Scientific Legalism

[JohnnyWishbone]

Of the absolute little we know about ourselves & this universe, have we even figured out what percentage we do know? (Is it even a %) Yet there are those who use the little we do know scientifically, to debunk any new hypothesis that threatens the tiny percentage they do know.

 

Kind of like what religion does.

[midniterider]

52 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

Of the absolute little we know about ourselves & this universe, have we even figured out what percentage we do know? (Is it even a %) Yet there are those who use the little we do know scientifically, to debunk any new hypothesis that threatens the tiny percentage they do know.

 

Kind of like what religion does.

 

Debunk. v. An official sounding term that falsely conveys some sort of authority where none really exists. e.g. "Oh, that was debunked years ago." synonyms: Bullshitting. 

 

 

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/daniel-drasin-zen-and-the-art-of-debunkery/

 

 

 

 

[JohnnyWishbone]

12 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Debunk. v. An official sounding term that falsely conveys some sort of authority where none really exists. e.g. "Oh, that was debunked years ago." synonyms: Bullshitting. 

 

 

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/daniel-drasin-zen-and-the-art-of-debunkery/

 

 

 

 

I can't tell if you're for or against my OP.

 

But I do like the smiley face.

[Wertbag]

1 hour ago, hyperferion said:

Of the absolute little we know about ourselves & this universe, have we even figured out what percentage we do know? (Is it even a %) Yet there are those who use the little we do know scientifically, to debunk any new hypothesis that threatens the tiny percentage they do know.

 

Kind of like what religion does.

It is impossible to put into a percentage as we simply don't know what we don't know. I think there is a generalisation built into the question, that you need to know everything to know anything. I would say there are plenty of scientific theories which have been repeatedly tested. For example gravity can be shown to correctly calculate orbits, tides, acceleration, buoyancy etc. The knowledge we have of gravity is verified, repeatable, and mathematically consistent. The fact we don't know everything doesn't invalidate what we do know. 

There are subjects which we have no knowledge of such as is there life out there? If so what form does it take? If the discussion is on a subject like that then we absolutely should say we don't know. 

[JohnnyWishbone]

5 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

It is impossible to put into a percentage as we simply don't know what we don't know. I think there is a generalisation built into the question, that you need to know everything to know anything. I would say there are plenty of scientific theories which have been repeatedly tested. For example gravity can be shown to correctly calculate orbits, tides, acceleration, buoyancy etc. The knowledge we have of gravity is verified, repeatable, and mathematically consistent. The fact we don't know everything doesn't invalidate what we do know. 

There are subjects which we have no knowledge of such as is there life out there? If so what form does it take? If the discussion is on a subject like that then we absolutely should say we don't know. 

Thankyou for that concise pov, it was like eating a banquet.

[disillusioned]

I don't think science is about finding the truth, whatever that might mean.  It's about modelling the world in ways that let us do useful things. No model is perfect. And that's fine. Some are definitely better than others though. 

[florduh]

I thought the discipline of science was to test hypotheses and theories against available facts. Constant revision continues to keep pace with new information. I didn't know it should be expected to answer all questions definitively and continually rehash debunked theories and keep an "open mind" about factually closed subjects. Expecting more of scientific inquiry than is possible has led us to anti vaccination zealots, climate deniers and flat earthers. 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, hyperferion said:

Of the absolute little we know about ourselves & this universe, have we even figured out what percentage we do know? (Is it even a %)

 

No. In order to work this out you'd have to know all of the possible knowledge available and then work out what we do know as a percentage. The problem is we can never know how much we don't know - only that we don't know an awful lot.

 

3 hours ago, hyperferion said:

Yet there are those who use the little we do know scientifically, to debunk any new hypothesis that threatens the tiny percentage they do know.

 

Not entirely sure what you are meaning here, but in line with Florduh, and scientists who have spoken on this topic, there are certain facts we have discovered about reality that are not going to change regardless of whatever else is found out. So claiming that (and not saying you are doing this) but arguing that we can't really know anything, or that everything is subject to change is false. For example, whatever new information we discover about the earth, the fact that it is an oblique spheroid is never going to change, and we can say that with a high degree of confidence. Equating this certainty with religion is false. One is founded on years of testing hypothesis and confirmed with activities we undertake every day. The other (Religion) is simply unfounded assertion taken on faith.

 

3 hours ago, hyperferion said:

Kind of like what religion does.

 

You might be confusing scientific endeavour with ideology?  Strongly held ideology can mimic religion sure, but (For example) me telling you that you are flat out wrong and ignorant to believe the world is flat is not me being religious. I'm simply stating verifiable fact.

