the big bang...
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 sitdownstandup  02 Aug 17 11.05pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by thebob
The difficult part is the word "believe". If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust. If you are of the opinion that "belief" is just conjured up from your own head, and evidence is then sought that supports your belief, then almost anything goes, and you are probably also a climate change denier, user of "alternative" medicine, anti vaccine, and also think that "organic" food means something.. You also are either religious or hold other "belief" based ideas. There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true? ok... do you agree with it or not then?
Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Stirlingsays Online  02 Aug 17 11.09pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
"Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding. Seconded.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
thebob  Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 11.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat. "Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding. Science is self-correcting, anything can be challenged, nothing is set in stone. "Blind belief" is the dangerous meme. It is impervious to logic. When people plead "common sense" it usually means that they don't really understand why they "believe" something. Lots of knowledge is counter intuitive.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 02 Aug 17 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by thebob
The difficult part is the word "believe". If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust. If you are of the opinion that "belief" is just conjured up from your own head, and evidence is then sought that supports your belief, then almost anything goes, and you are probably also a climate change denier, user of "alternative" medicine, anti vaccine, and also think that "organic" food means something.. You also are either religious or hold other "belief" based ideas. There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true? Thirded.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by sitdownstandup
ok... do you agree with it or not then? The evidence seems to support it presently, so it is useful working hypothesis as long as other data doesn't come along and introduce some different conclusions! So kinda, sorta yeah.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 03 Aug 17 7.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Not true. To understand the universe as it was at a very early stage, you need to access energy regimes that can only be reached with particle accelerators like the LHC. The spin-offs from CERN et al. have been immense. Including, but not limited to the World wide Web. Development in superconducting magnets, required for these types of experiments also had applications in, for example, fusion generators. Yes, the mechanics of scientific investigation can lead to inventions that serve a useful purpose for sure. Some of the technology that was used on the Moon landings was used in commercial products.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 03 Aug 17 8.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yes, the mechanics of scientific investigation can lead to inventions that serve a useful purpose for sure. Some of the technology that was used on the Moon landings was used in commercial products. I'm not so sure that's true. It involves working on string theory and other theories. These could potentially lead to controlling mass, which would be the single most dramatic impact imaginable. The powerhouse work in these areas isn't done for potential unclear commercial advantages. They are spin offs that benefit us. The reason that so much brain power goes into these pursuits is largely philosophically driven. If the west isn't doing this work, then it eventually will be done by others who aren't the west. We don't know how that would work out for us. Hitler learnt the lesson of not bothering with 'Jewish science'. We have learnt the benefits of keeping up the pace of research into science and technology. That's why we have the EU space agency and Nasa and projects like CERN ..all obviously funded by taxpayers from around the work.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sitdownstandup 03 Aug 17 8.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by thebob
The evidence seems to support it presently, so it is useful working hypothesis as long as other data doesn't come along and introduce some different conclusions! So kinda, sorta yeah. thebob.. nice answer
Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 03 Aug 17 9.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Most people don't understand that science has no "facts" and no "laws". Nothing has beed decided categorically, and never will be. All science can do is show something is wrong, it can never show that something is right!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 03 Aug 17 9.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
However we came about, my evening is going to be the same.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
What caused this Big Bang?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 03 Aug 17 9.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
What caused this Big Bang? The HF
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.