How much of science is fact?
- Thread starter Bocaj2000
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Im mean this in the least offencive way possible, but you're pretty stupid. Just because you've never seen atoms dosn't mean they're not there. You've never seen oxygen but you're breathing aren't you? As for the dating of fossels, they see how much radioactive decay the molecules have gone through to determine how old it is. And as we learn more, we change our ideas. Just like as you learned magic wasn't real, you stopped believing in santa.
Carbon dating is pretty accurate thanks to the laws of physics concerning things like isotopes and radioactive exponential decay.Bocaj2000 said:
3 millions years? Try 65 million. Everybody knows that, man. Hell, I learned that from an episode of Friends.
Of course our knowledge of dinosaurs from 10 years ago would be outdated. That's how science works. Constantly being updated like the twitter of human knowledge.
Ironically, this is why science is the best way to discover the facts thus far discovered by man, specifically because it is open to revision as new evidence arises. Any system of "truth" which rejects new eveidence no matter how well supported in favour of established dogma is Doing It Wrong.Bocaj2000 said:
dude do you know ANYTHING about science? we are not looking for hard an fast rules we look for theories that fit what we know it the time this is why science is accurate we keep updating what we believe other than clinging old things which have been disproven this is why in my eyes science is reliable. so science is as good as fact but is open to being disproven if the evidence leads us to believe we where mistaken.
To everyone else, drop the religion/ignorance bating and actually read the OP. It raises some interesting points
This is what separates science fact from theory. You can go out and do the science yourself. Anything marked theory is just that, conjecture, for whatever reason no one has managed to go out and measure it yet.
As for Carbon dating, it's proven to be unnervingly accurate, mainly because Carbon is a very stable element that degrades in a very predictable and regular manner, but you shouldn't just take mine (or anyone else's) word for it, you should get out there and learn about it, then try it for yourself.
It's interesting I agree how people so readily accept what science says 'because it's science' or because it's in one particular book. 150 years ago science and most books would have told you a rocket could not work in space, because in a vacuum it would have nothing to push against. I think everyone would agree that was proven wrong.
The dinosaurs are pretty interesting too, the truth is nobody genuinely knows when they were about, it's just very well researched guess work based partly around Carbon dating and partly around geology. It could very well be proven completely wrong at some time in the future, but for now it's the best guess.
To everyone else, drop the religion/ignorance bating and actually read the OP. It raises some interesting points
Honestly, the best thing to do is to go out and read about the things you question (to question something you must also explore it, it's the nature of questioning). Once you've read about it the next thing to do is to go and try it yourself. There are plenty of places that will help you with almost any experiment you want.Bocaj2000 said:
This is what separates science fact from theory. You can go out and do the science yourself. Anything marked theory is just that, conjecture, for whatever reason no one has managed to go out and measure it yet.
As for Carbon dating, it's proven to be unnervingly accurate, mainly because Carbon is a very stable element that degrades in a very predictable and regular manner, but you shouldn't just take mine (or anyone else's) word for it, you should get out there and learn about it, then try it for yourself.
It's interesting I agree how people so readily accept what science says 'because it's science' or because it's in one particular book. 150 years ago science and most books would have told you a rocket could not work in space, because in a vacuum it would have nothing to push against. I think everyone would agree that was proven wrong.
The dinosaurs are pretty interesting too, the truth is nobody genuinely knows when they were about, it's just very well researched guess work based partly around Carbon dating and partly around geology. It could very well be proven completely wrong at some time in the future, but for now it's the best guess.
To everyone else, drop the religion/ignorance bating and actually read the OP. It raises some interesting points
If your viewpoint on life is "I don't trust anything I don't understand, or can prove for myself" then you're going to stuck back in the Medieval period, my friend.
I know how you say that most things in science are just theories, but why not trust them? I mean, no-one is going to have a mental breakdown knowing that Dinosaurs were a little bit older/younger than we think. It's not like getting these questions wrong will affect your life; as you said, atoms are tiny and cannot be seen, so surely worrying about an accurate measure of their mass won't affect anyone but the people striving for answers.
In short; who really gives a shit, but scientists?
EDIT - Before I get quoted, let me changed that to "Who's really going to worry, but scientists?" It sounds nicer. Otherwise I'll get angry, angry comments, and their stinging, stinging rebuttals.
I know how you say that most things in science are just theories, but why not trust them? I mean, no-one is going to have a mental breakdown knowing that Dinosaurs were a little bit older/younger than we think. It's not like getting these questions wrong will affect your life; as you said, atoms are tiny and cannot be seen, so surely worrying about an accurate measure of their mass won't affect anyone but the people striving for answers.
In short; who really gives a shit, but scientists?
EDIT - Before I get quoted, let me changed that to "Who's really going to worry, but scientists?" It sounds nicer. Otherwise I'll get angry, angry comments, and their stinging, stinging rebuttals.
.
if you were a part of my imagination would that make you non-existing? if this is all a dream then this is what is and that's all that matters. It makes more sense to speculate about god, at least that gets you somewhere, (heaven, hell, nothing and so on) lol.Gormourn said:
Mathematics has proven this is false.alex1314159 said:
The correct statement would be:
All that is proven is true. All that is disproven is false. Anything neither proven nor disproven is indefinate with varying degrees of probability. It is impossible to prove or disprove everything. It is impossible to determine the extent of that which is proveable and which is not proveable.
Thank you Godol's law.
facepalmBocaj2000 said:
I am thinking about glueing my hand to my face because of the large amount of time it is spending there and the effort of lifting it is becoming a strain.
If you don't understand it, then go and read a book. No, not the bible.
I find it surprising you think it is odd that we do not already know all the facts of the universe and that can still be learning new things about the world around us.
see abovefix-the-spade said:
ILM is a much older company than you'd expect and they're having a huge freaking laugh at the rest of the world's expense!Acidwell said:
What? It's a theory.
It always confuses me when people seem to think that the updating of scientific ideas and knowledge somehow reflects badly on science.
Science is just our collective understanding of the universe. None of it is 'fact', because at any time some new discovery can flip our collective knowledges upside down. When scientists discovered germs, for instance. To quote Zimsky (played by Stanley Tucci) from the movie The Core, "That's all science is, is best guess."
Well it's either accept our understanding of Science as it is or have a semantics session. The point I'm getting at is, does it really matter if it's "wrong"?
I'm personally sick of all the times I hear people bring up the tired debate of whether or not Science is fact since it's based on theory.
Here's my counter: All those theories have neatly interwoven to the point at which either we're getting at something (fact) or we're incredibly lucky.
And who says that there's only one way to reach the answers?
I'm personally sick of all the times I hear people bring up the tired debate of whether or not Science is fact since it's based on theory.
Here's my counter: All those theories have neatly interwoven to the point at which either we're getting at something (fact) or we're incredibly lucky.
And who says that there's only one way to reach the answers?
Obviously shit like the deeper parts of quantum mechanics starts to go into the realm of "unproven, but a working theory". Right now we don't definitively know for sure a lot of this kind of stuff (see string theory and quantum entanglement), but that doesn't mean that scientists just make up stuff until it "fits" with what they want. You're basing everything you say on your anecdotal evidence. Are you a scientist? Have you disproven this stuff yourself? I didn't think so.
If you understood how they, say, carbon date things, as well as all the principles and facts the process was based on, you would see just how logical an idea it is.
If you understood how they, say, carbon date things, as well as all the principles and facts the process was based on, you would see just how logical an idea it is.