[Sindriss]

Quote

How do we know life isn't degenerating instead of developing? The witnessed mechanisms can just as easily be interpreted as having a negative effect

Mutations that would degenerate a being, wouldn't give it an advantage over other mutations that developed the being and in the long haul would make it lose to more succesful mutations. As I understand it, haven't had biology for some years now.

[Gem Windcaster]

Sindriss, on Mar 30 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Quote

How do we know life isn't degenerating instead of developing? The witnessed mechanisms can just as easily be interpreted as having a negative effect

Mutations that would degenerate a being, wouldn't give it an advantage over other mutations that developed the being and in the long haul would make it lose to more succesful mutations.

Yeah, I understand that is the popular interpretation.

[Cause]

Quote

Is this where we start to say "Yes" "No" "Yes" "No" to each other? smile.gif Dude, I don't have to disprove something I don't think is proved in the first place. The ability to prove or disprove the entire theory of evolution is equally impossible, which has been part of my point this whole time. You can't prove it, and you can't disprove it. So it stays a theory, and you can only prove or disprove things that are visible to our eyes today, which isn't much.

This statement is predicated on the belief that all opinions are equal. This is not true.

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 30 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

Dont bother CI, She and others wont be happy until they see a sunflower turn into a bat. They have no concept of what a species is and throw that example around evrytime. What seperates a fish, a penguin and a bird. Nothing. Only adaptions of the same organs and limbs they all share. Why they think it should be so remarkable I dont know.

Nice example. If they're basically the same thing, that's not much of an evolution in the first place.

You believe breathing in water as opposed to air, swimming instead of flying is not a big deal? Are you laughing at your ignorance or mine? I simply sought to point out that while a fish has gills and a mammal lungs they work on the same principals. The blood takes up oxygen in the same way.

Quote

@ CI: your example of the sunflower only points to what I already agrees with, that nature is flexible, and that it sometimes mutates to keep alive. Chernobyl wildlife is a good example. Also it seems life that is 'smaller' mutates more easily - I'd guess it's because the complexity of the genes, but here I am floating into waters I know nothing about.
Again, it's a good example, because of close similarities between...flowers.

You admit your ignorance. Great. Good progress

Quote

Look guys, I am well aware that mutations exist, that life is flexible and that cross mating occurs. But those are rather small changes, most of which often dwindle away because they were bad ideas.

Some bacteria have been seen to change their entire diet. Some species have mutated so much they cant mate with their old 'species' anymore.

Quote

My point is that these mechanisms doesn't point to anything but what they themselves are. Evolution can sometimes be seen as this mystical force that drives life. It's an interpretation and not a very scientific one. How do we know life isn't degenerating instead of developing? The witnessed mechanisms can just as easily be interpreted as having a negative effect. Since we haven't actually invented the time machine, we can't know for sure. We just know there are changes. And we can't know if those changes are for the better or for worse, in the long run. The fact that the theory of evolution is called 'of evolution' is interesting because it puts an ideological spin on the 'objective' science. If it was called 'the theory of change', it wouldn't really have the same ring to it.

Further ignorance. Evolution does not mean better. That is not te scientific meaning. This is not semantics. This i you once agaoin commenting on something you know nothing about.

Quote

I'm surprised you guys don't see this. It's one thing to agree with an ideology, but to be completely unaware that is what one is doing? Surprising.

You dare give us grief for our supposed devotion to an ideology, Have you yet accepted why you are so hostile to this theory?

This post has been edited by Cause: 30 March 2009 - 03:02 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

I think science can be entirely justified in arguing against religion because it shows that some "facts" according to various holy books are incorrect. Therefore, science can be set up as opposition to the basis of organised religion, the same as history and social anthropology can. Science cannot be used to bash spirituality however. Unfortunately, science is as open as anything else to being used as a tool by ignorant people.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Quote

Is this where we start to say "Yes" "No" "Yes" "No" to each other? smile.gif Dude, I don't have to disprove something I don't think is proved in the first place. The ability to prove or disprove the entire theory of evolution is equally impossible, which has been part of my point this whole time. You can't prove it, and you can't disprove it. So it stays a theory, and you can only prove or disprove things that are visible to our eyes today, which isn't much.

This statement is predicated on the belief that all opinions are equal. This is not true.

You mean, according your opinion?

