Is science being unduly influenced?

[rthonpm]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

There's a bit of a stretch that appears to be taken here in that it seems like Darwin is taken as the final authority on evolution. Taking that presumption would be just as erroneous as taking Newton as the final expert on gravity or Copernicus as the final expert on astronomy. It took the work of Einstein, Bohr, and piles of other physicists to develop general relativity which is a much more comprehensive grounding for the interaction of objects in the universe. Copernicus sat as an object of ridicule in some circles until Galileo was able to justify his findings. Even Aristotle argued for the idea of change and development in the physical world as changes occur all around us and are easily observed at any particular time if we care to take a look to find the cause.

Even in the field of genetics, there are a multitude of lifeforms that have very similar genetic makeups that would appear to suggest a common ancestor, or other intermediary relations between them. Humans and all other organisms are just strands of DNA and RNA with very little variety between them: we're all just groups of A, T, C, and G (Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine) with a very small amount of differentiation. Looking at the world overall, with what we've been able to see in terms of extinction, changes within species, negative/positive traits (sickle-cell anaemia carriers are immune to malaria), and the overall discipline of science evolution gives us a very good explanation for the living and developmental state of living things. As a disciplined approach it accounts for things much better than the idea of all life springing in a static state already formed.

As for macro-evolution, should the issues with that theory really shake evolution that much more than the manner in which quantum physics tears away a good deal of what we know about the workings of the universe?

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Can you elaborate more on the effects of quantum physics, it sounds interesting.

When I look at the world overall, I see just how inadequate evolution is for explaining the state of living things.

As a disiplined approach it accounts for things much better than the idea all life springing in a static state already formed.

In the fossil record there is what is known as the "Cambrean explosion" where many life forms sprang into being fully formed in a relatively short time. It doesn't matter to me who is the final authority on evolution, I see it as an obstacle to progress.

[Ctl-Alt-Del]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I have been staying away from some of the latest Copytechnet rants and raves, but I will weigh in on this one with my opinion so here it is: Science deniers are fucking idiots.

[rthonpm]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

In traditional physics, matter is static: it exists in one form. In quantum physics, or physics at the atomic level, it can exist simultaneously as both a particle and a wave. Furthermore, it can exist in multiple places at one time. The regular rules of the world around us seem to break down at the atomic level. Despite the fact that traditional, or particle physics, doesn't apply to the atomic world it still gives us a solid grounding for everything we see around us, and until you get to the beyond microscopic level it works.

This is a very simple version of what quantum physics covers if you really want more check out this link:

My overall argument was that just because evolution doesn't cover every base doesn't mean that it doesn't give us a solid grounding for the mechanisms that are in play around us.

Even the Cambrian explosion has potential causes that would force the pace of natural selection and evolution from changes in climate and oxygenation levels on earth, to the fact that many of the species that came out of the era existed in some simpler form even before that time. More than likely the environmental changes helped to make the preservation of fossil material much easier.

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I have been staying away from some of the latest Copytechnet rants and raves, but I will weigh in on this one with my opinion so here it is: Science deniers are fucking idiots.

I may choose to believe your statement, but since we are talking about science, do you have data about your claim that we can review?

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

NO disrespect or sarcasm intended, Based on your own words above, whom would you choose to believe in, in the following case: if 10,000 people tell you 'there's no God', because the people whom they live among say so, and another 100 group of people who are theologically trained in theology & philosophy , and dedicate their life studying the Bible?.

None taken. I cannot put the two together because i would expect a level playing field. I would ask to see the data from the people trained in philosophy and theology the same way i would from the climate scientist. What you feel, does not count as data.


food for your brain... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

and I copied this from yahoo answers... Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. A statement that cannot be disproved by experiment may still be highly respectable but it's simply not part of any experimental science (it could be mathematics, philosophy or religion, but it's not physics). Now that we have the basic vocabulary straight, we may discuss gravity itself:

Gravity is a physical phenomenon which is obvious all around us.

As such, it's begging for a scientific theory to describe it accurately and consistently. The rules within a theory are called "laws" and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well. Loosely stated:

"Two things always attract in direct proportion of their masses and in inverse proportion of the square of the distance between them."

However, the Newtonian theory does not provide the ultimate law for gravity. We do know that General Relativity (GR) provides more accurate experimental predictions in extreme conditions (e.g., a residual discrepancy in the motion of the perihelion of Mercury is not explained by Newtonian theory but is accounted for by GR).

Does this mean Newtonian theory is "wrong"? Of course not. Until we have a "theory of everything" (if such a thing exist) ANY physical theory has its range of applicability where its predications are accurate at a stated level of precision (stating the precision is VERY important in Science; an experimental prediction is MEANINGLESS if it does not come with a margin for error). The Newtonian theory is darn good at predicting the motion of planets within the Solar System to many decimal places... That's all we ask of it and that's what makes it so valuable.

