What is science?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 21:01
VIEWED: 22722
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quantum Mechanics showed Einstein up. There are some who think Newton's Laws and his derived gravitation force between two objects are a smidgen off and need correction, and they're entirely respectable physicists who think that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are weak explanations for observed discrepancies in measurements - weak explanations that no one has yet been able to provide evidence for.
Even laws are not immune to our ever-improving understanding of the universe. Laws are meant to be broken.
All your examples are theories, not laws; as I've pointed out two very different things.
Given that Quantum Mechanics can't describe the Macro universe, and so we're still describing the universe as Einsteinian, it's hard to tell how QM has shown GR and SR up though. Since the current predictions of QM are disproved by experimental evidence when applied to things much larger than an electron, it would be just as correct, and just as wrong, to say Einstein showed up Quantum Mechanics. The fact is neither work in the others playground.
Secondly, Newton's Law of gravity was off, and was adjusted, because better tools of observation have shown that his observations were out by an order of magnitude. His law of gravity, however, wasn't shown to be wrong, it was shown to needing adjustment. That's the only way you can dismiss a scientific law, by showing all the evidence it describes and that supports it is wrong. It's a big task for any law, and for some, say Thermodynamics, they're so integral and well supported you'd have to throw science out along with them.
It's not to say that they're not open to investigation, but it is to say that if you think they don't work you better spend a number of years ensuring firstly that you aren't misunderstanding something, and secondly putting together a very long paper backed with more evidence than has been collected by all physicists across the last few centuries to date, because that's the bear minimum you'll need. Anyone who posts on an Internet forum claiming that Thermodynamics is wrong, doesn't understand thermodynamics, it's pretty much as simple as that; because if they did understand it, and still thought it didn't work, they'd be way too busy pulling enough evidence together to prove it to eat and sleep, let alone post on Internet forums.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CITIZEN:
Just because we don't know everything, just because our current theories aren't perfect, doesn't mean that we know nothing or that anything is possible.
You are saying that I am taking the first part too far into the second part.
1. We don't know everything ---> we know nothing.
2. Current theories aren't perfect ----> anything is possible.
What I actually believe is:
1. We don't know everything ----> We know plenty of things, just not with absolute certainty.
2. Current theories aren't perfect ----> Theories are subject to change upon preponderance of new evidence.
3. Science is about exploring possibilities. ----> Scientists have to be OPEN to anything being possible in order for science to work. (They have faith that the scientific method is very, very good at sorting out crazy possibilities from real possibilities, so they are not afraid of being open to all possibilities.)
4. Fortunately, science demands a high standard of evidence before declaring what is "possibly" true into what is "probably" true.
So, no. Not just no, but no-HELL-no. I do not believe "We know nothing" or that "Anything is possible." And I never said any such thing.
I never asked you to provide evidence for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics either. I asked you to provide just one piece of evidence (from the mountain you claimed exists) that perpetual motion is impossible. Your answer was you defined it as a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The reason I asked was because there is no empirical evidence that anything is "impossible," (that is not how the scientific method works since you cannot test impossibility in experimentation) so I was curious why you would say such a thing.
I never accepted DT's nanotech perpetual motion assertion. What I found brilliant was his underscoring of both assumptions behind the laws of thermodynamics: 1) it is a statistical model based on the known and observed behavior of macroscopic systems, and does not apply in microscopic ones; 2) the boundaries of a "closed" system are arbitary. If you WERE to find events where these assumptions come into question or don't apply, then there exists a hypothetical possibility that the 2nd Law doesn't apply and perpetual motion would not violate it. You would then form a hypothesis and test it per the scientific method.
I wish you would not tell me how awful my ideas are based on what you think my ideas are, because you are usually wrong about what I believe. I would rather that you asked me, "CTS, do you actually believe that we know nothing? Or did you just accept DT's nanotech perpetual motion idea without any evidence? Or do you really believe that there is a real possibility there are people with unicorn horns in their foreheads who can make a wish any time they want just by holding their horns?"
And I would tell you, "No, I don't believe those things. But thank you for asking instead of just assuming."
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And I would tell you, "No, I don't believe those things. But thank you for asking instead of just assuming."
Nice victim card. I'm sorry you don't like being treated the way you treat others.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You are saying that I am taking the first part too far into the second part.
I'm basing my statements on how you behave, not what you claim to believe. As I mentioned earlier, I know you understand the scientific method very well, I've also noticed that the way you apply that knowledge is highly dependent on the source of information. I actually made no statements about what you believed,just the way you acted.