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 30 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

Dont bother CI, She and others wont be happy until they see a sunflower turn into a bat. They have no concept of what a species is and throw that example around evrytime. What seperates a fish, a penguin and a bird. Nothing. Only adaptions of the same organs and limbs they all share. Why they think it should be so remarkable I dont know.

Nice example. If they're basically the same thing, that's not much of an evolution in the first place.

You believe breathing in water as opposed to air, swimming instead of flying is not a big deal? Are you laughing at your ignorance or mine? I simply sought to point out that while a fish has gills and a mammal lungs they work on the same principals. The blood takes up oxygen in the same way.

Are you saying that is an actual argument? That is funny. Why would the fact that they work the same way mean anything? The question here if they are close dna-wise, not functionality wise. I can't say I know if they are or not though.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Quote

@ CI: your example of the sunflower only points to what I already agrees with, that nature is flexible, and that it sometimes mutates to keep alive. Chernobyl wildlife is a good example. Also it seems life that is 'smaller' mutates more easily - I'd guess it's because the complexity of the genes, but here I am floating into waters I know nothing about.
Again, it's a good example, because of close similarities between...flowers.

You admit your ignorance. Great. Good progress

Yes, that is the difference between you and me, I admit when I am in the dark about something. It is sad that you read it as you're my superior(not saying I'm your superior either). Having the correct data means nothing if you can't think.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Quote

Look guys, I am well aware that mutations exist, that life is flexible and that cross mating occurs. But those are rather small changes, most of which often dwindle away because they were bad ideas.

Some bacteria have been seen to change their entire diet. Some species have mutated so much they cant mate with their old 'species' anymore.

Degeneration, anyone? If you're gonna keep bringing these arguments, you will just help me prove my point. And we're talking about bacteria. Bacteria. Again it's the ideology showing it's face - the evolution forcing life forward into development - imo it's obvious that the complexity of the dna could affect the ability to adapt. There's a time factor that isn't even considered, because the number of 'generations' is considered equal, dna complexity aside. Again, I am doing a blind estimation here.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Quote

My point is that these mechanisms doesn't point to anything but what they themselves are. Evolution can sometimes be seen as this mystical force that drives life. It's an interpretation and not a very scientific one. How do we know life isn't degenerating instead of developing? The witnessed mechanisms can just as easily be interpreted as having a negative effect. Since we haven't actually invented the time machine, we can't know for sure. We just know there are changes. And we can't know if those changes are for the better or for worse, in the long run. The fact that the theory of evolution is called 'of evolution' is interesting because it puts an ideological spin on the 'objective' science. If it was called 'the theory of change', it wouldn't really have the same ring to it.

Further ignorance. Evolution does not mean better. That is not te scientific meaning. This is not semantics. This i you once agaoin commenting on something you know nothing about.

So evolution just express change, is that what you're saying? Because that would be fatal for the entire theory, since it builds on the assumption that the bad mutations are defeated by the good mutations. If it was just about expressing change in general, why not consider that humankind started out way more 'developed', but degenerated into something worse? But that goes against all of our ideas that civilization is going forward, ever breaking ground. The neanderthals might not have had our pretty buildings and social structures, but who's to say they were actually less intelligent? Maybe they had mental powers we can only dream of? Unbiased science my ass. No, the ideological basis for the theory of evolution is not only immersed into us from the moment we're born, we're also taught that anything ugly is worth less, anything less functional stands a step down. And right now we're in the process of destroying the earth and it's life, because we think we're all that. The ways to kill another human life far outnumbers the way to heal or save, because money rules the scientific world. Degeneration, anyone? I don't know if we are degenerating, and I think it's probably not that simple, but the question is legit.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Quote

I'm surprised you guys don't see this. It's one thing to agree with an ideology, but to be completely unaware that is what one is doing? Surprising.

You dare give us grief for our supposed devotion to an ideology, Have you yet accepted why you are so hostile to this theory?

My own devotions to certain ideologies have given me the intellectual freedom to criticize outside the box. I've never made a secret of it, nor do I wish to. What bothers me is not when one is part of an ideology, it's when you deny it.

Edit: just grammar

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 March 2009 - 03:53 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Mezla PigDog, on Mar 30 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

I think science can be entirely justified in arguing against religion because it shows that some "facts" according to various holy books are incorrect. Therefore, science can be set up as opposition to the basis of organised religion, the same as history and social anthropology can. Science cannot be used to bash spirituality however. Unfortunately, science is as open as anything else to being used as a tool by ignorant people.

