Slashdot Mirror
Initial Tests Fail To Find Gravitational Waves
eldavojohn writes that though gravitational waves are "predicted to exist by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the initial tests run by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory Scientific Collaboration (LIGO) failed to find anything. It doesn't disprove their existence although it does rule out a subset of string theory. From the article, 'For example, some models predict the existence of cosmic strings, which are loops in space-time that may have formed in the early universe and gotten stretched to large scales along with the expansion of the universe. These objects are thought to produce bursts of gravitational waves as they oscillate. Since no large-amplitude gravitational waves were found, cosmic strings, if they exist at all, must be smaller than some models predict.' The scientists working in Washington and Louisiana (in tandem to rule out flukes) will now move on to Advanced LIGO which will analyze a volume of space 1,000 times larger. If they don't find any gravitational waves in that experiment, the results will be more than unsettling to many theorists."
Have they tried turning it off & back on again?
Meta will eat itself
That's how science works, yeah.
As far as I remember from my course on general relativity, gravitational waves follow from a linearization of Einstein's field equations. Thus, if they failed to find them, it wouldn't falsify the theory as a whole but only the linear approach to the field equations.
Gravity sucks.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
An experiment is only a failure if you don't learn anything from it.
Doesn't mean the gravitational waves aren't there.
Maybe they've just got the detection method wrong.
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
Meta will eat itself
Will these tests apply for open, closed, or both so far as strings are concerned? IIRC, open and closed string models are mutually exclusive and should each have a different 'signature' that could be tested for.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
It should be noted that the existance of gravitational waves is pretty much certain - measurements of pulsars like the Hulse-Taylor binary match up perfectly with the predictions of GR.
What LIGO is about is trying to observe them directly, rather than just observing the effects of them.
This is obviously because gravity does not exist, but the observed effect is a result of an higher intelligence pushing things down.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
> The worst, that could happen for a physicist, would be that the observations could be explained with GR.
This kind of (extremely common) remarks strike me as frivolous. It is one thing to say that physicists enjoy being disproved, because this shows the length of the road ahead; it is another thing to say that physicists would hate to attain knowledge in one particular area or other. Science is in the business of securing truths, not in the business of idly advancing ever-refutable theories.
More like a cycle... observe, theorise, observe to check results, refine theory.
In this case, this is exactly what's happened - the observations looks like they may not fit the theory perfectly - hence, once that's been double-checked, go back and revise the theory and try to find out why.
If you don't test the theory, it's worthless. And if you posit a theory, only observation will definitively "prove" it. Science is about positing theories, observing results, and if they fit the theory - WONDERFUL... you just "predicted" part of the universe that nobody has before.
Unless horses get so expensive and building carts so cheap you'd rather prepare a thouosand different carts just to be absolutely sure of which kind of horse you're going to invest all your effort trying to find.
Not exactly.. you make some observations about the world around you, use that to come up with a theory, and then you perform experiments and observations to test that theory. One of the core components of a theory is it's ability to make predictions about things that we haven't observed yet; observing them a posteriori, we can determine whether the theory is at least plausible. A theory that makes no predictions is, to many academics and scientists, the equivalent of mental masturbation.
If you deal only with past observations, then you could come up with any number of theories to explain something, all of which are wrong because they fail to properly predict events in other scenarios.
Aikon-
I guess the way you describe it, then #3 would be "get more research grants". But hey, if it's that easy please try making your own model and see if it passes the giggle test so someone will fund you. I think you'd have to work pretty hard just to find something that isn't obviously incorrect and could at least explain some of the many, many WTFs you get once you go past classic mechanics. I think it's impressive to make any kind of sense of it, really once they started introducing matter-wave duality I really lost the concept of what matter "is".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Actually, ID proponents tend to outright ignore new evidence, or any evidence, that doesn't fit their theory.
Gravity is related directly to space, which in turn is directly related to time. Time, as we know, is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so. Therefore, gravity is an illusion. Q.E.D.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Not really. String theory is based on observations like any theory. You can observe things, see that it lines up with your theory, and you can falsify string theory. The problem with string theory, and the reason why people complain about it, is that most of its observations are also true of the boring old theories we have right now or true of other variations of string theory. People get a little annoyed when you come up with a dozen contradictory string theories and according to all known observations they could all be true and no one can figure out a way to disprove any of them shorting of lighting off a big bang.
their equipment is not sensitive enough to detect the gravity waves, you're talking about billions of years ago when they started and billions of light years of distance traveled since the universe began with a big bang...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
A lot of people confuse a hypothesis for a theory. All it takes for a hypothesis to become a theory is for there to be "some evidence" to support the hypothesis, even if the evidence is just pure math.
insert inflammatory comment here!
Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict? How could it be falsified?
This is like that Babbage quote: I am not able rightly to comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Thats half-way there. Observe, then theorise, then make a prediction, and test that. The problem is that we have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and both describe their own domains very well (the very large and very small, respectively) - but we have no way of combining the two into a single, unified theory.
String theory in its various permutations could be (partial) theoretical solutions to this, but coming up with testable predictions of such theories (such as large-amplitude gravitational waves) is horrendously tricky. Indeed, some theories are pretty much untestable by definition - many string theories have been considered to come into this category.
So we have our observation (GR and QM both work well, but are hard to unify), we have many predictions (string theories, etc), and now we have a test of many such theories in the form of this experiment.
"Observe then theorise" is all well and good, but when you can't you can test predictions of your theory, its not worth much.
Whilst scientists, being human, sometimes form attachments to a particular theory, the failure to find predicted gravity waves can only possibly be good for physics. It is also an exciting time for physicists; failures of existing theories to explain observations provide the kind of mystery a scientist can make a name for himself or herself by solving.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Karl Popper would want a word with you, were he still alive that is.
...because they're what I'm going to need to pull to get into heaven.
Well, there has been some philosophy of science since, and much of it has been realist.
This is an option that, if workable, is preferable. Many philosophers of science believe it is workable -although admittedly, some don't.
This thread is now about ID vs Evolution, science vs faith. Thanks a lot for that!!
You just got troll'd!
That's apprehend
Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
We know that pulsars conserve energy because they keep turning their lights off!
this guy is one of those UFO nuts, slashdot, why the fuck are you modding him up?
Now maybe the string theorists, such as Michio Kaku, will spend a little more time back at the drawing board and a little less time pretending to be Carl Sagan crossed with Alan Alda.
I doubt it. There is no such thing as "String theory". It should be more accurately called "String Theories". It's like a multi-headed hydra that lives forever. Falsify one part of it and 3 other theories pop up to replace it.
The only thing that can really kill String Theories is a experimentally verified competing theory that's unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity. Kill the body and the head will die.
AccountKiller
Wow, great insight, random Slashdotter! If only those physicists visited Slashdot more often they'd know what's wrong with their results and conclusions!
You just got troll'd!
Impressively OT! So 90 % of the mass of the Milky Way (and every other galaxy we've measured the rotation of) consists of computronium in the form of Jupiter or Matrioshka brains? Interesting theory, but where's the infrared radiation? Or have they progressed to perform fully reversible computations? Now that would be sailing very close to magic!
For those who think nano-engineering is going to be easy, I suggest go reading a book or two on control theory and thermodynamics. Even if we manage to build something resilient enough to survive outside a pure laboratory environment (much less a computer simulation!), and smart enough to do useful work, energy supply and heat dissipation is still going to be huge problems. I personally think it's going to be solvable, but we ain't gonna be getting any magic pixie dust, just another technology with clear limitations and associated costs. Especially when applied to complex biological systems such as, y'know, the Earth and ourselves.
Along similar lines, from Richard Feynman: "I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with a n experiment, they cook up an explanation - a fix-up to say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn't eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right."
"Thats half-way there. Observe, then theorise, then make a prediction, and test that. The problem is that we have General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and both describe their own domains very well (the very large and very small, respectively) - but we have no way of combining the two into a single, unified theory." Paging Nassim Haramein. I went up to London last week to witness Haramein give a talk on a paper he has just submitted for peer review entitled "The Schwarzschild Proton" (Best Paper Award at the CASYS09 conference), where he outlines some very specific ways in which we can begin to unify the two apparently conflicting theories. He has a model for the mechanics of the Universe that dispenses with the need for String Theory, the Strong and Weak Forces, and Dark Matter, and can show how this model would fully support General Relativity all the way down to the Planck Scale. http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/schwarzschild_proton_a4.pdf
I like to see string theory crumbling as much as the next man, but err.. that :
dark matter can be explained by the evolution of advanced technological civilizations based on *known* physics (through molecular nanotechnology and extreme engineering)
If given the choice between these two propositions, I think I'll stick with string theory and its 26+ space dimensions. But kudos to you for pioneering a new approach to astrophysics that consists in claiming "space aliens did it".
You just got troll'd!
Strings make about as much sense as probabilities considered as physically real, or observer-dependent reality - ie, no sense. The equations might be elegant, but they don't explain anything. "Oh, it's strings!... wait, strings of what? And hold on, they're one-dimensional?!"
Desiring a specific result does not make that result any more real, or coherent. Physics is built on philosophy, not the other way around. Until you understand the underlying concepts, you haven't understood a thing. Of course, it is possible to not understand a thing, get the equations right, and make practical applications from those equations, but progress (in both theory and application) requires a fundamental understanding.
I'd be very curious to see how many career paths this experiment just derailed. How large is this subset of string theory that just got wiped out? Also, what does it mean if the bigger version of this test doesn't find gravitational waves? Does it poke a big fat hole in relativity?
Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict?
That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things. If the 'designers' are a bunch of bored aliens that like to do anal probes, you could predict that the aliens will cause changes in animals DNA such that they tend towards having ass holes. If the FSM is the designer, than you will predict that creatures will be designed towards higher spaghetti creating lifeforms. If the designer is an all powerful omnipotent god that thinks beetles totally kick ass, you will predict that there will be a crap ton of beetles (which there in fact are).
And hey, all of the above might very well be true.
If someone wants to go out and try and prove it, more power to them. The issue is that ID is nothing more than an attempt by religious nuts to try and teach about baby Jesus in the schools. If there were people that were taking the 'study' of ID seriously, they would sit around designing experiments to catch whatever the mysterious force is that manipulates DNA to force evolution and create their spiffy designed universe. Further, when they pondered what the force was, they would have to constrain themselves to theories based upon real physics. This would handily rule out 'magic' and 'god juice'. If they want to show that the force is god juice, they then need to go ahead and reinvent physics to try and explain how the force of god juice works. At no point does 'magic', 'just cause', or 'humans can't understand because they are not Jesus' acceptable.
The issue with ID is that science doesn't accept 'magic' as an answer. If you say a designer is forcing evolution, you need to go and figure out the force being used, and it either needs to conform to current theories or you need to find new ones that explain all observable events. This is what makes the ID folks nothing more than religious whack jobs. When Darwin declare that natural selection was the answer, people went to work figuring out how natural selection works and didn't just decide it was a magical force that just happens. They tore it apart by from a macroscopic level that studied how animals compete and co-opt, they tore it apart on the biological level understanding how cells reproduces, and they keep on drilling down until they are looking at atoms and figuring out how quantum affects influence evolution. At no point was anyone ever satisfied with 'magic' as the answer.
