flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Is the Earth expanding?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Difference is that scientist DO NOT ask you to trust their authorities. Oposite, every single scientific claim demands to falsificable and there must be several independent tests where you try to falsify it. Only if everyone is unable to falsify it, it can become scientific theory.
Actually they ask you through their 'evidence' (that you may or may not test, as not everyone has a spacecraft or particle accelerator, therefore at some point, you have to trust them, and that can be a conspiracy).

vid wrote:
Saying that scientists require people to rely on their authority (like priests / scripture do) is straw man argument from opponents of science, who don't understand how science works. Please look up some introduction to scienctific method, and learn about "theory", "hypothesis", "law", "testing", "falsifiability" etc. This claim is simply not true.
Ever heard about Proof by intimidation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation

It is clear that people rely on scientists' authorities to explain proofs, even if they do not understand it (or for that matter don't own the required equipment)

Also, the above definition of science is like an idealistic fairy tale. I guess most people did not walk on the moon, and are actually unable to test it for themselves (and in fact, even if they do test it for themselves, how can they recognize it is not an illusion?). They have to rely on scientists.

Also, when you said scientists don't ask for authorship, you should've said 'directly' because they do imply that. What you said before is the best example -- you exclude Neal Adam's explanations just because he is not a scientist (or for that matter because scientists are infallible). So much for the "Only if everyone is unable to falsify it, it can become scientific theory" stuff you brought up. I guess science does not understand 'free-speech' as it thinks it does.

vid wrote:
Quote:
I sure hope you do not consider whales as they are underwater mammals
Of course I do. They are mammals by every thinkable definition. For example, they have mammary glands, apart from other mammal specifics. Just google "whale mammal" and read up.
I meant that, the guy most probably did not think of whales when he used that phrase -- just put yourself in his position. He was talking about elephants, obviously.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Science doesn't have all the answers. If there is a conspiracy going on then is the best kept secret of all time. Don't you think even one person (out of many thousands) would have "sold out" by now?
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Well Neal Adams is one example.

BTW - just because it is unlikely doesn't mean it's necessarily the wrong choice (and besides, these 'chances' have no formula so are pretty subjective).

also remember that when some scientists said the Earth was round, the flat-earth scientists plagued them with a lot of criticism, and usually intimidated them in public (not in the literal sense of course).
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Yep,

scientists fighting scientists
scientists fighting religion
religion fighting scientists
religion fighting religion

Such is life.

At least science changes through the years, religion seems stuck in the past never to progress.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 13:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
There are still Flat-Earth societies around (yep, Google) though.

also, science does not change because that would mean it is undefined. human's belief changes (and for that matter, everyone thinks different, so it is impossible to categorize a single 'knowledge' for the entire population).

When people say science cannot lie because it can change when it is proven false, then those people implicitly say science is not defined. When you say science represents knowledge, then you have to consider that some people may disagree with certain theories/proofs (i.e conspiracies, etc) (therefore it is not knowledge).
Post 16 Apr 2008, 14:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Actually they ask you through their 'evidence' (that you may or may not test, as not everyone has a spacecraft or particle accelerator, therefore at some point, you have to trust them, and that can be a conspiracy).

Pointing out extreme case (like particle accelerator) doesn't account very well for common cases (other 99.9%). Yes, there are still few commonly accepted claims which are pretty hard to test. That doesn't mean they were not tested - each claim was tested several times independently, if it was possible. That makes your "conspiracy" much less probable. Also, these "hardly testable" claims are so rare I doubt you could build any sort of conspiracy on those.

vid wrote:
Ever heard about Proof by intimidation?

no, thanks for link.

Quote:
It is clear that people rely on scientists' authorities to explain proofs, even if they do not understand it (or for that matter don't own the required equipment)

You are mixing mathematical proofs with scientific theories (which are explaination of evidence, not proofs). Seriously, read up something about scientific method.

