of the investigation is secondary.



b. Then there are lots of folks who claim to recognize the genius behind those fake/absurd endeavors. The further from reality and experience, the better. They need the claim to impress others, to appear informed, deeply knowledgeable...au fait.

There's that word for it:
"sci·o·lism A pretentious attitude of scholarship; superficial knowledgeability."
sciolism - definition of sciolism by The Free Dictionary



c. And one more motivation....the least reputable one: the need to find a way to explain the creation of the universe, and how it works, without reference to a Creator. The scientists in this group are largely atheist and, if not redundant, Marxist, a political view requiring atheism.

1. Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle advanced the following after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were the cause. In this master stroke he was joined later by DNA-discoverer, Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?

1. Physicist Leonard Susskind wrote “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent — maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation — I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent design] critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”

As I stated earlier.

1. And some will let the 'cat out of the bag,' admitting that any craziness will do, no matter how preposterous,......

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

His words, not mine.


Here's hoping that some day, in the near future, science will re-discover science.

this is one of the fuit-nuttiest things Polichiclet has posted

truly bizarre

 

[Flopper]

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.

So....you're fine with the idea that I can spin straw into gold.



Tell me...how did you get to the point where you refuse to use your own experience and intellect?

Now, you're just being insulting.

 

[Dante]

"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.

So....you're fine with the idea that I can spin straw into gold.



Tell me...how did you get to the point where you refuse to use your own experience and intellect?

Now, you're just being insulting.

her presence on the earth is insulting. sue god

 

[edthecynic]

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'?

What is undeniable is you know nothing about Physics and even less about science!

Theoretical Physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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'?

What is undeniable is you know nothing about Physics and even less about science!

Theoretical Physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

"....mathematical models..."

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now rightwingers like PoliChiclet will explain how the science at NASA is NOT science

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

Hey Poli, please refute one single NASA climate science fact. Just one. Come on ...we know you can do it

just one

Here's a plan....you stop running from the thread to which you voluntarily subscribed.

Novel idea?



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.

 

[Hollie]

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'?

What is undeniable is you know nothing about Physics and even less about science!

Theoretical Physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

"....mathematical models..."

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five

"Quote-mining" Berlinski, an ID'iot creationist hack makes you an accomplice to ID'iot nonsense.

Typical for your silly "quote-mine" threads

 

[Hollie]

Now rightwingers like PoliChiclet will explain how the science at NASA is NOT science

Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

Hey Poli, please refute one single NASA climate science fact. Just one. Come on ...we know you can do it

just one

Here's a plan....you stop running from the thread to which you voluntarily subscribed.

Novel idea?



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.

Here are examples of ID'iot creationism:

PoliticalDunce

David "career suicide at the Disco'tute" Berlinski

 

[edthecynic]

So....you're fine with the idea that I can spin straw into gold.

It would have been fine had you said "I can THEORETICALLY spin straw into gold," but since you didn't you are just a liar.

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'?

What is undeniable is you know nothing about Physics and even less about science!

Theoretical Physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

"....mathematical models..."

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five

Just because mathematics, the language of science, is beyond your comprehension does not make it "mystical." The fact remains that in "Theoretical Physics," unlike experimental physics, nothing is sacred and anything can be violated theoretically, including the Laws of Science, and still be science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....you're fine with the idea that I can spin straw into gold.

It would have been fine had you said "I can THEORETICALLY spin straw into gold," but since you didn't you are just a liar.

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'?

What is undeniable is you know nothing about Physics and even less about science!

Theoretical Physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

"....mathematical models..."

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter five

Just because mathematics, the language of science, is beyond your comprehension does not make it "mystical." The fact remains that in "Theoretical Physics," unlike experimental physics, nothing is sacred and anything can be violated theoretically, including the Laws of Science, and still be science.

I have the vid of you learning math....