Applying Science to Past Events

Awesome. But should we walk around letting that theory dictate things in our lives?

If you're talking about issues of normal everyday life, including not only what should we do this weekend but also faith and morality, last time I checked we still had free choice.But if you're talking about what should be taught in science class, then yes, our course is dictated to us, for in that case there is really no other choice but to include accepted scientific theories.--Percy

That's a lot more grounded in reality than just making up whatever you want, like religion.

I'm not, by my wife is a graduate student in entomology. They're good because they combine methodical reasoning (which they learned) with a deep basis of research (which they learned). Talent doesn't get you far in the sciences, because we've already done so much science that the "frontiers", if you will, are a long way from everyday experience. You have to study what's been done before you can do something new, and that process takes years. Neither smartness nor wisdom will aid you in the generation and testing of theory as much as a science education will, not by a long shot.

quote:

---

CAREFULL NOW as I say this.
Only a prediction of the nicks etc being from this PARTICULAR ball would be a prediction of the hypothesis.
Your prediction was only that the nicks etc are from a baseball.

---

And again, this is why science is tentative. By finding the nicks and other evidence this reduces the tentativity of the hypothesis, but it doesn't ABSOLUTELY PROVE that the baseball in question was the culprit. This is a major point. The scientific method is not set up to absolutely prove something 100%. If there were some oddity about the baseball, such as a strange stitching pattern or the like, then I might be able to test for that as well. I might also look for glass shards impregnated into the ball that would support the baseball as the culprit. The reality is that I will never no for sure since no one witnessed it, but by using the scientific method I am able to come to a conclusion of what PROBABLY happened.You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to prove (ie 100% sure) that the baseball broke the window. This is not true. I am trying to support the hypothesis that the baseball did it. I do this through making predictions and testing them. I can also make predictions of what SHOULD NOT be there if the baseball caused the window to break. This is the same method that is used in courts of law, using evidence to find guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT after unwitnessed crimes are committed. The scientific method allows us to remove reasonable doubt, and it also creates predictions that would allow the convicted to be exonerated later in life such as DNA evidence that has freed numerous prisoners. Absolulte proof is only used in math and alcohol.

I don't think so.

And I slept at a Holiday inn last night. I have great respect for that, but in spite of that, it doesn't make them smart, and they still get things wrong. Just like me, and you.

It doesn't take smarts to do what they do, and what you think you can do.It takes education, and you don't have it. They do. That's why we leave the theorizing to them, and why we're just goofballs posting junk on the internet.

?You think that making up shit off the top of your head is a better way to find out about reality than the scientific process of observation, hypothesis, testing, and peer review?That's simply idiotic.

I've been literally having to tell myself to calm down. You guys are great. I really admire your patience for such egoistic crackpot attitude of I-am-so-great and I-know-more-than-people-that-are-experts-in-their-fields.Good thing I haven't engaged in any big debate lately... except for the other site.

---

The Laminator
B ULLS HITFor goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

It's easy to blow your top when somebody so arrgoantly dismisses an entire field of labor, especially one you've watched a loved one pour sweat and tears into for the past several years.I've held my sobbing wife as she struggled with some arcane biological concept or got a poor grade on a test. And RR thinks he can do better by virtue of being unconstrained by intelligence or education?Yeah, it burns me up too. But it's so much easier and more effective to show how little he knows, by public demonstration of his impotence in addressing even the simplest challenges of science.

Well, I haven't seen it working so far. He is still as arrogant as ever.Added by edit:Just a suggestion. Why don't you ask him to spend a semester or so in a university and get his Ph. D. If these concepts are so easy to master for him, it should only take him a semester or a year to learn... (oops, forgot he already knows it all) to put everything on paper and graduate. It should be rather simple for him to do, since he knows more than the average scientist out there. With a Ph. D., he could have a much better job than he does now and wave around his doctorate for all to see.He should really consider it, since it's so easy for him to grasp.This message has been edited by Darth Mal, 09-20-2004 10:20 PM

