Science Questions Threak

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by merkur, Jul 18, 2010.

  1. Jerome

    Jerome Senior member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Location:
    Central Europe
    Not Yet Solved =/= Cannot Solve

    Even if the question is not yet answered by science that doesn't mean it can't be answered by science. Unanswered questions are not a failure of science, they're a failure of scientists.

    Also, for what would you prefer we have reverence?

    For human beings and their liberty.
     


  2. MrG

    MrG Senior member

    Messages:
    12,187
    Likes Received:
    4,344
    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Location:
    The Medicine Spring
    For human beings and their liberty.

    I don't understand why you view these things as mutually exclusive. Do you feel oppressed by science? Do you feel science is robbing you of your humanity?
     


  3. Jerome

    Jerome Senior member

    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Location:
    Central Europe
    Yes, and more concretely: its thinking of 'usefulness' of practicability; to 'apply what works', its applications esp. in form of economics, of propabilities, of 'standards' of 'how to-s'; science and its filthy followers have misused and distorted humankind! Science has no moral and ethical values but it has been made to be a modell serving as a standard for our conduct, half-consciously. Science in its modern, dominating form is de-humanizing.
     


  4. tagutcow

    tagutcow Senior member

    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    682
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    Not Yet Solved =/= Cannot Solve

    Even if the question is not yet answered by science that doesn't mean it can't be answered by science. Unanswered questions are not a failure of science, they're a failure of scientists.


    How do you know unanswered questions are a failure of anything? Perhaps some questions are just unanswerable, or at least we find a level of abstraction where we're satisfied with the explanatory powers of our conclusions (i.e. we don't know why positron/electron pairs appear spontaneously, but can say that when it does, it observes conservation of spin, energy, etc.)

    It's something that I initially tried writing in my post in the free will thread, but felt it detracted from my main point (not like it would have mattered, apparently.) Science, like all tools, can become a force of distancing between subject and object. Science has gone from being a helpful tool for describing reality, to being the arbiter of reality. The findings of science are now taken to be more authentic, more trustworthy than phenomenal, experiential reality.

    It's not an attitude I think is healthy. What's more, the subscribers of such "Scientism" assume that the scientific method has primacy over all truth, even though such a primacy is nowhere prescribed in the scientific method itself.
     


  5. Newflyer

    Newflyer Active Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2010
    Location:
    Atlanta
    When I was 15 years old I did shut up (when confronted with questions that I knew nothing about)...p.s. I am getting very sick of idiots here and elsewhere actually- and unless any biologist (who would basically agree with me) would come here I will keep to smash your little mediocre (and funnily compared to me: also unscientific) asses!

    [​IMG] This is why we can't have nice things, and instead have the tea party.
     


  6. CunningSmeagol

    CunningSmeagol Senior member

    Messages:
    3,933
    Likes Received:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    As I understand it, the surface area is irrelevant unless the ice or boat is significantly thin and wide enough to be resisted by surface tension beyond some negligible amount (imagine a thin strip of steel that is able to float due to the surface tension). I don't think our pleasant rowers are quite so devious.

    The surface area is irrelevant since the water displaced is always a volume no matter how near the surface it might be.

    The water level will initially rise as the ice, sped up by gravitational acceleration and the resultant effect on its momentum, is quickly submerged with a deep plonk. The water level quickly returns to normal. Then the poor rowers sorrowfully remember their lesson on Gibbs' free energy as their prized block of ice is lost forever.


    Yeah you're right. I just thought about it some more. [​IMG] I guess I assumed that the boat wouldn't itself rise when the ice was thrown out. Dumb.

    And here I was thinking I was going to prove my worth to the community.
     


  7. CunningSmeagol

    CunningSmeagol Senior member

    Messages:
    3,933
    Likes Received:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    How do you know unanswered questions are a failure of anything? Perhaps some questions are just unanswerable, or at least we find a level of abstraction where we're satisfied with the explanatory powers of our conclusions (i.e. we don't know why positron/electron pairs appear spontaneously, but can say that when it does, it observes conservation of spin, energy, etc.)

    It's something that I initially tried writing in my post in the free will thread, but felt it detracted from my main point (not like it would have mattered, apparently.) Science, like all tools, can become a force of distancing between subject and object. Science has gone from being a helpful tool for describing reality, to being the arbiter of reality. The findings of science are now taken to be more authentic, more trustworthy than phenomenal, experiential reality.

    It's not an attitude I think is healthy. What's more, the subscribers of such "Scientism" assume that the scientific method has primacy over all truth, even though such a primacy is nowhere prescribed in the scientific method itself.


    Yah, so how's Greensboro these days? Sounds happening.
     


  8. voxsartoria

    voxsartoria Goon member

    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    117
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007


  9. Dakota rube

    Dakota rube Senior member

    Messages:
    14,506
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    A bit better than yesterday, all day vomiting for
    And here I was thinking I was going to prove my worth to the community.

    You could do the community a great service by changing your avatar.

    There. I said it.
     


  10. Mark it 8

    Mark it 8 Senior member

    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Yeah you're right. I just thought about it some more. [​IMG] I guess I assumed that the boat wouldn't itself rise when the ice was thrown out. Dumb.

    And here I was thinking I was going to prove my worth to the community.


    Your excel tips thread is very helpful and I believe I will be referring to it quite a bit in the near future.
     


  11. CunningSmeagol

    CunningSmeagol Senior member

    Messages:
    3,933
    Likes Received:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    You could do the community a great service by changing your avatar. There. I said it.
    That's from back when I was a Wellesley girl.
    Your excel tips thread is very helpful and I believe I will be referring to it quite a bit in the near future.
    Thanks. Glad to hear it and good luck.
     


  12. Contingency Plan

    Contingency Plan Senior member

    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    57
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    London
    ummm how?

    Evolution seems to imply a decrease in entropy - moving from disordered atoms to ever more greatly organised DNA/proteins/cells/tissues/organs/organsims.
     


  13. Contingency Plan

    Contingency Plan Senior member

    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    57
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    London
    ^ I know this is probably answered by reference to the net entropy change (taking into account the surroundings as well as the system), but I'd like to see it confirmed.
     


  14. hendrix

    hendrix Ill-proportioned

    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    3,719
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Evolution seems to imply a decrease in entropy - moving from disordered atoms to ever more greatly organised DNA/proteins/cells/tissues/organs/organsims.
    that's not entropy. also, evolution doesn't dictate moving to ever more greatly organised shit at all. bacteria are just as successful as "higher" life forms.
     


  15. aKula

    aKula Senior member

    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Location:
    Le Côté de Guermantes
    ^ I know this is probably answered by reference to the net entropy change (taking into account the surroundings as well as the system), but I'd like to see it confirmed.
    Yes and if you throw a piece of red hot metal into a lake the metal will cool (decrease in entropy). So in this case you have to consider the water in the lake as well and in general you have to consider the entire system.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by