Quote:
Also, when you said scientists don't ask for authorship, you should've said 'directly' because they do imply that. What you said before is the best example -- you exclude Neal Adam's explanations just because he is not a scientist (or for that matter because scientists are infallible). So much for the "Only if everyone is unable to falsify it, it can become scientific theory" stuff you brought up. I guess science does not understand 'free-speech' as it thinks it does.

In this case, I myself am not schooled enough to judge it (if I was I am perfectly free to propose any hypothesis of earth's geological history), so I decided to submit to authority of schooled thousands against authority of comic drawer who doesn't know what "mammal" is.

I decided that mr. comic drawer's claims do not even seem plausible enough to even try to refute them - then I would have to not to do anything but to test any crazy idea anyone comes up with. That's why there are so many scientific inquiries into poltergeists, etc...

Note that if I had any doubt about any part of mainstream scientific explaination, I could test it (99.99% claims are much more testable than quantum mechanics), and if I could falsify one single their claim, then they would have to accept it is not true, along with everything that rests upon it. Or even, if I wouldn't falsify anything, but my model would account for all data as good as mainstream one, science would accept it (like it does in case of your favourite quantum mechanics).


vid wrote:
I meant that, the guy most probably did not think of whales when he used that phrase -- just put yourself in his position. He was talking about elephants, obviously.

In other words - either he doesn't know what "mammal" is, or he uses it incorrectly. Either way, it was enough convicing for me not to bother with his claims anymore (and thus "submit to authority of scientists", if you will). If he at least appeared like guy who knows who he is talking about, I would inquire further and look for more evidence pro/against. This conviced me not to.

Quote:
also remember that when some scientists said the Earth was round, the flat-earth scientists plagued them with a lot of criticism, and usually intimidated them in public (not in the literal sense of course).

What we had back then can hardly be called "science" by today standards. Don't mix these two things together.

PS: Neal Adams is not example of "conspiracy-broker scientists". First of all, he is not scientist at all, so he couldn't even have been part of conspiracy.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 14:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
okay, something ontopic (better than my last purely theoretical TL;DR post):

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163351

I am not too much interested in it now, but my experience with IIDB is all best
Post 16 Apr 2008, 14:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Pointing out extreme case (like particle accelerator) doesn't account very well for common cases (other 99.9%). Yes, there are still few commonly accepted claims which are pretty hard to test. That doesn't mean they were not tested - each claim was tested several times independently, if it was possible. That makes your "conspiracy" much less probable. Also, these "hardly testable" claims are so rare I doubt you could build any sort of conspiracy on those.
Actually any 'cases' have beliefs, even if not in scientists/priests.

Belief in the logic of induction, and belief in equipment/devices (also note: you have to build it yourself, otherwise it could be bugged specifically to show you incorrect results).

vid wrote:
You are mixing mathematical proofs with scientific theories (which are explaination of evidence, not proofs)
The 'explanation of evidence' is based on common sense of humans. Unfortunately it is subjective.

Some humans say theory A is 'sound', while theory B is irrational. Others see it the other way around.

The 'logicalness' of a theory is subjective. Also, Occam's Razor must not be used as a commandment, be careful!

vid wrote:
In this case, I myself am not schooled enough to judge it (if I was I am perfectly free to propose any hypothesis of earth's geological history), so I decided to submit to authority of schooled thousands against authority of comic drawer who doesn't know what "mammal" is.
Did he not know? (also besides, what has that got to do with his theory?)

Of course you are free to base your trust on thousands of schooled people (btw, you don't know them personally so I guess this is also a trust for internet/media). As I said science is based on trust -- and of course you are free to base your trust on whatever you want.