---

The Laminator
B ULLS HITFor goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Oh yes it does! I suggest that an average person, in the right field, with the right training and education can make a real contribution. But education of an average person will not produce any Nobel prize. Those pushing the boundaries are smart.Less than average? Ain't gonna cut it. I went into University in the top 2% (as measured on the schools IQ tests) of the people entering university (not the general population). I found myself in a class of 20 people doing honors math and physics and in the botton quartile of that class. The smartest ones were astonding. And, in spite of the popular view, rather well rounded. They had the capacity to keep up AND have fun AND learn about things outside of what was presented in class. I, on the other hand, had more fun than keeping up but managed to get through.In the short time I spent working in a grad level lab I enjoyed the best coffee discussion I've ever been in. Sometimes just sitting back and watching the discussion whip along. The grad students were more focussed on their work so didn't have much time to peruse the wider world. However, they were so quick that in a short time they could dive into something, see the contratictions and make pertinant comments.The profs had more time. One took a new introductory language every year. He claimed to be able to converse in 16 language. We never had any foreign visitors that he couldn't chat away with and there is no way I could check him out.If you take the average joe on the street you'll find him left way behind if put into the kind of environment where real science is done. It isn't all education but, of course, that is also an important part.

quote:

---

It's easy to blow your top when somebody so arrgoantly dismisses an entire field of labor, especially one you've watched a loved one pour sweat and tears into for the past several years.

---

There were times in the past (and in some places still current) where access to education was strictly limited to a small group of rich and elite. In such an atmosphere, people like riverat (not to mention organized religion) thrived on pure ignorance...wonder why your kid was born with fused digits? Goddidit! Wonder why one fourth of the neighbors children hve some trait? Goddidit! Wonder why all the boys in a family have muscular dystrophy but none of the girls? Goddidit..If you don't agree, you are burned as a heretic etc. etc.Education is widely available but in addition to intelligence, understanding science (or anything else for that matter) requires a great deal of effort. While I agree with Nosyned that if you give a genius and an average person equal access to education, the genius will go further, both will benefit a great deal from education. However, in both cases, it requires an effort.Ultimately, people like riverat are in the painful position of wishing the "good old days" were still relevant where the majority knew nothing about how nature works and any ridiculous assertion spiced with appeals to a "higher being" spouted by anyone with a soap box and a vacant street corner was sufficient to be accepted as fact. They find it painful that in fact, people who are intelligent but more importantly, strive to understand by working, studying, and sacrificing a great deal to do both find explanations of how nature works that are overwhelmingly supported by evidence without appeals so invisible unknowable supernatural entities. Such people even once in a while generate things of practical importance such as medicine and technology. People like riverat CHOOSE to remain ignorant and stuck in the "good old days" of religious tyranny. They are comfortabe living in a world where they do not understand how the medicines they take or the technology they use work or what the process of development in generating them were. It is more convenient to treat is like magic or credit things like the development of recombinant insulin to the power of "pink unicorns" or other mythological beings rather than the cumulative knowledge, brainpower, and work of the scientists who developed it. Thus they lash out at science and scientists and equate any conjecture or musings they might entertain as being "equally valid" to scientific theories. The alternative would require them to actually make an effort and they are patently unwilling to do so. Next time your wife is upset because she struggles to understand something difficult, tell her that at least she does not ignore the challenge and assert that remaining ignorant because of laziness is preferable. Ignorance is not bliss.

You guys are totally mis-understanding me.I have great respect for all the education. What I have a problem with is that you guys seem to think that coming up with a good theory, or a good invention, or a revelation is left to only the "elite" who have education.I am not some jerk kid who hasn't seen much in life. I have been around awhile and sometimes, that is education enough to see whats going on. I am going to make mistakes, just like a scientist would, but I am not limited to what was taught to me. I have freedom to think outside the box.I agree with you about college, if your going to go, better you be in the top 2%, because thats how your going to make it big in life with a college education. I should have went to college, but my bringing up didn't allow for that to happen, and I had to go through things the hard way. That didn't stop me from trying to learn along the way. I have to use many aspects of science with my profession, and all my hobbies. I use these things in a practical way, and learn from them. Most of these things were invented by people thinking from outside the box, and trying new ideas, or even some goofball experimenting in his garage, who doesn't know from Adam.The reason I posted my theory, is that out of all the theories I read, I never seen anyone come up with that idea before. To me its obvious what happens geologically when it rains. I put it out there to the "experts" to see just how dumb of an idea it is, or maybe, just maybe it might make sense to someone with the education, and then could pursue it further.But unfortunatly the way I got treated leads me to believe that you guys are just not interested in the great flood making any sense whatsoever, and only look to dis-prove it. I have sought the advice of water run-off specialist to see if my idea holds any water. I don't know if I will get a response from them either, but to me its worth a try.