|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Applying Science to Past Events | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7033 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Just a nitpick... that's a bad example, because celcius is defined around the freezing and boiling points of water at one atmosphere Or at least, it originally was; perhaps they've quantified it with some more absolute physical constants (after all, "one atmosphere" changes).
"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Data is the only reliable thing we have. What else are we supposed to go on, tingly feelings in our gut? Let's pretend you are going to jump off of a building and someone says that you are crazy. Would you reply "I don't ignore the data, but it isn't the end all"? I would hope not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Just to nitpick back, when celcius is measured by a thermometer it uses the expansion of the liquid inside of the thermometer. Therefore, if using a thermometer, the boiling point of water is independent of the measurement. There are also other ways of measuring temperature which are also independent of the boiling point of water. I could use Kelvin, but the Kelvin scale uses the same increments of temperature as Celcius, so it really isn't a qualitative advantage in that respect. Also, atmospheric pressures do change over time. However, I am using the SCI definition which can be related to mm of Hg, PSI, Pascals, milliBars, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Rei writes: (after all, "one atmosphere" changes) Atmosphere is a standard unit of pressure. Type "1 atmosphere in psi" into Google (without the quotes). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
This isn't getting anywhere, so let's try a different approach.
If science is using invalid methodologies, how do you explain all the successes of science? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:However, every scientist or interested lay person tries to learn as much as possible. The combined effort of many scientists (especially these days where much of science works in huge collaborative projects)is what allows knowledge to advance. Nobody throws their hands up in the air and says it is too complicated and there is to much to know so I just will assume that it is not everything i.e. an end all. But the individual effort required is why scientists make up a relatively small proportion of the population. It is not for lack of interest. I agree with you that 1000 years from now some of the currently well supported hypotheses in every scientific discipline will collapse or be heavily modified. If this were not the case, people would not go into science in the first place as it would be boring if it were static.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
That is mis-understanding what I said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
riVeRraT writes: That is mis-understanding what I said. Here's what you said:
riVeRraT in Message 194 writes: This is why I do not ignore the data. I just do not take it as an end all. You're saying you don't limit yourself to just the data. You don't say what there might be in addition to data, but I assume they're the Bible and spiritual insights. If I've got this right, then Loudmouth's response would appear to be apropos. As far as science goes, data *is all there is. Knowledge gained through means other than our five senses cannot be scientific. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Um, I would expect that you would clear up the misunderstanding? Do you think that we should look to things other than data? If data is not the end all, what is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I love Bill the Cat BTW.
I am talking about the data that is not collected as of yet, plus the things we just don't know. As with all non-Christians you automatically assume that I will refer to biblical things. However, I will not accept science as proving anything wrong in the bible, until all the data is collected, which may never happen. I do remian open minded about it, and realize that the bible was written by man inspired by God, not God himself. Then translated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
All the data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But what you are doing is refusing to take in the data we do have, right now. If we follow your logic, then we can never make any determination about anything, ever. According to you, we could never say that matter is made up of atoms, because someday we just might learn that it isn't. Do we ignore all the data on matter and atoms that we do have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 436 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
But what you are doing is refusing to take in the data we do have, right now.
No I am not. I accept it at face value.
If we follow your logic, then we can never make any determination about anything, ever.
Well isn't that part of the scientific method? I am a realist.
According to you, we could never say that matter is made up of atoms, because someday we just might learn that it isn't. Do we ignore all the data on matter and atoms that we do have?
That is correct. We could theorizse that it is, but we may never know for sure. If we do, then thats cool too. We could also be slightly off on our theories, and think one thing for a long time, then base all other theories and assumptions on that theory, because the evidence is so over welming. But then one day, we would find out something that would change it all, and then we would say "we were wrong, and it is really like this" which then could one day be changed again. Science is cool, and helpful, and I enjoy it very much. I am all for finding out as much as we can, but to me, its not what really counts in life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well isn't that part of the scientific method? No, the scientific method means we come to conclusions, but they're tentative. They're all predicated by "it's this way to the best of our knowledge, but we might change our minds in the face of future discoveries." We don't know everything about medicine and the human body, for instance. But that doesn't mean we tear down the hospitals; it means we build more schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6495 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: So you are claiming that we cannot know anything about anything in until we know everything? We cannot know anything about heredity for example until we have a full understanding of every aspect of quantum mechanics? Yet you accept the bible without a shred of evidence to support it and without knowing everything about god i.e. as you said all the data ? A rather strange concept and if you are to be consistent, you should not believe in god because there is no data. As Crashfrog pointed out, there is a difference between the tentativity of scientific conclusions and not being able to draw any conclusions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024