Now, this is something I can completely agree with. Every word included.

[Cause]

Problem with too many quotes. If you cant follow Ill come back later and fix it

It is obvious that your opinion or anyone elses who does not fully comprehend the science, theory of science, facts and data that formulate the theory of evolution can not be held to the same standard as someone who does. Thier is a reason why their are experts.

Function is related to structure. Structure is related to protein sequence. Protein sequence is related to DNA sequence. That you dont immediatly see this is the reason why you arguing this and believing that you are winning annoys me so much.


And no ammount of thinking will get you anywhere if you dont recognise all your parameters. You include god and religeon and personal belief in all your thinking on this subject. Can you at least acknowledge this might prejudice you against the theory?


Degeneration? Where? How? Please expand on the rest of the paragraph I am missing the point. Are you saying more complex life, Humans etc are less likely to evolve?

I have corrected you on this point. Why keep at it. If people who dont read up on a subject dont understand it, it is not a fault of the subject. Yes I agree many people see evolution as moving forward. They read survival of the fittest as meaning the strongest quickets smartest organism. It really means whoever breeds the most. Also dont bring the enviroment, or killing into this. It has no relation. I will say however that if we do kill the planet, the only thing that will care is us. Their are bcteria living 6km underground in 120 degree celcius temperatures. Eating god damn iron. Do you think They care? The world is not alive. It hs no feelings, no thoughts.

This post has been edited by Cause: 30 March 2009 - 04:24 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

Unfortunately for GW's argument, in order to be able to criticise science (whichever definition we happen to be using in this thread, which is still not entirely clear), one needs to demonstrate that one is capable both of understanding the arguments put forward, and of constructing relevant rebuttals based on sound understanding. Neither of which necessary criteria are fulfilled as far as I can see.

It seems to me that in your world agreeing and understanding is the same thing. Why don't you show some balls and be more specific about what it is you fear I don't understand, and so give me a chance to relieve you of your fears. However I don't expect you to, since all I've ever got reason wise has mostly been the old "you're not agreeing, therefore you're stupid" argument. Sadly there's not much 'sound' anything going on around here.

Not at all. It is necessary to understand before one can effectively criticise: that is the entirety of my point in that paragraph. Your posts in this thread (and pretty much every other thread on a similar topic) have, so far as I can, demonstrated a lack of understanding about
a) what evolution is (and the confusion between a scientific 'theory' and the non-specialist definition of the word comes into play here
how evolution works (confusing evolution with progress, a common misperception)

Given that lack of demonstrated understanding (wilful or otherwise), it becomes impossible to reason.

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

It is impossible to make coherent points about science to a layman who possesses none of the specialised technical vocabulary, in paricular the restricted definitions and adapted standard English terms used in specialised contexts, with which such points are generally made. Such points are always misconstrued, dictionary definitions are brought forward as if they are relevant over and above the scietific definitions which are in operation in the context, and focus is attached to minutiae of argument rather than to the main thrust.

Bullshit! Don't blame the layman for not 'understanding' when you so obviosuly either can't express your own knowledge or actually have nothing to give. Show us what you know instead of throwing pretty packaged insults around.
I do believe you are aright about people using the dictionary though. Although you're being contradictory to your own point.

If fail to see any example of where I, in the post previous to this, or this, have used any terms with a meaning that differs when used in a scientific context: apart from 'evolution' itself. How exactly am I contradicting my own point?

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

Thus, arguing with non-scientists about the value, operation, history, purpose, and beauty, of science, is often a thankless and unfortunately unproductive task. And yet, scientists persist, because their goal is the pursuit of knowledge, and its dissemination as far as possible.

That is such an elitist and laughable statement, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be impressed by your arrogance or just smile.

But science is elitist. Or at least, the active research and investigation of science is elitist. So, too, is the couching of newly-revealed knowledge that is a product of said reasearch in terms understandable by non-specialists (by whom, it should be noted, I mean all those, both scientists and non-scientists, who are not trained in that particular branch of science). My own field is Computer Science, specifically database architecture and client-side interaction. I have an interested layman's knowledge of other branches, but to all intents and purposes, I am scientifically illiterate when it comes to the particulars of (e.g.) paleobiology, evolutionary psychology, neurophysiology, and all the other branches from the tree.

