probably an old and worn out question

[Brian W]

Hi all, Not that I am attempting to promote my beliefs or challenge some one else's, but as a very unenlightened Buddhist I believe in a reality with no beginning.

I am simply wondering if the belief that matter can be neither created nor destroyed is still valid and if it is, does that not necessitate a reality with no beginning and no end.

Which is not to say 'without change'. Changes such as that caused by the 'Big Bang' or by being captured by a super massive black hole. Changes so drastic that the before and after universes would have very little in common except for the fact that one came from the other.

Brian

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;

Welcome back !
I enjoy your threads, by the way … this one should be interesting, also ...



Before folk attempt to answer your question, I find myself asking whether you're looking for us to disprove or prove your beliefs ?

If this is so, I don't think anyone will ever do that.

Its OK to continue with your beliefs.

Science doesn't attempt to change beliefs.

People might though … ;) :)

Cheers & Rgds

[Brian W]

No, my beliefs are validated or changed by experience and that experience includes science.

I am just curious what science, ie; empirically provable or disprovable theories, have to say about an infinite in time if not size reality / universe.

If Science agrees with the probability of an infinite reality with no need for a beginning and that everything apparently does indeed need a cause then my ponderings can go one way... if not then perhaps they should move in another direction.

I am not of the opinion that a life needs to be either rational or spiritual.

Brian

[supernova1965]

I am an Unlightened Buddhist also as I am not a Buddha yet:D. But I think that there is a good chance and this is an opinion and I can't prove it that the big bang came from a big crunch and our mind stream has continued over from the previous universe or whatever was there before. Just some of my thoughts.:question:

[CraigS]

Brian;

I've been having a think about your question.

Wiki gives a pretty thorough description of the theories about the end of the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_universe#Theories_about _the_end_of_the_universe). Most cover ideas about the fate of matter, given the data/observations presently at hand.

A summary list is:
1) Big Freeze or heat death
2) Big Rip
3) Big Crunch
4) Big Bounce
5) Multiverse: no complete end
6) False vacuum
7) Cosmic Uncertainty.

Each of these outcomes would seem to be valid, depending on the framework one chooses. The opposite would also seem to be true ie: some outcomes may not be valid, depending on the framework one chooses.

For example: the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that the destructive capability of decay from a false vacuum state to a true vacuum state, will not result in in the annihilation of matter, energy and spacetime (unlike the 'effective' destruction of matter (perhaps) in the Big Rip scenario).

So, a simple answer to your question might be that it would seem that the old adage: "that matter can be neither created nor destroyed", may not be necessarily so … and … it may be necessarily so … depending on which flavour of model one selects.

Unfortunately, the answer may not be as clear cut as one might hope for.

Other comments welcome.

Cheers

[renormalised]

The Buddha would say...."don't worry about where you have been or where you are going. What matters is where you are". He would also say..."This reality is an illusion anyway, so the universe exists wherever you are. You create it, you can destroy it. It's up to you".

But don't tell the scientists that :):P

[CraigS]

Kind of like a 'Buddha Hubble Bubble", eh ?

Should register the rights that name … its got a ring to it !
(Pardon the pun).

Cheers

[Brian W]

Hmmmm I seem to have tapped into the latent humour of the group which is ok but to get back to the essence of the question can the fundamental building block of everything only be altered or can it be destroyed? please and thank you.
Brian

[CraigS]

No disrespect intended there Brian.

What is the 'fundamental building block' you are referring to ?

Cheers

[mswhin63]

I dont think the basic building blocks can be altered but our vision of the building blocks can be altered via discoveries.

As we gain more insight within the science we can either create more questions and theories or we can narrow them down to a final solution.

Just a ever increasing thirst for knowledge.

[jjjnettie]

In the physical world, you cannot create something out of nothing, therefore something cannot become nothing.
Pure and simple.

[renormalised]

Depends on your definition of destroyed. You are talking about matter. All matter is nothing more than a highly ordered form of energy. You may break the bonds of the atoms in molecules and destroy the form that matter takes up...as in how it appears to an observer, but all you are doing is returning the matter to the energy from which it formed. There is no loss occurring at all. The energy is just changing from being highly ordered (matter) into it highly disordered ("normal" energy). So, you disintegrate a cube of wood...no more cube. But the energy which makes up that cube is still present. If you were to reconstitute the cube, the energy would also still be there, just back in the form of the cube.