Even General Relativity is certainly NOT the ultimate theory of gravitation. We know that much because GR is a "classical" theory, as opposed to a "quantum" theory. So, GR is not mathematically compatible with quantum phenomena which become obvious at very small scales...



So gravity is just a theory, but it seems like they know what they are talking about...

[DAG COPIERS & COMPUTERS]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Thanks for the article on GRAVITY, fixthecopier. However, with all due respect, I wish to distant myself from your statement that, ''Gravity is just a theory......''. As far as i know, gravity is a 'LAW' not theory. IT must of course began as 'theory' when Sir Isaac Newton formulated it. But later on, a general physical law was derived for it from EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS by Newton. Experiments were done to verify this theory and the necessary Mathematics was used to calculate the actual magnitude or value of this force called gravity.
The agreed upon value is usually placed at g=9.81m/s2, there's a slight variation in this value owing to the variation in the radius of the earth. This means the gravitational force on a given mass, at sea level, is different at different altitudes.
- Gravity being a FORCE, is therefore considered a VECTOR quantity, as opposed to SCALAR quantity since, it has both Magnitude (size) and the direction in which this force acts.
- The experiment to determine the the effect and value of gravity is a very common practical lesson conducted by all students doing physics in elementary school. In post elementary level we go further to conduct experiments to verify ''Newton's Laws of Universal gravitational and do the necessary calculations to determine the values. These experiments are not 'Rocket science', it can be done by any one with basic knowledge in and love for physics (Mechanics) and Maths, even from the comfort of your home, if you buy the necessary materials or equipment.
-A ll I am saying is that in the world of science, gravity qualified to the 'status' of a LAW, no longer Theory.
Ref: You may Google ' Newton's Law of universal gravitation'.....Wikipedia.

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Thanks for the article on GRAVITY, fixthecopier. However, with all due respect, I wish to distant myself from your statement that, ''Gravity is just a theory......''. As far as i know, gravity is a 'LAW' not theory. IT must of course began as 'theory' when Sir Isaac Newton formulated it. But later on, a general physical law was derived for it from EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS by Newton. Experiments were done to verify this theory and the necessary Mathematics was used to calculate the actual magnitude or value of this force called gravity.
The agreed upon value is usually placed at g=9.81m/s2, there's a slight variation in this value owing to the variation in the radius of the earth. This means the gravitational force on a given mass, at sea level, is different at different altitudes.
- Gravity being a FORCE, is therefore considered a VECTOR quantity, as opposed to SCALAR quantity since, it has both Magnitude (size) and the direction in which this force acts.
- The experiment to determine the the effect and value of gravity is a very common practical lesson conducted by all students doing physics in elementary school. In post elementary level we go further to conduct experiments to verify ''Newton's Laws of Universal gravitational and do the necessary calculations to determine the values. These experiments are not 'Rocket science', it can be done by any one with basic knowledge in and love for physics (Mechanics) and Maths, even from the comfort of your home, if you buy the necessary materials or equipment.
-A ll I am saying is that in the world of science, gravity qualified to the 'status' of a LAW, no longer Theory.
Ref: You may Google ' Newton's Law of universal gravitation'.....Wikipedia.

I must politely choose to disagree. The last two paragraphs of the text cover that issue. Newton is not wrong, but his "law" does not cover it all, therefore it is back to being theory.

[fixthecopier]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

As I sit here, I think back to being a boy in the 70's, a phone was hard wired into your house, Cold war, China was to us what North Korea is now, and the center of Africa was the "Dark Continent" due to it being so isolated. Now I am casually chatting with someone from the center of Africa and other continents about gravity being law or theory. Science and technology kick ass!

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Good point on the differnce between theories and laws. I think a major sticking point is whether natural selection is a theory or law. In the sense it can explain minute changes within a species I can understand people considering it a law. In the sense it can explain one species changing into another it is a theory, since one species changing into another has not been observed. Ambulocetus natans, a small whale that has legs and arms, is an good example. Someone with an evolution worldview will see this as evidence evolution happened. Someone with a creation worldview will see this as evidence God was very creative. There is a whole lot of assuming going on and very little science in either of those cases.


Evolution sees this-

[DATA]Ambulocetus natans is a small whale with legs and arms
[DATA]There are mutations within a species via natural selection
[CONCLUSION]Ambulocetus natans was once an ameoba (going back from a whale to a cow to a bird to a fish to asea slug to an ameoba)

Creationism sees this-

[DATA]Ambulocetus natans is a small whale with legs and arms
[CONCLUSION]God is good and very creative

Science sees this-

[DATA]Ambulocetus natans is a whale with legs and arms
[DATA]We can see mutation WITHIN a species, but mutation TO a species has not been observed.
[CONCLUSION]Some whales have arms and legs and some do not.

