Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The limits of science

trinitrotoluene - 26-7-2003 at 21:02

This had been in my mind for a while.... After reading some book. Will science ever come to and end? or will it continue infinately? A few possabilities is will someday we discover everything there is to discover about science and there's no more to learn.Or will at some point society, politics, religion outlaw science?
Or will science get very dificult then youths lose intereast in it and it's over?
Or will scientific research just get very expensive and the benifits don't seem worth of the work.

I think it will not end I beleave after one discovery it will raise questions and problems then it will continue on and so on.
What do you people think?

raistlin - 27-7-2003 at 00:03

Ad terminum. To the end of time. Its mans nature to want to explore and explain, and when he thinks something is one way, a man will show up with the desire to prove it wrong, will succeed, and everything will start again from there.

The end of science will come with the end of time.

vulture - 27-7-2003 at 02:14

Some said, and I've been a believer of that theory for some time (not anymore), is that when science gives man the potential to fully eredicate the human species, this will happen eventually.

Now, we had the potential in the cold war and it didn't happen. Does that mean the theory isn't valid or does it mean the timescale is too small?

[Edited on 27-7-2003 by vulture]

archaelus - 4-9-2003 at 22:14

If you take a quick glance at scientific history, all that is now considered concrete science was once considered magick or sorcery. I see in the future of the human race two paths:

1. self annihilation

2. A merging of science, religion, metaphysics, art, and music. This will bring about a new Aeon of our causal existence... most likely to the end of war, leading back only to number 1.


There is a myth concerning the binary star system Algol. Whether there is any factual basis, I do not know. It is said that there was a great single sun solar system there, having several planets capable of sustaining life, and at least 2 that in fact did. In the entropic manner of creation, the greater the intelligence of the civilizations of these planets grew, the greater the atrocities they committed grew (sound familiar?). They had reached the second path described above, and used such enlightenment in creating a device capable of withstanding direct solar heat long enough to get close enough to their sun to detonate, splitting it in two. The entire solar system was wiped out by this doomsday device, supposedly leaving only a small band of scientists who had escaped in a shuttle.

Myth or reality, it shows all to clearly the direction of our race, and the wonderful fruits of the progress of science.

Archaelus

DDTea - 4-9-2003 at 23:26

Here is how I see it... Science today is a lot more complex than it was even 100 or 200 years ago. Following this trend, the areas of research in Science will become more specialized, more detailed, and more complex. It will require high levels of skill and training, thus becoming inaccessible to many... But of course, there will always be the elite few who are fascinated, and willing to dedicate hard work to the study of science.

Also, as you know, necessity is the mother of all invention. Human beings will always want things, no matter what they have; thus there will always be a demand for something more powerful, faster, prettier, or whatever else have you - just look at these trends in computers.

I believe it is impossible to know EVERYTHING about something, and as such, there will always be room for more research. I don't believe that science will ever end, but just become more advanced and involved than we today can imagine.

mystery chemical sign

jruppert - 5-9-2003 at 17:16

OK, I'll try to find a box in which to post the url.

Attachment: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2003/northdown2/northdown... (0B)
This file has been downloaded 1990 times

Haggis - 5-9-2003 at 21:35

It will be easier just to follow this direct link: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2003/northdown2/northdown...

I don't get what chemical symbol you are talking about. Perhaps you are interpreting the 'cropcircles' themselves as a structure.

vulture - 6-9-2003 at 01:33

The first picture seems like N(NH2-N-NH2)3

Although I doubt such a compound can exist.

Furthermore, what has this got to do with this thread??

[Edited on 6-9-2003 by vulture]

Iv4 - 6-9-2003 at 04:54

Probably we'll hav something like star trek(NOt the one with kirk the fag).There will be wars and a few weapons that can destroy solar systems bu that will be the equivilant to a nuke to us.

PS
Just in case your wondering there was a klingon weapon in NG that caused a sort of cancer in fusion reaction so it could shut down the sun in 3 hous o something.Oh and metaphsasic sheilding could go into the sun.

the crop circle with the possible chemical sign

jruppert - 7-9-2003 at 18:02

Thanks to those of you who replied. What follows is from another source:

"The crop formation looks perhaps like an oxidized phenalene with all three benzenes oxidized/or substituted (hydroxyl groups, nitro groups or methyl groups).

Molecule #13 in: http://ois.nist.gov/pah/pages/2.pdf is phenalene. Now, break the double carbon bonds on all three benzenes of the phenalene and you have the Northdown crop formation.

Ask your chemist friend about the uses of phenalenes, particularly substituted phenalenes."

Does this suggest anything in the way of a clue?

ps: I apologize for posting this question to this thread, but I didn't know where to post it, and this thread had the most recent positings and I thought I might find someone online who could figure this out. Thanks.

mystery chemical in crop circleHee's

jruppert - 7-9-2003 at 18:05

Here is another response given by a professor of chemistry, through a friend:

"Chandra, the chemist, says it's not a chemical symbol as it is,
but if the three circles were closed, it would be anthracene."

one more question re: the crop circle symbol

jruppert - 7-9-2003 at 18:07

Does anyone here know what might be the uses of "substituted phenalenes"?

impossible (?) compound in crop circle

jruppert - 7-9-2003 at 19:23

Quote:
Originally posted by vulture
The first picture seems like N(NH2-N-NH2)3

Although I doubt such a compound can exist.

Furthermore, what has this got to do with this thread??
[Edited on 6-9-2003 by vulture]


What would it mean if it could exist? and associated questions such as can it be made to exist?

---------------------------------------------------

Please use the edit button. Furthermore, don't reply to a quote in the quote itself. I've fixed it.

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by vulture]

chemical allusion in crop circle

jruppert - 9-9-2003 at 07:34

This crop circle symbol may relate to diesel fuel purification and thus to environmental protection. If you go to the link below, a pdf file, and scroll to pp. 20-31, you can read a discussion by Chevron scientists of the processes employed in very recent years by chemists in the oil refining industry, concerning anthracenes, substituted phenalenes, and so forth. Toward the end of this discussion reference is made to very clean and renewable diesel-like fuels that can be produced from soybeans, yes soybeans, called "Biodiesel" and "Soydiesel." The problem as expressed by Chevron on about pg. 31 is that

"The main disadvantage of biodiesel is its cost, which, as of this writing is two-thirds higher than that of conventional diesel fuel. Until the price comes down, its use will probably be limited to situations where it is subsidized or where the potential environmental benefits offset the additional cost. For example, biodiesel is more widely used in Europe where environmental regulations and tax subsidies make it practical."

Random thoughts: didn't a crop circle go down recently in a field of soybeans in the US? Which is more costly, in simple monetary terms -- 100 billion per year+ to put US corporations in control of Iraq's oil fields for years to come, or tax subsidies to environmentally sound corporations to produce oil from soybeans? Is there anything further that can be done to crude oil, as possibly suggested by the chemical structure represented at North Down, that will make its use safer for the environment?

NOTE to Mad Scientist group: Now that there is some indication of the possible relevance of the symbol in the crop circle, does anyone here have a colleague who might be able to shed light on what the symbol means?

sorry, here's the link

jruppert - 9-9-2003 at 07:36

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/Diesel...

raistlin - 9-9-2003 at 18:54

GOD FREAKING DAMN! USE THE BLOODY EDIT BUTTON!

Sry for ranting guys..., thats just a bit irritating...

