[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think science’s point is necessarily to “know” things. I see it more as a way of labeling, and predicting than understanding.
You would probably say that you understand gravity, but I don’t think anyone really does. You can use classical physics equations to closely predict things in normal life, but nowhere does science ever even attempt to offer an explanation of why. when you drop a ball from a given height I could figure out approximately how long it will take to hit the ground. But as for why the ball and earth are attracted to each other, who the heck knows? Gravity is just a label science applied to an unexplainable phenomenon.
If you ever really look into all of science is this way, classical physics, to electricity, to string theory. They put labels on things and figure out ways of predicting behavior, but never does it truely even attempt to understand the roots natural phenomenon for which we are left to accept on faith.
Why do I think 2 bodies of mass are attracted to each other? As a mechanical engineer I’m left to think, God probably thought it would be hard to walk around otherwise. Seems the most reasonable reason to me.[/quote]
The ability to accurately predict an event shows understanding of the object in question; understanding is as character of knowledge. The fact that I also understand that there is error built into my prediction is also a character of knowledge.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Actually, Lifty, you might know his name. One of the prominent string theory guys. Now I really got your ire up, eh? hee hee
Not the Pseudo-pop-scientist himself?
[/quote]
A friend/colleague/mentor of his.
[quote]
Concerning your remark about gravity: No, we will never know for certain everything there is to know about gravity because I don’t think it will ever be observable – but that does not mean we don’t have any understanding of how it works enough to build technology that interacts with it.
The fact that we know to launch a rocket at 11.2 km/sec to escape Earth’s gravity is proof that we are capable of knowing stuff. And we required unobservable knowledge to get to that point too.[/quote]
We do know stuff to the extent that we are capable of predicting things and making things that work. No small accomplishments these.
However, that is a far cry from saying that scientific inquiry is devoid of unprovable assumptions, or faith. Indeed, it is riddled with them.
Many people seem loath to admit this - as if it’s some dark secret in a closet that we can’t let out.
This is probably because they are wedded to a manichean stereotype of religion and science that denies religion any reason, and science any faith.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Actually, Lifty, you might know his name. One of the prominent string theory guys. Now I really got your ire up, eh? hee hee
Not the Pseudo-pop-scientist himself?
Concerning your remark about gravity: No, we will never know for certain everything there is to know about gravity because I don’t think it will ever be observable – but that does not mean we don’t have any understanding of how it works enough to build technology that interacts with it.
The fact that we know to launch a rocket at 11.2 km/sec to escape Earth’s gravity is proof that we are capable of knowing stuff. And we required unobservable knowledge to get to that point too.[/quote]
I build cranes for a living, so yes, I understand the value of applied physics. What I’m getting at is that science isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t in my opinion offer any true understanding. I could sit and explain what makes a light bulb come on, but its all based on a negative particle (for some unknown reason) “wanting” to go to a positive one. Is science useful? Yes. Does it truely explain anything? No, IMO.
You bring up rockets which is funny. Because here recently they’ve been having some quirky results achieving orbit. NASA, if I recall correctly, was having satellites traveling at measurably incorrect speeds according to what science predicts (by a matter of inches). Was science useful? Well yeah, it got the satellites into space. But, did it actually understand or even correctly predict the outcome? No, but it was close enough for government work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think science’s point is necessarily to “know” things. I see it more as a way of labeling, and predicting than understanding.
You would probably say that you understand gravity, but I don’t think anyone really does. You can use classical physics equations to closely predict things in normal life, but nowhere does science ever even attempt to offer an explanation of why. when you drop a ball from a given height I could figure out approximately how long it will take to hit the ground. But as for why the ball and earth are attracted to each other, who the heck knows? Gravity is just a label science applied to an unexplainable phenomenon.
If you ever really look into all of science is this way, classical physics, to electricity, to string theory. They put labels on things and figure out ways of predicting behavior, but never does it truely even attempt to understand the roots natural phenomenon for which we are left to accept on faith.
