You're still ignoring the observations we have made of the Earth's interior, and presenting no evidence of a Hollow Earth.
Oh, did I state that I supported one theory over the other? Or did I say that "I consider any claim that the inside of the planet is, beyond a doubt, made up of X as opposed to Y, to be dubious at best?"
Funny how people tend to see what they want in the words of others, as opposed to what was actually said. Maybe you can do a study on that?
Your skepticism is not scientific but blindly partisan.
Disbelieving statements that lack the empirical data to prove their validity is "blindly partisan?" On what planet?
It does not require an act of faith to examine the evidence for our knowledge of the interior of the Earth, in point of fact it does not rely on anything more than an elementary education.
Right, which is why I find it hard to believe any claim regarding the specific makeup of the planet's core, since no one has ever actually seen it or run tests on it.
Am I supposed to believe what you think I should to believe, even in the face of insufficient evidence? That's about as non-scientific as one can get, you know.
Further, if you really think that science would not 'pan out' if people treated it as a religion, you have not understood the process of science. A layer of mysticism would not impede empiricism; just ask Newton.
WTF are you talking about? Most religions operate on the assumption that they cannot be questioned; if we weren't allowed to question conventional knowledge in scientific endeavors, there would be no such thing as science. Why is that elementary concept so hard for some people to understand? Is it because I'm bringing into question one of your core beliefs?
How is it that you can't see the parallel between your attitude here, and that of religious zealots?
Now, specifically, what is it that causes you to doubt the fundamental basis of seismology?
I don't question the "fundamental basis" of anything, which you would know had you actually read and understood what I wrote, as opposed to assigning your preferred meaning to my words. What I question is the idea that we are to blindly accept what we are told is "fact," when the evidence that supports the idea that X is a fact is insufficient to make such a conclusion.
Let me try and put this in the simplest terms I can: I am a skeptic. I don't believe shit anyone tells me until I have either seen it with my own eyes, or I have been presented with enough evidence to support the theory. Period. You want to go through life thinking that the Earth's core is definitely made of molten iron, even though there is no actual empirical data to back the claim? Fine, be my guest, but don't be such a pretentious asshole as to think that your ideology is unquestionably correct, because it's not.
Good stuff, only a couple complaints about the first one:
- The insistence on claiming the core is made of iron, when there is no direct evidence to prove it as a certainty, and
- The idea that a single event which appears to confirm the theory, confirms the theory. For true confirmation, the test must be repeated and the results must be the same. Or have we already forgotten about the LHC / FTL Neutrinos debacle?
Interestingly, the Science Daily article does mention what I consider the basis for the hollow earth theory:
In the 1930s, seismologists did find a "discontinuity" in the velocity of waves propagated through the center of the Earth, suggesting some sort of stratification of the core.
The problem, for 60 years now, is that those waves never carried the signature of a solid.
Quite easy to imagine how rational people would contend the planet is hollow, considering that for 60 years, by all scientific measurement, at least part of it was.
The second link you provided was a great read, I especially liked how the writer deliberately avoided assigning definite values to topics (such as the chemical composition of the core) that we currently have no way of knowing for sure.
Civil discourse has nothing to do with not calling people out on blatant falsehoods - it's the act of doing so without being a dick about it.
How do you call someone a self-serving liar without being a dick about it?
Lol, OK, you might have me on that one...
Wanna know what's sad? As soon as I finished laughing at your question, I immediately started thinking on ways to do just that... "We refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram" doesn't really fit this situation, but something to that effect would likely be the most epic-yet-civil burn in history. Otherwise, you could always stick to the good ol' backhanded compliment: If you called them a vainglorious equivocator, they may just thank you.
As for those blinded to the obvious by their own hubris... fuck 'em, they aren't worth the energy it takes to argue with them.
But this is the vast majority of the populace. How can we function as a society when the vast majority of the populace believes in things that are plainly untrue and acts on them?
They don't. It only seems that way because the minority who does believe such nonsense are just so fucking LOUD, they seem like bigger groups than they really are.
Westboro Baptist Church (which is not too far from here, it shames me to say) membership is somewhere in the teens, but listen to them and you would think the entire state of Kansas attends.
This isn't just restrained to the topic of evolution either, the antiscientific mindset of the typical American has caused all sorts of bad policy. From the continued use of fossil fuels, to imprisoning hundreds of thousands of harmless pot smokers, to the massive undeserved subsidies given to corn, to the normalization of sexual assault at the hands of the TSA, and so on(and on, and on) deliberate ignorance promoted by short sighted greed is overwhelmingly the driving force behind our politics
You know as well as I do that those things have far more to do with greed and capitalism than anti-scientific mentality.
So, these seismometers - they can send a signal to the alleged core, and it will bounce back in such a way that we can be certain the core is X miles deep, Y miles in diameter, and made up of Z?
Yes, pretty much. Except that the signals are either earthquakes or nukes.
Really? Sounds cool! Got a link?
Here's what I found by Googling "confirm center of Earth":
Unfortunately, the article does not definitively confirm the makeup of the planet's core, as indefinites such as "probably," "proposed," and my most hated term to see in an allegedly scientific work, "must be" appear throughout. Gawd, but I hate seeing that phrase, "must be.".
Also, at some point they article claims that researchers "confirmed a prediction" about how the core functions as a massive geodynamo, but fails to provide the evidence that backs the claim. So, less a confirmation and more conjecture on the part of the author, which I maintain does nothing but make it seem like these guys are making shit up as they go along. Not the impression one would want to make on the more skeptical among us.
To reiterate, a scientist saying "Science proves it's this way" without sufficient evidence to back the proof, is no different than a Creationist saying "God says it's this way." Both statements are based on belief as opposed to fact.
Not quite. When a scientist says something, there's a certain amount of trust. Even if he shows you the data, there's a certain amount of trust that the experiment was performed as described and the data reported accurately.
I call bullshit; would you inherently trust a scientist who works for, say, AstraZeneca, when he tells you that
They don't make it easy, but that's what creates good character - remaining civil in the face of the uncivil actions of others.
