What do sceners think about scientific consensus?
category: offtopic [glöplog]
Quote:
Idk.. in my terminology a valid proof is resolving the issue once and for all. What you wanted to say is probably an empirical evidence, which is not a proof, not even close.
Strange, because purely symbolic proof isn't accepted much outside mathematics, as the former doesn't really exist in a physical sense.
Even in theoretical physics, where eg. general relativity predicted the existence of gravitational waves, people first set up some measurement equipment to see if they actually exist (i.e. empirical evidence) before they believed it.
porocyon: in a softer non-mathematical version, a proof is sufficient amount of empirical evidence that resolves the issue "beyond any doubt". Usually, it doesn't mean something it is an absolute truth indeed, but it means you have to provide at least substantial amount of evidence and a falsification procedure that can be repeated in a lab. It's fundamentally different than a weak argument you would normally bring in a pouet discussion. So in order of strength, there is: argument, observation, empirical evidence, hypothesis, theory and a proof.
That's why for example "simulation hypothesis" is incorrect use of terminology, as hypothesis assumes at least some empirical evidence, but not enough to call it a theory, so it should be called "simulation argument" at best.
Well you're treating the words as prescriptive definitions, while that's not quite how words and their meaning work. In your definitions the prediction of gravitational waves was a mere argument before a detector was built, and then immediately jumped to proof, while people must've treated it a bit higher than just an argument to want to build a very costly detector in the first place.
Similarly, while there has been quite solid proof in 2004 (by Wang et al) that MD5 and SHA1 are insecure, it took until resp. 2009 and 2017 for people to start deprecating it (for the former, this was 5 years after the first collision had been shown!). So that doesn't quite fit with your description either.
Which is why your original argument to v3nom is mostly just ant-fuckery.
People simply treat Gabbie's claims about the non-existence of viruses as bullshit, because electron microscopes are a thing.
Similarly, while there has been quite solid proof in 2004 (by Wang et al) that MD5 and SHA1 are insecure, it took until resp. 2009 and 2017 for people to start deprecating it (for the former, this was 5 years after the first collision had been shown!). So that doesn't quite fit with your description either.
Which is why your original argument to v3nom is mostly just ant-fuckery.
People simply treat Gabbie's claims about the non-existence of viruses as bullshit, because electron microscopes are a thing.
Quote:
..and don't tell everyone everyday that the earth is flat and claim that you're the one being oppressed.
Yep, this (+what PulkoMandy wrote) should be self-evident.
Still, one has to wonder. What's more corrosive to scientific and critical thinking in today's world? Is it those who attempt to use scientific paradigms to argue for conclusions that run against consensus - something that can be straightforwardly handled by the tools of the scientific method? Or those who brandish slogans like "follow the science", but immediately follow it with a slogan like "believe [all] <x>!" - i.e. some claims are above criticism, and there are arbitrary situations when feelings beat facts?
Given the current zeitgeist, if you imagine a critical mass of people who state that their subjective 'lived experience' tells them that their earth is flat, and give them enough social clout, the answer would be interesting.
Slightly off-topic: I found it an interesting exercise to prove globular earth theory with e.g. two people on a budget of 1000 bucks, and some DIY/McGyver methods.
Quote:
In your definitions the prediction of gravitational waves was a mere argument before a detector was built, and then immediately jumped to proof
Nope. It is unproved. It's a hypothesis or theory at best. And before the detector was built it was indeed just an argument.
that's quite a lot of money for a weather balloon, a helium tank and a cheap mobile phone with camera and GPS :P
Pablo: Good luck with stabilization of your toy balloon and smartphone camera. The footage from such attempts was of such awful quality that it actually supported the opposite theory! I'd go by means of geometry and astronomy.
Quote:
This will end well
This will end.
I feel like playing Devil's Advocate.
Proving non-existance with the scientific method is not really possible, because how can we acquire evidence to support it? However if we make an observation and we want to rule out a particular explanation for that observation then we must replace it with another explanation which as stronger support.
So, Gabbie, if viruses are not the cause of various illnesses (because, say, they don't exist) then what is the cause?
Proving non-existance with the scientific method is not really possible, because how can we acquire evidence to support it? However if we make an observation and we want to rule out a particular explanation for that observation then we must replace it with another explanation which as stronger support.
So, Gabbie, if viruses are not the cause of various illnesses (because, say, they don't exist) then what is the cause?
While scientific consensus is an interesting topic to talk and do philosophy about, bringing it up it in the middle of a climate and an epidemic crisis just to look smart to your viewers/listeners/followers is childish at best, most probably irresponsible, and criminal at worst.
When the house is in fire with people inside it's not the right time for a random firefighter to take a megaphone and ponder on the possibility that perhaps milk is a better alternative to water to extinguish fire. You simply use the damn water, play with the team (the consensus), save the day, and wait till all is over to put on your white tunics and give a rhetoric speech about scientific consensus in the plaza.
When the house is in fire with people inside it's not the right time for a random firefighter to take a megaphone and ponder on the possibility that perhaps milk is a better alternative to water to extinguish fire. You simply use the damn water, play with the team (the consensus), save the day, and wait till all is over to put on your white tunics and give a rhetoric speech about scientific consensus in the plaza.
