I don't have heat because one single person has absolute knowledge of everything there is.
Having absolute knowledge and having absolute knowledge of everything are not the same thing. You have heat because someone had the absolute knowledge that the human body can freeze to death and the absolute knowledge of how to supply heat to that body.
Even things we think are truths can later disproven. My point is in this thread is that even though there is a chance a current truth can later be disproven, it doesn't mean that should take away any of its significance.
Agreed! And the significance of such "current truth" is measured in whether or not it is right or wrong.
Having absolute knowledge and having absolute knowledge of everything are not the same thing. You have heat because someone had the absolute knowledge that the human body can freeze to death and the absolute knowledge of how to supply heat to that body.
Agreed! And the significance of such "current truth" is measured in whether or not it is right or wrong.
Well, I meant was that no one can have absolute knowledge of everything, at least that I know of. That current truth could possibly be disproven one day, though.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It's a sad state of affairs. I miss Pluto already.
« One man's glory is another man's hell.
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
My standard is that there is no guarantee that anything science claims will hold 100% true in the future.
You are using flawed logic here my friend. Science says that we cannot prove anything, only make predictions based on observations. This is a strength of science, a decision made by some very realistic people who said that "we can never understand everything so we will call nothing an absolute truth so that we can always continue to learn more and add to our knowledge". The fact that scientist never calls something true does not mean that things they see aren't true, it means that there is always more to learn so we will never say that we know everything about anything...because there is always more to discover.
You are arguing that because scientists don't claim things to be absolutely true, than we should throw science out the window because it is faulty. This is an incorrect interpretation of science.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
You are using flawed logic here my friend. Science says that we cannot prove anything, only make predictions based on observations. This is a strength of science, a decision made by some very realistic people who said that "we can never understand everything so we will call nothing an absolute truth so that we can always continue to learn more and add to our knowledge". The fact that scientist never calls something true does not mean that things they see aren't true, it means that there is always more to learn so we will never say that we know everything about anything...because there is always more to discover.
You are arguing that because scientists don't claim things to be absolutely true, than we should throw science out the window because it is faulty. This is an incorrect interpretation of science.
Well said!
to quote Neitzsche.."If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think you like to find something ironic with everything I post. I think that a question mark would improper punctuation for that sentene. And the quote speaks for itself in regards to your point.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you know i don't know what the "official" definition of what constitutes a planet is. but what i am having trouble with is, the whole 'how do they weigh the planets to know how much they weigh?'
if we have never been to these planets sans mars(apparently), how is it we can say what they weigh. is it just educated guesswork based on what supposed scientists say make up the geology of said planet?
and while i'm at it. who made God?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but what i am having trouble with is, the whole 'how do they weigh the planets to know how much they weigh?'
if we have never been to these planets sans mars(apparently), how is it we can say what they weigh. is it just educated guesswork based on what supposed scientists say make up the geology of said planet?
Isn't anyone going to stand up for Pluto's rights? It has planteary status since 1930 and a bunch of geeks take it away? This is plainly unfair and and is injustice for all rocks out there not quite large enough to be plants. Who will stand up and be counted?
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
A general scientific debate, ok. But the issue setting it off isn't that controversial in pure scientific terms. Planet is an old and imprecise term for large objects orbiting the sun. Pluto have just been downgraded from planet to "dwarf planet", or in other words, it is downgraded from "large" to "big". Nothing else has changed other than our description of it that has been further refined.
The difference bewteen a planet and dwarf planet, is that the dwarfs have noe cleared their trajectory of other objects, but are in the midst of the asteroids or Kuiper belts among other non-planetary rocks.
It is actually a good example of good science. Further evidence has led to a more precise definition of what a planet is. It is not like all our knowledge of Pluto now must be scrapped. It is still where it used to be, it is of same mass, shape, speed and trajectory. That's the thing about scientific theories. Even if they are "scrapped" so to speak, they are rarely scrapped altogether. IF you consider Newton's laws, which was considered the complete formulas of the heavens before Einstein and quantum mechanics. Quantum physics showed that it was incorrect to treat those laws as complete, and opened up an entire new field of research and science. However, Newton's laws are still very much applicable and true in any practical sense, they dont become incorrect until you move down on an atomic level. So Newton's laws arent wrong, they are just imprecise.
