Here's your fucking scientific proof. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 1:41:53 AM)

In 1668 a long held theory was challenged with scientific proof. That proof was not accepted.

It happened again in 1767, 99 years later and again the proof was rejected.

This proof was rejected by the scientific community, those most highly respected and revered scientists of the time. And this was not the result of any religious belief, in fact I would almost think the opposite.

Finally over 90 years after that, in 1861 it was finally accepted, almost 200 years after the first person proved it. He proved a scientific theory dead fucking wrong and it took them well over 150 years to believe it.

Now before you people start spouting off about what is impossible, why don't you tell me just what this proven/disproven theory was ? You have the dates, and you have Google.

T^T



PeonForHer -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 3:40:05 AM)

Spontaneous generation.

What's your point, Termy?



Rule -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 3:55:19 AM)

When Isaac Newton discovered the nature of light, he sent the then chair of the British society of scientists - I think it was the extremely famous Robert Hooke - a letter or article about his discovery. The chair responded: it is a nice idea, but it is extremely unlikely. Newton wrote back in anger: You are too STUPID to comprehend my discovery! Now that chair must indeed have been excessively smart, for he looked at it again and then published the article.

Myself: of my self-published discoveries none have been accepted. (I ought to have received ten Nobel prizes for physics by now.)



DomKen -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 7:17:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Spontaneous generation.

What's your point, Termy?

Some pet belief of his got challenged somewhere else and he's whining about it as usual.



Anaxagoras -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 7:44:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
In 1668 a long held theory was challenged with scientific proof. That proof was not accepted.

It happened again in 1767, 99 years later and again the proof was rejected.

This proof was rejected by the scientific community, those most highly respected and revered scientists of the time. And this was not the result of any religious belief, in fact I would almost think the opposite.

Finally over 90 years after that, in 1861 it was finally accepted, almost 200 years after the first person proved it. He proved a scientific theory dead fucking wrong and it took them well over 150 years to believe it.

Now before you people start spouting off about what is impossible, why don't you tell me just what this proven/disproven theory was ? You have the dates, and you have Google.

Big deal, that happened a fair bit with theories which would take a very long time to receive acceptance. I don't know the theory you mention but the distance in time suggests it required a paradigm shift in understanding to appreciate it. A faith akin to religion in a broad scientific system is actually a factor, and it can sometimes took several generations for scientists to come to appreciate a theory. I suggest you take a look at Kuhn's book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which would be a common text if you went to uni. It points out that scientific progress is not an even linear line but a fitful one with sudden jumps where revolutions in thought occurred that brought about new levels of understanding.



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 11:54:36 AM)

"It points out that scientific progress is not an even linear line but a fitful one with sudden jumps where revolutions in thought occurred that brought about new levels of understanding. "

You don't really need a book to figure that out. But does it explain why ? Could it be said that man advances science and mankind retards it ? Od course the first steam engine, cotton gin or whatever are milestones but those are inventions which are usually adopted quickly. Advancement in the esoteric sciences seem to be the most adversely affected by the trustees of ptolemic authority (if today is a good day to coin a phrase).

There are still remnants of this bullshit. Half of the problem is religion of course. Look at the hubub they had over stem cell reseach, or using aborted fetuses for research or perhaps interspecies experiments involving humans and other primates. Some probably fear what they might find. Why was it once against the law to cut into the human body ?

But on the flipside when it comes to making money it's full speed ahead. "We don't need no stinking testing".

T^T



Anaxagoras -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 12:55:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"It points out that scientific progress is not an even linear line but a fitful one with sudden jumps where revolutions in thought occurred that brought about new levels of understanding. "

You don't really need a book to figure that out. But does it explain why ?

You do actually because many assumed and still assume progress is a smooth linear path. That book is an important text in the philosophy of science which overturned that notion.

Does it explain why? Well it depends on the circumstances in which the theory appeared which you still haven't specified. A competing theory that was largely accepted may have fitted in neater with the system of belief at the time. Thats perhaps why some eminent scientists couldn't see the benefit or advantages of the theory. When confronted with a radical now concept that challenges what a person knows, it takes an exceptionally open mind to cast aside so much of what they already know in a paradigm as that is largely all they actually know. Science went through dramatic changes in the 200 years before it was accepted so new revelations would have changed how people viewed the theory.

quote:


Could it be said that man advances science and mankind retards it ? Od course the first steam engine, cotton gin or whatever are milestones but those are inventions which are usually adopted quickly. Advancement in the esoteric sciences seem to be the most adversely affected by the trustees of ptolemic authority (if today is a good day to coin a phrase).

This is what the book discusses but it is not easy to spearate "mankind" from man. They very scientists that advanced science also slowed it by sticking with notions they already possessed. However, its not as simple as simply being open-minded as the very system that helped them advance understanding also inhibited it to some extent.

Much of what we regard as science didn't come about from theoretical speculation but through necessity. Mankind can slow progress but it is also the engine that fuels it.

quote:


There are still remnants of this bullshit. Half of the problem is religion of course. Look at the hubub they had over stem cell reseach, or using aborted fetuses for research or perhaps interspecies experiments involving humans and other primates. Some probably fear what they might find. Why was it once against the law to cut into the human body ?

But on the flipside when it comes to making money it's full speed ahead. "We don't need no stinking testing".

Morality in society, be it religious or secular, must address concerns about the use of the tools of science. Scientists are not philosophers although they often pretend they are but often come across as clueless in that respect. They are not the adjudicators of what is acceptable ethically and not. Society as a whole is and should debate these issues properly.



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 2:58:04 PM)

"They are not the adjudicators of what is acceptable ethically and not. Society as a whole is and should debate these issues properly. "

Not so sure here. Much goes on behind closed doors, not only things that never see the light of day but issues concerning those that do. I'm sure you won't debate that becasue to do so would imply that all research is done with open doors - and books. How can we debate that which we do not know exists ?

These things are adjudicated behind closed doors as well, as we find out from time to time. That strategy was used against the tobacco companies a while back to extort some of their wealth. But then we have Monasnto on the other hand. We pay a premium for drugs in this country, supposedly because of all the rigid testing requirements, but for some reason sometimes these tests are bypassed. Tests or no tests this is the class action lawsuit capital of the world. Money again.

But I don't think it was always money. The theory I mentioned in the OP was abiogenesis, the old familiar spontaneous generation. Peon called it right off the bat. The test was easily reproducable even in those days even by common people. What possible economic advantage or disadvantage could there have been for not accepting or at least trying to duplicate the results, which would have proven the first "debunking" true ? Who gained ? Who lost ?

I still say that money is the most pervasive factor today, but also that it was not always so. Those here who parrot textbooks gain nothing by doing so, or do they ? I would not be the one to ask.

T^T



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 3:23:20 PM)

"When Isaac Newton discovered the nature of light, he sent the then chair of the British society of scientists -............"

How disrespectful of him. Now Copernicus was a different story, witholding his theories from publication for thirteen years due to his respect for the church. However eventually he let Rheticus publish them and literally didn't know they were in fact published until he was on his death bed. But for a few hours he would have never known.

Would he have deserved that fate for putting something - anything beyond knowledge ? Not my call.

T^T



Anaxagoras -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 5:19:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
"They are not the adjudicators of what is acceptable ethically and not. Society as a whole is and should debate these issues properly. "

Not so sure here. Much goes on behind closed doors, not only things that never see the light of day but issues concerning those that do. I'm sure you won't debate that becasue to do so would imply that all research is done with open doors - and books. How can we debate that which we do not know exists ?

Some things go on behind closed doors I'm sure but that odesn't change the point that society should discuss such matters properly. I can understand how research must be secret a lot of the time due to indistrial spying but when the finished product reaches public attention it can be discussed, and full disclosure would of course be fititng.

quote:


These things are adjudicated behind closed doors as well, as we find out from time to time. That strategy was used against the tobacco companies a while back to extort some of their wealth. But then we have Monasnto on the other hand. We pay a premium for drugs in this country, supposedly because of all the rigid testing requirements, but for some reason sometimes these tests are bypassed. Tests or no tests this is the class action lawsuit capital of the world. Money again.

I would have thought you would be against the big tobacco companies just as you are against the big bankers?

All drugs should be tested before public consumption. Do you have any stories of that not happening?

quote:


But I don't think it was always money. The theory I mentioned in the OP was abiogenesis, the old familiar spontaneous generation. Peon called it right off the bat. The test was easily reproducable even in those days even by common people. What possible economic advantage or disadvantage could there have been for not accepting or at least trying to duplicate the results, which would have proven the first "debunking" true ? Who gained ? Who lost ?

The story about abiogenesis is interesting but I can't say anyone gained or lost. Remember this was 1688. Big investiments were not a part of science. It was in its infancy. There was little practical application for most scientific discoveries at that time.

BTW I don't know too much about the story but I thought Redi only disproved one part of abiogenesis with regard to maggots but that it represented the start of the move away from it. Others added to the body of knowledge and Pasteur pulled off experiments that showed organisms cannot spontaneously appear in sterile situations?

quote:


I still say that money is the most pervasive factor today, but also that it was not always so. Those here who parrot textbooks gain nothing by doing so, or do they ? I would not be the one to ask.

I assume you are suggesting I am the one parroting textbooks. As I said before you need to walk before you can run, listen and learn before pontificating. Kuhn's book is not a mere textbook. In fact it isn't a textbook at all. The theories some 50 years ago were controversial and his work today widely seen as a turning point in understanding science itself.



DeviantlyD -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 5:41:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Spontaneous generation.

What's your point, Termy?

Some pet belief of his got challenged somewhere else and he's whining about it as usual.


Sounds par for the course.



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/10/2011 6:05:49 PM)

"I assume you are suggesting I am the one parroting textbooks."

Actually no.

T^T



Muttling -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/11/2011 7:12:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

In 1668 a long held theory was challenged with scientific proof. That proof was not accepted.

It happened again in 1767, 99 years later and again the proof was rejected.

This proof was rejected by the scientific community, those most highly respected and revered scientists of the time. And this was not the result of any religious belief, in fact I would almost think the opposite.

Finally over 90 years after that, in 1861 it was finally accepted, almost 200 years after the first person proved it. He proved a scientific theory dead fucking wrong and it took them well over 150 years to believe it.

Now before you people start spouting off about what is impossible, why don't you tell me just what this proven/disproven theory was ? You have the dates, and you have Google.

T^T



Obviously you're primary focus is argument and not science or claims.


This is proven by the fact that your original post quotes many details of dates but fails to mention the subject that is being debated.


I put forth the "Troll Post Postulate."    If a post expounds many details cited as fact without presenting the actual subject to which these details pertain, then the OP is a troll.



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/11/2011 10:02:15 AM)

If that's true then you just got caught in the net.

Yes, the argument is specifically about argument. you got a problem with that ?

T^T



Muttling -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/11/2011 10:44:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

If that's true then you just got caught in the net.

Yes, the argument is specifically about argument. you got a problem with that ?

T^T


Not at all.

In truth, I'm glad you are finally being honest with everyone.



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/11/2011 11:00:25 AM)

So, you're all out of bubble gum, what are you here to do ? Got anything to say or what ?

T^T



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/12/2011 1:24:06 AM)

A variable star is one that changes in magnitude. Most variable stars have been proven to be binary stars by more powerful telescopes. However some are not proven to be, and in fact are almost surely not binary stars based on the estimates of astronomers about the resolution of their telescopes and the distance involved. They are called intrinsic variable stars.

There are different theories of course, one of the most interesting is that there ae actually objects orbiting the center of these stars within their own solarsphere, but that of course cannot be proven. However what is common is that each of these variable stars, binary or not, have a regular predictable pattern.

However there are a few that are called irregular variable stars. In these the variance of magnitude is not predictable. There is no explanaition for this - supposedly. I offer one now. They are regular. The do in fact have a pattern. However this pattern is so long that it extends longer than the history of humans' study of astronomy. That is, we haven't lived long enough as a species to have seen these stars go through one of their entire cycles.

Therefore we call them irregular. But what we fail to see is that they are only irregular to us. They are regular as clockwork in the grand scheme of things, the only problem in understanding here is the humanocentric view, that purports that if we can't observe it, quantify it or predict it, it is irregular. That we consider ourselves to be regular and anything outside of that is irregular.

Perhaps that is what the word really means, intrinsically, but I thought we were better than that. After Einstein and all that, after what we have done, after all this we cannot think outside of this little box. And while this box has indeed grown bigger, in compare to the universe it is indeed little.

Who are we to judge what is regular and what is irregular when it comes to things that existed and were happening eons before our race was even born, or even had a spawning ground ? Who do you think you are to presume to know even two iotae of what is out there ?

A troll am I ? Well, welcome to my bridge. And a bridge you need to the future because you ain't getting there that I can see. You may develop new weapons and ways to spy, to gather information, but you don't have the lust for the knowledge of the universe, and if you did, and even found it, you would have no idea what to do with it.

Tell me, in a world like Star Trek, in which you can beam around, you have no need for cars or anything, medicine is no longer a racket, education is efficient and pleasant, everyone has a job and a decent stipend in a semi socialist society, but you are allowed to break free, to persue you dreams. A utopian existence for all. No barriers, can go to the moon or other planets without a problem. You have achieved, basically everything.

What would you do ?

I'd bet that even two thousand years in the future that you would seek to conquer. That because it is human nature, and science hasn't bred one ounce of this nature out of us in our millenia so far, so there is no reason to believe that it ever will. And with greater power comes greater threat. To humanity, what's left of it, to the planet, eventually the solar system and then the galaxy, and eventually the universe.

That is if we survive.

And that my friends is why we constantly argue. Do you know what the throttle body does on a car ? Do you know what happens if you take it off and start the car ? The parts of the engine basically go flying all over the street.

Do you get it now ? We can't work together, that is nature's way of throttling us back. I used to think we were throttled back in this manner to have the time to gain the sense to use the new power that we discover wisely, but I am now convinced that this will not happen because it is not happening.

The result is inevitable. Extinction. You know dodo birds and humans did actually inhabit this planet at the same time ? I mean in recorded history. What did the government do about it ? Nothing.

Pay the toll or you may not pass.

T^T



xssve -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/13/2011 6:52:09 AM)

quote:

Do you get it now ? We can't work together, that is nature's way of throttling us back. I used to think we were throttled back in this manner to have the time to gain the sense to use the new power that we discover wisely, but I am now convinced that this will not happen because it is not happening.
No, organic evolution has, for pretty specific reasons, taken Two divergent paths: conformity and divergence - conformity assures that a given advantageous mutations, genetic or social, spreads rapidly, conveying that advantage to the largest number of organisms - diversity is from whence these mutations, social and genetic, typically occur and are preserved in the first place.

It works that way because that way works, it's not a design, it's the result of natural selection applied to random system dynamics, creating a relatively orderly system out of a random process - that which works, survives, that which survives, reproduces.

The Dodo's went extinct because there was no population of suspicious and curmudgeonly Dodo deviates that might have survived to perpetuate the species.

In the end, as much as we value conformity, the only reason any species goes extinct, is overspecialization - the Dinosaurs, as a class, were not generalists enough to predict or do anything about a meteor strike - we are, but it remains whether we have become too politically overspecialized to do anything about it.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/13/2011 3:54:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

In 1668 a long held theory was challenged with scientific proof. That proof was not accepted.

It happened again in 1767, 99 years later and again the proof was rejected.

This proof was rejected by the scientific community, those most highly respected and revered scientists of the time. And this was not the result of any religious belief, in fact I would almost think the opposite.

Finally over 90 years after that, in 1861 it was finally accepted, almost 200 years after the first person proved it. He proved a scientific theory dead fucking wrong and it took them well over 150 years to believe it.

Now before you people start spouting off about what is impossible, why don't you tell me just what this proven/disproven theory was ? You have the dates, and you have Google.

T^T


Uhhhhhm......was there something preceding this (as to an actual point) or were you just feeling frustrated over something?



Termyn8or -> RE: Here's your fucking scientific proof. (9/13/2011 4:13:37 PM)

"In the end, as much as we value conformity, the only reason any species goes extinct, is overspecialization "

That seems contradictory in a way. The conformity is good and then bad. But then I think you mean specialization in the sense of all being specialized the same way, no ?

"The Dodo's went extinct because there was no population of suspicious and curmudgeonly Dodo deviates "

Perhaps it would be good to look into exactly why they went extinct. If the climate is acceptable and there is suitable food the only other reason for extinction is what ? Inability (or unwillingness) to reproduce ? Like koala bears that apparently can only eat eucalyptus leaves or something like that. Speaking of which, why ? Is their digestive system so specialized or are they simply addicted ? And if the former, is that what happened to the dodo ? If the latter, would the withdrawal kill them ? I doubt there are any basic nutrients peculiar to the plant needed only by the koala.

I'm not sure what the theory de jure' is about the dinosaurs but I don't think one meteor did it. Pangea was a big place. Ice ages and things OK. There are still a few things unexplained about that as well.

Of course none of us were there. And this is not really the issue. The thing here is - what do you accept ? What do I accept ? There are some things out there for which there are [supposedly] equally valid contending theories, many mutually exclusive. What causes one person to accept one while another accepts the other ?

T^T



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875