Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Common sense is useless in a discussion of scientific topics.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Raiment
 



Originally posted by Raiment
I am just starting to study this but the physics professor does not seem to agree that probabilities are pointless.


Well la-dee-da. Unless he has a study that proves that probabilities make any sense when you're dealing with a sample size of...1...there's no point.



On a job interview probabilities took up most of my time.


...but your job interview doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.

Base point, the numbers you provided have no base.




posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Why does the sample size of one come from. Weren't many amino acid proteins and many constants needed to be in place for the origin of life? Even if it was a collision, so many constants had to be in place. We even read that in hawking and he believes in evolution.

 


Mod edit: Repaired broken quote tags for member and added 'reply to' tag.
edit on 11/10/2010 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Raiment
 



Originally posted by Raiment
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Why does the sample size of one come from.



It's already happened. We know after the fact that the probability is 1 because we're observing it after the fact...and because there's no other way to calculate the probability.

You've thrown out some numbers, where's the supporting evidence for your numbers?



Weren't many amino acid proteins and many constants needed to be in place for the origin of life?


Yes, and those develop under the right circumstances.



Even if it was a collision, so many constants had to be in place.


Yes, but there's no way of calculating a probability of a system we're ignorant to. We can't say the probability is anything but 1. For all we know, life is inevitable in whatever form. All we know is that it developed on earth.



We even read that in hawking and he believes in evolution.


...Hawking writes about biology? Last time I checked he liked writing about astrophysics and cosmology.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Raiment
 


We even read that in hawking and he believes in evolution.

...Hawking writes about biology? Last time I checked he liked writing about astrophysics and cosmology.

Could a separate species of humanity be evolving which has a marked affinity for random name-dropping and which lacks the ability to provide actual quotes or sources?


Homo non-sapiens, perhaps?

Reading the statistics given in this thread for the probability of a one time occurrence brings to mind another conundrum.

How come, when there is a huge disaster and all but one of the people involved die, the account is always written by the surviver? What's the chance of that, when there were so many other people involved?


I wonder, how many places are there where abiogenesis could have occurred but didn't, or where life occurred but did not continue? It's hardly a surprise if we, celebrating our miraculous lives, are celebrating from the planet where this all came together, and not from one of the (possibly) bazillions where there is no life.

Or, life may be a commonplace event, existing on bazillions of planets. In that case, life here is hardly a surprise at all.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...Hawking writes about biology? Last time I checked he liked writing about astrophysics and cosmology.


He writes about the universe coming into being (with same constants in place). How could evoloution have occurred without the universe?
edit on 10-11-2010 by Raiment because: add



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
There could be multiverses, if that is what you are talking about. That is just a theory, the same as design is a theory, and design should have as much weight, at least, as anything you can fantasize about.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...Hawking writes about biology? Last time I checked he liked writing about astrophysics and cosmology.

He writes about the universe coming into being (with same constants in place). How could evoloution have occurred without the universe?

When we discuss the birth of a baby, do we usually discuss the coital positions the parents used and who made the bed on which they engaged in conjugiality?

By your logic we should, as they are obviously all part of the process.

However most people still take the word birth to mean birth, not insemination, and the word evolution to mean the development of life after abiogenesis, not the big bang which may have preceded it or the physics of black holes.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...Hawking writes about biology? Last time I checked he liked writing about astrophysics and cosmology.

He writes about the universe coming into being (with same constants in place). How could evoloution have occurred without the universe?

When we discuss the birth of a baby, do we usually discuss the coital positions the parents used and who made the bed on which they engaged in conjugiality?

By your logic we should, as they are obviously all part of the process.

However most people still take the word birth to mean birth, not insemination, and the word evolution to mean the development of life after abiogenesis, not the big bang which may have preceded it or the physics of black holes.


I was under the impression that it was not called Big Bang these days. I am not sure the analogy applies. It is more like talking about a birth without seminal fluid.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...Hawking writes about biology? Last time I checked he liked writing about astrophysics and cosmology.

He writes about the universe coming into being (with same constants in place). How could evoloution have occurred without the universe?

When we discuss the birth of a baby, do we usually discuss the coital positions the parents used and who made the bed on which they engaged in conjugiality?

By your logic we should, as they are obviously all part of the process.

However most people still take the word birth to mean birth, not insemination, and the word evolution to mean the development of life after abiogenesis, not the big bang which may have preceded it or the physics of black holes.


I was under the impression that it was not called Big Bang these days. I am not sure the analogy applies. It is more like talking about a birth without seminal fluid.

So if you were announcing the birth of your baby, you would describe the seminal fluid in the announcement?

The big bang theory is probably still the most widely accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe, but there are good reasons why it is being reassessed.
edit on 11/11/10 by Kailassa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raiment
There could be multiverses, if that is what you are talking about.


Yes, but we've never observed another universe, so we have no knowledge of the nature of other universes if they even exist. For all we know, universes all have the exact same laws of physics.



That is just a theory, the same as design is a theory, and design should have as much weight, at least, as anything you can fantasize about.


...I'm not fantasizing. Multiverses are actually built upon certain concepts in quantum mechanics and is supported by mathematical evidence, though it is still in dispute. There is actual academic work in the subject.


Design is not a theory (it's a hypothesis), but you're right, it should hold as much weight as anything I fantasize about, but not as much weight as a scientific field of actual study.

So now I'm fantasizing about a parrot attempting to play the banjo and failing miserably. That's about as relevant to science as creationism is.



Originally posted by Raiment
He writes about the universe coming into being (with same constants in place). How could evoloution have occurred without the universe?


That would make him an expert in all science...but he isn't.

Evolution will and does occur anywhere you have life. It deals only with life How that life got there is irrelevant. How the planet it is on got there is irrelevant. How the universe that planet is in formed is irrelevant. What matters are the biological organisms.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Interesting thread MadnessInMySoul,

IMHO it's the other way around.

Common sense is useless in a discussion of scientific topics
if one is a full fledged believer of evolution.

Let me show you what I mean.

Take for example Mathematical laws that govern the universe, or more specifically Kepler's THIRD LAW: The CUBE of a planet's DISTANCE (a) is IDENTICAL to the SQUARE of the planet's orbital Period (P), that is:

If a = distance in a.u., P = orbital Period then a^3 = P^2.

Now let's apply this equation to the third Planet orbiting the sun, the planet EARTH.

The Earth is 92.95 million miles (mean) from the Sun. This distance is known as an 'astronomical unit' (a.u.). This is equivalent to 1 a.u.

The Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. This is equivalent to ONE year (P).

Thus for Earth a^3=P^2 → becomes → 1^3 = 1^2. This is the standard for measuring the rest.

From this standard we can accurately and confidently say then that any two planets follow the same ratio, and all the planets follow the same Mathematical Law.

Do you agree? If no then consider the following:

The planet Mercury

a = 0.3871 a.u. while P = 0.24 year (87.97 days)
a^3 = 0.3871^3 = 0.05.
P^2 = 0.24 ^2 = 0.05

Thus for Mercury: a^3 = P^2 = 0.05.

What does COMMON SENSE say? Accident, Fluke, Blind Chance or MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator)?

My scientific common sense tells me the later: MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). Do you agree?

Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ??????

Not yet convince? Okay, let's take another example:

The planet URANUS

a = 19.2258 a.u. while P = 84.30 years

a = 19.2258^3 = 7,106.4
P = 84.30^2 = 7,106.4

Thus for Uranus: a^3 = P^2 = 7,106.4

What does COMMON SENSE say? Accident, Fluke, Blind Chance or MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator)?

My scientific common sense tells me the later: MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). Do you agree?

Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ??????

Need more proof?

Here, you can do the rest.

Venus:
a = 0.72 a.u.
P = 0.61 year

Mars:
a = 1.52 a.u.
P = 1.88 years

Jupiter:
a = 5.2 a.u.
P = 11.86 years

Saturn:
a = 9.5388 a.u.
P = 29.46

Neptune:
a = 30.05757 a.u.
P = 164.79 years

Pluto: (dwarf planet?)
a = 39.48265 a.u. (mean)
P = 248.09 years

QUESTION:

What does COMMON SENSE say? Accident, Fluke, Blind Chance or MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator)?

My scientific common sense tells me the later: MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). Do you agree? I hope so.

Because if it requires very smart human mathematicians/scientist to work out some of the MOST ADVANCE mathematics of the universe, then how much more so IS the a GREATEST MATHEMATICHIAN of all (YHWH/YeHoWaH/Jehovah God) to put the mathematics in the first place!

Makes sense?

Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ?????? nonsense?????

ciao,
edmc^2
edit on 13-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: mindinmysoul - to madnessinmysoul



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


All it tells me is that we observed something about the Earth's orbit and mathematically applied it and the other things we knew about physics and found...*gasp* that all planetary objects follow the exact same laws of physics.

Uniformity of physics isn't a point in favor of any deity, hence common sense is pointless here.

Now, you're not even addressing the topic at hand: science is counter-intuitive.

Can I stick my hand in molten lead and not lose it? Yes, I just need to wet it a bit first. Still sticking it into molten lead. Which is insanely hot.

Just wanted to edit in one thing, because I forgot to address it:



Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ?????? nonsense?????


...evolution says absolutely nothing about physics. Don't confuse a biological theory with anything that says anything about cosmological physics.
edit on 13/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Added last bit.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Speaking of the hand in hot lead, I once did a firewalk. -same sort of protective mechanism.

I'd watched spiritual fire-walks and inspirational firewalks on TV, and it didn't look like mind-over-matter to me, so I was curious.

So when I was at a science fair with my fourteen year old son, a very gentle, nervous kid with Aspergers, but a big guy, (6' 4") and he summoned up the courage to do the firewalk if I did it too, I had to try. I knew it would be really good for him later to know he'd beaten his fear like this.

The firewalk was bigger than I expected, a well-prepared path of red, glowing coals 4' wide, 6" deep and 20 steps long. You couldn't stand too close for long, it was like a furnace, and none of the guys who'd built it had dared try it themselves. Their girl-friends were being guinea pigs instead. They were calling for more volunteers, but people were standing well back.

They coached us carefully. We had to roll our trousers up to the knees so they wouldn't catch fire, the heat was so intense, and dip our feet in water before starting. We were told to walk smoothly and steadily, not to run and not to stop.

My son went first, with me right behind. It was a bit frightening, but it didn't actually burn, despite us both having delicate feet. Everything was fine for the first fifteen steps, but then my son froze, like someone having a petit mal. he was standing stiff and motionless, and was just not "there" any more. I couldn't let him miss out on his achievement, and I couldn't let him get burnt, so I just picked him up under the arms and held him there until he regained consciousness. (I'm big and strong myself.) This took a couple of minutes of me standing still in the coals, with one wedged between my toes, burning. Together we weighed close on 250kg so there was a lot of pressure on my feet.

The Sceptics running this "sideshow" were pretty concerned, wanting to take my son for me, and wanting me to get moving, and kindly rolling up my pant legs for me when they started to unroll and scorch. But a mum's gotta do what a mum's gotta do.


My son was not aware of what had happened, so he as proud as could be when he finished.

The guy who seemed to be in charge was still a bit in shock, and asked me how I did it. I answered, (still pissed off because their group had been telling people at a stall inside that massage was fraudulent, and I'm a masseuse,) that I did it by not believing in anything, not even scepticism.

My feet were perfectly fine afterwards apart from a burn between the toes.

There's good scientific reason for being able to walk on hot coals. The carbon that forms on the top makes a great insulator. (You never walk on the coals until they have been smouldering an hour or more, to let the carbon build up.) I don't know if the water really helps, you'd think, in that heat, it would all be evaporated off after the first step.

But I still wonder, was it all natural, or did something strange happen that day?



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
....


Uniformity of physics isn't a point in favor of any deity, hence common sense is pointless here.


But it does. For how could the laws of physics exists apart from intelligence. Common sense tells me that where's there's a law there's a lawmaker, where's there's a lawmaker there's a mind, where there's a mind there's a brain, a body an Intelligent Entity - possessing powers that can put these laws into action. Blind chance can't do that.

Unless you're saying that these universal laws had always existed - never created even before the big bang.



Now, you're not even addressing the topic at hand: science is counter-intuitive.

Can I stick my hand in molten lead and not lose it? Yes, I just need to wet it a bit first. Still sticking it into molten lead. Which is insanely hot.


My apologies if I'm not understanding you, but my take on this example of yours is also commons sense at play. That is commons sense of fear. The fear of getting burned if not done properly. Yes, I agree for a brief second I can stick my wet hand in a molten lead because of the laws of physics at play in that 'momment of time'. But once I exceed that safe 'time zone' I'll be in danger of losing my hand if I don't pull it out quickly. Common sense takes over to prevent me from hurting myself.

So science and common sense go hand in hand. If one is missing it becomes illogical reasoning.

ty,
edmc^2



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
But it does. For how could the laws of physics exists apart from intelligence.


Naturally.



Common sense tells me that where's there's a law there's a lawmaker, where's there's a lawmaker there's a mind, where there's a mind there's a brain, a body an Intelligent Entity - possessing powers that can put these laws into action. Blind chance can't do that.


