Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK I give up. You are blind to the fact that "scientists" do not define what and is not "evidence" outside of their discipline. Scientists do not define what is evidence in a court - laws, judges and lawyers do (yes yes CSI may be involved in a forensic sense on certain KINDS of evidence). Scientists do not define logical arguments in favour of or against propositions.

Scientists do not define what is and is not evidence per se. Period.

As to this:

There may be some problems with Plato's writings, but he wasn't the only one who wrote about Socrates. And research is a method used by scientists.

Research is a method used by child molesters, sports commentators, novel writers and rubato. To claim that literary/historical criticism is the province of "scientists" because it involves "research" is ludicrous. Science may help to determine if an ancient writing is truly ancient - but that's not the point. If is is ancient, science leaves the building and turns it over to learned professors of linguistics, history and other arts.

Science can be employed to determine if a painting is old enough to be by Rubens, but it cannot speak as to whether such a validated painting is "evidence" of Ruben's growing or deteriorating mastery of form - art experts do that.

But for the record, I mentioned the various sources for Socrates by name - so don't pretend you just invented that knowledge. They contradict each other. How's some "scientist" doing on that comparison you claim they are busy with - how's the observation, theory and prediction going there?

Over and out
Meade

[rubato]

"...

Logic by the way is also actually independently unprovable - since one must use logic to prove that logic is valid. Science is no help there either.

Meade

Logic, by itself, does not make any statements about the physical world.

Mathematics is a subset of logic which is used in scientific theories (along with statements about the physical world) to make predictions which we can prove are true by experiment which is a form of proof that the mathematics are themselves valid. The fact that many laws of nature are formed mathematically is also proof of the validity of mathematics.

F = ma
E = MCexp2
G = H -tS

As is the fact that, since Lavoisier, we are able to do arithmetic to understand the ratios of species in chemical reactions. (the law of definite proportion)

Once we have defined each of the variables in PV = nRT we can show that expressions which can be derived using the rules of algebra will make accurate predictions (within the realm of the ideal gas law). (Pressure)(Volume = n(=number of species, useful when they change as in the combustion of gasses)R(= Rydberg constant) (Temperature).

Science actually proves things (more strictly it proves they're not true). Other disciplines do not. What we learn from science is reliable; we all trust the wings on aircraft designed by science by no one trusts 'prayer wings' to keep you from falling.

That is why nothing else has improved the condition of human life, but science has.

In all other disciplines the weight and certainty of their products are greater to the degree that they are supported by science. History combined with archeology, the ability to date artifacts by Carbon-13, the ability to track the age and origin of bronze and other metal objects by their alloys, the ability to authenticate porcelain by chemical means is considered more certain. History with no science to back it up is mere mythology.

I believe that this proves that the sciences are better able and far more reliable in deciding what constitutes 'evidence' in any area where the statements derived have any empirical meaning.



yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

OK I give up. You are blind to the fact that "scientists" do not define what and is not "evidence" outside of their discipline. Scientists do not define what is evidence in a court - laws, judges and lawyers do (yes yes CSI may be involved in a forensic sense on certain KINDS of evidence). Scientists do not define logical arguments in favour of or against propositions.

Now you're just being petulant.

Again, scientists do not define evidence. Evidence has already been defined. What scientists do is examine things that have been offered up as evidence and see if they hold up to closer inspection. If there's nothing to inspect (God did it), then there's no evidence.

What religions want to do is ignore that step and just declare that something is evidence strictly on their say so. The works of J.R.R. Tolkien are not evidence of a lost cycle in history. But according to the standards of religious "evidence", they can be since all that's needed is the assertion that something happened.

Research is a method used by child molesters, sports commentators, novel writers and rubato. To claim that literary/historical criticism is the province of "scientists" because it involves "research" is ludicrous. Science may help to determine if an ancient writing is truly ancient - but that's not the point. If is is ancient, science leaves the building and turns it over to learned professors of linguistics, history and other arts.

Research is a tool, one that can be misused. Just because it can be misused does not mean that the people who do use it correctly are not doing so scientifically.

And science doesn't just leave the building once it determines the age of something. Linguistics is the scientific study of language and history uses scientific methods as much as possible.

