Slashdot Mirror
X Particle Might Explain Dark Matter & Antimatter
cold fjord writes "Wired Science has a story on a new theory that tries to explain dark matter, and the balance of regular matter with antimatter. This theory may even be testable. From the article: 'A new hypothetical particle could solve two cosmic mysteries at once: what dark matter is made of, and why there's enough matter for us to exist at all."
What gives the X-Men their powers.
about Star Trek Voyager's particle of the week. Seems every week they invented/found a new particle to pull themselves out of some jam.
Sure, you think you exist. Right.
Sincerely,
The Ether
X11
X Particle
X-Men
X-ray vision
Scientists haven't grasped anything new in physics since Einstein. They still think the speed of light is the fastest speed in the Universe. And the wave-particle is the only force in the Universe.
I'm getting tired of them naming things after their ignorance. "Dark Matter". "Black Hole". "X Particle". Maybe they can call the next theory "WTF" to top it all off.
You'll need to come with me. Room 101 is waiting.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Yes, but why?
That's the question that needs answering. We see that there is matter, obviously, but common sense (assuming the big bang is accurate, and it has held up pretty well over the years) says their shouldn't be.
So why does matter exist? Why didn't matter and anti-matter annihilate each other evenly? They've tested it in the colliders, and sure enough, matter and anti-matter are not created equally given the conditions necessary to create them.
This is a theory to explain why what is, is. This is how science works. You take an observable fact, create a hypothesis for why it might be so, and test the hypothesis. If it works as the hypothesis describes, you're closer to knowing why the observable fact is an observable fact. When you know a bunch of reasons why observable facts exist, you start to be able to predict new things that you haven't observed yet, and you can start looking for them. If you don't find them, your theory is bunk. If you do, your theory may still be bunk, but you at least know it is pretty good.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The paper is also available at the arXiv if you don't have a subscription to Phys. Rev. Lett.
Why, oh why can't people posting science stories on slashdot post links to the actual papers when they're publicly available? http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2399
Find free books.
"This theory may even be testable."
To be a theory it must be testable.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Wow, wouldn't it be convenient if you could solve problems A and B with the Standard Model by adding a new particle that has properties A and B. Amazing! It solves both problems. This is tantamount to solving the problem of how the Mona Lisa was painted by postulating the existence of a Mona-Lisa shaped brush and paint palette. When applied to a canvas, the Mona Lisa appears: amazing! The point of even having physics theories is to explain many phenomena by a few parsimonious theories, not to kludge it all in.
Equal amounts of X and anti-X were created in the Big Bang, and then decayed to lighter particles. Each X decayed into either a neutron or two dark-matter particles, called Y and . Every anti-X converted to an anti-neutron or some anti-dark matter.
But the hypothetical X particle would rather decay into ordinary matter than dark matter, so it produced more neutrons than dark matter. Anti-X preferred decaying into anti-dark matter, and so produced more of it.
Bold emphasis added is mine. Does this theory explain why "particle X" would rather decay into ordinary matter? Isn't that begging the question? How is that any different than moving to the larger set of all mass, and just saying "Hypothetical universe X would rather form more ordinary matter than dark matter". I understand they may be foregoing the DiffyQ's that perhaps stand behind their assertions for the word "rather" to provide for the layman, but this premise kills the theory for me unless there exist math/science/evidence/a reason besides the word "rather for this article.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
The idea that a particle decays differently than its anti-particle is not something new ie Kaons so it is entirely possible from that end. And the Big Bang was dealing with energies much much higher than what we deal with even in the LHC so it is entirely possible to be made of quarks that are much much more massive than the ones we have currently discovered right?
There's a difference between "testable in theory" and "testable in practice". Science proceeds from both ends towards the middle, where theoreticians and experimenters meet.
Theoreticians work on things that may not be testable in practice, now. They may be testable one day, and that actually happens: particle physicists build bigger colliders, astronomers get to see the views they couldn't before, paleontologists dig up the fossil they expected but didn't have.
It leaves the realm of science utterly when it's not testable even in theory. Between the two there's a gray area, where something may not be practical in the forseeable future, or may require so much time and space and energy that it's absurd to think it would ever become practical. Theoreticians run a minefield here, but it would be invalid to forbid them from going there. They might well find a way to take something absurd and make it realistic; it happens.
I'm glossing over a lot of epistemic niceties here, but the point is that a theory does not have to be testable at the moment to be science. If this one happens to be testable now or in the near future, yay; that lets us exclude a lot of territory that's currently in the mine field. But it likely would not have happened without other theoreticians having explored that space.
because you exists isn't why there is enough matter for you to exist.
that's like saying "why does the car have tires? because cars come with tires".
why and how can be answered in the same way in this context, so i think your just splitting hairs.
just put a crowbar by the testing lab
Which ones specifically? In fact, I challenge you to name even one theory that isn't testable. And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.
At the moment, they are at #3. Unless they can get to both #4 and #5 then the 'theory' is and will remain idle speculation, suitable only for prompting bad jokes in ./
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Oh! I'm so hurt by those mean words, Michael Kristopeit!
Get over yourself kid. It was a joke.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Except, we can test that one.
You're an idiot.
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
Moron. You original question wasn't even "how" it was that there was. You fail. Please get the jizz off of your mom's ugly face.
I like you, you got moxie.
Here's a quarter, kid. Go buy a nicer shirt.
Axiom of Choice?
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
To be a theory it must be testable.
Can I jut say here for one moment that I have a new theory about black holes? What is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine. What is my theory? This is it. My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
This is how it goes. The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. My theory by MillionthMonkey Esq., Sir, brackets. This theory goes as follows and begins now. Black holes that swallow the earth can be made easily and for cheap in a laboratory. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
I can't tell if he meant the theory that "no finite and complete set of axioms exists" or he just made something up. Either way I guess, the former case has been proven. Goedels Incompleteness Theorem.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
From TFA:
The signature of dark matter destroying protons “can be easily tested by the even bigger proposed underground detectors” planned to be built somewhere in Europe.
Should anyone interested in science just move to Europe now? Seems to be the place in the world where people actually care about science these days.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I'm afraid of being exposed by an amazing human being like you. You shine as a the sun in a dark room full of children who have been fucked hard in every hole by your dad.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
God damnit, no, it doesn't explain all dark matter. It explains how some antimatter could appear in cosmological equations as dark matter.
There's a lot of "dark matter" which really isn't all that dark (in the sense of "unknown") anymore. In cosmology, dark matter is just anything with mass which isn't conventionally visible from here. We can ballpark how heavy the universe should be based on the equations we've figured out for how the universe works in our neighborhood. Then we can turn around and observe as much as possible in the way of galaxies and so forth and total up how much mass that should represent. The balance is dark matter - it is no more nor no less mysterious than that.
We already know what some types of dark matter are. For example, it is hard as hell to get neutrinos show up, but they are probably one of the most abundant things in the universe. As a rule, the only way we can see them is if there are enormous epic-scale bucketloads to the infinity power of them sweeping by us all at once (as there usually are!)...and at that point we catch maybe one neutrino that smacks into an easier-to-observe atomic particle exactly on target (on the scale of the infinitesimally small particles involved). By extrapolation, we reason that the rest of them must be there as well, because we can calculate what the exceedingly minute probability was for the one event that we actually saw.
Other types...who knows? Maybe the guys referenced in the article are on to something. But it would be a relief if we could actually report the contents of the research rather than making up a bunch of malarkey which just gives people silly ideas about how the universe works. The truth is far stranger, there's no need to make stuff up.
You're clearly jacking off while you do this. Have fun!
To be a theory it must be testable.
Prove it.
rewriting history since 2109
In fact, I challenge you to name even one theory that isn't testable.
P = NP.
Your move.
Well are we necessarily talking about scientific theories or any theory at all? There are certainly theories which can't be tested.
Even in the scientific process, you come up with a theory first and from that devise a hypothesis that can be tested. Scientific theories where nobody can think of a way to test it won't generally get a lot of credence and don't become accepted, but they happen. But devising a theory and figuring out whether it can be proven are really two different steps.
Not to be a nit-pick, but in order for common sense to say there shouldn't be matter, you have to rely on both big bang theory AND dark matter theory. The fact that there is matter may not speak to big bang theory at all... it may speak to primarilly dark matter theory and the validity of that. There are other theories explaining gravitational discrepencies that don't rely on dark matter, and it could be that one of them is correct. In which case you could still have the bing bang theory be valid and have the existence of matter, with no issues.
I know a lot of scientists really believe the dark matter theory to be correct, but we are starting to get to the point (IMO) where the rubber needs to meet the road. We've had dozens of tests designed to detect dark matter, and every one of them has failed. At some point, maybe we need to take a step back and ask whether the problems were really with the tests, or the validity of the theory itself. I'm starting to think dark matter theory has something in common with ether.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
The axiom of choice is an axiom, not a theory. Coincidentally, this is why it is not called the theory of choice.
man 3 XInternAtom
And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.
A Slashdotter or hundreds of physicists... who's a fellow to believe?
String theory (variants thereof) conforms to observations as well as any other theory. What's lacking is an observation where the predictions diverge.
Until such time as such an observation becomes possible, if you want to knock string theory you should argue on the basis of Ockham's Razor, not on perceived parallels with astrology.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I think the phrase should probably technically "This theory may even be testable with current knowledge and technologies for an amount of money which exists."
You're right that all theories must be testable, but that doesn't mean we actually can test them.
They don't mean testable as in "the theory makes predictions that could hypothetically be distinguished via experiment" in this case. They mean in the sense of "we may be able to test it", like with existing technology.
The enemies of Democracy are
Physicists going old-fashioned on us, eh?
Table-ized A.I.
There's testable in the sense of when I let go of this brick it will hit the ground in 1.3 seconds if my theory is correct and then there's testable in the sense of if we construct a 1000 mile high cylinder of neutronium and apply the entire industrial energy output of the earth to it for the next 10 years, this glass of water will boil if my theory is correct.
The latter is testable in the sense that there exists an experiment that would unambiguously falsify it. It's just that we don't have the technology and resources to do so. OTOH if the latter required a pegasus feather, it would not be testable.
That's actually one of the major problems with many of the current formulations of string theory; they're testable in theory, but in practice by the time we can throw that much energy around we probably won't care about the answer any more, one way or the other.
Normally, but there is a lot of theories in Physics that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be true, but can't be tested YET, including most of String theory and its weird and wonderful offspring.
Thats not to say they CANT be, but we dont know how to yet, and have to , for now, suffice with looking for mathematical models of string theory that fit with what we CAN observe.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I'll be at the Tomohawk room in Chippewa tomorrow night if you want to discuss it.
"your mom" jokes are olllld.
Netcraft confirms it
Michael Kristopeit = stagnated.
Hey look, the bot's come out to play.
ur mum's face fail.
That the best you got?
ur mums you're an idiot. Look, I can do it too!
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
I nominate Michael Krisotpeit as the 2010 /. Troll of the Year. We can send the award to all the fake addresses he keeps posting.
I swear, there hasn't been a troll this amusing since twitter. WHatever happened to him anyway?
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
Well said sir! As an example, Frame-dragging was proposed as a theory in 1918 based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity but wasn't able to be tested until 1996 with a couple of special satellites and even then not accurately enough to be provable until 2006. Since we had barely left the ground let alone orbit the earth at that point I'm sure it must have seemed un-testable at the time.
Chemical-X!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Powerpuff_Girls#Overview
Why is Snark Required?
This thread seems to have uncovered the secret behind the copious presence of Dark Matter.
It appears to be fecal matter.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What is this dotslash of which you speak? It's "/.", ya goose.
It is, however, entirely suited to making bad jokes on ./, for example:
Q: What's yellow and sour and equivalent to the axiom of choice?
A: Zorn's Lemon!
whenever two WIMPs meet up in space, they annihilate each other
I'm trying to picture this in my head, and failing.
Every end has half a stick.
You may be confusing the colloquial "theory" with the scientific definition of a theory.
Unless I've been very, very misinformed, scientific theories that are actually worth calling theories are things which began as mere ideas, formed testable hypotheses, and have been rigorously tested and re-tested.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Spoken like someone who knows less than nothing about evolution.
Here's a trivial example: Find me fossil bunny in the Cambrian layer and you've just disproved evolution, and you'll likely get all sorts of awards very quickly (Nobel Prize, etc.)
Another trivial example: Just about anything a Creationist thinks evolution means. For instance, if we really did see a Crocaduck, that would pretty much be the end of the theory.
And yes, evolution makes testable claims. You can look at any of the phylogenetic trees -- and note that completely independent lines of evidence lead to pretty nearly identical phylogenetic trees -- and work out what kind of transitional forms you might expect, and where you might expect them -- and this has been done. People have pointed to a specific transition that looked particularly interesting, worked out exactly what it would look like and where they expected to find it, then they went there and dug up exactly what they were looking for.
All of that is working with your assumption that evolution isn't something which can be duplicated in the lab -- but speciation and single-celled to multi-cellular transitions have been observed.
Whether or not you accept the definition of "theory" that GP wants to use, evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in modern science, and that's despite generations of scientists who desperately did not want to believe it was true.
But hey, if you have a better explanation -- one you can use to predict where the next fossil will be found, what it will look like, etc -- go ahead. Again, the Nobel Prize awaits.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Many of us with actual scientific backgrounds would call them hypotheses, not theories.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Sure, here's your proof:
Testability = falsifiability = predictive power =* explanatory power
A non-testable hypothesis is equivalent to an empty hypothesis (that's why scientists like Carl Sagan call them "worthless"). Since the posterior will therefore always be the prior, no amount of evidence will impact on the credibility of the hypothesis. It can never achieve the status of "theory", regardless of how low the bar is (as long as there is one - duh).
* The fourth equality is valid for unbiased estimators, such as MDL / Bayesian Inference with proper priors (eg M).
Cogito ergo sum.
Dilbert RSS feed
String theory
There are about 10^500 possible string theories. We haven't yet found any that conform to all our observations. We don't know if it's even possible to search efficiently for that needle in the 10^500-big haystack, so string theory might be like the evil hall of mirrors in a bad B-movie: "yes, my childish nemesis, you falsified THIS one, but which one is the REAL string theory? HA HA HA!".
String theory may not be on a par with astrology, but IMHO it sullies the term theory. Anyone who has defended the theory of Evolution against fundies knows that's a bad move. It wouldn't be a bad idea to rename it string physics, even though arguably it's not physics yet either.
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
a conjecture is not a theory
"This theory may even be testable."
Well it had better fucking be, or they have to stop calling it a theory.
Shouldn't we absolutely, unequivocally prove that dark matter exists before positing the existence of a particle that explains it?
Yes, well, nice canned rant, except that wasn't the topic. For the "ignorant conspiracy theorists spewing about how dark matter is wrong because they don't understand it" room, you'll want to go down that hall, take the second left and it's the door at the end of the corridor.
This was about antimatter, which isn't even remotely the same as dark matter.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That's not a theory. That a hypothetical mathematical law. If P=NP then someone can PROVE P=NP (yay math). If it can be PROVEN, it's not a theory, it's a law.
Examples of other laws
F=MA
g=(m1-m2)*G/d^2
P=IV(dc): P=IV/2 (ac)
etc.
There are some theories out there, which explain things like the galaxy rotation problem, but none is so prominent as Modified Newtonian Dynamics. They do so without the need for Dark Matter. DM is still not a proven thing after all.
Judge Dredd
> OTOH if the latter required a pegasus feather, it would not be testable.
Sure it would. It would just have to wait until biology has advanced to the point where we can manufacture a pegasus.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
For instance, if we really did see a Crocaduck, that would pretty much be the end of the theory.
Yet, the theory persists despite the platypus.
1) Math is not science.
2) Everyone with some brains (Zombies etc) knows this is false but as Goedel showed there is no margin big enough to contain a proof of the falsehood of your statement.
To summarize:
1) scientific theory = wild guess which may or may not be true but should be decidable by observation (add your favorite finiteness assumptions here e.g. half-life of protons)
2) mathematical theory = a beautiful work of art (= a bunch of axioms) which may be formalized in some boring (usually finitary) system which then allows you to 'formally' prove (or fail to prove) various statements such as NP=P
Hence after this lucid exposition I proved that you gave us a statement in a theory (complexity theory) while the adults here are discussing a scientific theory = wild guess with some connection to reality
Yeah, you've basically been very, very misinformed. Scientific theories are theories first. The theory of relativity was a theory, and from it various people devised testable hypotheses, which were then tested and verified. Since the hypotheses were verified, the theory was given a lot of credibility, but the theory was a theory as soon as it was formulated. Same with the theory of evolution-- it was a theory as soon as Darwin put it together.
Anyone who tells you different is a pedantic douchebag who's trying to redefine well established words in some silly attempt to serve their political agendas.
Exactly!
I hope, one day, I have enough money to test out the "Race Car on a Train" Theory - to overturn General Relativity.
Yeah, I realize there is a difference in terminology. However, at one point it was extremely controversial to use such an assumption without proof. There is some discussion of ways to prove it using a different set of axioms and whether or not it can be proven or disproven or neither. How could one prove the Axiom of Choice?
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Very much so. On the one hand, it's not really correct to dub string theory "not science" just because it's so far from testable. They're doing what theoretical physicists down when presented with a conundrum: they formulate equations and push them around hoping to find something that does give them a testable result.
The other hand, though, is that it's not anywhere near far advanced enough to merit the kind of attention it gets from the general public. There's a notion that they're looking for The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, and are portrayed as if they're just about there. For most people it's simply far beyond the pale, when there is much excellent science that's more testable but no less perplexing in quantum mechanics.
The theoreticians should be largely left to themselves. At least, needing only pencils and computers, they're fairly cheap.
But all of our best theories are false, and we know it. Relativity and the Standard Model both work incredibly well within certain limits, but we can find domains where their predictions are demonstrably wrong, or at least incomplete (as in, they don't give us any useful answer). Yet we use these theories, within certain limits, because they work very well. We also have every reason to believe that any better theory that replaces them should reduce to those theories in the appropriate limits. (To some extent, this gives us confidence that we are correctly discovering the actual structure of the universe.) So, our best current theories are incredibly accurate, falsifiable, and demonstrably false/incomplete/etc..
Yes, there are various string theories. A whole lot of them. But there are an infinite number of standard models, also: just let some of the constants (including prefactors and exponents in equations, etc.) be variable and you can churn out new versions all day long. By comparing with reality, we've selected the standard model that most closely matches reality (actually we're still actively tweaking it, selecting new/different versions all the time). It's not really any different with string theory. We are currently trying to do the same thing: go through the possibilities and find the one that matches reality (if any). String theory is very testable: any test you can make of the standard model, you can make of a string theory. In fact those kinds of tests have already eliminated a huge number of candidate string theories. We are left with various string theories that agree with the standard model (at low energy, etc.). What we need to do, of course, is to come up with tests where the string theory and the standard model disagree, and see which one is better. That work is ongoing. In that sense we haven't found a string theory that is better than our best standard model theory.
My point here is that terms like "theory" and "testable" are not as binary as the public would like. Among our physical theories, some are more testable than others. Theories that can't be tested even in principle are purely philosophical, I agree. But then we have theories that can be tested in principle but not in practice (e.g. the energy required is too large). Then theories that can be tested in practice but just not today (e.g. we haven't built a big enough collider yet). Then we have theories that can be tested but we haven't gotten around to it yet. Then theories that can and have been tested. Orthogonal to this "testability" axis is a "concordance with reality" axis, where we go from "blatantly incorrect" to "works sometimes" to "very accurate within certain limits" to "perfect concordance with reality". So, again, surviving tests is not a binary proposition: some theories work better than others, some theories cover a wide range of parameter space, and so on.
The fact that shades of grey exist in science is no surprise to scientists: we call this "error bars" or "probability" or "confidence" and so on. It's normal to split hairs between theories that work but are only "effective" and theories that work in a more fundamental way. It's also perfectly normal to consider a whole family of theories, and eventually settle on the one that "works". The problem arises because such concepts are difficult to convey in a sound-bite.
In one episode, it's revealed that Chemical X can be substituted with the vile sludge in a long-unflushed prison toilet XD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
you think that is the best i have?
mimic me some more. do anything relative to me. don't do anything for yourself. don't take responsibility for your actions.
you're completely pathetic.
your comprehension skills are very telling.
ur mum's face fail.
you're an idiot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
But string theory can be tested at low energy just like our current standard model theories. Either it matches reality or it doesn't. If it doesn't match, it's obviously wrong. If it matches as well as the standard model does, then we can start pushing it to higher energies until there is a disagreement between the theory and the standard model. We know that the standard model has weaknesses; either the string theory will do better or worse.
People always say that string theory can't be tested. But it can be tested. And if a given string theory and the standard model both make identical predictions over the range of energies we can measure, then they are both "equally good", and both equally testable. We have have some reason to prefer one over the other (Occam's razor, ease of calculation, aesthetic preference, etc.) but if they both match reality then they are both good.
If you think the inability to test at high energy is a weakness of string theory, then it's a weakness of the standard model also. The fact is it is hard to test at those high energies, which makes it difficult to figure out which of the myriad of theories before us (which all test identically at low energy) is the "right one".
cower in my shadow some more, feeb.
you're exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING
your comprehension skills are very telling.
ur mum's face fail.
you're an idiot.
Why you ask?
The answer is gravity can not push.
If you throw that out, all sorts of things open up but it make for a huge mess on modern physics.
But I'm okay with that until someone can explain the Pioneer space probes doing odd things using the gravity pulls model.
I swear, there hasn't been a troll this amusing since twitter. WHatever happened to him anyway?
Someone at Microsoft gave him a call, said they wanted to have him meet with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to voice his complaints in person. Nobody saw him for a few weeks after that.
He's a janitor at MS now, he won't say what happened, he just keeps cleaning away with that thousand-yard stare, mumbling "I'm a PC and I have no complaints..."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
WHY is irrelevant. HOW is the question.
you're an idiot.
Is this a Star Trek Voyager story?
you ARE completely pathetic.
Can anyone tell me how to write, "I quote Latin to appear smarter than I really am"?
And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.
Oh come now, it's at least as scientific as alchemy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Did anyone else read that title as being slightly ridiculous?
X Particle = name made up for a particle we don't know much about, or if it even exists (suggestions only, but nothing absolute)
Dark/Anti-matter = name made up for a matter we don't know much about, or if it even exists (suggestions only, but nothing absolute)
"Theorized Particle Might Explain Theorized Matter"
You, sir, are mostly correct. However, while there are about 10^150 possible iterations of string theory, there is only a very small fraction of those theories that in any way resemble our standard model. To borrow an analogy I heard yesterday in lecture (regarding this very subject, funny that) that's like trying to find a golf ball on the earth.
So, how would you go about finding a golf ball? If you plan on searching exhaustively, then you are entirely correct, we're pretty well screwed in trying to find the "right" string theory. However, if you have any sense about you whatsoever, you'll start searching the earth's golf courses. This is actually possible with string theory.
You see, each mathematical model on the string landscape is defined. Furthermore, we can make sweeping and accurate generalizations about most of those models: There are vast deserts, if you will forgive the extended metaphor, where nothing resembling the physics of this golf ball could exist. Being a smart lot, we don't look there for our golf ball. Instead, we focus our search in places where we think our standard model (or variations of it) for a golf ball could exist. Depending on the string theorist you ask, you may be looking in different places. The lecture I got yesterday was quite concerned with SuSy GUTs (Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories, isn't the acronym fun?) and SO(10) [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_coupling_unification#SO.2810.29]. Others will probably point you elsewhere.
I don't know who's right about string theory; if I had to place a bet, I'd bet on nobody. However, I do know enough about string theory to know that it isn't the disgrace to scientific method you make it out to be. String theoretical models, like many mathematically abstract models, are just one of myriad avenues that can be pursued in the search of knowledge. It's easy to scoff at them, but it was also easy to scoff at modern chemical theories when it was so patently obvious that fire was the combustion of phlogiston. One of the core truths of science is that we frequently are wrong (or simply don't know) about where a breakthrough will come from.
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist (yet). I'm lacking the PhD.
Your mind is like a steel trap, full of mice.
Now, g'way boy, you're botherin' me.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Astrology is easily falsifiable, so far string theory isn't.
Free Martian Whores!
do you assume i will do what you ask?
you're an idiot.
Astrology is testable. Get some astrologers and a pool of people. Find out what the astrologers are willing to predict that's testable, give them the birth information of the people, tally the predictions up, and see if they performed above chance level. The one time I heard of this being done, the astrologers didn't, which is what most people here would expect.
Astrology could be a scientific field, if it produced positive testable results.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
P = 0 and/or N = 1
Checkmate.
You are mechanical.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
ur mum's face are mechanical.
it's extreme... EXTREME!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No. 5 string theories, all which seem correct. That's why there is M-theory. Are you improperly referring to string vacua?
Anyways, read the wikipedia article for an overview. At least when you talk about whether or not it should be called a theory you won't look like an ignorant jackass.
If true, it's very nature would make it extremely hard to test at low energies.
Some would say impossible, but I hold out hope that some clever person will find a way to test it. Or at least it's properties.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To be a scientific theory it needs to make testable PREDICTIONS. a Scientific hypotheses needs to have a way to be testable. The way to be tested may or may not be doable at the time of the presentation of the scientific hypotheses.
The pedagogical definition means it needs bodies of evidence, not just falsifiability.
As I hope you know, the only test that counts are tests the try to falsify it.
BUT NONE OF THAT MATTERS. This is physics, and in physics the 'term' theory is generally used for a mathematical framework.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
/.'s summary calls it a theory, when the wired article uses hypothetical. From what i understand, it only becomes a theory once the scientists have run out of other options (meaning, they have failed at breaking the hypothesis).
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
I posited and posted something similar on Dec 2nd
I come here for the love
So you put up a challenge and then immediately move the goal post using an ad hom attacks. Yeah. However, I will rebut your drivel with a simple fact:
This is physics, and in physics the 'term' theory is generally used for a mathematical framework.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Stupid question... how does an X particle get to decide to either decay into two DM particles or one neutron?
Since they also claim DM particles are 100 times more massive than a proton which has about the same mass as a neutron.
Where do you get energy equivalence? Does it grow on ethereal trees? E=MC^2? I'm confused :(
You know of something about the platypus that falsifies evolutionary biology theory?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
No, I expect more from slashdotters than to believe someone is smart just because they can copy paste a phrase in Latin.
But if the phrase was originally written in Latin, and is well known, why does it need to be posted in English?
Dilbert RSS feed
Making fun of people who use Latin platitudes has now become a platitude in itself, allowing you to discount valid statements.
Infinite loop.
Actually, Kant had a decent refutation for Descartes. He (K) asserted that Descartes' leap from cogito to sum was invalid -- and that rather than "I think, therefore I am", it should be "I think, therefore thinking is occurring". The act of being is not necessarily entailed in thinking.
See the case against the cogito here .
Would this be a bunch of "pedantic douchebags"? Definition 1 is "well-substantiated."
How about Wikipedia? "It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct."
There's nothing political about it -- words have different definitions in different contexts. In particular, "work" has a massively different context in physics than it does in everyday life. Why would I expect the word "theory", no matter how "well-established" it might be in the common sense, to have the same meaning in the context of science?
As far as politics, it seems to me that the scientists who actually use the term are less likely to be political than the Creationists who want to redefine or deliberately misunderstand it so they can dismiss Evolution as "just a theory."
Anyway, your turn: Citation needed.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Your citations are vague at best. Your Princeton definition has "well founded" in one of the three definitions, and you're drawing a lot of meaning out of that. The wikipedia article (which is not meaningfully authoritative) acknowledges that a theory which cannot be tested is a theory, but not a useful theory.
Regardless, I'm sure there are pedantic douchebags working at Princeton and editing wikipedia articles. At least give me a great scientific or philosophic mind from >75 years ago who makes this kind of distinction on the word "theory". Then I'll consider the issue more seriously.
In fact, I challenge you to name even one theory that isn't testable.
P = NP.
I keep wondering when I'll read the work "conjecture" in this discussion.
That term, along with "hypothesis", is often used in actual scientific discussions.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Astrology has been falsified. String theory has not.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
That would be a postulate, not a theory.
My citations are vague. Yours are as yet nonexistent.
And 75 years? That's an odd constraint. What does the amount of time have to do with it?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Regarding citations, do you want me to find definitions for "theory" that mean "theory"? Do you want me to cite writings where the word "theory" is used to mean "theory"? Really, we both know what the word "theory" means, and we know I can come up with citations to support it. Hell, your citations support it.
Regarding the 75 years, people have lost their minds in the past few decades. I really worry about the future of humanity. I don't think you'd be able to come up with a genuinely great thinker of any time who would make the distinction that you're trying to, but there's probably some famously "smart" person from the past couple decades who has made a grand effort to redefine the word, which is where you're getting your made-up definition.
Now of course, if you make up definitions of words and it catches on, that becomes the definition. If I use the word "inflammable" to mean "not flammable", it's wrong. If it catches on and that's how people really start using the word, then it eventually becomes correct.
Anyway, this definition of "theory" that you're using is a bad one, doesn't have a basis in anything, and is going to be needlessly confusing for people. I'm not sure who started it, but it was probably created out of ignorance or manipulative motives.
Sorry, I'm being uncharacteristically blunt. I don't mean to be rude here, and this really doesn't matter, but what you're saying isn't quite right. You might say that a theory which is absolutely untestable is not generally a "scientific theory", which is to say that it's a theory of the sort that doesn't fall into the realm of science. However, in the tradition of science, calling an idea a "theory" has never meant that it was well tested or even known to be testable. "Theory" just means "theory".
I quited understanding astrophysics it's been a while already. I actually like to read about this kind of stuff, they aways find a way to explain it with no formulas and a bunch of graphics and animations, but even with that it's getting hard to read this shit. I was watching that History Channel series about the universe and astrophysics full of cool animations and physics professors explaining it in a easy way, but when they started to explain the relation of cords, tissues, 10+ dimensions, black matter and etc it got just too abstract. It seems that when they can't explain something through an equation they just invent some particle or dimension to full fill the gap. Even the animation got completely abstract, I started to imagine how mad the animation guy got trying to make something visually understandable and interesting from the physicians explanations (fucking physicians smoking fucking pot, fuck it, fucking universe of 10+ fucking dimensions, imma just put a a MilkDrop preset in this shit and that's it).
Astrology has been falsified.
Of course it has, and easily so.
Free Martian Whores!
Well, then there are the physicists that say that Dark Matter is just a fudge-factor for bad mathematics.
www.autodynamics.org
Really, we both know what the word "theory" means...
Apparently not.
Regarding the 75 years, people have lost their minds in the past few decades.
I think it's far more likely that you have some sort of rosy-colored hindsight for the "good old days," which never really existed. It's not just this context, it's not likely to be true for any field. Music and movies are a great example -- the reason so many old movies we have are "classics" is no one wants to keep them around otherwise, unless they're so spectacularly bad that they're worth preserving for that reason alone (Plan 9 From Outer Space).
I don't think you'd be able to come up with a genuinely great thinker of any time who would make the distinction that you're trying to,
I'm not sure why this is required. Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that work has a different meaning in physics than it does elsewhere? Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that the "color" of a quark has nothing to do with the colors we actually see in everyday life?
In fact, can you find one who explicitly supports either of those ideas?
Anyway, this definition of "theory" that you're using is a bad one,
How so?
doesn't have a basis in anything,
Found a basis in a few minutes of idle Googling. Here's another. Or, more seriously, how about this one?
Now, your turn. What's the basis for your assertion that "people have lost their minds in the past few decades"? And this definition of "scientific theory" isn't at all obscure, so where are the thousands of dissenting scientists?
is going to be needlessly confusing for people.
People are also easily confused by the definitions in physics of work, energy, and power. They're also easily confused by the term "Big Bang", suggesting that something exploded.
Of course, somehow most people manage to figure out what people are talking about when they say "Evolution" in the biological sense compared to "evolution" in other contexts -- for instance, talking about the "evolution" of a product line, where there's hardly been artificial selection, let alone natural selection.
Words can have different definitions in different contexts, and that's fine. In this case, the definition I've given for "theory" is a useful one.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Really, we both know what the word "theory" means...
Apparently not.
Really? You don't know what a "theory" is, in the sense of "theory" the way people use the word? Well ok. I can't trust that you know the meaning of any of the words I'm writing the, so we're in trouble.
I think it's far more likely that you have some sort of rosy-colored hindsight for the "good old days," which never really existed.
I'm not talking about some golden age where everything is good. On the other hand, yeah, things do get better and worse. We do have ages of enlightenment, dark ages, and times of madness.
I'm not sure why this is required. Do I need a "great thinker" to tell me that work has a different meaning in physics than it does elsewhere?
Here's why it's required: I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker. I'm not interested in accepting the redefinition of the word "theory" by someone who has never had a worthwhile theory of their own and who doesn't understand their own redefinition of the word.
People are also easily confused by the definitions in physics of work, energy, and power.
You're talking about people failing to understand ideas behind actual terms in their normal/traditional meanings. And even if you want to talk about the "color" of a quark, you're talking about a metaphor about things where color doesnt apply, used in a highly technical setting. You don't have pompous asshole quantum physicists trying to redefine "color" to mean "texture" in general conversations about any small object in a desperate attempt to win political arguments.
i'm pretty sure that testing that there is enough matter for us to exist at all was already very testable. i'm here. hello. there is enough matter.
Hi, Fuckwad! Nice of you to weigh in with your inanity once again.
Figured out how to breathe through your nose yet?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
ur mum's face think that is the best i have?
cower in my shadow some more, feeb.
Oooh, there we go again, caught cowering in MichaelKristopeit188's MIGHTY SHADOW.
You strike an awe-inspiring pose there, I've gone all weak at the knees...
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
WHY do you cower? WHAT are you afraid of?
you ARE completely pathetic.
And you're a FUCKING ROBOT.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
i was using the grandparents's (paiute) ignorant terms to further illustrate their ignorance... why are you responding to me?
Whatever flatus escapes your mouth only serves to further confirm your own total ignorance.. and world-class arrogance.
Run along now and don't forget to accuse us all of being 'nothing' and 'completely pathetic'.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
the truth = "Flamebait"
gp's statement of obvious falsehood = THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INSIGHTFULNESS.
slashdot = stagnated
Your drivel = tiresome
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Really? You don't know what a "theory" is, in the sense of "theory" the way people use the word?
A quick review (paraphrased):
Me: "Theory means something different in science." ...and that's where you changed the topic.
You: "Come on, we both know what 'theory' means."
Me: "Apparently we don't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion."
You: "You don't know what a theory is, in the sense of "theory" the way people use the word?"
If you mean the common sense, I don't know why you brought it up or what its relevance is, because that's really not what we've been talking about. If you mean in the context of science, clearly one of us must be wrong, as we have contradictory views.
I'm not talking about some golden age where everything is good. On the other hand, yeah, things do get better and worse. We do have ages of enlightenment, dark ages, and times of madness.
Agreed. However, it's usually the case that things weren't as good as we remember, precisely because we remember things being better than they were.
Here's why it's required: I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker.
False dichotomy, then -- either someone's a "great thinker" or they're a "poor thinker"? Is that what you think?
The only way you get out of this is if you're calling me a "poor thinker", but that would be an ad-hom and not really relevant at all.
I'm not interested in accepting the redefinition of the word "theory" by someone who has never had a worthwhile theory of their own and who doesn't understand their own redefinition of the word.
In what way don't I understand my redefinition of the word? And on what grounds do you make the assumption that I've "never had a worthwhile theory," no matter whose definition of "theory" we accept?
You're talking about people failing to understand ideas behind actual terms in their normal/traditional meanings.
Do you mean to imply that the physics concept of work, energy, and power are the ideas behind the terms? I think you may have that backwards -- We had concepts of work, energy, and power in their "normal/traditional" sense long before we had any sort of sense of them in physics. You seem to be implying the same thing by the use of the word "traditional" here.
It seems clear that these words were used to identify related concepts in physics which did not yet have a word. Yet somehow, we don't have people like you insisting that we refer to power as dW/dt to distinguish it from "power" as in "That's a powerful man!"
you're talking about a metaphor about things where color doesnt apply, used in a highly technical setting.
Color doesn't apply, right. And if you understand that, you're in a category of people who understand something about how color works and where it applies -- that is, you already have some of the required background.
If you never really understood what color was, or what causes it, you would have no reason to automatically assume that it means something dramatically and arbitrarily different in the context of quantum physics.
You don't have pompous asshole quantum physicists trying to redefine "color" to mean "texture" in general conversations about any small object...
Do you really want me to pick this apart?
To start with, texture and color both have well-understood meanings for a small object. It isn't as if we were lacking a word for "texture". What word would you use for a well-established explanation which has sufficient evidence that we'd regard it as a "Scientific Theory" consistent with the definition used by the US National Academy of Sciences?
Even if something like this were necessary, it seems "hue" might be a better choice than "c
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Here's why it's required: I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker.
That's the wonderful thing about a false premise - you can kick back and ask others for ridiculous amounts of evidence while smugly insisting that your interpretation is the correct one, and when they fail to find a scholar who has commented on the existence of your purple space-lizards from Titan, you can declare victory without ever having had to provide any evidence at all.
Now of course, if you make up definitions of words and it catches on, that becomes the definition. If I use the word "inflammable" to mean "not flammable", it's wrong. If it catches on and that's how people really start using the word, then it eventually becomes correct.
Tell that to Dr. Nick.
A year in mexico and i can hardly understand my english! Sorry to sick to think right now...
Citation please! I wasn't aware of any scientific studies ever done on astrology.
Very easy to check what constellation you were really born under if you have Stellarium installed.
I'm not sure what side you're trying to take on all this, but this is partially my point. You ask me to find random citations of people who say that "theory" means "theory"? I can point you to any dictionary. I can do that if anyone wants, but I don't see the point.
You want me to find a citation of someone who says that "theory" does not mean "a well-established and accepted theory"? Well who is going to bother arguing that under normal circumstances? Find me a citation of someone who says "food" does not only mean "carrots". Find me a nutritionist who has written a scientific paper arguing that, specifically. If you do, I'll be impressed, but I'll also wonder who you are that you have such time to waste looking for such ridiculous citations.
So no, I can't find citations for purpose space lizards from Titan, and I can't find citations for there being no space lizards from Titan. Nobody is really writing on the topic, because it's stupid.
...and that's where you changed the topic.
Look, you asked for citations of people using the word "theory" in the way that people normally use it, in order to prove it's used that way. That's just silly. I can waste my time trying to find some dumb citations, or you can just admit that it's the sense in which people *generally* use the term, at least when they're not being pedantic fake sciency guys making up new definitions for common words.
False dichotomy, then -- either someone's a "great thinker" or they're a "poor thinker"? Is that what you think?
That's so entirely not the point I'm making. If it makes you happy, let's separate them into great thinkers, very good thinkers, mediocre thinkers, poor thinkers, and idiots. I'll only consider nonsensical redefinitions of common terms if the thinkers are "great" or "very good".
The only way you get out of this is if you're calling me a "poor thinker", but that would be an ad-hom and not really relevant at all.
No, I'm accusing you of being misinformed by a poor thinker. Whoever came up with this definition is a poor thinker. It's not as an ad-hominem attack, but more that I'm asserting they're probably a poor thinker for coming up with such a bad attempt at redefinition. Or are you saying that you're not misinformed, but that *you* came up with this new definition? That would change things.
Do you mean to imply that the physics concept of work, energy, and power are the ideas behind the terms?
"Work" and "power" in a strict physics standpoint is more particular than the general usage, but in my mind, at least, they're not contradictory. "Energy" was basically created as a physics term. "Theory" was effectively only ever a scientific term.
I'm the lone dissenting voice saying that your made-up definition is incorrect? You're the lone voice telling me it's correct. Maybe you're right, though. Maybe if I had more sense, I'd quit arguing with stupid people (*now* I'm suggesting that you're a poor thinker), but if nobody ever argued with stupid people, they'd never learn.
Naw, what you've done is told him that only one definition is acceptable to you, and that you reject the idea that different words can have different meanings when used in different fields or contexts. You've then demanded a ridiculously high standard of proof for him to meet in order to placate you. Personally, I think the correct answer at this point is "fuck off", but he's apparently a lot more polite and patient than I am.
"whenever two WIMPs meet up in space, they annihilate each other."
Don't cross the nerds.
I'm all in favor of recognizing that different words have different meanings in different contexts, and even just to different people. I'm opposed to making up new definitions out of nowhere that are specifically contrary to the accepted definition for the purpose of confusing people. This is particularly insidious because it's a cynical attempt to redefine a well-known term with a conflicting definition in order to serve a political agenda.
I'm not asking to be placated. I'm just informing him that he's wrong.
That's all well and good, but you're directing your fire at the wrong target. It's the fools who refer to evolution as "just a theory" - as well as the jackasses who insist that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory - that you should be concerned with. Apparently you are unaware that a scientific theory and a wild guess are two completely different things, but those jackasses know full well that they're changing the language in order to serve their political agenda.
But that's just my point. You're willing to redefine what it means to be a "scientific theory", thereby damaging the credibility of science in general, in order to win a petty political argument with jackasses.
"Theory" does not mean "proven" and it does not mean "fact". I understand the motivation, but you trying to redefine "theory" as fact" is just as stupid and cynical as religious nutcases trying to redefine "science" to include "creationism".
Look, you asked for citations of people using the word "theory" in the way that people normally use it,
No, I didn't. I asked for a citation to show that the word "theory" in the colloquial sense applies, that there is no standard of evidence required for something to be called a scientific theory.
That's just silly. I can waste my time trying to find some dumb citations...
If you can show what I asked you to show, I would back down immediately.
...or you can just admit...
See, that's a bit of a problem. You're already wasting time trying to convince me by your assertion of what is and isn't "pedantic", "fake", "nonsensical", and "crazy" (which is why you dismiss the possibility of any "good" or "great" thinkers being relevant unless they said it at least 70 years ago). Three out of those four are subjective, and you've backed none of them up.
Basically, what you're saying is that you can present an actually good argument, or I can just give up and save you the trouble. Why should I?
It's not as an ad-hominem attack, but more that I'm asserting they're probably a poor thinker for coming up with such a bad attempt at redefinition.
So, when you said, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker," the "poor thinker" bit was redundant, because you infer that from the fact that it's a "nonsensical redefinition."
If we remove that redundancy, your statement becomes, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of anyone." (Why? Because anyone who proposes such a redefinition, you'd infer is a poor thinker.)
So, unless you can show that it's "nonsensical," and I don't think you can, what have you really said here?
Or are you saying that you're not misinformed, but that *you* came up with this new definition?
No. I think this new definition has value, but I didn't invent it.
"Work" and "power" in a strict physics standpoint is more particular than the general usage, but in my mind, at least, they're not contradictory.
This is exactly the same as the two definitions of "theory" we're considering. Colloquially, a theory is "a good idea." The other is "a good idea which has evidence." It's not a complete inversion of meaning, it's more particular.
While every scientific theory (no matter whose definition we use) is also a "theory" in the sense of "a good idea," it is not the case that every instance of "work" as in F dot dr is also an instance of "work" in the colloquial sense, or vice versa. For instance, we would like to say that holding up a weight without moving is hard work, whereas we can find all sorts of recreational activities which we'd consider to be the opposite of work, but actually involve physical work.
Worse, if we try to reconcile some of these by appealing to what's actually going on inside our body (what a muscle is actually doing when you're using it to support a weight), we might conclude that everything a person does while alive involves some work.
So it seems to me that "work" is in worse shape.
"Power" might be even worse -- pushing a stalled car to start it certainly requires work, but we probably wouldn't want to say the act involved power. Aside from electric power, in everyday life, we tend to think of "power" as a thing, not a process -- a person is "powerful" if they have a lot of wealth and influence, if they are capable of a lot of things, and we would say they "have power." I'm sure I'm not alone in saying my laptop has "low power" (or worse, "low battery").
It almost seems like when we say "power", we sometimes mean it in the physics sense, but sometimes we mean "potential energy."
I'
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Fine, you really want citations? Here are some. Wow. If you look up definitions of "theory", you find that "theory" means "theory", even when (or especially when) talking about science.
This isn't hard. But it *is* stupid.
So, when you said, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker," the "poor thinker" bit was redundant, because you infer that from the fact that it's a "nonsensical redefinition."
Way to prove that you're not one of those pedantic douchebags I was complaining about.
This is exactly the same as the two definitions of "theory" we're considering. Colloquially, a theory is "a good idea."
No it's not. There are plenty of good ideas that aren't theories, and there are theories which aren't good ideas. The definition of theory, whether talking in science or colloquial, is something along the lines of "a speculative explanation" generally including the connotation that it has not been proven.
And the difference is, when we talk about "work" in physics, we're talking about a specific measurement which was derived in order to be able to quantify work. When I move a heavy box from point A to point B, I have done some "work". The physics definition is essentially trying to quantify that work. Regardless, there are other metaphorical uses of words that are very different from the original meaning, and all of that is fine. The problem is when you arbitrarily try to make up a new conflicting definition because you don't know how else to win your arguments and you're too petty to say "I don't know".
And this is the whole problem. In a stunning misuse of words, Creationists dubbed their theory "science". You apparently can't figure out a useful response, so you're employing an equally stunning misuse of language by redefining "theory" to mean "fact". If such poor argumentation works, then we'd be better off redefining "creationism" as "wrong" and being done with it. At least that way, we wouldn't be subverting scientific thought for the sake of petty political battles. Do you think "science" is still a field with validity if it is held captive to political motives?
Nobody is trying to redefine "theory" as "fact". Evolution is both a theory AND a fact, but the two are separate from each other. The difference between a scientific theory and a “theory” in common usage is not “factualness” – the difference is that a scientific theory must be testable, falsifiable, must have predictive power, and be supported by evidence. Which is why Theory, Scientific Theory, and Philosophical Theory each have their own wikipedia page - because the usage of the word "theory" in each case is different, representing a unique concept which differs significantly from the other two uses.
It's also why Intelligent Design is neither a scientific theory nor a fact - it's an appeal to ignorance disguised as a hypothesis, but, in common usage, it could accurately be referred to as a theory.
The difference between a scientific theory and a “theory” in common usage is not “factualness” – the difference is that a scientific theory must be testable, falsifiable, must have predictive power, and be supported by evidence.
Except that the idea that a "theory" must be both testable and tested (i.e. "supported by evidence") is a recent invention, seemingly designed specifically so we can tell "science doubters" that you're not allowed to doubt "theories". And that *is* an attempt to redefine "theory" as "fact", and it's BS. It's a bad definition being pushed by people who are too feeble minded to argue the validity of evolutionary theory on its merits rather than redefining long-standing words to mean things that they don't mean.
A theory is a theory when it's formulated, not when it's "proven".
Except that the idea that a "theory" must be both testable and tested (i.e. "supported by evidence") is a recent invention, seemingly designed specifically so we can tell "science doubters" that you're not allowed to doubt "theories".
If by recent you mean "since the rise of science, and the decline of philosophy", then yes, it's fairly recent. It was a pretty important distinction, though, which has led to a whole new way of looking at our universe.
Recent like "in the past few years". You might find a reference to this redefinition that's a few decades old, but really people have only been pushing for it in the past decade or so.
I don't know where you think that fits in "the rise of science", but modern science started a few hundred years ago.
Recent like "in the past few years". You might find a reference to this redefinition that's a few decades old, but really people have only been pushing for it in the past decade or so.
In that case, you're simply wrong. The difference has existed for far, far longer; there was simply no need to point it out or discuss it in detail until anti-science twits started misusing the terminology. As I said a while back: you're aiming at the wrong target. You find an example of a time when scientific theories were just untestable shit that someone made up and presented without a shred of evidence, then we can talk. Until then, your complaints are baseless.
Fine, you really want citations? Here are some.
Wikipedia: "For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation)."
dictionary.reference.com: "A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
Mirriam-Webster, definition 5: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena "
Of those, only Mirriam-Webster is at all ambiguous or would tend to suggest your interpretation.
Way to prove that you're not one of those pedantic douchebags I was complaining about.
Now that was an ad-hom attack.
I actually did have a point, whether you saw it or not: If you can't back up your claim, I can only assume you're operating from your own arbitrary, circular definitions of what's "nonsensical" and of what a "great thinker" is.
There are plenty of good ideas that aren't theories, and there are theories which aren't good ideas. The definition of theory, whether talking in science or colloquial, is something along the lines of "a speculative explanation" generally including the connotation that it has not been proven.
Way to prove you're not one of those pedantic douchebags you keep complaining about.
But thank you -- in the colloquial sense, that's right, and my "good idea" was an oversimplification. Like I said, I'd rather be proven wrong than forever be wrong. (Full disclosure: That's not my line.)
And the difference is, when we talk about "work" in physics, we're talking about a specific measurement which was derived in order to be able to quantify work. When I move a heavy box from point A to point B, I have done some "work". The physics definition is essentially trying to quantify that work.
That's the origin of it, I would assume.
Regardless, there are other metaphorical uses of words that are very different from the original meaning...
Really?
When I work on a computer all day, you mean to tell me that the work I'm doing is merely "metaphorical"?
I suppose it's possible that the origin was a metaphor, but I'm sure I'm not paid in metaphorical dollars.
The problem is when you arbitrarily try to make up a new conflicting definition because you don't know how else to win your arguments and you're too petty to say "I don't know".
Neither of which applies here. When trying to prove me wrong, two of the three sources you found actually confirmed my position. However, I'm in no way dependent on this definition to win arguments, other than arguments about this definition.
What I am dependent on is a consistent definition, one way or another, which is why I care about this to begin with. If "theory" doesn't mean what I thought it did, I had better be sure to use other words instead. If "theory" means exactly what I thought it did, then you're just adding confusion to the conversation.
And this is the whole problem. In a stunning misuse of words, Creationists dubbed their theory "science". You apparently can't figure out a useful response...
The word "theory" is entirely irrelevant to whether or not creationism can be defined as "science" or not. The concept is important, but calling it something else wouldn't cause problems.
It would be inconvenient, however, to have to redefine a word just because some people can't handle that words have different meanings in different contexts.
If such poor argumentation works, then we'd be better off redefining "creationism" as "wrong" and being done with it.
Assuming fo
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You find an example of a time when scientific theories were just untestable shit that someone made up and presented without a shred of evidence, then we can talk.
That was never my claim. My claim was that the "theory of relativity" was a theory before it was tested. It was a theory before anyone even figured out how to test it. It was a theory even before anyone figured out whether it would be possible to test it. It was a theory the moment Einstein put it together as a speculative explanation of why light never goes faster than a fixed speed.
Same with the "theory of evolution". As soon as Darwin thought, "huh, maybe inheritable changes being killed off at different rates could cause a whole species to become something different," it became a theory. It didn't need to be proven to be called a "theory".
For years and years, people thought that blood was created by the liver and consumed by the muscles. They thought the heart made blood warm and the brain cooled blood off. That was a theory too. It doesn't need to be "correct" to be a theory. It doesn't need to be true or proven or even demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction. It just needs to be a speculative explanation of phenomenon. A guess about how things work or what might have happened.
Do you really want me to find a quote somewhere that uses the word "theory" to describe an untestable explanation? Do you really doubt that I could, or are you just wasting both of our time? How about the whole fact that there's a thing called "string theory" which, last I heard, even the proponents weren't sure it would ever be testable.
Now if you really really want to say "creationism" isn't a theory, you can do that. You can do that on the grounds that (a) it's not speculative, since the believers in the theory believe that it's certain; and (b) it doesn't really explain anything. Or you can just insist that it's not a theory on no grounds whatsoever if you really want to. I'm not sure what's won by that argument.
Either way, trying to redefine "theory" to mean "something proven to be true" isn't helping the discussion.
Wikipedia: "For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation)."
Yup.
A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation
So it's more verified or established or less verified or established. Right.
If you can't back up your claim, I can only assume you're operating from your own arbitrary, circular definitions of what's "nonsensical" and of what a "great thinker" is.
No, I'm asking for great thinkers and you're giving me bureaucrats.
When I work on a computer all day, you mean to tell me that the work I'm doing is merely "metaphorical"?
My point was, although I was correct in asserting that terms like "work" or "energy" didn't really help prove your point, it was irrelevant because people *do* use words in different (often metaphorical) senses on a regular basis. So if you want to say that "work" in the scientific sense is unconnected to "work" in the general sense, that's fine. It doesn't hurt my argument either way.
What I am dependent on is a consistent definition, one way or another, which is why I care about this to begin with. If "theory" doesn't mean what I thought it did, I had better be sure to use other words instead. If "theory" means exactly what I thought it did, then you're just adding confusion to the conversation.
Well theory does not mean what you thought it did. Now you know.
Assuming for the moment that you're right, that this is all an attempt to win political arguments by messing with language. What on earth makes you think the above would work?
I don't think it would work. I think it's a stupid approach, which is why I called it "poor argumentation".
The Intelligent Design movement is a direct, all-out attack on science.
This is exactly my point. Science is under attack from "intelligent design" and it doesn't need you attacking it from the other side by trying to imply that all "theories" must be true.
How long do you think science would last in a world where the government is willing to instead spend money on dowsing rods as a legitimate security device?
People being stupid isn't caused by the definition of the word "theory".
And one of those "other uses" is the "Scientific Theory" that I linked to in the first place, which is why I'm puzzled you linked to Wikipedia's definition in the first place.
So it's more verified or established or less verified or established. Right.
Really?
Are you really suggesting that whoever wrote that meant to imply that theories don't need to be verified at all to be called theories? You're the one telling me that I should accept the definition "we both know" -- well, we both know what "more or less" means.
No, I'm asking for great thinkers and you're giving me bureaucrats.
And I asked you for what a "great thinker" is, and you gave me "great, good, medocre, poor..."
So: What about the NAS book makes it irrelevant? Is the NAS actually irrelevant enough in the scientific community that no one but you has ever bothered to correct them?
people *do* use words in different (often metaphorical) senses on a regular basis. So if you want to say that "work" in the scientific sense is unconnected to "work" in the general sense, that's fine. It doesn't hurt my argument either way.
The entire point of bringing up "work" was to illustrate that sometimes, words have different, confusing meanings, and somehow the world keeps turning. This is directly addressing your argument that this was a "nonsensical" definition of "theory" and that it's needlessly confusing. If so, "work" is also "needlessly confusing" and arguably "nonsensical", but it somehow doesn't seem to cause problems.
It may be that it doesn't hurt your argument that you now can't make a case for why we should accept your definition and reject mine, and you're now reduced to making a case for that "theory" already does have your definition and not mine. In fact, if you could back that claim up at all, your argument would be in fine shape.
So far, you haven't been able to back that up -- which means that as of right now, your only remaining argument is to dismiss my sources. Your dismissal isn't very convincing when I can find the definition I want in two of the three sources you brought up when you finally gave me any sources at all.
Well theory does not mean what you thought it did. Now you know.
Apparently not.
I don't think it would work. I think it's a stupid approach, which is why I called it "poor argumentation".
Then let me rephrase. Why would you expect an attempt to redefine "creationism" to be more successful than an attempt to redefine "theory", assuming such tactics worked at all?
I'm not convinced redefining language is an altogether ineffective approach, but I don't think that's what's happening.
This is exactly my point. Science is under attack from "intelligent design" and it doesn't need you attacking it from the other side by trying to imply that all "theories" must be true.
Where did I ever imply all theories must be true?
People being stupid isn't caused by the definition of the word "theory".
Which has no relevance to what you were quoting. This was a response to your implication that science shouldn't be held captive to political motives.
And while it's true that this isn't the cause, one way in which people are stupid is to claim that evolution is "just a theory" as opposed to fact. Whatever the definition of theory, it's possible to make a claim that evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science. But it's even dumber when you consider the weight the word "theory" carries in science.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That was never my claim. My claim was that the "theory of relativity" was a theory before it was tested. It was a theory before anyone even figured out how to test it.
Nope. First off, the "theory of relativity" is used to refer to two separate theories, but let's ignore that. More importantly, Special Relativity (and General Relativity after it) was presented because it produced better solutions than classical mechanics. Einstein didn't just pull it out of his ass and say "Hey guys, here's this thing I just made up on the spur of the moment, let's call it a theory and put it in all the journals". His proposal was the culmination of theoretical speculation and empirical data gathered by many other scientists. We didn't need to go digging for data in order to figure out whether his models worked - we simply looked at the evidence he'd gathered, checked how it related to existing problems, and found that his theory worked better than anything else we had.
Similarly, Darwin didn't just toss out the idea of Evolution and then try to find data to support it - his theory was the culmination of several decades of research, arising entirely because there was no better way to explain the data. Even with the overwhelming evidence at his disposal Darwin wouldn't have published his ideas until much later, if he hadn't been rushed by the threat of Alfred Wallace publishing the same ideas.
Either way, trying to redefine "theory" to mean "something proven to be true" isn't helping the discussion.
You know, that's the second or third time you've brought up the same strawman, even after I corrected it. Either you're intentionally ignoring me, or we're having some kind of comprehension issues.
well, we both know what "more or less" means.
Yeah, and saying something "is more or less" is not the same as saying "is". But maybe you're right. Maybe the people who wrote the dictionary are careless with their words.
Why would you expect an attempt to redefine "creationism" to be more successful than an attempt to redefine "theory", assuming such tactics worked at all?
Such tactics won't work, which was my point. Redefining "theory" to beat creationists won't beat them. All it will do is diminish your own credibility.
Where did I ever imply all theories must be true?
Now this is important. This is the key point: What is your intention is saying that in order to be a "theory" is must be testable, tested, verified, and established? I mean, let's cut through the bullshit here. Your intention is nothing more or less than being able to say to creationists, "You aren't allowed to doubt evolution because it's 'just a theory', since when we call it a 'theory' we're saying it's true."
And in making that argument, you're doing science a severe disservice. Science is not a set of verified and undoubtable facts that you aren't allowed to question. In fact, when you stop the questioning and the doubting, the science stops.
The problem with creationists is not that they question the validity of evolution, but rather that their questioning is disingenuous. Their ignorance is intentional. They don't want answers to their questions.
When you try to redefine "theory", you're doing much the same thing. You're trying to take scientific theories and turn them into objects of faith. You want them to be things that we all believe based on the assurances of supposed wise men, and want doubt to be treated like blasphemy.
The truth is that there is a reason why we call it "the theory of evolution" and not "the fact of evolution". The reason is, the theory is probably not correct. That's not to say that it's wrong and creationism is right, but it's a big overarching theory with lots of pieces, and some of those pieces are probably not quite right. Some kind of evolution has definitely happened, but the theory is what explains exactly *how* it happened, and there are still things to be discovered, and there are things that we think we know which we will discover to be wrong. Our current understanding of evolution may be as far off as the Newtonian or Ptolemiac theories of the planets. (not that I think it's likely to be that far off)
And that's science. Science can have no sacred cows, and science doesn't have political agendas.
Einstein didn't just pull it out of his ass
So either it's just proven fact and can't be doubted because it has already been tested, or else it's pulled out of someone's ass with no support or credibility? Nothing in between? No such thing as a plausible but untested theory?
Do you really have such a poor understanding of how these things work?
Yeah, and saying something "is more or less" is not the same as saying "is".
Also something I never implied.
Now this is important. This is the key point: What is your intention is saying that in order to be a "theory" is must be testable, tested, verified, and established?
My intention? Because that is the definition of the word in this context. My intention is to reduce confusion, not increase it.
I mean, let's cut through the bullshit here. Your intention is nothing more or less than being able to say to creationists, "You aren't allowed to doubt evolution because it's 'just a theory', since when we call it a 'theory' we're saying it's true."
First, that's not what I say to creationists. "Probably true" is different than "true", just as "more or less" is different than "is", and I don't make that mistake.
Second, as I've pointed out before, this isn't essential to winning an argument against a creationist -- I frequently point out how they could disprove evolution, if it were false. But even evolution isn't essential -- if evolution were disproved tomorrow, it still wouldn't take much effort to show that "Intelligent Design" doesn't even count as a hypothesis.
Third, telling me what my own intentions are is a bit rude, don't you think?
Let me say this again, in case you missed it the first time: My only intent is to have a clear and consistent definition. When the NAS, Wikipedia, and several dictionaries suggests one interpretation, I'd rather be consistent with them than consistent with you and a bunch of creationists, as you are the only person other than a creationist I've heard misuse "theory" in this way.
Science is not a set of verified and undoubtable facts that you aren't allowed to question. In fact, when you stop the questioning and the doubting, the science stops.
I agree. When have I ever suggested otherwise? This is the fundamental strength of science, and it's another thing I routinely have to explain to creationists. "Evolution isn't proven!" Neither is gravity -- nothing in science is proven.
You're trying to take scientific theories and turn them into objects of faith.
Are you really saying you can't understand the difference between "more or less" true, or "probably" true, and absolutely, unquestionably true?
The truth is that there is a reason why we call it "the theory of evolution" and not "the fact of evolution".
I'm not looking forward to this, but there is, in fact, a "fact of evolution" as well, distinct from the theory. A scientific fact is defined as a repeated observation -- the fact of Gravity is that stuff falls. A theory is a well-established explanation for these facts.
In this case, the fact is that things evolved, and the theory is the mechanism by which they evolved.
Before you start, facts, too, can be disputed by counterexamples, or by showing flaws in the original data. Evolution, both fact and theory, would likely be disproved overnight if someone found, say, a bunny in the Cambrian.
The reason is, the theory is probably not correct.
Also true. It is, however, probably more correct than not.
I like to use "the earth is flat" as an example here, borrowing from Isaac Asimov -- we used to think the earth was flat, and then we thought it was spherical. Now we know it's more pear-shaped, and even that is likely not the best approximation. However, anyone who thinks "the earth is spherical" is just as wrong as "the earth is flat" is, as Asimov said, "wronger than the both of them put together."
Our current understanding of evolution may be as far off as the Newtonian or Ptolemiac theories of the planets.
Maybe. But the same applies -- both of those were still more accurate than the vi
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Interestingly, while I find it useful to have the definition I think is true, I'm not attached to that, while you seem very much opposed to it, not just because you think it's incorrect, but because you think it's dangerous.
I can make up any definition to any word I like. I can say "big" means "small" and "small" means "orange". If enough people start using those words that way, then arguably those definitions are correct. That's not the point here, though. The point is that you (and some others) are trying to manipulate language in a cynical attempt to push a political agenda. Insofar as you're successful, you're damaging the validity of scientific thought and harming the credibility of science in general and evolution in particular.
Your new definition of "theory" is not the one that people use in general, and it's not the one that scientists have traditionally used. Your aim is to confuse your political opponents in the vain hope of winning an argument with people who aren't going to listen to you regardless. Meanwhile you're misinforming people along the periphery, who are listening to you, about the nature of scientific inquiry.
Yes, your definition is dangerous, and there's no real basis for using the word that way. Aside from that, "correcting" people in normal conversation when they use the word in the supposed "colloquial" definition, which is certainly no less correct a definition, is generally rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded.
No such thing as a plausible but untested theory?
Yeah, that's what we call a "hypothesis".
In science, "hypothesis" has a specific meaning which is distinct from theory. The hypothesis is a specific sort of guess, generally derived from an existing theory, that is devised so that I might be tested/measured by an experiment.
So, for example, Einstein devises a theory to explain the constant speed of light. The theory asserts that time and space are relative. This is already a theory, even though it has not been tested and even if nobody is immediately sure that people will be able to test it.
So in order to test the theory, you need an experiment. Someone posits that if Einstein is correct, then we should be able to take two synchronized clocks, fly one around the earth while the other stayed stationary, and afterwards find that they measured a different passage of time. This is a hypothesis.
So no, in this example it's not that Special Relativity was a hypothesis which was then proven and became a theory. It was a theory which was used to derive a hypothesis (that the clocks would measure time differently). Since the hypothesis was borne out by the experiment, it added credibility to the theory, which was a theory all along.
Sorry, I know you're really stretching for this one.
In science, "hypothesis" has a specific meaning which is distinct from theory
Correct.
So, for example, Einstein devises a theory to explain the constant speed of light. The theory asserts that time and space are relative. This is already a theory, even though it has not been tested and even if nobody is immediately sure that people will be able to test it.
Incorrect.
Sorry, I know you're really stretching for this one.
Also incorrect. And I'm tired of you constantly misunderstanding basic terminology, while simultaneously being a condescending jackass, so I'm going to go with the "fuck off" response which I mentioned 5 or 6 comments earlier. Ta-ta!
Your new definition of "theory" is not the one that people use in general,
The question isn't whether "people" use it, it's whether people use it in this context.
Aside from that, "correcting" people in normal conversation when they use the word in the supposed "colloquial" definition, which is certainly no less correct a definition, is generally rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded.
If someone tried to tell me W=0 for some children playing tag because "tag isn't work, it's play", it'd be "rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded" of me to correct them?
The point is that you (and some others) are trying to manipulate language in a cynical attempt to push a political agenda.
Yeah, we're done.
I've told you my motives several times, not that they're relevant in the first place. You started out suggesting that whoever told me must have had a political agenda, and now it's me. You also seem to have ignored the part where I can make a successful "political" argument no matter which definition ends up being true, despite quoting and responding to that.
Despite accusing me of making this political, you've made it personal, and that's just not worth getting into.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If someone tried to tell me W=0 for some children playing tag because "tag isn't work, it's play", it'd be "rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded" of me to correct them?
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded. Unless maybe you were joking.
You started out suggesting that whoever told me must have had a political agenda, and now it's me.
That's because you've made it clear over the course of the conversation that you are not simply misinformed. I was basically arguing that this new made-up definition of "theory" is a misguided attempt to combat creationists, and though you won't admit it outright, you've made it clear that you want to use this redefinition to combat creationists. So yeah, now it's you.
Is that not the case? Is it true that you were simply misinformed? In multiple instances, you've tried to back up your side of the argument by arguing that "intelligent design" is more correct than "evolution". Your big important citation that you keep referring to from the National Academy of Science is a small article about how evolution has been tested, but doesn't really address the issue.
I think those are pretty good indicators of where your intentions lie. I think you don't care if the term is correct, and you don't care if it's good. You just want to win your argument.
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded.
How is this analogous to what I did?
though you won't admit it outright,
In fact, I denied it outright. You're basically calling me a liar, which makes it difficult to have any sort of rational discussion. Rather than apologize, you've changed your opinion about what my motivation is:
You just want to win your argument.
Don't really care at this point, as it's clear how little your opinion is worth. Oh, and I explicitly stated what my motivation was, still not this.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If someone were posting on a discussion site about how physicists trying to prove string theory "have a lot of work ahead of them," and you responded, "No! They'll be engaged in thought and not moving a lot of mass, and therefore they'll be doing hardly any work!" then that's rude, pedantic, and wrongheaded. How is this analogous to what I did?
Do I need to rehash the whole argument for you? This whole thing started because the OP said, "This theory may even be testable." Palute responded, "To be a theory is must be testable." The conversation unfolded from there. This whole thing between us started because you jumped on me for asking whether we were even talking specifically about scientific theories or theories in general, calling my usage "colloquial". I don't know if you realize, but "colloquial" tends to have a connotation of being improper, and is not simply "common usage" as opposed to "technical definition".
In fact, I denied it outright. You're basically calling me a liar...
Or just wrong. People are often wrong about their own motivations, especially when they're not proud of those motivations.
This whole thing between us started because you jumped on me for asking whether we were even talking specifically about scientific theories or theories in general, calling my usage "colloquial".
Your usage of "scientific theory", specifically.
I don't know if you realize, but "colloquial" tends to have a connotation of being improper, and is not simply "common usage" as opposed to "technical definition".
When you qualify your "common usage" with "scientific", it becomes incorrect. But I will keep that in mind, though when I look up the word "colloquial", all I can find is "informal", which is more what I expected.
Or just wrong. People are often wrong about their own motivations...
And yet, I'd think I would be in a better position to know my motivations than you.
Doesn't make a sane discussion any more likely. You've not only got this funny idea of what my motivations are, you're not only dismissing my own direct claims to the contrary, but you've also started attacking my motivations instead of my argument. That basically reduces this to a "Yes it is!" "No it isn't" shouting match about what might be going on inside my own head, and sorry, I'm just not interested.
What's more, the fact that you took it there makes me much less interested in having any sort of discussion with you.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Your usage of "scientific theory", specifically.
Yeah, so your objection is still rude and pedantic, and it happens to be wrong.
And yet, I'd think I would be in a better position to know my motivations than you.
And apparently you'd be wrong, since your motivations are very obvious and yet according to your claims you're ignorant of them. If a Microsoft spokesman comes out and says, "Our goal is to promote a diverse computing ecosystem and encourage competition," it's clearly not true. (to avoid focusing on Microsoft, it could be Apple saying, "Our goal is to maximize users' and developers' choice on all of our platforms.") So what do you think is going on? Is the spokesperson mislead or misinformed? Is he in denial? Is he lying? I don't know.
But does it make sense to say, "well he would know more about Microsoft's internal workings and corporate structure than me, so I'll just believe whatever he says about the motivations at play!"
Sorry, not interested in arguing with you about my mental state. Thought I made that clear.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And yet you're arguing. Again, what you claim about yourself is clearly not true.
Wow, your best retort is a "ur mum" joke. How old are you, 10?
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
you're an idiot.
you're completely pathetic.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
you're an idiot.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
you're an ignorant hypocrite.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
...and you don't know what any of those words mean, as you repeatedly demonstrate.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
ur mum's face = drivel = tiresome.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
Why do you repeat yourself?
Why are you so fucking redundant?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
ur mum's face're a FUCKING ROBOT.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
..says the fool, ignorant of his own behaviour.
Who's completely pathetic? I think it best to let your karma answer that one for us, you bleating mechanical goblin.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
just as your puppeteer would have you do, you've continued to make no claims whatsoever, while simultaneously and ignorantly and hypocritically asserting you have any power whatsoever to stop me.
you're an idiot.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
Perhaps you'd like to point out where I made that assertion in my previous post.
You fail reading comprehension so hugely it's a wonder a singularity doesn't open inside your head.
You're less than worthless.. you're Michael Kristopeit!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
you've gone nowhere, as you are NOTHING. cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
Do you even read replies to your posts?
You forgot to eloquently insult my 'moms face' or similar. Are you slipping?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
you're an idiot.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
did your mother name you Sardaukar? what is your address? what is your phone number? what individual is responsible for the hypocritical ignorance broadcasted through the manipulated user on this internet web site chat room message board?
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
you're an idiot.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
what "behaviour" could i possibly be ignorant of?
pull your strings puppeteer. go sell to someone else.
you're an idiot.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
i claimed you made no assertion, moron. you didn't understand that, because you're a moron.
did your mother name you Sardaukar? what is your address? what is your phone number? what individual is responsible for the hypocritical ignorance broadcasted through the manipulated user on this internet web site chat room message board?
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
You barely comprehend the simplest posting. There's little point in engaging you further if this is the best response you can come up with.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
ur mum's face repeats yourself.
you're an idiot.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
Yeah, that's a well thought-out argument right there that is.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
you believe your mothers face begs to be insulted?
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
What on Earth are you on about?
You've nothing to say for yourself; you are redundant, redundant, redundant.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
It's clear this is the best I can expect to see from you. Tell me, what's it like to be the weakest link?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
you're an idiot.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
considering my point is that you're an ignorant hypocrite too cowardly to take responsibility for your continued idiocy, i have much to say for myself.
you're an idiot.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of? my name is michael kristopeit. i live at 4513 brittney ct. eau claire, wi 54701. my phone number is 715-514-0916.
who is responsible for the ignorance spewed through the "Sardaukar86" user account on this internet web site chat room message board? how can they be contacted?
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
Formulaic rant ignored; you are clearly incapable of rational thought and I'm not interested in reading the same tripe over and over.
You toss your empty schoolyard insults and mis-use simple words with empty-headed glee, serving only to confirm you are of no value to sites like Slashdot.
The fact that you remain a prolific and vociferous poster is evidence enough that you just don't get it.
So rant away, feeb. Nobody cares.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
you're replying to me, moron.
you've refused to identify an individual responsible for the comments provided through the "sardaukar86" user account on this internet web site chat room message board.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
what sites are "like Slashdot"? how were you designated on all such sites as the person responsible for assigning value to individual users? OR did that never happen?
you're an ignorant hypocrite.
the fact that you're responding to me is very telling.
you're completely pathetic.
I was wondering when you were going to do that. Predictably, you assume a failure to be modded up as an indication of a post's quality.
If that is your belief, then how do you explain your own posts typically languishing at -1?
The age of this article is the only reason we're not both being moderated offtopic. You know damn well that your posts to fresh articles are moderated straight into the toilet where they belong. Face it, nobody wants to read your spiteful gibberings.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
YOU ARE NOTHING.
no one will ever care about you.
you're completely pathetic.