Nobody is saying it's necessarily blind chance. For all we know, the only way a universe can possibly form is in the manner that it has already formed. Maybe there is a limited range of physical 'laws' that a universe can have.

We do know that there is actually 1 fundamental force of the universe that is entirely unnecessary, a force that we could actually go on living without (the weak force). If an omnipotent, omniscient being created the universe, why the waste?

And what's more, that common sense is downright wrong. Science is inherently counter-intuitive.



Unless you're saying that these universal laws had always existed - never created even before the big bang.


They may have arisen due to the big bang. We're not 100% sure right now, but science is working on it.



My apologies if I'm not understanding you, but my take on this example of yours is also commons sense at play. That is commons sense of fear. The fear of getting burned if not done properly.


Yes, it is irrational fear.



Yes, I agree for a brief second I can stick my wet hand in a molten lead because of the laws of physics at play in that 'momment of time'. But once I exceed that safe 'time zone' I'll be in danger of losing my hand if I don't pull it out quickly. Common sense takes over to prevent me from hurting myself.


But common sense would state 'sticking my hand in a molten metal at all is stupid and will make me lose a hand' all together. The scientific reasoning is "I can stick my hand in the molten lead/liquid nitrogen for X period of time safely, if I exceed this I'll burn my hand or lose it." Common sense doesn't come into play.



So science and common sense go hand in hand. If one is missing it becomes illogical reasoning.


No, you can have science without 'common sense'. The common sense doesn't add anything but false initial assumptions.

If I put an object at the bottom of a pair of downward sloping rods, will it roll up it?
Common sense? "No"
Scientific reasoning? "What shape is it?"



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, you can have science without 'common sense'. The common sense doesn't add anything but false initial assumptions.
If I put an object at the bottom of a pair of downward sloping rods, will it roll up it?
Common sense? "No"
Scientific reasoning? "What shape is it?"

No, common sense is right; gravity will cause the object to roll down.

The exception is where the centre of gravity of the object is lowered by the object rolling up, in which case it will only roll up until the rolling has lowered the centre of gravity.

Please show me proof I am wrong.
But before you do so, you may want to check your actual wording.



If objects could actually roll upwards indefinitely without the application of force, we'd have perpetual motion machines and free energy.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Ok, that's true. It wasn't the best example. But the point sort of remains that you're still applying scientific knowledge instead of 'common sense'.

Common sense is the overall prejudice of thought of the majority.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Kailassa
 

Ok, that's true. It wasn't the best example.

It was fun though, working out what you were talking about, tracking down some relevant papers full of maths I didn't understand, and then building models so I could watch it and see why it worked instead.


But the point sort of remains that you're still applying scientific knowledge instead of 'common sense'.

I guess careful observation counts as science, even on such a small scale.


Common sense is the overall prejudice of thought of the majority.

All too often, common sense equates with group think, because people assume a large enough group can't be wrong. And group think makes people easy to manipulate.

I've often thought about group think and wondered how it arose. A few times people I've known have converted to born-again religions, and it's been as though they've had their brains sucked out. Suddenly they've become smiley and dopey and started believing in a 6000 year old universe, and handed over responsibility for their decisions to a church. --- really creepy.


But I figure that mode of existance must have an evolutionary advantage, otherwise the potential would not be so prevalent in modern humans. So the question is, was it rigid theocracies, which beat down more individualistic societies, and then bumped off the locals who still thought for themselves, or did this trait evolve before theocracies, and help cohesiveness within the tribe so they could all pull together? --or both?

And, is this trait equally prevalent world-wide? From observation I suspect it is.

Anyway, this is why I fight to prevent "god did it" being taught in science class.
It gives kids an easy way out, so they can feel superior while refusing to do the work needed to understand the evidence for evolution. Teach kids at that age they are smart if they refuse to think, and they're unlikely to take up thinking later. So they become easy prey to those who want to put one over a bunch of people for their own purposes.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 





Anyway, this is why I fight to prevent "god did it" being taught in science class. It gives kids an easy way out, so they can feel superior while refusing to do the work needed to understand the evidence for evolution. Teach kids at that age they are smart if they refuse to think, and they're unlikely to take up thinking later. So they become easy prey to those who want to put one over a bunch of people for their own purposes.


Well said.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Just wanted to bump this because a lot of creationists seem to keep mentioning how 'common sense' is their guide and how great it must be.

This thread must continue to combat the use of unscientific thought in scientific discourse. Feel free to use common sense elsewhere, keep it out of science.






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join