Science under attack in Texas

[Coloradomtnman]

It depends on what you mean by "observe". Dark matter, by definition cannot be "seen", however they have observed gravitational lensing caused by the motion of dark matter through a region of space. Gravitational lensing will only occur when there is some mass present, bending light. The fact that they observed the lensing effect without actually being able to see the mass is strong evidence for the reality of dark matter.

Not to mention the observbed drag on the outer regions of spinning galaxies which demonstrates a gravitational tug by unseen matter.

I don't think JohnSt.Onge (is that right?) is knowledgeable in the field of physics, astronomical or quantum. Its obvious he doesn't understand the uncertainty principle or that, so far as modern science can understand, that reality is based on probabilities. And I think he finds, as many religious people do, that uncertainty and the nonexistance of absolutes uncomfortable.

 

[N4mddissent]

In order to empirically contradict the position I've taken, you're going to have to find an example in which it has been contradicted. And there is no such example.

That in itself is ridiculous. I tell you that an event is not impossible but extremely improbable. So improbable it is not likely to occur within the length of time we expect the earth to exist. And you want me to empirically contradict it.

Your position can only be contradicted mathematically, and it has been contradicted in quantum physics. My position, on the other hand, can only be contradicted by observing an infinite number of "fallings". By saying impossible, you are asserting that even in infinite examples, there will never be an exception. So empirically, you can only support your position by observing infinite fallings. You can be reasonably certain, but that's not absolute certainity. So to demand an empirical contradiction to a position that you cannot empirically support is a form of special pleading and an unreasonable request. All of the examples of things actually falling or freezing can only at best support the proposition that it is very likely to happen- which is my position. Only infinite examples can support absolute certainity.

The similarity with the orbit of Neptune is that we cannot actually observe the orbit of neptune. For one thing, it takes 165 years, meaning not only could no individual ever observe it, but since it was discovered in 1846, it will not complete its first complete orbit around the sun unitl 2011. Which means no one has ever observed the orbit of neptune. So by your rationale, you do not accept the orbit of neptune as reality, since it only is a mathematical prediction. Furthermore, Neptune will not be visible from earth throughout its entire orbit so it will not be observed through its entire orbit.

But you know what will happen if you conduct 1,000 experiments as to whether or not that will happen. Now, think about what might happen if you conduct 1,000 experiments to see if populations of single celled organisms will give rise to multicellular organisms. Are you confident that even one will end in "success?

1000 experiments? My friend you have got to get a grasp on the scale here. Doing 2000 experiments would be the equivalent of one single cell organism on earth per one million years. How is that even close to similar? Yet that is double what you propose. If you want to understand the experimental difficulty, take the the average number of single cell organisms in all the earth's oceans over the course of 2 thousand million years- that's about how long it took for multicellular life to appear. That's a hell of a lot more than 1000experiments. It only had to happen once in all of that time and among all of those organisms. In other words, a lottery that everyone on earth plays throughout all of human history would not even begin to approach the scale of experimentation by unicellular life before the appearance of multicellular life.

The reason a lottery is won fairly often despite its low probablity is the number of players makes the odds of someone winning fairly good, while the odds of a particular person winning remains very remote. As time goes on, it becomes more likely that one of the many players will actually win since as a group the odds are not so bad. All of the single celled organisms on earth is a very large group. And 2 billion years is a very long time.

You are too quick in asserting what cannot happen with perception based on human scales of time and quantity. Humans are barely a blip on the radar. Things that seem ancient to us, like the pyramids, were almost simultaneous with our current existence when considered on a geological time scale. You have to use reason, not just intuition.

The orbit of our solar system around the galaxy is a mathematical prediction. Relativity was only a mathematical prediction until its effects were confirmed. The same is true for quantum mechanics. For example the two slit experiment clearly demonstrates the dual nature of light. It doesn't make sense. For us, a particle and a wave are two different things. It doesn't make sense that something could be both. But apparently nature doesn't give a damn if we think it makes sense.

 

[Yukon]

TEXAS is second only to COMMUNIST CHINA with respect to the number of persons legally killed by the state. UIn China they kill people by shooting therm in the head, in TEXAS they inject poison into veins and let people die horrible and painful deaths all the while reciting The Lord's Prayer.