[CraigS]

Where a slight dilemma comes in for me, is that prior to the BB, 'nothing' existed. However, it seems that energy may have existed either in something like a Higgs field, or in the form of something that was symmetric which got broken. Even Branes contain lotsa energy. When they touch, we end up with a BB !

JJJ;
Matter can arise from nothing. The laws of thermodynamics actually predict it !

Cheers

[Brian W]

No offence taken Craig, your humour is akin to Red Skeltons which was always funny and never hurtful. If you ever get a chance to see his command performance for Queen E. you will see what I mean.

Ok, time for a summary... the essential building block (which I shall call energy) cannot be created nor destroyed but our understanding of it can and will give us a different way to see it.

So far so good.

The Buddha said a lot of things in his 50+ years of teaching. Perhaps the most important was to 'understand and test before belief' which is a pretty good description of the scientific approach.

In all of the possibilities that CraigS listed most seemed to continue to have 'energy' although in a very different form? Help me out here please and thank you.
Brian

[CraigS]

Brian;

There is a dilemma in all of this for me (see my previous post).

Thanks for your question .. it has opened up an interesting line of query for me !

I suspect that the answer lies in what is evidence supported theory and what isn't supported (too well) at all.

As one goes into the different theories, one usually finds that the good ol' Big Bang (supported by the Lambda CDM model), is the one which stands out as having the best chance of coming up with a consistent story.

Cheers

[Brian W]

Ok you have touched the heart of my query... if nothing existed before the big bang then there is no infinity of time... but if something can only come from something then there must have been something before the BB.

What laws of thermodynamics?
Brian

[renormalised]

What we need to do is to get away from the old notion of nothing having existed prior to the formation of the present universe. It's something which is still being taught from out of date texts and unfortunately still being promulgated by scientist who are speaking before they're thinking :)

If the Universe arose from a quantum field prior to the actual Big Bang....i.e. it was in a state of existence/non existence, or in other words a probability state (e.g. Schrodinger's cat), then what actually existed prior to its formation....I'll let you figure that one out :)

[renormalised]

What if time itself is dependent of the observer doing the observations. Remember quantum theory...you cannot divorce the observer from what is being observed and both influence one another.

Time itself maybe no more than an illusion of consciousness trapped in a particular physical state we call "reality". It may not even exist at all, in the larger scheme of things :)

In other words, if the universe came into being because it was self evident (i.e. it came into existence because it was its own observer), then all time is just time is just a property of that observation....and now we delve into metaphysics and the question about the existence of a higher intelligence. Which science is unwilling to go looking for because of the religious connotations. Quite frankly, the scientific method as it stands isn't up to the task to look for an answer to that question. It needs to be modified to take into account the insight of intuitive thought and the ability to leap beyond logic as some of the things it will have to deal with can't be tested in the strictest sense of the scientific method.

[Brian W]

Carl, I am definitely NOT bringing in the concept of an 'higher intelligence' that started everything. .

The core of my question is whether or not science can prove or disprove the concept of 'no beginning' because everything must have a 'cause'.

Now let us, just for fun, assume that time is just an illusion. I am not sure that the absence of time neccesitates the absence of cause and effect.

From my simplistic mind comes this thought.

If through research, observation and meticulous record keeping I find that it is apparently impossible to get a 'result' without a 'cause' I feel that in the true spirit of science I have proved that results need causes.

Does that not neccesitate an infinity of causes?

Please note this does not bring in 'higher intelligence', 'self awareness' or 'G-d'

I am simply putting forward two interconnected ideas (1) everything needs a cause, (2) therefore there can be no first cause.

If there above is correct then the universe (for lack of a better term) may have an ending but it can have no beginning.

Brian

[mswhin63]

Brian, I personally think it would be a waste to get science to discover anything prior to the big bang until we determine what actually happened, because theories like the big crunch, bounce and other theories would put a whole new light on the concept of time or no time before the universe.

Time or Space/Time is only a 4 dimensional way of thinking string theory considers at the latest in my understanding the possibility of 11 dimensions and that gravity may hold the key to entering another universe, so while there is so many theories out there they can all present different beginning with or without time. The rest is only assumption.

Science itself is very flexible it is people that are not!

[CraigS]

Brian, there are no 'proofs' of any theories in Science … never has been, never will be..


If time is absent, then the terms 'cause' and 'effect' would seem to be meaningless … 'effect' could precede 'cause', 'cause' might precede 'effect', the two might be co-incident, the two might not even be correlated as relationships involve connectedness and hence direction, etc, etc …

If you remove time, you remove the observer as it was an illusion in the mind of the observer…



Seems to me you have also implied a starting condition as well … which again, re-establishes time, and an observer … in this case, yourself.



Its interesting that our brains are geared to our perception of the passing of time. Even our language contains the essence of time. The terms you're using above "cause" effect", "results" etc all imply a direction of time, to me.
It also seems to me that the best we can do, is observe things flowing from past, (or present), to the future and, maybe rewind events from the future to the past in our models. As soon as you delete time from any of this, even our language breaks down and becomes meaningless.

Perhaps this is what existed when there was nothing … meaninglessness ..?

This conversation has completely departed the realms of science. At best, plausible logic could develop something from it, but it would not be science … pure philosophy at best … better off in the hands of metaphysics.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Brian, cause and effect as we understand it, requires time to have any meaning. It also requires time has a direction (past to future). If there is no real time, cause and effect become meaningless, except where consciousness dictates/observes that there must be a time with direction or that a cause precedes an effect.

There is no way to prove an infinity of causes, unless you as the observer have been around for an indefinite period of time.

[renormalised]

That is why science needs a complete overhaul, especially its methodology. It is running into concepts and realities which it cannot deal with at present. But, unless it can learn to deal with and even work within them, it will only get so far and no further. There aren't too many scientists these days who can work with this and that is why nothing much is being done.

[Brian W]

Ok there seems to be agreement that time is a necessity. No argument from me.

I find it strange that some feel that Philosophy, once known as the 'Queen of Sciences' is now to be excluded from scientific explorations. How will we ever get there from here without the philosophical question to drive the quest?

As for only being able to prove an infinity of causes by being an observer throughout infinity... poppycock! Science has believed for a long time that if you can reproduce the same result under the same conditions as many times as desired you have proven a law. Admittedly there is no iron clad guaranty that it will work every time but after enough consecutive positive results you are justified in believing it will allso occur the next time.
Brian

[CraigS]

Hmm .. not quite sure of where you're coming from here Carl.

I'm aware of calls from guys like Witten for 'different mathematics', to advance theoretical studies in extra dimensions, M-theory, etc. Would this be an example of what you mean ?

I also agree that there maybe flaws in progressing areas where breakthroughs may typically be quashed by say, peer-review, (as an example).

The example you cited in the HDF thread about perhaps needing to overturn the 13.7 Byr age of the visible universe, may be problematic also.

But, the big upside of the 'viscosity' of the process is as you know, is to force justification of wild ideas and to keep scientists honest.

Can you elaborate further (even in the context of the subject matter of this thread) on your thoughts about this ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

No .. a law is a phenomenon that has been observed many times, and no contrary examples found, it is accepted as a universal phenomenon.

A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation of an observed phenomenon. Theories do not become laws, no matter how much evidence they accumulate, because they are explanations of phenomena, not the phenomena themselves.



(See above response).

Cheers

[Brian W]

Ok Craig make it a theory rather than a law. Being kept honest is a good thing.
Brian

[CraigS]

All cool Brian ..

Now the point is that Science will never be able to reveal the ultimate truth of anything because of the problem of induction (it only takes one negative example to destroy a theory, and you can't examine all examples of a phenomenon throughout all time and space).

So, no proof, ever …

As for your comment …


I'm not sure that's what Carl meant .. (over to Carl)..

Cheers

[renormalised]

Notice you said believed...that is still not proof of actuality. You cannot prove an infinity of anything. Most, if not all scientific laws and theories breakdown when infinities come into their equations because infinities introduce the concept of no possible beginning or end, which science cannot handle. That's why they have a little thing called renormalisation. It's used to cancel the infinities in equations to make them "sensible" and usable.

If you run an experiment for an infinite number of iterations, you will get all possible outcomes, which means it both will work and won't work an infinite number of times. It will also be a completely ordered and chaotic experiment at the same time. Science (as it stands) completely breaks down because logic itself becomes meaningless. The only thing that makes it sensible is what is doing the observation and the decision it makes as to what it will observe. What this means is that the very presence of the observer creates the reality which is observed.

[renormalised]

I think I'm going to take a break from this discussion. I'm tired (been running around all day) and my brain's having a hard time thinking :):P:P

[CraigS]

Not really … even a probable outcome is not a dead certainty.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I hope you don't get cycloned out up there Carl !!

