So they now say Pluto is not a planet!

12467

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • karma defect
    karma defect Posts: 5,483
    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......»
  • Mookie Baylock
    Mookie Baylock Posts: 90
    know1 wrote:
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Mookie Baylock wrote:
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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."

    I don't suppose you find the complete lack of question marks in that statement ironic, do you?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    It wasn't a question. It was a thought.

    So the answer to my question is no. Gotcha ;)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So the answer to my question is no. Gotcha ;)

    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I think you like to find something ironic with everything I post. ;)

    Not everything :)
    I think that a question mark would improper punctuation for that sentene.

    Of course it would be, considering the fact that the sentence is a declaritive statement as opposed to an inquiry.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    and of course, one can make declaritive statements while still continuing to inquire.

    Of course.
  • suffragette
    suffragette Posts: 253
    Einstein believed in God.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    suffragette wrote:
    Einstein believed in God.


    Word? ;)
    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
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    suffragette wrote:
    Einstein believed in God.

    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?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    catefrances wrote:
    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?

    http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s2.htm
    and while i'm at it. who made God?

    Same person who made the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

    ;)
  • A Surprise Left
    A Surprise Left Posts: 743
    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

    So what are we becoming?
    Where did we go wrong?
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    69charger wrote:
    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That's not a standard. That's simply a fact. There is no such guarantee either way.

    Exactly.
    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.

Categories