Why 17 years after "Nanosystems" was published do we still not have an complete atomic level design for a molecular nanoassembler?
Patience, young grasshopper. Game of Life rules published in Martin Gardners column in October 1970, first turing machine in GoL that I'm aware of, April 2000. Wait at least another 13 years or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life#cite_note-0
http://www.rendell-attic.org/gol/tm.htm
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
You just said what he said, but he used the language of science while you used the language of bonghits-in-a-dorm-at-a-good-college.
They tend to think that these rings are going outwards in a perfect circle like...however each planet and star's gravitational pull could adversely affect the rings progression, so think then of the waves created by these pulls then also rebounding off of each other as a wave would either help another wave if in the same direction, or a wave could affect it conversely if it was in the opposite direction.
I think this would be a better model to explain and search for these cosmic strings
Maybe the LIGO scientists forgot to take the lens cap off. That's usually the problem for me, anyway.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
No, no...I was confused at his post too (wow this guy reads too much SF!) but then I realized that his first statement is not about the existence of advanced civilisations, but rather suggests that an advanced civilisation will have more of the tools and ability to solve these problems. He is suggesting that WE need to focus on such efforts as nanotechnology and such, because once we're one of those `high tech civilisations', doing physics will be easier. To an extent I think he's got a point; we can certainly do much better physics now than Gallileo (if only because of apparati), and nanotechnology may indeed allow us to build larger (or smaller) and more stable structures, which may be necessary to directly detect some of the more elusive universal secrets.
Please see the LISA mission:
http://lisa.nasa.gov/
LISA can be thought of as a giant Michelson interferometer in space. The spacecraft separation sets the range of GW frequencies LISA can observe (from 0.03 milliHertz to above 0.1 Hertz).
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
If you talk to a string theorist, it feels like you are talking to a religious person.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
The summary says that if they fail to detect gravitational waves with the next experiment, many theorists will be unsettled. There's something that I don't understand about this kind of an experiment, though. How do they know that the equipment they've built actually does what it's designed to do? We've never detected one before, so all we're going on is the model. Failure to detect gravitational waves could suggest that the model of the universe is wrong. Isn't it also possible, however, that the equipment we've constructed to measure this event doesn't actually behave in the way it's supposed to behave? If we don't detect gravitational waves, it would be a lot less unsettling to believe that the instrument designers made a mistake than to believe that general relativity has a hole in it. (General Relativity has been a solid model for a long time. Gravitational wave detectors, on the other hand, have not worked yet.)
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.
Criticisms of science who doesn't understand optics, much less basic relativity? Actually, he doesn't understand basic science, since he applies "makes sense" as if it's meaningful.
A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg.
Interferometry isn't affected by static fields like local gravity. If it were, their sensitivity is so high that you'd see the local-gravity effect even though their equipment is "perpendicular" to Earth's gravity because their equipment is not perfectly perpendicular to Earth's gravity.
My own "pet theory" for this was that they would never be detected because although they do exist, they perturb the measurement device to the same degree that they do everything else, ie a gravity wave may perturb one arm of a LIGO detector, but it also correspondingly perturbs the waves of the laser beam passing through it. As a result it isn't detected.
An analogy: It would be like measuring everything in a room with a ruler, then scaling the whole room including the ruler up or down. You wouldn't see a change with the same scaled ruler; you'd have to bring one in from outside.
I bounced this idea off a few physicists (including Bruce Allen who runs the Einstein@Home project on LIGO) but they don't seem to like it. :^) Maybe it will turn out to be correct, who knows. It certainly seems to be turning out to be more difficult to detect gravity waves than was initially predicted.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
Since when do ID people look at evidence? In the Pennsy ID trial the ID proponents admitted to not running any of the experiments they proposed. Yes, in science when a theory doesn't fit the evidence you either adjust it or throw it out. For example, experiments looking for the ether led to the dismissal of both the particle and wave theories of light. They gave way to the theory of relativity which is still being rigorously tested because scientists don't take anything for granted.
Compare that with dogmatic writings that get promoted as absolute unchanging truth in spite of being full of internal contradictions as well contradictions with history and with science.
Actually, some ID proponents tend to outright ignore new evidence, or any evidence, that doesn't fit their theory.
Never see hat in any other fields of course...
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict? How could it be falsified?
Can evolution be falsified? If yes, then ID is pretty much the other option. Look at a forest that's been planted, it'll normally be completely different than a forest naturally planted by the wind. In the same way, we should be able to find signs whether we're a natural evolution or the result of an alien test tube experiment. If the ID'ers were really interested in science they could look at that instead of trying to throw a thin shim over the Bible. The trouble is that there's really no such evidence to speak of, the more we look at it the more it looks like a long succession of natural selection.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I proposed the "really tiny strings" theory long ago that said that a really tiny string is attached between the gravitational bodies like the earth and the moon. Sure, some laughed and countered with their silly "spooling paradox" argument, but sometimes it takes decades to appreciate a true genius.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Agreed. There's nothing more exciting that the ID debate. It never fails to change everyone's mind every time it comes up, and it's like so totally appropriate here.
I don't really care if my neighbors think we sprouted like mushrooms from unicorn poop, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, and I think they should have the right to teach their kids whatever they want and not be forced to....
Oh! See! You tricked me into the debate....
That's a bit of a stretch, but alright.
You just got troll'd!
Actually, it is only Solar power if it comes from the Sun (as known as Sol).
If it comes from some other star, then it is stellar power.
Similarly, there is no such thing is "another solar system". There is only one Solar system. But there are many stellar systems.
The observation that there is an attractive force between two masses was made a long time ago. We've gone through several theories, and none seem to perfectly match experimental data. This is yet another in a long string of attempts to explain the original observation.
Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a *bullshit* artist!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe gravity IS just a theory.
ID it not a theory, it is a religious/political ideology being presented as a theory that aims to explain the perceived weaknesses of science in order to advance the interests of certain groups and individuals.
- This beautiful, complex interaction could not have possibly arisen spontaneously, therefore God's will.
- This makes no apparent sense/has no apparent purpose, therefore descent from God's will.
- You cannot explain something neatly, therefore God's will or the descent from it.
That's not a theory. The aim of a theory is to predict something that you can then test for. ID doesn't predict anything, there is no empirical test for God and deciding arbitrarily whether things are as God intended or not does not increase our understanding of them - it's merely a reactionary attitude advanced by old men who are afraid of change and what it means for their status.
Besides, even if you believe in God the creator, the ID advocacy of ignorance still seems bogus; God gave you all these wonderful cognitive capabilities, so why not use them to try to fully appreciate his grand work? You would be wasting God's gifts if you didn't. :p
Even as you read this, your pants are strangling your loins! Aaa!
Yep. OK, enough with ID vs evolution, let's move on to the other battlefront of the science vs faith war. Climate change!
Global warming, schmobal schmwarming! Temperatures have gone done for the last 10 years (facts here [wikipedia.org]), so everything is just fine, it's just evil liberals who hate our benevolent oil companies because they're in the pocket of Big Ethanol. Discuss.
You just got troll'd!
You *are* aware that Dark Matter has been observed, right? Or did you just miss the announcement of the Bullet Cluster results (among others)? As for Dark Energy, that isn't really a theory, so much as an observation with no explanation. Specifically, the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. This is a fact. *Why*, we don't know, so we just call it Dark Energy for now. It's a placeholder, nothing more.
So please, take your trolls and go back into your basement, as it's pretty clear you don't really know what you're talking about.
I'm sure this was unintentional, but it is insulting in the extreme to label ID a 'field'.
. Science is in the business of securing truths, not in the business of idly advancing ever-refutable theories.
I'm sorry, science is in the business of proving theories wrong. All current scientific theories are merely those that have yet to be proved wrong. They are extremely valuable in that they can be used to predict future behavior of the universe to a significant degree of confidence. However, scientific theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.
The great weakness of science is that people have a tendency to view theories that have been around for a long time and not proven false to be true. All it really means is that they are reliable predictors of the behavior of the universe insofar as our technology allows us to observer the behavior of the universe. Sometimes this means that they are good theories that are very useful (say General Relativity), other times it merely means that our technology has not yet reached the point where we can reliably test any of the theory's predictions (say the various String Theories).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oh, I dunno...this seems pretty interesting to me, and might lead to 'nanomolecular assemblers' as you call them, or 'replicators' ;-), which is my preferred term. Google "DNA origami", etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_origami
That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things.
Quite correct, that is the wrong criticism. Unfortunately, yours is, too. The argument that "science doesn't accept 'magic' as an answer", and therefore ID isn't science is a circular one. ie, if ID is magic, then science doesn't accept magic, therefore ID isn't science. Well, yeah, duh, no kidding. Heck, technically, I think that might actually be "begging the question".
No, the *real* problem with ID is that it isn't *falsifiable*. And this is specifically because any attempt to falsify the theory, by providing evidence which contradicts any "predictions", could easily be reinterpreted under the lens of "god did that, too". And if a theory can't be falsified, it simply isn't science.
How does *failing* to find the thing which was predicted to exist by Einstein, prove Einstein right? Granted, they weren't *expecting* to see gravitational waves at this point, because they were only looking for waves which would have been at such a high magnitude that they weren't expected to exist *except by string theorists* because of part of string theory. So, that part of string theory was *dis-proved*, but Einstein's theory has not yet been proved correct (though they expect it will be 'soon' when they start looking for smaller magnitude waves).
Anyhow, what's wrong with proving that our ideas about the natural universe are either correct or incorrect (or somewhere in between, in some cases)? You know, one never knows all the applications of scientific knowledge until long after that knowledge is obtained. Perhaps spending all this money now to do this science today, will lay the groundwork for very useful applications in the future? Perhaps the knowledge gained from these observatories will help us figure out how to make fusion work economically, or help us develop more advanced spacecraft, or even more advanced terrestrial vehicles? Or help us detect the aliens which are spying on us with advanced cloaking devices but can't hide their G-waves (ok, that last is mostly a joke, but one never knows)?
Scientific knowledge is, in itself, largely useful - how much has our technology and economy, our health and standard of living, improved, because of scientific advances achieved in past centuries that are only now being put to great use?
I know. I had to cringe a little when I was posting that, but I couldn't resist...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Well played sir. I'd mod you funny but I'm a little pissed off about the coffee dribbling down my screen.
WHICH, as it turns out, were not necessarily because there is no aether (although I'm pretty sure there isn't), but rather because Lorenz/Fitzgerald contraction "squeezed" their interferometry equipment by exactly the same amount that any existing "aether" would have distorted the light beams they used to make their experimental observation. In effect, what they proved is that their equipment is subject to the same rules as the light their equipment was manipulating. Yes, General Relativity is one theory which explains their results and I'm sure there are others.
I'm still waiting to hear if astrophysicists have detected any scalar fields in the universe - for example, variations in the "constants" assigned to physical phenomena such as gravity. That'd be a real bit of supporting evidence for several string theories ('branes, n-dimensional manifolds, the existence of realities/universes other than ours) and would probably trash current relativistic theories, although like any good theory, it'll be modified to fit the available data and another test concieved. See: Scientific Method.
But, the design for the equipment followed logically from the model, right? Now, of course, it's possible that someone screwed up in the design so that it doesn't *accurately* reflect the model, but, *if* the design is a faithful implementation of the model, and the design fails to detect what it's supposed to detect, then there might be a flaw with the model, right?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while you're right that a flaw with the equipment might cause failure, it's equally true that a flaw with the model would cause equipment failure as a direct consequence, no?
In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats. It's still a field. ID is still an area that people study. It's a field. You may not agree with it. I may or may not agree with things that come out of it. That's fine. It's still a field of study. Get over it.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
I have a question: how do they know they've been watching long enough for the large-magnitude waves? Is it because string theory also predicts the period-length of the 'bursts of gravitational waves', and we've been watching for at least one whole period?
For starters, it predicts that there is no blind step-by-step process that can produce life or many of the underlying structures that support it.
If you consider the main question to be one of teleology, Darwinism is the answer of 'no'. Intelligent design is the answer of 'yes'.
If one answer is science, the other is as well. If one is not science, the other isn't as well.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Isn't it supposed to be observe, *then* theorize? I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that with most string theories, they are doing the opposite.
In a sense, they are doing it in the order of observe then theorize.
We have had a good 50-60 years worth of observations that are unexplainable with current theory.
After that, they came up with these string theories.
Sadly, since one can't directly observe the things that the string theories describe, and at least last time i paid any attention, we couldn't even indirectly observe them! That is a dead end. ;}
Ok, dead end isn't a fair description. It's more like a very long and dark tunnel we are moving through. It May be a dead end, or it may empty out into something great. From where we are at right now in that tunnel, it's all pitch black ahead and we do not know what lies there.
I'll let the string theorists worry about making that trip however
That's why observations such as this one from LISA are so important. They let us refine theories made on the past 60ish years of observations that we have no theory for!
Moron!
There is no such thing!
Last post!
Nah, I liked your reply better. But you have to admit there is a certain elegance that comes from handwaving complicated problems away.
Magic Pixie Dust. Works for Apple and God.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Actually, its supposed to be observe, theorize (or, more precisely, create hypotheses) to explain observations, conduct structured tests of hypotheses, observe results, rinse, repeat.
Where the existing models work for most things, but have known gaps or inconsistencies, its perfectly acceptable in science to propose new models for the existing observations to resolve those issues, though to be useful they have to ways that they can be, via testing, distinguished from the existing models, even if they reduce to the existing models for the conditions in which previous observations were conducted.
String theory fits into that, though often the hypotheses are difficult to test in practice.
I think he meant "field of scientific study" which many would argue ID is not. Have there been any serious studies into ID - perhaps something that can be tested and see if it fits the model?
That is not circular logic... that is classical deductive logic.
All humans are mortal
Socrates is human
-------------------
Socrates is mortal
You are simply picking at the logic that leads to the "ID is Magic" clause of the logical formulation.
In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats.
That's very true, of course. But you can't grow wheat, barley, and Ford Pintos. I'm arguing that physics, philosophy, and automobile repair are fields of study, while ID is not. It is a platform. An agenda. It's like saying the people paid by the tobacco companies to falsify studies on the effects of tobacco smoke are conducting science. Apples to orangutans.
Actually does any theory or study of origins fit the scientific model? Science is based on that which can be tested. Finding ways to repeatably test remote historical events, or proposed events, is pretty difficult. While scientific study can be used to try and understand evidence, the final interpretation of many things depends very much on the bias of the interpreter. Anyone who denies that is either lying or blind.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Scientists have successfully discovered and manufactured the building blocks of life in what is being called the "LEGO Group".
That's very true, of course. But you can't grow wheat, barley, and Ford Pintos. I'm arguing that physics, philosophy, and automobile repair are fields of study, while ID is not. It is a platform. An agenda. It's like saying the people paid by the tobacco companies to falsify studies on the effects of tobacco smoke are conducting science. Apples to orangutans.
At many levels, Evolutionism is an agenda as well. Why else would there be such a push to have it taught in schools?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Hmm, I suppose it's because I made the tacit assumption that if something isn't science, it's magic. ie, my explanation really should've been:
If ID is magic, then it's not science, therefore ID is magic. :)
Really, he's making the assumption that ID must be magic (for some unknown definition of "magic"), and then proceeding to use that "fact" as evidence that ID isn't science, without explaining why magic, itself, isn't science.
My response, that ID isn't falsifiable, addresses this issue and highlights the real, fundamental reason why ID (and also magic, as it happens) isn't science.
Disclaimer: I don't work on LIGO, but I work with people who do.
LIGO didn't expect to see a signal above the noise here. What it has done, is largely rule out a lot of 'exotic' sources - sources with equations of state that don't fit the normal matter we see, but some of the more ambitious parts of string theory thought might be possible. What they have achieved is a phenomenal reduction in their 'noise curve' - the background above which a signal must register to be considered real. So far it's only been a one-way test - just ruling out exotic sources, but nothing that we think should necessarily be there.
LIGO primer and vast oversimplification:
LIGO is an interferometer. The way it works is that a laser is split into two parts, each of which goes down an equal length tunnel, at right angles to one another. If the light went the same distance, when it is reflected back, it should still be in phase, and should interfere constructively (think back to intro physics and the way waves on a string add). If a gravitational wave which had the right polarization passed through the region in the time of detection, one tunnel will have been 'shorter' due to the contracting geometry caused by the wave, and hence the beams will no longer be in phase when they return, so will not interfere constructively in the same way.
So why is it so hard to see waves? Well, all kinds of things (drilling, trucks going by, someone sneezing!) can cause a minute wobbling of any part of the equipment and thus will cause the waves to interfere in the wrong way. What LIGO looks for is a specific 'signature' measured at three sites concurrently, the signature being the waves predicted to occur from certain galactic events (two black holes spiraling into one another, for example). They do some pretty impressive data processing to look for this, but so far have only found that they can't see anything above the noise. We've ruled out some of the less likely things that could be going on - types of matter that some string theories allow, but certainly aren't predicted to exist by established theories (like GR).
However, over time with a few additions to 'advanced' LIGO, or the amazing LISA project we should have a two-way test: Either we'll see the wave that GR predicts to exist from standard black hole collisions, or theoretical physicists have a lot of explaining to do.
Here you have just given away that you start with the philosophical assumption of naturalism: that is, everything that is (or everything that affects the universe) happens inside the universe. There is not, cannot be, any supernatural. That's not a proof you have, it's an assumption that you start with. And that's fine, we all make assumptions (e.g., logic works), but it's better if you're honest about it.
Let's try an analogy. Computers operate by rules, right? Everything in the computer can be defined by the state of its memory, registers, and disk (toss in whatever extra motherboard or micro-architectural state you want). How it transitions from one state to another depends only on what the state before it was, and any inputs into the system. The vast majority of those state transitions are 100% deterministic. (I know, I did my PhD thesis on this stuff.) Only a relatively small amount of input when you boot up determines whether you're playing Quake with friends or writing posts on Slashdot. In fact, for a running system overall, the less input needed to make the whole run smoothly the better designed it was.
Now, suppose there were a self-aware program living in your computer, looking at the state of the system, and trying to determine if there were such things as these mysterious "users", and if so, how they affected the state of the system. All you know is "data"; you can't see the physical world. Since these mysterious "users" don't live in data, to you they're essentially super-natural. Now ask your question: How is it that these "users" affect data?
If you do, you'll see that in this case "magic" (meaning, "something not described in the rules of the system") is an acceptable answer; in fact, "magic" is by definition the only answer. Users create the input from the keyboard, mouse, network, &c that feed into the system. Users really can decide which processes live and die; but what does that look like to a program? Some random data came in on a certain line which fed into a program, which when certain data hits inside a certain area on the screen (the "X" button on the upper right-hand-side of a window), the program sends a signal to another program which sends a signal to another program which tells it to exit. An atheist program might say those inputs were random, like states in quantum physics. Furthermore, really technical humans may have even more control: They can use in-circuit-emulators to directly change state on the CPU and use PCI bus devices hidden from the cpu to directly read and write memory. They can rewrite the register after an ADD instruction to make it look like it added 2 and 2 and got 5.
People who believe in the Judeo-Christian God believes that God has that kind of access to the universe. If he can feed 5000 people from five loaves of bread and 2 fishes, turn water into wine, and come back from the dead, surely he can twiddle some DNA at key points in history. By definition, a "miracle" is a temporary suspension or contravention of the normal laws of the universe. And thus, by definition, the "force being used" may not be detectable or describable under the laws of physics, any more than changes a programmer makes using an in-circuit-emulator would be detectable or describable by a program inside the computer trying to determine if the universe consisted only of data, or if there was a "supernatural" outside of the data.
Note that my point is not to defend any particular ID theories or people who promote them. I have a lot of biologist friends who are Christians, and think that the evidence pretty clearly supports the current scientific understanding of the development of life here on Earth. Believing that God can intervene in the natural world doesn't mean that you can't believe in and shouldn't look for natural laws and natural explanations for things. But your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
>>Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict? How could it be falsified?
Sure. You can restate ID so that it is scientific.
Essentially it's premise is that of the biased coin or rigged slot machine. Contrary to popular belief, it acknowledges evolution, but says that it exhibits the bias of some outside entity interfering with evolution.
A statistical test akin to testing for a biased coin would be sufficient to create an ID test.
Also contrary to the prevailing wisdom on Slashdot, such a test will need to be made anyway as we move into a bold new millenium with genetic engineering, and we want to know if something has interfered with the evolution of, say, Ebola, so we know whether or not we should nuke the shit out of some third world country.
In this case there are theories, but in general you start by observing and or hypothesizing, and after many many years of disproving the hypothesis, modifying and retesting you get to theories.
It would be refreshing if the matters of god and/or deity were dealt with by people of Kant's, Descartes' et al stature and capability as instead of putting argument forward to find out the truth they argue to win because they believe (this in a sense that they believe god exists or they believe god does not exist) but that is I guess too much to ask for so we have this constant bubbling about the subject that is not bringing anything except exitment (or at least for some it does). I do not mean PP but the discussion which in any way reach beliefs. It seems our brains are designed this way so that we believe, What we believe in is irrelevant as long as we have a herd to which we can belong.
Science studies that which is not "magic". A supernatural explanation may be true and it would still not be science. This is a necessary limit of science.
However, even if the answer is "God did it", if God chooses to do things according to some set of rules (as most religions would have us believe), then those rules should be apparant from the patterns observable in the universe, and science should be able to deduce those rules.