Cheers

[Brian W]

a break might make sense here too cause it is almost time to make dinner. But so far it is most interesting.

Brian

[Brian W]

a final thought for the day Craig, if there are no certainties then everything is done on faith?
brian

[CraigS]

Is that right, Brian ?
;):)

Cheers

[renormalised]

I'll try and keep it simple, for my sake, otherwise my brain might crash :):P

What I'm saying is that science is very quickly getting into areas that were once the purview of metaphysics and philosophy, and the scientific method is not designed to handle these. It relies on pure logic in its dictates and methodology. It excludes the possibility of something beyond the scientific. That's why it has such a hard time acknowledging the possibility of anything like a higher consciousness and its role in everything. And I don't mean the god of religion by this. This is as much beyond such an idea as we are beyond pond scum. Science cannot prove or disprove its existence, so it discounts its existence by ignoring it....calling it unscientific. It's basically not equipped with the tools or methods to deal with it.

[renormalised]

My brain feels like it :):P

However, speaking of cyclones....yeah, they're keeping a close eye on TC Anthony (or at least its possible reincarnation). It's predicted to hit somewhere between Cooktown and Mackay if it does reform. Might even come across as a deep low and just drop a bucket load of rain, but they're expecting it to reform, though.

[CraigS]

So, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems established inherent limitations of mathematical systems. Basically, Godel proved that in formal systems, there are always assumptions external to that system, which may be true, but can never be proven to be true. (Interestingly in mathematics, there are formal 'proofs').

Brian, it would seem that the questions you seek scientific proof of, are outside of the systems we use to define the behaviours of the universe. These 'systems' are defined in mathematical terms, (having their basis in various streams of science .. such as General Relativity), for instance.

The 'infinities' Carl mentions, may also be able to be interpreted as indicators that the formal mathematical systems for the universe, have been pushed so far as to point to assumptions, which may not yet be known, which are external to the models, which may be true, but cannot be proven to be true, using the 'rules' established within the model itself.

(Hope that sentence makes sense).

As an aside comment, I think this is where some confusion comes from, in discussions about scientific modelling, which makes use of mathematical principles. Whilst proofs may exist within the mathematical domain, these proofs cannot necessarily be extended into the physical world ... and Godel proved it !

I feel that it is always handy to keep the Incompleteness Theorems in mind, when it comes to discussions on the Cosmological Models.

.. (just some thoughts) ...

Cheers

[Brian W]

Hi Carl and Craig, let me see if I understand where we have gotten to.

Solid science indicates that energy can be altered but neither created nor destroyed

However solid science, in deference to pseudo-science cannot entertain the question 'does this mean that there is an infinity?'

Both the Incompleteness Theorems and this conversation lead me to the conclusion that some things are just not provable.

If the above is correct then is it not also correct that those who follow the scientific path must when they have walked far enough come to the place where faith (not religious faith) is needed because there simply are not the needed rules to depend on for guidance?

I once had the pleasure of listening to a seriously talented scientist describing his work. When he was asked if he wasn't attempting to break some of the laws of nature his answer was 'where we are working we don't know the laws so we can't break them' or words to that effect.

Strangely enough I have always found this a comfort.

Thanks for helping me with my question. I have some pondering to do.

Brian

Brian

[CraigS]

Hi Brian;

All cool.

I think its fair to say that most of the motivation behind the scientific principles is questioning. All questions are legitimate … even ones about infinity. I recently discovered a bunch of scientists from the past, who spent their entire lives pondering questions about infinity. They all finally developed mental illness (not sure if that's related to their research, or not). One of my favourite documentaries about this is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw-zNRNcF90) and we covered it in a thread here. (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=67275&page=3)

Answers are for those who seem to have difficulty in living with questions.
One of my favourite sayings is that 'humans are meaning adding machines', so it would seem that all observations by humans, are likely to end up with meaning.

As far as 'faith' being the next step at certain points in the process, I think it would be fairer to say that curiosity and some preconceived, informed reasoning is what leads scientists to dabble in theoretical concepts, as opposed to 'faith'.

Anyway, I'd recommend having a look at the above Youtube doco .. its goes into Cantor, Godel, etc .. and their work, (on infinity), and is thus a good place to get more 'juice' on this topic.

Cheers & Rgds

[renormalised]

Faith seems to be a dirty word, which is unfortunate.