So some whales have arms and legs and some don't? Why should lack of data be seen as an opportunity to interject a worldview? Science should simply leave it at some do and some don't. Instead of leaping to the conclusion a cow mutated into a whale (Seriously? Cows mutating to whales isn't on par with the Jonah whale thing?), speculate why some do and some don't. Suppose science speculated why some whales have arms and legs and some don't. One explanation might be some whales food source moved to deeper water. Since some stayed off land via natural selection they lost their arms and legs while others didn't. A better explaination takes into consideration arms and legs are actually genetic code. Everyone remembers analog copiers and when we make a copy of a copy, of a copy, it gets really crappy. What if generation after generation, copy of DNA after copy of DNA somewhere along the line the genetic information for arms and legs was lost. Some whales moved to deeper water for a food source since they lacked arms and legs to go on land, not the other way around. I'm not making the case all whales once had arms and legs but illustrating how an evolution bias would prevent it, and many other alternatives, from even being considered.

The revolution that the sun is the center of the solar system is to astronomy, what DNA is to biology. It is observable, repeatable, and quantifiable, unlike natural selection. DNA is not like a language or similar to it, it actually is a language with its own alphabet. It is comparable to a computer code only for life. Knowing the characteristics of DNA look again at how natural selection explains cows mutating into small whales . One species mutating to another is like opening up your NTOSKRNL.exe file, randomly cutting and pasting code, then having your computer boot up again. Or as Hoyle put it: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
Some might say given enough time or chances it could happen. Why should we? Just so we can still use natural selection to explain DNA? True science would try natural selection, find it cannot give a reasonable explaination for DNA, and move on. Why should a worldview influence science to keep using a tool inadequate for the job? I think it would be more productive to put down the inadequate tool and look for the right one. There is nothing wrong with simply leaving the question unanswered while searching for a reasonable answer. When they map the human genome and use it to find cures for disease or lengthen people's life they will be looking for those cures through evolution goggles and with inadequate tools. I'm sure a new perspective would do them some good.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I have been staying away from some of the latest Copytechnet rants and raves, but I will weigh in on this one with my opinion so here it is: Science deniers are fucking idiots.

Nobody in this thead is denying "science". Some are denying evolution. which is based on the work of a man who was so desperate to prove his conclusion that he made up a whole "transitional species".
So, now who is a "fucking idiot"?

[DAG COPIERS & COMPUTERS]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I must politely choose to disagree. The last two paragraphs of the text cover that issue. Newton is not wrong, but his "law" does not cover it all, therefore it is back to being theory.

I think our disagreement stems from the different meanings we attach to the definition of the words 'Theory and Law' in scientific jargon. As far as I know, the Scientific world 'graduated' Newton's theory to the level of Law, in their vocabulary based on pre-defined parameters. All known text books of physics & other scientific literature on this subject talks of it as Newton's Laws.
- The Scientists themselves are the final authority on their own terminologies! And unless they state otherwise, meaning they degrade the 'gravity Law' to the status of a ''Theory'', based on new findings, as they did 'demote' or de-registered 'the heavenly body' PLUTO, to a 'VIRTUAL' planet, a few years ago, we shall continue to consider Newton's Laws of gravity as a LAW, until further notice.
- The 'Dark continent' of Africa is so much endowed with NATURAL RESOURCES that the colonial invaders found it irresistible to ''partake of the meal of these wealth!'' No offense intended.

[Ctl-Alt-Del]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I have been staying away from some of the latest Copytechnet rants and raves, but I will weigh in on this one with my opinion so here it is: Science deniers are fucking idiots.

That's what I thought I said.

So, now who is a "fucking idiot"?

Uh... science deniers?

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

In case I offended anyone I apologize, people are entitled to believe what they want. I was directing my arguments to our education system, not anyone personally. I know I am not talking to your average joe here, techs make a living solving problems by analyzing the data before them. At least it can be said of MrWho, Akitu, rthonpm, Mojorolla, fixthecopier, SargeNZ, Darren King and Dag. If I started linking to answers in Genesis or asked why monkeys are still around, I deserve a screwdriver in the eye. We left theology out of it and are just discussing science.
Actually, thanks for your contribution CTRL+ALT+DEL you represent the establishment and the undue influence quite well.
Evolution is science, people who deny evolution deny science, therefore science deniers are idiots. That is the typical response from schools, colleges, and universities to people who question evolution. I'm actually suprised I didn't see a post like this on page 1. Instead of insults most people were actully offering data and well thought arguments.

[Ctl-Alt-Del]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

That is the typical response from schools, colleges, and universities to people who question evolution. I'm actually suprised I didn't see a post like this on page 1. Instead of insults most people were actully offering data and well thought arguments.

Yes that is the typical response from people that hang out around school, colleges, and universities because that is where people think about stuff like that hang out. They develop theories and then share, discuss and refine those theories into something that *most* of the world agrees on, sometime they are even proven wrong but there is an openness and willingness to gain knowledge and sometime even fame and profit. There is another group of people that have been indoctrinated to somehow square everything they think, see and believe with what they have been told is in the pages of a few books re-written hundreds of times over the past 3,000 years. So YES, science is being unduly influenced but it's not by the people you think it is.

"The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe in it" - Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist