Starship Asterisk*

orin stepanek wrote:Hi Ed! When I was a kid I practically lived in trees. We had some nice sized tree that were close enough together that we could climb from tree to tree. I never tried swinging on vines though. I don't have the urge to climb them anymore.
Chimps are pretty smart though; a million years or two and they may be able to do the things humans do now. That is if we don't destroy the planet first.

Orin

I have the urge but seldom follow through... it embarasses my family.

I had a nice vine that swung out over a gully... fun but dangerous in hind sight.

It is hard to imagine us being able to destroy the planet but it's not hard to imagine the planet destroying us.

emc wrote:I don't get how a simple life form can evolve into a complex life form where all of the systems that make up the complex life form have to be in place at the same time in order for the life form to function successfully. It is easier to rationalize a designer.

Now we're in serious Cafe territory!

Adding a designer doesn't solve any problems. It just changes the question to "who designed the designer?" It seems much easier to me to see a system that starts simple and evolves complexity (something we know is possible), as opposed to a system that requires complexity from the start.

Chris Peterson wrote:

emc wrote:I don't get how a simple life form can evolve into a complex life form where all of the systems that make up the complex life form have to be in place at the same time in order for the life form to function successfully. It is easier to rationalize a designer.

Now we're in serious Cafe territory!

Adding a designer doesn't solve any problems. It just changes the question to "who designed the designer?" It seems much easier to me to see a system that starts simple and evolves complexity (something we know is possible), as opposed to a system that requires complexity from the start.

Yes - this belongs in the cafe... but the damage is done. Sometimes it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission, plus this thread does have some flow to it.

You're of course right that assigning the complexity to the designer creates the question as to the design of the designer and the theory of how the designer came to be leads one to contemplate the possibility of an infinite being without an origin which takes us out of the scientific realm... just like the origin of the BB.

BTW - I'm sure you will readily admit that the universe is complex from the beginning.

emc wrote:I don't get how a simple life form can evolve into a complex life form where all of the systems that make up the complex life form have to be in place at the same time in order for the life form to function successfully. It is easier to rationalize a designer.

Chris Peterson wrote:Adding a designer doesn't solve any problems. It just changes the question to "who designed the designer?" It seems much easier to me to see a system that starts simple and evolves complexity (something we know is possible), as opposed to a system that requires complexity from the start.

Sorry, Ed, I have to side with Chris on this. Intelligent design is a retreat from the age of enlightenment and a return to the dark ages. Scientific method precludes a designer.

wikipedia wrote:The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.

orin stepanek wrote:

emc wrote:

bystander wrote: Actually, the theory is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. While chimpanzees may be our closet relatives (98% common dna), no one would suggest that humans evolved from chimps.

Besides, I thought you were a talking horse.

Well, I do get the urge to climb trees now and then.

Hi Ed! When I was a kid I practically lived in trees. We had some nice sized tree that were close enough together that we could climb from tree to tree. I never tried swinging on vines though. I don't have the urge to climb them anymore.
Chimps are pretty smart though; a million years or two and they may be able to do the things humans do now. That is if we don't destroy the planet first.

Orin

Okay .. so we have talking horses swinging on vines along with solid gold chimpanzees riding the backs of apes as the humans hurtle through space on starships made of green cheese - that's a good start, but seriously, Chris, your mother would not like the way you call people Crackpots. Anyone notice how the boxes seem to be multiplying inside and outside of themselves as if there were an intelligent Creator behind all of this?

And to answer the next question .. the answer for $64,000 is 'Far Side'.

bystander wrote:Sorry, Ed, I have to side with Chris on this. Intelligent design is a retreat from the age of enlightenment and a return to the dark ages. Scientific method precludes a designer.

What side is that bystander? Where or what did the universe come from?

emc wrote:What side is that bystander? Where or what did the universe come from?

So, now we're back to the Big Bang! I'm on the side of science.

wikipedia wrote:Defining science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design". This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

• Consistent
  Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
  Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
  Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
  Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
  Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
  Progressive (refines previous theories)
  Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.

Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard, the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

• The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
  The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
  The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

bystander wrote:

emc wrote:What side is that bystander? Where or what did the universe come from?

So, now we're back to the Big Bang! I'm on the side of science.

Sorry - you don't get away that easy... since we're talking BB... where did it come from or what caused the primordial hot and dense initial condition of the universe?

bystander wrote:

emc wrote: In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that "... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

Ah - but there is a Greater Judge than thou, Judge Jones.

Sputnick wrote:...but seriously, Chris, your mother would not like the way you call people Crackpots.

To be clear, I carefully avoided calling anyone in particular a crackpot. I left it to others to make whatever associations seemed reasonable to them. In fact, some people may have even made that association to themselves! <g>

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:...but seriously, Chris, your mother would not like the way you call people Crackpots.

To be clear, I carefully avoided calling anyone in particular a crackpot. I left it to others to make whatever associations seemed reasonable to them. In fact, some people may have even made that association to themselves! <g>

To be sure, Chris, I don't think emc, astro, bystander, etc. are Crackpots, but your comment might have made them feel that way, and for that you should truly repent and have your sins forgiven by the Creator and Redeemer of the universe.

emc wrote:Sorry - you don't get away that easy... since we're talking BB... where did it come from or what caused the primordial hot and dense initial condition of the universe?

I don't claim to have all the answers, nor does BB attempt to provide any explanation for those initial conditions. It does, however, provide a very good explanation for what follows. If you subscribe to general relativity, there was no time (and no universe as we know it) before the big bang. The LHC may provide insight into these initial conditions, but I doubt that I'll live to see a complete explanation. Resorting to the supernatural is simply not an option for me.

bystander wrote:

emc wrote:Sorry - you don't get away that easy... since we're talking BB... where did it come from or what caused the primordial hot and dense initial condition of the universe?

I don't claim to have all the answers, nor does BB attempt to provide any explanation for those initial conditions. It does, however, provide a very good explanation for what follows. If you subscribe to general relativity, there was no time (and no universe as we know it) before the big bang. The LHC may provide insight into these initial conditions, but I doubt that I'll live to see a complete explanation. Resorting to the supernatural is simply not an option for me.

Yeah right .. like lots of questions unanswered eh! Like what caused the bang? What was the stuff before the bang? Maybe we are all inside the combustion chamber of a moped ridden by a sasquatch. Crackpot idea maybe .. but just as logical as 'Sudden Big Bang Creates Universe' (Extra Extra read all about it first in the APOD News.)
But this is fun .. and we're probably learning all we'll ever learn about how the Creator created us.

bystander wrote:

emc wrote:Sorry - you don't get away that easy... since we're talking BB... where did it come from or what caused the primordial hot and dense initial condition of the universe?

I don't claim to have all the answers, nor does BB attempt to provide any explanation for those initial conditions. It does, however, provide a very good explanation for what follows. If you subscribe to general relativity, there was no time (and no universe as we know it) before the big bang. The LHC may provide insight into these initial conditions, but I doubt that I'll live to see a complete explanation. Resorting to the supernatural is simply not an option for me.

No prob bystander... none of us have all the answers... I just wanted to make my point that science doesn't explain the ORIGIN of the universe. At least, not yet, as you alluded to in your comment. And I haven't encountered scientific evidence that simple life forms evolved into complex ones. So without scientific evidence to the contrary, I simply choose to opt for a designer instead of a question mark.

Sputnick wrote:Maybe we are all inside the combustion chamber of a moped ridden by a sasquatch.

Or in a locker at Grand Central Station. Or on a marble hanging from a cat collar.

If I could connect the dots from the Science of my local universe to the Science of the combustion chamber, I would call this a Scientific Theory.

So whom do I trust? In general, not humans. This includes clergy acting as teachers, scientists acting as teachers, and teachers acting as teachers. I rely on my own distrust of these humans to make me judge what they "teach" me for myself. It's only teaching if I learn it, and I'm unwilling to learn anything I don't think is true. If they beat it into me, I may still learn it, but as an idea I don't accept - not as a teaching of fact. Not one teacher has ever slipped an idea past my critical thinking processes and prior concepts into my belief system without my noticing. The first thing to teach all children and adults is to listen to your teachers but think for yourself. If they learn this well, there will be no problem with teachers corrupting the minds of the students. Frankly, I think students have always distrusted their teachers and teachings, and that the possible influence of a bad teacher or a bad teaching is overrated (except for one who can influence the very young or weak minded, or one who purposely follows a contrarian agenda). Usually bad teachers and bad teachings (students of all ages can tell when something is extreme or off-topic) end up being ignored and forgotten in the long run, and the crime becomes not one of introducing false beliefs but of wasting classroom time. One piece of advice for you kids out there: Don't prove your teachers wrong, for you will surely be punished; just let them be wrong and stay out of it.

Lately a complete reconceptualization and redesign of the education system has been trying to bust out of me. It feels like I can get it said in a week's worth of op ed pages, but it's probably a thousand pages like everything else, so don't get me started. Or at least don't let me continue.

Roger Waters wrote:We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

Sputnick wrote: Yeah right .. like lots of questions unanswered eh! Like what caused the bang? What was the stuff before the bang? Maybe we are all inside the combustion chamber of a moped ridden by a sasquatch. Crackpot idea maybe .. but just as logical as 'Sudden Big Bang Creates Universe' (Extra Extra read all about it first in the APOD News.)
But this is fun .. and we're probably learning all we'll ever learn about how the Creator created us.

Ah so... Sputnick, are you one of those biblical literalists who resent the whole scientific establishment for rejecting creationism and other jackpot supernatural beliefs and sign up in scientific forums like this one in order to sow doubts about the accepted scientific theories and discredit the scientists? Science is based on observations and the measurements derived on those observations. The scientists haven't found all the answers yet, but yet the religious nuts insist that what the scientists know so far proves they are wrong, like for example the gaps in fossil records. Any gap in our knowledge is solely due to having not yet finding more evidences. The theories the scientific establishment supports just happen to be the explanations that best fit their findings, not something that were grabbed out of thin air or deeply held beliefs. Like the BB theory just happens to be the best explanation for the observations. The scientists have come up with various possibilities for whatever set off the BB in the first place, but until they have provable and testable evidences, either physical or mathematical, they remain just possibilities. Sure, some different theory might fit the observations better but it will be based on measurements and math, not religious beliefs or ideas not supported by empirical evidences!

Aside: We need a time machine or rather a way to view the past in order to see what actually happened then, thus settling most if not all disagreements.

Gary

starnut wrote:... The scientists haven't found all the answers yet, but yet the religious nuts insist that what the scientists know so far proves they are wrong, like for example the gaps in fossil records.

Gary

Hi Gary,

I think from reading your comment that you may be calling me a religious nut… if so, I am offended… Just plain “nut” would have been OK.

Even though I am not a scientist, if you read my posts here, you will know that I have a deep respect and appreciation for science. And I am not remotely trying to prove science or scientists wrong… I'm sorry I let my emotions get the better of me in this thread and expounded religious flavored cafe rhetoric. I simply look for truth as best I can. And what's wrong with looking in a public scientific forum?

I’ve had a lot of fun and learned a good deal of science, but I have frequently felt over my nutty head here.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Sputnick wrote:Outside of scientists, in the mentality of the undereducated, the Big Bang is generally considered fact because it is taught so by teachers undereducated in the sciences...

It is true that many people receive inadequate science education, and that all too often science is taught as a mere collection of facts, some more certain than others. Nevertheless, it isn't unreasonable to teach the Big Bang as fact, in the sense of being very, very widely accepted.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Plasma theory of the Creation of the Universe?

I'm aware of both the plasma cosmology theory, and Juergens's electric Sun ideas. Frankly, plasma cosmology is a weak theory, and the electric Sun theory is weaker yet. There is a reason these ideas are not taken very seriously in the astronomical community: they don't explain actual observations very well, depend on some weak assumptions, and lack a lot of detail.

Please understand, I'm not discounting these things completely. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the situation: our standard cosmology model for the creation and evolution of the Universe is very well developed. It is solidly supported by rich observation. As our tools become better and we extend our observations, it becomes more and more difficult to rationally support a cosmology that doesn't include the Big Bang.

I going to disagree with both you, Chris, and Sputnick on this ... "plasma cosmology" is not science, period.

Why? Because it declares, by fiat, that the theory of General Relativity (GR) is unacceptable with respect to cosmology! Not that has been tested and found inconsistent with experiment and observation; not that GR is internally inconsistent; ... but that it's unacceptable because, well, just because.

If anyone is interested I have a reference to a (very) long discussion on this topic, elsewhere in internet-land.

The relationship between "reality" and (scientific) theory is an interesting one. As it's come up in this thread, let me ask all readers some simple questions, if I may.

