03 Dec 13
Originally posted by Great King RatYes, the discovery of more Pluto sized bodies influenced the reclassification process, but the reclassification itself does not represent new findings. We did not 'discover' or 'realize' or 'calculate' that Pluto was not really a planet. We simply decided to stop calling it one.
Well, not entirely correct. If I remember correctly so many new rocks roughly the size of Pluto had been identified that either we would have had a tremendous amount of new planets or Pluto was no longer a planet. They went for the second option. Pluto is classified as a...... planetoid or something?
Doesn't change your point of course.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by wolfgang59
The science hasn't changed.
The scientific nomenclature has.
Happens all the time (but perhaps not often in astronomy)
The science hasn't changed.
The scientific nomenclature has.
Happens all the time (but perhaps not often in astronomy)
Do you agree that it was once a scientific opinion that two balls of different weight, when dropped from a height, would fall at different speeds ?
Do you agree that that scientific opinion was altered by an experiment proving that they would fall at the same speed from the Tower of Pizza ?
Do you think the "science" of falling objects did not exist until the Galileo's experiment was performed ? Or do you think the "science" of falling objects existed previous to that experiment and was changed ?
If so then anyone can say, that is an example of science changing. If knowledge (science) grows, then knowledge (science) changes.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipYou need to read Isaac Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong"The science hasn't changed.
The scientific nomenclature has.
Happens all the time (but perhaps not often in astronomy)
Do you agree that it was once a scientific opinion that two balls of different weight, when dropped from a height, would fall at different speeds ?
Do you agree that that scientific opinion was altered by an expe ...[text shortened]... mple of science changing. If knowledge (science) grows, then knowledge (science) [b]changes.[/b]
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Science updates it's position all the time.
That's it's strength. When something is found to be wrong it's corrected.
This means that over time it gets more and more accurate.
As for Galileo... Science was only just being invented at the time.
So no, it was not a scientific opinion that balls of different weights would fall
at different speeds.
Otherwise you are trying to blame science for opinions people had before
anyone had done any experiments or even invented the scientific method.
And we have spent hundreds of years refining it since.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe theory of evolution is science fiction or a religious belief at best. True science knowledge is demonstrated by repetition with the same result produced without exception. The belief in God or not are religious beliefs that can not be proven by science. Evidence for both beliefs can be presented only for consideration. It is then up to each individual to decide on what is the truth.
You need to read Isaac Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong"
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Science updates it's position all the time.
That's it's strength. When something is found to be wrong it's corrected.
This means that over time it gets more and more accurate.
As for Galileo... Science was only just being in ...[text shortened]... r even invented the scientific method.
And we have spent hundreds of years refining it since.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeCan you tell me if this is just an essay or an article in its entirety, or is this part of a larger book? Because when I read the title, I immediately thought to myself, I have that book. Maybe I'll go look. It sounds very, very familiar.
You need to read Isaac Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong"
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
I have many paperbacks by Asimov. Most are collections of essays, so the book I am thinking of may be one of these. He excelled at making science approachable and understandable by those of intelligence who may not have a complete background in science.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneIt's a short essay. But that's all it needs to be to make the point.
Can you tell me if this is just an essay or an article in its entirety, or is this part of a larger book? Because when I read the title, I immediately thought to myself, I have that book. Maybe I'll go look. It sounds very, very familiar.
I have many paperbacks by Asimov. Most are collections of essays, so the book I am thinking of may be one of th ...[text shortened]... e and understandable by those of intelligence who may not have a complete background in science.
The cited original publication is:
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
I wouldn't be surprised though if he made the point in other works.
04 Dec 13
the universe goes on forever & some spend all their time trying to work out how the universe began all from nothing? yes "Nothing" something we know doesn't exist "Right" because we all know nothing doesn't exist, yet some spent their time trying to understand how nothing became something, so you go right ahead and believe in nothing something you know doesn't and can't exist, But i'm gonna believe in something something i know exists
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88Huh?
the universe goes on forever & some spend all their time trying to work out how the universe began all from nothing? yes "Nothing" something we know doesn't exist "Right" because we all know nothing doesn't exist, yet some spent their time trying to understand how nothing became something, so you go right ahead and believe in nothing something you know doesn't and can't exist, But i'm gonna believe in something something i know exists
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonshipgooglefudge has covered some of your errors so I won't repeat him.
If so then anyone can say, that is an example of science changing. If knowledge (science) grows, then knowledge (science) changes.
Most of sciences findings are approximations, or apparent laws and don't claim to be anything else. So, for example when Einstein came up with relativity, it improved upon Newtons Laws, but that doesn't mean we threw Newtons laws out the window. We still teach them in schools and still use them.
Similarly although Quantum Mechanics can answer very detailed questions at the atomic level to accuracies of many decimal places, we may at some future date discover a more fundamental theory that 'supercedes' quantum mechanics. But that won't make quantum mechanics 'wrong'.
I agree that science changes, just as knowledge changes as we learn. More specifically we learn more stuff and get more accurate about what we know.
But your implication that because science may change in the future, it is currently wrong, is just not accurate. And the examples you chose to try and demonstrate your claims were extremely badly chosen. So badly in fact that its as if you went out of your way to choose bad examples. It would have been fairly trivial to find examples of cases where scientists were genuinely mistake about something and later corrected their mistake.
04 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeNothing, put simply, is the deepest, shallowest, brightest, darkest, widest, thinnest, and incomprehensibly empty emptyness, so empty that it is only prevented from collapsing upon itself because there is no substance to collapsae in upon, or no substance to do the collapsing, or even any substance to think or daydream about collapsing upon abscense of prescense or prescense of abscense, which is still utterly and completely absent of form and shape and mass and prescense that is abscent from the existance of anything. In short, nothing is the total, absolute, final, and complete spot that is both positive and negative, young and old, and to sum it all up the opposite of everything in existance, for there is no existance in nothingness. It has even been thought that nothingness itself doesn't even exist, and that the existance of nothingness is so impossibly ludicrous and isnane that if anyone were to actually realize or see nothingness, the entirety of the expanse of the Everything would simply vaporize, leaving even more nothingness in its place.
Nope.
Genuine Huh?
I certainly don't KNOW there is no such thing as nothing.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nothing
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88Well that's entertaining, but is not a convincing argument that it's actually true.
Nothing, put simply, is the deepest, shallowest, brightest, darkest, widest, thinnest, and incomprehensibly empty emptyness, so empty that it is only prevented from collapsing upon itself because there is no substance to collapsae in upon, or no substance to do the collapsing, or even any substance to think or daydream about collapsing upon abscense of prescen ...[text shortened]... even more nothingness in its place.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nothing
There are theories of physics that allow for nothing (in the absolute sense)
to exist.
And that the things included in nothing existing are time and space, and even the
very laws of physics.
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeyes like i said before. wasting their time on studying nothing
Well that's entertaining, but is not a convincing argument that it's actually true.
There are theories of physics that allow for nothing (in the absolute sense)
to exist.
And that the things included in nothing existing are time and space, and even the
very laws of physics.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by tim88Well given that understanding physics is what allowed us to build our modern
yes like i said before. wasting their time on studying nothing
world, including but by no means limited to the computers we are writing these
posts on... I don't think you can plausibly claim they are wasting their time.
Science works.
Claiming otherwise in the modern age is just plain stupid.
If it didn't work we wouldn't be living in a world with satellites and aeroplanes
and computers and vaccines and ... and ...
Science proves it works every day, it is what drives our economies.
They who do science best make money*, and have power and influence.
Those that don't, wither and die.
*Although it's sadly not often the scientists themselves who make much money.