As for absolute knowledge etc, ffg. One must be able to make a declarative statement about absolutes, without it being an absolute in itself. I agree with abook on the lack of absolutes in my experience and knowledge. However, I can satisfy you with "Nothing is absolute except the fact that nothing is absolute", and I will have covered it. Or perhaps "There are no absolutes that we can perceive".
In any case, the point is that also in science, few things are absolutely certain this-will-never-change facts. But science is a methodical enquiry into it based on past experiences, and systematically presented. That's a bit above "faith" in my book. But certainly, some people treat science as a religion in itself. That does not invalidate the science as science.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You are trying to pass science off as just as fallable as religious belief. How you can do that while being surrounded by the fruits of the scientific method is, to me, the definition of hypocracy. If it's not hypocracy than it is the definition of ignorance.
A thousand years ago I could have been surrounded by the fruits of science as well....but they were vastly different fruits then they are today. That is why it is fallible.
I'm not denying that science does wonderful things and many have benefitted from it tremendously. I'm just pointing out that a faith in science is very much akin to a faith in God.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You are using flawed logic here my friend. Science says that we cannot prove anything, only make predictions based on observations. This is a strength of science, a decision made by some very realistic people who said that "we can never understand everything so we will call nothing an absolute truth so that we can always continue to learn more and add to our knowledge". The fact that scientist never calls something true does not mean that things they see aren't true, it means that there is always more to learn so we will never say that we know everything about anything...because there is always more to discover.
You are arguing that because scientists don't claim things to be absolutely true, than we should throw science out the window because it is faulty. This is an incorrect interpretation of science.
You first paragraph is exactly what I'm saying - that science doesn't prove anything, but offers explanations based upon observation.
In the second paragraph, you're missing the point completely. I'm not dismissing, dissing, or throwing out science. I'm trying to point out that to believe in it requires a faith because there is no "proof". Much like people say that they do not believe in God because there is no proof, but then they are willing to believe in science.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You first paragraph is exactly what I'm saying - that science doesn't prove anything, but offers explanations based upon observation.
In the second paragraph, you're missing the point completely. I'm not dismissing, dissing, or throwing out science. I'm trying to point out that to believe in it requires a faith because there is no "proof". Much like people say that they do not believe in God because there is no proof, but then they are willing to believe in science.
No, you are missing the point. What we have, for all intents and purposes, is proof. We don't specifically call it proof because we want to avoid mistakes brought on by arrogance.
To compare a lack of proof of God, and a lack of proof in science are too different very things. There is nary a shred of evidence for God, there is lots of evidence for all scientifically accepted knowledge.
You are arguing the connotations and meanings of the word "Proof". Not the actual knowledge it represents.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
A thousand years ago I could have been surrounded by the fruits of science as well....but they were vastly different fruits then they are today. That is why it is fallible.
I'm not denying that science does wonderful things and many have benefitted from it tremendously. I'm just pointing out that a faith in science is very much akin to a faith in God.
The difference is that science is that although science is based on observation, it is based on repeated and manipulated experimentation and using objective numbers and data whereas religion cannot be tested nor is it repeated, or manipulated by preachers (in the same way as scientists manipulate experiments). There is a clear distinction in the practice of science vs religion. I don't know of many religious labs and I think you would agree that theological schooling has a much different outlay than a scientific university.
A general scientific debate, ok. But the issue setting it off isn't that controversial in pure scientific terms. Planet is an old and imprecise term for large objects orbiting the sun. Pluto have just been downgraded from planet to "dwarf planet", or in other words, it is downgraded from "large" to "big". Nothing else has changed other than our description of it that has been further refined.
The difference bewteen a planet and dwarf planet, is that the dwarfs have noe cleared their trajectory of other objects, but are in the midst of the asteroids or Kuiper belts among other non-planetary rocks.
