Why We Trust in Science

[pmrid (Peter)]

I have found a couple of books helpful in deciphering the origins of the belief in the soul and the need for (or realisation of) matters spiritual.

Robert Graves' " The White Goddess " is a brilliant history of mythology and primitive belief systems;

Sir James Gordon Frazer's "The Golden Bough". An equally brilliant study of mythology and religion.

I think both of these authors have grasped a central starting point in the rise of primitive sharman (sharmen Pl) in tribal societies - commanding power and its accoutrements by being the sole possessor of the mysteries of celestial events and being able to interpret omens and the like. They emerged in their tribal groups by virtue of being in possession of a few more working synapses than the rest of the herd. This was a way of establishing dominance and asserting power that has changed little since those times except in the regalia and incantations worn and uttered by the latter-day equivalents.

I think they have it right. Religions are an extension of the regimes of dominance and control that have been part of us since we chewed raw meat and hid when there was a comet in the sky.

Peter

[blindman]

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=164774

That is why we DO NOT believe "science"

[doppler (Rick)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Re unanswered questions...there probably will always be unanswered questions that is reasonable but it is unreasonable to invent answers.
Think of it this way ... it is though we are in a large dark room and science is the light...what it illuminates we can take as fairly reliable but what may be in the dark we dont know so there is little point in guessing what hides in the darkness.
Science does not have all the answers but it has more than a y other approach by a country mile.

Alex

But if we use the scientific principle that things need to be proven to be considered fact, doesn't that in itself cancel out a lot of science. Physics itself falls apart at the so called big bang so science is just guessing. The origin of life has not been found so that is also guessing and as far as the possibility of alien life is concerned ,we haven't found any so that also is just guessing.

Isn't science the search for all answers not just the physics ones. Science does a great job, but there are a lot of scientists looking for answers to the hard questions "outside the square", which is where mainstream physics started in the first place.

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

It's also important to recognize that there is always an ultimate distinction between nature 'as it is' and our understanding of it. In science we are constructing models and refining those models until a given model is capable of reproducing with high accuracy the phenomena we are seeking to understand. The process is never finalised however, and it is crucial to understand this. Future models may explain everything the current ones do plus go further in explaining currently unknown segments of our investigations. This is scientific progress.
Key point in philosophy of science: there is always a distinction between the phenomena itself and our model based scientific understanding of it.

Cheers,
Mark

[xelasnave]

A Hi Rick
There is some stuff that folk see as science which frankly I do not.
That puts me in the crank pot box but so be it.
For example although I recognise the big bang is our best scientific model so far I very much doubt it really describes reality.

The big bang theory was ready for the scrap heap beause of the percieved problem of how did everything register in effect the same...the solution seized upon was the theory of inflation which as far as I know has no evidence via observation other than I think maybe the slight variation in the background radiation...however it was desparate times for the big bang theory so inflation was grabbed with both hands and nothing better has been presented since.

Now remember I am not a scientist and as Karl Popper says if one questions a scientific theory you probably dont understand the problem it seeks to fix. ..however the inflation theory says that the universe grew from the size of a grape fruit or basket ball, in , as Neil Degrasse says...in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillonth of a second. ..grew from that to pretty much the size of the observable universe...now I dont care how the sums work out that just sounds beyond all possibility. So I will be accused of argument from incredulity? .

Supporters of big bang happily accept the theory of inflation because it saved the theory from the scrap heap.

BUT I think it must be wrong however I cant really comment because I cant provide a better theory. ..thats the way of it.

But it is cosmology and as I said earlier in my view cosmology is philosophy backed by science.

The big bang got momentum because of observations that the universe was expanding well before this tack on theory of inflation.

Also the idea of a cosmic egg existed before any observation and given big bang hints at a creation point and accepted as not inconsistent with the catholic church, the pope said so, says to me science was probably cherry picked to establish predetermined cosmology.

Now that is opinion...opinion the word that describes faith...

However most science proceeds somewhat differently to cosmology...and remember we are into astronomy not cosmology so dont feel I am questioning what we do...we look at and say its there..cosmologists look and explain why its there. ..and to confirm tbe big bang theory no other.

So we get folk proposing multiverses which comes out of inflation theory or what may have been before their big bang but its mere speculation...reasonable but speculation.. .my view that is not science.

At this point Steven usually comes along to point out why I am wrong but I am speculating and if science is happy with inflation thats ok as it is part of the best model we have to date.

My view of science is that one looks at data, and makes a prediction which will support the theory.

Also remember that the model showing the Earth at the center of the solar system is a good scientific model simply because of its ptedictive ability...we know it does not describe reality but if you want to say where Saturn will be this time next year that model will tell you...hence a good scientific model...does not reflect reality or truth.

Now given that science still leaves us not where we would like to be to but rely upon anything less will just make the situation worse.

I have worked out the origin of life and hopefully someone will present a theory supporting my opinion.

A water droplet was the first egg its properties are considerable but it provides separation from the environment via charge and for whatever reason forces particles to its center and I think the surface may interact with CO 2 to pre date the egg shell...there is more but its a idea in progress...we are relatively new to all this...its only one hundred years since GR and less still since we thought the universe was contained in the Milky Way...

All I am saying is the only things worth zip is stuff reasonably established by science...or would you like science to say..that idea of Alex re the water droplet sounds cool lets go with that...and when we step outside science we have mere supposition which is nice for chats but dangerous because when folk chat they believe by talking about it things become real.
.
Look at religion..its real beause we talk about it..rushing way past any point where the idea was more than a neat idea...now look its worse than an invasion of cane toads...and these business dont pay tax...unbelievable but thats a run away fantasy for you.

If you have a hard question simply dont make up an answer which is really the way I see the inflation theory.

Its about eliminating any possibilty of being wrong...how easy to say ..yes thats a big question and I do not have an answer. ..or should we guess ...a guess is usless until proved correct.. .and if a guess there is reason for the propo ne t to cherry pick data to prove his guess was correct...which is what I believe happe ed with the cosmic egg guess.
Alex

Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by blindman

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=164774

That is why we DO NOT believe "science"

What a pity religions do not approach things the way you do...they never reject they just add more excuses.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

It's also important to recognize that there is always an ultimate distinction between nature 'as it is' and our understanding of it. In science we are constructing models and refining those models until a given model is capable of reproducing with high accuracy the phenomena we are seeking to understand. The process is never finalised however, and it is crucial to understand this. Future models may explain everything the current ones do plus go further in explaining currently unknown segments of our investigations. This is scientific progress.
Key point in philosophy of science: there is always a distinction between the phenomena itself and our model based scientific understanding of it.

Cheers,
Mark

Absolutely .

Alex

[AstroStudentUSQ (Mark)]

I'm throwing a grenade in the mix here, but look at the whole dark matter scenario. Yes it may exist and it may be any of a number of things which haven't been agreed on in the scientific community yet, but it is also possible that dark matter does not exist and it may be our existing model of gravity that need's tweaking and/or is incomplete. This isn't looked on favorably by the 'Cult of Einstein' in the scientific community, who have built their careers on their much loved general relativity. This raises another point in science, in that, at the end of the day these are still Humans *doing* science. Humans with their own hopes, preferences, and bias in terms of time and energy investment spent in their careers and holding on to their cherished particular theories.

Cheers,
Mark

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by AstroStudentUSQ

I'm throwing a grenade in the mix here, but look at the whole dark matter scenario. Yes it may exist and it may be any of a number of things which haven't been agreed on in the scientific community yet, but it is also possible that dark matter does not exist and it may be our existing model of gravity that need's tweaking and/or is incomplete. This isn't looked on favorably by the 'Cult of Einstein' in the scientific community, instei have built their careers on their much loved general relativity. This raises another point in science, in that, at the end of the day these are still Humans *doing* science. Humans with their own hopes, preferences, and bias in terms of time and energy investment spent in their careers and holding on to their cherished particular theories.

Cheers,
Mark

I agree.
GR is a multi billion dollar business there is no question about that.

Why it is presented as the cutting edge of science is beyond me..after a hundred years we get ...GR proved right again and again and again...and the hunt for gravity waves I find concerning. The search for gravity waves threatens funding to other stuff...already being presented as the future of research...a d why... cause it is proving GR is right. ... .I am cynical but....

I find the speculation of what is beyond the event horizon unbelievable...to me its like arguing how many angels can dance on a pin....even speculation with sound math is speculation...

As to dark matter...if there is so much of it get me a trailer load.

I still believe gravity works like a pressure...I see a mechanical explaination but advocates of GR reject such...there is no machinery it seems and GR wont have a bar of it...but what mechanism goes on other than their magic...Le Sage gravity was set aside by GR and so advocates of GR hate it...it is my belief if gravity has a mechanism what we interpret as attraction simply does not exist...dark matter would not be necessary if things work via an external pressure and the rotational curves of galaxies would seem consistent with extenal pressure...and even dark energy may be no more than another manifestation of that pressure.
But GR rules and given the mouths it feeds wont change soon.
Look how they hate the idea of a graviton...

But those are my mere ideas and no more than speculation.

I am starting to believe the aspect of prediction is a double edge sword. ..much like the guess mechanism I mentioned earlier..your theory needs to have its prediction so I think that lends itself to...I told you so...with no further investigation as to the observation. Are we observing gravity waves could they e evidence of something else...what answer do you think you will get.

Back ground radiation..
Could it be something else? Lets think about it...no no no ..thats what the theory predicted case closed...that seems wrong to me...

Is the universe really expanding in the first place...would any counter observations be accepted?

I doubt it.

And yet I still believe our current science is better tban making stuff up...

Alex

[blindman]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What a pity religions do not approach things the way you do...they never reject they just add more excuses.
Alex

Ha, if you didn't know, big bang theory was presented by priest (can you believe Catholic)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXflufzrd2w

enjoy

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by blindman

Ha, if you didn't know, big bang theory was presented by priest (can you believe Catholic)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXflufzrd2w

enjoy

Thank you for the vid.
I know where the big bang came from I said so above.
A priest who liked the idea of a cosmic egg.
If you like an idea I think building science to establish that idea is open to what should be obvious problems.
Certainly the big bang only deals with the evolution of the universe a moment after what would seem the moment of creation...A religious person may like the big bang for that reason..it would be for some religious folk having science support creation...the Pope says as much..I still like the general prospect of an eternal universe but certainly that model was shot down because of the BB theory prediction of background radiation. But steady state leaves no room for a creator so think who you will have lining up to oppose it...Jews, Muslims and Christians and all the variations of those groups.
They all despite their differences must have a creation point or else they dont get off the ground...
Steady state universe died because it had no point of creation I suspect so those above would e haply to see it trashed...

The observation of background radiation fits the prediction so BB claimed victory...thats the way it goes...however as far as I know we can't go past the background radiation, it is the limit of our observation..we certainly can not observe the BB or anything between the BB and the background radiation.
So it would be nice to have ealier observations but it seems we cant have such.
BB certainly will make religious folk happy and that is one of the reasons that I dont trust it...
I find it disturbing that folk talk about the BB as a fact when the reality is we can never know but to me when someone becomes dogmatic I become concerned...although as the years go by I expect something may turn up...but probably thousands of years...maybe if religion dies out others will come back to steady state.
As I said I think the idea of inflation is just too hard to swallow...I dont think folk realise that the universe supposedly grew from a grape fruit to the observable universe in a split second..I dont care what the math says I simply dont buy it...
And of course the inflation theory allows multiple universes ...so that would be a heck of a lot of activity in that first split second.
But I am a mug without the inteligence to understand i flation.
The original observed expansion by Hubble is nothing compared to the inflationary period...anyways I will not lose sleep over it but I do think the cosmology is more philosophy than most will admit.
It wont change soon.
Lets face it if folk will believe all that is laid out by religion believing the current cosmology which is supported by good science is a reasonable expectation.

I would say BB is not going to get rolled...heck if you cant roll the church that offers no proof what chance do you have to roll the BB when it is supported by "science" particularly GR. ..not a chance.

I did not really watch the vid fully cause it seemed a little too long and clearly had an axe to grind.
If you read my posts fully you probably realise I am not a big fan of the big bang because of the reasons that I laid out however I am not ready to go over to the flat Earth ever.
And as I said although not happy with the big bang I can live with the fact that it is the prevailing model.
My personal view is as laid out which brands me as a crack pot but it is my view.
The vid is just to long for my short attention span so I ask what did you get from it...
Alex

[blindman]

I was little bit shocked, I must say, do not know if it is true or not, but quite shocking for me.

[blindman]

So far it is clear, no aliens in so called space, no macro evolution, still searching for Truth.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by blindman

So far it is clear, no aliens in so called space, no macro evolution, still searching for Truth.

I did a major edit so you may have missed that before you posted your last two.

Look the reality is there is so much we dont know that we know we dont know but more importantly there is stuff we dont know we dont know so I doubt we will ever know the truth of what is really going on...I think the key is not to arrogantly believe we have arrived.
Sure we are a very clever species but I expect there may be others in the universe more advanced than us...I would hope there are at least.
We should be happy that we can at least come up with ideas like BB and steady state rather than a made up notion that some entity created everything...its better.
But it is a concern that really we have not noved much past the pagan notion of a cosmic egg.
Alex