The Sneaky Neutrinos have been at it again

[ik9000]

I'll take evidence based improvable physics over absolutist metaphysical babbling any day of the week. The same sort of absolutist metaphysical babbling which was the basis for burning scientists at the stake.

I might misunderstand what metaphysics is but I dont think that's why scientists were burnt at the stake. Which scientists are you thinking of?

Acknowledging that your understanding of a phenomena may be corrected isn't a flaw, it's the very reason we know as much about the universe as we do.

The ability to test theories and adjust them as the evidence indicates is a good thing. What's the alternative? "The earth is flat and you ain't to go tellin me otherwise there boy. What's that? I should look at the satellite photo? Witchcraft! Burn him... "

Trusting/having confidence in something, even with the evidence supporting it, doesn't prove absolute truth. As I mentioned before, theories are regularly supplemented or even supplanted by newer theories which better explain prior, or new observations.

Sure, but there is absolute truth. There is an ultimate answer. The debates we have over which theory defines light or time travel or whatever ultimately do have definite answers. The question is, how close are we to getting there? We'll never know. We can't know absolute truth, and therefore we won't know if we get to the right answer. That doesn't mean we can't get closer to that answer by improving our understanding along the way.

Ultimately the only way to know absolute truth is if we're shown it by someone or something that does know it, ie from something from outside our reference plane stepping in. Like someone from a 3d world stepping in and explaining to a 2d world the aspects they just can't see.

Does such an entity exist? For some that is merely a possibility they say we can never know for sure, others deny it could exist at all - but isn't that stance claiming an absolute truth? Others claim such an entity does exist, and makes himself known. How can we tell? Well check out the evidence... where does it lead?

[melon]

It's rare a theory accepted as correct is proved incorrect, rather it's proved less accurate as Fraz says. For some applications, old theories are plenty accurate - like how, for designing a clutch you need far less accuracy in machining than you would making a CPU. And I'm not going to be using stoichiometry to deduce the quantity of sugar when I'm making a cake - it's simply not necessary. Just because something isn't perfectly accurate doesn't mean it's useless.

Edit: Auguries of Innocence?

Not disagreeing, when it comes to " tools " or physical objects ( humans , life forms aside ) its great, its when your dealing with the intangible , or physically unseen that these method becomes unreliable - at best.

Heck, they haven't even invented a means to accurately measure connective tissue nevermind figure out the entire workings of the Universe .

The secret is closer than they think.

m

[watercooled]

Not disagreeing, when it comes to " tools " or physical objects ( humans , life forms aside ) its great, its when your dealing with the intangible , or physically unseen that these method becomes unreliable - at best.

Some theories do prove unreliable in such circumstances, but that's what research is for. Sometimes a theory will exist before the proof, and sometimes it's the other way around.

Heck, they haven't even invented a means to accurately measure connective tissue nevermind figure out the entire workings of the Universe .

'They' isn't a single entity, and science is far from linear.

[melon]

Some theories do prove unreliable in such circumstances, but that's what research is for. Sometimes a theory will exist before the proof, and sometimes it's the other way around.


'They' isn't a single entity, and science is far from linear.

Are you saying science is , "bent "?


m

[watercooled]

You know I'm not. But if it's necessary, I mean linear as a synonym to sequential, not as an antonym to bent.

[melon]

I might misunderstand what metaphysics is but I dont think that's why scientists were burnt at the stake. Which scientists are you thinking of?




The ability to test theories and adjust them as the evidence indicates is a good thing. What's the alternative? "The earth is flat and you ain't to go tellin me otherwise there boy. What's that? I should look at the satellite photo? Witchcraft! Burn him... "




Sure, but there is absolute truth. There is an ultimate answer. The debates we have over which theory defines light or time travel or whatever ultimately do have definite answers. The question is, how close are we to getting there? We'll never know. We can't know absolute truth, and therefore we won't know if we get to the right answer. That doesn't mean we can't get closer to that answer by improving our understanding along the way.

Ultimately the only way to know absolute truth is if we're shown it by someone or something that does know it, ie from something from outside our reference plane stepping in. Like someone from a 3d world stepping in and explaining to a 2d world the aspects they just can't see.

Does such an entity exist? For some that is merely a possibility they say we can never know for sure, others deny it could exist at all - but isn't that stance claiming an absolute truth? Others claim such an entity does exist, and makes himself known. How can we tell? Well check out the evidence... where does it lead?

Well said, Id also like to make the point our perception and everyday " life " socially conditions us in such way that its absolutely impossible to approach things on what we believe to be a rational / level . ( there is no such thing as rational )

This can even influence things we are not aware , in term of memories by " reinventing " them
so they appear true while their not.

It doesnt matter if the output / data suggests such and such , we are always interpreting based on those laws we invented ourselves - futhermore " dependent on " to " reason " , that are unique to us and " what we see as reality ," it does not mean other realities or laws do not exist ,as things like dark matter prove .

Given our human inventions and system is constantly " being corrected " and challenged as new technology happens, you have to admit that it would be ludicrous to suggest these laws are accurate in any way when it comes to the universe and its infinity, we dont even know how we operate ourselves - as the dysfunction in the world clearly proves.

m

[melon]

Some theories do prove unreliable in such circumstances, but that's what research is for. Sometimes a theory will exist before the proof, and sometimes it's the other way around.


'They' isn't a single entity, and science is far from linear.

Id disagree, there are plenty examples of persecution and ridicule from science in general towards anything new that counters what others before thought - even Einstein faced it , and there are plenty whose ideas were laughed at only to be proven true later .