[pantheory]

Yes, a couple hundred  years from now I think scientists will look back and laugh at the proposed theory of  today, especially in modern physics. I think many then would laugh at its stupidity. Technology is something different. I think in a couple hundred years they will still marvel at the development of the  technology of today as we marvel at the inventions of the airplane, the car, cell phones,  telephones, radios, TV, internet, medicines, etc.,

 

Yes, IMO there will be no end to great gains in science and technologies over time, of course with setbacks due to catastrophes alone the way.

[JohnnyWishbone]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

I thought the discipline of science was to test hypotheses and theories against available facts. Constant revision continues to keep pace with new information. I didn't know it should be expected to answer all questions definitively and continually rehash debunked theories and keep an "open mind" about factually closed subjects. Expecting more of scientific inquiry than is possible has led us to anti vaccination zealots, climate deniers and flat earthers. 

Yes, yes florduh. You get me on this analysis, hugs bro.

[JohnnyWishbone]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

No. In order to work this out you'd have to know all of the possible knowledge available and then work out what we do know as a percentage. The problem is we can never know how much we don't know - only that we don't know an awful lot.

 

 

Not entirely sure what you are meaning here, but in line with Florduh, and scientists who have spoken on this topic, there are certain facts we have discovered about reality that are not going to change regardless of whatever else is found out. So claiming that (and not saying you are doing this) but arguing that we can't really know anything, or that everything is subject to change is false. For example, whatever new information we discover about the earth, the fact that it is an oblique spheroid is never going to change, and we can say that with a high degree of confidence. Equating this certainty with religion is false. One is founded on years of testing hypothesis and confirmed with activities we undertake every day. The other (Religion) is simply unfounded assertion taken on faith.

 

 

You might be confusing scientific endeavour with ideology?  Strongly held ideology can mimic religion sure, but (For example) me telling you that you are flat out wrong and ignorant to believe the world is flat is not me being religious. I'm simply stating verifiable fact.

Yes! Brilliant. I just seem to notice that there are people around that use our current scientific knowledge to prove the impossibility of any new concept and theories, since they can't pidgin hole it with the little they know. Which in reality prevent us from developing new testing methods and lines of inquires that can blow the whole universe wide open.

[JohnnyWishbone]

50 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Yes, a couple hundred  years from now I think scientists will look back and laugh at the proposed theory of  today, especially in modern physics. I think many then would laugh at its stupidity. Technology is something different. I think then they will still marvel at the development of the  technology of today as we marvel of the inventions of the airplane, the car, cell phones,  telephones, radios, TV, internet, medicines, etc.,

 

Yes, IMO there will be no end to great gains in science and technologies over time, of course with setbacks due to catastrophes alone the way.

That always seems the case. Can I propose a idea here, that's completely new.

 

This is completely hypothetical (Doesn't have to be true) 

 

I think we are missing one micro world under the Quantum world, I call the Bio-Quantum world. This place I think is where all the electrical information is traveling, and it is the glue that holds everything together. The reason that the Quantum world seems so bizarre, is because it can't be understood by itself.

[JohnnyWishbone]

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I don't think science is about finding the truth, whatever that might mean.  It's about modelling the world in ways that let us do useful things. No model is perfect. And that's fine. Some are definitely better than others though. 

Don't get me wrong here, I love science, but it's a tool that still needs tuning.

[JohnnyWishbone]

I heard that Albert Einstein discovered his theories by imagining that he was a particle flying through space.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, hyperferion said:

That always seems the case. Can I propose a idea here, that's completely new.

 

This is completely hypothetical (Doesn't have to be true) 

 

I think we are missing one micro world under the Quantum world, I call the Bio-Quantum world. This place I think is where all the electrical information is traveling, and it is the glue that holds everything together. The reason that the Quantum world seems so bizarre, is because it can't be understood by itself.

 

I also believe in such a smaller micro-world. But IMO it is the simplest level in that electrical information cannot exist there since electricity, the motion of electrons, is much too large to exist at that level. Actually the Quantum world is extremely simple IMO it's just that our theories of it do not relate to reality.  Instead of glue that holds things together, it may be the atmospheric-like external pressure of that world that holds the atomic world together.

[JohnnyWishbone]

8 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I also believe in such a smaller micro-world. But IMO it is the simplest level in that electrical information cannot exist there since electricity, the motion of electrons, is much too large to exist at that level. Actually the Quantum world is extremely simple IMO it's just that our theories of it do not relate to reality.  Instead of glue that holds things together, it may be the atmospheric-like external pressure of that world that holds the atomic world together.

Love it! 

 

But you know that everything must be connected, so some sort of network must be running all the world's up to top level.

 

Have you considered that the physical world we live in is also it's own micro world, that has another level top side?

 

Have we any methods of looking outside this physical world, or just down (If down is down & not up)

[Wertbag]

2 hours ago, hyperferion said:

But you know that everything must be connected, so some sort of network must be running all the world's up to top level.

How do we know that everything must be connected? 

 

While such things are interesting mental exercise, they can't be tested in any way so unfortunately are impossible to make any claims about. We can't examine the quantum world as it is, let alone try to dig further.

You are absolutely correct there maybe more but it seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. 

[JohnnyWishbone]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

How do we know that everything must be connected? 

 

While such things are interesting mental exercise, they can't be tested in any way so unfortunately are impossible to make any claims about. We can't examine the quantum world as it is, let alone try to dig further.

You are absolutely correct there maybe more but it seems unlikely we will ever know for sure. 

Look into.

 

Entanglement

Mirror Neurones

Bio-Electricity

 

 

 

 

[Wertbag]

25 minutes ago, hyperferion said:

Look into.

 

Entanglement

Mirror Neurones

Bio-Electricity

Okay, and what is the takeaway from these fields of study? 

[JohnnyWishbone]

28 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Okay, and what is the takeaway from these fields of study? 

Not much is known about these particular types of observed phenomena.

 

Entanglement, is two particles in nature that somehow send data between them faster than the speed of light. Even if both particles are at opposite ends of the known universe, the information that travels between them moves instantaneously.

 

Mirror Neurones, are neurones in your brain and my brain that will fire off an exact duplication of what you or I are experiencing. Like if you were sad, my mirror neurones will fire off and duplicate the same feeling. 

 

Bio-Electricity, as much as I remember about this subject, there's some type of bio-electrical memory attached to our physical bodies. (Sorry, been a while since I was studying that, maybe skip this one)

[pantheory]

12 hours ago, hyperferion said:

Love it! 

 

But you know that everything must be connected, so some sort of network must be running all the world's up to top level.

 

Have you considered that the physical world we live in is also it's own micro world, that has another level top side?

 

Have we any methods of looking outside this physical world, or just down (If down is down & not up)

 

Yes, there also would be a higher level of repeated organization of galaxies which is called a "fractal" pattern, in a fractal universe. There accordingly would be an ultimate limit to how many higher and lower levels there would be.

 

[midniterider]

20 hours ago, hyperferion said:

I can't tell if you're for or against my OP.

 

But I do like the smiley face.

 

I'm for your OP. I'm being sarcastic about the word 'debunk'. 

 

[Wertbag]

10 hours ago, hyperferion said:

Not much is known about these particular types of observed phenomena.

That is my point, it is all thought experiments with no way to see further. I'm not saying you are wrong. You could be correct but how would we ever know? 

 

Entanglement is an unknown process, we can see strange things happen but don't know why. 

Mirror neurons, from my limited understanding, still take in external stimuli but then allow us to mimic that behaviour. For example a baby sticking its tongue out when you do. It still requires the visual input to mirror. Blind babies don't mimic. 

Bio-Electricity is used by our brains, hearts and nervous system to transmit information. You can get animals like electric eels or pikachu who can generate internal energy and release it. It appears to be chemically generated and contained within the closed system of the lifeform. 

All fascinating fields of study but hard to reach any conclusions with our lack of understanding. 

[JohnnyWishbone]

7 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

That is my point, it is all thought experiments with no way to see further. I'm not saying you are wrong. You could be correct but how would we ever know? 

 

Entanglement is an unknown process, we can see strange things happen but don't know why. 

Mirror neurons, from my limited understanding, still take in external stimuli but then allow us to mimic that behaviour. For example a baby sticking its tongue out when you do. It still requires the visual input to mirror. Blind babies don't mimic. 

Bio-Electricity is used by our brains, hearts and nervous system to transmit information. You can get animals like electric eels or pikachu who can generate internal energy and release it. It appears to be chemically generated and contained within the closed system of the lifeform. 

All fascinating fields of study but hard to reach any conclusions with our lack of understanding. 

I know, so let's all have a sexy party instead. Because I think we deserve a break from the tyrannical monster in the sky, who's name must never be mentioned for fear of being clubbed to death by many Bible's.

[florduh]

We're chatting on the Internet here because of science, so.........