Saddam Hussein

Is science reliable?
« on: February 18, 2014, 01:19:40 AM »


Discuss.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 01:46:46 AM »
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9765
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 01:53:40 AM »


Discuss.

For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted? 
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6663
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2014, 03:07:05 AM »
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 03:08:36 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

Saddam Hussein

Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2014, 03:36:31 AM »


Discuss.

For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?

The video provides arguments that science is not as reliable as we claim it to be.  I recommend that everyone watch it in its entirety.  It is very mature and intelligent.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15169
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2014, 03:37:13 AM »
ITT: Classic sadaam
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

*

Offline spoon

  • *
  • Posts: 1134
  • Foxy wins
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2014, 04:15:16 AM »
I hate his voice.
inb4 Blanko spoons a literally pizza

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2014, 04:23:30 AM »
I hate his voice.

Sounds heavily modulated, almost computer generated.

*

Offline spoon

  • *
  • Posts: 1134
  • Foxy wins
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2014, 04:27:03 AM »
It sounds like he is getting lightly choked.
inb4 Blanko spoons a literally pizza

Saddam Hussein

Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2014, 04:31:15 AM »
He runs his voice through some software to capture the irritating chipmunk sound.  Why he would do something like that, I'm not sure.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2014, 04:39:53 AM »
He runs his voice through some software to capture the irritating chipmunk sound.  Why he would do something like that, I'm not sure.

Man, I am good. I should be like a sound engineer or something.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9765
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2014, 05:00:38 AM »


Discuss.

For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?

The video provides arguments that science is not as reliable as we claim it to be.  I recommend that everyone watch it in its entirety.  It is very mature and intelligent.

Weird cause I could have sworn that it talks about the role of faith in science, and says that science is the future of mankind.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7056
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2014, 10:02:04 AM »
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal.  I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome.  We just haven't developed the math required to do so.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2014, 05:55:06 PM »
It sounds like he is getting lightly choked.

Mmm.  ;)

Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2014, 06:21:59 PM »


Discuss.

For you, what does the thread title have to do with the video you posted?

The video provides arguments that science is not as reliable as we claim it to be.  I recommend that everyone watch it in its entirety.  It is very mature and intelligent.

It's says science is as reliable as it can be because it's able to adapt. It does not say science is not as reliable as it claims to be. The scientific method ensures that's not the case.

The video also uses two different definitions of faith.

Having faith that something is probable through evidence.

vs

Having faith that something is true

They are both different concepts. One I would say is informed (because of the scientific method) the other I would say is blind.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 08:21:14 PM by DDDDAts all folks »

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2014, 07:36:01 PM »
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal.  I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome.  We just haven't developed the math required to do so.

It can't. When you talk about velocity and position, you're talking about two mutually exclusive things. It makes the most sense when you think of subatomic particles as waves, although that isn't entirely accurate. Think of a slinky. When you talk about position, you're talking about the position of individual particles in the slinky. They aren't moving except for up and down. But when you talk about velocity, you're talking about the wave itself, which is an impulse. So in order to figure out the velocity to any exactness you have to completely abandon the very idea of position, and vice versa.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7056
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2014, 09:09:32 PM »
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal.  I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome.  We just haven't developed the math required to do so.

It can't. When you talk about velocity and position, you're talking about two mutually exclusive things. It makes the most sense when you think of subatomic particles as waves, although that isn't entirely accurate. Think of a slinky. When you talk about position, you're talking about the position of individual particles in the slinky. They aren't moving except for up and down. But when you talk about velocity, you're talking about the wave itself, which is an impulse. So in order to figure out the velocity to any exactness you have to completely abandon the very idea of position, and vice versa.
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9765
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2014, 12:22:02 AM »
There are probably issues regarding simultaneity since subatomic particles tend to travel quite fast. I imagine there are also issues confirming you have made both measurements on the same particle. That being said I want to find a definitive answer to your question.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2014, 02:08:20 AM »
Hmm. I didn't know that Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle.
Supposedly, Niels Bohr got so sick of Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" rant that he said "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice".
I'm not a huge fan of the uncertainty principal.  I recognize its existence and value but I believe (faith!) that it can be overcome.  We just haven't developed the math required to do so.

It can't. When you talk about velocity and position, you're talking about two mutually exclusive things. It makes the most sense when you think of subatomic particles as waves, although that isn't entirely accurate. Think of a slinky. When you talk about position, you're talking about the position of individual particles in the slinky. They aren't moving except for up and down. But when you talk about velocity, you're talking about the wave itself, which is an impulse. So in order to figure out the velocity to any exactness you have to completely abandon the very idea of position, and vice versa.
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?

Because subatomic particles aren't that nice. This part I'm not pretending to understand, but you can't just do a bunch of separate measurements on a single subatomic particle. And again, this is a basic tenant of quantum mechanics. We're not gonna technology our way around it.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2014, 04:46:38 AM »
If they're mutually exclusive, why not just measure both simultaneously?

The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with our math or our measurements. i.e. we can't simply invent a better way to observe an electron.

They're not mutually exclusive, you can know approximately how fast and where a particle is. The more accurate your estimation of velocity, the less accurate your estimation of location and vice-versa.