It is actually a good example of good science. Further evidence has led to a more precise definition of what a planet is. It is not like all our knowledge of Pluto now must be scrapped. It is still where it used to be, it is of same mass, shape, speed and trajectory. That's the thing about scientific theories. Even if they are "scrapped" so to speak, they are rarely scrapped altogether. IF you consider Newton's laws, which was considered the complete formulas of the heavens before Einstein and quantum mechanics. Quantum physics showed that it was incorrect to treat those laws as complete, and opened up an entire new field of research and science. However, Newton's laws are still very much applicable and true in any practical sense, they dont become incorrect until you move down on an atomic level. So Newton's laws arent wrong, they are just imprecise.
As for absolute knowledge etc, ffg. One must be able to make a declarative statement about absolutes, without it being an absolute in itself. I agree with abook on the lack of absolutes in my experience and knowledge. However, I can satisfy you with "Nothing is absolute except the fact that nothing is absolute", and I will have covered it. Or perhaps "There are no absolutes that we can perceive".
In any case, the point is that also in science, few things are absolutely certain this-will-never-change facts. But science is a methodical enquiry into it based on past experiences, and systematically presented. That's a bit above "faith" in my book. But certainly, some people treat science as a religion in itself. That does not invalidate the science as science.
Peace
Dan
Excellent post, Dan! Your Neutonian analogy was right on point. The thing about science is that we are always learning & discovering. New theories replace or expound on old theories as we learn more about our world.
As for you last paragraph, you are correct. Scientists employ inductive reasoning when they frame hypothesis based on a limited number of observations and experiments, ie, the law of physics.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
When i was in grade school and highschool i was always told that their were 9 planets in our solar system, now suddenly that has changed. Many use the logic of science to argue that their is no god or that evolution is the correct way of thinking, but again it could be completely wrong.
The difference is that science is that although science is based on observation, it is based on repeated and manipulated experimentation and using objective numbers and data whereas religion cannot be tested nor is it repeated, or manipulated by preachers (in the same way as scientists manipulate experiments). There is a clear distinction in the practice of science vs religion. I don't know of many religious labs and I think you would agree that theological schooling has a much different outlay than a scientific university.
I agree the practice of both is different, but I think the faith behind them are not so dissimilar.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
When i was in grade school and highschool i was always told that their were 9 planets in our solar system, now suddenly that has changed. Many use the logic of science to argue that their is no god or that evolution is the correct way of thinking, but again it could be completely wrong.
Wrong! Pluto is still there, it still exists. Its existence, behavior, and all other scientific information about it is the same. What has changed is merely how it is classified. A group of scientists reached a concensus that it makes more sense to reclassify Pluto as a Minor Planet or whatever the term they chose was because the traits that it exhibited differ from the other 8 planets and it more resembles smaller asteroid like bodies.
What you are suggesting is that Pluto's properties have changed, or that all the old observations were wrong or faulty. This is not true. Scientists have always known that Pluto did not behave like the other planets. Its orbit is quite different, it is much smaller, its moon is almost the same size as it is. As a result of new observations of similar bodies in the solar system, in terms of classification, they would have had to add a bunch of new planets to our solar system, or create a new class of planet, which they did. It turns out Pluto better fits in this class, so there it was put.
It makes me laugh that 90% of the people who critique science are really critiquing the language and terminology of how the information is presented, not the information itself (things like the words "theory", "proof", etc.)
So in response to your post, Pluto has not "changed", it is the same celestial body it always was, the only thing that has changed is what we call it.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Furthermore, what I'm getting at is that there is no right or wrong definition of planet. The word planet is something that we as humans created to classify a type of object; a framework to help us to understand the properties of those objects. We recently changed the definition of planet to be more precise. As a result, Pluto no longer fits the definition and had to be reclassified because it exhibits different properties than the others. This happens all the time in science, just not with such mainstream topics like planets so you usually don't hear about it.