 

[Old Rocks]

But in China they execute top executives that poison people with their products. In Texas, they just hit them up for a bigger campaign contribution.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Most of the time I try to avoid quoting the whole thing. But in this case I won't. I hate to break this to you, N, but part of the scientific method is confirmation through experimentation. Make it a thousand. Make it a million, Make it 10 to whatever power you want. If you do experiments on falling in the context of our planetary environment as it exists at this time and/or how it's existed throughout our history of a species, it will be successful 100% of the time. You and I both know that. I would not bet against it. Neither would you. And, no, my position has not been contradicted by an equation. The equation is a model. If it does predict that under the specified conditions it's possible that one could step off the top of a 10 story building and not fall in the absence of some intervention, it will be valdiated as correct in that regard when that happens.

If you want to say that it's possible that you could step off of the top of a 10 story building and not fall, and if you're going to stick to the scientific method, you need to design an experiment that leads to that outcome.

As for Neptune. Fine. If what you say is true that has not been empirically validated yet. But it can be.

Finally, the fact that an experiment cannot be conducted within an individual lifetime does not mean it can't be conducted. The point is that the overall theory of evolution should include some idea as to the conditions under which populations of single celled organisims gave rise to populations of multicellular organisms. So you should be able to design an experiment based on an understanding of those conditions.

And suppose it takes millions of years? Well, tough. That's part of what makes it not in the highest realm of certainty. My point is that the nonsense about the overall theory of evolution being at the highest level of certainty that science can achieve is just that: Nosnesne.

In order to empirically contradict the position I've taken, you're going to have to find an example in which it has been contradicted. And there is no such example.

That in itself is ridiculous. I tell you that an event is not impossible but extremely improbable. So improbable it is not likely to occur within the length of time we expect the earth to exist. And you want me to empirically contradict it.

Your position can only be contradicted mathematically, and it has been contradicted in quantum physics. My position, on the other hand, can only be contradicted by observing an infinite number of "fallings". By saying impossible, you are asserting that even in infinite examples, there will never be an exception. So empirically, you can only support your position by observing infinite fallings. You can be reasonably certain, but that's not absolute certainity. So to demand an empirical contradiction to a position that you cannot empirically support is a form of special pleading and an unreasonable request. All of the examples of things actually falling or freezing can only at best support the proposition that it is very likely to happen- which is my position. Only infinite examples can support absolute certainity.

The similarity with the orbit of Neptune is that we cannot actually observe the orbit of neptune. For one thing, it takes 165 years, meaning not only could no individual ever observe it, but since it was discovered in 1846, it will not complete its first complete orbit around the sun unitl 2011. Which means no one has ever observed the orbit of neptune. So by your rationale, you do not accept the orbit of neptune as reality, since it only is a mathematical prediction. Furthermore, Neptune will not be visible from earth throughout its entire orbit so it will not be observed through its entire orbit.

But you know what will happen if you conduct 1,000 experiments as to whether or not that will happen. Now, think about what might happen if you conduct 1,000 experiments to see if populations of single celled organisms will give rise to multicellular organisms. Are you confident that even one will end in "success?

1000 experiments? My friend you have got to get a grasp on the scale here. Doing 2000 experiments would be the equivalent of one single cell organism on earth per one million years. How is that even close to similar? Yet that is double what you propose. If you want to understand the experimental difficulty, take the the average number of single cell organisms in all the earth's oceans over the course of 2 thousand million years- that's about how long it took for multicellular life to appear. That's a hell of a lot more than 1000experiments. It only had to happen once in all of that time and among all of those organisms. In other words, a lottery that everyone on earth plays throughout all of human history would not even begin to approach the scale of experimentation by unicellular life before the appearance of multicellular life.

The reason a lottery is won fairly often despite its low probablity is the number of players makes the odds of someone winning fairly good, while the odds of a particular person winning remains very remote. As time goes on, it becomes more likely that one of the many players will actually win since as a group the odds are not so bad. All of the single celled organisms on earth is a very large group. And 2 billion years is a very long time.

You are too quick in asserting what cannot happen with perception based on human scales of time and quantity. Humans are barely a blip on the radar. Things that seem ancient to us, like the pyramids, were almost simultaneous with our current existence when considered on a geological time scale. You have to use reason, not just intuition.