BTW speaking of cranks and such.. what do you guys think about Sabine H., a popular physics youtuber? Is she getting to crankpotery hall-of-fame or she is legit? She was lately critizing gravitational waves experiments (for example here and here) and her general observation seems to be that scientific method is going down the drain lately. To give another example, top science popularizers discussing "simulation argument" as something even worth talking about. If she is right, the line between legit scientists and cranks are getting blurred, which unfortunately doesn't help the case and fuels anti-scientific communities even more.
I'm generally in team Sabine. If an idea cannot be falsified, it doesn't belong in the realm of science, and shouldn't get public funding. This is her general line of thinking. Every other criticism she does follows from there.
For example, the fact that some many scientists (Wolfran) and non-scientists (Weinstein) search for a unifying theory of physics that is simple, beautiful, generalizing or supersymmetric, is mostly a theological intuition, not a scientific one. That doesn't mean there won't be one, her point is just that it takes a "religious" kind of hope to pursue one, and that, again, maybe public funding shouldn't go to that when there are a lot of other important, if not critical science that we should be doing in given the problems we face.
For example, the fact that some many scientists (Wolfran) and non-scientists (Weinstein) search for a unifying theory of physics that is simple, beautiful, generalizing or supersymmetric, is mostly a theological intuition, not a scientific one. That doesn't mean there won't be one, her point is just that it takes a "religious" kind of hope to pursue one, and that, again, maybe public funding shouldn't go to that when there are a lot of other important, if not critical science that we should be doing in given the problems we face.
I was thinking like Sabine too, but after a while, I started realizing maybe I was conditioned by very conservative academics. And Sabine surely has similar background (cultural-wise so to say). I know some guys in my field that claim that "four color theorem" is still a conjecture, because the only proofs are computer-assisted proofs. I tend to disagree with them and my point is even the opposite - I would say their "romantic proofs" are even worse.
iq: I remember you were doing some cool math investigations yourself, did you gave up on those?
iq: I remember you were doing some cool math investigations yourself, did you gave up on those?
Quote:
Eg: Gabbie said that the moon landing was fake: Proof?
Or that AIDS doesn't exist: Proof?
Or that viruses in general don't exist: Proof?
I will answer one thing at a time, regarding the moon landing:
Question: What is the average daytime temperature on the surface of the moon?
If you don't know you can Google it. Is it what you expected?
Now look at the Lunar Roving Vehicle Operations Handbook - Appendix A, and find "Table 3-II Component Temperature Limits".
Notice anything odd?
*yawn* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment
See in particular "3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted."
The average daytime temperature literally doesn't matter.
See in particular "3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted."
The average daytime temperature literally doesn't matter.
Join the Copernicus mission and you’ll find all the answers to your climate change queries by taking control of the satellites themselves and taking pictures of you hot head from orbit. Fucking thickos.
IMO, as always, it depends!
For example, I would be very careful with any consensus based on or even hinting
For example, I would be very careful with any consensus based on or even hinting
Code:
sum( all natural numbers ) == -1/12
Well, thankfully, pure mathematics is rather more philosophy than science.
fizzer: actually AFAIK Casimir effect in physics uses divergent series summation technique similar to Ramanujan trick (-1/12 thing). While writing it down as a sum is just for "trolling" purposes to baffle non-insiders, and in reality this "equality" is only by means of analytic continuation, which is nothing special in functional analysis. But don't ask me about the physical aspects of it, I wouldn't know.
Has flat earth been mentioned yet?
@Saga Music
I am not talking about the photographic film, the vacuum is a bigger problem for the photographic film.
The batteries of the lunar rover have a Maximum Operating Temperature Limit of 125 F (51,7 C), for context the average daytime temperature of the surface of the moon is 224,6 F (107 C). And unlike the photographic film, the batteries also generate heat. The lack of air works both ways, as you can't use it for cooling either. How do the batteries stay cool using only radiation?
Here is some clear visual evidence of the moon hoax:
I am not talking about the photographic film, the vacuum is a bigger problem for the photographic film.
The batteries of the lunar rover have a Maximum Operating Temperature Limit of 125 F (51,7 C), for context the average daytime temperature of the surface of the moon is 224,6 F (107 C). And unlike the photographic film, the batteries also generate heat. The lack of air works both ways, as you can't use it for cooling either. How do the batteries stay cool using only radiation?
Here is some clear visual evidence of the moon hoax:
Quote:
Nearby objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim are shifting relative to each other. The Apennines and the crater St. George are also moving as a whole. (Moreover, the shadow is changing on the mountains and the crater.) This finding indicates that it is less than 300 metres to the background (the ‘mountains’) instead of 5 kilometres!
Therefore, with such a small alteration to the camera position in Dave's hands (several tens of centimetres), the mountains should not move, they should remain static (zero parallax).
In addition, the Apollo 15 stereoscopic photos feature a clear separation line between the ‘mountains’ and the foreground. Based on the distance between the camera and rover, the distance to the panorama of the ‘lunar’ scape cannot be more than 150 metres.
Conclusion: It is very probable that these images were taken on Earth in a studio stage.
And if it is all fake, what does that change for you and what are you gonna do about it?
