Boffins quietly cheering the possible discovery of sterile neutrinos

I tend to think of scientists as open and not gullible. In large part. And I think the technological achievements evidence this more often than not.

The best that we have is the scientific method and it has proven itself as a positive thing and the only way we have to determine how things work and even to get some kind of handle on reality itself.

So I am very pro science, while recognizing scientists are just as apt to be affected by what we call human nature as others. And human nature can corrupt anything, even little pieces of science

 

I guess to arrive at order out of chaos? A foundation on which to stand? Some stable platform?

 

Perhaps the revolutionary leap in science will be to understand that sometimes there just isn't any logic.

 

Yet, most people know enough to not accept a widget or that a Pixel can just disappear. Instead they would question said "Engineer" as to his competency or seek another opinion from someone qualified. This is akin to peer review and multiple scientists working on the same issue, often from differing angles. Your decision would seemingly be to ignore the TV and buy a new one without even knowing the first one simply was not plugged in.

 

Ha ha. Can't get this brain around that! That there is no logic to something, nor will logic be an aid in understanding, which means the brain cannot use logic at all. So forget about ever understanding? It is beyond the ability of the human brain or mind to ever understand? Logic is no good. I am not sure science would ever go there.

 

Think about it this way. Logic never explains creation. Creation is never dependent on logic. And yet, creation happens. This, of course, is just an example. There are so many more. To view the world only through a lens of logic seems remarkably limiting.

 

Yes, but I don't see that as something logic could never be used to get an understanding. It is just that there is no way to know what preceded creation, the big bang, and it may have nothing to do with the shortcomings of logic, but just something that the mind itself can never have access to.

 

Hmm.. not so much. True, "creation" of the universe is problematic for logic, that really wasn't the intent of the comment. What logic creates art? And while there may be logic about the messages contained in art, why art in the first place? It's about the expression, the creation of something. There have been so many examples over the centuries. If necessity is the mother of invention, what is the mother of art? Surely not necessity. Emotive doesn't assume logic. It isn't required as part of being emotive. Emotive is. There is no logical explanation of it.

 

Ah I think the mother of art is the human mind itself, and the very nature of it, what it appreciates or is compelling to consciousness itself. Art can be very gratifying and pleasure is found in it.

And the mother to science is also the very nature and quality of human consciousness. We are the most curious hominid. We have an innate drive or so it seems to make sense out of the universe we inhabit. We did it first with religion perhaps, which was replaced much later on by what we call science and the mandatory scientific method, which is based upon logic, reason(both deductive and inductive) and rationality. With logic being fundamental to rationality. A set of rules that has proven itself over time as being effective. In yielding positive results that affect our very existence as a species. I may be rambling....

Yet have never done much thinking in these areas, so went for a big picture view as it is the easy place to go. ha ha ha

 

Does this prove the existence of Dark Matter?

 

LIke a lot of bleeding cosmological science, dark matter is a postulation that fits the observation. Much like Einsteins "cosmological constant". Makes the math work for a moment but ain't necessarily answer. Failing some unbelievable breakthrough, I think its going to be some time before we attain a level of knowledge and technology that will allow us to settle the question once and for all.

 

Yes we have successfully detected neutrino collisions.

All subatomic particles are almost undetectable.

I believe that we will discover other particles, either already theorized or completely by surprise. Perhaps I'm an science optimist, but with LHC, continuing development of required technology and the accretion of our knowledge, it seems inevitable to me.

 

Right indeed. It would involve abandoning all sorts of widely held theories. Analyzing the universe is really difficult because you can't see things and test them. Astrophysicists could have many things wrong. That's OK. Science still trudges forward.

 

I agree. Knowledge continues to grow and I doubt it will ever stop completely. Even if in regards to physics that one english physicist made such exclamations long ago.

 

Actually "Creation" (how life started) REQUIRES logic to be understood and examined. The theological version is immediately dismissed by logical thought as impossible and imagined. Logic then dictates examining other possibility which has led to Abiogenesis and Panspermia. Both have data and experimentation that make them possibilities but neither are confirmed as reality.