The orbit of our solar system around the galaxy is a mathematical prediction. Relativity was only a mathematical prediction until its effects were confirmed. The same is true for quantum mechanics. For example the two slit experiment clearly demonstrates the dual nature of light. It doesn't make sense. For us, a particle and a wave are two different things. It doesn't make sense that something could be both. But apparently nature doesn't give a damn if we think it makes sense.

 

[JohnStOnge]

It depends on what you mean by "observe". Dark matter, by definition cannot be "seen", however they have observed gravitational lensing caused by the motion of dark matter through a region of space. Gravitational lensing will only occur when there is some mass present, bending light. The fact that they observed the lensing effect without actually being able to see the mass is strong evidence for the reality of dark matter.

Not to mention the observbed drag on the outer regions of spinning galaxies which demonstrates a gravitational tug by unseen matter.

I don't think JohnSt.Onge (is that right?) is knowledgeable in the field of physics, astronomical or quantum. Its obvious he doesn't understand the uncertainty principle or that, so far as modern science can understand, that reality is based on probabilities. And I think he finds, as many religious people do, that uncertainty and the nonexistance of absolutes uncomfortable.

I normally don't respond to personal assessments. But in this case I'll make an exception. My thing is statistics. That means I deal with uncertainty all the time. I deal with probabilities all the time. But I also understand that assignment of cause and effect requires controlled experimentation.

When you talk about something like the idea of dark matter, you're talking about people having a model of how things should work and having things not work that way. So they decide that there must be something that accounts for that. In order to assume that there is such a thing as dark matter, you have to assume that their model was accurate to begin with.

Maybe they'll turn out to be right. Maybe some day they will actually be able to demonstrate that dark matter exists. But, for now, you really need to consider the possibility that their model was off to begin with.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is the real story of the creation of earth:

 

[Red Dawn]

cute kitten!

 

[k2skier]

Here is the real story of the creation of earth:

Finally a religion I can get on board with.

 

[Yukon]

I despise cats.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I normally don't respond to personal assessments. But in this case I'll make an exception. My thing is statistics. That means I deal with uncertainty all the time. I deal with probabilities all the time.

Yes, but that's statistics, not calculus which is applicable to physics. And I was talking about quantum physics. Do you know what the Uncertainty Principle is? Do you know what its implications are?

But I also understand that assignment of cause and effect requires controlled experimentation.

So you hve a basic understanding of science. What you don't know about is quatum physics and that experimentation has provided supporting evidence for the Uncertainity Principle - which is so simple and logical that we hardly needed to conduct experiments to support it.

When you talk about something like the idea of dark matter, you're talking about people having a model of how things should work and having things not work that way. So they decide that there must be something that accounts for that. In order to assume that there is such a thing as dark matter, you have to assume that their model was accurate to begin with.

When a scientist develops a model and that doesn't reflect reality accurately, they look at many different aspects of the model. In the case of modern physics, the only thing that seemed to fit was an aspect of the Universe that physicists weren't seeing. Something that had mass. So they began to look for evidence of this unseen mass. And guess what? They found it. We have observed dark matter indirectly: the lensing effect that N4md wrote about earlier and the drag on the outer systems of spinning galaxies.

Maybe they'll turn out to be right. Maybe some day they will actually be able to demonstrate that dark matter exists. But, for now, you really need to consider the possibility that their model was off to begin with.

I respect your skepticism of science. Its healthy not to believe just any old thing that you read or hear or see. However, this time your skepticism is without real knowledge of the subject. If you want to learn more then read: "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, or his other book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" which are easy to understand and written in a way that you don't need calculus (not statistics) to understand. These books will give you a basic comprehensive knowledge of modern physics as long as you maintain an open mind where the findings or methods of physicists don't agree with your world-view.

 

[N4mddissent]

Finally, the fact that an experiment cannot be conducted within an individual lifetime does not mean it can't be conducted. The point is that the overall theory of evolution should include some idea as to the conditions under which populations of single celled organisims gave rise to populations of multicellular organisms. So you should be able to design an experiment based on an understanding of those conditions.

