Question About the Universe

The word "theory" has a number of definitions (definition of theory), and for science discussions I think you're using the wrong one, the one that defines theory as a "guess or conjecture". You used the same incorrect definition of theory over in the Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? thread.Science uses this definition of theory: --Percy

A scientific theory is not a process of guessing. For a very simply example, we determine the acceleration of gravity at sea level by gathering evidence of objects falling in a vacuum, not by guessing. For a more complex example, we determine the existence of the Higgs Boson by gathering terabytes of data for analysis through a huge experiment, not by guessing. We determine the rate of expansion of the universe through observation and analysis, not by guessing.This is not to say guesswork is completely absent from science. Given that science is conducted by humans, the full range of human nature cannot help but play some kind a role on the path to knowledge, but theories are not guesswork.--Percy

The math in any work that has found acceptance within the scientific community has already received a great deal of attention and not been found wanting. We're all familiar with garbage-in/garbage-out, but you can't just say, "He might not be applying the math correctly." You have to identify the error that those in the scientific community missed and explain how it is wrong.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar - missing "not".

Hi Colbard,You're saying, "Science could be wrong," and the proper response is, "Yes, of course science could be wrong."Whether science is actually wrong concerning any specific theory depends upon whether you have an answer for the next question: "How is science wrong?" You need a better answer than merely repeating, "Science could be wrong."--Percy

I doubt this very much. My guess is that you're referring to the debate between geologists and physicists in the late 19th century, when Lord Kelvin refined his thermodynamic calculations and arrived at an age of the earth between 20 and 40 million years. This figure was never accepted by geologists and paleontologists who were observing the evidence of age first hand. Radioactive sources of heat were unknown in Kelvin's time, hence his incorrect calculations. Ironically, radioactivity not only caused Kelvin's incorrect calculations, it also provided the dating methods proving geologists also wrong. The Earth was not only older than Kelvin believed, it was even far older than the geologists themselves believed. Science gradually figured all this out. Some people are racists, and scientists are people, but in any event, according to science we're all "just animals". Those dates you're citing must be for the evidence of earliest occupation. Few scientists would make the mistake of believing they had found the first Aborigine to step off the first boat. More recent refinements to the dating are based on genetic studies, an entirely different approach that yields results consistent with the findings of archaeology. Of course they are. So are yours. Differing opinions are settled by examining the evidence, and gathering more evidence if necessary. I think you're confusing advertising with science. Cigarette companies had full blown advertising campaigns that included supposed claims by doctors and scientists. This quote from the abstract to a paper about the role of the image of the physician in cigarette advertising reminds us of what was actually true at the time, that the scientific evidence against smoking was already strong and growing by the 1950's (The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930—1953):

quote:

---

In the 1930s and 1940s, smoking became the norm for both men and women in the United States, and a majority of physicians smoked. At the same time, there was rising public anxiety about the health risks of cigarette smoking. One strategic response of tobacco companies was to devise advertising referring directly to physicians. As ad campaigns featuring physicians developed through the early 1950s, tobacco executives used the doctor image to assure the consumer that their respective brands were safe.

​

These advertisements also suggested that the individual physicians’ clinical judgment should continue to be the arbiter of the harms of cigarette smoking even as systematic health evidence accumulated. However, by 1954, industry strategists deemed physician images in advertisements no longer credible in the face of growing public concern about the health evidence implicating cigarettes.

