OT: Now, it could force reconsideration of how solar system formed

[RockyMTblue2]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...a-comet-stunning-scientists.html?intcmp=hpbt4

The latest nugget to drop in what has been a remarkable 2 months of paleontologists, archeologists, astrophysicists etc. saying: well, seems our dogma about stuff like when the big bang was (maybe 400 billon light years off!), where homo sapiens went when they migrated out of Africa, etc etc was way, way off.

I get a chuckle out of this stuff. 'Cuz it is science right? And it is always taught with a dogmatic insistence that will tolerate no questions - sorta like the priests, acolytes, etc. of the Spanish Inquisition.

I believe in scientific inquiry. I don't think dinosaurs roamed the Earth 7000 years ago. But we still see through a glass darkly. So the next time someone wants me to accept something because most scientist agree, I may be a little dubious.

May turn out that chocolate shakes and burgers are health food after all. (pssst: Woody Allen, Sleeper)

Heck, maybe we are aliens? Watcha think?

 

[Sonny44]

On the other hand scientists take the data they have and propose theories that best fit it. But new data supplants older studies and thus the current thinking changes. Technology changes, there's a high learning curve. Scientists are a diverse body of objective people who contine to question and challenge themselves. At least scientists admit when they are wrong. Ever known a politician to do the same?
Dinosaurs 7000 years ago, what? More like 250 million years ago.

 

[arty155]

...Heck, maybe we are aliens? Watcha think?

"Aliens???" Nowadays, we prefer "undocumented terrestrials," Sir!!!!

 

[meyers7]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...a-comet-stunning-scientists.html?intcmp=hpbt4

The latest nugget to drop in what has been a remarkable 2 months of paleontologists, archeologists, astrophysicists etc. saying: well, seems our dogma about stuff like when the big bang was (maybe 400 billon light years off!), where homo sapiens went when they migrated out of Africa, etc etc was way, way off.

I get a chuckle out of this stuff. 'Cuz it is science right? And it is always taught with a dogmatic insistence that will tolerate no questions - sorta like the priests, acolytes, etc. of the Spanish Inquisition.

I believe in scientific inquiry. I don't think dinosaurs roamed the Earth 7000 years ago. But we still see through a glass darkly. So the next time someone wants me to accept something because most scientist agree, I may be a little dubious.

May turn out that chocolate shakes and burgers are health food after all. (pssst: Woody Allen, Sleeper)

Heck, maybe we are aliens? Watcha think?

 

[JS]

I get a chuckle out of this stuff. 'Cuz it is science right? And it is always taught with a dogmatic insistence that will tolerate no questions -

If it were, there would be no science.

So the next time someone wants me to accept something because most scientist agree, I may be a little dubious.

Putting aside the obvious political undertones of this statement, I think you're best off accepting, until called into question by serious counter-science, that we breathe oxygen.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Dinosaurs 7000 years ago, what?

If you have not heard of that creationist theory, consider yourself blessed.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Putting aside the obvious political undertones of this statement, I think you're best off accepting until called into question by serious counter-science, that we breathe oxygen.

Why, whatever do you mean, Rhett. Batting lashes Emoticon here.

 

[OldAlum]

As a former science teacher, one of the things I enjoyed most about science is that it changes as more data becomes available. I always taught the kids about the different theories about dinosaurs and how they have changed over time. While we have commonly accepted theories about the origin of the solar system, etc, theories (especially with limited data) are always subject to revision, modification or even major changes. Cool stuff!

 

[Sonny44]

If you have not heard of that creationist theory, consider yourself blessed.

That's not science.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

That's not science.

It was a disclaimer Sonny44. Guess I could have been clearer. Scientists, however, are just as human as us civilians, and act irrationally to their peers at times - even calling for criminalizing opposing viewpoints, refusing to talk to one another ever again, falsifying data to claim a breakthrough in genetics or, well remember the "cold fusion" breakthrough, changing historical data bases to support your model (climate change).

Science is science, scientific dogma stifles science. It's just conventional wisdom.

However, when I shot this topic out there it was to have a little fun, and certainly not to attack science - just to remind people calling something scientifically proven as definitive fact is maybe not so and hoping people would chime in with some examples that might prove amusing. Too abstruse I guess.

 

[reno tony]

I have a theory that Stonehenge was built by a rich practical joker just to screw with future generations.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I have a theory that Stonehenge was built by a rich practical joker just to screw with future generations.

I think that is a pretty sound theory, especially since they recently discovered a much bigger version a short distance away that is totally buried! Used ground penetrating radar if memory serves. This guy was really, really rich!

 

[VAMike23]

"Do you confess?"

No, no, no!

"Will you convert?"

No, no, no!

 

[Zorro]

Science does not deal in "proven definitive facts". That is the purview of religion. And "theory" does not equal "idle speculation". It is amazing to me that so many people, in this 21st century, really have only the vaguest idea of what science is actually is, what the scientific method is, and the relationship between theory and fact. Or what logical thought and relevant evidence are, for that matter.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

That is the purview of religion.

?? I guess that is an editorial?? 'Cuz I think that science does have certain absolutes. Like water is H2O. But maybe we will unearth greater means of detecting other elements and discover it is more than H and O - that the point?

 

[UcMiami]

?? I guess that is an editorial?? 'Cuz I think that science does have certain absolutes. Like water is H2O. But maybe we will unearth greater means of detecting other elements and discover it is more than H and O - that the point?

Ah, unless it is Heavy Water!
I love scientific process, and read with wonder (and occasional understanding) the new discoveries across the fields. But as others say, as we approach the edges of scientific exploration whether in time, or size, or distance, the data becomes infinitesimal and we are left to theoretical exploration trying to piece the few datum points we have into an explanation of what might be or has been. Even mathematics which in simple terms is exact, at its cutting edge becomes as much theory as fact and aims to explain unobservable relationships.

The fact that here on earth we can look back in history millions of years to ages before we as a species existed is an amazing achievement. That we can 'identify' atoms and their major components so small that we will never 'see' them or their movements, and then 'discover' that they are huge compared to the other 'theoretical' particles of matter that exist is astounding. That the mind of one young man could pull together disparate theories and created a single unifying theory, impossible to prove or disprove at the time, that yet in most aspects has been proven to be correct in the intervening 100 years is incomprehensible. And beyond our earthly realm, that we can see so far into the distance and into the past as to even begin to theorize about the origins not of our selves or our planet, or even our solar system and galaxy, but of all matter in a universe so vast that it as if we were a single electron and it the size of our solar system.

In every walk of life there are charlatans and people whose 'principles' can be bought. And in everything that humans experience there is an overall desire for continuity and order that can make radical change more difficult. But in scientific research there is less reactionary impetus than in any other aspect of life I can think of - new ideas may be questioned or challenged, but if they can be proven to be sound and can consistently explain the observable data, they will survive.

Personally I trust ideas based on observable data and historical record more than those that are formed from other 'sources' or from emotional reactions, or religious fervor.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Ah, unless it is Heavy Water!
I love scientific process, and read with wonder (and occasional understanding) the new discoveries across the fields. But as others say, as we approach the edges of scientific exploration whether in time, or size, or distance, the data becomes infinitesimal and we are left to theoretical exploration trying to piece the few datum points we have into an explanation of what might be or has been. Even mathematics which in simple terms is exact, at its cutting edge becomes as much theory as fact and aims to explain unobservable relationships.

The fact that here on earth we can look back in history millions of years to ages before we as a species existed is an amazing achievement. That we can 'identify' atoms and their major components so small that we will never 'see' them or their movements, and then 'discover' that they are huge compared to the other 'theoretical' particles of matter that exist is astounding. That the mind of one young man could pull together disparate theories and created a single unifying theory, impossible to prove or disprove at the time, that yet in most aspects has been proven to be correct in the intervening 100 years is incomprehensible. And beyond our earthly realm, that we can see so far into the distance and into the past as to even begin to theorize about the origins not of our selves or our planet, or even our solar system and galaxy, but of all matter in a universe so vast that it as if we were a single electron and it the size of our solar system.

In every walk of life there are charlatans and people whose 'principles' can be bought. And in everything that humans experience there is an overall desire for continuity and order that can make radical change more difficult. But in scientific research there is less reactionary impetus than in any other aspect of life I can think of - new ideas may be questioned or challenged, but if they can be proven to be sound and can consistently explain the observable data, they will survive.

Personally I trust ideas based on observable data and historical record more than those that are formed from other 'sources' or from emotional reactions, or religious fervor.

Really well said UcM. Bravo.

 

[Zorro]

Excellent job, UcM. I had written someting similar but it was getting windy, so I scrubbed it. Here instead is the National Center for Science Education's explanation of facts, hypotheses, laws and theories. The old saw is that facts without theories to explain them are mute, theories that do not incorporate facts are barren.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Great discussion. I agree that a lot of folks don't really understand science (my degree is in a science, although I never entered the field). Always fascinating to follow developments, which I don't do closely.

 

[BroadwayVa]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...a-comet-stunning-scientists.html?intcmp=hpbt4

The latest nugget to drop in what has been a remarkable 2 months of paleontologists, archeologists, astrophysicists etc. saying: well, seems our dogma about stuff like when the big bang was (maybe 400 billon light years off!), where homo sapiens went when they migrated out of Africa, etc etc was way, way off.

I get a chuckle out of this stuff. 'Cuz it is science right? And it is always taught with a dogmatic insistence that will tolerate no questions - sorta like the priests, acolytes, etc. of the Spanish Inquisition.

I believe in scientific inquiry. I don't think dinosaurs roamed the Earth 7000 years ago. But we still see through a glass darkly. So the next time someone wants me to accept something because most scientist agree, I may be a little dubious.

May turn out that chocolate shakes and burgers are health food after all. (pssst: Woody Allen, Sleeper)

Heck, maybe we are aliens? Watcha think?

What they forget to tell you in school is that most of this isn't fact (how can it be?) it's a theory and a theory isn't fact--it's hypothesis, conjecture, assumptions--sometimes based on science.

Much like HISTORY---break it down it's ---HIS STORY. Which means it depends upon who is writing it. Including the Bible--not fact (some parts are) mostly stories written 200 years after the even. Japan's version of WWII isn't American history. Last year you went on vacation--if you didn't write it down then--it won't be exactly as happened -it depends on memory and memory really is terrible--for EVERYONE...

 

[BroadwayVa]

Excellent job, UcM. I had written someting similar but it was getting windy, so I scrubbed it. Here instead is the National Center for Science Education's explanation of facts, hypotheses, laws and theories. The old saw is that facts without theories to explain them are mute, theories that do not incorporate facts are barren.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Unless you can hold it in your hand, measure it weigh it, see it, feel it, --it's probably a theory or lie.

 

[psconn]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...a-comet-stunning-scientists.html?intcmp=hpbt4

The latest nugget to drop in what has been a remarkable 2 months of paleontologists, archeologists, astrophysicists etc. saying: well, seems our dogma about stuff like when the big bang was (maybe 400 billon light years off!), where homo sapiens went when they migrated out of Africa, etc etc was way, way off.

I get a chuckle out of this stuff. 'Cuz it is science right? And it is always taught with a dogmatic insistence that will tolerate no questions - sorta like the priests, acolytes, etc. of the Spanish Inquisition.

I believe in scientific inquiry. I don't think dinosaurs roamed the Earth 7000 years ago. But we still see through a glass darkly. So the next time someone wants me to accept something because most scientist agree, I may be a little dubious.

May turn out that chocolate shakes and burgers are health food after all. (pssst: Woody Allen, Sleeper)

Heck, maybe we are aliens? Watcha think?

If this is a common view of science as a discipline, or a true reflection of the way it is being taught, our country is in big trouble. Your confusion between units of time and units of distance may reflect the issues with science, but hopefully it is a simple typo.

In any case, your characterization of science is exactly the opposite of what the scientific method is, and this method is practiced all over the world by thousands of dedicated folks who understand the difference between dogma and evidence-based inquiry. Our cushy lives and technological miracles are the result of the thousands and thousands of things that science got right after many iterations of the hypothesis>prediction>test cycle. If you introduce dogma in that process, progress stops. I loved the attitudes of some of the top level scientists when the LHC was coming online to search for the Higgs... many said it would be far more interesting if the Higgs were not found because that would require a whole new direction for theoretical physics. They were excited by the prospect of this long-held cornerstone prediction being wrong. That is a true scientific attitude.

With some hesitation to introduce politics, I note that your source is Fox news, and while I won't quibble with the basic information in this article, the tone of the post is reflective of the general biases inherent to that media outlet.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

If this is a common view of science as a discipline, or a true reflection of the way it is being taught, our country is in big trouble. Your confusion between units of time and units of distance may reflect the issues with science, but hopefully it is a simple typo.

In any case, your characterization of science is exactly the opposite of what the scientific method is, and this method is practiced all over the world by thousands of dedicated folks who understand the difference between dogma and evidence-based inquiry. Our cushy lives and technological miracles are the result of the thousands and thousands of things that science got right after many iterations of the hypothesis>prediction>test cycle. If you introduce dogma in that process, progress stops. I loved the attitudes of some of the top level scientists when the LHC was coming online to search for the Higgs... many said it would be far more interesting if the Higgs were not found because that would require a whole new direction for theoretical physics. They were excited by the prospect of this long-held cornerstone prediction being wrong. That is a true scientific attitude.

With some hesitation to introduce politics, I note that your source is Fox news, and while I won't quibble with the basic information in this article, the tone of the post is reflective of the general biases inherent to that media outlet.

It is you who are confused about units of time and distance ps I think, but whatever. I failed in my communication skills if you think I am some right wing stereotype. And, yes, I take my news from a variety of sources and frankly find Murdoch has spent a lot of money creating good news sources for things other than the politics stuff. I was not attempting to poke fun at the scientific method, but yes having a little fun with scientists who loudly proclaim no credible scientist can possibly disagree with me about X. BTW I find the AP (still) and the BBC the best unslanted news sources.

 

[Gus Mahler]

A light year is a measure of distance, not time. And the universe, based on the received thought of the scientific community across the world, would not admit such a distance as 400 billion light-years. It would also not admit a measure of age nearly that large (400 billion years). Of course many cosmological theories could still be proved wrong, but as such theories go, the Big Band Theory is a pretty successful one in that many of its predictions have been supported by observation.

 

[psconn]

A light year is a measure of distance, not time. And the universe, based on the received thought of the scientific community across the world, would not admit such a distance as 400 billion light-years. It would also not admit a measure of age nearly that large (400 billion years). Of course many cosmological theories could still be proved wrong, but as such theories go, the Big Band Theory is a pretty successful one in that many of its predictions have been supported by observation.

Dude... Big BAND Theory... auto correct? That is precious!