Even art has uses for science. Even more than just comparing the age of a painting, but also examining the pigments used to see if they come from a common source.

But for the record, I mentioned the various sources for Socrates by name - so don't pretend you just invented that knowledge. They contradict each other. How's some "scientist" doing on that comparison you claim they are busy with - how's the observation, theory and prediction going there?

And the various authors who mentioned Socrates didn't all contradict each other 100% of the time. There are some contradictions, but that's not the same thing as being completely contradictory. There are enough common points to determine if Socrates was a real person. Also, you started off by only mentioning Plato. As childish as it sounds, I was the first person to bring up multiple sources for Socrates.

[Big RR]

GR--I agree with you re the value of the scientific methodology and its application to other disciplines, but some things do not lend themselves to such rigor. Great prose and poetry cannot be scientifically defined, it must be experienced and felt, likewise for music, art, and many other disciplines. Yes, science can and is used in those disciplines, but the essence of art and literature cannot be reduced to an equation(s) the way, say, the stresses on a building or the processes in respiration are. Philosophy, likewise, dealves into ideas not easily discernible to science and subject to its proofs--it is something quite different. The realm of religion is another of these areas; if we accept that science deals with the natural world and religion deals with the supernatural one, then science, by defintion, cannot deal with it , at least as science. One ultimately relies on faith, and other mental/emotional processes not subject to scientific rigor, to achieve religious belief, much as one relies on those same processes to determine who they love. No matter how far science advances, it can never enter this realm.

Describing love as a series of physiological/biochemical processes does not describe love, it just describes observable phenomena associated with it. And saying one does not need a supernatural being to explan the universe (which I maintain is necessary for scientific inquiry), neither proves nor disproves the existence of one.

[Grim Reaper]

And I have no problem with science not being able to apply to things like art or religion. But you don't see artists claiming that evolution is wrong because they made a painting that says otherwise.

[Big RR]

And if they did they'd be just as wrong as the religious adherent who claims the same thing because it does not comport with scriptures.

[rubato]

I feel like I'm watching college sophomores learn about philosophy for the first time in their lives.

Chilling, that it takes this long for some to get oriented to time and place in the intellectual firmament.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I feel like I'm watching college sophomores learn about philosophy for the first time in their lives.

LOL

Reading some original content that you have posted rube, and getting the impression I was seeing the work of a "college sophomore" would be a refreshing improvement....

I'd be sitting here in wonder at how you suddenly managed to jump so far ahead....

It never ceases to amuse me how a man who self-evidently has so little going for him upstairs consistently launches gratuitous attacks on the intellect of others who have proven themselves to be far more able than he....

Sorted out that one column table yet rube?

[Sue U]

A universe from nothing? A succinct view of some current arguments, with some interesting links to more elaborate discussions:

Executive summary
This is going to be kind of long, so here’s the upshot. Very roughly, there are two different kinds of questions lurking around the issue of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” One question is, within some framework of physical laws that is flexible enough to allow for the possible existence of either “stuff” or “no stuff” (where “stuff” might include space and time itself), why does the actual manifestation of reality seem to feature all this stuff? The other is, why do we have this particular framework of physical law, or even something called “physical law” at all? Lawrence (again, roughly) addresses the first question, and David cares about the second, and both sides expend a lot of energy insisting that their question is the “right” one rather than just admitting they are different questions. Nothing about modern physics explains why we have these laws rather than some totally different laws, although physicists sometimes talk that way — a mistake they might be able to avoid if they took philosophers more seriously. Then the discussion quickly degrades into name-calling and point-missing, which is unfortunate because these are smart people who agree about 95% of the interesting issues, and the chance for productive engagement diminishes considerably with each installment.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... m-nothing/

[rubato]

A great deal more than 30 years ago it was obvious that:


Science was about real laws and the physical universe.

Philosophy was about everything else.

Unless, you were a religious idiot in which case you didn't care about rational explanations.

Science: made human life better and you could use it to make accurate predictions about reality and design machines that worked, develop cures for disease &c.

Philosophy: at its best was able to tell good arguments from bad ones and you could use it usefully to eliminate stupid ideas.

Religion: was mostly used as an excuse to kill and torture people. As it is today.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

That's a fascinating post rube...