What bugs me however is when people say that their trust is 'rational' while others who think differently are 'irrational'.

vid wrote:
I decided that mr. comic drawer's claims do not even seem plausible enough to even try to refute them - then I would have to not to do anything but to test any crazy idea anyone comes up with. That's why there are so many scientific inquiries into poltergeists, etc...
Sure, I also decided that the Flat-Earth society's claims do not even seem plausible to me (I'm not sarcastic). But that is subjective.

vid wrote:
Or even, if I wouldn't falsify anything, but my model would account for all data as good as mainstream one, science would accept it (like it does in case of your favourite quantum mechanics).
Not necessarily because some scientists have the Occam's Razor Bible and the Simplicity commandment under their words.

Note: simplicity is subjective -- e.g person A thinks atoms are spheres, while person B thinks they are more 'free-form' -- person A thinks person B is more complicated, while person B thinks it is not.

vid wrote:
In other words - either he doesn't know what "mammal" is, or he uses it incorrectly.
Yes, the phrase is incorrectly put, but give the guy a break. If we start and criticize his typo's too we would get nowhere near the subject.

The main idea was not about mammals -- it was about the dinosaurs being too big (and also, underwater animals have different characteristics). Let's not start childish criticism on something that is not important to the main subject (of his).

He was talking about land-animals because he was talking about their necks 'being broken' for such speed at such gravity (as we have now). This doesn't necessarily apply underwater -- so obviously he was talking about elephants. If you want to criticize his typo's or things out-of-context (like the whale thing) then be my guest, but seriously we all make errors like that.

vid wrote:
What we had back then can hardly be called "science" by today standards. Don't mix these two things together.
And what we have now will hardly be called "science" by tomorrow's standards.

vid wrote:
PS: Neal Adams is not example of "conspiracy-broker scientists". First of all, he is not scientist at all, so he couldn't even have been part of conspiracy.
No he is not, he is an example of a "conspiracy-broker" person, which for me has the same credit in his reason.

Also note that most of didn't even hear about him until bitRake post this, so I'm not surprised if other scientists were 'shut' up along the media. Razz

remember that the internet is only a mass media form,mostly delusion.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 14:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Belief in the logic of induction, and belief in equipment/devices (also note: you have to build it yourself, otherwise it could be bugged specifically to show you incorrect results).

Of course there is always something that must be taken for granted. If you can provide any set of beliefs ("axioms", methodology) which can reach better result than current science's one, then please, go on. So far, science has reached more practical results than anything other.

Quote:
Some humans say theory A is 'sound', while theory B is irrational. Others see it the other way around.

The 'logicalness' of a theory is subjective. Also, Occam's Razor must not be used as a commandment, be careful!

If both theories fit with evidence, both are valid. You can choose one you like more, and you can disregard unnescesary complicated one (occam), but both remain valid. To confirm this claim, check out current quantum theories.

vid wrote:
Did he not know?

Either that, or he used term incorrectly. In both cases, I would expect higher standard. (I would vote that he didn't know.)

Quote:
(also besides, what has that got to do with his theory?)

He used biological argument (mass of dinosaurs), for that he should at least know and biology (and use biological terms properly).

Quote:
Of course you are free to base your trust on thousands of schooled people (btw, you don't know them personally so I guess this is also a trust for internet/media). As I said science is based on trust -- and of course you are free to base your trust on whatever you want.

If you put it this way, everything is based on trust. But science tries to eliminate the "trust" element as much as possible.

Quote:
What bugs me however is when people say that their trust is 'rational' while others who think differently are 'irrational'.

I don't like this word too much myself.

Quote:
Sure, I also decided that the Flat-Earth society's claims do not even seem plausible to me (I'm not sarcastic). But that is subjective.

Yes, that's why we, as people, disregard it. Science disregards it after it is falsified.

Quote:
Not necessarily because some scientists have the Occam's Razor Bible and the Simplicity commandment under their words.

occam razor is more guideline than rule, in my view. Even overcomplicated theories still remain valid until disproven.

