The problem with certainty
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2012, 05:15 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2012 05:19 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 02:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Besides, the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun. It revolves around the center of gravity of the solar system. Most likely. Wink
Which moves thusly with respect to the orb of the sun:
[Image: index.1.jpg]

(12-05-2012 01:17 AM)Quidsane Wrote:  While I agree with the idea of constantly revisiting and testing to see if a scientific theory can be falsified, is it your position that there are no scientific certainties? Is there any credible scientist actively working to disprove the "theory" that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's difficult for me to accept that nothing has been proven 100%.

We have models that can be described accurately and mathematically, and the accepted models within branches such as physics have perfect predictive power at the scales and in the cases we have been able to test them. We can't be sure how they'll hold up in the long term but to the extent that they describe known phenomena we can describe the predictive power of these models as knowledge or certainty.

How well these models describe the reality that underlies them is unclear. We have quite different models in place for relativity and quantum mechanics. In the sense that both models make perfect predictions in cases we have been able to test so far they both embody knowledge and certainty. However, they're essentially defining different universes based on different fundamental foundations. Relativity is based on spacetime as its foundation, while quantum physics rests somewhat on spacetime but primarily on fundamental particles and their interactions. Chances are both are in some way incorrect or at least not sufficiently descriptive of the underlying nature of the universe. This is where your strings and membranes and loops etc come in to try an improve the resolution of our model's description of the universe, and the correspondence between that model and the foundations of the "real" universe.

I guess there are a number of axis of knowledge here:
1. How accurately does our model describe observed phenomenon?
2. How accurately does our model extend beyond observed cases to cases we are subsequently able to observe?
3. How accurately does our model extend beyond cases we are able to observe?
4. To what level of detail, what resolution does our model describe reality?

Science cares about (1) and (2). It would like to care about (3) and will continue to push the boundaries to try and move cases from the (3) bucket to the (2) bucket, but if we can't observe some cases we have to pretty much assume our models are correct until proven otherwise. This is a gap in our knowledge. (4) is the other gap in our knowledge. Newton described gravity, but in resolving inconsistencies in established science Einstein increased the detail of our knowledge of how space and time work together as a single fabric. More detail is better, but science still accepted Newton's ideas as "knowledge" until we could come up with a theory that described reality in greater detail.

So
Both (1) and (2) are both necessary for knowledge and certainty in science. If an idea describes reality but doesn't make new surprising predictions about it, we have not added to our scientific knowledge.
Less of (3) is good. If we can observe more cases we can trust our models to a greater degree.
More of (4) is good in the same way. If we can describe the universe in more detail and observe this detail operating then we trust our models more.

Science advances when (4) increases while still meeting (1) and (2), or when (3) increases while still meeting (1) and (2). We still have knowledge before and after the advance, but after the advance we have either a greater breadth or a greater depth of knowledge encapsulated within our model.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
12-05-2012, 05:35 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2012 05:58 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 05:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-05-2012 04:36 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I wasn't giving you this astronomical nonsense, I was giving it to Quidsane. And Gwynnie's my sweet everything, get yer own. Tongue

Might I recommend, Ashley Greene?

Nice choice.
But I caught, as the locals put it, "yellow" fever many years ago.
Have you got an Asian version of Ms Greene?
Hows about Meisa Kuroki?


[Image: Meisa_Kuroki.jpeg]

See what you started?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2012, 08:13 AM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 05:35 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(12-05-2012 05:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Nice choice.
But I caught, as the locals put it, "yellow" fever many years ago.
Have you got an Asian version of Ms Greene?
Hows about Meisa Kuroki?




See what you started?
Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Drooling

Not impressed by the song though!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2012, 12:23 PM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 05:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Nice choice.
But I caught, as the locals put it, "yellow" fever many years ago.
Have you got an Asian version of Ms Greene?

Even if the locals do use that racist terminology, why are you using it?
Around here, a lot of the younger black guys call each other "nigger".
By your logic, I guess I can use that word as well, since the locals do. Undecided
Couldn't you have just said "I prefer Asian women"?

Seriously, man, that language is not cool.
Not just in a forum setting, but out in the real world as well.
The Israeli ambassador to Australia was removed from office for saying:

"Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia. We are in Asia without the
characteristics of Asians. We don't have yellow skin and slanted eyes.
Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not - we are
basically the white race."


Article here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...42,00.html

Next time you reference "yellow fever",
it should pertain to your sexual attraction to Marge Simpson.
[Image: Marge-Simpson-Playboy-Pictures.gif]

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Quidsane's post
12-05-2012, 12:36 PM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 12:23 PM)Quidsane Wrote:  [Image: Marge-Simpson-Playboy-Pictures.gif]
I just want to be the first one here to say it...

hubba hubba Drooling

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
12-05-2012, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2012 01:23 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 12:23 PM)Quidsane Wrote:  Seriously, man, that language is not cool.

Yeah, that's it. Let us keep forbidding terminology so that the superstitious power of words can continue to promulgate. Let us not speak of dark things so that they may hide in the sheltered recesses of our minds and fester like they have always done. Let us look down upon those of callow speech from our lofty heights of moral superiority, and continue to suppress the emotional development of the human race by setting the bar at its lowest level. Dodgy

The independent variable is take offense. What's so hard to understand?
(12-05-2012 08:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Heart Drooling

Not impressed by the song though!

She was singing? Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-05-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 01:15 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yeah, that's it. Let us keep forbidding terminology so that the superstitious power of words can continue to promulgate. Let us not speak of dark things so that they may hide in the sheltered recesses of our minds and fester like they have always done. Let us look down upon those of callow speech from our lofty heights of moral superiority, and continue to suppress the emotional development of the human race by setting the bar at its lowest level. Dodgy

The independent variable is take offense. What's so hard to understand?

Your poorly articulated, indecipherable response, for one; chock full of filler so as to be vague and unfalsifiable.
(Ever heard of K.I.S.S.? Look it up. Less is more.)
Also hard to understand: someone defending the use of the word "yellow" as a reference to Asians.

Let us look down upon those of callow speech?
So you're saying that DLJ's words are immature and inexperienced. Fair enough.

Continue to suppress the emotional development of the human race?
By objecting to a racial slur? Please. Talk about "lofty heights of moral superiority"...

Your last sentence implies that the proverbial speaker/orator/narrator/writer/poster is not responsible
for the possible offense of any of their content. According to you, only the one on the receiving end, the listener, is to blame.

Well, then, put your money where your convoluted mouth is.
By all means, if you're against closeting your racism, then let it out.
Let us hear it so offense can be taken. Rolleyes

[Image: 0832984001338019225.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2012, 02:24 PM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 02:03 PM)Quidsane Wrote:  ...chock full of filler so as to be vague and unfalsifiable.

Shh! Don't give up the secrets!

(12-05-2012 02:03 PM)Quidsane Wrote:  Also hard to understand: someone defending the use of the word "yellow" as a reference to Asians.

Nope. Defending free speech. These terms are given power by their surreptitious use. I didn't see a racial slur, I saw a colloquialism. And you came outta nowhere in a convo having nothing to do with you, and took offense. So there! Tongue

Besides, there ain't enough genetic diversity for race other than human. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
12-05-2012, 02:25 PM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 01:17 AM)Quidsane Wrote:  While I agree with the idea of constantly revisiting and testing to see if a scientific theory can be falsified, is it your position that there are no scientific certainties? Is there any credible scientist actively working to disprove the "theory" that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's difficult for me to accept that nothing has been proven 100%.
Yes, my position is that there are no scientific certainties. That nobody is out there trying to falsify the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun speaks to our inability to do as much science as possible (e.g. attempt to falsify everything all the time).

The theory of quantum physics dictates that we live in a probablistic universe, and that means that while the likelihood is damn near zero (think .0000000000000000000000000001 or perhaps less) there's a shot that sun indeed has, does, or will at some point revolve around the sun).

That said, we can be reasonably certain (not 100% but think 99.9999999999999999999999999999) that the sun has never, doesn't, and will never revolve around the earth.

Science requires this degree of skepticism, as does the fundamental nature of physical reality.

Or in laymen's terms, them's the breaks.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lightninlives's post
12-05-2012, 02:35 PM
RE: The problem with certainty
(12-05-2012 02:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Besides, the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun. It revolves around the center of gravity of the solar system. Most likely. Wink

The Earth rotates on an axis about it's own center of gravity, as well as revolves around the sun, which is also revolving about the center of gravity of the galaxy, which is moving accoring to the Hubbble constant, in the expanding universe. That means you are moving at 2,724,666 Miles Per Hour, as you sit, sipping dacquiries, gazing at you know who. Tongue Better shut the window. http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/04/1...right-now/


Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: