It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Resolving Five of the Most Common Mistakes People Make About Science

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Yavanna

Now, were you to keep the force/surface area ratio the same and expand one of the protons to the size of a mosquito, you would have an impact that would effectively punch holes in very large things. Like planets.

(Before anyone bothers to shout at me about this, I realize that the 'surface area' of a proton isn't quite the way we imagine it when compared to macro objects. Just a simple analogy to help things along.)
edit on 6-6-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Cant help myself.

Misunderstanding 7.

A theory even if scientific is still a theory and as yet UNPROVEN.

It may be a popular theory but when new evidence is found, even widely held and accepted theories have been proven to be wrong.

From wiki
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired and free of confirmation bias.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: johnb

There's no such thing as proof in science. Scientific theories aren't called 'theories' because there's not enough evidence to support them (quite the opposite, in fact) and they don't become anything else when "enough" evidence comes in. They are the top of the totem pole, there is none higher than a scientific theory. Apologies if is not what you were arguing but it did read like this somewhat.

But you are correct, theories can change and be discarded as new evidence comes in. Some people mistakenly believe this is something of a fault of science when it is in fact its strength.
edit on 6-6-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

ncse.com... cientific-work



Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work
October 17th, 2008
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services
281
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Source
The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences



edit on 6-6-2015 by johnb because: tidying up


edit to add : I guess when science admits its truths may change and that accepted theories can be wrong - you cannot really blame people for doubting things, is confusing to be told something is true only for that truth to change the next week


The medical practice (or should i say big pharma) seems to be the worst for this.
edit on 6-6-2015 by johnb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: johnb

Yes, scientific theories can be proven wrong, but you need evidences to do so.

You can claim falsification of a theory, but your claim has no value if you do not provide evidences in favour of such falsification.

Saying that a theory could be wrong does not mean that this theory is wrong, it just means that until now it's the best theory we got to explain observations.


edit on 6-6-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

I'm not disagreeing with you


Just pointing out why many people struggle with scientific facts and theories - even scientists disagree constantly on their theories so how can a member of the public hope to understand?

The big bang theory is one of many regarding the start of our universe - we do not know which is correct if any of them yet but I thought the big bang theory was falling out of favour now?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnb
Cant help myself.

Misunderstanding 7.

A theory even if scientific is still a theory and as yet UNPROVEN.


Misunderstanding 8: when a scientist says "theory" it's the same sort of thing as when you're stoned out of your gourd you say "I wonder if our world is like an electron going around a Sun-nucleus like on some giant dude's fingernail"

Answer: no.

By the time something becomes scientific theory, it's been picked to pieces to make sure it fits observed data. And it's no good if you can't derive pretty much every known bit of math that fits the area of that theory. For example, if it's a general field theory and you can't derive Maxwell's equations from it, it's tossed. Then it has to show it's got better predictive power than the previous one.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

I honestly believe none of your items can be resolved, as there is always another viable theory out there to lay doubt within the last theory, such as this one; especially when discussing quantum mechanics.

arstechnica.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: swanne

I'm not disagreeing with you


Just pointing out why many people struggle with scientific facts and theories - even scientists disagree constantly on their theories so how can a member of the public hope to understand


Absolute truth is the province of religion, sad to say.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne




Reality does not exist unless you observe it.


Maybe reality cannot exist unless you observe. Matter may well be an epiphenoma of conciounsess.







posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Glad you popped in. I always enjoy reading your input.
edit on 6-6-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to: purplemer

Let me play the devil's advocate and pretend that matter indeed cannot exist unless observed by something capable of perceiving it:

Eyes are but objects made of atoms. When you think about it, atoms in the universe can after all perceive light from its surrounding. Thus in effect, atoms are eyes by themselves. Therefore, every objects in the universe made of more than two atoms will be observed by itself. Thus these object's existences will survive even when no one around is observing them, and, therefore, the conclusion that such objects stop existing once we stop observing them will still be false!



edit on 6-6-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: swanne
1,3,4,5 are the easy ones with 3,4,5 maybe being more of an education for the non scientific folks.

Number 2. Oh boy, nice to see somebody else who gets the wave function. What astonishes me is the number of scientists who don't or, probably, like to add a bit of "romantic - wow - mystery" to an explanation. I have heard a well known astrophysicist state in a TV program that a particle can be both here and at the opposite end of the universe at the same time.......Oh My Freaking God, please NOOOOOOOOOO. Quick where is the cat.......



Are you referencing the Brian Cox incident? Here is a great video about it from one of my favourite youtube channels, Sixty Symbols. What are you thoughts on this video? I admit it goes over my head a fair bit, I just nod and like to pretend I know what they're talking about half the time




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Interesting counter to the participatory Anthropic principle. Oddly enough, I just posted something about that in another thread before I hopped back into this one.
Here's a question for you :
Are reaction and perception the same thing? I would think that the ability to react to the presence of another object is verification enough of its existence do defeat the participatory premise. I don't know that I would call an atom absorbing a photon 'perception', necessarily. Or reacting magnetically, gravitationally, etc. But the very fact that any particle can influence another in some real and physical way seems to me to be enough validation to undermine the participatory Anthropic principle.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: johnb

Just to be clear: Theories don't become facts and facts don't become theories. Theories explain facts. Likewise, theories don't become laws and visa versa. A theory can contain laws but theories explain the "how" whereas laws are usually just statements.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

There is absolutely no reason to believe this.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: purplemer

There is absolutely no reason to believe this.


Is there any evidence not to believe it. Its known that observation and measurement have an effect on matter. How much of an effect is yet to be determined. We could be looking at the whole universe the wrong way round. It seems to be a simpler way to see things even if it defies what we call common sense..




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Thank you for your reply.

Is it not possible the atoms we speak of have a level off consciousness too. The world we see and universe in which we live as a consciousnes matrix which we to some extent create. Should probably leave it there as im likely to get shot down saying such things in a science forum.
JUst my belief and i think one day the world of science will see things differently too




posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: purplemer

There is absolutely no reason to believe this.


Is there any evidence not to believe it.


Is there evidence not to believe that I'm a fire-breathing goat?


Its known that observation and measurement have an effect on matter.


Measuring IS observation. It doesn't literally mean looking at it.
edit on 6-6-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Thank you for reply

All I meant by that was we make big assumptions that the universe is a certain way when infact it may be very different. There certainly appears to be evidence that the world no longer cleaves into a simple subject and object perception which are taught at a very young age.

Does nature waste energy. What is simpler, what required less energy a infinite universe or an infinite mind..

and yes measuring is observation and so is looking at it

I am not saying this is the way it is. Its the way it is for me and as an idea its worthy of consideration. For us to understand ourselves and the universe around these questions need to be pursued.



edit on 6-6-2015 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join