That is the point of science: to observe the patterns than events in our universe follow, and produce a set of rules -- a predictive model -- that explain those patterns. This approach only fails if there are effects in our observable universe with an arbitrary or random cause outside of it. Only a God who actually behaved in an arbitrary and random way would affect the predictive success of scientific models.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If your ruler is as stretchy as the thing you measure, you're not likely to notice a difference. It's a frame problem. On the other hand, "gravity waves" could be simple nonsense, like Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," which has semantics but denotes nothing.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
I'm missing how not finding large gravity waves means that they don't exist. I get the Copernican principal of mediocrity (we live in a rather typical corner of the universe), but it still seems the conclusion violates basic scientific method: just cause I don't see it, doesnt mean it doesn't exist. I would understand if the experiment were detecting something thats predicted in great quantities (neutrinos,) but IIRC gravity waves (as opposed to gravitational fields) are supposed to be quite rare -- caused by only a few rather large events. Now maybe I'll go RTFA and see if its jsut a usual /. sensationalized summary.
I think the grandparent post was thinking of dyson spheres and computational shells around a sun.
Basically a civilization so advanced that it uses all the power generated by its sun by placing a shell absorbing all light around the sun and absorbing all energy, making the sun appear dark.
There would be more than one shell, as the next shell will be there a bit far outer to absorb the Schwarzschild radiation and other waste energy from the inner shell, maybe using it to do computations.
So instead of dark matter there would be dark stars surrounded by dyson spheres.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
That isn't a valid argument. You could say the same thing about any subject. Such as:
At many levels, Mathematics is an agenda as well. Why else would there be such a push to have it taught in schools?
The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence. ID is simply a religion that is trying to make itself look scientific so it can be lobbied to be taught in public schools.
This indeed does place a bound on the possible existence of cosmic strings, however the description of this article seems to imply that cosmic strings have something to do with string theory. The two concepts are completely unrelated. In cosmology, cosmic strings are 1D topological defects caused by a phase change in a region of spacetime. They do not require string theory and string theory does not require them. They just happen to be two concepts in theoretical physics that used the word "string" to describe 1-dimensional entities.
Ive never heard of anyone complaining that ID changes when new evidence is found. One of the big issues with ID is that they never change the theory, no matter what the evidence which means it is not a scientific theory.
Anarchists never rule
If you are studying religious dogma you can study ID. That is the only field it belongs in.
Anarchists never rule
Well said.
Mod up!
Anarchists never rule
If ID is magic, then it's not science, therefore ID is magic. :)
Now this is a perfect example of begging the question -- you assume the thing you want to prove as a premise in your argument.
Thought thinks itself.
4. For those who are uneducated in nanotechnology "enabling" in general and are thinking "Why should I care?" -- well, such things as "real" Star-Trek type replicators, the ability to live for "free" (given a few sq. m of land), indefinite lifespan extension, elimination of most causes of premature death (viruses, bacteria, starvation, etc.), elimination of the "problem" of global warming, inexpensive colonization of the solar system, etc. all come to mind.
Even if you have running assemblers, aka you have nanotechnology established, all the points you mention then still needs to be researched and solutions need to be found.
How do you want to counter global warming with nanotechnology? ...
How do you want to colonize other planets in the solar system with nanotechnology
All stuff you mention still stays impossible until you have engineered solutions, nanotechnology in it self is not a solution to anything.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Uhm, I'm pretty sure peeps of the jewish faith believe in ID, and I'm also pretty sure they could care less about baby jesus being taught in schools....
A statistical test akin to testing for a biased coin would be sufficient to create an ID test.
So then do it. Create the test and give us the results, let us verify your test methodology and your data and your results. Until such a time, ID is merely conjecture and not a scientific hypothesis.
And how does his model explain the deep inelastic scattering experiments? I cannot see how this could possibly work.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Because a great deal of scientific research and studies support it. Studies of bird populations splitting into two distinct species, etc. The theory also explains fossil records and the ascent of [i]Homo Sapiens[/i] from [i]Homo Habilis[/i]. Additionally, if someone finds new evidence that can be tested independently the theory will be changed or discarded as appropriate.
ID has no falsifiable evidence, and therefore should not be taught in schools outside of a religious studies class (at best, since ID, in theory, doesn't actually belong to a religion). It certainly isn't science.
I have a book from NASA from years ago on Pioneer or Voyager that not only talks about gravitional waves, there are pictures of how they were mapped by the explorer satellites. The distortions and waves were pictured nicely in relation to the Sun as the satellites traversed the Solar System. I'll have to go through the old boxes and find those books.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Good thing I checked existing posts because I was going to write about M-M.
Maybe a great big null result would be a revolutionary thing. I think it would be very interesting to have a something that mainstream physics can't explain.
There would be no guarantee that this time around there would be a mind like Einstein around to explain it though. Even so it would break the monotony of living under the boring old standard model.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
You mean, for example, how physicists invent superstitious nonsense like dark matter and dark energy to explain data that contradicts their pet theories (e.g., general relativity)? Of course not. That would be preposterous. :-D
By the way, did any of you know that nothing can move in spacetime, by definition? Surprise! In Conjectures and Refutations, Sir Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame) called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens". Popper compared Einstein to good old Parmenides who, whith his devoted pupil Zeno, also maintained that nothing can move and that change was an illusion! And yet spacetime is the central model of modern cosmology. ahahaha...
Folks, the reason that gravity waves have not been found is simple: Einstein was wrong. Gravity is a nonlocal phenomenon and is instantaneous, just as Sir Isaac assumed centuries ago. This is the reason that Newtonian gravity is so accurate. Isn't it time for science to adjust the model to accomodate the data? I think so.
Because you're supposed to learn science in school? Duh.
Shame the two couldn't have met - can you imaging the science those two could have accomplished together?
Right, there is just no way to do lab experiments on evolution.
I beg to differ. ID is a theory, sort of like String Theory. They both explain a lot, but are pretty damn hard to test. The nice thing about science is that it doesn't care if your theory is crazy or not. It accepts all challengers, puts them through the ringer, and lets some survive a little longer than others. As an intellectual and philosophical exercise, ID theory is a good one. Is there a creator? Good question. Give us a hypothesis that can be tested and let's test it. That's science. Get results that contradict ID, so be it. Fix the theory or move on.
ID proponents however, are a different matter. They work from the assumption that the hypothesis is true and any contradictory data is in error.
Or another way to put it: ID theory could be scientific if handled properly, but ID proponents aren't scientists.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound.
The problem isn't really one of ID being "bad" or not. The problem is that it's not a scientific theory, and can never be one. If any laws of the universe could be contravened at a whim, then you can't really say there are laws, not even math, as per your 2+2=5 example. Sure, maybe that's how the universe works, after all. But even so, 1) it is by definition unprovable (since what's real is contingent upon the whim of the Creator(s)), 2) you can't even have evidence to support it, because among other things, 3)ID is observationally indistinguishable from (scientifically based) Really High Tech, and 4) if it's true, all of science is essentially a sham.
By definition, a "miracle" is a temporary suspension or contravention of the normal laws of the universe.
More precisesly, a miracle as an apparent temporary suspension or contravention in what we believe to be the normal laws of the universe. In that whenever we have had the ability to actually examine a miracle, it turns out that either what apparently took place didn't (those were not tears, they were a suspension of iron oxide) or what we believed about the universe was mistaken (yes it is possible for the sun to "burn" for billions of years because it's not really "burning").
When civilization was young, it seemed that everything was miraculous. Now, the room for miracles to take place has gotten smaller and smaller, and the only reason we hold onto them at all is because they are our only shot at true immortality. If brain uploading ever becomes a reality, that will be the true twilight of the gods.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
A field of study generally produces results of some kind. The best thing to come out of ID is the idea of irreducible complexity as a line of attack on evolution. But it takes only a minute to realize that even if irreducible complexity were proven, it would present no barrier to Darwinian evolution.
If you want claim ID as a field of study, it'd help your case if anyone actually studied in it.
Play Command HQ online
Supernatural phenomena are no less explainable by science than any other phenomena. Non-visible electromagnetic waves were considered supernatural at one point. You could not see them, and yet, they could affect the physical world.
Supernatural is just another word for "unexplained." If there is a god, and that god interferes with our observations, then that interference can be categorized, measured, and documented. It becomes part of the new theory.
The problem with religion is that its central tenet is: do not attempt to honestly categorize, measure, or document supernatural interference with the observed world.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Except that the input is perfectly explainable and subject to analysis by the self aware computer program. In other words, it can apply science to the user's inputs the same way we can analyze a meteor even though the idea of rocks floating around in the sky is nonsensical to our world, the we could and have applied science to the theory of an old man in the clouds who made us like him and wants us to be good.
If ever there was a force beyond the realm of known physics that entered the universe to work its will, it would leave effects that we could study to learn something of its nature.
Play Command HQ online
>Here you have just given away that you start with the philosophical assumption of naturalism: that is, everything that is (or everything that affects the universe) happens inside the universe.
It's not a "philosophical assumption", it's a scientific assumption based on a lack of evidence to assume otherwise. For example, one might assume that unicorns, fairies, and goblins do not exist either. That is not a philosophical assumption...we simply have no evidence to assume that they do exist.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Maybe because it would cost much more to bring it to the Lagrange points?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Gravity exists only when mass in rotation of itself, not just linear movement
Please stop talking about things you clearly don't understand. Gravity is a property of all mass and has nothing at all to do with movement, either rotational or linear.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
He is the power behind gravity as He pushes as down with His noodly appendages...
See http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Gravity#Gravity_and_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
Ramen
"We have not succeeded in solving all of your problems. The solutions we have found only serve to raise a whole new set of problems. We are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things."
I cannot find a source for this quote, but I dig it.
yes. It has been tested, and it has made predictions.
ID can not, and has not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Becasue it's science? Science education and critical thinking is key to ahve a productive culture.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
ID is not a theory; it cannot be tested. God said so:
"It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
-Jesus (aka, God Incarnate)
Luke 4:12
NASB
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
At many levels, Evolutionism is an agenda as well. Why else would there be such a push to have it taught in schools?
So that kids might have a chance to understand why they need a slightly different flu shot each year?
People who believe evolution is false shouldn't have any reason to be afraid of the swine flu or any other naturally mutating virus.
by definition, supernatnurale is outside the realm of science.
The rest of your 'argument' shows a lack of understanding in what science is and how the scientific method would show there is an outside force.
"But your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound."
Yes it is. The discussion is 'Should ID be taught in a science class?' the answer is No, becasue it isn't science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"So they've experimented with inter-species variation and natural selection. Creationism/ID doesn't deny the existence of those."
Creationism/ID doesn't deny the existence of evolution?? Then what are we discussing?
He stole the idea from Frederik Pohl.
Play Command HQ online
You're missing what the definition of science is, what its limits are, and what it's meant to be used for. Science is for developing models which will predict future behavior. For instance, based on scientific models, we can predict that putting a fuel like gasoline together with gaseous oxygen and sufficient heat to start a reaction will cause combustion, in which the oxygen reacts with the gasoline creating mostly CO2 and H2O. This doesn't happen because of magic, but because of the properties of these materials, and we have a scientific model of these properties (involving things like atoms), and we've found that every time we do this, we get the same results. Using these same models, we can predict similar things with other materials, and lo and behold when we experiment, we get the expected result because our model is accurate.
Now, some mischievous god might get in there once and turn your gasoline into Gatorade just to screw with you, and that would be a supernatural phenomenon. However, because the god only does this once, and not every single time, our model still holds up, and the god's actions are useless for predicting any future behavior.
This is why supernatural stuff like this is outside the realm of science. Even if there is a god that miraculously cures people once in a blue moon, you can't make any predictions based on that, and it's useless for any scientific study. Who knows, maybe one day we'll found out there's a bunch of aliens in a parallel dimension doing things which completely obey the laws of physics (but those laws are different than we currently understand them, as our knowledge is limited), and we'll be able to scientifically study such events, but for now they're just "magic", which as Sagan said is anything sufficiently advanced beyond your level of technology to be completely nonunderstandable.
"Gravity sucks.
No, dood, it's "Vacuum sucks but gravity is really heavy, man!"
Geez....must I hav e to explain this to everyone?????
That's because people who don't like ID change the argument to suit the circumstance. I.e. People use anything, even apparently contradicting arguments, to fight something they don't like.
And the prize for the most ambiguous and off-topic counter-argument goes to...
And if a theory can't be falsified, it simply isn't science.
/. all the time. A theroy is an idea about how a certain thing is working. You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it. If every theory would be falsified we suddenly had no theories anymore. For most ID claims you can not craft an experiemtn to even proof it!! Why take the tme then to try to find an experiment to flasify it??
I don't understand where that statement is comming from. I only read it on
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Creationism/ID denies that the processes of inter-species variation and natural selection are able to accomplish (given enough time) the changes that evolution claims they've made.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
However, scientific theories cannot be proven true, they can only be proven false.
As soon as they are proven flase, they are not scientific theories anymore, or? So what is the point in crafting a theory if you want to proof it false later?
Just nittpicking/joking ... I never understodo why /. crowd is allways reiterating: a theroy need to be falsifieable. Sorry, I have a very strong physics background. I enver heared about anythign like this statement except on /. In basic physics education, you learn the experiments that supported certain theories and not any experiement that flasified anything and you certainly only learn in a very limited way old theories and how they got "debunked". So that mentioned statement is only understandable for a theoretical informatics or a phylosopher but not for a layman.
Why is the /. crowed unable to simply state: if you can not make an experiment to to gather empiric data _SUPPORTING_ a certain theory, then it is not a scientific theory? That one would make much more sense and is understandable for everyone.
Your post however makes completely sense ;D
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The time has come for all who worship the false spaghetti god to tremble before the power of the Divine Lasagna Entity! Behold his many layers of wisdom and power! Watch as he smites those who worship the lesser pastas with his molten cheese!
A fluffy metaphor, to be sure, but that's the whole of it. Your basic angle of attack sits on a flawed premise.
There is not, cannot be, any supernatural. That's not a proof you have, it's an assumption that you start with.
And a perfectly valid, logical assumption it is; for to lend credence to, and to posit the supernatural would be to assert a positive claim for which no evidential support can be provided on behalf of the claimant. Failing to accomodate for the insubstantial is not a misguided assumption--it is a rational, sane default.
While I enjoyed your unique perspective on the subject, we're hardly nomadic worshippers roaming the open teal plains of the Windows 95 desktop, paying devout, pious tribute to the seemingly stochastic methods of an almighty oversized mouse cursor. O, the tumbleweed of questionable JPEGs adrift in the sandstorms of this barren, biblical expanse. Truth is, our registers just aren't being rewritten. The inexorable march of scientific advancement has been successfully unraveling alleged "miracles" for nearly as long as they've been purported, with no hallelujah of divine tampering left unrattled to this date. Drawing up images of some cosmic debug session is disingenuous and superfluous, at best.
If you were able to approach this post with a checklist of seemingly random phenomena analogous to the passing whims of a desktop user, totally unapproachable and inexplicable through our established fundamentals, I would quite frankly not be tapping out this reply.
However, the reality is that your post, well not inflammatory, and certainly well composed enough to warrant its superficial, positive moderation, is just another passive aggressive manner for creationists to rudely interject at the dinner table with a new spin on perverting the scientific method. "But, but, but, He's outside science and reason, don't you get it? Assuming He's not is just sooooooo presumptuous of you! And gee-whiz, I thought you guys were the scientists!"
I'm sure you had good intentions, but honestly, that's just not how it works.
The problem with ID proponents here is that they tend to modify the theory to fit the new evidence...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that essentially how science works? We have theory A that fits the current evidence, new evidence comes along that doesn't fit theoryA, so we make theoryB. It's pretty standard fare in science - the other option is to either ignore or attempt to change the new evidence so that it fits the current obviously broken theory.
Why the hell do you think finding gravity waves is so important? General relativity is a cornerstone of modern physics, and it predicts gravity waves. If we can't find gravity waves under conditions that GR predicts they should occur, then GR is broken and we need a new theory. It will turn the physics community on its head!
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Actually according to GR gravity is a property of energy and momentum, and has a lot to do with movement. Which doesn't change the fact that a non-moving non-rotating mass still has a gravitational field (because it has still energy: E=mc^2)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it.
Sorry, no, that's just wrong. You *can't* prove *any* theory, as there may always be some case that the theory gets wrong. This would be why no modern theory, no matter how well it's predictions match experimental result, has ever been promoted to a law (see General Relativity for an excellent example).
The purpose of experiment, then, is to test the theory and see if reality matches it. If it doesn't, the theory is falsified and you go back to the drawing board, either by revising the theory or positing an entirely new one. If, however, reality does match the prediction, you go on to the next experiment, once again seeing if you can falsify the theory with the next result.
Contrast this with Intelligent Design. ID can certainly posit certain predictions (eg, irreducible complexity of the eye). And you can certainly try to falsify it ("See, look, here are the chain of fossils that show the evolution of the eye"). But an ID proponent can simply declare that God made it that way, and then move on to the next prediction. IOW, the theory is impossible to falsify, as it always gives the believer an "out".
Well yeah, ignoring how Bacteria appear to mutate in response to changes in their environment, which is an effect predicted by evolution, I would say that any theory of origins is completely untestable. Oh, Evolution might also predict that there will be differences between Dogs and Wolves based on how Dogs are raised in human environments. But we can't actually test any of those predictions, can we? I mean, how would we look at differences between dogs and wolves? Are there any experiments we could do that would let us observe bacteria adapting to their environments?
And what if I told you that everything horrible that happens in the world is either due to the stupidity of a large mass of people or the collusion of a very small mass of very powerful people? Which is the better explanation, the one that posits an observable tendancy for masses of people to act against their own best interests, or the one that posits the existence of an organization nobody has ever seen or heard of?
Essentially, in the absence of direct evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution is always the better theory because it's SIMPLER. It doesn't rely on the existence of an unknown actor, only on the observed repeatability of life's tendancy to change. And a bias toward the more complex but god-fearing explanation would be terrible for science, because all I would have to say to explain things like the motion of planets is to suggest that God did it. But positing the existence of God has no predictive power, and predictive power is what makes Science so useful. You can make good predictions with a geocentric model, or a heliocentric model, but you can't make good predictions about the formation and future motions of the planets by suggesting that God wills that the planets and stars revolve.
Suggesting that I'm biased detracts from the discussion at hand because it implies that bias is neccessarily a bad thing. Look around you. Everyone is biased. My bias toward scientific explanations exists for a reason. Do your biases?
SRSLY.
Big difference. The "rubber sheet" is a simplified model of Einstein's approach to gravity, which is descriptive. In other words general relativity doesn't tell us "why" gravity works, it just provides the maths for modeling the "shape" of a gravitational field and predicting what will happen to objects moving within it. So the GP is exactly right--general relativity doesn't tell us why things roll around on the rubber sheet. But it does tell us with great accuracy where they will go. This practical approach goes all the way back to Newton.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
A sentient computer has the ability to collect statistics to determine whether its hardware inputs are random or ordered in some way, and if it has the ability to adjust the display according to its inputs (assuming it's not stuck in a process that can't manipulate the rest of the computer) it can experiment with a model of a "user" that observes the display and produces input. It's the metaphysical equivalent of repeatedly saying "God, give me a sign" and recording the quantity and quality of signs delivered out of otherwise meaningless phenomena (sun moving backwards, pillars of fire, chicken guts, tea leaves, etc.).
Randomness is the critical issue. If a sentient computer can't determine whether it's a monkey or a human pounding on the keyboard or just random thermal noise triggering inputs, it's in no better or worse position than humans who can't determine whether or not a god is twiddling subatomic particles. At least a sentient computer would have the advantage of knowing there were defined inputs and outputs which would imply some external purpose. So far all we get from the lowest levels of quantum mechanics (as close to a supernatural input as anything) is random noise, and the overall visual output of the universe is at best just an abstract experiment in pointillism.
It is possible that humans have simply not yet identified the true inputs and outputs of the universe, or that the input and output is so complex that it cannot be understood by human minds. Perhaps the current position of every atom in the universe is a holistic input, and the output happens trillions of years in the future. In that case we have no repeatable scientific experiments but we might still eventually find some information that leads us to believe the input was nonrandom, or that the output might not be random (but at what point? Some early state of the heat death, the middle, or the point when subatomic particles fall into their own effective black holes from expansion?). Ultimately, if there is an otherwise undetectable god who must be obeyed or risk annihilation, evolution still holds. The fit will be whoever randomly selected the particular beliefs the god desired, and they and any potential offspring will inherit the afterlife, just like the life on Earth randomly selected what has worked up until this point.
ID is not bad because it accepts a supernatural explanation. It's bad because it's forced to accept an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations. It could be an intelligent designer, or it could be a flying spaghetti monster, or it could be a bored kid's futuristic science project, or it could be a random cause. This is the critical flaw; without being able to distinguish between an actual designer and a random process, the theory of ID (and religion in general) says absolutely nothing beyond "something happened, and this is what we are saying it was" versus the scientific theories which say "something happened, and this model might explain it." Who is willing to give up scientific rigor for the mere possibility that one's particular shaman might be right?
A statistical test akin to testing for a biased coin would be sufficient to create an ID test.
Does a biased coin require a Maker?
Aliens really do seem to take a lot of unjust blame for the anal probes.
Really, they're more than happy to use oral probes, it's just that most abduction candidates clench their teeth and refuse to accept them.
Of course, that could be due to probes being re-used between candidates, and seeing where it was used on the abductee ahead in line...
Hey, don't drag Math into this. Humans invented Math. Math exists entirely inside of a person's head, and therefore is not an artifact of the Universe. I could certainly make a rule in my Mathematics that "2+2=5." Math's game would then be to determine how that rule interacts with any other rules I would posit. There's nothing concrete about it.
SRSLY.
I will sacrifice 100 Oxen tonight in the Den of My Computer, but only if the great Cursor will highlight it once more. Make it so great God of the Heavens.
SRSLY.
science does not necessitate evolution.
You can teach science and not teach evolution. The two are not mutually inclusive.
Nor are they mutually exclusive - evolution is one 'model' put forth by science, a model based on certain assumptions that may or may not be true and that science cannot prove.
So again, whilst current modern school-level science is all about evolution, there is nothing preventing science from being taught without a hint of evolution ever being mentioned and students doing just as well. (Note: I did not say teach 'creationism', or 'ID', or anything else in its stead either.)
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Of course LIGO is right and good and should be honored for a valiant try despite no results, and M-M are wrong despite results (rarely replicable but a few times) because they were mistaken from the get go. Gravity waves from oscillating N dimensional strings make sense but waves in the ether don't and neither does different light speeds like the speed of light in a vacuum, let's call it c, or the speed of light in water, 0.98c, except different frequencies have different values in water. Anyway, Einstein was right, the speed of light is the same regardless. Einstein was still right even though LIGO got no results.
Criticisms of science who doesn't understand optics, much less basic relativity? Actually, he doesn't understand basic science, since he applies "makes sense" as if it's meaningful.
A problem with both is the directions -- both perpendicular to local gravity. They're looking for crosswise wind ripple effects on a waterfall. Build one with a vertical leg.
Interferometry isn't affected by static fields like local gravity. If it were, their sensitivity is so high that you'd see the local-gravity effect even though their equipment is "perpendicular" to Earth's gravity because their equipment is not perfectly perpendicular to Earth's gravity.
Wow, straw man attacks from half bit wits in the absence of anything substantial outside of a high school text book. Got yer standard 3 degrees do ya? Can't tell. If so I'll see ya and raise ya 1 and keep the invites to Santa Fe as a hole card.
That said, you're specifically the sort of rabid dogmatist the tongue in cheek line (did you manage those big words, or just jump right to 'reply'?) referred to. I've taught from Collins and Pinch in my methodology classes since it was published because most people, students worst, have such misconceptions about the conduct the therefore the content of science. Take a big bow.
When you've removed your ass hat for making a claim of non-existence of an effect which if can be said to be based on anything is based on lack of evidence, feel free to tell the class how you intend to reconcile your statement that local gravity with the fact you've posted in under an article about an experiment that hopes to find waves in it. From distant sources to be sure, but in the local field, or we need to talk to the Hanford folks about how they've managed to negate it. I won't pressure you to figure out exactly where in the gravitational field of a rotating body inertial frame dragging (predicted by general relativity, yes?) does not prevent the field from being truly static, but I'll give you two names -- Lense and Thirring. Two more if you're still stumped -- LAGEOS and LAGEOS II.
I didn't pick on the sentence after "Interferometry isn't affected..." because I'm pretty sure you tried so hard to make a point that you didn't make sense, unless you can make it home whether you turn right 90 degrees or 270 (a logical extension of vertical being equivalent to very nearly horizontal). I also didn't whack you with the fact that the in-theories-only 'static' gravitational field precludes a unified field solution, string or not (all others being decidedly dynamic), because by now if you're still sitting in the saddle and your feet are on the stirrups, then the saddle has done slid around the bottom of the horse.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Or our experiment doesn't account for a phenomenon not predicted by current theory. One of the two. Either way it doesn't "disprove" GR, it only suggests that there is something we're missing. Consider that Gravity Lensing and Gravitational Redshift are two of the most important effects predicted by GR, and both of these effects actually happen.
SRSLY.
Except it's not.
Nobody "studies" ID.
Because there's nothing in ID to "study".
Some people advocate ID. Some people justify ID. Both those are very different things than studying.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
I disagree with that.
It also makes sense to study it in anthropology.
Also, psychology.
And, perhaps, political science.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Yep. And most string theorists would cheer. They work on string theory because it's the best theory we have that unifies QM and GR. They'd love to find a better one.
Did you ever try to perform a complex calculation in your sleep? It never really works out because your brain can't hold in all the figures -- all the numbers and formulae change when you're not looking at them. Or at least, maybe they've changed, you have no way of knowing, no way of verifying your proof. That's what a "miraculous" universe is like, a shifting dream. Like you said, there's nothing concrete about it, but then, there's no rules, and without rules you can't have math, or any game.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Well, it's a field of *something*. I'm not sure study is the correct term, however.
Bible studies I can accept. They say what they are doing, and they (try) to do it. (I notice, however, that they tend to ignore the Benjamanites and the Moabites. Esp. their relation to Lot.) And the question of who did Cain and Able marry. Etc. Still, they're relatively honest.
"Intelligent Design", however, is a lie ab initio. They wouldn't consider the Arcturian civilization that disseminated spores designed to evolve into life throughout the galaxy as a suitable answer. It fits all their avowed criteria, but it doesn't fit their hidden agenda. They wouldn't consider the idea that we are a simulation being run by some post-singularity civilization. It fits all their avowed criteria, but it doesn't fit their hidden agenda. They intentionally eliminate every solution that's incompatible with (Baptist?) theology. I said (Baptist?) because different "ID" folk have slightly differing agendas, and only some of them are Baptist. But they happen to be the ones I know.
FWIW I consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be more reasonable than whatever the particular "ID" practitioner would find acceptable. Largely because the FSM doesn't have as many characteristics that I need to disbelieve in.
OTOH, I have a very firmly theistic view of human thought. It's just at such variance with all traditional forms that it's more closely allied to Jungian psychology than to ordinary religion. But I'm already way off the track of the story, so that should be saved for when it's more appropriate.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Perhaps it is not mass that pulls things together, it is the void that pushes things together. That would explain gravity as well as the dark energy.
Sigh. It's supposed to and it tries to. However it often takes a generation or two to wash away those determined to cling to outdated theories. And this is among people theoretically dedicated to objective reasoning.
Now consider who advocates "intelligent design". Were I to present evidence that we are the descendants of carefully designed and planted spores from an eons old civilization from another star would this satisfy the "intelligent design" proponents? If not, then they have falsely labeled their "field of study".
What if I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt (somehow) that we were characters in a video game. That clearly meets the criteria of "Intelligent Design", right?
The proponents of "Intelligent Design" are shameless liars, one and all. They will only accept an answer that fits in with what they interpret the Bible as telling them. They work to impose their fantasies on the rest of us, and they have no qualms about lying to do so. Many of them believe that their God has told them to do so, and fequently they believe that if they don't do it, and thus win absolution of whatever they believe is sinful about themselves, they will be tortured without limit. So they are determined to make YOU afraid that YOU will be tortured without limit. (There are some with less selfish motivations, but even most of them have this threat in the background of their minds.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
ID it not a theory, it is a religious/political ideology being presented as a theory that aims to explain the perceived weaknesses of science in order to advance the interests of certain groups and individuals.
Ever seen a bullshit statistic? Why do people make technologies that make their own lives easier (every technology was invented for this reason, BTW)? How about a company patenting an idea based on new research that they funded so they can profit?
Science is used to advance the interests of individuals just as much as ID. It just depends which side you're blind to. Religion is based on the premise "God loves everything". Science is based on "Let's learn". Both sides, at the core, are pure things, but they get corrupted by people into tools for their own benefit.
You are aware that the basic meaning of prove is "test" aren't you?
It's true that colloquial speech uses prove as a synonym for "prove true", but that's not it's actual meaning. A proof can also show that an assumption is wrong. This is the basic approach of "Reductio ad absurdum". (Or some such. It means reduce to an absurdity.)
It is common that once one has achieve the result, one recasts things to make the statement proved true rather than false, but this is merely syntactic manipulation, and has nothing to do with the basic proof. People generally like it better when you prove something true, so you restate that which is to be proved so that it becomes the thing which was proved true. But if you don't know ahead of time which answer is going to be true, then you have a 50% chance of needing to rephrase your initial statement after you have achieved your result.
In "proof firings" you don't find the certainty that you get in mathematics, so you generally need several proof firings to be able to say what the reliability of the thing being tested is.
There are other contexts, but to prove means to test. Different kinds of proof have different levels of reliability. Mathematical proofs tend to approach 100% reliability...but one is never certain that a long proof may not contain an error.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Your model will only work if it is a correct model. How can you discriminate between an error in the model and an external influence? Both will manifest themselves as deviations between reality and the model. Your premise that "there is no magic" will lead you inevitably to conclude that the model is at fault, which would quite often be the case, but following that line when an external event was the cause of the deviation will only make your model more incorrect. Now, if your model con incorporate those "external influences", they would not have been external in the first place, would they?
Cheers!
P.S.: Not advocating either for or against ID. Just following the logic in the argument.
Because it's science and therefore should part of a biological sciences curriculum. ID is theology and should be part of a theological curriculum. See? We can have both.
I'm not at all certain that most religions believe that their god acts according to rules. If it did, why all the prayers for physically observable results. They may officially *CLAIM* that (though I can't recall any doing so), but that's not the belief of the practitioners.
As a side note, I seem to recall a characterization of angels as "god's robots", with the note that they did not have free will. So "natural law" was seen as the automatic actions of the angels. This was describing medieval Jewish theology. so apparently at least in THAT theology only god and humans had free will. And free will was the prime characteristic dividing god from the angels.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You are ignorant. You cannot teach biology and the history of life on this planet without 'hinting' at evolution. It *is* the story of life on this planet.
But your logic of "ID is bad because it will accept a supernatural explanation (i.e., magic)" isn't sound.
Sure it is. Science is the investigation of the real world. It is incumbent upon you to show the magic, not the examiner to believe it's there regardless. Science rejects that which cannot be shown - magic.
You have already found gravitational waves, you just don't know it. The Big Bang Theory is wrong and Einstein made a subtle mistake in labelling Minkowskis Four dimensional space time continuum as "superfluous erudition" and calling it merely "purely formal", and in his 1924 revised edition of "Relativity" he wrote of Minkowskis work: " It must be clear even to the non-mathematician that, as a consequence of this purely formal addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce gained clearness in no mean measure." Well it isn't "purely formal", but Einstein never understood that and Minkowskis died prematurely before he could explain the implications to his former pupil, one of which is that the radial recessionary velocity of distant galaxies is an artifact of curved spacetime and not evidence of an expanding universe. Alexander Franklin Mayer wised up and his written a book about it.: http://www.jaypritzker.org/pages/GetBook.html
That's how science works, yeah.
No, that's not how science works.
"You invent experiments to PROOF you theory, not to falsify it."
You might want to read up on what we are talking about. At this moment you may have the most stupid post in the history of /.