And suppose it takes millions of years? Well, tough. That's part of what makes it not in the highest realm of certainty. My point is that the nonsense about the overall theory of evolution being at the highest level of certainty that science can achieve is just that: Nosnesne.

If this is your personal definition that's fine. People can believe whatever they want. But the fact is that not every scientific fact is or can be directly observed. Atoms cannot be directly observed. The orbit of the solar system around the galaxy cannot be directly observed, neither can the black hole at the galactic center. So for consistency, you have to admit that you have serious doubts about all of these. As a matter of fact, we haven't directly observed gravity. We can only observe its effects. So you must have doubt about its certainty as well.

You can't see gravity, but you infer its existence by its effects on objects. You are confident it exists because it reliably predicts behavior. These are the same principles behind quantum physics and evolution. It's just that quantum physics predictions are based on probabilities rather than certainties. Yet it reliably predicts outcomes with amazing accuracy. I notice you keep avoiding the dual nature of light. It is experimentally confirmed. We can see light act as a particle and a wave. We can use electron detectors to perform experiments in which an electron is simultaneously in two places at the same time, before the wave-function collapses and it suddenly occupies one point in space.

And in evolution, we have watched speciation occur in some species. We have discovered genes that when activated can cause mutations in species that express traits of predicted earlier forms. We discover that the 4 letters of DNA are present in all living things. We have found pseudogenetic markers in common with other species. And the frequency of pseudogenetic markers matches what would be expected tracing back lines of descent. We have fossils like tiktaalik expressing predicted traits in predicted strata based upon estimated time for those traits to appear.

You can choose to claim that logic is inferior to observation, and I will disagree. I'm sorry it doesn't convince you. I'm sure you also are greatly troubled by the use of DNA in paternity and criminal cases in our legal system. If you're not convinced of the certainty of the science, it seems troubling that someone could spend their life in prison or be executed on the basis of that science. But the truth is, the majority of the scientific community worldwide, by a wide margin, has studied biological evidence much more detailed than I have presented, for years, and finds evolutionary theory to be not only just believable, but convincing to the point of making it the basis of modern biology.

I know that positive integers are infinite. I know that asymptotes will get forever closer to a line without touching it. I know that time will dramatically slow down as one nears the speed of light. I know that Neptune orbits the sun. I know that the sun is fueled by fusing hydrogen into helium. None of these have ever been observed. They're all logical conclusions based on available data. I am as convinced about logical conclusions as I am that the earth will turn through night and into tomorrow- even though I can't see the future.

 

[N4mddissent]

Actually, I think the strongest argument that could be submitted to convince me of the reality of Hell is the existence of lolcats.

 

[KittenKoder]

I despise cats.

Way to love life ...

 

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, but that's statistics, not calculus which is applicable to physics. And I was talking about quantum physics. Do you know what the Uncertainty Principle is? Do you know what its implications are?

No, I did not know what the the uncertainty principle of physics is until I looked it up. Now, explain why accepting the idea that exact simultaneous values can not be assigned to all physical quantities means there is doubt about the fact that you will fall if you stop off the top of a 10 story building in the context of the system we're in/on (Earth) under the conditions in place?

Let's say you provide a satisfactory explanation for how the uncertainty principle means it's possible that someone won't fall. We are still dealing with a situation in which what you're talking about is a mathematical model. It's been said on this board that something has to be true because the "math" says so. But what we're talking about isn't a question of whether or not "math" like an equation describing a function is correct; that it does describe the function. What we're talking about is whether or not the function is a completely accurate model of reality. Physicists have models providing mathematical descriptions of how they think things will behave. That does not mean that how they think things will behave is precisely correct in all circumstances.

And calculus is applicable to statistics.[/quote]

And guess what? They found it. We have observed dark matter indirectly: the lensing effect that N4md wrote about earlier and the drag on the outer systems of spinning galaxies.

That is not finding dark matter. That is observing phenomenae consistent with a belief that it exists.

I respect your skepticism of science. Its healthy not to believe just any old thing that you read or hear or see. However, this time your skepticism is without real knowledge of the subject. .