I suppose you could define character that way, but then what would be the value of character? If everyone were willing to suffer fools gladly, would there be any reason not to be a fool? Aren't you encouraging this bullshit by not calling people out on it?
Civil discourse has nothing to do with not calling people out on blatant falsehoods - it's the act of doing so without being a dick about it. As for those blinded to the obvious by their own hubris... fuck 'em, they aren't worth the energy it takes to argue with them.
Also worth noting, my entire purpose of bringing up the "Hollow Earth" theory was to point out how an idea can be written off by otherwise intelligent people for no better reason than that it "sounds ridiculous," even though the explanation they do believe in typically has an equal lack of backing data.
Which is a bad example, because there's lots of backing data for the current model of the Earth. This line of argument was ill advised to begin with. Since intelligent people know what the evidence is for the things they believe, you won't be able to find such an example.
I think it's a fine example - granted, the conventional model does have a fair amount of empirical data to back it, but IMO the data is insufficient to claim that the conventional model is the only possible model. It's the difference between, "We understand it is probably this way because of the data" and "It is this way because we say so and have a small amount of data that somewhat backs it up."
To that end - have you or anyone you know ever seen the Earth's core? Taken a sample? If not, how do you know, for an absolute fact, that it's there and what it's made of?
The answer is, of course, that you don't, but rather are conjecturing based on what you do know, vis a vis seismic data.
Sure we have, we just "see" the seismic waves with a seismometer, instead of "seeing" electromagnetic waves with my retinas. Both are indirect measurements, and honestly the seismometer is more reliable.
So, these seismometers - they can send a signal to the alleged core, and it will bounce back in such a way that we can be certain the core is X miles deep, Y miles in diameter, and made up of Z?
If yes, that's awesome, and I would like to see the data myself. If not, then the conclusion is conjecture and thus invalid, by the same merit that "God did it" is an invalid argument. "We're pretty sure it's this way" != "it is this way, beyond a doubt."
In life, you will come across folks who, for whatever reasons, will refuse to see the truth, even if you pin their eyes open and force feed it to them ala A Clockwork Orange. In those cases, your best course of action is to smile, agree to disagree, and excuse yourself by telling them to genuinely have a great day.
It's really hard to do that when those people would, if unrestrained, destroy your way of life. We're not talking about a disagreement over the color of a bike shed. We're talking about people who are making decisions(e.g. voting) that could ruin the lives of millions of people if they don't carefully consider what they're doing. How is it possible to consider someone who makes that decision based on nothing but ancient fairy tales and tribalism anything but evil?
And on the chance this particular science someone believes in with a religious fervor is wrong, or flawed, or even incomplete, what would that make them?
Basing any life-altering decision on fantasy, no matter how well grounded that fantasy is in reality, is counter-productive to social growth. This applies to all sides of any argument.
To reiterate, a scientist saying "Science proves it's this way" without sufficient evidence to back the proof, is no differe
Your questions are frustrating... However, you are correct in asserting that we have little direct observation of the Earth's interior.
Precisely why I consider any claim that the inside of the planet is, beyond a doubt, made up of X as opposed to Y, to be dubious at best. Which, really, embodies the ideal of science in general - if we collectively accepted conjecture based on the credentials of the person making said conjecture, humanity would still think the Earth is flat and revolves around the sun. It is that spirit of questioning everything that has led us to the age of scientific enlightenment we enjoy today. Let's not fuck that up by reverting to our natural state of blind faith.
That does not mean we know nothing, and to equivocate a lack of direct observations and complete ignorance is intellectually dishonest, bordering on overt prevarication. That's where the 'obstinate' comment arises. Skepticism has a place in science, but it does not mean discarding observations.
Aye, but that street runs both ways, does it not? Your statement has equal validity when applied to both the conventional ideology and 'Hollow Earth' ideology.
When someone writes off 'Hollow Earth' theory, or extraterrestrial visitation, et. al., without taking the time to actually study the observations that have been made, are they not guilty of the same ignorant behavior?
Observations may be flawed, and they all carry a degree of uncertainty. They are the only facts we have, however: the only means for deriving scientific truth.
Hence my skepticism in regards to both theories.
[It should be noted that 'proof' does not exist in a scientific sense. 'Disproof' is all we have to work with. Mathematics can be proven, within the system of axioms you choose, but much depends on your choice of axioms.]
Indeed! Yet another reason for my skeptical nature.
To view the world in a scientific way, first discard the idea of absolute truth. For many people this is impossible.
Yes, thank you. The problem, of course, is that the believers in absolute truth, regardless of their ideology, are damn near impossible to reason with because of their flawed beliefs. This attitude is, sadly, prevalent on all sides of most-if-not-all discussions of science or anything else that is easily politicized.
Next is to ask, 'What can be known?'. Without entering into philosophy of science, the answer is 'empirical observations'. How may we trust observations? Practically, we carefully control the conditions of those observations, have other scientists review that work, and we repeat experiments. To discard observations is to attack the root of that entire epistemology. It is philosophically valid to have another method for finding truth; in most cases we call those 'religions'. We think we've got a pretty good thing going with this 'science' thing though: it seems to be panning out so far.
The issue I have, the point I have been trying to make, is that science doesn't 'pan out' when people start treating it like a religion, i.e. cannot be questioned. Questioning is the basis of all scientific research - if we are no longer allowed to question science, we might as well go back to living in caves.
Humans being what they are, it should not surprise you to find an emotional response to attacking anyone's method of seeking truth.
It doesn't. What is a bit surprising is how seemingly otherwise smart folks will resort to emotional arguments so quickly. My best guess is, they aren't as smart of folks as they put on.
Further, since the fruits of the scientific method are so patently obvious, then I am afraid that there are very few philosophic bases in which discarding science does not reflect upon your intelligence and sanity.
I'm fed up with the attitude in the US that there must be two positions in general on any issue.
Agreed. I've recently come to the conclusion that the 2 party system is the main reason why less than half of the U.S. population votes in general elections: The rest of us aren't extremists, so why the hell would we vote for one?
Wasn't saying they aren't technically correct, but rather was pointing out that their attitude of "well, I'm right and you're just an idiot for questioning me" makes them no better than those they criticize for engaging in similar behavior.
Besides, how you react to infuriating people speaks volumes more about your character than theirs.
I'd say someone who goes around repeating fairy tales as if they were real, and extends no effort to even consider their veracity is lacking in character as well.
Doesn't matter, or at least, shouldn't. The actions and words of others are of no consequence to the individual, how the individual reacts is all that really matters when it comes to questions of character. I deal with rude, ignorant people day in and day out, and could just as easily return their piss-poor attitudes to them... but I try to be a better person than that. They don't make it easy, but that's what creates good character - remaining civil in the face of the uncivil actions of others.
Not to say that I never engage in the lowest-common-denominator behavior of general dickishness; much to the contrary, when provoked to that point, I come as close to "Unchallenged Master of Asshole Retorts" as physically possible, but I try to be friendly and diplomatic, which I think is what really counts.
I may be rude as hell, but I don't lie to people. And if I do, I expect you to be rude as hell to me too. That's character.
That would be a poor showing of character on my part if I were to "drop to your level," so to speak. A better showing would be for me to smile, agree to disagree, and excuse myself by genuinely telling you to have a great day.
Granted, the probability that the Earth is hollow is extremely low, but as with observation, probability != proof.
No, it's zero. You can't ever prove a theory, but you can falisify it. A hollow earth is easy to falsifiy. Set off a nuke on the other side of the Earth. If the Earth were filled with vaccum, you should detect no seismic waves coming through the center of the Earth. We do detect waves, so we can absolutely, without qualification, state that the Earth is filled with matter.
That does make sense... however, without citing a source consisting of actual research that validates your statement, I fear you are doing no better than the Creationists, when they claim X happened "because God did it" without providing any empirical data to back it.
Which was a large part of my original point: calling someone an idiot because they fail to back their claims with data while simultaneously engaging in the exact same behavior is not only hypocritical, it is counter-productive and leads to less understanding and more animosity.
For the record, claiming that there is a "zero" probability without having the evidence to back that claim (and a lofty claim it is, scientifically speaking) is no different than saying "God did it."
Also worth noting, my entire purpose of bringing up the "Hollow Earth" theory was to point out how an idea can be written off by otherwise intelligent people for no better reason than that it "sounds ridiculous," even though the explanation they do believe in typically has an equal lack of backing data.
To that end - have you or anyone you know ever seen the Earth's core? Taken a sample? If not, how do you know, for an absolute fact, that it's there and what it's made of?
The answer is, of course, that you don't, but rather are conjecturing based on what you do know, vis a vis seismic data.
I think the vast majority of the populous can be quite reasonable and understanding, so long as you're not a dick about it.
The vast majority of the populace interprets any questions of their beliefs as dickish.
My question is, where does the tolerance stop? Do you think a flat earther is really going t
The difference here is that the liberals are correct.
Wasn't saying they aren't technically correct, but rather was pointing out that their attitude of "well, I'm right and you're just an idiot for questioning me" makes them no better than those they criticize for engaging in similar behavior. Plus, you know, catching flies with honey vs vinegar, et. al.
It's cute when a 6 year old asks you how you know the Earth moves around the Sun. When a well heeled, well to do, well respected adult asks you something that bespeaks a similar degree of ignorance, it's a little much to deal with politely.
Indeed it is, but being an asshole about it ensures that the person you speak with will not only maintain their incorrect belief, but also will consider anyone who posits a similar ideal as your own to be an asshole as well. I believe this is what is referred to as a 'vicious cycle.'
Besides, how you react to infuriating people speaks volumes more about your character than theirs.
While I personally have never heard of anyone digging a hole and finding the planet hollowed out, I have also never heard of anyone digging a hole and validating the crust/mantle/core model. So, being the ultimate skeptic that I am,. I refuse to write off either theory, rather tagging them as "not enough evidence for a conclusion."
Which is only due to your own ignorance and obstinance. The model of the Earth we have today is due to numerous seismic observations.
"Observations" != proof. Besides, if I am ignorant, please educate me. Otherwise, making such a statement just seems prickish... probably because it is.
If obstinance is defined (it's not, btw) as being unwilling to accept a given theory without having enough evidence to support it, merely because it is a widely accepted theory, then I guess I'm obstinant. Can't see how that would be a flaw, considering that geocentrism was the accepted theory for quite some time, even though it was completely wrong.
These seismic observations are incompatible with the that the Earth is hollow.
Please elaborate.
If it were filled with gas, or vacuum we would observe different patterns of refraction of seismic waves.
Assuming the sensing equipment can reach down that far. Perhaps the crust is thicker than we think?
How deep into the planet can said seismologic equipment "see?" Unless the answer is "to the geometric center," or at least damn near, then their readings prove nothing. Indicate, perhaps, but indication != proof.
Granted, the probability that the Earth is hollow is extremely low, but as with observation, probability != proof.
To me, that's the real problem - most people seem unable or unwilling to accept that their personal philosophy may be incorrect, and that the truth is likely somewhere in between.
Personally, I love being proven wrong. That's the best way to grow. Every time I'm proven wrong I improve as a person, knowing more than I did the day before.
Agreed, which goes along with my basic premise - calling someone a crazy idiot because they hold an incorrect or disagreeable belief doesn't help them or you in any way - rather, it cements them in their incorrect or disagreeable belief, and makes you look like an asshole. Granted, there are surely those out there who will stubbornly defend incorrect information regardless of how you come across to them (Glenn Beck comes immediately to mind), but I think the vast majority of the populous can be quite reasonable and understanding, so long as you're not a dick about it.
Given a choice between outlawing guns and having a sensitive listening device on every street corner that can listen in on conversations like Big Brother, I'd prefer to outlaw guns.
Outlawing guns will only serve to guarantee that there will be listening devices on every corner - and in your house, workplace, transportation, and anywhere else BB wants to watch you.
Do you not realize why we have a guaranteed right (and some will go so far to say, duty) to keep and bear arms in this country? Hint: it has nothing to do with gathering food.