I didn't select quotes from it, because there is so much aberrant psychology at work there, to pull anything out wouldn't do justice to the rest of it...

The super-simplistic, "this right that wrong" that runs throughout, suggests the mind of a person who is simply incapable of dealing with complex, subtle, or nuanced concepts....

The only way you can relate to the world is in black and white...

Frankly, I've never been all that persuaded with the Asperger argument to explain your behavior, (As you know, I've long been an advocate of the "ignoramus plus asshole theory" to explain your behavior...since that's what the accumulated evidence of 12 years of observation seems to most strongly support) but perhaps I should take another look at that...

Perhaps there is an explanation beyond the " ill-mannered idiot with a pole up his ass" explanation that I've always assumed summed you up pretty well....

Maybe I've been wrong about that; maybe there is something more clinical or organic involved....

I'm certainly open to considering thoughtful alternative theories...

[Andrew D]

Scientific reasoning is broader than the scientific method. The scientific method is a means of establishing the non-falsity of certain kinds of propositions. Scientific reasoning includes combining such non-falsified propositions and drawing logical inferences from them.

For example, as of 1870, some 60+ elements had been identified. Mendeleev organized those elements into a table which included numerous blanks. He predicted the existence of elements which would fill in at least some of those blanks. He also predicted various properties of those elements.

The existence of those elements -- and, obviously, their properties -- had not been demonstrated (non-falsified) by the scientific method. But when further elements were discovered (notably gallium in 1875, scandium in 1879, and germanium in 1886), their existences and properties accorded with Mendeleev's predictions.

Thus, Mendeleev used scientific reasoning to reach scientific conclusions, even though those conclusions had not yet been demonstrated by the scientific method. That is, he derived conclusions -- conclusions which were themselves not demonstrated by the scientific method -- from propositions which had been demonstrated by the scientific method.

Such conclusions are every bit as "scientific" as are the direct products of the scientific method. Indeed, that is the real power of science: It enables us to know (subject to the uncertainty inherent in all scientific knowledge) things which we cannot directly observe.

Just as Mendeleev knew things about not-then-observed elements, we know things about our universe which we cannot directly observe. We do not directly observe the expansion of our universe. We directly observe the red-shifting of various bodies in our universe, and we derive/deduce/infer from those direct observations the scientific conclusion that our universe is expanding.

The theory of evolution -- meaning speciation, not the origin(s) of life -- is like that. We do not directly observe speciation by selection (natural, sexual, and otherwise), just as we do not directly observe the expansion of our universe, and just as Mendeleev did not directly observe the atoms that would fill in at least some of the blanks in his table. We derive/deduce/infer speciation by selection from various propositions demonstrated by the scientific method, just as we derive/deduce/infer the expansion of our universe, and just as Mendeleev derived/deduced/inferred the existence and properties of various as-yet-undiscovered elements.

The derivation/deduction/inference of speciation by selection is every bit as scientific as is the derivation/deduction/inference of the expansion of our universe, and it is every bit as scientific as were Mendeleev's predictions of the existence and properties of various as-yet-undiscovered elements. Even though it is not directly demonstrable by the scientific method, it is the best available explanation for the combination of a host of propositions which are directly demonstrable by the scientific method.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Science and it's disciplines (engineering, architecture, physics, chemistry, ect) has definately improved our lives

But it has also taken away many lives via weapons relying on those sciences (mustard gas, ballistics, nuclear weapons).

While religion may have been the "reason" to destroy the lives of millions, it was much of science that provided the "means" to do so, especially on a large scale.

Mans inhumanity to man is the philisphical question.

[Andrew D]

It bears noting that such derivation/deduction/inference often operates without our paying any attention to it. Much of what we say we have "observed," we actually have not. Instead, we have derived/deduced/inferred those things from other things which we actually have observed.

It also bears noting that such derivation/deduction/inference often involves induction. That is, we directly observe various things, we induce from those observations some general principle, and then we derive/deduce/infer various conclusions from various combinations of direct observations.

Consider, for example, the existence of Neptune. Its existence was predicted before it was ever telescopically observed.

But the salient point is that Neptune has never been directly observed from Earth. Telescopic observation is not direct observation.

We stand at a certain point and directly observe a certain tree. We can see the tree, but we cannot see the shapes of individual leaves of the tree.

