carlfense Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 As long as we're doing spin off threads . . . I think I thought of a somewhat applicable analogy regarding certainty and science. It's probably most easily expressed as a mathematical equation but math sucks and I'm more of a visual thinker. I think of scientific evidence as continually moving closer to some absolute truth (simplifying . . . sometimes we're doubtlessly moving away) but we will never quite reach the objective truth. To paint a visual picture (to deafening snores) think of it as constantly moving half the distance closer to a set point. 100 years ago: 10 feet away. 75 years ago: 5 feet away. 50 years ago: 2.5 feet away. 25 years ago: 1.25 feet away. 10 years ago: 5/8" away. 1 year ago: 5/16" away. We're constantly getting closer . . . but even if the progression continues to infinity we would never get all the way to the set point. Perhaps more importantly, this reminds me why the scientific community uses the metric system. Lousy damn fractions. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 it is like when the ball is on the goal-line and they keep moving it half the distance closer. but nietzsche believed that science could only do a better job of describing things. that we would continue to better explain the what, but never the why. but with that pursuit, we would be inundated with information and lose focus on values. it seems we see this when knowledge exceeds its grasp. and our devaluation of the humanities. not sure how relevant this post is, but it is what came to my mind. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 Did you just reference Nietzshe? Weirdest sport-centric message board ever. Link to comment
Junior Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Did you just reference Nietzshe? Weirdest sport-centric message board ever. I'll be impressed when he references Nietzshe in a football thread. Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 it is like when the ball is on the goal-line and they keep moving it half the distance closer. but nietzsche believed that science could only do a better job of describing things. that we would continue to better explain the what, but never the why. but with that pursuit, we would be inundated with information and lose focus on values. it seems we see this when knowledge exceeds its grasp. and our devaluation of the humanities. not sure how relevant this post is, but it is what came to my mind. i tend to agree with this. worthwhile scientists realize that science isn't comprehensive, nor will it ever be. it is a branch off the whole tree of learning and knowledge, the same way that philosophy and humanities/art and so on are. There are tons of questions that science is not intended or equipped to answer Link to comment
sd'sker Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 There are tons of questions that science is not intended or equipped to answer every answer leads to more questions. Link to comment
NUance Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 As long as we're doing spin off threads . . . I think I thought of a somewhat applicable analogy regarding certainty and science. It's probably most easily expressed as a mathematical equation but math sucks and I'm more of a visual thinker. I think of scientific evidence as continually moving closer to some absolute truth (simplifying . . . sometimes we're doubtlessly moving away) but we will never quite reach the objective truth. To paint a visual picture (to deafening snores) think of it as constantly moving half the distance closer to a set point. 100 years ago: 10 feet away. 75 years ago: 5 feet away. 50 years ago: 2.5 feet away. 25 years ago: 1.25 feet away. 10 years ago: 5/8" away. 1 year ago: 5/16" away. We're constantly getting closer . . . but even if the progression continues to infinity we would never get all the way to the set point. Perhaps more importantly, this reminds me why the scientific community uses the metric system. Lousy damn fractions. This is a good way of looking at it, except sometimes we think we're on the verge of the answer and then realize that we're asking the wrong question. Take the relatively straightforward science of measuring velocity, for example. For hundreds of years we thought in terms of Galilean invariance—that is, velocity measurements are equivalent in all inertial frames. 100 mph in Nebraska = 100 mph in the Sombrero Galaxy. (The concept of Galilean invariance predates Newton and even Galileo, since we didn't appreciate the significance of inertial frames.) Given the apparent truth of Galilean invariance we developed very precise techniques for measuring time, distance and velocity. (Consider the precision of the Michelson–Morley experimental measurements taken from 1887 up through the 1900s.) In 1905 we probably thought we were pretty close to absolute truth in being able to precisely measure velocity. In your chart above we would have been at the 5/16" point. But when Einstein published his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905 we suddenly realized that we all we had known about velocity measurements could be thrown out the window. We had been asking the wrong question. Or perhaps you could say, we were not asking the right question. We had not been considering differing inertial reference frames in making velocity measurements. Sure, the concept has a negligible effect on measuring a car traveling at 100 mph on interstate 80 outside of Grand Island. But a significant effect if the person making the Nebraska car measurement is doing so from Sombrero. In other words, just when we think we're getting close, sometimes the rules of the game change. So really, we're probably not as smart as we think we are. Just sayin.. 1 Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Any real scientist is going to tell you we know a lot, but aren't anywhere close to the entire picture. They will also tell you that in most cases, when we say, "This is how it works," it really means, "This is how we understand it to work right now." But the first is far simpler to say and explain, the second is implied. Many of the best examples can be found in physics, since that field is the underpinning for all other sciences. The classic example everyone knows (hopefully) by this point is the disconnect between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Both have been used to describe many observable things at this point, but they don't play well together. Somewhere in one, or more likely both, are faults in the fundamental assumptions making up both areas. Much of the "We're so smart, we know almost everything," bullsh#t is nothing but a myth perpetuated by certain parts of the general population and media. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 NUance just blew my f'ing head off. You're a smart sumbitch or been smoking sumthin, or both. I now do not feel qualified to comment in this thread. Thanks..... Link to comment
NUance Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 NUance just blew my f'ing head off. You're a smart sumbitch or been smoking sumthin, or both. I now do not feel qualified to comment in this thread. Thanks..... Ha ha! I have you fooled. I'm an idiot. / But thanks. lol Link to comment
Recommended Posts