To conclude, the word 'planet' is a creation; a tool we use to describe a certain type of celestial body. Removing Pluto from this class of object and placing it in a new class with similar bodies to it refines our understanding and allows us to better understand how objects like Pluto behave, their origins, and their composition, etc. by being able to effectively compare it to other similar objects, and not to traditional "planets". How can this be construed as a weakness of science???
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
It is like renaming a large pebble a 'mega-pebble'. "It used to be a pebble, but science had it wrong!"
Maybe they shouldn't have changed such a commonly used word.
Effectively, yes. But in this case science didn't have it wrong. It just didn't have enough information in the past to realize that there was a whole collection of specimens that were different from pebbles and should be subclassified as mega-pebbles.
Remember "pebble" is just an unbrella term (like planet) used to classify a whole list of different types of rocks of a certain size, shape or composition, etc. If it turns out that some of those rocks have different properties than maybe it makes sense to classify them with a new umbrella term, in this case "mega-pebble".
Some people seem to think that reclassification of an object somehow points out flaws in the scientific method. The two are actually completly unrelated.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Comments
Having absolute knowledge and having absolute knowledge of everything are not the same thing. You have heat because someone had the absolute knowledge that the human body can freeze to death and the absolute knowledge of how to supply heat to that body.
Agreed! And the significance of such "current truth" is measured in whether or not it is right or wrong.
Well, I meant was that no one can have absolute knowledge of everything, at least that I know of. That current truth could possibly be disproven one day, though.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You’re on the outside, never bound by such a spell.
Together in the darkness, alone in the light.
I took it upon me to be yours, Timmy,
I’ll lead your angels and demons at play tonight......»
You are using flawed logic here my friend. Science says that we cannot prove anything, only make predictions based on observations. This is a strength of science, a decision made by some very realistic people who said that "we can never understand everything so we will call nothing an absolute truth so that we can always continue to learn more and add to our knowledge". The fact that scientist never calls something true does not mean that things they see aren't true, it means that there is always more to learn so we will never say that we know everything about anything...because there is always more to discover.
You are arguing that because scientists don't claim things to be absolutely true, than we should throw science out the window because it is faulty. This is an incorrect interpretation of science.
-Ashley Montagu
Well said!
to quote Neitzsche.."If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't suppose you find the complete lack of question marks in that statement ironic, do you?
It wasn't a question. It was a thought.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So the answer to my question is no. Gotcha
I think you like to find something ironic with everything I post.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not everything
Of course it would be, considering the fact that the sentence is a declaritive statement as opposed to an inquiry.
and of course, one can make declaritive statements while still continuing to inquire.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course.
Word?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so????????
you know i don't know what the "official" definition of what constitutes a planet is. but what i am having trouble with is, the whole 'how do they weigh the planets to know how much they weigh?'
if we have never been to these planets sans mars(apparently), how is it we can say what they weigh. is it just educated guesswork based on what supposed scientists say make up the geology of said planet?
and while i'm at it. who made God?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s2.htm
Same person who made the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
The difference bewteen a planet and dwarf planet, is that the dwarfs have noe cleared their trajectory of other objects, but are in the midst of the asteroids or Kuiper belts among other non-planetary rocks.
It is actually a good example of good science. Further evidence has led to a more precise definition of what a planet is. It is not like all our knowledge of Pluto now must be scrapped. It is still where it used to be, it is of same mass, shape, speed and trajectory. That's the thing about scientific theories. Even if they are "scrapped" so to speak, they are rarely scrapped altogether. IF you consider Newton's laws, which was considered the complete formulas of the heavens before Einstein and quantum mechanics. Quantum physics showed that it was incorrect to treat those laws as complete, and opened up an entire new field of research and science. However, Newton's laws are still very much applicable and true in any practical sense, they dont become incorrect until you move down on an atomic level. So Newton's laws arent wrong, they are just imprecise.
As for absolute knowledge etc, ffg. One must be able to make a declarative statement about absolutes, without it being an absolute in itself. I agree with abook on the lack of absolutes in my experience and knowledge. However, I can satisfy you with "Nothing is absolute except the fact that nothing is absolute", and I will have covered it. Or perhaps "There are no absolutes that we can perceive".
In any case, the point is that also in science, few things are absolutely certain this-will-never-change facts. But science is a methodical enquiry into it based on past experiences, and systematically presented. That's a bit above "faith" in my book. But certainly, some people treat science as a religion in itself. That does not invalidate the science as science.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
A thousand years ago I could have been surrounded by the fruits of science as well....but they were vastly different fruits then they are today. That is why it is fallible.
I'm not denying that science does wonderful things and many have benefitted from it tremendously. I'm just pointing out that a faith in science is very much akin to a faith in God.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You first paragraph is exactly what I'm saying - that science doesn't prove anything, but offers explanations based upon observation.
In the second paragraph, you're missing the point completely. I'm not dismissing, dissing, or throwing out science. I'm trying to point out that to believe in it requires a faith because there is no "proof". Much like people say that they do not believe in God because there is no proof, but then they are willing to believe in science.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
No, you are missing the point. What we have, for all intents and purposes, is proof. We don't specifically call it proof because we want to avoid mistakes brought on by arrogance.
To compare a lack of proof of God, and a lack of proof in science are too different very things. There is nary a shred of evidence for God, there is lots of evidence for all scientifically accepted knowledge.
You are arguing the connotations and meanings of the word "Proof". Not the actual knowledge it represents.
-Ashley Montagu
Excellent post, Dan! Your Neutonian analogy was right on point. The thing about science is that we are always learning & discovering. New theories replace or expound on old theories as we learn more about our world.
As for you last paragraph, you are correct. Scientists employ inductive reasoning when they frame hypothesis based on a limited number of observations and experiments, ie, the law of physics.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I agree the practice of both is different, but I think the faith behind them are not so dissimilar.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Wrong! Pluto is still there, it still exists. Its existence, behavior, and all other scientific information about it is the same. What has changed is merely how it is classified. A group of scientists reached a concensus that it makes more sense to reclassify Pluto as a Minor Planet or whatever the term they chose was because the traits that it exhibited differ from the other 8 planets and it more resembles smaller asteroid like bodies.
What you are suggesting is that Pluto's properties have changed, or that all the old observations were wrong or faulty. This is not true. Scientists have always known that Pluto did not behave like the other planets. Its orbit is quite different, it is much smaller, its moon is almost the same size as it is. As a result of new observations of similar bodies in the solar system, in terms of classification, they would have had to add a bunch of new planets to our solar system, or create a new class of planet, which they did. It turns out Pluto better fits in this class, so there it was put.
It makes me laugh that 90% of the people who critique science are really critiquing the language and terminology of how the information is presented, not the information itself (things like the words "theory", "proof", etc.)
So in response to your post, Pluto has not "changed", it is the same celestial body it always was, the only thing that has changed is what we call it.
-Ashley Montagu
To conclude, the word 'planet' is a creation; a tool we use to describe a certain type of celestial body. Removing Pluto from this class of object and placing it in a new class with similar bodies to it refines our understanding and allows us to better understand how objects like Pluto behave, their origins, and their composition, etc. by being able to effectively compare it to other similar objects, and not to traditional "planets". How can this be construed as a weakness of science???
-Ashley Montagu
I agree.
It is like renaming a large pebble a 'mega-pebble'. "It used to be a pebble, but science had it wrong!"
Maybe they shouldn't have changed such a commonly used word.
Effectively, yes. But in this case science didn't have it wrong. It just didn't have enough information in the past to realize that there was a whole collection of specimens that were different from pebbles and should be subclassified as mega-pebbles.
Remember "pebble" is just an unbrella term (like planet) used to classify a whole list of different types of rocks of a certain size, shape or composition, etc. If it turns out that some of those rocks have different properties than maybe it makes sense to classify them with a new umbrella term, in this case "mega-pebble".
Some people seem to think that reclassification of an object somehow points out flaws in the scientific method. The two are actually completly unrelated.
-Ashley Montagu