---

In this case I think you're confusing diet advocates with science. Teasing out the effects of various components of diet are notoriously difficult, we still have a very long way to go in this area. Those pushing any particular diet will always try to find supporting scientific papers to cite, but when you actually read the paper you'll find the support usually isn't there. Scientific research was instrumental in identifying and characterizing these hazards. You're surrounded by the effects of the progress of science. No one is waking up to your take on black holes.--Percy

You presented a lot of confused ideas characterizing science as inept and wrong, so most of my post was spent correcting you.My last point was just reminding you that newly explored possibilities about black holes are not related in any way to your own ideas. Science is not "finally waking up" to your ideas about black holes. Science is doing what it always tries to do, extending our knowledge of the universe and how it works.--Percy

As I said before, a theory is not a guess. You justified this characterization of theories as guesses by saying that science could be wrong about a theory, and I'm sure we all agree with you, but you can't challenge anything, let alone an accepted scientific theory with its carefully reviewed evidence, just by saying, "It could be wrong." You have to show how it is wrong. Science is tentative, always ready to change theory in response to new evidence or improved insight, but currently accepted theory represents our best understanding of the world in which we live. There is no better way than science of understanding this universe.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Few things are "simple and innocent and truthful" where people are involved, but if you have a method better than science for studying the natural world then let's hear it.Ya know, you could be wrong. --Percy

Science doesn't deny "spiritual or moral laws." As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If science has no evidence of "spiritual or moral laws," then there's nothing it can say about them.Perhaps you could describe for us how a science informed by "spiritual and moral laws" would work. Imagine yourself at the Leaning Tower of Pisa repeating Galileo's experiment dropping the two balls of equal size but different weight. How would your performance of this experiment differ from Galileo's by taking "spiritual and moral laws" into account? "Wrong" has more than one definition, and I used it earlier in the sense of "incorrect". Many of the things you've been saying are "wrong" in the sense that they are incorrect, not in the sense of not being in accordance with what is morally right or good.--Percy

You're stating your religious beliefs as facts again. Science has not dismissed spirituality. Again, as Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." If science has no evidence of "spiritual or moral laws," then there's nothing it can say about them. No one said people aren't spiritual.--Percy

Hi Marc,You didn't read your own definition of spirituality, here it is with the relevant portion italicized:

quote:

---

the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones

---

Spirituality is not synonymous with belief in God. For atheists and agnostics I imagine spiritual things would be love, friendship, trust, awe and so forth. Yeah, right. There's as much a body that controls science as one that controls religion. Why don't you get on plumber's and electrician manuals for not showing respect for "spiritual or moral laws." It would make as much sense.--Percy

I found half of page one: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/1831582a0--Percy

The scientific community has not "gone after" Christianity, or any other religion. If you think it has then cite a few scientific papers that "go after" Christianity.The truth is that Christian fundamentalists have "gone after" and are still going after science education with claims that Genesis is a scientifically accurate version of events and with demands that it should be taught in public school science classrooms. In the face of these claims and demands, explaining how Genesis is not a scientifically accurate version of events is not "going after" Christianity.--Percy

This make no sense as a response to what I actually said, most of which you left out. I followed that sentence with, "For atheists and agnostics I imagine spiritual things would be love, friendship, trust, awe and so forth." I didn't say anything about spirituality involving falsification or testing, nor did I mention any qualities that involve falsification or testing. No one has claimed or is claiming that spirituality is a scientifically verifiable quality, and it would be dishonest to imply that anyone has. What would be honest would be a response to what was actually said. There's the National Council of Churches, and they have as much control over religion as the National Academy of Science has over science. You mean like the Ohio, Kansas and Texas state boards of education who continually try to push creationist teachings into the schools and evolutionary topics out? The citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania, (not the scientific community) went to court to have the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People removed from their schools after it had been installed by Christian fundamentalists. Books like these are responses to fundamentalist Christian attacks on science and science education. When Christian fundamentalism ceases these attacks the responses will also cease.--Percy

Zaius is referring to objects that are close to 13.8 billion light years away now when their light arrives here, but that light was originally emitted close to 13.8 billion years ago. They've been receding from us over the past 13.8 billion years (due to the expansion of space) and are now around 46 billion light years distant, but the light they're emitting today won't reach us for another 46 billion years, and I think before that time they will have receded over the event horizon and we will see them no more.I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make with this information.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve the explanation.