The People Vs. Science

[Admiral Valdemar]

Another day, another debate. Here's another extract of an MSN chat with that same girl I know, only this time it started about humanities and science and went on to me having to prove why the speed of light is as it is.

Jo says:
in science things are what they are; what is hard about that?

AV says:
It's just not that cut and dry, besides, I was referring to how science course are inherently harder.

Jo says:
Not really. Why would they be? You learn what is.

AV says:
They are harder, it's a lot easier to get behind on these course and if you do, you're out. Plus they take registers and missing just a couple of lectures can lead to an academic review. On the otherhand, Rob doing music studies has missed dozens and has also not done some pieces of work on time. A science major with that attitude would be off the course by now. It's just a matter of fact.

Jo says:
That's not the actual subject matter though, it is just how the course is run. That is like saying GCSE sciene at Eton is harder than at a state school because the discipline is stricter; it is not, it is simply that it is run in a different way.

AV says:
No, science is run like this everywhere. I have people I know doing humanities saying they toom their course because they couldn't get into a science one and they admit there are plenty of morons in those course doing jack shit.

AV says:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... humanities that was a good discussion on it.

Jo says:
In sciene you just learn 'if you put this and that together, they are good. do not put that and the other together, as they go bang. why? well, we think it is this. but we cannot be sure'

AV says:
Not really. If I go into my course finals and give factual answers straight from the textbook, I will fail. It's not, contrary to popular belief, just stating facts.

Jo says:
what do you do then? theorise about why oxygen likes to bond with certain elements, or what is going through sodium's mind when it explodes? or the alternatives that a nuclear bomb considers before it goes bang?

AV says:
That's just being pednatic, we talk about the impacts this technology may have, how the people discovered what that element did and what practical uses it may have. You have to put input into your answers, if you just say "This does that when mixed with that" all the time, you're barely pass if that.

Jo says:
so the hard bits of science are in fact the bits that comprise of archaeology, history and business studies?

AV says:
Nope, the hard bits are understanding those facts and knowing how to work with them, the secondary nature is putting your input into it. I can just as easily say how I think GM crops will affect the world, if I have no idea what they are or the real truths about them then my answer is equally useless. We have to be informed about the good and the bad since in our field we will be praised and hated

AV says:
There is a reason the MRI scanner isn't called the MRNI scanner because of how people react, guess what the N stands for.

Jo says:
I was simply pointing out: that the discovery of elements is history, their impact is economics

Jo says:
The last point you made is psychology.

Jo says:
Science simply seems to me to be pretending that you can look at random events and pretend you see a pattern.

AV says:
But is still a science based fact. The people who push for Creationism to be taught instead of Evolution are people who know jack shit about biology, geology and chemistry and physics. That's how dangerous it can be if you have no knowledge like that.

AV says:
No, science proves those patterns by experimentation.

AV says:
Not like fundies would think who have no idea how to prove their fallacious claims.

Jo says:
No it does not.

AV says:
Care to prove otherwise? Science is the process of deriving theories from observed results that best suit the phenomona.

Jo says:
It is not the Rule of Gravity. It is merely the Theory. Then may I also direct your attention to quarks. Most of the time, things do something and you can predict it's action. however, sometimes, you can not. Nothing is entire proved or predicatable. It is science's feeling of total knowledge that is the fallacy.

AV says:
Science never claims to know everything, if we did then I'd be a bit daft for going into a course where we knew everything already, hmm? It is, as I said, deriving theories that *best fit* the observed phenomona.

AV says:
Whereas Creationists read a Book, the Bible, and say this happened.

Jo says:
so, you in fact devote all your time to guesswork?

AV says:
It's not guesswork.

Jo says:
you look at something and think 'ooh, that falls down, i shall invent a reason to explain it'

AV says:
So it's not guesswork then, you just proved yourself wrong.

Jo says:
you invent reasons for things based on very little evidence.

Jo says:
for example, what if Newton had decided it was a force pushing down, rather than pulling?

AV says:
He didn't though because, and here's the clever part, he experimented and found that Newtonian mechanics corresponded to the workings of large celestial and other bodies being attracted to one another

Jo says:
again, why is it not pushing>?

AV says:
Because I just explained it.

Jo says:
Not really.

AV says:
Yes, really. Celestial bodies have been shown to pull other similar masses to one another through gravitational anomalies, the Earth revolves around the Sun because of this as does the Moon around Earth. The attraction is there due to the mass, if it were pushing then it would be due to other external factors such as pressure which is obviously not the case in a vacuum.

