The Science & Skepticism Thread

R

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
About time we had a place to discuss all things scientific.

Here's a nice little video created to explain Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

 
Scientific?? At this time of the morning?..

Sheesh give me a bucket or 2 of coffee first :confused:
 
Very simplistic view of the theory but still worthwhile way of informing laypersons.
 
Neil deGrasse Tyson giving a simple explanation of the effects of time dilation:

 
praxis said:
Skepticism? Its not allowed in science.
Click to expand...

Eh? You better tell Doctors Novella and Tyson then!

There are science based skeptic groups all over the world, many of which publish very informative podcasts. Skepticism in science exists to educate the public about the principles and necessity of skepticism and critical thinking. To investigate pseudoscientific claims. To promote higher standards of education, especially in the areas of science and critical thinking skills. To lobby for rational law making.

Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. Like questioning the guy who shared a video yesterday here that purported that a cross shaped protein was proof that a god designed life. Without a science and skepticsim everyone would believe such b*****ks.
 
Rapscallion said:
Love Neil deGrasse Tyson!
Still haven't seen his version of Cosmos yet, but the originals are all on youtube. Heres the first:-


Click to expand...

My favourite television series of all time. I watch it every year and read the book (the hardback is beautifully illustrated).

The Tyson re-imagining is very good. The first words you hear are Sagan's opening line from the episode you posted, then Tyson is on the same bit of dramatic coastline explaining how Sagan inspired him to follow the career he has. The major thing that didn't work for me is that in the new series, the historical scenes are animated (Seth MacFarlane's influence no doubt) and not re-enacted as in Sagan's show.

Definitely worth getting on Blu-Ray though.
 
I find it amusing that every generation of scientists or theorists state such and such is now proven but then along comes the young guns to add or even disprove something.
All to the good though in the learning process, still so much to discover and i keep an open mind on it all.
I don't like the arrogance of current knowledge being disparraging to theories that don't conform,those might well be proven in the future.
 
tom24 said:
I find it amusing that every generation of scientists or theorists state such and such is now proven but then along comes the young guns to add or even disprove something.
All to the good though in the learning process, still so much to discover and i keep an open mind on it all.
I don't like the arrogance of current knowledge being disparraging to theories that don't conform,those might well be proven in the future.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you watch the first episode of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage that was posted above, even though it was first broadcast in 1980, it doesn't need many revisions to make it current.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Skepticism is generally any questioning attitude towards unempirical knowledge or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. Like questioning the guy who shared a video yesterday here that purported that a cross shaped protein was proof that a god designed life. Without a science and skepticsim everyone would believe such b*****ks.
Click to expand...

TBH the idea that a cross shaped protein proved God existed is more about people's desire to see things that aren't there, and some will run toward such things while others naturally reject them. Or maybe some are more naturally skeptical than others. ;)

Scientists are apt to regularly get things wrong, just like the rest of us, but science also expects one to adjust ones viewpoint in the face of hard data. It all gets a little more amusing when 2 opposite opinions get argued from essentially the same data, as sometimes happens in the biological sciences.

BTW I seem to have been locked out of replying to the 'Lords Prayer' thread.
 
Last edited:
praxis said:
@Ricardodaforce You`re joking? lets talk about Climate Change then, see where your skepticism gets you then.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling you have misunderstood me. Here's a definition by Dr Steven Novella.

"A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion."

From what I can see, there is over-whelming scientific evidence that climate change is a real thing.
 
Climate `change` is perpetual & has been since day 1. (y)

It was only a few nights ago on the National news (I think it was regarding China) when they stated that `the burning of coal was the reason for climate change! :wacky:
 
OldCarlos said:
Climate `change` is perpetual & has been since day 1. (y)

It was only a few nights ago on the National news (I think it was regarding China) when they stated that `the burning of coal was the reason for climate change! :wacky:
Click to expand...
You are right about the climate always changing.

However anthropomorphic climate change (man-made) is occurring at an unprecedented rate. In the past natural climate change has occurred gradually allowing ecosystems and life to adjust. Current rates of change - caused by mankind - are potentially catastrophic.

And there is a scientific consensus about this man-made global warming.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
 
Mountkeen said:
You are right about the climate always changing.

However anthropomorphic climate change (man-made) is occurring at an unprecedented rate. In the past natural climate change has occurred gradually allowing ecosystems and life to adjust. Current rates of change - caused by mankind - are potentially catastrophic.

And there is a scientific consensus about this man-made global warming.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
Click to expand...

[PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
 
I'm not saying what man is doing to our planet is right, or good, because it obviously isn't, but all this man-made global warming bull.... has been nothing but propaganda by the green lobby & `accepted` by governments to enable higher taxes & to keep the populations in their place.
 