Quote:
vid wrote:
What we had back then can hardly be called "science" by today standards. Don't mix these two things together.
And what we have now will hardly be called "science" by tomorrow's standards.

maybe - that's why it's better not mix terms

Quote:
No he is not, he is an example of a "conspiracy-broker" person, which for me has the same credit in his reason.

Regardless of who he is, it's his argument that must be examined. I personaly am not interested in examining them, for same reason as you with flat earth.

Quote:
remember that the internet is only a mass media form,mostly delusion.

Yeah, but it allows for free speech (to which most people won't ever get, only those who seek it). For example IIDB which i linked is due to my experiences great meeting place of knowledgable people.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 15:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Of course there is always something that must be taken for granted. If you can provide any set of beliefs ("axioms", methodology) which can reach better result than current science's one, then please, go on. So far, science has reached more practical results than anything other.
Hmm, probably, but practical doesn't necessarily mean knowledge!

vid wrote:
Either that, or he used term incorrectly. In both cases, I would expect higher standard. (I would vote that he didn't know.)
Ok, but ask yourself -- is his "status" important at all?

vid wrote:
He used biological argument (mass of dinosaurs), for that he should at least know and biology (and use biological terms properly).
He used common sense, to explain it simple. Do the terms and their 'correct-uses' matter at all? The information is important, not the message that contains it. Now are we going to claim that we don't have "enough credit" because we don't speak english properly?

vid wrote:
Yes, that's why we, as people, disregard it. Science disregards it after it is falsified.
'Science' is not someone that disregards anything. Science is simply "what most people think" -- but it isn't even concrete, because there will always be a lot of camps on lots of sides, that contradict each other.
Post 16 Apr 2008, 15:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2913
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Science has become a framework for engineers - fact is that much research is geared towards the production of products - pure research happens mostly when the cost is minimal. Even space discoveries are about commercialization of space commodities and not some glory or high notion of discovery. It can be sold that way to the masses, but the money players are looking for a return on investment. Scientific research follows in the same vain.

So, I don't see conspiracies - rather it is market pressures at work. Look into how much money goes into psychology research for advertisers - how can they best utilize the coming technologies. There are no ethics at work here - they will proceed until they are restrained by law. In the name of science the researchers will cry, but will those same researchers work to pass laws against the company paying for the research to be done - I think not and the money to repeat the research for the general good of humanity will not be forthcoming.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 17 Apr 2008, 01:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
vid wrote:
Of course there is always something that must be taken for granted. If you can provide any set of beliefs ("axioms", methodology) which can reach better result than current science's one, then please, go on. So far, science has reached more practical results than anything other.
Hmm, probably, but practical doesn't necessarily mean knowledge!

It does IMO. Only thanks to science gaining knowledge about world, we have cars, computers, spaceships, condoms, etc. These are all simply manifestations of knowledge gained by science. All philosophies and ideologies combined have very little to manifest for truth of their knowledge, compared to science.

Quote:
Ok, but ask yourself -- is his "status" important at all?

As long as his argument is okay, it doesn't. But people without knowledge of biology tend to not give good arguments from biology.

Quote:
He used common sense, to explain it simple. Do the terms and their 'correct-uses' matter at all? The information is important, not the message that contains it. Now are we going to claim that we don't have "enough credit" because we don't speak english properly?

Common sense doesn't go very well with exploring world. Common sense is flat earth, linear constant-rate time, etc. Again - if his message would be okay, his lack of proper biology wouldn't matter. But what I said is that his demonstrated lack of biology caused ME not to bother with his ideas anymore.

Quote:
'Science' is not someone that disregards anything. Science is simply "what most people think" -- but it isn't even concrete, because there will always be a lot of camps on lots of sides, that contradict each other.

Absolutely untrue. Science is far from "what most people think". Science is about what can be learnt about our world using as reliable methods as we have.

Did you follow the IIDB link? It should contain some arguments for/against expanding earth, that's in my opinion better way for this debate.
Post 17 Apr 2008, 05:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
@bitRAKE: perhaps the 'conspiracy' is exactly that: business. Because of some hidden business Laughing (I know it sounds funny but i'm trying to be serious).

@vid:
vid wrote:
It does IMO. Only thanks to science gaining knowledge about world, we have cars, computers, spaceships, condoms, etc. These are all simply manifestations of knowledge gained by science.
But these 'objects' do not tell us knowledge about the world! They only represent visual information for our eyes. For example, what if the a car engine actually works with some fairies or alternative universes inside? (just a silly example so you get the picture). The end result (i.e what we usually 'see' in our products) would be the same -- but this does not actually let us see atoms or (the fairies in this example) at all, therefore any interpretation about them would work (of course you could use Occam's Razor, but simplicity != knowledge).

Math is an example of knowledge however -- because it is abstract (just because it happens to be practical in our eyes, doesn't mean anything; the world could as well not behave mathematically at all, but math would still represent knowledge, about the 'pure' abstraction (e.g perfect circles)). You know in math you can express 4D or any other dimensional world -- in practice you can't (or at least your limited senses can't perceive that), but I math has knowledge after all. This is the difference between knowledge and practice (e.g: when did you ever find a perfect circle in practice or a 4D world?).

Sorry if this doesn't make sense.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 11:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
We were able to construct working engines only thanks to knowledge how atoms (really) work. There were (and still are) many people who preach some sort of engine-powering fairies, but they weren't able to construct any engine yet. Science was able to do so.

That's about what I meant by that "manifestation of knowledge". Science also explains all parts of engine, how they work, why they work, etc, and anyone can build his own engine without being part of science, and so test these claims. In contrast to science, conspiracies always try to publish as little verifiable facts as possible, because they can be uncovered easily that way.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 12:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
What I meant was that what you (or we) think about the engine doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all about how it 'works'. If by 'works' you mean what you think you see (let's say the movement of the pistons), then it does work. But you don't necessarily know if it's true.

vid wrote:
We were able to construct working engines only thanks to knowledge how atoms (really) work
Actually, we don't know how they really work. For example, when cars were first built, people did not know about, e.g antimatter. They did not know how they really worked, but what they did was to base their trust on the "meters" (equipment that measures certain things, forces, energies, etc.). This does not mean that they know! And it is also highly possible that what we know is also completely false (I mean at the atomic level, for example).

Also this does not mean that we know how they work -- we only read some measurements (like electromagnetic energies) and then draw conclusions about the atoms/forces needed. But this does not make us knowledgeable about how they really work. The only thing that we know is to read up some instruments we use. Razz

Mathematics, for example, proves to us that we can express infinity as a concept (even if the Universe is not infinite, then our minds can 'understand' this concept, and therefore since our minds are part of the Universe, it means it is part of the world). It is also the only non-flawed science because it's based on pure thought (some don't even consider it science, but it is the only non-religious science IMO). All else is based on assumptions and drawing conclusions that (we) think are logical. (note the emphasized 'we').

EDIT: Note that our eyes are also a form of "equipment" too -- and math still owns there. (as far as I know, mathematics does not require any 'sensory' information, apart from the obvious communication of course, not 'evidence').
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Maybe "how they really work" was too strong expression. Better would be "how atoms beheave at particular level".

Science did provide proper model for behavior of atoms at level nescessary for building engine. Inner mechanism, antimatter and quantum mechanics is not important for building engine.

No other fairy-engine ideology could build anything based on their "models", but science could. This is a nice demonstration which hints that science's model is "true" (it predicts things reality adequately).

Yes, of course, you can argue "nothing is 100% sure", "we can still be virtualized in matrix", "science is bound to information that can be (even though indirectly) observed to senses" and other crap, but that doesn't help anything. That won't get us new engine, or do any other good.

Okay, yes, there can be some invisbile ninja rabits in other reality that never did anything to us, but I don't give a fuck. I still want to learn as much as possible about this world, even if it's "only 99.9999% information", and even if you can always find some hole to save some "magic" in. Arguing "you can never be really sure" doesn't help nobody. Good model for predicting behavior of atoms does, even if later data shows it doesn't apply in all extreme cases.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid wrote:
"we can still be virtualized in matrix"
So, going totally off topic here (not that that would be new to this thread), I thought that the movie "The Matrix" was very good. Who else here liked it?
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Well what you said was correct (also you just over-emphasize chances, 99.99999% is too much, that's how people some hundred years ago said too, about the Flat Earth, more like 50%).

However I said it before, this is practice:

vid wrote:
Science did provide proper model for behavior of atoms at level nescessary for building engine. Inner mechanism, antimatter and quantum mechanics is not important for building engine.
but it is knowledge!

vid wrote:
No other fairy-engine ideology could build anything based on their "models", but science could. This is a nice demonstration which hints that science's model is "true" (it predicts things reality adequately).
Well sometimes when it doesn't predict, the respective happening is just trashed as if it never occured -- and if you throw away all the bad predictions, surely the good ones will amount to about 90% Razz (it was a 'coincidence' as most people put it)

vid wrote:
Yes, of course, you can argue "nothing is 100% sure", "we can still be virtualized in matrix", "science is bound to information that can be (even though indirectly) observed to senses" and other crap, but that doesn't help anything. That won't get us new engine, or do any other good.


vid wrote:
Okay, yes, there can be some invisbile ninja rabits in other reality that never did anything to us, but I don't give a fuck. I still want to learn as much as possible about this world, even if it's "only 99.9999% information", and even if you can always find some hole to save some "magic" in. Arguing "you can never be really sure" doesn't help nobody. Good model for predicting behavior of atoms does, even if later data shows it doesn't apply in all extreme cases.


all of the bolded parts represent "practical" situations -- but do not confuse that with knowledge!

when people say a certain model is useless, they do so from a practical point of view -- knowledge is not "good" or "bad" or "useless", it's just knowledge...
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
but it is knowledge!

Yeah, sure. We need to always study deeper. I just wanted to say that developing of Einstein's gravitational theory doesn't mean Newton's theory is crap. It is still valid, but not for all cases. Anyway, I think we agree on this point.

Quote:
Well sometimes when it doesn't predict, the respective happening is just trashed as if it never occured -- and if you throw away all the bad predictions, surely the good ones will amount to about 90%

like when?

Quote:
when people say a certain model is useless, they do so from a practical point of view -- knowledge is not "good" or "bad" or "useless", it's just knowledge...

I can hardly imagine impractical knowledge, but okay, i'll suppose there is such. Even then, I would do my best to obtain this knowledge too. I just don't like when people use small holes and uncertainities present in science to discredit science, because it contradicts their ideas. This appears to me to be way of argumentation you took.

Science does have it's limits, but so far it is THE way of gaining knowledge. Humanity doesn't have anything other even remotely close to science, in terms of knowledge learnt. That's why i have such confidence in "10000 scientists" over "comic drawer", so that i didn't bother to test his claims.


Last edited by vid on 18 Apr 2008, 13:50; edited 1 time in total
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
And going back on topic, I think that the Earth is expanding.

I'm not talking about mountain ranges climbing higher or the amount of exposed land above the water etc. I mean in total, the size (and weight) of the Earth is increasing.

So how is it increasing? Meteors. There are billions of them that rain down on the planet every year. They mostly end up as dust and small grains falling gently to the surface.

Now, don't get me wrong, it is not increasing by much. The total is estimated at about 100 tons per day. And 100 tons per day, when compared to the total mass of the planet, is such a tiny amount that it makes almost no difference in peoples everyday lives.

There are no other known mechanisms can make the Earth increase in size. If someone wants to invoke fairies and gods and supernatural stuff then so be it, but be prepared to prove it.
Post 18 Apr 2008, 13:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.