its not aimed at any individuals here its aimed at the whole human race who arent clever enough to explain prove whats being talked about. the only way to try and even explain is use theory .
I don't really get Big Bang
- Thread starter Raymond Lin
- Start date
its not aimed at any individuals here its aimed at the whole human race who arent clever enough to explain prove whats being talked about. the only way to try and even explain is use theory .
cheers for the intelligent insight.
Do yourself a favour and stop thinking you are enlightened. Here is a good place to start:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wor...ypothesis,phenomena already supported by data.
i dont think anything thats the thing im not pro anything just looking at whats being posted and saying where is any acutal proof ? there isnt any so literally every person is going to quote link science posts and those that dont trust science will often go the religious route.
I'ts too complex and too perfect to be by chance.. Take my 180IQ for instance - where did that information come from?
A Christmas cracker?
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Perhaps the start of our universe was what happened when everything got sucked into a black hole into a point and got spit out the other side, which we call the Big Bang.
Seriously, do yourself a favour and read the link I posted. Scientific theories are "guesses" that have been tested and then proven true or false through the collection of data. I.e. " acutal proof".
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
A long time ago, we believed that the earth was the centre of the universe because when you look at the Polaris / North Star, it rotates around that point, so using this as evidence as that was all the evidence they can get at that point through science. We were the centre of the universe. The stars proved that we were. Until something else came along.
This is actually a great argument. Unfortunately you are on the side of history that disputed it was round with the reasoning you mention above.A long time ago, we believed that the earth was the centre of the universe because when you look at the Polaris / North Star, it rotates around that point, so using this as evidence as that was all the evidence they can get at that point through science. We were the centre of the universe. The stars proved that we were. Until something else came along.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I believe I didn't say flat earth, I said the centre of the universe. They are not the same thing.
It wasn't until later we realise the Sun was the centre of the solar system.
My bad, long day.
Mostly yes, but you also have to try to assess the degree to which it's possible. It's possible that there are invisible magic pixies riding around on birds and we haven't been able to detect them yet. It's possible that Excalibur was a light sabre style energy weapon sword made by aliens to change the course of history for their own purposes. That's why only Arthur could draw it from the stone - the aliens had keyed the release mechanism to his DNA. The lady in the lake was an alien in some form of SCUBA gear. These things are possible, but "how much?" matters a great deal when it comes to possibilities.
I think many people tend to under-estimate the standards applied to science when it's done properly. Not many people have even heard of the sigma system of attempting to assess how likely a scientific position is to be correct, let alone know the standards for it. Put very roughly, stuff doesn't become particularly interesting until there's only about a 1 in 350 chance of it being wrong and doesn't become seen as a discovery until there's only about a 1 in 3,500,000 chance of it being wrong. But even that isn't good enough by itself for it to be considered correct because it's (again, very roughly) an assessment of the position matching the available evidence. There's still the possibility of the available evidence being incomplete. So it's thrown open to challenge and people will try to prove it wrong. The apparently superluminal neutrinoes from a few years back is a good example of that. The position (that the speed of some of the neutrinoes exceeded c) matched the evidence to an extraordinary degree, but it was published as "this is unexpected and therefore interesting" rather than "this is a discovery" because the position didn't match other evidence that was indirectly relevant. And, unsurprisingly, it was found that the evidence from that experiment was incomplete.
Wandering back to my point, "possible" isn't enough by itself. "To what extent is it possible?" is needed.
"arent (sic) smart enough" to understand is speculation with no basis. It's possible that it's beyond human intelligence, but it's also possible that it's just beyond current human knowledge. There are no known examples of the former but there's a vast multitude of examples of the latter. For example, a car would initially be incomprehensible to a person from 50,000 years ago. Almost all currently used devices would be. But a person from 50,000 years ago could learn to understand those things in the same way that a person from today can. The lack is knowledge, not intelligence.
"just use theory to try to make sense of what we dont (sic) understand" is of course true. That's what theories are - explanations of how stuff works. But a scientific theory is an extremely reliable and extremely highly tested explanation of how stuff works. It's like the "possible" thing again - the amount matters a great deal. 'Aeroplanes fly because undetectable magic pixies use magic spells to keep planes in the air' is an explanation of how planes work. But it's not a scientific theory because it falls far short of the standards of reliability and testing required. At best, it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis. "theory" in common usage, absolutely nowhere near "theory" in scientific usage.
Maybe we should create new words for the meanings of words in a scientific context when the same words are being used with vastly different meanings in common usage.
Only if you're doing it wrong. And that will soon be discovered. Hopefully by you. No matter how elegant the maths is, if the idea doesn't match the reality it's wrong.
True, but when it gives the actual answer ahead of time 100% of the time and many people have tried many ways to prove it wrong and every attempt has failed and technology that's based on it works as expected, you can reasonably pencil it in as very likely the actual answer unless new evidence is discovered. Once again, there's "possible" and there's "possible".
Last edited:
I saw a puddle a few days ago. The water perfectly fitted the complex shape of the hole it was in. That couldn't have happened by chance - it's too complex and too perfect. It must have been constructed to a detailed plan.
complex shape isnt part of a formula. its how you look at it. its a hole. it rained. god could have done this. wording really does make a difference. it could have happened by chance . it just depends how biased your opinion is. too perfect for eg for filling a hole.
A couple of short videos on this subject of "yeah but science doesn't really know anything" debate. Ignore the name of the video, that content is more a reminder of what science is and isn't. And the second video of where philosophy fits in relation to science.
To clarify something I thought wasn't necessary to clarify:
I wasn't putting that forward as my position. I was putting it forward as a rebuttal to the idea that complexity and a good fit is proof of planning and creation (although I'm pretty sure the person I replied to also wasn't really putting it forward as their position).
Simple steps with some randomness, simple rules and a removal of all failures can lead over time to an excellent fit to complex circumstances. If only the successful outcome is considered, a person can be misled into considering it to be proof of planning. A variation of survival bias.
Evolution is the most famous example.
A more abstract example...humans vary in height. A situation (what it is doesn't matter) arises in which only humans 163cm tall survived. An alien seeing only the surviving humans would see only this remarkable uniformity of height and might mistakenly assumed that "proves" that humans were designed to be 163cm tall, that it was a planned and created thing.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,454
- Location
- Cheltenham
The very best form of correct
I get this reference!
I agree on the whole - words have varying meaning depending on who you talk to, and theory is banded around on the same level of hypothesis in day to day usage, and I don’t have an issue with that. However, when people such as the DG (who refuses to see anything at all as evidence for anything and believes we literally can’t know anything, whilst using a computer that relies on our knowledge of quantum mechanics to actually work) throws it around as being the same as a ‘guess’, then I start to take issue. He is being disingenuous.
Whilst Wikipedia is not somewhere you’d use as a source, it’s definition of scientific theory is what I use it as:
The full article goes on further but I don’t want to quote it all. I should point out that I am not a scientist or even have anything beyond a-levels in any scientific subject - I’m an aircraft engineer who has has watched too many religious debunking videos where they start off by claiming all of science ‘is only a theory…’
How are you defining complex? Why does the information have to come from somewhere? What does perfect mean?
RIP Douglas Adams.