First, what's the relationship between what each of us, as individuals, perceives and (scientific) theory {I'm going to write just 'theory' from now on}?

Second, for the subset of APOD 'pictures' that are 'out of this world' (i.e. from space probes, or of planets - other than Earth, stars, galaxies etc), how much does your perception of what's in the pictures depend on theory (leave aside how the pictures got from some server in MTU to your screen/monitor)?

Third, what would you say are the conditions under which something passes from being 'theory' in one of the general senses that this word is used to 'fact'? You might like to consider some examples from astronomy or physics, say 'galaxies' or 'neutrinos' or 'quarks'.

Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

Fifth, is 'proof' possible, in science? If so, what are the criteria for judging if something is '(scientifically) proven'? If not, why not?

There's a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding over 'the Big Bang theory' (BBT) with respect to origins.

Before trying to clear some of that up - beyond what's already been said in this thread - let me point out that there is not one BBT! Rather, there are a great many cosmological models built using General Relativity (GR) and the Standard Model of particle physics (SM), plus various additional elements (maybe). "Big Bang" was used by Hoyle as a term of derision, and, unfortunately, it has stuck.

The class of cosmological models that are usually thought of when BBT is mentioned are based on GR; the "Big Bang" comes from the fact that the only two stable solutions to GR-based models of universes that contain mass-energy are expanding and contracting ones. Hence if you extrapolate back from 'today' the universe becomes smaller and smaller (and hotter and hotter, and denser and denser). The end point of any extrapolation would be a single point ... but that would be an extrapolation too far, in science. Why? Because the two very best bits of physics we have today - GR and the quantum theory which the SM is based on - are mutually incompatible when conditions are sufficiently hot and dense - the Planck regime.

That mutual incompatibility happens well before you extrapolate back to a single point; in fact, you could say infinitely far before.

So, as science, modern cosmological models, being science, cannot extrapolate back 'before' this mutual incompatibility ... unless they use a scientific theory (or theories) which resolve that incompatibility, using a quantum theory of gravity for example.

Actually, cosmological models peter out well before the Planck regime, because the SM is known to be incomplete, and cannot reliably address physical conditions much hotter than ~10 TeV.

However, BBTs do address many origins: of planets, stars, galaxies, all elements other than H, He, and Li, ... and in that sense 'the BBT' does explain the origin of what you 'see' when you 'look at' the Lagoon Nebula!

Nereid wrote:... let me ask all readers some simple questions, if I may.

... Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

Before I begin, I need some help interpreting this one.

Perhaps I should just ask for clarification or rephrasing, but let me take a poke or two to illustrate my lack of understanding:

study of 'the past' - like archaeology, historical geology, fossil records, skeletons, ice cores, sediment cores? like looking into space and therefore back into time? like conjecture about the past and the origins of the universe? like study of old theories and the history of science? like something else?

study of 'the continuous present' - like experiments involving phenomena; real-time telescopic, eyeball, and microsopic observations; measuring everything we can with instruments? like the cursor of the present moment marching through time? like something else?

Please don't expand the question nor give a hint at what kind of answer you envision; I'm just trying to get a better handle on your original intent.

Nereid wrote:The relationship between "reality" and (scientific) theory is an interesting one. As it's come up in this thread, let me ask all readers some simple questions, if I may.

First, what's the relationship between what each of us, as individuals, perceives and (scientific) theory {I'm going to write just 'theory' from now on}?

Second, for the subset of APOD 'pictures' that are 'out of this world' (i.e. from space probes, or of planets - other than Earth, stars, galaxies etc), how much does your perception of what's in the pictures depend on theory (leave aside how the pictures got from some server in MTU to your screen/monitor)?

Third, what would you say are the conditions under which something passes from being 'theory' in one of the general senses that this word is used to 'fact'? You might like to consider some examples from astronomy or physics, say 'galaxies' or 'neutrinos' or 'quarks'.

Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

Fifth, is 'proof' possible, in science? If so, what are the criteria for judging if something is '(scientifically) proven'? If not, why not?

As a moderator and contributor, I suspect your intention may be to make us readers stop and think about “theories” and how each of us has the potential to perceive differently… and that we should all be respectful of each other and this forum in regard.

apodman wrote:

Nereid wrote:... let me ask all readers some simple questions, if I may.

... Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

Before I begin, I need some help interpreting this one.

Perhaps I should just ask for clarification or rephrasing, but let me take a poke or two to illustrate my lack of understanding:

study of 'the past' - like archaeology, historical geology, fossil records, skeletons, ice cores, sediment cores? like looking into space and therefore back into time? like conjecture about the past and the origins of the universe? like study of old theories and the history of science? like something else?

study of 'the continuous present' - like experiments involving phenomena; real-time telescopic, eyeball, and microsopic observations; measuring everything we can with instruments? like the cursor of the present moment marching through time? like something else?

Please don't expand the question nor give a hint at what kind of answer you envision; I'm just trying to get a better handle on your original intent.

apodman, what you write is highly pertinent!

Peeling back one or two layers of the onion shows at the very least some need for clear(er) definitions, and (maybe) some hints that a bright line distinction between 'historical science' and 'in the here and now science' may be difficult to draw.

emc wrote:

Nereid wrote:The relationship between "reality" and (scientific) theory is an interesting one. As it's come up in this thread, let me ask all readers some simple questions, if I may.

First, what's the relationship between what each of us, as individuals, perceives and (scientific) theory {I'm going to write just 'theory' from now on}?

Second, for the subset of APOD 'pictures' that are 'out of this world' (i.e. from space probes, or of planets - other than Earth, stars, galaxies etc), how much does your perception of what's in the pictures depend on theory (leave aside how the pictures got from some server in MTU to your screen/monitor)?

Third, what would you say are the conditions under which something passes from being 'theory' in one of the general senses that this word is used to 'fact'? You might like to consider some examples from astronomy or physics, say 'galaxies' or 'neutrinos' or 'quarks'.

Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

Fifth, is 'proof' possible, in science? If so, what are the criteria for judging if something is '(scientifically) proven'? If not, why not?

As a moderator and contributor, I suspect your intention may be to make us readers stop and think about “theories” and how each of us has the potential to perceive differently

emc, please ignore the 'Nereid as moderator' hat if you can.

Yes, I'm certainly inviting everyone to think about these things, and I'd like to see a (lively) discussion get going on them.

… and that we should all be respectful of each other and this forum in regard.

That's a general intention I have in all the fora I post to.

However, in this thread and with the questions of mine you quoted I have a different focus, namely to investigate the extent to which some posts are 'talking passed each other' due to differences in posters' understanding of the nature of astronomy and cosmology as science ...

(FWIW perceptions of modern astrophysics and cosmology as science are quite interesting to me).

Nereid wrote:First, what's the relationship between what each of us, as individuals, perceives and (scientific) theory {I'm going to write just 'theory' from now on}?

1. My perceptions are influenced more by what I will call “my sense of self” than theory. So, while I am slowly learning about astronomy, my perceptions in this forum of the APODs are only remotely related to scientific theory. I would like to contribute astronomy ideas but I generally tend to try and joke around just to participate.

Nereid wrote:Second, for the subset of APOD 'pictures' that are 'out of this world' (i.e. from space probes, or of planets - other than Earth, stars, galaxies etc), how much does your perception of what's in the pictures depend on theory (leave aside how the pictures got from some server in MTU to your screen/monitor)?

2. Very little. I see the pictures aesthetically… as works of art... both from the author of the APOD and the Author of the APOD subject.

Nereid wrote:Third, what would you say are the conditions under which something passes from being 'theory' in one of the general senses that this word is used to 'fact'? You might like to consider some examples from astronomy or physics, say 'galaxies' or 'neutrinos' or 'quarks'.

3. I expect a build up of evidence would have the eventual effect of changing a theory into fact. I think the changing of a theory into fact is likely and generally a gradual process... kind of like baking bread... or building a large hadron collider... but if ingredients are missing it can't be accepted as a finished work.

Nereid wrote:Fourth, to what extent do you consider study of 'the past' different, in terms of being science, than study of 'the continuous present'?

4. I don’t see a difference.

Nereid wrote:Fifth, is 'proof' possible, in science? If so, what are the criteria for judging if something is '(scientifically) proven'? If not, why not?

5. Sure, science through the use of evolved telescopes and other tools proved that insects and vegetation doesn’t exist on the moon which was a theory by astronomer William Henry Pickering (February 15, 1858 – January 17, 1938). I don’t know how to list the criteria except lack of evidence debunked the theory.