Quote:
I never asked you to provide evidence for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics either. I asked you to provide just one piece of evidence (from the mountain you claimed exists) that perpetual motion is impossible. Your answer was you defined it as a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Interesting spin on it. The post you responded to said:
Quote:
Having said that, there are some things in science that are just so well supported there's not much point in giving things that claim to overthrow them much time. I'd put perpetual motion firmly in that category, because for it to work you have to prove the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, and to prove the laws of thermodynamics are wrong you pretty much have to prove all scientific evidence ever collected isn't only wrong, but never existed in the first place, that science doesn't really exist, and that everything from Aristotle to Hawking has been a delusion dreamed by a blue frog named Gerald.
I.e. the mountain of evidence against perpetual motion is so steep, dismissing it out of hand at this stage isn't pathological scepticism.
I note for the record when you quoted my post, you, as usual, whittled it down to just one sentence, and ignored the salient point. Neatly excising my statements about thermodynamics, I'd assumed at first that you did that to reduce redundancy, I see now you did it so you could lie about what I said. Taken in context, rather than the out of context edited state you presented it in, it's clear why I would think you're asking me to prove thermodynamics; because in the full context of what I was saying, that was exactly what you were asking. I'm sorry if I responded based on what I said, rather than what you wanted people to believe I said, but I wish you'd stop telling me what I said because you are usually wrong about it. I would rather you presented my statements honestly, and then maybe your attempts at playing the victim would hold more weight, if nothing else.
As usual when someone tries to discuss science with you, it ends up in pointless idiotic semantics and sophistry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It ends up with my pointing out that the person you are arguing with is made of straw, and not the real me.
Originally posted by CITIZEN:
As usual when someone tries to discuss science with you, it ends up in pointless idiotic semantics and sophistry.
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:It ends up with my pointing out that the person you are arguing with is made of straw, and not the real me.
Originally posted by CITIZEN:
As usual when someone tries to discuss science with you, it ends up in pointless idiotic semantics and sophistry.
Yeah, you're right, it also ends up with you lying about what other people say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope. No lie.
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, you're right, it also ends up with you lying about what other people say.
My initial curiosity of "why you would say such a thing" was based on an incomplete understanding of how you defined perpetual motion. When you clarified that the impossibility was built into the definition, that misunderstanding was cleared up.
I never lied about your position or accused you of holding a position that wasn't explicitly stated.
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I never lied about your position or accused you of holding a position that wasn't explicitly stated.
You've misrepresented my statements numerous times, and contrary to your assertion here, you also made a number of statements directly implying I'm some extremist dolt that sees science as an unchanging religion; despite nearly every post I've made reiterating the exact opposite. Through out you've misrepresented what I've said, and edited it down to portray it as something else. You throw the victim card around very readily, about how I'm strawmanning your statements, but the fact is I've had to spend half my time on this thread restating what I've already said to try and combat your redefining of my position.
At this point, after you've started hurling accusations around, I don't care if you did it on purpose or through some innocent misunderstanding, I don't see why I should give you more leeway or understanding than you're willing to dish out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bump.
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meh, at one time it was scientific law, unassailable "fact" that the earth was flat.
At one time, it was scientific law, unassailable "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth.
And then some bloody heretic, some loony, a downright veritable kook, suggests that this might not be true - only to face flaming, scorn and persecution from the scientific community as they dig in and defend at all costs what their established understanding happens to be.
The more things change....
Tell me, did the earth BECOME round, did the earth suddenly change course to revolve around the sun, or perhaps did our understanding and comprehension of the world around us change ?
Because of some heretic who DARED QUESTION IT.
NOT because of the "this-is-the-way-it-is-so-sit-down-and-shut-up" conservative, hidebound traditionalist who'd rather flame and blame than accept the horrible thought that we might NOT know all their is to the world around us, that our understanding of the universe might be flawed, imperfect, incomplete.
Hell, take the "law" of gravity, it's a working theory that isn't even *complete* till you add ON THIS PLANET, and under certain circumstances, like the work of Townsend Brown, and certain spatial phenomenae, so far as my understanding of it, might not even apply universally even so.
But of course, one could always think that the established body of knowledge is all there is, and refuse to countenance any change - at which point learning stops, and when that happens, something within a person dies, it does.
Damn near every advancement we ever had, socially, medically, scientifically - started as an act of heresy, and I think if the human race has any saving grace whatsoever, it is that very ability, the driving NEED to question what *IS*, even in the face of other humans scorn and persecution - because without that one thing, I think we'd still be painting on the cave walls.
So here's to Heresy!
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Raising my cup to you, Fremmy.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Damn near every advancement we ever had, socially, medically, scientifically - started as an act of heresy, and I think if the human race has any saving grace whatsoever, it is that very ability, the driving NEED to question what *IS*, even in the face of other humans scorn and persecution - because without that one thing, I think we'd still be painting on the cave walls.
So here's to Heresy!
And all's I's sayin' is this driving NEED to question what IS? THAT is science.
Which is why I love it so.
-------
Hell, the only reason the Government hates crime at all is that it despises competition. - Frem
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME