| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
I'd argue the contention that MOST scientists are unbelievers. Too smart to admit belief in the face of dogmatic evil men that would ruin their careers and even burn them at the stake, sure. So don't be fooled by popular opinion. The flat Earth was disproved by ancient Greeks. Half the people are below average. | ||
| Sami |
I'd argue that most scientists are useful idiots. If you need proof of this, then you need not to look further than the science of climate change. Blake: ''We express the speed of light in terms of meters, the definition of which is based on the speed of light.'' Correct, here's the definition: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html Also, C (the speed of light) is defined as a constant. However, the speed of light is a variable as we now know, so all these definitions are questionable. | ||
| Hootowl |
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Time is not. Where did you read that the speed of light is variable? Immediately put that down and don’t trust anything else you’ve read there. Also, climate change is not science. Its adherents do not follow the scientific method and their conclusions are not based on experimentation, let alone repeatable experimentation. | ||
| Hootowl |
“Force is defined by distance, time, and gravity” Now that would be circular, since gravity is a force. | ||
| Hootowl |
I hate to reopen old wounds, but since science is a method, as neatly described by Blake a few posts ago, it can rightly be called a process. Ergo, only one process is science, ergo, most processes are not science. For the example specified, riding a bicycle, it cannot be science. No idea is hypothesized, no experiments performed. Perhaps the first person to ever balance on two wheels performed the scientific method to come to the as yet unfalsified conclusion that riding a bicycle is possible, but the rest of us didn’t; we simply learned how using an already existing bicycle. | ||
| Hootowl |
Come to think of it, a bicycle is a horrible example. If little Billy cannot ride a bicycle, does that invalidate the hypothesis that it is possible to balance a bicycle? Clearly it does not. Learning to ride a bicycle is not science at all. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: ''Not quite. C is how for it travels in 1 second. The unit of measurement could be anything, and it would still travel at that speed. The speed of light and its wavelength at a given frequency is fixed. One of those frequencies has a wavelength of one meter. I don’t see that as circular.'' It is circular, see the link in my post above. The meter is defined in terms of the speed of light and the speed of light is defined in terms of the meter. The value of the speed of light is claimed to be fixed, but the problem with that is that it can be shown that the speed of light is not fixed. Hootowl:''The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Time is not. Where did you read that the speed of light is variable? Immediately put that down and don’t trust anything else you’ve read there.'' I trust results from GPS satellites which show that the speed of light varies. GPS satellites are programmed not with a fixed speed of light, but with a variable speed of light. Factors such as altitude change the speed of light. ''Also, climate change is not science. Its adherents do not follow the scientific method and their conclusions are not based on experimentation, let alone repeatable experimentation.'' Agreed. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: ''I hate to reopen old wounds, but since science is a method, as neatly described by Blake a few posts ago, it can rightly be called a process. Ergo, only one process is science, ergo, most processes are not science. For the example specified, riding a bicycle, it cannot be science. No idea is hypothesized, no experiments performed. Perhaps the first person to ever balance on two wheels performed the scientific method to come to the as yet unfalsified conclusion that riding a bicycle is possible, but the rest of us didn’t; we simply learned how using an already existing bicycle.'' ''Come to think of it, a bicycle is a horrible example. If little Billy cannot ride a bicycle, does that invalidate the hypothesis that it is possible to balance a bicycle? Clearly it does not. Learning to ride a bicycle is not science at all.'' Science also means ''knowledge of any kind''. Given this definition, riding a bicycle is a science. We can constrict science to mean the scientific method, however in doing so what emerges is the reproducibility crisis. Also, if we constrict/limit science to the scientific method, then engineering becomes unscientific. I'd argue that engineering is a science, because engineering provides us with knowledge. BTW, feel free to discuss this Jeff. I don't consider our conversation as a wound. I encourage thoughtful discourse even if we disagree at times.  | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: ''Learning to ride a bicycle is not science at all.'' Well: The Science of Riding a Bicycle - KQED QUEST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShn5xMueso | ||
| Hootowl |
Anyone can call anything science. See climate science. Riding a bicycle is physics. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: ''Anyone can call anything science. See climate science. Riding a bicycle is physics.'' Physics isn't science? Who gets to say what science is? Do scientists get to say what science is? If so, then climate change is science, because scientists say it is science. In fact, if you and I deny that climate change is science, then we are basically heretics according to the scientific consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denia l Climate change denial, or global warming denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[2][3][4] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics",[5][3] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.[6][7][8] Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[9] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[10][11] pseudoscience,[12] or propaganda.[13] | ||
| Hootowl |
No, physics isn’t science. Physics can be used in the scientific process. The scientific process can enrich our understanding of physics. But once it is understood, the science part is over, and it’s just physics. | ||
