Conversations About Science

[worldspy99]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

NASA releases details of Titan submarine concept

NASA releases details of Titan submarine concept

We need to explore Titan's methane seas.

Pretty cool....thanks for posting.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Ask John Thomas Scopes if Darwin was controversial. Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in Darwin's theory but there are those that don't feel like Creation and Evolution can coexist. It's a shame, but this forum is certainly not the place for that discussion.

Edit: I shouldn't write this seriously when I just got up!

I was heading to bed when I saw this. Williams Jennings Bryan's view of evolution was that if we see ourselves as animals then we would treat each other as animals. This was post WW1 which was considered at the time the most brutal. He also won btw, Scopes lost. Most people don't realise that.

Further note. You don't believe in evolution. You agree with the evidence. Science is a consensus.

Lastly, what most people don't realise is that the same science that comes up with evolution is the same one that comes up with everything else. Medicines, technology, etc. You cannot pick and choose your science like you do everything else because it either works or it doesn't.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

If someone were to object there would be 2 people to answer to. Regarding my post, I wrongfully assumed that others outside the US had knowledge of the Monkey Trial which was the basis of my comment. Unfortunately, The Renaissance has not reached our shores yet since there are so many members of the Flat Earth Society among us.

I am very well informed when it comes to knowing the history and objections to evolution. Aside from books I've also watched several talks and read several websites on a daily basis.

I've been to Darwin's house and to Newton's. I own On the Origins of Species and other evolution books.

I do know however that people who take their holy books too seriously and were raised to argue instead of inquire are not the easiest to talk to our argue with. I know, because I've done it.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

There are controversies amongst scientists on the rate of evolution. The "Darwin Wars" pitted Richard Dawkins (proponent of phyletic gradualism) against Stephen Jay Gould (proponent of punctuated equilibrium).

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

There are controversies amongst scientists on the rate of evolution. The "Darwin Wars" pitted Richard Dawkins (proponent of phyletic gradualism) against Stephen Jay Gould (proponent of punctuated equilibrium).

There are many such arguments in every field of science. Evolution just seems to get highlighted more.

Regardless of the fine points, which is what most of these arguments are about, to the lay person, evolution happened. It's not a controversy.

Posted by my Nexus 7

 

[Laura Knotek]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

There are many such arguments in every field of science. Evolution just seems to get highlighted more.

Regardless of the fine points, which is what most of these arguments are about, to the lay person, evolution happened. It's not a controversy.

Posted by my Nexus 7

I agree that evolution happened. Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium were covered in my biology courses. We weren't told one or the other was correct. It was up to us to decide which camp we fell in, or if we thought both camps were correct.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

I agree that evolution happened. Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium were covered in my biology courses. We weren't told one or the other was correct. It was up to us to decide which camp we fell in, or if we thought both camps were correct.

I wasn't suggesting you were in disagreement.

My point was arguments in science is common and to call them controversies is to mistake what they are.

Which model I agree with I'm not sure. It's been sometime since I looked at things in that sort of detail. I'm used to trying to convince the grunting masses that evolution is true.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

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

 

[Laura Knotek]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

I wasn't suggesting you were in disagreement.

My point was arguments in science is common and to call them controversies is to mistake what they are.

Which model I agree with I'm not sure. It's been sometime since I looked at things in that sort of detail. I'm used to trying to convince the grunting masses that evolution is true.

I completely understand what you're saying.

The types of arguments between fellow scientists are completely different than those between scientists and some members of the general public without scientific backgrounds.

The thing that drives me nuts is the statement, "It's just a theory". People who make that statement don't understand what scientific theories are. If something is accepted as a theory, it means that it has been tested and confirmed by other scientists who have gotten the same results.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

The thing that drives me nuts is the statement, "It's just a theory". People who make that statement don't understand what scientific theories are. If something is accepted as a theory, it means that it has been tested and confirmed by other scientists who have gotten the same results.

We are in total agreement here! I wonder if anyone has done research to see when the word 'theory' entered into literature as a 'guess'. I would assume that was after the word was used in science but I'd like to know.

The other mistake that science has made is using the term 'law'. This implies that it's never to change. Sort of like 'constants'. People don't realise both are capable of change and have been changed. I've heard a few scientist wish that the term 'law' was never used in science and that they stuck to theory.

If you ever want to retaliate with someone about the use of theory ask the if they like electricity, it is after all, a theory.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

Happy Darwin Day! :excited: He's 206 and his theory is 156!

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

Some evolution news - BBC News - Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree

 

[palandri]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

....The thing that drives me nuts is the statement, "It's just a theory". People who make that statement don't understand what scientific theories are. If something is accepted as a theory, it means that it has been tested and confirmed by other scientists who have gotten the same results.

I hear the same thing a lot. If it's an untested, proposed explanation for a phenomenon it's a hypothesis.

On the subject of evolution the other day, I had a guy tell me, "Wrong. It is just the opinions of scientists, and a lot of that has been disspelled.(sic)".

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

I hear the same thing a lot. If it's an untested, proposed explanation for a phenomenon it's a hypothesis.

On the subject of evolution the other day, I had a guy tell me, "Wrong. It is just the opinions of scientists, and a lot of that has been disspelled.(sic)".

I feel for you. I had one person continually post a link to the Answers in Genesis site about how 50 scientists agree with creation. None of them were biologist. 50 is a fairly small number too.

Thing is there's too many people out there that think 'scientist' is a general term like 'mechanic' and don't seem to realise they have specialist skills in specific areas.

You should mention next time that how electricity works is the opinion of scientists as well, so is germs, gravity and so on.

I do like that term.... dispelled...

 

[AndyCalling]

The thing that drives me nuts is the statement, "It's just a theory". People who make that statement don't understand what scientific theories are. If something is accepted as a theory, it means that it has been tested and confirmed by other scientists who have gotten the same results.

This is, however, largely the fault of the scientific community for redefining a word to suit their purposes and then wondering why the rest of the world misunderstands them. A theory is a speculative position, nothing more. Not only does this sync with the etymological basis for the word, it also remains the common understanding. If only the scientific community had come up with their own word then this confusion would not exist.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

This is, however, largely the fault of the scientific community for redefining a word to suit their purposes and then wondering why the rest of the world misunderstands them. A theory is a speculative position, nothing more. Not only does this sync with the etymological basis for the word, it also remains the common understanding. If only the scientific community had come up with their own word then this confusion would not exist.

Are you sure which meaning came first? If so can you provide where you're getting this knowledge from?

According to Dictionary.com which has a citation this is where the word origin is from and what it means.

1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from Late Latin theoria (Jerome), from Greek theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see" (see warrant (n.)). Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

Looking at this way you can see why science used it and why they didn't speculate that in the future people would turn it into a 'guess'.

 

[SpO BoB]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

Can any one tell me .. If it is possible to travel at the speed of light,and went some years.. will it be like time travel .. As the moving object has time =0 .. And if the speed exceeded the speed of light .. Would the person travels get younger .. "negative time" ???

 

[N_LaRUE]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

Can any one tell me .. If it is possible to travel at the speed of light,and went some years.. will it be like time travel .. As the moving object has time =0 .. And if the speed exceeded the speed of light .. Would the person travels get younger .. "negative time" ???

At this point in time, from what I remember there is no possibility to travel at the speed of light and it would not equate to time travel even if we could. FTL travel is a bit out there and wormholes are simply hypothetical currently. There were some recent experiments which claimed FTL particles but they have since been refuted.

There are all sorts of ideas but the simple truth is we don't know enough about 'time' as such to predict if it's even possible. On top of that we don't know if time travel would only be forward or whether or not it's possible to go backward. The other question of course is, what is time?

 

[palandri]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

Saturn's moon Enceladus

Enceladus is only 500 kilometers (310 miles) in diameter, but despite its petite size, it's one of the most scientifically compelling bodies in our solar system...

Solar System Exploration: Planets: Saturn: Moons: Enceladus: Overview

 

[palandri]

Re: Conversations About Science and Physics

From Mercury To Pluto: The Year Ahead In Planetary Exploration

2015 is already shaping up to be a big year in astronomy and planetary exploration, with the best yet to come. Here are some highlights to keep your eye on throughout the year....

From Mercury To Pluto: The Year Ahead In Planetary Exploration | IFLScience