This might be a good place to start reading:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=729
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Intelligent Design has theories? What, if anything, does it predict?
That is actually the wrong criticism of ID. ID can certainly predict things. If the 'designers' are a bunch of bored aliens that like to do anal probes, you could predict that the aliens will cause changes in animals DNA such that they tend towards having ass holes.
Sir, your analogy runs deep.
The statement comes from Popper, and, yes, slashdot is the eagle's nest of eager Popperians. So go read a little bit and stuff.
...The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence....
Evolution and religion are both based on historical evidence and its interpretation. Anytime you have interpretation, it occurs through somebody's worldview or belief system. Someone who does not believe that there is a God will of necessity have to believe that something as complex as the human brain was not designed by a superb designer, but just sort of happened by a nebulous process evolutionists call survival of the fittest or selection of endless trials and errors. If you can convince me that a 737 airliner came about by these processes rather than designed by a human brain or a whole bunch of human brains, then you will have succeeded in convincing me that the human brain itself came about by these selection processes. Addling in the magic ingredient of time, even millions or billions of years does not change the qualitative picture of simplicity getting ever more complex. In all of nature it always goes the other way, in that complex things break down into their simpler components.
All theory is gray
Well played sir. I'd mod you funny but I'm a little pissed off about the coffee dribbling down my screen.
You sir karma-whore you. Wink-wink-nudge-nudge.
....The theory also explains fossil records....
Baloney! The theory of evolution does not even explain how fossils are made. To make a fossil, you basically have to sterilize the organism you wish to fossilize, otherwise it will simply decay and never make a fossil. Time, essential to evolution, is the enemy of fossil making. All the studies of origins are historical studies with historical evidence. The same is true for archaeology and anthropology. Nobody was around when the fossils were made to watch it happen. So we have to guess how it might have happened. There is a much more plausible explanation of how fossils were made. It is revealed by careful study of the biblical account of the flood of Noah.
Scientists have tried desperately to make evolution happen in the laboratory, but so far at least have failed. Millions of generations of fruit flies (Drosophila) have ever and always produce nothing but fruit flies. Some of them were rather grotesque with extra wings, missing legs and other deformities, but they were always nothing but fruit flies. If you read the biblical record you will never read the word species, because the Bible is not a science textbook. It uses the word "kind" which is not strictly defined by science. It is also perfectly scientific to postulate that the entire human race COULD have come from a single pair of humans who were originally created by God.
In the study of origins, both intelligent design and evolution have to take certain things by faith because there are historical and cannot be proven in the laboratory.
All theory is gray
That is not evolution, but adaptation. Whether it is a black or green or red or pink caterpillar is irrelevant, because it still is and always will be a caterpillar had nothing but a caterpillar.
All theory is gray
...If you want claim ID as a field of study...
Whoever claims that intelligent design is a field of the study is clearly wrong. Intelligent design, as well as Darwinian evolution are only two ways to interpret the evidence we see in nature. One says that intelligence is behind the complexity we see, and the other interpretation says that it all just sort of happened somehow but is not fully understood either. In order to make evolution work at all, it must be done over long periods of time.
The study of origins is the study of interpretation of historical evidence from the past, whether it is natural history or human history. All interpretation is subject to the worldview of the interpreter and as such must be biased in some way; it can never be impartial.
All theory is gray
Really? There are sets of natural laws that seem to just exist. As Humans, we have an innate ability to explore, observe, and explain the world surrounding us. Seeing as physics sort of controls the entire Universe, we've set out to explain it in terms of laws, theory, etc.
Now, here's the crazy part. Remember that part about observation? Well, it's not perfect, you see. In fact, there's an entire principle known as Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle that stems off of this imperfection. Unfortunately, this has the side-effect of our understanding always lacking something. But we improve! Technologies improve and we improve! And as we improve, we discover new and wondrous things that often argue with the way that we currently understand the world. So rather than attempt to say that our old models were right all along, we modify the old models (or sometimes do away with them entirely) so as to perfectly explain our new understanding of the world. It's hardly "changing" and more "fixing".
Strangely, The Bible lacks this advantage and yet is still modified in most translations. Hmm.....
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
Evolution is often followed as a kind of science religion, ID is an alternative being explored even by many non-religious people. The lines blur the closer you look sometimes...
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Cain and Abel? Did Abel marry? Cain married his sister. Get over it.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
....Essentially, in the absence of direct evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution is always the better theory because it's SIMPLER....
Actually, evolution is more complex, because it tries to explain how simple organisms evolve to become complex organisms. It flies in the face of everything we observe, namely that complex things tend to break down into simpler components. Evolution also splits logic. Everybody knows that the airplane did not evolve from an automobile, but they both were designed by human intelligence. Yet the evolution expects belief as if it were fact, that something as complex as the human brain, which is capable of designing both cars and airplanes, came from a non-intelligence source. That takes a lot of faith, much more faith than to believe that the human brain and other complex structures in nature, came from a superb intelligent mind, namely the mind of God. Just because the designer is not immediately apparent, does not necessarily mean there is no designer.
All theory is gray
Ah yes. But what about many generations further down the line. Can you say for certain whether or not THAT will be a caterpillar?
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
Do I have reasons for my biases? Which bias? The one where I have a deep sense of dismay when dealing with bigots in any discipline who will slam anyone holding a different view to themselves without first trying to fully understand their opponents point of view? Yes. I've learned a lot in life by trying to understand things I don't necessarily agree with. Sometimes I even found that I was wrong...
sudo mount --milk --sugar
It seems as if you lack an argument either way on this. Though, by assuming that complex things generally break down into simpler component, you're completely negating information theory. To get an idea of how much information theory warps the picture, I point you in this direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
yes. It has been tested, and it has made predictions.
ID can not, and has not.
Predictions? like?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
....Now, the room for miracles to take place has gotten smaller and smaller....
Actually, for every answer that scientists find out about nature and the universe, there are a dozen questions or more. Many of our technological devices and gadgets would be classified as miracles by our ancestors. They would not know the scientific underpinnings behind these technologies and so would term them supernatural. When we read about events in the Bible, such as Jesus turning water into wine are multiplying bread and fish, we too call them miracles, even still today, because we do not know the underlying technology. Jesus claimed to be God come to earth and as such should have perfect insight into all molecular structures and how to take any collection of random atoms and arrange them in any conceivable pattern. Since the Bible says that he made the whole universe from nothing, he could have done the same with the bread and fish. We do not know the technology of how to make something from nothing, but that is our problem is it not?
It is claimed for Jesus, that he rose from the dead and showed himself to the people of that time. Jesus clearly told us and proved it, that there is a world beyond the grave. It is a realm that science cannot explore, because it is limited to this world only. The question is then: is only that which science can explore real? Could it be that there are other realities and powers that will forever be beyond the reach of science?
All theory is gray
You are ignorant. You cannot teach biology and the history of life on this planet without 'hinting' at evolution. It *is* the story of life on this planet.
Your ignorance betrays you. It is *one* theory on it - one take. It is in no way an authoritative view, and cannot be proven at its base - especially in the historical - any more than ID or others as there are basic principles that simply cannot be tested, and its reliance on 'chance' is astronomical.
And yes - you can teach biology and the history of life on this planet without talking about evolution. That's not to say that it would not be wise to mention the various concepts put forth as to the historical thought of how things came about, but you don't have to teach it.
P.S. Thank you for stepping on the land mind. Please watch your next step.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats. It's still a field. ID is still an area that people study. It's a field. You may not agree with it. I may or may not agree with things that come out of it. That's fine. It's still a field of study. Get over it.
A field of study with a lot of natural fertilizer in it.
Tim S.
>>Does a biased coin require a Maker?
No, I guess it could just be Saddam Hussein.
Whether I agree or not, that was funny...
sudo mount --milk --sugar
link?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
....The theory of evolution does not even explain how fossils are made.... No, good sir. That is covered under the theory of fossilization. :P
!Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
It is *one* theory
Again with the misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. There can only BE one theory. There are many hypotheses, but those fall away one by one to become a single, very authoritative, theory. If something better comes along, then the theory of evolution goes away and is replaced by the new theory, be it evolution 1.0.1 or ID 12.6.1.3
...That is covered under the theory of fossilization....
And that no one has ever made a fossil according to this theory. At some point science has to experiment and try to figure out how a fossil might be made in the laboratory. That, as far as I know, has never been done. Maybe you can point me somewhere that explains how a fossil has been made today by any conceivable process that could be duplicated in nature.
All theory is gray
..... you're completely negating information theory....
I do not know exactly what you mean here, but information has to have a source. What is the source of the information that might guide the process of simple to complex? All information ultimately comes from a mind; the mind of a person in the case of man-made objects and technology and the mind of God in the case of natural objects. It is precisely the point of intelligent design scientists, that an object like the human brain, or any living thing for that matter, contains a huge amount of information. We speak of the DNA code, for example, but then we have to ask the question: Who wrote the code? All code, whether in a computer or living organism, comes from a mind. We know of no other ULTIMATE source of complex code or information, other than a mind. A computer program may be written by a human programmer, that in turn writes another program, but even so, the original information or a program source came from the human mind and no place else. We even have a whole body of law devoted to "intellectual" property.
All theory is gray
I don't really care if my neighbors think we sprouted like mushrooms from unicorn poop, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, and I think they should have the right to teach their kids whatever they want
I'd extend the right to not have bullshit forced on them to their kids as well, at least in principal (by force would be going a bit too far for other reasons).
Property is theft.
....Can you say for certain whether or not THAT will be a caterpillar?...
Scientists have tried to make evolution happen with faster multiplying life forms such as bacteria and fruit flies. Even after millions of generations, there have only been adaptive changes. Fruit flies have been bred to have many grotesque mutations, but they were always recognizable as fruit flies and nothing else. Scientists have read millions of generations of E. coli, but none of them have ever become a Streptococcus, spirochete or other form of bacteria. They have always remained E. coli. Evolutionists get around this problem by stating that evolution takes lots of time. However the scientists have artificially bred many generations over short periods of time, that would normally take much longer to happen in nature. The bottom line, shown by experiments, not by conjecture or guesswork, says that Darwinian evolution cannot take place. So yes, I can say for certain THAT will also be nothing else than a caterpillar.
All theory is gray
Actually cars and airplanes both evolved from bicycles.
The question about an intelligent designer is who designed it? And saying it was always there seems like quite a cop out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Predictions like what will turn up in the fossil record for one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The competing hypotheses have all been disproved or in the case of the flying spaghetti monster have no evidence.
Intelligent design loses due to no evidence of intelligence in the design of life just like the fsm loses due to no evidence of noodles outside of kitchens, grocery stores etc.
Other hypotheses have lost out due to lack of experimental evidence or experimental evidence showing the idea was broken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
..... And saying it was always there seems like quite a cop out....