Id say for the most part its very predictable and safe in its ideas, its only when you start looking at Quantum physics , or guys considered mavericks like Rupert Sheldrake you start getting deviations from the norm - which is why their outcast and not looked favorably
upon in general by the scientific community.

Science for all its rational thought is no different than any other source of idea or object that can be bought and made material . its just a different tag but the egos involved are the same and no different than sort of materialism present elsewhere in the world, and yes even in religion too.

m

[Fraz]

Well said, Id also like to make the point our perception and everyday " life " socially conditions us in such way that its absolutely impossible to approach things on what we believe to be a rational / level . ( there is no such thing as rational )

This can even influence things we are not aware , in term of memories by " reinventing " them
so they appear true while their not.

It doesnt matter if the output / data suggests such and such , we are always interpreting based on those laws we invented ourselves - futhermore " dependent on " to " reason " , that are unique to us and " what we see as reality ," it does not mean other realities or laws do not exist ,as things like dark matter prove .

Given our human inventions and system is constantly " being corrected " and challenged as new technology happens, you have to admit that it would be ludicrous to suggest these laws are accurate in any way when it comes to the universe and its infinity, we dont even know how we operate ourselves - as the dysfunction in the world clearly proves.

m

Sorry melon, but you are making sweeping statements about something you clearly know very little about. Dark matter does not prove some kind of other reality. It is a triumph of rational science that we know it's there at all.

I wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much everything you say above, although I agree that we can cause substantial bias in our observation and interpretation of the world, there are many ways to mitigate and remove this bias. For instance, with regard to your Malleable Memory link, clearly the solution is to record things in a format that is reliable, e.g. by WRITING IT DOWN.

The part I find particularly offensive and grossly wrong is that "it would be ludicrous to suggest these laws are accurate in any way when it comes to the universe and its infinity". Maybe you should look into how these results were achieved before blithely saying they are complete nonsense. I won't say any more for risk of getting very angry.

[melon]

Sorry melon, but you are making sweeping statements about something you clearly know very little about. Dark matter does not prove some kind of other reality.

It doesnt matter if the output / data suggests such and such , we are always interpreting based on those laws we invented ourselves - futhermore " dependent on " to " reason " , that are unique to us and " what we see as reality ," it does not mean other realities or laws do not exist ,as things like dark matter prove .

It is a triumph of rational science that we know it's there at all.

Do we ?


m

[Lanky123]

Fully agree with your post Fraz, though there is something to be said for ignoring the troll rather than feeding it.

[watercooled]

... it does not mean other realities or laws do not exist ,as things like dark matter prove

Do we ?

Well, for starters you're even contradicting yourself for the sake of arguing. But it seems you're now just plucking random words out of the air to argue about something and generally disagree with centuries of scientific work which itself has massively impacted the world around us; without science, laws, experiments, theories, most of the stuff we use every day wouldn't exist. Are you getting at something or are you just indeed just trolling now?

[Fraz]

Fully agree with your post Fraz, though there is something to be said for ignoring the troll rather than feeding it.

Agreed - I shall say no more

[melon]

Well, for starters you're even contradicting yourself for the sake of arguing. But it seems you're now just plucking random words out of the air to argue about something and generally disagree with centuries of scientific work which itself has massively impacted the world around us; without science, laws, experiments, theories, most of the stuff we use every day wouldn't exist. Are you getting at something or are you just indeed just trolling now?

Im not contradicting anything, nor said anywhere ( unless you can find it ) that i disagreed about sciences impact in , " our world " as far as inventing things or tools go, in fact I complimented it.

It seems you pretty good at plucking random words out the air yourself when it comes to inventing points to argue about , as you did the last time too.

But never mind, I have better things to do , though I think we there was some interesting debate for a while before people started taking things personally and throwing accusations around - no surprises there, as you said yourself science was bias.

I rest my case.

m

[watercooled]

Im not contradicting anything, nor said anywhere ( unless you can find it ) that i disagreed about sciences impact in , " our world " as far as inventing things or tools go, in fact I complimented it.

It seems you pretty good at plucking random words out the air yourself when it comes to inventing points to argue about , as you did the last time too.

But never mind, I have better things to do , though I think we there was some interesting debate for a while before people started taking things personally and throwing accusations around - no surprises there, as you said yourself science was bias.

I rest my case.

m

Excuse me?

Check my last post for quotes.

I'm giving an explanation to back up what I'm saying, you're just saying words...

Where did I actually say science is biased (deliberately misinterpreting posts doesn't count)?

I don't see anyone getting personal, but you have to expect to irritate a few people on a technology forum with quite a few members from a scientific background when you say what you have. I'm sure if you started a thread asking for assistance with a hardware decision, participants of this thread would be happy to help if they could. AFAIK people are simply debating what is written, not arguing specifically with any screen names.

But I'll join the others now, I don't see this thread going anywhere useful/interesting as-is.

[melon]

Excuse me?

Check my last post for quotes.

I'm giving an explanation to back up what I'm saying, you're just saying words...

Where did I actually say science is biased (deliberately misinterpreting posts doesn't count)?

I don't see anyone getting personal, but you have to expect to irritate a few people on a technology forum with quite a few members from a scientific background when you say what you have. I'm sure if you started a thread asking for assistance with a hardware decision, participants of this thread would be happy to help if they could. AFAIK people are simply debating what is written, not arguing specifically with any screen names.

But I'll join the others now, I don't see this thread going anywhere useful/interesting as-is.

My apologies it was actually Fraz who made the comment , " I wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much everything you say above, although I agree that we can cause substantial bias in our observation and interpretation of the world, "

Any way, as you say , this is going nowhere.

m