1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Post vids and websites that explain scientific terms

Discussion in 'Science' started by Panzerkampfwagen, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [video=youtube;-M1hxGj5bMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1hxGj5bMg[/video]
    Eugenie Scott explaining what fact, hypothesis, theory and law means in science.

    Thought I'd put it up since so many people on this website *cough* the religious *cough* are always trying to argue that scientific theories are just guesses and are waiting to be proven to become law.
     
  2. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think the main issue is that some enlightened people understand that science is not infallable. And some people think it is.
     
  3. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And who are these enlightened people? The ones who constantly confuse the terms?
     
  4. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    24,564
    Likes Received:
    475
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The basic premise of science is that science is not infallible.

    That's why reliability and predictability are key issues.
    That's why scientists support the wide-spread availability of research so that it can be reviewed and tested.

    Sure, paradigms are certainly established that influence thinking, but eventually incorrect paradigms are disproved.
     
  5. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Corruption, intimidation, ego and the need to make a living is not factored in or acknowledged. Also--some branches of science are stricken with "group think". Thinking out of the box is simply not allowed.
     
  6. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't think the terms are up for debate. Its more about the conclusions and the assumptions.
     
  7. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And what does this have to do with using the correct terms.

    Sounds like you're trying to confuse the issue.
     
  8. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I admit I am the one at fault for getting off topic.
     
  9. Lunchboxxy

    Lunchboxxy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,721
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. fishmatter

    fishmatter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stop saying that. It's like saying that because there are hundreds of thousands of criminals in America we are a criminal country. In fact we have a system set up here that for the most part encourages people not behave criminally, despite the acts of a few. If you're going to condemns science because it's done by people then everything is rotten to the core. But if you pay some attention you'll see that the only catastrophic losses in knowledge or wholesale rejection of truths we now understand were always true comes not from science but from religion. The world is equally not the center of the universe today as when people were killing for saying so. And every single time some overhyped controversy erupts because someone fudged some data or took grant money despite know research would be fruitless it woud be wise to look further into each and every story and ask "who uncovered the shenanigans?"

    Scientists. Always scientists. Never the people who feign outrage over naturalism moral inferiority to the good book. When a scientist uncovers fraud he's not letting down science by going public, he's making science better and more accurate. But whenever someone starts to make noise about the illegitimacy of science scratch the surface and I guarantee you that person holds superstitious beliefs that are the opposite of rational or scientific.

    These people have an agenda. They want to diminish the respect science has and lower it to the level of alchemy because they are not interested in truth. Truth is the thing they're most afraid of, and reason, and evidence, and especially the idea that even asking those kinds of questions is something any decent person would consider.

    Get rid of science maybe nobody will think to ask for evidence, or want to believe in things because of the evidence, not in spite of its lack. Teach enough people that asking questions is wrong and these lunatics might have a chance.

    The only query these folks can get behind is an inquisition.
     
    MannieD and (deleted member) like this.
  11. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0
    tell the wingnuts to go lay by their dish

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

    for the basics
     
  12. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well stated!

    This thread should be made a sticky so we can refer to it whenever anyone responds with "It's only a theory"!; or gives examples of iron rusting as a "proven" theory.
     
  13. fishmatter

    fishmatter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks. I wish I hadn't typed it on an iPhone in the back of a cab, though. Between the missed words, dropped letters and other typos it's a little hard to take what I said very seriously.

    (edit) ...aaaaand it's too late to edit it, apparently. I don't know what to say except that I'd had a few ales.
     
  14. fishmatter

    fishmatter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This one is amazing. Freeman Dyson, a physicist-elder-statesman who worked on a wide range of seminal projects across different fields, from quantum electrodynamics to biology to the SETI project. Here, he gives an utterly charming and highly informative lecture about having lived through 4 different revolutions: Space Technology, Nuclear Energy, the Genome and the Computer Revolution.

    The site doesn't seem to support embedding here.

    Here's a link to the audio podcast version which is equally enjoyable - the video doesn't feature any graphics so it works fine in audio only.

    itunes podcast audio link
     

Share This Page