![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weswilsonPosted in a discussion about this blog entry.
I understand where you are coming from, but it might help to keep in mind that I have a math degree. It even further helps to understand that I started off as a physics major. The extent of these two disciplines allows me a certain amount of leeway when it comes to reality. The mathematics teaches me that it is possible to prove something, but first one must make a whole batch of assumptions. The physics tells me that nothing in reality is PROVEN, so much as it is estimated.
When I get into a debate about something illogical, say ghosts, I am never arguing that they don't exist as much as I'm arguing that it is highly unlikely that they exist. ESP could be very, very real... but the odds of it being real are very slim given the amount of interest in the subject and the lack of any credible scientific evidence to support it. The truck that is coming down the street while I cross COULD be something other than what I see, but exposure to similar circumstances has supported my senses. Were I to act as if it were a ghost truck and stand in the middle of the road while it hits me, then I would be acting foolishly, even though I don't particularly have absolute proof that vehicle is what I have perceived it to be. Reality does not support 100% proof, down to it's molecular behavior. To make any decisions, we have to act on the odds.
Evolution... the roundness of the earth... man-made global warming... and the biogenic theory you posted above are all suitably researched and supported by solid science. And when I say solid science, I mean science consistently challenged and shown to hold true in the face of those challenges. This is not the "Earth is the center of the universe" science... nor is it egotistical science, where individual fear of a lost supposition is emotionally devastating. This science, by definition, accepts challenges and willingly submits to alternative agencies. It's built in to the scientific theory, itself. Writing a paper that says "What if the assumption is wrong?" is redundant to real scientific inquiry. It's already being done... over and over again.
The supposition that one theory could falsely drive an entire discipline my sound good on paper, but my exposure to scientific fields shows differently. String theory is a perfect example of something that is unproven, but still heavily researched and used for further debate. It is considered to answer many logical questions regarding the subatomic universe, but as far as I know, not one single shred of evidence has been found to support the theories supported within. I have not, in the face of this lack of evidence, discovered a drive to push string theory as a dogma. I have not, despite a significant amount of time and energy being spent on it, found it to be anything other that one alternate theory that seems to hold. I don't see any cascade here. I don't see any insistence on belief.
What typically drives the desire to undermine science is a need to promote alternatives. As a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, my first job was the "kill" their machine... to convince them that their current vacuum was unsuitable for cleaning their home. I had a better chance to sell my machine if they felt the former wasn't doing its job. This happens in theology when people wish to sell their new theories. By showing that science fails to do its job, one is able to push new theories that have failed to pass scientific standards. As a result, we get John Edwardses, Uri Gellars, and Sylvia Browns who are eager to huck their wares.. By undermining what is real and what is not real, they get a leg-up on the competition... but quite frankly, I'm unwilling to give them that benefit.
I feel it is quite inappropriate to give hucksters free ammunition by needlessly drawing on the imagined weaknesses of science. Since this article points out something redundant, I find it almost insulting the hard work and tireless efforts put in to the scientific field. I find it needlessly points at something inherent to the scientific process and claims intellectual superiority. Were I to point to a diet soft drink and say, "Look, it doesn't have any nutritional value!", I'd be missing the point of the drink in the first place. Science can't PROVE anything... but it can show certain things are highly, highly likely. To point at it and snicker is doing no one any favors... except sheisters and people who feed of doubt. I won't support it.
I understand where you are coming from, but it might help to keep in mind that I have a math degree. It even further helps to understand that I started off as a physics major. The extent of these two disciplines allows me a certain amount of leeway when it comes to reality. The mathematics teaches me that it is possible to prove something, but first one must make a whole batch of assumptions. The physics tells me that nothing in reality is PROVEN, so much as it is estimated.
When I get into a debate about something illogical, say ghosts, I am never arguing that they don't exist as much as I'm arguing that it is highly unlikely that they exist. ESP could be very, very real... but the odds of it being real are very slim given the amount of interest in the subject and the lack of any credible scientific evidence to support it. The truck that is coming down the street while I cross COULD be something other than what I see, but exposure to similar circumstances has supported my senses. Were I to act as if it were a ghost truck and stand in the middle of the road while it hits me, then I would be acting foolishly, even though I don't particularly have absolute proof that vehicle is what I have perceived it to be. Reality does not support 100% proof, down to it's molecular behavior. To make any decisions, we have to act on the odds.
Evolution... the roundness of the earth... man-made global warming... and the biogenic theory you posted above are all suitably researched and supported by solid science. And when I say solid science, I mean science consistently challenged and shown to hold true in the face of those challenges. This is not the "Earth is the center of the universe" science... nor is it egotistical science, where individual fear of a lost supposition is emotionally devastating. This science, by definition, accepts challenges and willingly submits to alternative agencies. It's built in to the scientific theory, itself. Writing a paper that says "What if the assumption is wrong?" is redundant to real scientific inquiry. It's already being done... over and over again.
The supposition that one theory could falsely drive an entire discipline my sound good on paper, but my exposure to scientific fields shows differently. String theory is a perfect example of something that is unproven, but still heavily researched and used for further debate. It is considered to answer many logical questions regarding the subatomic universe, but as far as I know, not one single shred of evidence has been found to support the theories supported within. I have not, in the face of this lack of evidence, discovered a drive to push string theory as a dogma. I have not, despite a significant amount of time and energy being spent on it, found it to be anything other that one alternate theory that seems to hold. I don't see any cascade here. I don't see any insistence on belief.
What typically drives the desire to undermine science is a need to promote alternatives. As a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman, my first job was the "kill" their machine... to convince them that their current vacuum was unsuitable for cleaning their home. I had a better chance to sell my machine if they felt the former wasn't doing its job. This happens in theology when people wish to sell their new theories. By showing that science fails to do its job, one is able to push new theories that have failed to pass scientific standards. As a result, we get John Edwardses, Uri Gellars, and Sylvia Browns who are eager to huck their wares.. By undermining what is real and what is not real, they get a leg-up on the competition... but quite frankly, I'm unwilling to give them that benefit.
I feel it is quite inappropriate to give hucksters free ammunition by needlessly drawing on the imagined weaknesses of science. Since this article points out something redundant, I find it almost insulting the hard work and tireless efforts put in to the scientific field. I find it needlessly points at something inherent to the scientific process and claims intellectual superiority. Were I to point to a diet soft drink and say, "Look, it doesn't have any nutritional value!", I'd be missing the point of the drink in the first place. Science can't PROVE anything... but it can show certain things are highly, highly likely. To point at it and snicker is doing no one any favors... except sheisters and people who feed of doubt. I won't support it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 04:11 pm (UTC)...but the odds of it being real are very slim given the amount of interest in the subject and the lack of any credible scientific evidence to support it.
Is a very dangerous tact to take! The odds of us existing at all are *incredibly* small too :D My personal belief is that the human understanding of the world is in for quite a rude awakening when we really do solve things down at the quantum level, very much like the shift in thinking from flat to round and center of the universe to a little speck out in the boonies.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 04:21 pm (UTC)Discovering the reality on quantum levels will most likely change a lot of our perception, but that doesn't change how we view macro-reality. The laws will probably still hold with additional error variables added to compensate.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 04:39 pm (UTC)On a sufficiently short time scale. That is if we exist at all :)
A huge influx of knowledge based on the quantum world can have a profound impact on our daily reality. Suppose for the most part reality is already determined? Suppose there are linked multiverses? They seem like vague gray fog demons who have no real bearing, but what if you were brought up in a world were you knew that every choice was set in stone or that the choices you made affected a "different you".
I'm not buying quite into either (yet) but even if I did I've made peace with the knowledge that even if the reality we live in is pre-determined I have no capability of forseeing the future so for all intents and purposes I maintain my freewill.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 04:46 pm (UTC)I'm a bit of an objectivist, in that I believe we have to trust our senses to a certain degree or we have no resort but nihilism. Doubting that we exist is pointless to a certain degree.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 05:10 pm (UTC)Ahh but there is an interesting distinction being made lately. They do exist all at once to the observer, but where there is no observer, none of them exist!
I read something really interesting lately that does give those who clamor for complete freewill some hope. Given the amount of information in the universe now as compared to shortly after the big bang (there wasn't much back in those boring seconds) it makes sense if there is some randomness down at the quantum level. If that's the case then freewill and all that fun stuff is preserved! hooray!
I love all this stuff, it's frankly pretty amazing to me that many of the thought experiments used for thousands of years are being born out in modern science. We are clever little animals.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 07:30 pm (UTC)For the most part....Right up until we come up against the biblical literalists, that is.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 04:52 pm (UTC)Neat post :)
Sara is a math major that started out a physicist as well.
She's worried that she won't be able to find a job when she graduates (in 2 months).
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 05:10 pm (UTC)We've talked about opening a coffee shop for about 4 years now :P
I'm still tempted to do it.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 06:08 pm (UTC)It's a front for drug running.
The place would be called "YOU make coffee."
There will be two pots of maxwell house in the corner and a change bucket :P
No employees. Just robots.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:29 pm (UTC)http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/new/ulcer.htm
For many years the science of medicine "knew" what caused stomach ulcers. It was stress and the overproduction of acid. This was "Common Knowledge". If you went to an M.D. he would prescribe a bland diet and a low stress environment. It didn't aggravate the situation, but it didn't really help. It was kinda like Granny Clampett's cold remedy. Take it, and in 7 to 10 days your cold would be gone.
Turns out that the answer was stumbled upon accidentally. Some Dr.s had patients who noted that their ulcers disappeared after specific classes of antibiotics were prescribed. Anecdotal data was overwhelming, but until a study was launched a couple of decades ago, it was an unproven "fringe" theory. It's now accepted that a common bacteria causes these ulcers, and as easy as it is to treat,a fellow mason in my lodge was on a bland diet. Why... because his doctor said that he didn't believe that bullshit! He's been treating ulcers for 40 years...
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:38 pm (UTC)Despite the finding that a bacterial infection is the cause of ulcers in 80% of cases, bacterial infection does not appear to explain all ulcers and researchers continue to look at stress as a possible cause, or at least a complication in the development of ulcers.
An expert panel convened by the Academy of Behavioral Medicine research concluded that ulcers are not purely an infectious disease and that psychological factors do play a significant role.[1] Researchers are examining how stress might promote H. pylori infection. For example, Helicobacter pylori thrives in an acidic environment, and stress has been demonstrated to cause the production of excess stomach acid.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-19 09:37 pm (UTC)My case is only one example--certainly nothing to base a theory on--but it does appear to me that stress and bacteria work in conjunction. I would not be surprised in the least if the bacteria had colonized my stomach well before I developed any symptoms, and that the switch to rougher classes was enough to tip the balance in its favor.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 03:06 am (UTC)