[CraigS]

Yes Carl, I also don't feel that 'faith' is a dirty word .. its just not relevant to science.

"Faith is a confident belief in the truth or trustworthiness of a person or an idea .. a belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence."

We've discussed 'proof' (based on evidence) in this thread and I hope, we've made it clear that there is no 'proof' in science. There is also no 'truth' in science. It seems that 'faith is simply a variant, (or an outcome ?), which relies on the existence of 'proof', and that the 'truth' actually exists, and is actually known presumably, to someone.

I'd like to think that I can both: give, and receive the truth, in say a conversation about some topic. So, in that sense, having 'faith' is definitely admirable .. not dirty.

But when it comes to writing a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis taking steps to ensure the objectivity, conducting the experiment and publishing method and the results (so others can repeat the process), it just doesn't take the prime seat of relevance in the outcome.

Brian's language is perhaps, a product of where he is coming from .. which is a different place from where mainstream science sits.

That's my 2 cents worth, anyway.

Cheers

[renormalised]

I don't think you're seeing what I am getting at here, Craig. In the cold, hard light of the scientific method, faith has no procedural place because the scientific method rests purely in logic. However, if you really pushed a scientist far enough (well, at least some), they would tell you that faith is relevant to science...in that a scientist would have faith in the veracity of their theories, through all the usual hypothesis testing and experimentation etc etc. If they didn't, they would never hold to any ideas that they postulated. Most just don't want to admit to it because they see the other, religious, overtones to the meaning of faith and they don't want to associate what they do with religion. Though, if you look at the way most scientist uphold and defend some cherished notions they hold, you'd swear that science was a religion and the scientist were its "high priests".

[CraigS]

I totally agree !!
And the temptation to do this and display this fervour, is what feeds the pseudosciences and their criticism that science is a religion! … Scientists create pseudosciences !

Having made this assertion, I understand why they display this fervour, as well … if they didn't, they would seem to be ambivalent towards their own bids for funding. This, I think is where the problem lies in the process … and its not the science process bit .. its the political process bit.

Not sure I know what the answer is, however .. its all about politics and economics.

Still, keeping the two perspectives firmly separated, gives a scientist a fighting chance to preserve the two perspectives, (ie: true science and public persuasion).

Cheers

[renormalised]

And that's the hypocrisy of pseudoscience and those that delve into it...if anything is more religious about its ideas, it's pseudoscience. You only have to look at the proponents of EU and the TB site to see this. It's the same with all the others and whatever brand of stupidity they profess.

[CraigS]

So how does a 'scientist' distinguish himself, (in the public perception), from a pseudoscientist ?

My answer is that it HAS to be in the way he/she behaves, (ie: communicates) and asserts leadership … which all comes back to suppressing the religious fervour !

Cheers

[CraigS]

I think Bert said the other day …



Hope he doesn't mind me quoting his words of wisdom on this one.

The point being that a real scientist has to manage the two 'personnas' carefully, whilst remaining honest to oneself and the work being performed.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Problem is, it's the religious fervour that sucks the general public in....the sensational, the righteousness of cause and the certainty it supposedly offers.

[CraigS]

Brian Cox, Lawrence Krauss, Lisa Randall and your bevvy of young scientific starlets seem to have found 'other ways' … perhaps there are others !
:):)

Cheers

[renormalised]

Yes there are....hype it up, make it sexy, water it down to make it accessible but don't make it so superficial you lose the meaning of what you're trying to get across. That's what they do. If they really wanted to get across the real substance of their work, 99% of the people would be left standing there scratching their heads. As arrogant as it may sound, despite there being quite a few intelligent people around, most of the general population is not all that terribly smart. If they were, we wouldn't be in the confused mess and trouble we're in.

[CraigS]

I know that Randall has some real substance behind her work and its published in the usual, quality peer-reviewed scientific journals. So does Brian Greene.

I think this is where their true substance is revealed (or not), as the case may be.

These two would seem to be good cases to demonstrate that both 'personnas' can be maintained .. both having different purposes/goals.

As a slight aside, interestingly, Randall heads up some very important funding decision making committees, also.

There is value in the approach of avoiding religious fervour in citing scientific arguments. I think it very worthwhile that scientists delve deeply into the philosophical basis of science, as I think this is where an understanding of the importance of all this stems from.