| Hootowl |
“scientific consensus” No such animal. Consensus is not science. I’ll point, again, to geology, a field in which I have great interest. It isn’t science. Theories are postulated, and if enough geologists agree that it could have happened that way, it is accepted. Consensus. Not science. Belief. A lot of the consensus appears to be completely valid, and I don’t disagree with most of it. But it isn’t science because there is no experimentation and falsification possible. | ||
| Hootowl |
Interestingly enough, the climate pseudoscientists have no time for geologists. They claim it is because a lot of geologists work for the energy sector, but it’s more likely because geologists have a longer view of climate history. | ||
| Sami |
Physics and geology are sciences according to various sources, including Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science https://www.britannica.com/science/geology Furthermore, scientific consensus is a real thing. People are often ostracised when they challenge it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus _on_global_warming https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with the consensus on these things. My point is that we are ''heretics'' for challenging these things. Some people have even suggested that challenging these things should be a crime. Climate change denial should be a crime https://theoutline.com/post/2202/climate-change-de nial-should-be-a-crime?zd=1&zi=g4i5vvmr Yes, I am a climate alarmist. Global warming is a crime against humanity https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr /29/climate-alarmist-global-warming-crime-humanity | ||
| Hootowl |
They are. But solving a physics problem is not science. Nor is riding a bicycle. | ||
| Hootowl |
This is a poor medium for debate. I apologize if my comments seem rude or snarky. I don’t imagine there’s much we disagree on. Most of this is semantics. | ||
| Sami |
We agree a lot. I wouldn't call this a debate, it's more an inquiry into what science is and isn't. Like I said, the answer is not clear mostly because of semantics as you said. I don't find your comments rude or snarky, I appreciate your input. Interesting that we agree that climate change isn't science, which makes us ''science deniers'' and quite possibly ''criminals''. I am curious though, do you think that engineering is a science? Engineering is arguably the most reliable of the natural sciences. After all, the computers we use to post messages are possible only because of engineering. Engineering is far more reliable than modern science, the latter being less reliable than flipping a coin. Vox Day puts it this way: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/09/coin-flips-are -more-reliable-than.html The reproducibility crisis in scientistry is even worse than we science skeptics had thought. Science is not a metric for truth or reality. One should NEVER rely upon scientists' opinions about anything, because when science is actually reliable, we call it ENGINEERING. When the gold standard is forty percent, you might as well rely upon flipping a coin.'' | ||
| Hootowl |
Again, no. Engineering is not science. Engineering is the application of existing knowledge. No truth about the universe is revealed by engineering a bridge, or anything else. | ||
| Tpehak |
It's not that anyone can become engineer, but engineer can become anyone. | ||
| Court |
 | ||
| Court |
Selfie. . . . As I was reading this thread I shot a pic of the shirt I had on. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff, I agree that engineering is the practical application of knowledge. That being said, science is also understood as knowledge of any kind, thus rendering engineering as a science. Sources such as Enc. Britannica consider engineering as a science. You suggest that truth about the universe has to be revealed as a precondition for science. However, science cannot prove or reveal anything as true as Blake mentioned earlier. Science can only prove or reveal something as false at best. Quoting Blake: ''Scientific methodology cannot prove anything true, not in the strict philosophical sense. It can be used to prove something false, but not true.'' | ||
| Hootowl |
Science is not knowledge. Science is the process by which truth is revealed. Remember? Science is a process. | ||
| Sami |
That is one particular definition of science, but there are other definitions which render science as knowledge. See: https://www.lexico.com/definition/science https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science Further, it is questionable that science is the process by which truth is revealed. As Blake mentioned, science doesn't reveal truth as much as it reveals what is untruth. This is one reason why climate change alarmists cannot prove that their claims are true, because truth is not something that science can prove or reveal. | ||
| Sami |
Tpehak, good one. Engineers have the knack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8vHhgh6oM0 Court, I like it. Art is underappreciated. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.britannica.com/science/metric-system-m easurement In 1983 they redefined the meter, and imho, screwed up. The speed of light in vacuum may be different in differently curved space time. The previous revision from a fraction of the circumference ( at the poles through Paris, not the equator as I thought ) as further defined by a metal bar, to a multiple of a certain wavelength, made sense. | ||
| Hootowl |
May be. Theory. With no way to test. | ||
| Tpehak |
| ||
| Sami |
Blake, I watched those videos and indeed challenging the consensus is basically a guarantee to ruin the critics. A clear example is climate change and evolution critics. This quote from one of your videos stuck with me: ''There is no cost in getting things wrong. The cost is not getting them published.'' - Prof. Brian Nosek Here are more articles on the reproducibility crisis in modern science: What is science’s crisis really about? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0016328717301969 Science’s credibility crisis: why it will get worse before it can get better https://theconversation.com/sciences-credibility-c risis-why-it-will-get-worse-before-it-can-get-bett er-86865 |