However, because I have trained in one of the branches, I have an understanding about how the process of science works, how the furtherance of knowledge proceeds, and can see these processes in operation in the other branches. I have a basis for questioning, for extending my own sphere of knowledge. That is the basis which you have consistently failed to demonstrate. And until you gain that basis for understanding explanations such as those presented to you in this thread, you will continually misunderstand them, apply them incorrectly, come to invalid conclusions, and argue on the basis of those conclusions. It is a pattern which occurs everytime a scientific point must be explained to any non-scientist, including scientific journalists, and one which is clearly and lucidly explained in the book I mention above (_Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre), and is one of the reasons behind the rise of scientific illiteracy in general in the west.

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

I've said again and again that I love science - but it is continually dragged into the dirt by people that want to diminish it and keep it for themselves.

By whom is it being dragged down? Who is perpetrating this keeping-to-themselves? In general, you will find that anyone to whom you point in answer will have an agenda beyond the furtherance of truth and the dissemination of knowledge. For example, scientists who work for Christian Science institutions; research scientists working in labs funded by commerical pharmacological organisations; research scientists working for ecological concerns funded (directly or indirectly) by oil companies or other organisations with an interest in ransacking the earth's natural resources.

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

My own goal is definitely knowledge and truth. Also I think the concept of 'scientists' vs 'non-scientists' is an interesting one. We're all thinking humans first and foremost. Those with facts can share those facts. It's not easy, but then I don't think it should be - scientists are not all knowing masters that we all should bow down to.

Except when it comes to their specialist areas, where they are, by definition, the experts.

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on Mar 27 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

I would recommend the book _Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre to anyone and everyone in this thread. It makes the point much more clearly and coherently than I could ever hope to.

If you actually have read that book, then you know what I am talking about - maybe you should look past your own assumptions of me, and see what I am trying to say, albeit without a single 'thus'?

Why should I avoid the word 'thus', if it is the word that most succinctly expresses what I am trying to say?

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

<insulting assumption...ignoring it>

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Function is related to structure. Structure is related to protein sequence. Protein sequence is related to DNA sequence. That you dont immediatly see this is the reason why you arguing this and believing that you are winning annoys me so much.

You were simplifying, as you can see if you read what you actually wrote, which might not have been what you meant, but that's not my problem. Anyway, I was just calling you on it.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

And no ammount of thinking will get you anywhere if you dont recognise all your parameters. You include god and religeon and personal belief in all your thinking on this subject. Can you at least acknowledge this might prejudice you against the theory?

It has nothing to do with prejudice from my part. If anyone it is you that is having problems with prejudice. I am not saying I couldn't read up on the subject more, or that there aren't people that know more than I do. However, that you discard what I am saying on your own assumptions of my though processes is very prejudiced, intolerant, undignified and sad. What I am saying is not complicated things, it should be easy for you to agree on the principle of it. That you then think you're still right is another story. You're entitled to your own opinions, beliefs and choices. Honor that entitlement.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Degeneration? Where? How? Please expand on the rest of the paragraph I am missing the point. Are you saying more complex life, Humans etc are less likely to evolve?

What I mean, dear Watson, is that scientists show a remarkable lack of imagination, of thinking outside of their cultural box. Also I am saying that the fact that change exist, doesn't mean it evolves, instead it might be stagnating. That even the thought haven't entered into the scientist collective mind, is surprising to say the least, on a logical level, but not so surprising on an ideological level. It's a philosophical difference, not a scientific one. I am pointing out that maybe science shouldn't lock into something so obviously ideological - at least not without asking the relevant questions.

Cause, on Mar 30 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

I have corrected you on this point. Why keep at it. If people who dont read up on a subject dont understand it, it is not a fault of the subject. Yes I agree many people see evolution as moving forward. They read survival of the fittest as meaning the strongest quickets smartest organism. It really means whoever breeds the most. Also dont bring the enviroment, or killing into this. It has no relation. I will say however that if we do kill the planet, the only thing that will care is us. Their are bcteria living 6km underground in 120 degree celcius temperatures. Eating god damn iron. Do you think They care? The world is not alive. It hs no feelings, no thoughts.

I'm not sure what part of my post you are referring to, or what you want said, specifically. Explain please?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 March 2009 - 05:14 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

@ jitsukerr, I think you have to start getting used to the idea that even if someone doesn't know all the details of the scientific processes (which isn't that complicated to start with), they might have something valuable to say on an intellectual, philosophical and ethical level. Having the data doesn't equal having the knowledge.