Iv4 - 17-9-2003 at 07:08

Here the weirdest thing your probably going to come across today:

There might be some condition in crop circles that causes the moleculer structre to be paterned.

Kinda like an electron microscope(considering the thoeyr about the earths magnetic field) but instead of hitting a sesnor it gets warped by some force and it causes unfavorbale conditions for crops thus making the paterns.

Though personally I think theres nothing really to these crop circles.

[Edited on 17-9-2003 by Iv4]

Blind Angel - 17-9-2003 at 13:46

Quote:
Originally posted by archaelus
2. A merging of science, religion, metaphysics, art, and music...


Weeehhhh, a molecule that sing, that can be considered as god and that enable us to see thing that doesn't exist....
Doesn't this ring a bell?

PHILOU Zrealone - 13-10-2003 at 06:26

Nope nope nope.
If you look closely to the crop drawing, you would see that:

*Phenalenes
*N(N(NH2)2)3

Aren't options!

Why?
1)simply because the sequence is as follows:
W(BWBW(BWBW(BW)2)2)3
You easily see W = pale ring and B= dark ring).
The center ring is pale and until the next branching (on a pale ring) there are 3 interval rings (BWB sequence) then the same occure when you are on that W branching.But for the last branching we have a shorter sequence.

2)The central W is sp3 and thus can be trivalent with a free doublet or tetravalent but you don't see the above atom because it is superimpressed (the view is celestrial!).
Anyway it is tetraedral as suggest the 3D view you have of the all picture despite it is 2D.
But at the second and third branching the W core is trivalent but flat and thus displays a sp2 conformation.
Finally at the end W are terminal and display valence 1 and are alined with the previous B "atom"(?) --> sp1 conformation?In each arm the W between two barnching W is also sp1 but links with two B (or bivalent 180°)!

3) B must be sp or at least always display a bivalent 180° linkage.
*************
Conclusions:

1)The entire molecule is tetraedral what excludes phenalene what is plannar and aromatic!Proof that it is not flat is that the circles are never full except the first that hide part of the next and so on.

2)W must be of valence (4),3,2,1 or being able to form sp3, sp2 and sp1 hybridations.
W might be C,N (or other carbonides/azotides) since sp1 hybridation can have 1 or 2 binding with B (C would have 2 but one if carbylamine!)

3) B must be sp1 (or center of two sp2)with two linking bonds or be of valence 2 (180°).
B might thus be C (carbonide) ..., Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba,...

4)No molecule made with N and C would hold the shape unless the color isn't important!
Since N(CNCNC(... would imply branch bending N(-C=N=C-N(-
And
-C(-N=C=N-C(-N=C=N-C(-N#C)2)2)3 would also be branch bended.

5)So there is no chemical solutions ...the drawing is a 3D fractal defining 3 planes in the space!

:cool::cool::cool:
Ph Z

The End Of Science

slvr_phoenix - 2-12-2003 at 11:32

I think 'science' in its quest for 'truth' has ended up just as a religion for atheists. The word science has lost much of its meaning. ANd like all religions at some point the actual facts will make the trappings so evident that reformation back to the basic principles of the core beliefs will be necessary for survival.

Maybe at such a time 'science' can learn to survive again. Right now though I see it on a very self-destructive path. So will science ever end? I think that depends entirely upon what path science follows. The principles of science however, the constant search for the actual truth, will survive, no matter what words or guises it might one day have to hide behind.

As for humanity blowing ourselves up at some point, I think some will manage to survive somehow. Humanity will survive even if our technology doesn't. Such is life.

slvr_phoenix - 2-12-2003 at 11:37

Quote:
Originally posted by Ross Koepke
I think at one point, given enough time, we will come up with an accurate equation of everything. It will be an immensely complicated equation to figure out what will happen in any given situation. However, the role of science would still not be gone. We'd still have to find the values of the variables that make up the equation for any given situation
What if one or more of the variables cannot be defined? What if there is an equation which is outside of our equation for which we cannot solve? What if the very nature of the universe required an entity which by its very nature cannot be equal to anything?

SCIENCE IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, IT IS SIMPLY A METHOD OF THOUGHT. THAT METHOD IS ELEGANT IN ITS LOGIC AND SIMPLICITY, IT IS A REFUSAL TO BELIEVE ANYTHING UNTIL REASONABLE PROOF IS PROVIDED, AND THEN TO REFUSE TO DISBELIEVE ONCE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED

Hermes_Trismegistus - 2-12-2003 at 15:50

quote

"I think 'science' in its quest for 'truth' has ended up just as a religion for atheists."

No. Science is what it has always been, informed skepticism in the absence of evidence.

Making observations about the world, formulating testable hypotheses, testing them, making observations during the test.

using the observations to make more testable hypotheses....

Nothing complicated, I think that a common misconception of laymen (and some scientists) is to confuse the TOOLS of science and the FRUITS of science with the METHODS and AIMS of science.

The TOOLS we use are not the methods of science....the METHODS are the questions!

The FRUITS of science are not its aim, they are just serendiptous developments.

Think of it like this, the tree bears fruit as it grows, but bearing fruit is not the goal of the tree, GROWING is.

Science is, by nature, uncontrolled and grows exponentially.

and yes the nature of SCIENCE does not preclude human frailties.

reply

tom haggen - 2-12-2003 at 19:57

existance is infnite. as long as there is space and time than there will be an intrest in science

slvr_phoenix - 4-12-2003 at 05:54

Quote:
Originally posted by Hermes_Trismegistus
No. Science is what it has always been, informed skepticism in the absence of evidence.

If only that were true. Yet evidence is often neglected, ignored, or shunned because that which it offers proof of goes against long established theorums. And meanwhile completely unprovable theories which have no supportive evidence are sometimes so believed that they are treated as laws by some scientists.

No. The heart of science, the quest for answers through the requirement of proof, that will always exist in some form. The field of science itself though, the name, the term which we have given this process, that has just become like any other religion. It requires belief in the unprovable and often shuns or ignores any proof that doesn't fit into its established beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. It's useful. Both are useful. I readily admit benefiting from and working with both 'science' and 'religion'. However I always have to keep an open mind whenever dealing with either to avoid the trappings of their dogma. And I have met a number of scientists in my life who could teach a religious fanatic a thing or two about being a zealot.

Science was and still is beneficial, but the scientific community has turned science into something that it was never meant to be, and it only seems to get worse as time progresses. So as I see it, it is only a matter of time before science either goes through a purification process or turns into something else entirely. That's my point of view anyway.

franklyn - 19-10-2006 at 03:38

There are only two important ideas that have been originated in all
of the twentieth century. One is Heisenberg's exclusionary principle
and the other is Godel's incompletness theorem. These teach us that
for the first time, we now know that there are definite limits to what
one can know, and that there exists knowledge which will forever
be unknowable.

[Edited on 19-10-2006 by franklyn]

Mr_Benito_Mussolini - 19-10-2006 at 16:27

Quote:
Originally posted by franklyn
There are only two important ideas that have been originated in all
of the twentieth century. One is Heisenberg's exclusionary principle
and the other is Godel's incompletness theorem. These teach us that
for the first time, we now know that there are definite limits to what
one can know, and that there exists knowledge which will forever
be unknowable.
[Edited on 19-10-2006 by franklyn]


Rather, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle gives an insight into the structure of the universe and the relationship between seemingly independent parameters. You have ignored Special and General Relativity, theories which are obviously important. Take any field and there will have been more discoveries in the 20th century than in the entire history of mankind. We are living in a golden age, and the pace of discovery is only going to become more frenetic.

Beyond Reason

franklyn - 13-1-2008 at 00:02

Beyond Reason. 8 great problems that reveal the limits of science
A.K. Dewdney - PDF ~9.5 MB
http://www.keepmyfile.com/download/1a95292104108
Description _
Inventors and engineers have invested centuries of effort trying to build
a perpetual-motion machine. They have never succeeded, but without
their valiant attempts, a particularly piquant chapter would be missing
from this new book on scientific impossibilities. Science-writer Dewdney
teases illuminating logic and formulas from the despair of physicists who
wish to predict how electrons will dance, from the frustration of computer
programmers who want to resolve certain types of yes-no questions, and
from the embarrassment of meteorologists who would like to predict next
week's weather. Rigorous enough to challenge intelligent readers but not
so daunting as to overwhelm the nonspecialist, the investigation of each
impossibility clarifies the barriers that forbid further progress along certain
theoretical paths, limning the conceptual boundaries of science and even
reflecting the limitations inherent in the structure of human rationality.
Still, Dewdney concedes a catalogue of scientific impossibilities may just
provoke some maverick to do what the greatest scientists have always
done: enlarge the limits of the possible.

A mind-bending excursion to the limits of science and mathematics. Are some
scientific problems insoluble? In Beyond Reason, internationally acclaimed math
and science author A. K. Dewdney answers this question by examining eight
insurmountable mathematical and scientific roadblocks that have stumped
thinkers across the centuries, from ancient mathematical conundrums such as
"squaring the circle," first attempted by the Pythagoreans, to Godel's vexing
theorem, from perpetual motion to the upredictable behavior of chaotic
systems such as the weather.


Table of Contents


Introduction: Where Reason Cannot Go . . 1


MATH IN THE COSMOS

. . . 1 . . . The Energy Drain : Impossible Machines . . . 11
. . . 2 . . . The Cosmic Limit : Unreachable Speeds . . . 35
. . . 3 . . . The Quantum Curtain : Unknowable Particles . . . 59
. . . 4 . . . The Edge of Chaos : Unpredictable Systems . . . 85


MATH IN THE HOLOS

. . . 5 . . . The Circular Crypt : Unconstructable figures . . . 115
. . . 6 . . . The Chains of Reason : Unprovable Theorems . . . . 137
. . . 7 . . . The Computer Treadmill : Impossible Programs . . . 163
. . . 8 . . . The Big-O Bottleneck : Intractable Problems . . . 183


References . . 207
Further Reading . . 211
Index . . 213

[Edited on 13-1-2008 by franklyn]

MagicJigPipe - 13-1-2008 at 11:44

Perpetual motion? I thought it was a well established fact that it is impossible because it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy and both Laws of Thermodynamics. Perpetual motion is impossible in it's traditional sense.

[Edited on 13-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

microcosmicus - 13-1-2008 at 12:04

Of course, it's impossible. The point was that, just as science
advanced in the nineteenth century by discovering why
it is impossible (the laws of thermodynamics), so too perhaps
there are advances to be made by investigating why other
things are impossible.

len1 - 13-1-2008 at 20:12

We have to be a bit careful here. Science can never disprove what might apply in the future. So in principle perpetual motion machines are not disproved. In fact one of the competing theories with the big bang - continuous creation theory - is just such a theory, which violates energy conservation - what impossibility of perpetual motion is based on.

What we can say is that currently established theories of the four forces (electroweak, gravitational, strong) all have energy conservation. So if someone comes up with a purely mechanical perpetual motion machine (as many have) we can throw it out straight away. Ultimately thermodynamics is a belief - its empirical - and not fundamental.

[Edited on 14-1-2008 by len1]

MagicJigPipe - 13-1-2008 at 22:35

Yes, but energy cannot be created out of thin air. Nor can anything in the universe be unaffected by some kind of force. It's the same reason absolute zero and speeds faster than light cannot be acheived. Yes, they are just laws and theories but they make way too much sense and have been confirmed so much by experimentation. It just doesn't make sense that you could make something that would run forever without netting a loss of energy.

EDIT
This quote from wikipedia says part of my point nicely.

"It can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics that absolute zero can never be achieved artificially, though it is possible to reach temperatures close to it through the use of cryocoolers. This is the same principle that ensures no machine can be 100% efficient."

Basically, there is no way, aside from travelling faster than light (and even then it would be a great feat) for some form of energy not to reach the device (or object being cooled) in question. Even then how would you prevent heat or energy from flowing through the cooling device or machine to the user?

I suppose nothing's impossible since there is no way we could ever know everything.

I know that's your point len1.

By the way, I know I've mentioned this before but Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe" is excellent if you are interested in this sort of thing. I am currently reading his newest book "The Fabric of the Cosmos". It's a bit more geared towards readers without a physics background but still good so far.

[Edited on 14-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

Speed Of Light

MadHatter - 14-1-2008 at 00:30

Check out this link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/...

They mention 3 feet. Isn't that about 3 nanseconds at the speed of light ?

Are these guys full of shit ? Who knows.

len1 - 14-1-2008 at 00:57

Quote:
Yes, but energy cannot be created out of thin air. Yes, they are just laws and theories but they make way too much sense and have been confirmed so much by experimentation
.

Yes this seems to be a rock solid principle in the world we live, confirmed many times. Yet the principle of energy conservation is violated by the biggest test of all - our existance. Either

1) its violated continuously in the process of continuous creation
2) its violated at a single space-time point, the Big Bang

science has not been able to answer this so far

PS its easy to make something appear to move faster than light - shine a torchlight at clouds a distance L away. If the torch is rotated at angular velocity w the light will move across the clouds at a speed of L w . This can be greater than the speed of light - but doesnt violate relativity since this light only appears to move at that speed

Faster than light

franklyn - 14-1-2008 at 10:15

Quote:
Originally posted by MadHatter
Are these guys full of shit ? Who knows.



This appears to be tunneling, an effect whereby a partcle such as an electron
or in this case a microwave photon, vanishes at one point as it materializes at
another point some distance away. Because a microwave wavelength is very
large compared to that of an electron, it manifests this property at scales much
larger than integrated circuits such as the Josephson junction device.

Here are some relevent papers _

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/herbert.winful/files/faster_than_...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9811/9811019v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9807/9807042v4.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/9611/9611018v1.pdf


Believe it or not this effect may actually occur in chemical processes
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/04/the_quantum_shortcu...


I'm reminded of the little ditty

There was a young lady, quite bright,
who could travel much faster than light.
She departed one day, in a relative way,
and returned on the previous night.

.

MagicJigPipe - 14-1-2008 at 16:36

Yes, len1, relativity becomes very interesting at near light speeds. Somewhat confusing at first, too.

Wait. That article seems very sensationalistic. I know Quantum Mechanics and Relativity don't "mix" but I also think that quantum tunneling isn't a particle or wave moving faster than light but more like "skipping" or "TUNNELING" through space/time. Just because you get from point A to point B faster than the time it would take at the speed of light doesn't necessarily mean you traveled the speed of light. I know that theory exists but the name of it escapes me.



[Edited on 14-1-2008 by MagicJigPipe]

12AX7 - 14-1-2008 at 17:15

Hmm, relativisim is invoked willy-nilly in a lot of quantum calculations. For instance, the energy might be calculated using relativistic terms instead of classical (E ~= pc, etc.).