Incorrect - evolution (or adaptation, as it is also commonly referred as) occurs because of changes in the biome in which an organism lives. As the number one goal of all life is to continue living (procreation being a close #2), it is not an unreasonable proposition that the genetics of living things are programmed to allow for changes and 'upgrades' to the design of said living things to account for alterations in biome conditions.
Put quite simply, the "why" of evolution is that living change to survive changes in the world around us. That by no means proves or disproves the existence of a higher power, but rather is a statement of fact.
I am reminded of this Salon article talking about how social conservatives basically assign a lot of emotion and identity to their belief. They think it is rude if others challenge their beliefs, yet they desire to push their beliefs on everyone else. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/
Sadly, that attitude is not limited to Southern Baptist creationists, but actually tends to be shared with those accepting of mainstream science as well; In fact, I would go so far as to say that emotional arguments make up the vast majority of opinions from all sides in most politicized debates. One has to go no further than this page to see that "liberal"* thinkers are just as guilty of dickishly writing off ideals that counter their beliefs as others, as if what they believe is unquestionable fact. If you really pay attention, you'll notice that a person doesn't necessarily have to support the idea of creationism to be subjected to verbal abuse; merely offering any opinion that counters the accepted mainstream ideology is enough to be written off as a crackpot, tin-foil hatted looney who has no regard for scientific evidence.
The irony, of course, is that the people who make such assertions normally do so without regard to the fact there's no scientific evidence to the contrary: For example, I noticed an earlier comment critical of people who believe in the "hollow Earth" theory. I assume this though process comes from the accepted Terran model of crust/mantle/core being unquestionable in its reality. While I personally have never heard of anyone digging a hole and finding the planet hollowed out, I have also never heard of anyone digging a hole and validating the crust/mantle/core model. So, being the ultimate skeptic that I am,. I refuse to write off either theory, rather tagging them as "not enough evidence for a conclusion." This mentality of requiring actual evidence as opposed to assumed evidence tends to make me an unpopular fellow with both camps, as it seems everyone wants everyone else to accept their word as gospel without question.
To me, that's the real problem - most people seem unable or unwilling to accept that their personal philosophy may be incorrect, and that the truth is likely somewhere in between. These sort of idiotic, emotion-fueled 'debates' will continue until opposing camps learn to either agree to disagree and move on, or work together to form a general consensus that is acceptable to most.
I'm guessing the time-frame on that is close to 'never.'
* - Surely I can't be the only one fed up with these stupid "conservative" v "liberal" labels. First off, who the hell decided to change the meaning of those terms to indicate political beliefs? And where does this idea that a person has to be one or the other come from? C'mon, everyone, as a species we're pretty damn smart animals, how about we use these wonderfully complex minds we were gifted with to have intelligent, well-reasoned debate, instead of pasting bullshit labels on one another so we can pretend that person's opinion doesn't count?
Bullshit.
I've been working from home for a while and it's very relaxing. You can dress very, VERY casually, for example. I attended many a meetings while sitting butt-naked in a cozy chair. You can have a beer or whatever (I don't drink alcohol, though), you can pet the cat (I do) and so on and so forth.
While you probably make many excellent points, I only managed to read so far as the part about being butt-nekkid, rubbin' pussy all day...
Um. No. My phone works just fine. I also disconnected the line which should have terminated the call immediate, but the scammer was still talking when I reconnected the line. (I figure they were using some override built into the POTS.)
...Which is precisely why man invented the airhorn.
Next time those bastards grab your line and won't let go, give them a really, really fucking loud reason to.
This shit is stupid (not the preservation of historic achievement part, rather the cries of nationalism).
Do we (humans) really think that the brave folks who will, eventually, risk life and limb to establish human settlements off-world will give a single fuck about Earthbound politics? Yea, 'cause, you know, when the lives of every colonist depend on things like functioning oxygen scrubbers, they're really going to care what the politicians of Nations X and Y have to say about each other.
I posit that future spacemen will have no nationality, but rather an allegiance to their colony - as it should be. Allowing Terran politics to influence space exploration and colonization is a sure-fire way to ensure that it will never be a successful endeavor.
Politicians - fucking up otherwise brilliant ideas since 2000 BCE.
OK, so maybe it won't fit your particular application, but I have in the past built my own multitouch table using an old LCD monitor, a couple of USB webcams, some clear acrylic, and a bit of hacker ingenuity.
If you are tempted to go the DIY route, Community Core Vision a good place to start.
Where I live, it very much does - the state Supreme Court, just last year, handed down a ruling that a traffic violation is tied to the person who committed it, not the vehicle it was committed in, and thus pretty much invalidated most if not all red light cameras in the state. Makes sense, since inanimate objects are, by definition, incapable of criminal activity of their own volition. Not to mention the due process violations that occur with mailing citations to property owners.
If you live someplace where the law believes your stuff can commit crimes (and thus, blame you because it's your stuff), that really sucks for you. I mean that honestly, no/sarc intended.
The red light camera cases have established that the owner of the car is responsible for the conduct of whoever they loan the car to. This is just an extension of the court cases that allowed the owner of a gun be charged as an accomplice in a crime where the gun was used.
So, if someone steals your car/gun, and uses it to commit a crime, you get punished too? That's bullshit, man.
Did top-level BNBN execs share insider details with Bigs that they withheld from Smalls like yourself? If so, you should have sued, it would have been perfectly legitimate. Insider trading is a crime.
If not, then what happened to you and what's happening now are two completely different circumstances... unless I'm reading the plaintiff's complaint incorrectly? From TFA:
The plaintiffs charge that the changes to the forecast by several underwriters of the IPO were only "selectively disclosed" to a small group of preferred investors and not to the investment community at large.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, if you're going to consistently (and likely, intentionally) misinterpret every single thing I say, I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
You're still ignoring the observations we have made of the Earth's interior, and presenting no evidence of a Hollow Earth.
Oh, did I state that I supported one theory over the other? Or did I say that "I consider any claim that the inside of the planet is, beyond a doubt, made up of X as opposed to Y, to be dubious at best?"
Funny how people tend to see what they want in the words of others, as opposed to what was actually said. Maybe you can do a study on that?
Your skepticism is not scientific but blindly partisan.
Disbelieving statements that lack the empirical data to prove their validity is "blindly partisan?" On what planet?
It does not require an act of faith to examine the evidence for our knowledge of the interior of the Earth, in point of fact it does not rely on anything more than an elementary education.
Right, which is why I find it hard to believe any claim regarding the specific makeup of the planet's core, since no one has ever actually seen it or run tests on it.
Am I supposed to believe what you think I should to believe, even in the face of insufficient evidence? That's about as non-scientific as one can get, you know.
Further, if you really think that science would not 'pan out' if people treated it as a religion, you have not understood the process of science. A layer of mysticism would not impede empiricism; just ask Newton.
WTF are you talking about? Most religions operate on the assumption that they cannot be questioned; if we weren't allowed to question conventional knowledge in scientific endeavors, there would be no such thing as science. Why is that elementary concept so hard for some people to understand? Is it because I'm bringing into question one of your core beliefs?
How is it that you can't see the parallel between your attitude here, and that of religious zealots?
Now, specifically, what is it that causes you to doubt the fundamental basis of seismology?
I don't question the "fundamental basis" of anything, which you would know had you actually read and understood what I wrote, as opposed to assigning your preferred meaning to my words. What I question is the idea that we are to blindly accept what we are told is "fact," when the evidence that supports the idea that X is a fact is insufficient to make such a conclusion.
Let me try and put this in the simplest terms I can: I am a skeptic. I don't believe shit anyone tells me until I have either seen it with my own eyes, or I have been presented with enough evidence to support the theory. Period. You want to go through life thinking that the Earth's core is definitely made of molten iron, even though there is no actual empirical data to back the claim? Fine, be my guest, but don't be such a pretentious asshole as to think that your ideology is unquestionably correct, because it's not.
How do you get yourself into a state where you have 40 dead a weekend and consider it a normal week?
Well, for starters, that didn't happen, so.. yea.
Let this be a lesson to you regarding jumping to conclusions based on un-cited (and thus, likely false) statements.
- The insistence on claiming the core is made of iron, when there is no direct evidence to prove it as a certainty, and
- The idea that a single event which appears to confirm the theory, confirms the theory. For true confirmation, the test must be repeated and the results must be the same. Or have we already forgotten about the LHC / FTL Neutrinos debacle?
Interestingly, the Science Daily article does mention what I consider the basis for the hollow earth theory:
In the 1930s, seismologists did find a "discontinuity" in the velocity of waves propagated through the center of the Earth, suggesting some sort of stratification of the core.
The problem, for 60 years now, is that those waves never carried the signature of a solid.
Quite easy to imagine how rational people would contend the planet is hollow, considering that for 60 years, by all scientific measurement, at least part of it was.
The second link you provided was a great read, I especially liked how the writer deliberately avoided assigning definite values to topics (such as the chemical composition of the core) that we currently have no way of knowing for sure.
Civil discourse has nothing to do with not calling people out on blatant falsehoods - it's the act of doing so without being a dick about it.
How do you call someone a self-serving liar without being a dick about it?
Lol, OK, you might have me on that one...
Wanna know what's sad? As soon as I finished laughing at your question, I immediately started thinking on ways to do just that... "We refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram" doesn't really fit this situation, but something to that effect would likely be the most epic-yet-civil burn in history. Otherwise, you could always stick to the good ol' backhanded compliment: If you called them a vainglorious equivocator, they may just thank you.
As for those blinded to the obvious by their own hubris... fuck 'em, they aren't worth the energy it takes to argue with them.
But this is the vast majority of the populace. How can we function as a society when the vast majority of the populace believes in things that are plainly untrue and acts on them?
They don't. It only seems that way because the minority who does believe such nonsense are just so fucking LOUD, they seem like bigger groups than they really are.
Westboro Baptist Church (which is not too far from here, it shames me to say) membership is somewhere in the teens, but listen to them and you would think the entire state of Kansas attends.
This isn't just restrained to the topic of evolution either, the antiscientific mindset of the typical American has caused all sorts of bad policy. From the continued use of fossil fuels, to imprisoning hundreds of thousands of harmless pot smokers, to the massive undeserved subsidies given to corn, to the normalization of sexual assault at the hands of the TSA, and so on(and on, and on) deliberate ignorance promoted by short sighted greed is overwhelmingly the driving force behind our politics
You know as well as I do that those things have far more to do with greed and capitalism than anti-scientific mentality.
So, these seismometers - they can send a signal to the alleged core, and it will bounce back in such a way that we can be certain the core is X miles deep, Y miles in diameter, and made up of Z?
Yes, pretty much. Except that the signals are either earthquakes or nukes.
Really? Sounds cool! Got a link?
Here's what I found by Googling "confirm center of Earth":
http://geology.about.com/od/core/a/about_the_core.htm
Unfortunately, the article does not definitively confirm the makeup of the planet's core, as indefinites such as "probably," "proposed," and my most hated term to see in an allegedly scientific work, "must be" appear throughout. Gawd, but I hate seeing that phrase, "must be.".
Also, at some point they article claims that researchers "confirmed a prediction" about how the core functions as a massive geodynamo, but fails to provide the evidence that backs the claim. So, less a confirmation and more conjecture on the part of the author, which I maintain does nothing but make it seem like these guys are making shit up as they go along. Not the impression one would want to make on the more skeptical among us.
To reiterate, a scientist saying "Science proves it's this way" without sufficient evidence to back the proof, is no different than a Creationist saying "God says it's this way." Both statements are based on belief as opposed to fact.
Not quite. When a scientist says something, there's a certain amount of trust. Even if he shows you the data, there's a certain amount of trust that the experiment was performed as described and the data reported accurately.
I call bullshit; would you inherently trust a scientist who works for, say, AstraZeneca, when he tells you that
They don't make it easy, but that's what creates good character - remaining civil in the face of the uncivil actions of others.
I suppose you could define character that way, but then what would be the value of character? If everyone were willing to suffer fools gladly, would there be any reason not to be a fool? Aren't you encouraging this bullshit by not calling people out on it?