The difference between you and me, aside my obvious philosophical training, is that I have the ability to think free critical thoughts about science, while you have bought the entire package, including attached strings. That is all fine, but the strings doesn't give you some mysterious insight beyond mere mortal men.

As for scientific training... By coincidence my field is also Computer Science. (For instance, in my masters program, I wrote an article on machine learning algorithms - interesting stuff )



Edit: I am taking a break from this discussion, since I have a demanding Mafia game to run. BBL.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 30 March 2009 - 06:44 PM

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 30 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

@ jitsukerr, I think you have to start getting used to the idea that even if someone doesn't know all the details of the scientific processes (which isn't that complicated to start with), they might have something valuable to say on an intellectual, philosophical and ethical level. Having the data doesn't equal having the knowledge.

On an intellectual level an informed layman can say as much as they want, but it's unlikely to be of much use in extending the discipline as they don't know enough to ask the right questions and probably won't know enough to properly undertand the answers given to their questions. On the philosophical level, it's pretty much the same situation; the informed layman is almost certain to be saying things that have already been said before and therefore not saying anything of use. The ethical level is another thing altogether; there are things in ethics that appear to be universal and others that appear not to be. Applying one's personal set of ethics to a universal question would seem, to my mind, to be only of use to the individual, and of none to others who do not share them.

Quote

The difference between you and me, aside my obvious philosophical training, is that I have the ability to think free critical thoughts about science, while you have bought the entire package, including attached strings.

LOL I suspect you could be a little more pompous if you really put your heart into it. Go on, give it a go. You could try thinking a few free and critical thoughts about certain religious beliefs whilst you're at it...

Quote

That is all fine, but the strings doesn't give you some mysterious insight beyond mere mortal men.

True, but neither does anything else. And because of such things noone's thoughts on anything are truly free, including yours. Anyone can claim objectivity, but someone with your philosophical training should really be able to see that it's futile for them to do so.

Quote

As for scientific training... By coincidence my field is also Computer Science. (For instance, in my masters program, I wrote an article on machine learning algorithms - interesting stuff )

Just because you have the tools for the job doesn't mean you're using them correctly in all cases...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 30 March 2009 - 07:22 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

Gem Windcaster, on Mar 30 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

scientists show a remarkable lack of imagination, of thinking outside of their cultural box

I assume you are up-to-date on your reading and correspondance with the various scientific communities of the world to know what is driving their research, ethics and communication to be able to state this so confidently.

Has it occurred to you that while you lambast others for having no understanding of your enlightened philosophical view, that you may be demonstrating an equal lack of understanding of science? This could explain the sustained and repeated arguments you experience across all areas of the discussion board!

[VigoTheCarpathian]

Quote

The difference between you and me, aside my obvious philosophical training, is that I have the ability to think free critical thoughts about science, while you have bought the entire package, including attached strings. That is all fine, but the strings doesn't give you some mysterious insight beyond mere mortal men.

I said this exact thing to my mechanic when I filled up my cars gas tank with clean-burning water after seeing the Keanu Reeves science movie "Chain Reaction" (replace "philosophical" with "information technology", "science" with "mechanics" in the above). I told him that I had been driving cars for years and knew that they had to run on a fuel, and was also pretty sure that Keanu Reeves wouldn't lie to me, but he got mad and yelled and made me pay the bill.

And this is just my opinion, but if science had a dick, I would suck it.

[stone monkey]

Cold Iron, on Mar 27 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

I'm still not with you on this one, a fractal structure would not make the universe homogeneous, just similarly heterogeneous at all scales.... If at any scale the distribution is not homogeneous the Robertson-Walker metric is violated and the whole model goes out the window.

Okay, I see what you're getting at here. As it stands we know very well that the Standard Model in its pure form does not match the observed universe in all its aspects. I'd argue that the very presence of matter, curving spacetime as it does, means that locally the universe is very much not homogenous. A truly homogenous universe, in this respect, would contain no matter whatsoever. So we definitely know some more work is needed to explain this. I suspect that the root of this problem may very well have to do with spacetime itself being quantized which would give us intrinsic problems when we try to use what's basically a solution to General Relativity (with its foundational assumption, as a classical theory, that spacetime is continuous) to describe it. Which is why a truly quantum mechanical version of General Relativity is needed. But I'm far from an expert on these matters.

Quote

I'm not trying to claim the universe is incapable of inflation simply because it violates relativity. I'm saying it's a fudge to invent an event (inflation) which violates satisfactory (at this scale) equations in order to satisfy the need for an answer to the problem. Having said that, though, there's nothing wrong with fudging. Exploring the implications of the fudge can lead to theoretically observable evidence that can then be looked for. The problem here is that despite not having any, the general public has the impression that the big bang is scientific fact when anyone with a mild interest and time to read a few articles will quickly learn that this is far from the case.

I would argue that, in its broadest sense i.e. that the universe expanded from a hot dense state into its present magnificence, the Big Bang is a scientific fact. There's plenty of empirical evidence to support that assertion (cosmic expansion, microwave background etc.) And we do know that, as it currently stands, the Standard Model is quite effective at explaining a lot cosmic history. I don't think that the arguments in the field are about this. They seem to be more about the details of the process, which is where the fudges come in. From a purely mathematical point of view the current model is inelegant; it has far too many things that have to be specified in advance and don't fall out of the equations. And the model that supersedes it will have to do better. All of that said, this new model will still resemble the Standard Model where we know it applies (in much the same way as General Relativity resembles Newton's Gravity where it applies)

Quote

Wrong in the literal sense I can agree with, but there are layers of truth when you deal with human interpretation and metaphorical truths are no less important than physical ones. Stupid is relative and in our own way each of us demonstrates this particular attribute so to call someone stupid is simply to imply that you are somehow better than them, to which anger is a reasonable response.

Metaphorical truths are all well and good, but we run into problems of all sorts when certain people start to apply them literally. Not being able to tell the difference is stupid however you look at it.

[Cold Iron]

stone monkey, on Mar 31 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

Okay, I see what you're getting at here. As it stands we know very well that the Standard Model in its pure form does not match the observed universe in all its aspects. I'd argue that the very presence of matter, curving spacetime as it does, means that locally the universe is very much not homogenous. A truly homogenous universe, in this respect, would contain no matter whatsoever. So we definitely know some more work is needed to explain this. I suspect that the root of this problem may very well have to do with spacetime itself being quantized which would give us intrinsic problems when we try to use what's basically a solution to General Relativity (with its foundational assumption, as a classical theory, that spacetime is continuous) to describe it. Which is why a truly quantum mechanical version of General Relativity is needed. But I'm far from an expert on these matters.

I would argue that, in its broadest sense i.e. that the universe expanded from a hot dense state into its present magnificence, the Big Bang is a scientific fact. There's plenty of empirical evidence to support that assertion (cosmic expansion, microwave background etc.) And we do know that, as it currently stands, the Standard Model is quite effective at explaining a lot cosmic history. I don't think that the arguments in the field are about this. They seem to be more about the details of the process, which is where the fudges come in. From a purely mathematical point of view the current model is inelegant; it has far too many things that have to be specified in advance and don't fall out of the equations. And the model that supersedes it will have to do better. All of that said, this new model will still resemble the Standard Model where we know it applies (in much the same way as General Relativity resembles Newton's Gravity where it applies)

The interpretation that the universe expanded from a hot dense state is based largely on the assumption that the same metric can be applied to the whole universe. The assumption leads to the conclusion. How else could the universe be so uniform if it did not indeed have a single starting point? If it turns out that we can more accurately model the system by using a pair of metrics, or an infinite set of metrics, or some kind of sequence or intigrative set or complex infinite intigrative set we may well find that the big bang becomes laughable. More data about the structure of the universe may well lead down this path. If as we collect more structural data, the Friedmann equations are abandoned, alternative explanations that already exist for the phenomena you now interpret as proof for the scientific fact of cosmic expansion (red shift, blackbody radiation etc.) will come to replace it.

Having said that, however, if as we collect more structural data the fluctuations turn out not to impact the validity of the Friedmann equations by a significant amount, it will be yet another feather in the big bang's cap and all the standard modelists will be vindicated. Still, at this stage I am certainly not as eager as you to use the word fact.

stone monkey, on Mar 31 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

Metaphorical truths are all well and good, but we run into problems of all sorts when certain people start to apply them literally. Not being able to tell the difference is stupid however you look at it.