Admittedly, the concept of an eternal, self existent, all powerful God cannot be grasped by the human intellect. That is why God tells us in Scripture that it is impossible to please him without faith. For me, it takes more faith to believe that all the complexity of life could have come about by some impersonal statistical processes. A single cell is far more complex than a jet airliner, yet nobody in their right mind would suggest that an airliner came into being by any other process than intelligent design by human engineers.
All theory is gray
Lots of things go from simple to complex. Look at matter. Starts out as hydrogen, under the right conditions such as when a large mass gets together turns into helium, carbon etc.
Perhaps we also shouldn't teach nuclear physics as obviously things don't get more complex and no one has actually observed hydrogen fusing. Perhaps those nukes are just intelligently designed bombs.
Same with chemistry, elements obviously can't combine into more complex chemicals and the evidence that we have that it happens isn't conclusive as it might all be handled by an intelligent being.
Of course we have the same problem with an intelligent designer, obviously everything couldn't of come from it as there must be an even more intelligent designer who design it.
So we're left with not teaching anything because when it comes down to it there is always another idea and the proof is never enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Which scripture? There are scriptures from India that seem much more interesting then the one from the middle east. And even if we stick to the story about some minor desert deity evolving into this God you talk about why stop at the new testament? The Koran claims it is a continuation of the story.
Anyways if there really was such a powerful god that you claim I'd expect evidence like most religions being in basic agreement about it. The Inuit might have more snow in their version but it would still talk about a god who incarnated as a man and was sacrificed to save us. The same with the majority of cultures. That is a simple test about religion, how much do they agree and it turns out that even the people who claim to follow the bible are in disagreement about the message.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Your nonsensical writing style seems familiar. Have you sent unsolicited manuscripts to any university physics departments recently? We have a whole stack of nonsense papers in the lounge that I read from time to time.
...Look at matter...
Even in matter there is design. Take for example water being very unique molecule even though it is composed only of oxygen and hydrogen. If the design of the water molecule were not as it is, life could not exist. Besides, I was thinking more in terms of the incredible complexity of life compared to non-living things.
(...we have the same problem with an intelligent designer...)
Human intellect is insufficient to grasp the idea of a self existent eternal all-powerful God. That is why we are told in the holy Scriptures, that it is impossible to please God without faith. Intellect cannot grasp the idea of God, only faith can. Evolution is the faith that there is no God and intelligent design is the faith that there is, indeed there must be. Science and measurements come to us through our senses, which are limited to this universe, but Jesus Christ told us that reality is far more than what can be seen or perceived by us. The human creature is the only one in all of creation that is incurably religious. Religion thrives even today in the age of the Internet, cell phones and all the modern accoutrements of our civilization.
All theory is gray
So what was predicted and how was it proven? Examples?
sudo mount --milk --sugar
Hmmmm. I can see what you are saying but I'm not sure it's true. Sure, if a planet suddenly appeared in a specified orbit it would take 'time' (8 mins for a planet at Earth's distance, for example) before the gravitational effects would 'start', but as I understand it, that's not how a planet arrives in its orbit. They are assumed to coalesce over long periods of time into the planets, and during that time there will be a constant gravitational force, albiet a delayed one.
Think about waiting for a bus which is 8 minutes late. If the busses are 8 minutes apart you still catch a bus, it's just the earlier one, and to all intents and purposes you are unaware of the late running.
We could test this theory if we could remove the sun. If the Earth continued in its orbit for 8 minutes or so then we'd know, however briefly, that gravity travels at the speed of light.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
That's kind of what I was getting at when I said, "It's OK to make assumptions, but it's better if you're honest." If in science class they said up-front, "Science starts with the assumption that there is no supernatural, and bases all of its conclusions on that. If there is a supernatural, then some of those conclusions may be false," and if then every time someone said, "But the Bible says..." the teacher answered, "This class is based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is a God, a lot of this stuff I'm teaching now may be wrong. Now, back to...", then there wouldn't be an ID movement.
Obviously, no scientist would ever say that; and that's the problem. You can't have it both ways: you can either define science as "no supernatural" and admit that it may be wrong on certain points if there is, or you can say that "science" is just the "scientific method" (which can and has been used on God) and allow the possibility of supernatural hypotheses.
I'm not sure I quite follow. I doubt anyone, even my wife, could build a 100% accurate predictive model of how I would act in a given situation. Does that mean I'm "arbitrary and random"? When it comes to stories, art, and music, having something fresh and unpredictable, but still pleasing, is precisely what we do want. I think even friendships and relationships are like that: obviously you need some predictability for trust, but you also relish the difference and unpredictability of the other person.
So if (hypothetically) God were interfering and directing evolution, I'd expect him to be as predictable and as unpredictable as any other rational creature in the universe.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Your example of unicorns not existing is not a philosophical assumption. It sounds to me like you are perfectly willing to believe in fairies and unicorns if there can be shown sufficient evidence for them. And perhaps you're perfectly willing to believe in God if you can be shown sufficient evidence as well. If so, "there is no supernatural" is not a philosophical assumption for you.
But GP was specifically saying that the problem with ID was that they will accept supernatural explanations. That is a philosophical assumption: it sounds like he would refuse to believe in Creationism regardless of evidence, for the simple reason that it has a supernatural component.
I have no problem with scientist saying, "ID is junk science because they don't follow the scientific method, use faulty logic, and ignore lots of evidence." That's absolutely true of some ID arguments I've heard. (Not well-versed enough in ID and evolutionary science to know if all ID arguments are guilty of that or not.) I also wouldn't have a problem with a scientist saying, "Science is based on the assumption that there is no supernatural; if it turns out there is a supernatural, many of our conclusions may be false."
The problem is that many people want to have it both ways: they want to define "science" as "no supernatural", but still assert that scientific conclusions are 100% true, and sometimes try to say "science has proven the supernatural false". Sorry, you can either define science as "no supernatural", or assert that science is 100% accurate and try to use science to show that there is no supernatural, but you can't do both.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
I think there is a language barrier here. Saying "For most ID claims you can not craft an experiemtn [sic] to even proof [sic] it" is the exact same thing in English as saying "Most ID claims are not falsifiable."
Also "proof" is a noun, and "prove" is the verb that you are looking for.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
The simple answer is because evolutionism is actually based on scientific evidence. ID is simply a religion that is trying to make itself look scientific so it can be lobbied to be taught in public schools.
So you are saying there is *not* any liberal agenda to teach evolution in schools in order to have one more cog in the wheel of destroying Christianity? You can say all you want that it is for scientific progress but there is a bigger plan in place. Conspiracy theorist? Not really because what I say is true. The other cogs would be removing "under God" from the Pledge, banning Christianity in schools (note that I didn't say religion in general because Islam is still allowed to be taught), the increasing allowance of Shariah law overriding U.S. law in places like Minnesota, etc. How often do teachers and professors state that evolution could be wrong, without even mentioning anything else, but just merely state that evolution is not proven. We are only guessing but it *seems* to fit *some* evidence. What is wrong with that? Would that little bit of doubt actually topple the liberal agenda and allow the sheep to learn something else? Evolution is like global warming: every time either is mentioned they are done so in such a way that they are assumed as fact and proven, and if you disagree then you just haven't been enlightened to the ways of the elitists.
By the way, direct evidence shouldn't require us to fill in gaps in order to draw the conclusions we need to draw to prove evolution is correct. No one was alive a million years ago but yet we think that based on the little "evidence", such as the incomplete fossil record, we see now that we can draw the correct conclusion about what happened. And oh, how convenient, no one can really say otherwise that it is wrong, which happens to be the evolutionists argument against Creationism. It just so happens that to the average Joe the surface of evolution seems to make sense but delving deeper produces inconsistencies and gaps, but we won't and don't talk about that, especially on this site. Evolutionists just close their ears and act like a child not wanting to hear the other side of the debate because they are elitist by thinking they are right and everyone else is either insane or just stupid for disagreeing. I'll personally listen to arguments for evolution, as long as they aren't biased.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I wasn't going to reply. But regardless of your lack of understanding is very present. Even in science there can be MULTIPLE theories. For example: String Theory, vs. Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. So please, stop this before you make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
"Sorry, you can either define science as "no supernatural", or assert that science is 100% accurate and try to use science to show that there is no supernatural, but you can't do both."
Why not? That assertion doesn't make much sense to me.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
>>So then do it. Create the test and give us the results, let us verify your test methodology and your data and your results. Until such a time, ID is merely conjecture and not a scientific hypothesis.
I've already posted such a method on my journal.
But I'd be willing to write a paper on it with more rigorous math. Which journal do you think would be most appropriate? It's especially timely with the announcement of (they say) us having artificial life within 6 months.
Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. Your inability to see that you actually do fall into that category shows that you have little understanding of the scientific process or true science. The rest of what you go on about is irrelevant to the discussion.
Please, if you want to teach your kids about Christianity, please feel free to do so. There are special places where they devote themselves to the teaching of Christianity, around here we call them "Church". Personally, I don't want school to be extended or time taken away from other subjects so that religion can be taught. Of course, every religion would have to be taught in order to provide equal treatment -- all 15,000 of them with more being added every day. Christianity is NOT based on science, or scientific principles, and therefore should not be taught during science regardless if you believe in separation of church and state or not. Anything else you've said doesn't stray from those simple facts. I understand you believe in your faith, and you believe so strongly that you assume what you are saying is all true. But things based on assumptions don't make things a fact, no matter how much you believe in them. If you can't prove it, then it isn't fact. Please, you may be passionate about the subject, but that doesn't make you right.
It's a logical fallacy called begging the question, where what you are trying to prove is assumed somewhere in the premises of the argument.
Really, from a logical standpoint, it's the same as people who say, "The Bible is God's word", and if you ask, "How do you know?" they say, "Because the Bible says in verse xxx..." Sorry, you can't use the Bible as an authority to prove that the Bible is an authority. For the same reason, you can't define science to exclude the supernatural and then use science to disprove the supernatural.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Yeah well, I don't even know what unraveling means, I'm French, so big deal. I mean even Firefox's spell checker doesn't know it.
You just got troll'd!
Oh, I get it now. If you exclude the supernatural from science, how can you then use science to disprove it? Got it.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Does anyone have any more details on this Gravitational Effect?
Some believe in a God with the sort of perfection that makes his actions indistinguishable from the workings of the universe, aside perhaps from the occasional colorful miracle. Your actions are hard to model because you're not smart enough to see the ideal path to take every time you have to make a choice, and perhaps your values are imperfectly consistent as well. Given perfectly consistent values and omniscience, your choices become as straightforward as a natural law. Or so the thinking goes.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's funny you put it that way. My fear has always been that one of them will actually be right, but we'll stop even bothering to disprove String Theorists long before we test his claims.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Schools have an agenda to teach, and since evolution is science fact, they have and agenda to teach it.
As GP just mentioned, Biology is a field, ID is not. For the exact same reason there's no transendental meditation or snake oil brewing courses at school, theres no place for ID.
Science fact? Commonly held to be fact, but it's generally spoken of as "Evolutionary Theory".
sudo mount --milk --sugar