Science Questions Threak

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by Jerome

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by Jerome

Click to expand...

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!

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

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

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. 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.

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Click to expand...

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.

- B

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Click to expand...

Yeah you're right. I just thought about it some more.

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.

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by Mark it 8

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by hendrix

Click to expand...

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.

^ 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.

Originally Posted by Contingency Plan

Click to expand...

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 **** at all. bacteria are just as successful as "higher" life forms.

Originally Posted by Contingency Plan

Click to expand...

^ 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.