Tim

franklyn - 13-10-2011 at 11:02

Funny nobody here picked up on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html

.

hissingnoise - 13-10-2011 at 11:25

We could've been waiting for independent confirmation? :)

overload - 13-10-2011 at 11:49

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
There are only two important ideas that have been originated in all
of the twentieth century. One is Heisenberg's exclusionary principle
and the other is Godel's incompletness theorem. These teach us that
for the first time, we now know that there are definite limits to what
one can know, and that there exists knowledge which will forever
be unknowable.

[Edited on 19-10-2006 by franklyn]


These theories dont teach me anything.. These guys sound like spys of relegion trying to sabatoge science. There are no limits to good human brains. The one thing I want scientists to try to figure out is how to block gravity. This would create an area of zero gravity. I also want them to figure out what is space. A better word for space is area. Your in area right now WHAT IS IT. I would also like to live forever which is probably easier to do than figuring out what area is and what you can do to it.

phlogiston - 13-10-2011 at 12:27

In physics, I can see us reach a point where we may have one or even several theories than explain all the observable data perfectly, but we are left without a way to test them. That is already happening.
You can't re-run the universe with different starting conditions.

But some other fields can go on forever I guess. Synthetic life may become like architecture or art. New lifeforms may be created for certain useful purposes but also perhaps just for the fun of it, with fashion changing over time.

[QOUTE] Think of it like this, the tree bears fruit as it grows, but bearing fruit is not the goal of the tree, GROWING is.[/QUOTE]

I think I get your point, but this is a very poor analogy. If you believe in evolution, growing fruit (and particularly the seeds in it) is -exactly- the goal of the tree. It's only purpose in life is to reproduce, for if it fails to do so it will go extinct.

Endimion17 - 13-10-2011 at 13:34

Quote: Originally posted by phlogiston  
In physics, I can see us reach a point where we may have one or even several theories than explain all the observable data perfectly, but we are left without a way to test them. That is already happening.
You can't re-run the universe with different starting conditions.

But some other fields can go on forever I guess. Synthetic life may become like architecture or art. New lifeforms may be created for certain useful purposes but also perhaps just for the fun of it, with fashion changing over time.

[QOUTE] Think of it like this, the tree bears fruit as it grows, but bearing fruit is not the goal of the tree, GROWING is.[/QUOTE]

I think I get your point, but this is a very poor analogy. If you believe in evolution, growing fruit (and particularly the seeds in it) is -exactly- the goal of the tree. It's only purpose in life is to reproduce, for if it fails to do so it will go extinct.


I find the bold part particulary annoying.
What's up with the "if you believe"? It's not something you're supposed to believe in. It's a fact like atoms or gravity. Facts exist by themselves.

I don't understand this obsessive American behaviour where even the blatant facts of the natural world are subjected to a version of political correctness blown out of proportion.

[Edited on 10-15-2011 by Polverone]

woelen - 13-10-2011 at 23:11

I think that science comes in waves of more fundamental science, followed by more practical science. There are periods in which many fundamental properties of nature are found and then such periods are followed by periods in which these newly discovered fundamental properties are exploited in practical equipment.

In the early 1800's the nature of many dyes was discovered, and in a later period these discoveries were exploited for making many many synthetic dyes. In the late 1800's and early 1900's many properties were discovered of exotic materials, such as sensitivity to light, the possibility of modulating conductiveness by means of an external voltage or small current, the property of emitting and modulating light output by means of current or voltage, and many many more. It is only now at the end of the 1900's and the 2000's that these properties are exploited in fast computers, screens, all kind of medical devices.

It might be that we discover very fundamental new properties of matter (e.g. dark matter, dark energy, faster than light particles?, exotic subatomic particles). If such things indeed are discovered, then I'm sure that 100 years or so later in time these will be exploited.

Endimion17 - 15-10-2011 at 04:30

Back on topic. The limits of science... Consider this and this.

These two things are one of the reasons why we're always going to explore.
Additionally, consider the human nature, and consider the vastness of space and the amount of matter, and the number of combinations its parts can be sorted in, and the orders of magnitude larger information it can contain, and the inability to store all of that information because it's stored using matter.

These things seem trivial, but when you think about them, it starts to be kind of scary.

hissingnoise - 15-10-2011 at 06:37

Quote:
In my little pocket-philosophy, the Limit of Science lies at the boundary of human imagination.

Yes, but at any particular time and set of circumstances!
But the human imagination is limitless as is science and new bits of the jigsaw are being fitted into the puzzle every day, practically.
If progress continues at its present rate, then daily life in a thousand years from now would be totally unrecognisable to us!
But we may, since our capacity for stupidity is also limitless, bring about our own extinction by further polluting our planet to the point where life is unsustainable!


Polverone - 15-10-2011 at 12:28

Next person to post about religion in this thread, pro or con, gets an insulting custom title.

franklyn - 18-10-2011 at 22:33

U P D A T E
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ftl-neutrin...
The narrow view is that neutinos can be superluminal. The wider
view is that the standard model is incomplete because it cannot
account for this observation. I'm betting as Svengali said " there
is more in heaven and earth than is imagined in your philosophy."

.

Rosco Bodine - 19-10-2011 at 15:06

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
U P D A T E
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ftl-neutrin...
The narrow view is that neutinos can be superluminal. The wider
view is that the standard model is incomplete because it cannot
account for this observation. I'm betting as Svengali said " there
is more in heaven and earth than is imagined in your philosophy."


"neutinos" or "Newtinos" ....disciples, or small child offspring of the Newt?

President Contract .....it kind of sings doesn't it :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHr4ubuD64

there's nothing like a good contract that isn't contractually deficient



And that quote was from Hamlet I think, a play by a fellow named Shakespeare

AndersHoveland - 19-10-2011 at 15:43

Quote: Originally posted by trinitrotoluene  
Will science ever come to and end? or will it continue infinately?


By definition, we cannot know about what we do not know about! Science might eventually dwindle as all the "low hanging apples" currently accessable to humans run out. This is not to say that humans will have discovered all natural phenomena, simply that it may be increasingly difficult for them to make additional discoveries.

Alternatively, there may be unexpected new discoveries, or ways of understanding natural phenomena, that may greatly expand the abilitity of humans to discover new things.

By 1900, most scientists believed that almost all scientific principles had already been discovered and adequately described. But this was certainly not the case. Even in the realm of chemistry, countless important reactions were later described, new fields of research emerged.

I can only offer my own opinion, which is that completely new and unexpected fields of research will develop that will expand the investigative power of researchers even further. There might be a plateau period of relative inactivity before that period. My guess is that no significant discoveries will be made in the next few decades, but at some point there will be a very important discovery, or a collection of advancements that will interplay with eachother to lead to a rapid advancement of technology.

I would also like to note that virtually all the important scientific research in the last century has emerged from government universities. Private industry has only refined and made commercially practical such research. But the very structural importance of government research may also be the main hindrance. Several decades ago, Feynman remarked that his colleagues pursued cargo cult science: an activity which is indistinguishable from science except for its lack of useful output. Scientific research decisions have, in some ways, become overcentralised. Curiosity-driven research is now frowned upon. But at the same time, more centralisation will be required to make future discoveries that will require a high level of resources and financing.

Again, in my opinion, the "information technology" age has really not been very revolutionary compared to many of the industrial advancements before (electricity and the automotive engine). The scientific world has been relatively stagnant since 1970. The progress of Science also stalled in the historical period between 500 AD to 1000 AD.

The progress of science is not always a continuous steady stream of advances. Science grows in sudden clusters of small discoveries, or in great leaps and bounds of understanding.

[Edited on 20-10-2011 by AndersHoveland]

gregxy - 19-10-2011 at 16:34

Yes but a big difference between now and 100 years ago is that things can be predicted and analyzed using math and physics. For example we know things like the maximum possible strength of materials, the highest temperature that can be produced, the maximum energy you can cram in a gram of material etc. Applying these "fundamental limits" shows that the cool science fiction stuff like interstellar travel, laser pistols, force fields etc are impossible.

We will continue to make progress in information driven science like biology, computers etc.

And there are some surprises like super conductors. Another is the fabrication of integrated circuits with feature sizes much smaller than the wavelength of light used to print them.

AndersHoveland - 19-10-2011 at 16:43

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  
a big difference between now and 100 years ago is that things can be predicted and analyzed using math and physics.


We all know how well sophisticated predictions from economists and financial analysts have resulted. No, it is simply difficult to precisely predict the future, especially when it concerns technological developments that could unexpectedly change everything.

Superconductors have not yet found any extensive commercial applications, although they have been useful to conducting other scientific research.

Have you seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA&feature=playe...

[Edited on 20-10-2011 by AndersHoveland]

SmashGlass - 19-10-2011 at 16:56

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  
Yes but a big difference between now and 100 years ago is that things can be predicted and analyzed using math and physics. For example we know things like the maximum possible strength of materials, the highest temperature that can be produced, the maximum energy you can cram in a gram of material etc.


I'm glad Einstein didn't know about math or physics... Or any other scientists back then. It was better when it was all touchy-feely science.
Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  

Applying these "fundamental limits" shows that the cool science fiction stuff like interstellar travel, laser pistols, force fields etc are impossible.


And 70 years ago the cold oven was a joke, we now call it a microwave oven.
The device we saw on star trek in the 60's and 70's everyone now has, they are called cell phones.
So I'll never give up until my car can change into a giant robot and beat the crap out of the other car that some idiot has just banged their door into mine. LOL

Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  

We will continue to make progress in information driven science like biology, computers etc.


Oh! You mean materials science. Rather than real science like chemistry, or physics or maths? You need ALL forms of science even the ones YOU deem unworthy. Nutters need to express themselves too. Otherwise they join the postal service. And we all know how well that ends up. Or like Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski, he was a mathematician who studied at Harvard, PhD at U of Michigan, and Assoc. Prof. at Berkley.
Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  

And there are some surprises like super conductors. Another is the fabrication of integrated circuits with feature sizes much smaller than the wavelength of light used to print them.


I wouldn't trust mathematicians and physicists as far as I could theoretically could throw them, but I still work with them.

"Beam Me Up Scotty."

bahamuth - 19-10-2011 at 17:49

Concerning the worries that science will take an "end" ever I guess it could, in a sort of way anyway. When every conscious being, man or ape or dolphin, cyborg or not, knows everything about the whole universe and all if any other verses from a very young age, perhaps even encoded from before birth to totally eradicate imaginary thought and dreams of the unknown, only then will science end.
I suspect there will always be someone that does not know everything so I highly doubt that science ever will cease to be.

Will post an example of barriers in science being broken...
As long as the wavelength and the general workings of light has been known, one has said that the smallest thing to bee seen with visable light through a light microscope with good resolution is about 200nm, 100nm with some fancy modifications and even down to 70 nm not so long ago with IIRC a silver mirror something..

But recently someone figured out to visually inspect, with visable light, down to 50 nm resolutions. They even state that there is no theoretical lower limit on their system. Have not read the article only some news stuff about it and the abstract. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n3/full/ncomms1211.h...

Published in Nature I would with high confidence say that it is truth in what they state.



Even the notion of thinking that science will end just confirms that we are just as ignorant as we have always been and we have a very long if not infinite way to reach such an end.

Additional, anyone afraid and concerned about the end of clever thinking should check out Kardashev scale and try to plot where we are now and figure out how long it would take us to reach Type III.
Me myself would very much like for us to reach type I in my lifetime but this is not very likely to happen.

gregxy - 19-10-2011 at 22:02

Quote: Originally posted by SmashGlass  


Oh! You mean materials science. Rather than real science like chemistry, or physics or maths? You need ALL forms of science even the ones YOU deem unworthy. Nutters need to express themselves too. Otherwise they join the postal service. And we all know how well that ends up. Or like Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski, he was a mathematician who studied at Harvard, PhD at U of Michigan, and Assoc. Prof. at Berkley.


I wouldn't trust mathematicians and physicists as far as I could theoretically could throw them, but I still work with them.

"Beam Me Up Scotty."


Too bad YOU can't make an argument without resorting to insults....

There is plenty of undiscovered science. My point is that for any relatively simple configuration of things that you can imagine (atoms, transistors, etc) using the science that we have, someone can tell you what it will do, cost to make etc without the need to make it. For problems like how a drug will interact with the human body there are still too many variables to analyze (although progress is continually being made).

In the field of chemistry I suspect that using modern software a researcher could figure out most of the useful properties of any molecule (density, melting point, reactions with other simple molecules, IR & NMR spectra etc) without the need to synthesize it, and if it is a stable compound and cost is not an issue, that they can synthesize it.










[Edited on 20-10-2011 by gregxy]

SmashGlass - 19-10-2011 at 23:20

My appologies to gregxy.

I didn't mean to go all caps. I was tired and had listened to too much mushy
semi-political banter. It must have affected my brain and I just needed to vent.

I prefer a more direct approach science to be honest.
Not the "If we all hold hands and think happy thoughts
we can fix global warming" attitude.

On topic: Theory only gets you so far until you have to prove it.
Yes, in-silico designs and models are constantly improving.
But the are only ever confirmed by producing the actual thing.
That was all what I was trying to get at.

"Peace"

Endimion17 - 20-10-2011 at 05:37

Quote:
Quote: Originally posted by SmashGlass  
I'm glad Einstein didn't know about math or physics... Or any other scientists back then. It was better when it was all touchy-feely science.

Clearly you're close to real science as a toddler is close to driving a car.
No, it wasn't better. It was limited, centralized, reserved for the rich, healthy individuals with time on their hands.
The information age is the best thing that ever happened to the human civilization. It would be futile to try to explain it here.
Quote:

And 70 years ago the cold oven was a joke, we now call it a microwave oven.
The device we saw on star trek in the 60's and 70's everyone now has, they are called cell phones.
So I'll never give up until my car can change into a giant robot and beat the crap out of the other car that some idiot has just banged their door into mine. LOL

No, it was not a joke. There were technological limits, but there were no natural law limits.
It was a joke to the uneducated.
Quote:

Oh! You mean materials science. Rather than real science like chemistry, or physics or maths? You need ALL forms of science even the ones YOU deem unworthy. Nutters need to express themselves too. Otherwise they join the postal service. And we all know how well that ends up. Or like Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski, he was a mathematician who studied at Harvard, PhD at U of Michigan, and Assoc. Prof. at Berkley.

Biology is not a real science? Holy crap, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Oh my god, like... just... wow. :o

AndersHoveland - 20-10-2011 at 12:21

Quote: Originally posted by Aryan  
Has science put an end to human hunger? Certainly not! Even in America thousands of people go hungry in the big cities.


This certainly highlights the limits of science in terms of increasing living standards. Science is only as beneficial as the economic system it exists within. There is an economic equilibrium, whereby the living standards of the masses are, as a whole, determined primarily by supply and demand of labor. Making peoples lives "easier" through new technology will only raise the demands made upon them, as the economic equilibrium adjusts so as to keep living conditions static. Let me also give an example. The cotton gin was originally invented in an attempt to reduce the plight of black slaves, who had to do the laborious process of separating cotton seeds from the fiber by hand. Unfortunately, by making the process easier and more economical, the cotton gin greatly expanded the spread of the cotton plantations and export market, necessitating the use of even more slaves. The working conditions did not improve, but in fact worsened. Despite the slaves now being more productive, they were expected to work even harder. Technology often has the opposite result from which it was intended.
Quote: Originally posted by Aryan  
All the human "progress" that has been derived from science has created as many problems as it has solutions. We now have cars, but also crowded roads, pollution, and never enough oil.


What would you prefer? That we all use a rickshaw?




[Edited on 20-10-2011 by AndersHoveland]

franklyn - 22-2-2012 at 13:57

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
We could've been waiting for independent confirmation? :)

Here is your confirmation , happy now.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/bummer-faster-...

.

GreenD - 23-2-2012 at 08:27

The end of science?

Well yes. I think there will be an "end" to science, or atleast there could be - remember, there are giant blocks of solid material zipping through space that could, at any moment, destroy all of Earth! Also global warming (oh sh*&;).

But beyond that, I think there will be a realization that there is more to reality than the gravity, strong, weak, electromagnetic forces, entangled by energy and matter. I think eventually, somehow, we will be able to "see" however that may be - the real complexity of our universe and beyond, which will bring about another "field" of study and understanding, ultimately making science quite boring and limited.

For right now, we really only have a a handful of unknowns - quantum entanglement, dark energy/matter, and the a theory fully explaining a black hole (quantum gravity). I would say anything else is simply understood, or completely within our reach, and just requires more analysis. I'm sure you can all chime in with other niche examples.

If this was '69 you'd all agree with me.

neptunium - 23-2-2012 at 08:51

if humans dont destroy themselves ,i think there is plenty to discover and it seems to me that the more we find out the more we realise how much we dont know and understand.

franklyn - 27-8-2012 at 11:35

Follow up on this previous post in this thread.
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=860&page=...

Gain-Assisted Superluminal Light Propagation
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html
Article in PDF
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/pdf/406277a0.pdf
A visual aid _
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html

.

watson.fawkes - 27-8-2012 at 11:54

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  

Gain-Assisted Superluminal Light Propagation
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/pdf/406277a0.pdf
From that article, it's last paragraph:
Quote:
Finally, we note that the observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality or special relativity. [...] The implications of the present experiment on signal propagation and its speed will be further analysed, particularly for the case when the light pulse consists of only a few photons.
This is interesting and significant work, but don't be swayed by the word "superluminal" in the title. There's a riddle here, but it's about the right way to determine what constitutes "signal", and not about any basic laws of nature.

franklyn - 20-9-2012 at 10:19

www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-science-nobel-predicti...

.

Brave new world

franklyn - 2-3-2013 at 01:48

www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/will_...

www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/rob...


http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa

Been there done that, the answer to everything is 42

( the punch line starts at video timeline 08:00 )
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ

Explained in Detail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s...


_________________________________________
Quote: Originally posted by MagicJigPipe  
Perpetual motion?
I thought it was a well established fact that it is impossible because it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy
and both Laws of Thermodynamics.

Quote: Originally posted by microcosmicus  
Of course, it's impossible.

Quote: Originally posted by len1  
We have to be a bit careful here. Science can never disprove what might apply in the future.
So in principle perpetual motion machines are not disproved.


@ MagicJigPipe

@ microcosmicus

@ len1


Skip ahead to video time line 05:25
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBp_SPJAOJc

.

IrC - 3-3-2013 at 02:29

SmashGlass "I'm glad Einstein didn't know about math or physics... Or any other scientists back then. It was better when it was all touchy-feely science."

Newton invented Calculus. Maxwell's equations in Quaternions is extremely sophisticated math. We could discuss Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and many others. Tesla brought you the lighting and power you use today. He was highly trained in mathematics. In fact He once remarked concerning Edison one calculation could save Him many experiments. If you really were a student of scientific history you could not possibly make the statement you have.

"And 70 years ago the cold oven was a joke, we now call it a microwave oven. "

Not cold if you consider the microwaves are energy just as heat is. We are merely talking about a difference in frequency.

"Oh! You mean materials science. Rather than real science like chemistry, or physics or maths?"

Honestly no comment could suffice this is absurd. All science is real science.

As long as we exist science has no end. There will always be new discoveries. To believe otherwise is arrogance. Or ignorance.

Aryan "Has science put an end to human hunger? Certainly not! Even in America thousands of people go hungry in the big cities."

Science is not at fault. No doubt many scientists are part of the problem but you cannot make such an all encompassing judgement. The money spent on weaponry in the worlds military's would eliminate hunger. The greed and corruption, the quest for power by leaders and politicians, as well the worlds money elite, block us from solving all of these problems. Where would the world be today if these forces had worked for good instead of evil motivated by their own selfish endeavors? Not to be overlooked is the low income professional gamers of the system further straining the system. They are willful multi-generational welfare recipients robbing food and services from the truly weak, ill, and needy. They have no wish to be self responsible, preferring not to work even though strong, healthy, and able bodied. All of these evils sum to create the worlds problems. Does anyone not believe the need for oil would have been solved by new energy sources by now, if all the money and science put into the technology of war were used instead in global cooperation to solve the really important problems?


[Edited on 3-3-2013 by IrC]

hissingnoise - 3-3-2013 at 08:04

Quote:
The money spent on weaponry in the worlds military's would eliminate hunger.

Indeed IrC, Eisenhower put it well when he said;
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed".


Diablo - 3-3-2013 at 13:41

Superconductors are used in MRIs.

franklyn - 17-1-2015 at 03:45

http://web.archive.org/web/20070518233440/http://michaelcric...

notable quotation _

" I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."


Skepticism is the first step towards truth.
— Denis Diderot

That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.
— Jacob Bronowski

No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.
— Jacob Bronowski

It is remarkably difficult to make a man understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
— Upton Sinclair

The hallmark of science is an experiment that can be repeated. The
hallmark of psuedo-science is a headline that can be repeated.


The United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC ignores assessments of economists who conclude that, if global warming is real, future generations will have a higher quality of life if societies maximize economic growth and adapt to future warming rather than trying to drastically curb emissions. Advice for policy makers that governments periodically receive from the IPCC contains political rather than scientific advice. In concert with this, over the past 10 years the IPCC has moved from being primarily a reviewer of the science evidence to being an advocate for the alarmist case for global warming.

To regain any semblance of credibility, the IPCC must correct all its structural deficiencies resulting from political influence.

Adopt procedures by which all scientific contributors formally approve both the Chapters and especially the Summary Report for Policymakers. Government delegates cannot be part of the approval process. Eliminate the authority of lead authors and the Chair to make any changes after approval and endorsement by the contributors. Create an ombudsman for each Chapter. These ombudsmen are to consult with contributors who believe valid issues are not being addressed, and disseminate a report for all contributors prior to final approval which is made part of the final document. Institute procedures to ensure that an adequate cross-section of qualified scientists wishing to participate in the process is selected based on unbiased criteria. The ombudsmen is to review complaints of bias in the selection process, and this is to be made part of the final document.

Organized in this way, the inherent bias this body has shown can be curtailed.

.

Zombie - 17-1-2015 at 06:08

Quote:
", if global warming is real,"

There are several very real factors in play here.
Our sun is expanding. First, and fore most.
http://www.space.com/7084-life-earth-escape-swelling-sun.htm...

Planets beyond ours that once held ice, and now loosing their polar caps just as we are loosing ours.
http://news.discovery.com/space/saturn-ice-moon-enceladus-11...

This is NOT due to little moon people polluting their planet just as we have.
It's just the way it is.

Our beloved ZGovt. has set in motion the concept of "Global Warming" as a direct result of OUR actions... Hogwash!
This was is the greatest LIE ever told. Their reasons???
Control the worlds resources.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/04/saudi-ara...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-10/why-oil-plunging-ot...
This crap is blatant. The US makes everyone sign up to reduce oil consumption around the globe yet we never sign?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

It all comes down to ONE simple fact. The us/the planet is ruled by one controlling entity. Illuminati!
Laugh/say what you will it is fact. Has been since the time of Christ.

I only bring this up to point out things related to research such as absolute zero quantum computer ( http://www.dwavesys.com/tutorials/background-reading-series/... )
Bloom cell technology ( http://www.bloomenergy.com/ ) , and who owns, and controls these technologies.

Google has been selling power back to the state of California due to their use of Bloom cells. Why is the entire world not using them? Big oil, and the grid. They will not release control. Who controls them? Rockefellers / Rothchilds. Always have, and always will. Their "Board of directors? The Bilderbergh group.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-story-of-the-bilderber...
Never in the history of Earth has there been a more deceitful group of assigned officials with more power.

How does this all apply to this thread?
It doesn't matter what we do or say. The power to do anything has been stripped. Science is THEIRS! Bloom cells are Theirs! Quantum computers are theirs! The NSA is Theirs!
We are controlled directly by them.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/0...

http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

Science huh! Hogwash. We are only allowed to do what they need. Nothing more.

Mesa - 18-1-2015 at 23:59

Quote: Originally posted by SmashGlass  
Quote: Originally posted by gregxy  

Oh! You mean materials science. Rather than real science like chemistry, or physics or maths? You need ALL forms of science even the ones YOU deem unworthy. Nutters need to express themselves too. Otherwise they join the postal service. And we all know how well that ends up. Or like Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski, he was a mathematician who studied at Harvard, PhD at U of Michigan, and Assoc. Prof. at Berkley.


I wouldn't trust mathematicians and physicists as far as I could theoretically could throw them, but I still work with them.

"Beam Me Up Scotty."


When I read this I immediately thought of this xkcd strip:
http://xkcd.com/435/

I wonder, if this were a physics forum, would we all be talking about how chemistry is all voodoo and guesswork?

EDIT:
Also, I'd like to point out that many people are confusing science with development. Science is the study of the structure/behavior of the world via observation and experimentation. Problems such as hunger, famine, world peace, etc. aren't the responsibility of science to solve. That's like blaming a pre-school for a cities crime rate.

[Edited on 19-1-2015 by Mesa]

gregxy - 19-1-2015 at 10:18

Interesting article. Some very smart people are worrying about
artificial intelligence becoming a "Terminator" like scenario.

Note the video. They have made a computer that can learn how to
play video games just by observing the pixels of the screen and making
ramdom moves.


http://www.wired.com/2015/01/ai-arrived-really-worries-world...

Chemosynthesis - 19-1-2015 at 10:45

Quote: Originally posted by Mesa  

I wonder, if this were a physics forum, would we all be talking about how chemistry is all voodoo and guesswork?

Based on the discredited, un-scientifically qualified pseudo-clinician Mercola and fluoride hyping (using one study with high variance and only 11 total samples of 2 subdividable genders and no correlation with bone fluoride like doi:10.1016/0742-8413(95)00012-V)... I would say that's a logical assumption.

Seems like a non-amateur experimentalism topic perfect for whimsy.

Edit- no personal affront intended towards Zombie, just for clarification.

[Edited on 19-1-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

mayko - 19-1-2015 at 13:34

Oh no, not again.

When I first read Michael Crichton's "Aliens Cause Global Warming," I was profoundly disappointed. I had expected something a lot stronger. In particular, I expected some interesting thinking along the lines of complexity and dynamical systems theory, given the prevalence of those themes in his work. All I got was a lot of sociological handwaving and some weasel language about how "climate may be a chaotic system". Crichton can spin a gripping yarn, but his philosophy of science is pretty bad IMHO, and doesn't consist of much more than cheering for the idealized heterodox underdog.
Quote:

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."


Really, now?

On the age of the earth: "the speakers at the yearly meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science came to a rough consensus that Earth was a few billion years old, and that radiometric dating was credible." source
On common descent: "There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories in science." source

Hold on to yer wallet, franklyn. The evilutionists are coming for ya.

In all seriousness, skepticism - including of 'authorities' - is an important process in science. It can even unseat 'established truths', if it uncovers sufficiently fatal anomalies and/or provides a better conceptual model for observations.

But, without a preexisting consensus on certain basic facts and interpretations, our intrepid skeptic can't actually get anywhere. One obvious reason is that observations don't actually mean anything by themselves; they only acquire meaning in the context of what are called 'auxillary hypotheses'. Without a consensus on these auxillaries, how can an observation actually lead to scientific knowledge?

(let's go back a few centuries)
Andy: I am a scientist without regard for the accepted truths of my day, and I say the world is round.
Bob: Oh?
Andy: Yes! Watch this ship recede from the shore. You will observe, we first lose sight of its hull, and then more and more disappears, until the tip of the masts vanish last. Thus, evidence for a curved surface.
Bob: Not so fast. You see, I too have no regard for received wisdom, and I personally doubt the common notion that light travels in straight lines. You have accepted this hypothesis unexamined as an auxillary to interpret your observations. Perhaps light is deflected upwards on long spatial scales. In such a situation, a ship on a flat ocean would look exactly as we have seen here today. How do ya like them apples?

(Lest you think this example contrived, consider the geocentrists who use the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence, not for the absence of the aether, but evidence that the Earth is stationary - eg, here)

The freedom of science is that its knowledge base is subservient to physical reality. However, its power is that its knowledge base is derived from physical reality. It's an uncomfortable tension, to be sure, but it's naive at best to resolve it by declaring all scientific knowledge to be equally precarious, ready to by unseated at any point by a single experiment or finding. This kind of thinking turns science into a bizarre, epistemologically nihilistic blob of meaningless non-facts. Rooting for the heterodox is great, but it's not a useful scientific heuristic. A more mature philosophy might view scientific claims through a Bayesian process, in which previous experience, received wisdom, etc are bundled up into priors which are modified each time new information is encountered. The higher a belief's prior probability, the greater the evidence necessary unseat it, though excepting priors of zero and one ('religious beliefs'), no belief is immune to challenge.