We aim a telescope at the tree from the point where we were standing. We now can see what may be the shapes of individual leaves of the tree. By observing the tree from a much closer point, we see that the leaf shapes which we observed through the telescope are the same as the leaf shapes which we directly observe, and we derive/deduce/infer that telescope enabled us to see from a long distance leaf shapes which we could not directly observe from that long distance.

From that derivation/deduction/inference, we induce the general principle that a telescope enables us to see things from a long distance which we otherwise can see only from a short distance, but not from the long distance.

We then turn our naked eyes to where Neptune is asserted to be. We do not see Neptune. Neptune is not directly observable from where we are.

We then turn our telescope to where Neptune is alleged to be. We see an image of Neptune through the telescope. We apply to that observation our previously induced general principle that a telescope enables us to see things from a long distance which we otherwise can see only from a short distance, but not from a long distance. We conclude that Neptune exists where the telescopic image tells us that Neptune exists.

Thus, the existence and location of Neptune have not been demonstrated by the scientific method. Rather, the existence and location of Neptune have been demonstrated by:

(1) Various direct observations of a tree and the shapes of its leaves;

(2) Various telescopic images of a tree and the shapes of its leaves;

(3) A general principle which we have induced from (1) and (2); and

(4) The application of that general principle to telescopic images of where Neptune is asserted to exist.

As it turns out, a great deal of what we are accustomed to thinking that we "observe" is actually not what we observe. It is the product of that sort of inductive-deductive reasoning.

Who has ever observed the wind? We observe the trees bending, we observe waves in the grass, we observe ripples on the water, etc., and -- based on a host of observations we have made and on a general principle that we have induced from those observations -- we derive/deduce/infer the conclusion that the wind is blowing.

[Lord Jim]

With the exception of a few gratuitous and pointless interjections from you-know-who, this has been one of the most interesting and thoughtful discussions I've seen on this board in a long time. Kudos to all those who have been participating.

[MajGenl.Meade]

This guy has a different viewpoint that I find more reasonable than those 'creationist' links (who are definitely missing something!). Dr Michael Jarvis obtained a PhD from Cape Town University in 1971, with zoology as major subject. He has written 36 scientific papers in reviewed scientific journals and 58 in popular science publications

WELCOME TO THE FACT AND FAITH WEBSITE www.factandfaith.co.za
Our founding principles include:
A complete acceptance of the scientific method.
An acceptance of a Universe and Earth billions of years old, not thousands.
An acceptance of the evolutionary processes in nature.
An acceptance of the Bible as our ultimate authority in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.
An acceptance that "The heavens declare" is another 'voice' of God , revealed to us by on-going scientific research.

Q: What is the distance to the galaxies furthest from our own galaxy?
A: About 12 billion Light years.

Q: For how many Earth years has light reaching our telescopes, been traveling through
Space, from galaxies about 12 billion Light years away?
A: This light has been traveling towards our telescopes for 12 billion earth years.

Q: How do scientists calculate when the Big Bang Creation took place?
A: They can measure the speed of expansion of our present Universe and then calculate
how long it took to reach this size, from its beginning.

Q: The Big Bang was started and controlled by laws that existed before our Universe.
What do we call such laws?
A: We call them Transcendent Laws.

Q: When did time begin?
A: Science tells us that time began at the Big Bang.

Q: Are the Transcendent Laws limited by time?
A: No, these Transcendent Laws operate in a Timeless Dimension

Q: Who does the Bible say created the Universe?
A: God (Bible: Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 42: 5, John 1: 1-3)

Q: Does the Bible say that God exists outside of time?
A: Yes. He is described as existing ‘from timelessness to timelessness’ or ‘from eternity
to eternity’ (e.g. Bible: Psalm 90:2)
and so on

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

He is described as existing ‘from timelessness to timelessness’ or ‘from eternity
to eternity’

Do you want, to live, foooreeevvvveeerrrr?

[MajGenl.Meade]

We all do (live forever) - just a question of where

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

In the end, there can be only one.
May it be Duncan MacLeod.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Is that what that old song means -

Lord lift me up and let me stand,
By faith on heaven's table land
A higher plane than I have found,
Lord plant my feet on higher ground

I suppose that would be high land, eh?

Meade