Civil discourse has nothing to do with not calling people out on blatant falsehoods - it's the act of doing so without being a dick about it. As for those blinded to the obvious by their own hubris... fuck 'em, they aren't worth the energy it takes to argue with them.
Also worth noting, my entire purpose of bringing up the "Hollow Earth" theory was to point out how an idea can be written off by otherwise intelligent people for no better reason than that it "sounds ridiculous," even though the explanation they do believe in typically has an equal lack of backing data.
Which is a bad example, because there's lots of backing data for the current model of the Earth. This line of argument was ill advised to begin with. Since intelligent people know what the evidence is for the things they believe, you won't be able to find such an example.
I think it's a fine example - granted, the conventional model does have a fair amount of empirical data to back it, but IMO the data is insufficient to claim that the conventional model is the only possible model. It's the difference between, "We understand it is probably this way because of the data" and "It is this way because we say so and have a small amount of data that somewhat backs it up."
To that end - have you or anyone you know ever seen the Earth's core? Taken a sample? If not, how do you know, for an absolute fact, that it's there and what it's made of?
The answer is, of course, that you don't, but rather are conjecturing based on what you do know, vis a vis seismic data.
Sure we have, we just "see" the seismic waves with a seismometer, instead of "seeing" electromagnetic waves with my retinas. Both are indirect measurements, and honestly the seismometer is more reliable.
So, these seismometers - they can send a signal to the alleged core, and it will bounce back in such a way that we can be certain the core is X miles deep, Y miles in diameter, and made up of Z?
If yes, that's awesome, and I would like to see the data myself. If not, then the conclusion is conjecture and thus invalid, by the same merit that "God did it" is an invalid argument. "We're pretty sure it's this way" != "it is this way, beyond a doubt."
In life, you will come across folks who, for whatever reasons, will refuse to see the truth, even if you pin their eyes open and force feed it to them ala A Clockwork Orange. In those cases, your best course of action is to smile, agree to disagree, and excuse yourself by telling them to genuinely have a great day.
It's really hard to do that when those people would, if unrestrained, destroy your way of life. We're not talking about a disagreement over the color of a bike shed. We're talking about people who are making decisions(e.g. voting) that could ruin the lives of millions of people if they don't carefully consider what they're doing. How is it possible to consider someone who makes that decision based on nothing but ancient fairy tales and tribalism anything but evil?
And on the chance this particular science someone believes in with a religious fervor is wrong, or flawed, or even incomplete, what would that make them?
Basing any life-altering decision on fantasy, no matter how well grounded that fantasy is in reality, is counter-productive to social growth. This applies to all sides of any argument.
To reiterate, a scientist saying "Science proves it's this way" without sufficient evidence to back the proof, is no differe
Your questions are frustrating... However, you are correct in asserting that we have little direct observation of the Earth's interior.
Precisely why I consider any claim that the inside of the planet is, beyond a doubt, made up of X as opposed to Y, to be dubious at best. Which, really, embodies the ideal of science in general - if we collectively accepted conjecture based on the credentials of the person making said conjecture, humanity would still think the Earth is flat and revolves around the sun. It is that spirit of questioning everything that has led us to the age of scientific enlightenment we enjoy today. Let's not fuck that up by reverting to our natural state of blind faith.
That does not mean we know nothing, and to equivocate a lack of direct observations and complete ignorance is intellectually dishonest, bordering on overt prevarication. That's where the 'obstinate' comment arises. Skepticism has a place in science, but it does not mean discarding observations.
Aye, but that street runs both ways, does it not? Your statement has equal validity when applied to both the conventional ideology and 'Hollow Earth' ideology.
When someone writes off 'Hollow Earth' theory, or extraterrestrial visitation, et. al., without taking the time to actually study the observations that have been made, are they not guilty of the same ignorant behavior?
Observations may be flawed, and they all carry a degree of uncertainty. They are the only facts we have, however: the only means for deriving scientific truth.
Hence my skepticism in regards to both theories.
[It should be noted that 'proof' does not exist in a scientific sense. 'Disproof' is all we have to work with. Mathematics can be proven, within the system of axioms you choose, but much depends on your choice of axioms.]
Indeed! Yet another reason for my skeptical nature.
To view the world in a scientific way, first discard the idea of absolute truth. For many people this is impossible.
Yes, thank you. The problem, of course, is that the believers in absolute truth, regardless of their ideology, are damn near impossible to reason with because of their flawed beliefs. This attitude is, sadly, prevalent on all sides of most-if-not-all discussions of science or anything else that is easily politicized.
Next is to ask, 'What can be known?'. Without entering into philosophy of science, the answer is 'empirical observations'. How may we trust observations? Practically, we carefully control the conditions of those observations, have other scientists review that work, and we repeat experiments. To discard observations is to attack the root of that entire epistemology. It is philosophically valid to have another method for finding truth; in most cases we call those 'religions'. We think we've got a pretty good thing going with this 'science' thing though: it seems to be panning out so far.
The issue I have, the point I have been trying to make, is that science doesn't 'pan out' when people start treating it like a religion, i.e. cannot be questioned. Questioning is the basis of all scientific research - if we are no longer allowed to question science, we might as well go back to living in caves.
Humans being what they are, it should not surprise you to find an emotional response to attacking anyone's method of seeking truth.
It doesn't. What is a bit surprising is how seemingly otherwise smart folks will resort to emotional arguments so quickly. My best guess is, they aren't as smart of folks as they put on.
Further, since the fruits of the scientific method are so patently obvious, then I am afraid that there are very few philosophic bases in which discarding science does not reflect upon your intelligence and sanity.
That's
I'm fed up with the attitude in the US that there must be two positions in general on any issue.
Agreed. I've recently come to the conclusion that the 2 party system is the main reason why less than half of the U.S. population votes in general elections: The rest of us aren't extremists, so why the hell would we vote for one?
Wasn't saying they aren't technically correct, but rather was pointing out that their attitude of "well, I'm right and you're just an idiot for questioning me" makes them no better than those they criticize for engaging in similar behavior.
Besides, how you react to infuriating people speaks volumes more about your character than theirs.
I'd say someone who goes around repeating fairy tales as if they were real, and extends no effort to even consider their veracity is lacking in character as well.