 

I am familiar with the quotation, but couldn't remember the attribution so I looked it up. Seems to be an apocryphal story.

https://www.quora.com/Which-19th-ce...-was-compute-effects-to-another-decimal-place

who knew?

 

Thanks!! And I had heard that all of my life beginning in college in the mid 70s! And it is all made up!! I never questioned it given the source that said it first, a Prof. ha ha ha.

So glad you set the record straight! We accept so many things as fact when it never was! ha ha ha Gotta check everything these days, and obviously even yesterday, yesteryear.

 

I doubt this is correct. I'd ask, if logic can do these things, what logic inspires a country song?

 

You can ask, but asking a pointless question produces a pointless answer. A country song is the product of an artist deciding the logical thing to do is create art, but the majority is inspired rather than a well thought out process. Since you doubt my observations and opinion however, Please provide me with your alternate version.

 

I think you've already answered your own question. Logic doesn't inspire. Right? Creation is the execution of inspiration, right? So, even you then identify this as act without logic. I haven't written anything different. I would assert, knowing more than one country song writer, that they don't "decide" most of anything. They emote, what they emote is written down, the pain, the joy, the whatever. That isn't a logic cube.

 

I take it relativity theory, Electromagnetism, Quantum theory...etc...are new to you as each was inspired by logical thought and "Created" by human imagination developed into something tangible. I am creating a reply right now, inspired by my thoughts. The words you place in my mouth are foul so please stop putting them there. Logic has dictated the theological interpretation of how we came to be as impossible to me and I ask you to show me how my conclusion is incorrect...please do so.

By the way...every song I have ever written was inspired while logic designated where and when the notes should be used.

 

I believe I can translate. For you, it seems, that things like theories are the same as actual creation. And yet, as you've noted already, they are not. And while a theory can attempt to explain a phenomenon, it also doesn't create that phenomenon, does it? Quantum theory doesn't "create" anything, it simply attempts to describe the thing, right? The perception that allowed someone to perceive the "rightness" of a potential answer may, or may not be logical. It may, just as easily, be emotive.

You maintain that "logic has dictated that the theological interpretation, blah blah...as impossible." Do you assert that I am invoking it here? or is that just a comfort zone approach to your argument, even though I have not, so far, even tried to assert this as a working potential?

 

This entire discussion is based on this:
drluggit said: ↑
Think about it this way. Logic never explains creation. Creation is never dependent on logic. And yet, creation happens. This, of course, is just an example. There are so many more. To view the world only through a lens of logic seems remarkably limiting.
tecoyah said:
Actually "Creation" (how life started) REQUIRES logic to be understood and examined. The theological version is immediately dismissed by logical thought as impossible and imagined. Logic then dictates examining other possibility which has led to Abiogenesis and Panspermia. Both have data and experimentation that make them possibilities but neither are confirmed as reality.

I have never stated theory is the same as creation, but HAVE stated theory is created. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

So the simple answer is that you simply misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote about creation not from the aspect of all creation, but of the act of creation, by humans. In the context of my post, it is frankly very clear what my intent was. The act of creation assumes an actor. I would point out that creation doesn't then have to refer to life, it can be anything that has a potential to be created. Wealth can be created, can it not? Wealth doesn't infer "life", nor does writing, as noted, a country song. Which then also doesn't require any logic to be involved. Creation happens. I create every day. There may, or may not be a logical reason for those creations. More than not, there isn't much logic associated with those creations. I might have to explain the creative inside of a logical framework, that still does not negate the fact that the creation itself was formed without logic.

On the "theological version". Are you sure? I find scientists that spend their entire careers attempting to document the realms of faith. Do you know what Noetics is?

 

I prefer not to get into metaphysical discussion in a science debate. I do however agree my bending this discussion into a theological direction was a mistake and I apologize for doing so. I do maintain that the art of creation often requires logical thought based on your own music example as I have created many songs over the years, all of which required logical implementation of notes to support lyrics, logical separation of verse vs. chorus and even logic when naming a song after creating it.