*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7061
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2014, 11:26:29 AM »
I'll take your word for it though I'm still not 100% convinced.  But without a background in quantum mechanics I have little choice.

Ah well.  Who needs to know the exact position of a gluon anyway?
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: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2014, 11:53:13 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.

The uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient technological capacity, but is a fundamental part of quantum systems.  http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2014, 07:30:43 PM »
The uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient technological capacity, but is a fundamental part of quantum systems.  http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394

Was there reason for rehashing everything I just said?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2014, 08:40:39 PM »
The uncertainty principle is not due to insufficient technological capacity, but is a fundamental part of quantum systems.  http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-uncertainty-not-all-in-the-measurement-1.11394

Was there reason for rehashing everything I just said?

Yes. I thought you said the exact opposite of what you said.  That is what I get for late night posting.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Is science reliable?
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2014, 09:40:46 PM »
Wow, this video touched on way too many topics. Is Science reliable? Yes, it's the best method for exploring and explaining our Universe. But it's also fallible, and everything they said about faith in science is also true. It's not surprising that 'le internet atheists' don't really grasp what science is, instead following it as if it were a religion.

That said, I don't think religion brings much of value at all. There is very little a religion can contribute to science in the modern world.