ChatterBank1 min ago
Cherry Picking.
29 Answers
There seems to be a common approach to people's views which involves starting off with a prejudged viewpoint, then citing scripture or science to support that viewpoint. The bible, the Koran, various scientific views, are combed to find something to support the prejudgement.
Heaven, Hell, Global warming, are recent AB topics, and all arguments rely on 'authority'.
But, picking the cherries out of the cake to make a lovely gobful is an awful way to go about seeking the truth.
Why for example do people entrust their lives to scientists and engineers when they want to fly off on holiday or get their hearts operated on, but distrust scientists when they are told difficult things like use less energy, try to care for the planet's natural resources?
Heaven, Hell, Global warming, are recent AB topics, and all arguments rely on 'authority'.
But, picking the cherries out of the cake to make a lovely gobful is an awful way to go about seeking the truth.
Why for example do people entrust their lives to scientists and engineers when they want to fly off on holiday or get their hearts operated on, but distrust scientists when they are told difficult things like use less energy, try to care for the planet's natural resources?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Science has a habit of relegating that which it either doesn’t understand, or which it won't consider because pre-conceived concepts //
some are deemed too difficult - concepts. Incredibly Newton looked at vortices ( more than one vortex or sucky thing) and turbulent flow ( also called non-newtonian - geddit) but cdnt make progress. He got the speed of sound right in a metal correct ( this is 1690 mind), but got it wrong in air - because he used the latest equation - Boyles Law ( also 1690) and not adiabatic expansion ( yikes, 1854 - strikes me as late). Newton thought light wasnt wave but liddle particles ( photons, oops a bit ahead of his time innit)
Hagen Poiseuille looked at flow in vessels and got it right for a lorra lorra fluids except blood - which was kinda sad as they were using blood (non-Newtonian - see above)
Jim is looking at post-modern theoretical (subatomic) physics ( ever such weeny fings) . One of my contemporaries said ( around 1975) said - "by the seventies, the classical subatomic model was obviously wrong". He gave up physics after his PhD
Chadwick -Bohr model of the atom ( oo-er mrs!) Nucleus as sun and electron as planet worked OK for hydrogen and helium. BUT if an electron travels in a circle, then it MUST emit radiation, lose energy and collapse into the nucleus. - oops! ( Chadwick: they showed no interest at all in our theory)
Louis de Broglie ( Broy in case you were wondering) unified ( said they were the same) wave and particles. Solvay conference 1927, I think. He was obviously right ( apparently) but his model of a surfer on a wave was obviously wrong. The surfer showed there was a centre to the wave and the whole point of the wave was..... there was no centre.
so what was the great initial thought?
we should re examine science continuously
yup I w'll sign up to that
oo - late entry: Lavoisier heard Franklin's experiments on phlogiston which F cdnt process ( really didnt make sense ) L repeated the experiments and then said ( in French) " Hi everybody, look I have just discovered oxygen !"
some are deemed too difficult - concepts. Incredibly Newton looked at vortices ( more than one vortex or sucky thing) and turbulent flow ( also called non-newtonian - geddit) but cdnt make progress. He got the speed of sound right in a metal correct ( this is 1690 mind), but got it wrong in air - because he used the latest equation - Boyles Law ( also 1690) and not adiabatic expansion ( yikes, 1854 - strikes me as late). Newton thought light wasnt wave but liddle particles ( photons, oops a bit ahead of his time innit)
Hagen Poiseuille looked at flow in vessels and got it right for a lorra lorra fluids except blood - which was kinda sad as they were using blood (non-Newtonian - see above)
Jim is looking at post-modern theoretical (subatomic) physics ( ever such weeny fings) . One of my contemporaries said ( around 1975) said - "by the seventies, the classical subatomic model was obviously wrong". He gave up physics after his PhD
Chadwick -Bohr model of the atom ( oo-er mrs!) Nucleus as sun and electron as planet worked OK for hydrogen and helium. BUT if an electron travels in a circle, then it MUST emit radiation, lose energy and collapse into the nucleus. - oops! ( Chadwick: they showed no interest at all in our theory)
Louis de Broglie ( Broy in case you were wondering) unified ( said they were the same) wave and particles. Solvay conference 1927, I think. He was obviously right ( apparently) but his model of a surfer on a wave was obviously wrong. The surfer showed there was a centre to the wave and the whole point of the wave was..... there was no centre.
so what was the great initial thought?
we should re examine science continuously
yup I w'll sign up to that
oo - late entry: Lavoisier heard Franklin's experiments on phlogiston which F cdnt process ( really didnt make sense ) L repeated the experiments and then said ( in French) " Hi everybody, look I have just discovered oxygen !"
PP //He got the speed of sound right in a metal correct ( this is 1690 mind), but got it wrong in air - because he used the latest equation - Boyles Law......//
and we still don't know the speed of light, all we have is the latest measurement which could still be refined as it has been many times before, (the earliest experiments were by two men & a lamp on 2 mountains - but don't ask how that was supposed to work :0)
The fact is that one cannot actually prove anything to be true. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.
and we still don't know the speed of light, all we have is the latest measurement which could still be refined as it has been many times before, (the earliest experiments were by two men & a lamp on 2 mountains - but don't ask how that was supposed to work :0)
The fact is that one cannot actually prove anything to be true. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.
//Why for example do people entrust their lives to scientists and engineers when they want to fly off on holiday or get their hearts operated on, but distrust scientists when they are told difficult things like use less energy, try to care for the planet's natural resources?//
Because they want to go on holiday and be made well but most of them are not particularly fussed about using less energy and see no point in caring for the planet's natural resources because, like most animals, they see them as there to be used.
//Unclear! 1 apple plus 1 elephant = 2 what?//
Two items. Or probably only one because the elephant would more than likely eat the apple. :-)
Because they want to go on holiday and be made well but most of them are not particularly fussed about using less energy and see no point in caring for the planet's natural resources because, like most animals, they see them as there to be used.
//Unclear! 1 apple plus 1 elephant = 2 what?//
Two items. Or probably only one because the elephant would more than likely eat the apple. :-)
Atheist, I hope you got some insight from the replies.
I have watched many threads and you seem a good faith actor.
Self image, self worth and the core of how we see our own personal mental image can obviously bias us all.
If people entered debates with a desire to learn ( a student) rather than reinforce their pre-existing views (a teacher), we might ALL learn and develop.
I have watched many threads and you seem a good faith actor.
Self image, self worth and the core of how we see our own personal mental image can obviously bias us all.
If people entered debates with a desire to learn ( a student) rather than reinforce their pre-existing views (a teacher), we might ALL learn and develop.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Travel14 mins ago
News26 mins ago
Ramblers Walk Magazine Crossword
Crosswords31 mins ago
You Lucky Peeps Up There........
ChatterBank42 mins ago