Why do I think 2 bodies of mass are attracted to each other? As a mechanical engineer I’m left to think, God probably thought it would be hard to walk around otherwise. Seems the most reasonable reason to me.
The ability to accurately predict an event shows understanding of the object in question; understanding is as character of knowledge. The fact that I also understand that there is error built into my prediction is also a character of knowledge.[/quote]
There are however exceptions to every rule in science. The existence of error is proof that the true empirical modes of existence are yet undiscovered by science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You bring up rockets which is funny. Because here recently they’ve been having some quirky results achieving orbit. NASA, if I recall correctly, was having satellites traveling at measurably incorrect speeds according to what science predicts (by a matter of inches). Was science useful? Well yeah, it got the satellites into space. But, did it actually understand or even correctly predict the outcome? No, but it was close enough for government work.[/quote]
Knowing how something is supposed to work and getting it to work that way are two separate things.
We may know the theoretical concepts but not be able to apply them. That is an engineering and not an epistemological issue.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You bring up rockets which is funny. Because here recently they’ve been having some quirky results achieving orbit. NASA, if I recall correctly, was having satellites traveling at measurably incorrect speeds according to what science predicts (by a matter of inches). Was science useful? Well yeah, it got the satellites into space. But, did it actually understand or even correctly predict the outcome? No, but it was close enough for government work.
Knowing how something is supposed to work and getting it to work that way are two separate things.
We may know the theoretical concepts but not be able to apply them. That is an engineering and not an epistemological issue.[/quote]
Oh sure, blame the engineers. And no, they said they checked their unit conversion this time.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are however exceptions to every rule in science. The existence of error is proof that the true empirical modes of existence are yet undiscovered by science.[/quote]
Uncertainty is built into the physical universe because we cannot observe every aspect of it at the same time; on the quantum level any attempt to make a measure of any system disturbs the object in question. Sometimes we can purposely perturb the system to see if anything predictable happens. I am not sure uncertainty will ever be removed because even human sensory is fallible.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You bring up rockets which is funny. Because here recently they’ve been having some quirky results achieving orbit. NASA, if I recall correctly, was having satellites traveling at measurably incorrect speeds according to what science predicts (by a matter of inches). Was science useful? Well yeah, it got the satellites into space. But, did it actually understand or even correctly predict the outcome? No, but it was close enough for government work.
Knowing how something is supposed to work and getting it to work that way are two separate things.
We may know the theoretical concepts but not be able to apply them. That is an engineering and not an epistemological issue.[/quote]
Not having real world proof would make theoretical science a lot like religion in my opinion. =0)
But in all honesty much of the theory, relies on simplification and approximation, in at least several fields. Aerospace is a good example. The whole scientific world of fluid flow is an approximation from theory to application, and also the reason my AE buddy hates to get on planes. Theoretical aerospace states it’s impossible for a bumble bee to fly.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There are however exceptions to every rule in science. The existence of error is proof that the true empirical modes of existence are yet undiscovered by science.
Uncertainty is built into the physical universe because we cannot observe every aspect of it at the same time; on the quantum level any attempt to make a measure of any system disturbs the object in question. Sometimes we can purposely perturb the system to see if anything predictable happens. I am not sure uncertainty will ever be removed because even human sensory is fallible.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There are however exceptions to every rule in science. The existence of error is proof that the true empirical modes of existence are yet undiscovered by science.
Uncertainty is built into the physical universe because we cannot observe every aspect of it at the same time; on the quantum level any attempt to make a measure of any system disturbs the object in question. Sometimes we can purposely perturb the system to see if anything predictable happens. I am not sure uncertainty will ever be removed because even human sensory is fallible.[/quote]
That’s exactly my point, their is no true measurable or quantifiable anything. The whole concept of measurement and quantification is flawed from a philosophical standpoint.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There are however exceptions to every rule in science. The existence of error is proof that the true empirical modes of existence are yet undiscovered by science.