Cheers
PS: I think Dawkins is the worst offender I can think of. In the longrun, I really don't believe his leadership style will achieve the goal he has set for himself. It does however, legitimise the atheism conversation. (I'm not sure however, that this conversation leads to a better position for science in society … I believe it serves more to 'muddy' the water, and take us backwards in time.)

[renormalised]

All of them have substance in their works....but it's conveying that to the public which is the hardest thing to do. In coming down to their level, they can lose the essence of the meaning behind their work. How do you convey even the philosophical ramifications of something like String Theory or even something as relatively easy as GR to the average person out in public??. It's damn hard, I know, because I've tried to do it and it just goes over their heads. They aren't interested for the most part because they haven't any understanding (even basic) of what you're on about, and yet these theories (of science, in general) impinge on everything they do. That's why most scientist don't bother to try and explain things to people...they won't understand you anyway. Not only that, many aren't the best of communicators and don't like talking to audiences...but that's not just them, either.

Put it this way....a mechanic can fix your car. But how many mechanics know the physics behind the workings of a car engine....any engine, for that matter. I would say very, very few, and it would be only those intelligent enough to have the curiosity to find out.

[CraigS]

Which places the emphasis on the delivery. If they like the speaker's style, then they're more likely to trust the speaker and support them … goal achieved !

I think you'll find that when people realise they have no hope in understanding a complex topic, they're happy, (as a fallback position), to know that they can always find out from the speaker, if the speaker is open and amenable.

The 'content' may never be understood by the listener, (as you say), so the true objective of the speaker is to garner their support. This can easily achieved by deleting 'the religious fervour'. Leave the 'real' content conversation, for those who'll understand it. This can still be delivered, using the same techniques as the first conversation also, (aka religious-fervour-free).



Then this is what they should be developing in their professional skills. Communication is a skill, and it can be learned. There is no excuse for not doing so.

Religious fervour is totally inconsistent with what differentiates the scientific process and science's greatest strengths. Arguments coming from this basis, are basically playing in the pseudoscience arena, and is not leading from a position of strength.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Well, I pride myself on being a very good public speaker. I always have been. I have no worries speaking to any sized audience and being very effective in my delivery, but that still doesn't make it any easier trying to make myself understood at times. Actually, it's the one thing I really enjoy doing....teaching. However, you have to realise it's sometimes impossible to get something across if the audience just doesn't have the ability to see what you can. Even when you deliver it on a level they should be able to understand. It's just a fact of life that the majority of people don't have the ability (or the interest) to do science and can't understand it, or have a very skewed understanding of what it is.

If people have no hope of understanding a topic, then it's useless trying to convey to them later on what you were on about. I always stay open to questions and I'm very happy to help out anyone who's having trouble with things, but if they don't have a clue what you said first up, then despite trying to help out later on, it can be like pushing the proverbial ball of cow dung up a steep hill, trying to do so later on. They're in no better position to understand than what they were in before and if you want their support, then they must have at least a basic understanding of what you're on about and your own position.

The reason why pseudoscience gets the audience it does because it plays on the ignorance of others by spinning what appears to be a convincing argument. Being ignorant, the public knows no better and so falls for all the hype and the "glamour" it portrays to them. With a little knowledge and understanding, it's easy to see just how much real substance is there, but that's what the public lacks. It's much easier to believe in and follow the snake oil salesmen of the world than it is to follow the facts because the facts can be rather unpalatable, whereas the snake oil tastes exactly how you want it to and it's sold to make it taste that way.

[Brian W]

Hi Guys, I did check out the video, actually I found the complete documentary and it is fascinating.

Now a request and then a point or two on the above conversation.

Could you point me in the direction of a good refresher... make that really basic on line math course. High school was in the 60's and whatever I learned has long since left.

Carl perhaps you are confusing ignorant and stupid. I have met many people from a very broad range of cultures and societies and have met very few that are actually stupid. But the vast majority of the people I have met are certainly not trained up to even a grade 8 level from an industrialised western (including Australia and New Zealand) country.

But this doesn't make them stupid, it just makes them uneducated in one particular way.

In my own way I was a teacher for a fair number of years. I used to keep a cartoon at my desk. In the cartoon was a preacher proclaiming upon how 'Gladly the cross I bare'. in the pews a young native boy is picturing 'Gladly' the cross eyed bear.

It can be difficult to get the message across.

thanks for all the help,
Brian

[renormalised]

No, Brian....some are both ignorant and stupid. What makes them stupid is when they don't use the education they do have to make, at least, an attempt at understanding something they may have trouble with. Ignorance comes from not being educated, stupidity comes from not using what you have learnt. Stupidity also comes from just accepting things at face value, or accepting what you've been told without question, or knowing there's a problem but just accepting it as a fait accompli, or allowing those who don't have the best interests of everyone at heart carry on like they do and just letting them get away with it all (by being duped into and ultimately being complicit in whatever the problem is).

I wouldn't expect people coming from a developing country to have a broad education, or even a specific education up to the standards of an industrialised western nation. But they're not the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people in those industrialised nations. For all the education they supposedly get, all too many of them are not as well educated as their level of schooling would suggest. I know of kids leaving grade 10 and 12 who are functionally illiterate, and it's not just one or two students. I've seen the results of this at uni. I often wonder how some of them even get into uni. Honestly, I believe the old matriculation exams for uni entrance should be brought back into use because it's the only way you're going to be able to get those students and older people who are good enough to handle uni weeded out from the others who aren't. Although, I also know of others who had top marks at school who failed to get past the first semester. Only because they were lazy scholars used to being "hand fed" by teachers and having them look over their shoulders to push them with their work. They just weren't mature enough to handle uni or the pressure it puts on students.

There's no way you're ever going to get the entire public educated up to the standard of a science graduate or higher. It's not only practically impossible, it's also not going to happen because only a few will have the education and intelligence to reach that level and not everyone is interested in science. However, there are skills which can be taught to school children from a young age that are seriously lacking in the education system. Most importantly, the ability to be able to think imaginatively, clearly and critically. What they try and teach along those lines at school these days is an utter joke, especially since most of the teachers themselves have poor to non existent skills in these areas, for the most part. It is a rare teacher who has these skills and can impart them to the students in manner that the kids find learning interesting and enjoyable. There are some about, but there's not enough of them to go around, unfortunately. Another thing seriously lacking is common sense, but that is only something that can be taught to kids in their family situations and through the right example being set by their parents. So it's a sad indictment on us as a society that we who have been taught these skills by our own parents from the previous generations, have largely failed to pass on those skills to our own kids.

[Rob_K]

While I have broad agreement with a lot of what you're saying Carl, I think you're on shaky ground with the intelligence bit. It's a bad assumption to think that you need high intelligence to understand or be educated in science, and this idea of exclusivity is one of the prime misconceptions that leads people to undervalue their own brainpower, and even resent science and scientists.

Some of the dumbest people I've ever met were at university, and progressed to perfectly respectable scientific careers. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have been digging ditches, or working in mines, or shearing sheds. And vice versa! Intelligence is a human condition, while education is a class condition. High intelligence may be required to make the Einsteinian and Hawkingsian ( :P ) leaps forward in science, but really most are just highly educated punters doing the daily grind in their chosen scientific field.

All that is needed is a relatively privileged (as opposed to underprivileged) start in life that gives you the opportunity & support, and enough interest, ambition and discipline to get you through. Intelligence is the least of the requirements. And it is the least of the requirements if you want to understand science.

Cheers -

[renormalised]

It's not intelligence they have Rob, it's common sense, and I agree with you there. I know a quite a few uni people who have a lot of intelligence and have high degrees. But try and get them to see anything blind freddie could see and they're stuffed. But I also know just as many average people (more so), with no degrees who are just as stupid. You have to have a modicum of intelligence to go to uni, but being intelligent is no guarantee of having common sense. However, to be really successful in science, having that intelligence (above average at least) is needed. Of course all the other factors rate higher so far as being given the opportunity to get into uni and succeed at your chosen course and career, but having the horsepower in the noggin and being able to use it makes it a lot easier than just being average in the brain stakes, especially when it comes to subjects like maths, physics, astronomy, chemistry etc etc.

Anyone can be educated in science, but to be able to understand and apply what they've learnt takes more than just working through the processes and going through the grind. To reach the graduate level or higher does take more than your average person normally musters in being able to think critically and intuitively/imaginatively. Being able to do so is a requirement because you're expected to be able to contribute to the advancement of knowledge when you get to that level of education/knowledge. Doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be an Einstein or whoever, but you're expected to achieve a level of knowledge and understanding considerably above the undergraduate level, at least. The undergraduate degrees many people get are only like starter's packs. You just learn enough to be basically proficient at your game and that's all. Then you learn from experience, which is the best teacher of the lot. Or, you go onto further education and then get experience as you progress from there.