I wholeheartedly agree with this and mentioned it in the evolution thread. Literalists are crackpots.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 30 March 2009 - 11:09 PM

[stone monkey]

Cold Iron, on Mar 31 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

The interpretation that the universe expanded from a hot dense state is based largely on the assumption that the same metric can be applied to the whole universe. The assumption leads to the conclusion. How else could the universe be so uniform if it did not indeed have a single starting point?

That gets you into those areas of thought involving causally connected domains and the like, which is where my very limited expertise in these matters runs out (It actually runs screaming for the hills)

Quote

If it turns out that we can more accurately model the system by using a pair of metrics, or an infinite set of metrics, or some kind of sequence or intigrative set or complex infinite intigrative set we may well find that the big bang becomes laughable. More data about the structure of the universe may well lead down this path.

Or it might not. Imperfect as the Standard Model is, it's quite accurate about a number of fairly specific things (the temperature of the microwave background for one) so it may be that it serves as a guidepost for the shape of what is to come. Or it might be, like the Schrodinger and Heisenberg formulae used in quantum mechanics, that all we end up with are simply a bunch of different ways of saying exactly the same thing that we pick and choose between depending on their applicability to the problem at hand or our individual philosophical leanings. Who knows?

Quote

If as we collect more structural data, the Friedmann equations are abandoned, alternative explanations that already exist for the phenomena you now interpret as proof for the scientific fact of cosmic expansion (red shift, blackbody radiation etc.) will come to replace it.

They're going to be abandoned eventually, except as approximations, as we already know they apply imperfectly. But whatever we replace them with will have to boil down to solutions that look like them under those conditions where the approximations are known to work. The whole Newton/Einstein thing again; there's a quote from Einstein (which I really can't drag out of memory word-for-word at this point in time) in which he says something along the lines of that he thought Newton had done the really hard bit in finding the inverse square relationship and all he [Einstein] had had to do was come in and do a bit of tidying up.

Quote

Still, at this stage I am certainly not as eager as you to use the word fact.

At this point, I think, we're in danger of starting to stray seriously into the realms of epistemology, which I, for one, am not going to touch with a bargepole.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 30 March 2009 - 11:52 PM

[Cold Iron]

Yeah my knowledge just dried up too. I think we've reached a happy place in the discussion. And I feel I've said what I wanted to say.

[Cold Iron]

Quote

But what's most remarkable about this blob is its size, about as big as the disk-shaped Milky Way. According to many theories of the universe, nothing was supposed to be that big at that time in the universe. The other objects from that period are far smaller, Ouchi said.

http://dsc.discovery...verse-blob.html

[Urb]

Map of science

Scroll down and click on figure 5
Religion is in there

[Mentalist]

oh dear.. sees while I was slaving away at my final, the evolution question came up again.

Having missed the last discussion (though I have comented on it), i'll attempt to do so here

Gem, one of your statements really caught my attention--the statement that scientists "can't think outside their cultural box"
Now, since i've spent the last 4 years studying what Mushroom has gracefully dubbed a "questionable science", and the one real, concrete set of skills I carry away from those 4 years IS the knowledge of scientific process and training in how to use it, I feel it's important we establish (concretely) just what we are talking about here.

the "cultural box" of science as a process can be summed up in the criteria for the thories science employs. these must be

1) parsimonious --science looks for the most basic explanation--in other words, science is reductionist in nature, looking for general principlles that are applicable everywhere.
2) replicable --for a result of a study to be accepted, it must be replicable, so that others can repeat the study with same results.
3) falcifiability--this is the point I raised in the other evolution thread. Scientific theory always includes a theoretical situation that may disprove it--that is, it includes a hypothetical case "if these conditions are met, the theory must be wrong".
As such, accumulation of evidence is NOT designed to prove a theory--which is a common misconception. it is search of evidence that is contrary to the proposed theory. if the data fits into a current theory, that gives the theory greater credibility, but it does not [i] prove it --not in the scientific sense. As such, the accusation you throw at those people on the board who believe (though I hesitate to apply htis wor here) in evolution--"there is not enough proof for it" --is not valid from a scientific point of view, since that's not what any of those people are lookng for--rather it is the [i absence of disproving (i.e. contradictory) evidence that serves as the strongest argument for evolution.

now that I have written these mere technicalities (although I do feel they are important in this particular discussion), I have lost my train of thought. I wil have to come back to this tomorow.