Uncertainty is built into the physical universe because we cannot observe every aspect of it at the same time; on the quantum level any attempt to make a measure of any system disturbs the object in question. Sometimes we can purposely perturb the system to see if anything predictable happens. I am not sure uncertainty will ever be removed because even human sensory is fallible.
The dual slit experiment is my favorite.[/quote]
It’s mind blowing really. I wish I was a physicist.
re: bumble bees - I’ve heard that before. Are we really still not able to account for its flight?
According to the aspect ratio (this is from memory so don’t flame me if I’m wrong)the wings are too small for the size of the bee. No matter how fast he flaps them he should not get enough lift.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having real world proof would make theoretical science a lot like religion in my opinion. =0)
[/quote]
The difference is that religion does not need a specific foundation to exist. Whether experiment follows theory or precedes it science still has the foundation of observation.
What were the first impressions upon Galileo’s mind that made him want to measure gravity; how did Newton know to develop a calculus to predict the force of gravitation? These were necessarily observable phenomena first.
According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists ‘proving’ it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under “the power of its own ignorance”.[24] The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[25] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes by M. Magnan. Magnan is reported to have written that he and a M. Saint-Lague had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that “One shouldn’t be surprised that the results of the calculations don’t square with reality”.[26]
It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.[27]
Oops, my bad…I meant the first law of thermodynamics, not Newton. But Liftus, I think you hit the key issue: the scientific theories in question failed when trying to make grandiose claims without credible evidence. Anyone can imagine an idea, but with no support, it’s all just whistling Dixie.
In contrast, Christianity DOES have solid secular historical and archeological evidence to back it up. It does not ask anyone to simply take another man’s word for it…it stands the test of reasonable scrutiny, now more than ever. Don’t take my word for it - I refer you to “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, or “The Privileged Planet” by Gonzalez and Richards, or even the “Expelled” movie by Ben Stein for further illustration.
Gotta run for now guys, but thank you for the respectful feedback; it’s been a pleasure.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having real world proof would make theoretical science a lot like religion in my opinion. =0)
The difference is that religion does not need a specific foundation to exist. Whether experiment follows theory or precedes it science still has the foundation of observation.
[/quote]
“Our wildest surmise with respect to the eternal is confirmed by the observable world through our senses.”
Did a scientist say this? Or a theologian? Or a devote Catholic?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s exactly my point, their is no true measurable or quantifiable anything. The whole concept of measurement and quantification is flawed from a philosophical standpoint.[/quote]
That is not true. For example, there is a definite measure of a stones weight it is just that it is impossible to measure it without any uncertainty. These are limits of engineering though. A simple balance scale can tell us when something weighs the same as something else but our accuracy of measurement will only be in terms of the chosen unit of comparison.
When deciding on the required accuracy needed to do something specific it is a question of whether one is throwing horseshoes or hand-grenades.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having real world proof would make theoretical science a lot like religion in my opinion. =0)
The difference is that religion does not need a specific foundation to exist. Whether experiment follows theory or precedes it science still has the foundation of observation.
What were the first impressions upon Galileo’s mind that made him want to measure gravity; how did Newton know to develop a calculus to predict the force of gravitation? These were necessarily observable phenomena first.[/quote]
I think religion considers existence itself an observable phenomenon that precedes inquiry into the existence of a god.
Sorry if I’m wrong about the bee thing, I’ll email my buddy.
according to the articles I’m reading, it was more than a myth and it wasn’t finally explained until 2006.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having real world proof would make theoretical science a lot like religion in my opinion. =0)
The difference is that religion does not need a specific foundation to exist. Whether experiment follows theory or precedes it science still has the foundation of observation.
What were the first impressions upon Galileo’s mind that made him want to measure gravity; how did Newton know to develop a calculus to predict the force of gravitation? These were necessarily observable phenomena first.
I think religion considers existence itself an observable phenomenon that precedes inquiry into the existence of a god.
Sorry if I’m wrong about the bee thing, I’ll email my buddy.
according to the articles I’m reading, it was more than a myth and it wasn’t finally explained until 2006.