Doesn't matter, or at least, shouldn't. The actions and words of others are of no consequence to the individual, how the individual reacts is all that really matters when it comes to questions of character. I deal with rude, ignorant people day in and day out, and could just as easily return their piss-poor attitudes to them... but I try to be a better person than that. They don't make it easy, but that's what creates good character - remaining civil in the face of the uncivil actions of others.
Not to say that I never engage in the lowest-common-denominator behavior of general dickishness; much to the contrary, when provoked to that point, I come as close to "Unchallenged Master of Asshole Retorts" as physically possible, but I try to be friendly and diplomatic, which I think is what really counts.
I may be rude as hell, but I don't lie to people. And if I do, I expect you to be rude as hell to me too. That's character.
That would be a poor showing of character on my part if I were to "drop to your level," so to speak. A better showing would be for me to smile, agree to disagree, and excuse myself by genuinely telling you to have a great day.
Granted, the probability that the Earth is hollow is extremely low, but as with observation, probability != proof.
No, it's zero. You can't ever prove a theory, but you can falisify it. A hollow earth is easy to falsifiy. Set off a nuke on the other side of the Earth. If the Earth were filled with vaccum, you should detect no seismic waves coming through the center of the Earth. We do detect waves, so we can absolutely, without qualification, state that the Earth is filled with matter.
That does make sense... however, without citing a source consisting of actual research that validates your statement, I fear you are doing no better than the Creationists, when they claim X happened "because God did it" without providing any empirical data to back it.
Which was a large part of my original point: calling someone an idiot because they fail to back their claims with data while simultaneously engaging in the exact same behavior is not only hypocritical, it is counter-productive and leads to less understanding and more animosity.
For the record, claiming that there is a "zero" probability without having the evidence to back that claim (and a lofty claim it is, scientifically speaking) is no different than saying "God did it."
Also worth noting, my entire purpose of bringing up the "Hollow Earth" theory was to point out how an idea can be written off by otherwise intelligent people for no better reason than that it "sounds ridiculous," even though the explanation they do believe in typically has an equal lack of backing data.
To that end - have you or anyone you know ever seen the Earth's core? Taken a sample? If not, how do you know, for an absolute fact, that it's there and what it's made of?
The answer is, of course, that you don't, but rather are conjecturing based on what you do know, vis a vis seismic data.
I think the vast majority of the populous can be quite reasonable and understanding, so long as you're not a dick about it.
The vast majority of the populace interprets any questions of their beliefs as dickish.
My question is, where does the tolerance stop? Do you think a flat earther is really going t
The difference here is that the liberals are correct.
Wasn't saying they aren't technically correct, but rather was pointing out that their attitude of "well, I'm right and you're just an idiot for questioning me" makes them no better than those they criticize for engaging in similar behavior. Plus, you know, catching flies with honey vs vinegar, et. al.
It's cute when a 6 year old asks you how you know the Earth moves around the Sun. When a well heeled, well to do, well respected adult asks you something that bespeaks a similar degree of ignorance, it's a little much to deal with politely.
Indeed it is, but being an asshole about it ensures that the person you speak with will not only maintain their incorrect belief, but also will consider anyone who posits a similar ideal as your own to be an asshole as well. I believe this is what is referred to as a 'vicious cycle.'
Besides, how you react to infuriating people speaks volumes more about your character than theirs.
While I personally have never heard of anyone digging a hole and finding the planet hollowed out, I have also never heard of anyone digging a hole and validating the crust/mantle/core model. So, being the ultimate skeptic that I am,. I refuse to write off either theory, rather tagging them as "not enough evidence for a conclusion."
Which is only due to your own ignorance and obstinance. The model of the Earth we have today is due to numerous seismic observations.
Obligatory XKCD
"Observations" != proof. Besides, if I am ignorant, please educate me. Otherwise, making such a statement just seems prickish... probably because it is.
If obstinance is defined (it's not, btw) as being unwilling to accept a given theory without having enough evidence to support it, merely because it is a widely accepted theory, then I guess I'm obstinant. Can't see how that would be a flaw, considering that geocentrism was the accepted theory for quite some time, even though it was completely wrong.
These seismic observations are incompatible with the that the Earth is hollow.
Please elaborate.
If it were filled with gas, or vacuum we would observe different patterns of refraction of seismic waves.
Assuming the sensing equipment can reach down that far. Perhaps the crust is thicker than we think?
How deep into the planet can said seismologic equipment "see?" Unless the answer is "to the geometric center," or at least damn near, then their readings prove nothing. Indicate, perhaps, but indication != proof.
Granted, the probability that the Earth is hollow is extremely low, but as with observation, probability != proof.
To me, that's the real problem - most people seem unable or unwilling to accept that their personal philosophy may be incorrect, and that the truth is likely somewhere in between.
Personally, I love being proven wrong. That's the best way to grow. Every time I'm proven wrong I improve as a person, knowing more than I did the day before.
Agreed, which goes along with my basic premise - calling someone a crazy idiot because they hold an incorrect or disagreeable belief doesn't help them or you in any way - rather, it cements them in their incorrect or disagreeable belief, and makes you look like an asshole. Granted, there are surely those out there who will stubbornly defend incorrect information regardless of how you come across to them (Glenn Beck comes immediately to mind), but I think the vast majority of the populous can be quite reasonable and understanding, so long as you're not a dick about it.
Given a choice between outlawing guns and having a sensitive listening device on every street corner that can listen in on conversations like Big Brother, I'd prefer to outlaw guns.
Outlawing guns will only serve to guarantee that there will be listening devices on every corner - and in your house, workplace, transportation, and anywhere else BB wants to watch you.
Do you not realize why we have a guaranteed right (and some will go so far to say, duty) to keep and bear arms in this country? Hint: it has nothing to do with gathering food.
Why does this happen? We will never know.
Incorrect - evolution (or adaptation, as it is also commonly referred as) occurs because of changes in the biome in which an organism lives. As the number one goal of all life is to continue living (procreation being a close #2), it is not an unreasonable proposition that the genetics of living things are programmed to allow for changes and 'upgrades' to the design of said living things to account for alterations in biome conditions.