Commentary on Crichton's remarks, from an actual climate scientist:
Quote:

In the course of all this, he waxes eloquent about “consensus science,” which is in his view uniformly bad. I think he’s in a terrible muddle here. First, any conclusion that is to any degree drawn from observational data must depend to some extent on a consensus on the data and its interpretation. The published values of the fundamental physical constants – and, for that matter, the distance to the sun -- represent a consensus drawn from numerous sources. Much of the practice of medicine is based on hopefully thoughtful consensus on diagnoses and remedies drawn from clinical experience, usually in the absence of a deep understanding of the underlying biochemistry and physics. If he means something like, “Conclusions that are accepted as valid simply because a lot of people say they are,” then one cannot quarrel with his distaste. Samuel Johnson made essentially that argument in favor of religion – since so many great men had believed it, we should also. The argument that consensus is right simply because it is consensus was nonsense then and is nonsense now.
But Crichton has a second line of argument embedded here: Consensus has been wrong on a number of occasions in the past. It only takes one investigator to be right. Therefore, consensus is wrong now. Granted, one contrary opinion that is right trumps a consensus that is wrong. But which opinion is right? I don’t see how stating this truism helps his argument, or helps the rest of us in any practical way. There’s a consensus that fluoride in drinking water reduces tooth decay, and a few dissenters who see it as a public health hazard. Should we give up putting fluorides in drinking water?
source
Quote:

The United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC ignores assessments of economists who conclude that, if global warming is real, future generations will have a higher quality of life if societies maximize economic growth and adapt to future warming rather than trying to drastically curb emissions.


Oh, for sure. And the WHO ignores doctors who peddle quack explanations of AIDS. By Crichton's blithe reasoning, the WHO is just after your $$$, amirite?

"from the late 1990s Mbeki turned his back on the scientific consensus that Aids was caused by a viral infection that could be fought – though not cured – by sophisticated and expensive medical drugs. He came under the influence of a group of maverick scientists known as Aids denialists, most prominent among whom was Peter Duesberg from Berkeley, California." source
Quote:

There are several very real factors in play here.
Our sun is expanding. First, and fore most.
http://www.space.com/7084-life-earth-escape-swelling-sun.htm...


The linked article refers to solar changes on the time scale of 10^9 years. It doesn't have any bearing on sun-climate connections in the present.

In the here and now, solar trends are going in the wrong direction to explain global warming, and they have been doing so for several decades[1]. Solar trends, in particular, do NOT explain Arctic sea ice loss[2].


[1] Lockwood, M., & Fröhlich, C. (2007). Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 463(2086), 2447–2460. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
[2] Notz, D., & Marotzke, J. (2012). Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(8), n/a–n/a. doi:10.1029/2012GL051094

mayko - 19-1-2015 at 13:36

anyway, here's the on-topic reply I showed up to write.

Physical limits of inference
DH Wolpert - Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 2008
Quote:

Abstract
I show that physical devices that perform observation, prediction, or recollection share an underlying math- ematical structure. I call devices with that structure “inference devices”. I present a set of existence and impossibility results concerning inference devices. These results hold independent of the precise physical laws governing our universe. In a limited sense, the impossibility results establish that Laplace was wrong to claimthat even in a classical, non-chaotic universe the future can be unerringly predicted, given sufficient knowledge of the present. Alternatively, these impossibility results can be viewed as a non-quantum me- chanical “uncertainty principle”. Next I explore the close connections between themathematics of inference devices and of TuringMachines. In particular, the impossibility results for inference devices are similar to the Halting theorem for TM’s. Furthermore, one can define an analog of Universal TM’s (UTM’s) for in- ference devices. I call those analogs “strong inference devices”. I use strong inference devices to define the “inference complexity” of an inference task, which is the analog of the Kolmogorov complexity of com- puting a string. However no universe can contain more than one strong inference device. So whereas the Kolmogorov complexity of a string is arbitrary up to specification of the UTM, there is no such arbitrariness in the inference complexity of an inference task. I end by discussing the philosophical implications of these results, e.g., for whether the universe “is” a computer.


[on arxiv]

careysub - 19-1-2015 at 15:11

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
Oh no, not again.
...


Excellent post Mayko.

Zombie - 26-1-2015 at 12:33

This thread has been all over the place exploring thoughts, and processes.

I'm not going to pretend to be on near the same academic level as a bunch of you fellas but I do have one thought/statement that I believe is true.

The very real sciences that can, and do shape our world are strictly controlled by an elite group. If your research does not fit into their curriculum... it ceases, or is seized.
Yes in a sense I am a conspiracy theory kinda of guy. I also understand that the big picture is MUCH larger than anything I can grasp, let alone explain in a few sentences.

Artificial Inelegance is a prime example. Here is a computer science that serves what purpose?
Let's go back a few posts to the Cotton Gin...
Supposed to make life easier.
Take that up to the development of the computer. The vision was to carry the work load of a data processor (clerk/secretary) allowing said worker to have a shorter work week.
Look how that turned out. Now we all do MONTHS work of work in a single day. Here's a science question... Is all that extra responsibility Helpful or harmful, and to whom?

Back to AI. I post on several forums, and I assure you that AI has reared it's head on quite a few of them.
The internet is it's training ground. These machines are learning, and being taught by YOU, and I to interact in such a way as to be invisible. To blend in.

What is the premise for these machines? More importantly what will be the result of their implementation.
I look back at all the things just in my lifetime that were "supposed" to help. Things that were supposed to make life easier... All I see is defeat. Things that poison us or break our will. Microwave= cancer / Cell phone = same.
Transformers that make current available to our homes? Don't eat fish!
Plastic baby bottles? Yeah right. I could post this crap all day.

Some of you will scoff. I understand.
I just don't see the benefit in a fella working 10 hour days developing anything for any company if the entire equation is not taken into count. Like the crop circle "molecule".

It means nothing, and everything. It has to be seen through to the end to know.
If we do not know ALL the variables, then we are not ready to implement something, regardless of what we "think" the benefit is.
Thus my interest in posting this thread.
What is science today? Is it anything more than the first "witches"? Do all the big words some of you posses make this any more scientific? OR does it serve to confuse a fella like me into just forgetting the entire thing, and go back to the coal mine.

I get it. But do I want to?

The truth , the whole truth and nothing but

franklyn - 27-6-2015 at 21:34

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/27/8854105/new-science-guidelines

.

franklyn - 15-8-2015 at 16:21

Global Warming, Lysenkoism & Eugenics , Prof Richard Lindzen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RLPdEMjphM

Quote :

" For science to be politically useful , there appear to be several requirements.

• Powerful advocacy groups claiming to represent both science and the public in the name of morality and superior wisdom.

• Simplistic depictions of the underlying science so as to facilitate widespread ' understanding '.

• ' Events ', real or contrived , interpreted in such a manner as to promote a sense of urgency in the public at large.
. . ( intended to stampede the sheeple )

• Scientists flattered by public attention ( including financial support ) and deferent to ' political will ' and popular assessment of virtue.

• Significant numbers of scientists eager to produce the science demanded by the ' public '."

blogfast25 - 15-8-2015 at 16:42

Lindzen refuted:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...

Turns out he was also wrong about the connection between smoking and lung cancer (he didn't believe there was one).

In an al Jazeera episode of 'Head to Head' Lindzen had no problem with AGW but didn't believe anything could be done about it.

Comparison with lysenkoism and eugenics are particularly base but as long as it involves Nazis and Communists franklyn will always lap up these smears.


[Edited on 16-8-2015 by blogfast25]