I am not skeptical of the process of science. I am skeptical of scienttists who do things like imply that the overall theory of evolution is established at the highest level of certainty that science can achieve when it's not by saying things like "nothing is absolutely certain." There are certain principles that transcend any particular discipline. One of them is that the highest level of certainty is offered by directly observing what you think will be the case as actually being the case in the context of a controlled experiment.

Now, I'll admit that, in the context of a statistical experiment, it's not possible to "prove" with absolute certainty that someone won't float in the air when they step off a building through experimentation. No matter how many times you have someone step off a building and fall you'll always be able to state some small probability such that you can say it's more likely than not that you'd get 0 "successes" in N trials. In fact, theoretically, you could say that there's a high likelihood that someone would float in the air on any given trial but there will always be some infintesimal probability that there would be 0 successes even though the probability of sucess on each given trial is high. Theoretically, you can say that the probability approaches 0 but can never actually reach it.

But you also can't say that the probability has been validated as not being 0 unless someone actually does float in the air during the experiment. And, as a practical matter, there comes a point at which you need to get your head out of the mathematical rectum and deal with reality. If you step off the top of a 10 story building on Earth you're going to fall. You can be absolutely certain of that.

Again, the physics equations are mathematical models. They have been experimentally validated as correctly predicting many things. But I'm pretty sure they haven't been experimentally validated as saying it's possible that you or I won't fall if we step off the top of a 10 story building on Earth today and there's no intervention to stop us from doing so.

 

[JohnStOnge]

If this is your personal definition that's fine. People can believe whatever they want. But the fact is that not every scientific fact is or can be directly observed. Atoms cannot be directly observed. The orbit of the solar system around the galaxy cannot be directly observed, neither can the black hole at the galactic center. So for consistency, you have to admit that you have serious doubts about all of these. As a matter of fact, we haven't directly observed gravity. We can only observe its effects. So you must have doubt about its certainty as well. .

It's not my personal definition. You'll see a description at Introduction to the Scientific Method that I did not write. I believe in the existence of atoms, the solar system orbiting around the galaxy, and the existence of a black hole at the galactic center. As I wrote earlier, I believe the overall theory of evolution is correct. What I object to is use of the "nothing is ever certain" red herring to create the impression that the overall theory of evolution is established with the highest level of certainty.

 

[JohnStOnge]

It depends on what you mean by "observe". Dark matter, by definition cannot be "seen", however they have observed gravitational lensing caused by the motion of dark matter through a region of space. Gravitational lensing will only occur when there is some mass present, bending light. The fact that they observed the lensing effect without actually being able to see the mass is strong evidence for the reality of dark matter.

What you guys are doing is assuming that the mathematical model(s) employed by physicists are correct when they are applied to the realm involved. They are making uncontrolled observations and assuming that a phenomenon they observe will only occur when there is some mass present. It may be a very reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption. It is the idea that, because we (they) don't know of another possible explanation for the observation, there can't possibly be one. And the assumption is made under circumstances involving existence way beyond distances we can possibly have any direct experience with.

And, yes, I do have some degree of skepticism about the certainty with which astronomers and astrophysicists state things. They make all kinds of statements based on what you'd call indirect observations involving things that are at inconceivable distances. Here's something I saw discussed recently:

EAS Publications Series

Now, it's noted that there is uncertainty associated with the method. But, the thing is, it involves modeling. One can't actually know how "large" the uncertainty associated with a model is until one empirically validates that model. In this case, that would mean "predicting" a set of distances then somehow actually measuring them in a way that is known to be accurate to a very narrow level of precision and comparing the estimates yielded by the model to the measurements. That's obviously not going to happen. So, really, they have no idea as to how accurate the distances estimated through the method are.

 

[N4mddissent]

It depends on what you mean by "observe". Dark matter, by definition cannot be "seen", however they have observed gravitational lensing caused by the motion of dark matter through a region of space. Gravitational lensing will only occur when there is some mass present, bending light. The fact that they observed the lensing effect without actually being able to see the mass is strong evidence for the reality of dark matter.

What you guys are doing is assuming that the mathematical model(s) employed by physicists are correct when they are applied to the realm involved. They are making uncontrolled observations and assuming that a phenomenon they observe will only occur when there is some mass present. It may be a very reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption. It is the idea that, because we (they) don't know of another possible explanation for the observation, there can't possibly be one. And the assumption is made under circumstances involving existence way beyond distances we can possibly have any direct experience with.

And, yes, I do have some degree of skepticism about the certainty with which astronomers and astrophysicists state things. They make all kinds of statements based on what you'd call indirect observations involving things that are at inconceivable distances. Here's something I saw discussed recently:

EAS Publications Series

Now, it's noted that there is uncertainty associated with the method. But, the thing is, it involves modeling. One can't actually know how "large" the uncertainty associated with a model is until one empirically validates that model. In this case, that would mean "predicting" a set of distances then somehow actually measuring them in a way that is known to be accurate to a very narrow level of precision and comparing the estimates yielded by the model to the measurements. That's obviously not going to happen. So, really, they have no idea as to how accurate the distances estimated through the method are.

Here's how star distances are measured. Within 400 light years of earth scientists can use triangulation- specifically parallax, in the same way GPS receivers work. Now, using known, measured distances and angles, then using the logical rules of mathematics to calculate other distances will yield results with a reasonably predictable margin of error. It's the same level of certainty with which we can use the pythagorean theorem to calculate the length of an unknown side of a right triangle. Even if that side cannot be measured, we know the pythagorean theorem is logically proven and provides that result when utilized. So using triangulation to calculate the distance to stars within a certain distance is equally reliable.

Using stars of variable brightness within that measurable distance from earth, scientists conducted thousands of experiments determining the precise relationship between a stars spectrum, a star's true level of brightness, and the relationship between true brightness and distance. After thousands of trials and accurate predictions, scientists developed confidence in the method to determine distances outside the range of triangulation. If you wish to be skeptical of these methods, then you are basically saying because certainty isn't absolute, it is reasonable to doubt any calculation however consistent.

For example, dark matter was postulated, it is true. But the idea of gravitational lensing has been tested experimentally many times. It is a known effect that objects with mass have gravity, and gravity bends light. Einstein's general relativity was proven by oberving the bending of light from stars by the gravity of the sun during an eclipse. The dark matter hypothesis postulates the existence of matter which does not interact with any known form of light, yet interacts with gravity. This logically implies something with gravity (and therefore, likely mass) that cannot be seen. If true, then we should be able to occasionally look on the edges of galaxies, and see the effects of gravity, like lensing, without being able to see any object causing the lensing. And that is exactly what we have observed.

Someone could postulate that perhaps fairies made the lensing effect, and pixies provide the gravitational stability to spinning galaxies, but the hypothesis of dark matter I believe is simpler and therefore is a better explanation.

Uncertainty is not a red herring. Certainty requires absolute knowledge. It eliminates any possibility of any future discovery which refines our understanding. Perhaps there is some quality of gravity we have not understood and under certain conditions it ceases to exist. It is extremely unlikely. I would not accept such a proposition without a great deal of evidence and explanation. But I'm not willing to eliminate the possibility outright by declaring absolute and total knowledge about gravity. To do so, would close one's mind to future knowledge. I don't live my life under the assumption that our reality is just "the matrix" and we're serving as batteries for sentient robots. But my certainty that it is not the case is not 100%. My certainty that I am typing this rather than in a coma somewhere dreaming that I am typing this is not 100%. These are improbable enough in my mind that I discard them from consideration when making practical decisions in life. But intellectually I must acknowledge that I do not know everything.

As far as evolution, why not answer the question about genetic markers used in the legal system? Is the science valid enough to condemn someone to prison or death?

 

[garyd]

Sorry gentlemen but an attack on the theory of evolution is scarcely an assault on science. The theory of evolution simply isn't important to much scientific knowledge at all. If you aren't a paleontologist or involved in certain of the more esoteric realms of geology or astronomy how old the earth is and how life came to be is largely a question of little relevance to your field of study.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Using stars of variable brightness within that measurable distance from earth, scientists conducted thousands of experiments determining the precise relationship between a stars spectrum, a star's true level of brightness, and the relationship between true brightness and distance. After thousands of trials and accurate predictions, scientists developed confidence in the method to determine distances outside the range of triangulation.

And therein lies the problem. A model like that is only known to be valid within the range of observations used to construct it. It's not the same as a "model" like the Pythagorean theorem.