Actually, I used to think that the Greens/lefties were the instigators of this myth & the politicians simply jumped on the bandwaggon to gain votes, but I'm actually beginning to think it was the reverse & the greens were duped & are now unable to backtrack & can't even afford to listen to scepticism or impartial facts.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
You posted that in the wrong thread! ;-)
Click to expand...

I posted it the correct thread, as the title says; The Science & Skepticism Thread.

Are you also unable to accept criticism of The Great Warming Myth? ;)
 
It is also worth considering that progress in science is made by people who 'know' something to be true, even when there is insufficient data to defend that belief. TBH if science relied solely on skepticism as defined in Ricardo's post then far less progress would be made and many projects would never be started. Faith, intuition and serendipity each play a major role in the progress of science, and if we relied on hard evidence alone then little progress would ever be made.
 
OldCarlos said:
I posted it the correct thread, as the title says; The Science & Skepticism Thread.

Are you also unable to accept criticism of The Great Warming Myth? ;)
Click to expand...

I accept scientific evidence that has been through the full scientific process.

I'm more than happy to see the evidence that man made warming is a myth, balanced against the evidence that it's not.

That's the point of scepticism.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It is also worth considering that progress in science is made by people who 'know' something to be true, even when there is insufficient data to defend that belief. TBH if science relied solely on skepticism as defined in Ricardo's post then far less progress would be made and many projects would never be started. Faith, intuition and serendipity each play a major role in the progress of science, and if we relied on hard evidence alone then little progress would ever be made.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point made by Carl Sagan in his essay "The Burden of Skepticism".

http://certaindoubt.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/carl_sagan-the_burden_of_skepticism.pdf
 
OldCarlos said:
I posted it the correct thread, as the title says; The Science & Skepticism Thread.

Are you also unable to accept criticism of The Great Warming Myth? ;)
Click to expand...

I am happy to consider all points of views, but you did wander into conspiracy theory territory.
 
OldCarlos said:
I'm not saying what man is doing to our planet is right, or good, because it obviously isn't, but all this man-made global warming bull.... has been nothing but propaganda by the green lobby & `accepted` by governments to enable higher taxes & to keep the populations in their place.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for this is???????
 
I am a Richard Feynman fan myself...

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
― Richard Feynman

“Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.”
― Richard Feynman

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
― Richard Feynman

“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
― Richard Feynman

Some of his quotes, He appeared to me to be of sober judgement and more important, honest at his approach. He was not a fan of pomposity that seems to feature in the scientific dogma of many of the aptly named scientific elite, sadly they are funded....lol

IF only science had the answers human kind so desperately seek............
 
On the subject of interesting science...

There was an article in Electronics Weekly years ago about a circuit (and they showed it) which apparently demonstrated a faster than light effect. They managed to demonstrate the effect with music piped through and the delay when it was spat out at the end was shorter than expected thus demonstrating the faster than light effect. Some body or other, and I forget who, rejected the whole thing as the demonstration should have been done with data and music wasn't data. At the time I thought that was a particularly stupid statement. Dunno what became of that circuit and little experiment and I regret not building it and giving it a shot.
 
A couple of things that totally fascinate me:

All the stuff that we can detect in the universe, you, me, planets, interstellar gas, stars, galaxies, EVERYTHING accounts for less that 5% of what's actually there. The so called dark energy is forcing the expansion of the universe at faster than light speed, and dark matter, which is the most common type of matter in the universe, but cannot be detected visually or by radio telescopes. We only know of it's presence through the gravitational effect it has on matter that we can detect, for example galaxies.

Neutron stars. Remnants from the supernova of a massive star. Less than 10 miles wide but with a mass significantly greater than sun. Not only would a cubic metre of it have a mass of billions of tons, if you could drop something onto it from a height of 1 metre, buy the time the object hit the surface it would travelling at millions of km per hour.
 
Last edited:
praxis said:
@Ricardodaforce You`re joking? lets talk about Climate Change then, see where your skepticism gets you then.
Click to expand...

A good example of the big bang theory. This thread was basically just meandering around happily but then BOOM! I bet it gets closed before page 4.

As an aside, I think we need a far scarier name than "climate change". Because change can occasionally be good. I propose "Crazy weather is going to kill us ALL (even rich people)". That should make the debates somewhat more focused.
 
JonathanRyan said:
A good example of the big bang theory. This thread was basically just meandering around happily but then BOOM! I bet it gets closed before page 4.

As an aside, I think we need a far scarier name than "climate change". Because change can occasionally be good. I propose "Crazy weather is going to kill us ALL (even rich people)". That should make the debates somewhat more focused.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That interjection had me scratching my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top