Largest-Known Planet Befuddles Scientists

langelgjm writes to mention that scientists are quite puzzled over the discovery of the largest planet yet. According to study-leader Georgi Mandushev it should theoretically not even be able to exist. 'Dubbed TrES-4, the planet is about 1.7 times the size of Jupiter and belongs to a small subclass of "puffy" planets that have extremely low densities. The finding will be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal. [...] "TrES-4 is way bigger than it's supposed to be," Mandushev told Space.com. "For its mass, it should be much smaller. It basically should be about the size of Jupiter and instead it's almost twice as big." "TrES-4 appears to be something of a theoretical problem," said study team member Edward Dunham, also of the Lowell Observatory. "Problems are good, though, since we learn new things by solving them."'"

Comments

Re:I have a theory...

[utopianfiat]

Unfortunately, it hasn't been kept current
Are you fucking serious? Sure, Darwin's original ideas have been tested and built upon, but the idea of competition driving genetic variance still holds pretty fucking strongly.
See, the thing about evolution is, by most scientific standards of today, a good majority of the principles Darwin outlined in The Origin of Species are actually provable. I'm guessing you think they aren't just because the fundies and IDers are yelling loud enough.

On the more flamebait side, when one of those nutjobs are lecturing in the main mall of your local university, try asking them what they think about crystal lattices- complex, beautiful geometrical structures which will form naturally, and ask if there was an intelligent designer forming the covalent bonds in your ice tray this morning.

Re:I have a theory...

[ChromeAeonium]

try asking them what they think about crystal lattices- complex, beautiful geometrical structures which will form naturally, and ask if there was an intelligent designer forming the covalent bonds in your ice tray this morning. Question: How does that advance your argument? You're saying that you have a complex clockwork that acts with no outside intervention, therefore no intelligence went into its ability to form such patterns autonomously.
Eh, just wondering, because that seems to be counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.

Re:I have a theory...

[mhall119]

What about the ones who do present valid arguments for intelligent design? Nobody has ever presented a valid argument for intelligent design, all they do is present multiple and often contradictory arguments _against_ evolution.

Re:I have a theory...

[tukkayoot]

I don't know if it's necessarily a "trick" or a "fallacy." Saying "it's just a theory" is just another way of saying "there's not enough proof to compel belief."

Well, science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence ... and oftentimes, there's more than enough evidence to compel belief. After all, would we say "it's just a theory" about the theory of gravity? The evidence may not be, and will never be sufficient to compel absolute certainty, but belief should be no problem.

They're not trying to imply that it's taken less seriously by the scientific community than other theories, just that they have reason to believe something else, and the evidence doesn't exist of such a nature that would "invalidate" their belief.

Well, it depends on who we're talking about. As I said, "creationists" generally use a somewhat less subtle approach, more easily identifiable as logically fallacious equivocation. One minute they'll tell you "it's just a theory," and the next, invoke the second "LAW" of thermodynamics to refute evolution -- for some reason, they almost never see fit to remind us that the entire scientific model of thermodynamics (or any other well-subscribed, religiously inoffensive science) is also "just a theory."

Intelligent Design is all about casting doubt on evolution and people who understand ID usually don't make the "just a theory" equivocation argument, but as I said, many attempt to create an impression that ID is scientific -- a genuine theory of science, just like evolution (only better, more correct!) The problem is that ID, scientifically speaking, hasn't earned the right to be called a theory, the same way the theory of evolution has. It'd be more accurate to say it's a conjecture. Those aspects of ID that haven't been effectively refuted by evidence or rational examination are sometimes impossible to produce evidence against, because of how they've defined their belief in such a way that it cannot be falsified, which is another reason (besides the dearth of supporting evidence) that it's not a valid scientific theory. ID lacks predictive power, a requisite quality for any good scientific theory. It's pretty clear now that ID hasn't been arrived at or verified through honest application of the scientific method.

Intelligent Design could be correct. Heck, even young Earth creationism could be correct ... but neither are really worthy of being called science.

In this day and age, I think "it's just a theory" is a useful reminder, equally applicable to all areas of science, given a populous who increasingly treats scientific theories as if they were divine dictates handed down from a priesthood.

That's funny, because in this day and age, I'm more worried about a populace that treats divine dictates handed down from a priesthood as having more weight and credibility than well-tested scientific theories.

The real danger lies with a scientifically illiterate public, who are unable to distinguish junk science and pseudo-science from the real thing -- or those who behave as if some kind of superstition is just as good, right and reliable as science (if it's not in fact what they consciously believe).