User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 163

  1. #121
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Humans are not the same as objects in other solar systems. You can perform experiments on humans. You can take any theory developed about humans and apply it if the theory is sound. You cannot perform experiments on heavenly bodies in other solar systems, and you cannot apply any theories you have about them.



    Yes observation is key to creating hypotheses. If you can't test the hypothesis, then all you have is a hypothesis. It might be an interesting idea, but it's untested. Personally I don't put much confidence in ideas like this. It might make interesting conversation, but ultimately there is not much there to give confidence to the validity of the ideas.



    Radioactive dating is not a theory as much as a technique. (Radioactive decay is a theory. Radioactive dating is a technique.) There can be a big difference between theory and application. In application every mathematical time projection losses accuracy the further you extrapolate. Since radioactive dating is a mathematical time projection, this applies. It must lose accuracy the further out you go, since they all do. I have serious doubts about all of the dates that are say 1 million years or more. I don't think we can accurately project what happened 1 million years ago or what will happen 1 million years from now.



    This is something I will probably have to look into. I looked into some of the calculations explaining the past about 10 years ago, and I found out that other projections into the past didn't fit with the commonly explained view. I don't think ocean crust creation was one I looked into, but that is the sort of thing I look for. I.e. if we do projections into the past based on ocean crust creation do the dates synch up to the radioactive decay dates?

    What I've found so far is that the dates don't match up most of the time. Most biologists and geologists seem to take the math for granted, at least that is what it looks like to me. If I can find enough models which actually match radioactive decay then I will probably be convinced, but what I usually find is evidence to give me less confidence in how the past is explained.
    so basically, radioactive decay, element half lives, astronomy...its all WAY too speculative for you...you know, because we cant be there to observe it...

    ...but the 2000 year ago resurrection of a jew, claiming to be the son of God, who walked on water, and rose on the third day to save us from the sins God created us to commit, by telling us to "telepathically" tell him we believe in him to save the soul, which by some unknown mechanism is subject to pharmacological compounds, yet still its own special untestable entity....etc....etc....Not too far out at all!

    along the lines of your astronomy doubts: were you there 2000 years ago to do experiments and run tests? oh thats right: you use inference.


  2. #122
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    All results from experiments is simply data.

    If you make an observation, create a hypothesis, any search for evidence is an experiment. If you observe the creation of a star and observe the conclusion, you create a hypothesis of intermediate steps. Then, you look for them. If you find them, then the hypothesis is evidenced and gains support. It's not different than experimentation. In many ways there is more information available for astronomers than human experimenters, so to speak.

    Is it weaker than being able to run infinite controlled experiments? Yes... but the original point is that time cannot be generalized- in many cases we can see back a long long way (ie: to the start of the universe) or have a actual archive of information (ie: genetics). It is possible to trace back and understand underlying conditions.
    You're right that data is better than no data however its obtained. Without a test though the door is left wide open for confirmation bias. Experimentation and (even better) application are good tests for theories. That's how you know if the idea really has merit. Before then the person forming the idea could just be fooling themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Either elements have the half-lives we believe them to or they don't. If they do, dating is a matter of basic 7th grade algebra. I don't see how "mathematical projections" would come into play.
    You're missing my point. You think the only complication is in knowing the half-life? It's not. Real world data always has noise. The further you project, the bigger the effect of noise. Every curve that models data is only a best fit curve. It doesn't fit exactly. It's an approximation. The further you project the greater the inaccuracy until there is no accuracy at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    so basically, radioactive decay, element half lives, astronomy...its all WAY too speculative for you...you know, because we cant be there to observe it...

    ...but the 2000 year ago resurrection of a jew, claiming to be the son of God, who walked on water, and rose on the third day to save us from the sins God created us to commit, by telling us to "telepathically" tell him we believe in him to save the soul, which by some unknown mechanism is subject to pharmacological compounds, yet still its own special untestable entity....etc....etc....Not too far out at all!

    along the lines of your astronomy doubts: were you there 2000 years ago to do experiments and run tests? oh thats right: you use inference.

    Heh, you are confusing science and religion. Science should be judged by scientific standards and religion should be judged by religious standards.

    However, in a religious context there are actually tests you can perform and practical applications from the ideas. You can test if the ideas have merit and then apply them. I think the same should be true of a scientific context. Scientific ideas should be falsifiable, and they should be able to be applied in new ways. That shows that the idea actually has credibility.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #123
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    You're missing my point. You think the only complication is in knowing the half-life? It's not. Real world data always has noise. The further you project, the bigger the effect of noise. Every curve that models data is only a best fit curve. It doesn't fit exactly. It's an approximation. The further you project the greater the inaccuracy until there is no accuracy at all.
    Again, so long as the half-lives have been arrived at correctly, the equation is simple, leaving very little room for error. If you can demonstrate either that:

    1.) the half-lives of the elements have not been arrived at correctly, or
    2.) the manner in which the presence of these elements is being detected is inaccurate

    ...the scientific community would be greatly in your debt. Presently I don't see how whatever it is that you're alluding to is relevant.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #124
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    You're right that data is better than no data however its obtained. Without a test though the door is left wide open for confirmation bias. Experimentation and (even better) application are good tests for theories. That's how you know if the idea really has merit. Before then the person forming the idea could just be fooling themselves.
    And that differs from someone setting up their own experiment to prove their own hypothesis? Just as others can do the experiment, so can others find more evidence.