Put quite simply, the "why" of evolution is that living change to survive changes in the world around us. That by no means proves or disproves the existence of a higher power, but rather is a statement of fact.
I am reminded of this Salon article talking about how social conservatives basically assign a lot of emotion and identity to their belief. They think it is rude if others challenge their beliefs, yet they desire to push their beliefs on everyone else. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/
Sadly, that attitude is not limited to Southern Baptist creationists, but actually tends to be shared with those accepting of mainstream science as well; In fact, I would go so far as to say that emotional arguments make up the vast majority of opinions from all sides in most politicized debates. One has to go no further than this page to see that "liberal"* thinkers are just as guilty of dickishly writing off ideals that counter their beliefs as others, as if what they believe is unquestionable fact. If you really pay attention, you'll notice that a person doesn't necessarily have to support the idea of creationism to be subjected to verbal abuse; merely offering any opinion that counters the accepted mainstream ideology is enough to be written off as a crackpot, tin-foil hatted looney who has no regard for scientific evidence.
The irony, of course, is that the people who make such assertions normally do so without regard to the fact there's no scientific evidence to the contrary: For example, I noticed an earlier comment critical of people who believe in the "hollow Earth" theory. I assume this though process comes from the accepted Terran model of crust/mantle/core being unquestionable in its reality. While I personally have never heard of anyone digging a hole and finding the planet hollowed out, I have also never heard of anyone digging a hole and validating the crust/mantle/core model. So, being the ultimate skeptic that I am,. I refuse to write off either theory, rather tagging them as "not enough evidence for a conclusion." This mentality of requiring actual evidence as opposed to assumed evidence tends to make me an unpopular fellow with both camps, as it seems everyone wants everyone else to accept their word as gospel without question.
To me, that's the real problem - most people seem unable or unwilling to accept that their personal philosophy may be incorrect, and that the truth is likely somewhere in between. These sort of idiotic, emotion-fueled 'debates' will continue until opposing camps learn to either agree to disagree and move on, or work together to form a general consensus that is acceptable to most.
I'm guessing the time-frame on that is close to 'never.'
* - Surely I can't be the only one fed up with these stupid "conservative" v "liberal" labels. First off, who the hell decided to change the meaning of those terms to indicate political beliefs? And where does this idea that a person has to be one or the other come from? C'mon, everyone, as a species we're pretty damn smart animals, how about we use these wonderfully complex minds we were gifted with to have intelligent, well-reasoned debate, instead of pasting bullshit labels on one another so we can pretend that person's opinion doesn't count?
Reporter: "How many people work in your company?"
CEO: "Oh, about half."
Yea, the numbers got a little better after we made the floggings mandatory...
Bullshit. I've been working from home for a while and it's very relaxing. You can dress very, VERY casually, for example. I attended many a meetings while sitting butt-naked in a cozy chair. You can have a beer or whatever (I don't drink alcohol, though), you can pet the cat (I do) and so on and so forth.
While you probably make many excellent points, I only managed to read so far as the part about being butt-nekkid, rubbin' pussy all day...
Hell yea! Where do I sign up??
Um. No. My phone works just fine. I also disconnected the line which should have terminated the call immediate, but the scammer was still talking when I reconnected the line. (I figure they were using some override built into the POTS.)
...Which is precisely why man invented the airhorn.
Next time those bastards grab your line and won't let go, give them a really, really fucking loud reason to.
So they're exactly like Norton, McAfee, and CA?
How did this get modded 'Funny?'
That shit ain't funny, it's fucking Insightful.
After all I have read about this "class" of people, I can reach no other conclusion. Same goes for the politicians hired-hands... the bureaucrats.
You are under the illusion that there are people who are not scumbags. How quaint.
Just because you and everyone you know is a scumbag, doesn't mean we all are.
This shit is stupid (not the preservation of historic achievement part, rather the cries of nationalism).
Do we (humans) really think that the brave folks who will, eventually, risk life and limb to establish human settlements off-world will give a single fuck about Earthbound politics? Yea, 'cause, you know, when the lives of every colonist depend on things like functioning oxygen scrubbers, they're really going to care what the politicians of Nations X and Y have to say about each other.
I posit that future spacemen will have no nationality, but rather an allegiance to their colony - as it should be. Allowing Terran politics to influence space exploration and colonization is a sure-fire way to ensure that it will never be a successful endeavor.
Politicians - fucking up otherwise brilliant ideas since 2000 BCE.
Anyone else think it's pretty cool that we've reached a point in history...
We haven't. This is merely a case of wishful thinking and pre-emptive ass-covering.
OK, so maybe it won't fit your particular application, but I have in the past built my own multitouch table using an old LCD monitor, a couple of USB webcams, some clear acrylic, and a bit of hacker ingenuity.
If you are tempted to go the DIY route, Community Core Vision a good place to start.
Happeh hacking!
It's pretty clear that the large CAs are more interesting in leveraging their status to make money than actually proving a secure service..
At some point you must reconcile that with a commercial company, the bottom line is more important than everything else.
FTFY
Doesn't matter.
Where I live, it very much does - the state Supreme Court, just last year, handed down a ruling that a traffic violation is tied to the person who committed it, not the vehicle it was committed in, and thus pretty much invalidated most if not all red light cameras in the state. Makes sense, since inanimate objects are, by definition, incapable of criminal activity of their own volition. Not to mention the due process violations that occur with mailing citations to property owners.
/sarc intended.
If you live someplace where the law believes your stuff can commit crimes (and thus, blame you because it's your stuff), that really sucks for you. I mean that honestly, no
The red light camera cases have established that the owner of the car is responsible for the conduct of whoever they loan the car to. This is just an extension of the court cases that allowed the owner of a gun be charged as an accomplice in a crime where the gun was used.
So, if someone steals your car/gun, and uses it to commit a crime, you get punished too? That's bullshit, man.
If not, then what happened to you and what's happening now are two completely different circumstances... unless I'm reading the plaintiff's complaint incorrectly? From TFA:
If you think it's just Republicans, you're an ignorant fool.