Jo says:
Maybe we cannot see it. It could be that in 2000 years, people say 'fuck, gravity pushes after all'

Jo says:
Anyway

Jo says:
What about quarks?

AV says:
Then that would be the same principle around me pushing you but really you tried to prove it wasn't my push but another force pulling on you, it's simply stupid and doesn't fit the facts. And in 2000 years I doubt a fundamental law will change, e.g. 2nd law of thermodynamics will not alter or be countered by technology.

AV says:
What about quarks?

Jo says:
Well, explain why they are.

Jo says:
Science is the provance of fact.

Jo says:
So prove why they do what they do.

AV says:
They are there to make up the key hadrons in quantum physics, these being the protons and neutrons etc. Quarks never exist alone as they always group into threes to form one of these hadrons and are supposedly what existed trillionths of a second after the Big Bang but later cooled and formed matter again which then agthered electrons and formed atoms. They exist to give atomic nuclei charge.

Jo says:
Yes

Jo says:
And normally you can predict what they do. But sometimes, they do random things. Why do they do that?

AV says:
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can, on a quantum scale, only measure the position or momentum of a quantum particle, not both. This is why matter teleporters may never exist as it would mean observing both these parameters.

Jo says:
Hmm, so in fact one of the mosy advanced scientific theories simple says that you cannot predict anything?

AV says:
No, that you cannot predict the momentum AND position of a quantum particle. The quantum world is very weird unlike ours. A electron can spin both clockwise and anticlockwise, until you observe it then it resides in one state. This is the Schroedinger's Cat problem.

Jo says:
I just love it. Science is the quest for truth and fact, and all you can discover is that you do not know why anything.

AV says:
Uh, come again?

AV says:
We know that we can't measure those two things at once on a quantum level, we know the Moon is attracted to the Earth by mass pulling it through distortions in space-time, show me exactly *where* we don't know facts?

Jo says:
Why does mass attract?

AV says:
Because it imparts a supposed dent (best I can describe it) into space-time which causes a curve in space-time fabric that causes other masses passing within this field to be gently or harshly, depending on mass, towards the more massive object. The Sun produces a bigger footprint than a beachball, but they all have mass and all register in space-time as gravity holding objects.

Jo says:
Why?

AV says:
Think those coin things that charities have where a coin whizzes round and round.

AV says:
Why not?

Jo says:
That isn't an answer.

AV says:
Maybe, but what answer would you like?

Jo says:
That suggests that things do things just 'because; whichis hardly scientific.

Jo says:
The scientific explanation

AV says:
I just told you, it imparts a force on the space-time fabric that causes curvature which in turn attracts masses within this, if they have momentum as well then they go into an orbit which may take months or billions of years to decay.

Jo says:
But why that? Why doesn't it do soemthing else instead?

Jo says:
It's not enough to know why something does what it does, you have to know why it doesn't do the other options.

AV says:
Because that's how it is. It's the same reason the speed of light it just under 300,000km/s, that's the way it is.

Jo says:
But why? Why does light not go 400,563km/s?

AV says:
Because that's the way it is, it is 299,000 odd klicks a second because that's how the Universe defined it. Another way, the speed of light is just 1 unit or c and not 300,000 kilometres instead.

Jo says:
Yeah, but why did it define it at that speed?

AV says:
Ask the universe. It's the same reason that space is black, because it isn't red. That's how it is.

Jo says:
Isn't science meant to give answers to questions like this?

Jo says:
I mean, I can explain in history why things didn't happen.

Jo says:
Why can't you?

AV says:
No. I can tell you the speed of light, I can tell you what happens when you reach that speed and why you can't go faster than it, but as to why it is set at that very speed is anyone's guess because it's the same reason gravity pulls and doesn't push, because it does.

AV says:
Maybe in another universe the speed of light is faster, why? Because that's how it is.

AV says:
There is actually no real reason why the speed of light is set like that.

Jo says:
Thank fuck you didn't do history.
'why did the first civil war happen?'
'no real reason, it just happened'

AV says:
Only History is nothing like science. There is NO reason for the speed of light being that way other than that's how the universe defined it. May as well ask why is Hydrogen the lightest element? It doesn't matter, it just is, you're confusing human ideas with the universal constants.

Jo says:
So, science doesn't know the why of anything?

AV says:
Excuse me? How does not knowing nor caring why the speed of light is as it is prove that science knows nothing?

AV says:
Does that make history equally inept as we don't know the motivations of some people?

Jo says:
We can at least make some sort of guess. For example, you read about someone being shot in the back on a battlefield, probably running away, you can make a safe assumption he was shit scared. And so forth.

AV says:
And so can we, we can guess but as to why the speed of light is 300,000km/s and not 1mm and hour is really not worth worrying about because it is the ultimate speed and is what the Universe relies on for matter interactions and so on.

Jo says:
If you do not even know the basics of the universe, how can you hope to understand the rest?

AV says:
I get a metal tube, I put a slug of metal in one end and put some explosives behind it. I light the exposives. The slug flies out and punctures someone's head, they die. I know this will happen because of the observed effects of chemical combustion, kinetic energy, momentum and ballistics. There, I can calculate how to hit someone with such a crude device and the speed of light nor quantum mechani

AV says:
cs didn't come into it.

Jo says:
Oh I see

Jo says:
Science is discovering what you cannot explain and then wording everything so your ignorance doesn't seem to matter.

AV says:
Ah, good strawman attack, unfortunately it falls flat on its face when we have plausible theories to most all that we have encountered and are still researching into things that have only just been discovered. I suppose you would have a point if we didn't have, oh, the theory of relativity, thermodynamics and so on, but we do, so it means jack.

AV says:
Because we can't explain one thing does not mean we can't describe something else.

Jo says:
So, science only came into existence when you discovered those things?

AV says:
No, the reason we are not still cavemen trying to avoid getting hunted and eating grass shoots is because we discovered how to learn science and use it and technology.

AV says:
Without it, we would be sitting in trees flinging our faeces at one another.

Jo says:
So why bring those theories into it them?

Jo says:
*then

AV says:
What do you mean?

Jo says:
Well, you said I had a point if you had not discovered the theory of this and that. So, what about before you did discover them?

AV says:
Because we hadn't the way to do that? It's kind of hard to explain how the sun undergoes fusion when you're still hunting your food with a flint knife and spear, dontcha think?

Jo says:
So, level of technology dictates what one can understand about the world. Yes. Isn't that still true now?

AV says:
Yes, but it is also the fact that back then we didn't have a language either so ideas wheren't conveyed too well. But when we discovered fire and found it hurt us and was good at making heat, then it became useful and through experimentation we used it to make campm fires and cook food.

Jo says:
lol, what makes you think they had no language?

AV says:
Because ooking and making grunting noises does not mathematics make.

AV says:
The universal language is maths, they didn't have it, 'nuff said.

Jo says:
So

Jo says:
Do all scientists talk such bollocks?

AV says:
Care to tell me what "bollocks" I'm talking about? If you can prove to me that cavemen such as Homo erectus had mathematics as advanced as we do now or even 1000 years ago, I'll give you a cookie.

Jo says:
lol, they hadn't had time to develop it. That's like saying we don't have maths because ours will look paltry in 1000 years.

AV says:
So exactly what was your point then? You said that science knows nothing, I have proved you wrong, so what are you getting at?

Jo says:
Science guesses

Jo says:
*shrugs*

Jo says:
you seem to know nothing

Jo says:
you cannot answer why basic things are as they are

AV says:
I have PROVED it does not. Do you read my answers or are you too busy sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalallala?

AV says:
Care to give me a few things that science hasn't explained that are centuries old?

Jo says:
THE FUCKING SPEED OF LIGHT

AV says:
It doesn't fucking matter! That's how the speed of light is! Would you also like me to explain why blue is blue and not green, because that's how damn stupid your question is.

Jo says:
See, anything you cannot explain you rubbish and say it's not important. What if it was?

AV says:
It isn't though, so your point is moot.

Jo says:
Only because your head is up your arse.

AV says:
May as well ask "Wow, why does one kilo of caesium impart this much gravity on space-time?" because that's how it is in this universe.

AV says:
Good ad hominem, do you always debate like that?

AV says:
Can't use logic, so I guess insults are the order of the day.

Jo says:
Usually, purely for the shock value. people can't often think straight after something like that. said in a perfectly calm tone of voice.

AV says:
I can, insults only prove a pitiful debating tactic worthy not of my time. The speed of light is the speed of light because that is how it is. You can also ask why electrons split up into nomore components unlike protons, but the fact is that is what makes electrons electrons. It doesn't mean anything, they just are a point and nothing more to them.

AV says:
Could also ask why this universe is matter based and not anti-matter based, they could both equally happen but that is how our universe is, the same reason in our universe Lennon was shot, WWII happened, whales get hunted and so on.

Jo says:
But you can explain why those things happen, and why they didn't happen before.

Jo says:
Your appraoch would have you laughed out of a humanities department.

Jo says:
Ergo, humanities can dothings sciences cannot, thus, humanities are harder and thus superior.

AV says:
Which is why I don't do humanities and is why any humanities major would equally get laughed off the course for asking a dumbass question like "why is c the speed it is?" or "why is black not brown?"

AV says:
Tell me, why is your eye round and not a square?

Jo says:
They would get removed because they asked a question you could not answer? How narrow minded.

Jo says:
I do not know; you are the scientist.

AV says:
No, they would be removed for being idiots who can't accept that some things are as they are for no apparent reason. Care to explain away why god, if he existed would make humans?

Jo says:
I am not a theologist, I would not pretend to answer questionx I am not qualified to answer.

AV says:
Likewise, you are asking a philosophical question as to why the universe chose that speed, it is arbitrary, there is NO reason why it isn't faster or slower, it is how photons function, photons have practically no mass and no charge. Why? Because they do. Why? Because they chose that way. Why? The universe defined it that way.

AV says:
Do you get what I mean now?

Jo says:
I see what you are trying to say, but I find it laughable.

AV says:
Why?

Jo says:
*shrugs* science answers the questions that it can and ignores the others.

AV says:
No, why? Why is it laughable to you? There must be a reason, I find it silly that there isn't yet you insist it still is laughable. Why is it so?

Jo says:
Why is is amusing that the subject that claims to explain everything cannot explain everything?

AV says:
Point out where science claims to know everything. I dying to see this.

AV says:
Hell, point out where *I* said science knows everything.

Jo says:
Well, what is the point of it then, if not to answer questions about scientific matters?

AV says:
But wait, Jo, if science already knew everything, then why are we still making scientific discoveries today? Doesn't science already *know* everything as we all know every scientist can answer abolsutely everything.

AV says:
I'm taking biology for a laugh by the way, we can really cure everything but choose not to for a challenge.

[Ancalagon]

what the fuck?

would you mind stating the purpose of this thread and then highlighting the key points?

thanks...

[Admiral Valdemar]

what the fuck?

would you mind stating the purpose of this thread and then highlighting the key points?

thanks...

The purpose is to see what I have to argue with sometimes and she's a humanities student who seems to have no clue about science.

The key points are the extract that I posted, you have to read or at least skim over it to get it unless I can place it telepathically into your mind (it'd make your head hurt though).

[Ancalagon]

what the fuck?

would you mind stating the purpose of this thread and then highlighting the key points?

thanks...

The purpose is to see what I have to argue with sometimes and she's a humanities student who seems to have no clue about science.

The key points are the extract that I posted, you have to read or at least skim over it to get it unless I can place it telepathically into your mind (it'd make your head hurt though).

From what i read it seemed like a pissing match each person saying that their course was harder.....

my opinion... it all depends on the person and the way they learn... for some science is a breeze, for others a pain in the ass... the same applies to humanities...

[Colonel Olrik]

Science courses are harder than humanities, and there is factual evidence proving it. You just have to look at the average entry grades to see that the prerequisites to enter a technical college are higher. Then, compare the dropout rate between the two. Nearly 1/3 of science/engineering students leave after the first couple of years, unable to continue.

And then they choose a humanities college and excel it. The reverse does not happen. I'd like to see a third year humanistics student choose Fluid Mechanics as an optional chair.

[Admiral Valdemar]

what the fuck?

would you mind stating the purpose of this thread and then highlighting the key points?

thanks...

The purpose is to see what I have to argue with sometimes and she's a humanities student who seems to have no clue about science.

The key points are the extract that I posted, you have to read or at least skim over it to get it unless I can place it telepathically into your mind (it'd make your head hurt though).

From what i read it seemed like a pissing match each person saying that their course was harder.....

my opinion... it all depends on the person and the way they learn... for some science is a breeze, for others a pain in the ass... the same applies to humanities...

You obviously didn't read all of it as that several page transcript is NOT all about humanities versus science. She wanted me to defend science against ludicrous questions. I couldn't care less which course she was going, she was generally not understanding my point.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Science courses are harder than humanities, and there is factual evidence proving it. You just have to look at the average entry grades to see that the prerequisites to enter a technical college are higher. Then, compare the dropout rate between the two. Nearly 1/3 of science/engineering students leave after the first couple of years, unable to continue.

And then they choose a humanities college and excel it. The reverse does not happen. I'd like to see a third year humanistics student choose Fluid Mechanics as an optional chair.

Well yeah, my point.

But what about the other half of the convo? Do you see what I mean? I couldn't argue any better than that, I may have screwed up somewhere, but really she was asking some stupid questions and making some silly claims.

[Ancalagon]

The purpose is to see what I have to argue with sometimes and she's a humanities student who seems to have no clue about science.

The key points are the extract that I posted, you have to read or at least skim over it to get it unless I can place it telepathically into your mind (it'd make your head hurt though).

From what i read it seemed like a pissing match each person saying that their course was harder.....

my opinion... it all depends on the person and the way they learn... for some science is a breeze, for others a pain in the ass... the same applies to humanities...

You obviously didn't read all of it as that several page transcript is NOT all about humanities versus science. She wanted me to defend science against ludicrous questions. I couldn't care less which course she was going, she was generally not understanding my point.

nope, i got bored... which is why i asked you to point out the relevant points...

[Admiral Valdemar]

There are no real relevant parts, you ahve to basically skim over it to see.

[Colonel Olrik]

Science courses are harder than humanities, and there is factual evidence proving it. You just have to look at the average entry grades to see that the prerequisites to enter a technical college are higher. Then, compare the dropout rate between the two. Nearly 1/3 of science/engineering students leave after the first couple of years, unable to continue.

And then they choose a humanities college and excel it. The reverse does not happen. I'd like to see a third year humanistics student choose Fluid Mechanics as an optional chair.

Well yeah, my point.

But what about the other half of the convo? Do you see what I mean? I couldn't argue any better than that, I may have screwed up somewhere, but really she was asking some stupid questions and making some silly claims.

First, you should have told her that physics do impose constrains to nature on how the constants may be. There can be millions of universes where the attraction between two bodies is not inversely proportional to the square of the distance, but only a tiny fraction of them would have conditions to hold life (a value around two is OK, much less or more would lead to a colapse or not formation of structures). Obviously, we happen to live on one of the Universes where life is possible.

Then, explain to her that science deals first with facts, and then creates theories to explain those facts. Those theories may change over time, because they are constantly corrected. That's the scientific approach. Unlike literature, philosophy or arts, where there's no definite goals to achieve and what is produced is an end to itself, science is unique and verifiable, and has engineering applications that validy it in the eyes of the public.

Really, let the philosophers talk their hearts out and arrive at magnificient conclusions about the nature of science. Those are of no value to the scientists involved in real, verifiable research or the society in general.

[Rye]

I thought that was great Av, you earned a brownie point!

[Admiral Valdemar]

I thought that was great Av, you earned a brownie point!

Yay!

[NapoleonGH]

this friend of yours seems pretty ignorant as to what science is

[NecronLord]

I'm taking biology for a laugh by the way, we can really cure everything but choose not to for a challenge.

Wow. Never knew you had ueber healing powers.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm taking biology for a laugh by the way, we can really cure everything but choose not to for a challenge.

Wow. Never knew you had ueber healing powers.

Well, y'know, I try.

[NecronLord]

*reads transcript*

I'm afraid Dave...

I can feel it Dave...

My mind is going...

I can feel it...

Hello gentlemen, I am a HAL nine thousand computer, i was brought online in the HAL plant in .....

[InnerBrat]

Oh look a new for a new smilie



Sorry, didn't read all of it, but you should have pointed out that most of science is weioghing up and assessing two opposing models to dtermine which better fits the facts.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I pretty much tried that, sorry for the long transcript, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

I guess some people really are the human manifestation of a brick wall.

[Darth Gojira]

I pretty much tried that, sorry for the long transcript, but it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

I guess some people really are the human manifestation of a brick wall.

DarkStar comes to mind

[Zoink]

Is someone is grilling you about hard scientific facts, trying to make you recite every single scientific proof/experiment/observation in the hopes of making you say "I don't know": just bring up the peer review system.

I can't describe in detail every experiment done, nor derive every equation, but I can place my trust in a system where multiple people with that ability all review and comment on these theories.

If they keep pressing you "but how/why?"... you can direct them to http://arxiv.org/ for their own review of the latest scientific papers... which of course they will be completely unable to comprehend, but it is availble for them.