  5. #125
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    .

    Heh, you are confusing science and religion. Science should be judged by scientific standards and religion should be judged by religious standards.

    However, in a religious context there are actually tests you can perform and practical applications from the ideas. You can test if the ideas have merit and then apply them. I think the same should be true of a scientific context. Scientific ideas should be falsifiable, and they should be able to be applied in new ways. That shows that the idea actually has credibility.

    but religion has no standards!


    Religion generally is:
    1. unfalsifiable (anything that God does is explainable as "God works in mysterious ways")
    2. has no mechanism (ie 'magic')
    3. makes no testable predictions

    So by normal standards of ANY theory, its bullshit. so what 'standards' does religion claim to follow?

    There is no: "thats the realm of science and thats the realm of religion". They both claim to describe the world we live in...the difference is that science adheres to standards and describes actaul atom interaction, where as religion describes immaterial interactions (ie no atom interaction, ie the interactions of NOTHINGS)

  6. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    ...but the 2000 year ago resurrection of a jew, claiming to be the son of God, who walked on water, and rose on the third day to save us from the sins God created us to commit, by telling us to "telepathically" tell him we believe in him to save the soul, which by some unknown mechanism is subject to pharmacological compounds, yet still its own special untestable entity....etc....etc....Not too far out at all!
    Why can't you wrap your mind around that?

  7. #127
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Again, so long as the half-lives have been arrived at correctly, the equation is simple, leaving very little room for error. If you can demonstrate either that:

    1.) the half-lives of the elements have not been arrived at correctly, or
    2.) the manner in which the presence of these elements is being detected is inaccurate

    ...the scientific community would be greatly in your debt. Presently I don't see how whatever it is that you're alluding to is relevant.
    As I've said in my reply to Antisocial One, I haven't found much verification for radioactive dating using other models. If I were going to look again I'd look at something like the growth rate of the ocean crust and see if the dates actually matched. You might have lots of faith in radioactive dating, but I like to see that it has independent verification from other models.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    And that differs from someone setting up their own experiment to prove their own hypothesis? Just as others can do the experiment, so can others find more evidence.
    Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I see experimentation as different from simple observation. And what is most important to me is application. When a theory is applied, that is when I consider it to be fairly solid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post

    but religion has no standards!


    Religion generally is:
    1. unfalsifiable (anything that God does is explainable as "God works in mysterious ways")
    2. has no mechanism (ie 'magic')
    3. makes no testable predictions

    So by normal standards of ANY theory, its bullshit. so what 'standards' does religion claim to follow?
    Religion does have standards. I believe Joseph Campbell stated some standards to judge how effective a religion is. Apart from that though, most religions actually give standards for how they are to be judged. For example to test Christianity Jesus says, "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In other words if you sincerely strive to follow his teaching then you will know whether or not there is anything to it. He is actually inviting people to test him. Therefore it is falsifiable, because a test is given. It isn't falsifiable by scientific standards, but by religious standards.

    There is no: "thats the realm of science and thats the realm of religion". They both claim to describe the world we live in...the difference is that science adheres to standards and describes actaul atom interaction, where as religion describes immaterial interactions (ie no atom interaction, ie the interactions of NOTHINGS)
    Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  8. #128
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    Scientists have fossils to back it up, it's out of arrogance that the majority of people don't accept it..it's our of sheer stupidity..I mean, come on..you learn this stuff in like 6th grade.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  9. #129
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    As I've said in my reply to Antisocial One, I haven't found much verification for radioactive dating using other models. If I were going to look again I'd look at something like the growth rate of the ocean crust and see if the dates actually matched. You might have lots of faith in radioactive dating, but I like to see that it has independent verification from other models.
    The lack of verification on the basis of other models is irrelevant. Either the process is flawed or it is not. If it is flawed, and you can demonstrate such, then you ought to do so. The scientific community would be greatly in your debt.

    If you're going to question a well-established scientific method, you're going to have to do better than some personal theory that you can't even adequately communicate to others.

    Heh for the most part religion and science don't have much to do with one another. They have two totally different purposes. Any place where they might bump heads is the exception rather than the rule.
    Name one thing that religion addresses that is in no way relevant to science.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  10. #130
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

Similar Threads

  1. What type do you think a majority of mafia/mobsters would be?
    By swordpath in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2010, 11:05 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 12:08 AM
  3. Which Natural Disaster would be most interesting to see?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 04:00 AM
  4. [NF] If you've ever wondered what a world of NFs would be like...
    By wwbeachbum161 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 09:13 PM
  5. A fig by any other name would be a Newt!
    By TheNewt in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO