Questions about Sound in Space
POSTED BY: BlueBomber
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 06:47
VIEWED: 12723
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:Well, one wishes to keep an open mind about such things.
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I have to admit, I love your way of thinking. In your version of the universe, it's still possible (despite some anecdotal evidence to the contrary) that the earth is flat and we will be eaten by monsters when we sail over the edge. What a fun world to live in.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perfesser:
Actually, Newton's gravitational solutions are ALWAYS wrong. However, as you said, in most of our day to day experience the size of the error is so insignificant that it has no practical impact. However, the error does show up in something so innocuous as the orbit of Mercury, which orbits 40 million miles from the sun, or just less than half as far from it as the earth. To me, that's pretty significant.
I think my problem with the scientific use of the word "Theory" is that the ignorant (as you correctly call them) imbue the word with a different meaning. Basically, they say that since Evolution is "just a theory", it is no more valid than their "theory" of creationism. Using that argument, they have made inroads, most recently in (I think) Kansas, where they've succeeded in getting the two "theories" taught as equal possibilities in some school systems. What I'm saying is that the scientific community needs to develop a different lexicon to describe it's highly proven "theories" because the general public tends to equate the term "theory" with a state of being unproved. Does that seem right to you?
Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem isn't just words and vocabulary. It's the entire set of basic scientific concepts, processes, and the critical thinking that goes with the study of science. Most of these folks failed science or failed to grasp it properly to begin with - I'm not denigrating them for it, far from that. An aside: The scientific community and the education process failed most of them - at the same time, some folks are just too damn "stupid" to understand it (look, statistically speaking, some people will just *never* get it). The education process really need to start thinking about bringing a lot of these general principals and making it understandable to everyday average people - eventhough they've flunked their basic science classes in high school. Critical thinking and analysis *is* a skill that can be taught and learned.
Back to the original thought, I don't really know if changing the vocabulary is going to help. The entire concept of developing a hypothesis, then gathering data to support a working model and then finally fleshing it out from *all* of the facts and seeing what theory can best fit the observations; all of these steps taken together is a scientific process of learning and finding facts to support particular ideas. The idea is that at any given point "your" theory might be honestly able to explain the data gathered, but it might not explain the entire universe of behaviours for that case - that further data collection might force you to either improve your theory or create an entirely new one that better fits what's going on.
Most regular everyday people do not go thru these processes; they start off the day making wild ass assumptions and jump right to the conclusion "knowing" that they have found the universal truth, the end-be-all-end fact, and cling to it like it's the piece of grilled cheese with the virgin mary on it.
It's a changing of the mindset that people have to learn and go through, and that's what the scientific community is really sorely lacking right now - people who can tell a compelling story about the scientific process and the theories that regular people can understand. I thought that Brian Greene fellow was doing a fairly ok job at it with his PBS program last year. I also liked that old Connections program from the BBC.
In any case, every field has its specialized lexicon that might or might not overlap with normal everyday words. Changing the words and dodging won't help, it will just be yet another set of words that people still don't understand.
and ID is the first 2 letters in IDiots.
Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Perfesser:
Actually, Newton's gravitational solutions are ALWAYS wrong. However, as you said, in most of our day to day experience the size of the error is so insignificant that it has no practical impact. However, the error does show up in something so innocuous as the orbit of Mercury, which orbits 40 million miles from the sun, or just less than half as far from it as the earth. To me, that's pretty significant.
I think my problem with the scientific use of the word "Theory" is that the ignorant (as you correctly call them) imbue the word with a different meaning. Basically, they say that since Evolution is "just a theory", it is no more valid than their "theory" of creationism. Using that argument, they have made inroads, most recently in (I think) Kansas, where they've succeeded in getting the two "theories" taught as equal possibilities in some school systems. What I'm saying is that the scientific community needs to develop a different lexicon to describe it's highly proven "theories" because the general public tends to equate the term "theory" with a state of being unproved. Does that seem right to you?
Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here are some really great things going on as far as
pushing some mathematic ideas out into the everyday world:
The Simpsons and Futurama cartoonists, apparently including Matt Groening himself, regularly visits math clubs to get ideas to incorporate into their show.
http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~sjg/SimpsonsFuturamamath/MathClub/
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Frankly, I don’t see a difference between creationists insisting that a theory is “just a theory” in order to lend support to an authoritarian idea and you insisting that an accepted theory be regarded as “proven fact.” In both cases, the idea is to assert the infallibility of a certain idea. The solution is not for science to create its own set of authoritarian ideas. You’re not going to change the minds of creationists by holding up the “Proven Fact” of Evolution. The only effect that will have will be to arrest the growth of Evolution Theory by suppressing critical analysis. We need our evolutionary biologist to be open to new ideas not even more closed then they already are.
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I think my problem with the scientific use of the word "Theory" is that the ignorant (as you correctly call them) imbue the word with a different meaning. Basically, they say that since Evolution is "just a theory", it is no more valid than their "theory" of creationism. Using that argument, they have made inroads, most recently in (I think) Kansas, where they've succeeded in getting the two "theories" taught as equal possibilities in some school systems. What I'm saying is that the scientific community needs to develop a different lexicon to describe it's highly proven "theories" because the general public tends to equate the term "theory" with a state of being unproved. Does that seem right to you?
Jasonzzz explained it pretty well, I think. Interest in science among the public is still very limited.
We need another Carl Sagan.
Cubert: That's impossible! You can't go faster than the speed of light.
Prof.: Of course not! That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208!
Prof.: And what makes my engines truly remarkable is the afterburner, which delivers 200 percent fuel efficency.
Cubert: That's especially impossible.
Prof.: Not at all! It's very simple!
Cubert: Then explain it!
Prof.: Now that's impossible! It came to me in a dream, and I forgot it in another dream.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Two particularly sparkly Sagan quotes:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm
this, although i personaly believe creationism is a load of pish, is interesting and certainly made me wonder about darwins theory.
however i'm not a biologist, at all, so maybe someone else can think on it a while.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yikes. These two quotes tell you all you need to know about this article:
"Despite the fact that no facts have ever been produced making the "Theory of Evolution" the "Fact of Evolution", many people still blindly cling to it since they do not believe in creation and feel it is the best and only thing they have to go on."
"Once the theory of evolution is ruled out as being a possibility based on scientific facts observed, the only thing left that makes any sense is creation."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t advocate Creationism in lieu of the Theory of Evolution, but this article does highlight a few of the reasons why Evolution is a theory and not a fact.
Originally posted by Kizziecstars:
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm
this, although i personaly believe creationism is a load of pish, is interesting and certainly made me wonder about darwins theory.
however i'm not a biologist, at all, so maybe someone else can think on it a while.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RocketLab seperation, another Private Musk style company? or what tonnes of thrust sounds like when blasted into your face in near-vacuum
https://twitter.com/RocketRundown/status/1465049176237035523
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME