Discussion in 'Science' started by FlamingLib, Sep 29, 2018.
An educated guess.
Alien life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. This not being true would be extremely surprising given what we know about life and the universe so far. Them watching us? Much less likely, though I don't know if I'd call it unlikely. Strange things have happened. It is more likely that what we are doing today will be detected centuries from now by those who are looking. The universe is a big place, and a lot of energy and tech is required to find civilizations in it unless they have a really huge footprint with technology way, way beyond us.
Haha, right. It always ends this way with you magical thinkers. You run into that brick wall called "evidence", and then you insult people and run away.
No it isn't, it's nothing like that at all. Realizing that certain, efficient forms arise due to the extant physical laws only belies an understanding of those laws and those forms, not an understanding of why the laws and constants are exactly what they are. I ignored the rest of what you wrote, as it was predicated on a completely false misrepresentation and mischaracterization of my comments.
We understand the shape of a molecule of water, and we understand why physical laws select for this shape. At no point in this process of understanding do we even have to ask why the laws or constants are as they are. I reject your comparison wholecloth.
True. But we have not one reason to believe otherwise. And if it did form elsewhere, then that would just be abiogenesis, elsewhere.
Okay then. If it is not too much to ask, what the heck does the shape of a water molecule have to do with the Fibonacci sequence or the physical constants?
Remember we were talking about why fractals turn up all over nature and that no one really knows why nature should be built around these fairly simple mathematical forms. Remember we did not even know they were there until we had supercomputers to iterate the equations over and again.
If we don't have to ask these questions as you say then we will never begin to understand some of the things we are exploring on this thread.
And physical laws don't select for the shape of a water molecule. It is governed by the distribution of charge and forces within the individual sub atomic particles - which are of course governed by constants.
In the context of my point? Everything. The physical laws operating on physical systems selected for those forms. That is why water molecules are shaped as they are. That is why spirals in nautiluses approximate a fibonacci sequence. That is why massive objects in space become spheroids. That is why Benzene is a hexagon. That is why marine animals which evolved from different lineages entirely exhibit similar, fusiform shapes. That is why predators have sharp teeth, and herbivores have grinding teeth.
Fractals don't turn up in nature. The principles shared by fractals do, as they are stable. Sine waves turn up in nature and in fractals,as sine waves are efficienct. Square waves are not. It's really not complicated.
What's important to learn is science...and that science never has all the answers! Science is forever and always open to new data and discoveries. Science is not going to be involved in mythical gawds and science is not going to educate 'we don't know'. Science is going to provide all the information available at this moment, provide some projections based on current data. We should never tell students/people that science 'does not have all the answers' on climate change because this simply creates a political division. What can science tell us at this moment? What is science projecting? It's the job of the individual to rationalize the information presented to them without being involved in political divisions...one side against another side.
In other words, you just said science is a political tool.
If Alien life IS watching us, I better not see my myself on some alien documentary about the mating habits of humans. They would probably conclude that humans reproduce asexually.
WTF....why do you always seem to replace peoples words with your own, which usually has little to do with what was said.
Read his post. Actually read it, not what you think it says.
Thats a clear demand that politics trump science.
Nobody, no climate scientist, no physicist, no biologist, no chemist, will ever say humanity has all the answers to climate change, or the global environment. And anyone who believes humanity has all the answers, is a total fool.
True. But let's not forget the fools who think this is a valid reason to mistrust any science that doesn't jibe with their politics or superstitions.
I said science is forever and always open to knew data and discoveries. For someone to state that science DOES NOT have the answers to something implies that person does have all the answers and we know this is not true. What are our choices here; listen to scientists, ignore scientists, listen to non-science based opinions, get our information from this forum? From my perspective I'm going to listen to those who possess 1000 times more knowledge and data than I have, from legitimate sources, and who practice the scientific process. I will rationalize to the best of my ability by being involved in the conversation and trying to understand if I can be part of the solution. The educator should present the information we have today which supports the hypothesis...period.
I don't even understand how we can question science? From my childhood when learning started science/physics was an absolute...it was held in very high esteem! 2 + 2 = 4 and we did not waste half of our school day debating this. We can only know what we know today! And I would prefer to make decisions on information that has weathered the scientific process even though I know we might learn of new information tomorrow...
"For someone to state that science DOES NOT have the answers to something implies that person does have all the answers and we know this is not true."
Read that carefully to understand how ridiculous that sentence is. Answering "I dont know" requires knowing the answer?
The scientific process gives you an answer and for anyone to challenge this what can their challenge be based on? The fact that the scientific community publishes something indicates that someone knows something and you believe any layman can simply say 'they don't know'? For those who believe they know more information that cancels the existing scientific hypothesis/theory, then present your information in a peer reviewed scientific process and if valid it will change whatever the status quo might be...this is how science works! I'm positive this PF is not the place where science will be overruled...
You don't get it. Because someone publishes does not automatically mean they know the answer. Sometimes what is published is hypothesis with some foundation in experimental data but is later found to be wrong. Sometimes what is published is a hypothesis without any firm foundation at all, its someone throwing out a best guess for the community to consider.
What was before the Big Bang? Nobody knows. There is some pure speculation, but the real honest answer is "I don't know". What is dark matter? How does gravity work? Nobody knows. There are guesses, but no scientist will claim to know the answer to those questions.
Argument from incredulity AKA divine fallacy duly noted and thereby self negating.
Yes, it is speculative and hypothetical....just like everything in science until confirmation or verification. That is how it works.
I'm saying people need to understand the difference between scientific process and someone's best guess.
ALL science is subject to change!
Separate names with a comma.