EVE General Discussion

Calling me a fanboi doesn't really counter my argument. I have logically induced the effectiveness of the scientific method from it's incredible track record. Few other things can report a similar track record.

As far as cycling through different states and appearing to be both, the answer is it depends. For things that exist at precise states (e.g. electron energy levels), if they were observable with the naked eye you wouldn't see one, both or neither simultaneously. Human perception, however, isn't really reliable for these kinds of things which is why we use computers with their relatively infallible memory.

The wonderful thing about science is that it is designed to self-correct. If a theory explaining a set of facts is challenged by new facts, then the theory is adjusted. Very rarely are theories completely thrown out that have been around for awhile. Even when they are adjusted heavily we usually just find the old theory held for some specific criteria (e.g. Newtonian physics and non-relativistic speeds).

The other wonderful thing about science is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying evolution is wrong requires a mountain of evidence that will explain how the incomprehensibly large volumes of gathered data reinforcing the base understanding of evolution is wrong. Small adjustments do happen, but at this point to completely overturn the theory of evolution would be like someone stating that gravity and light don't exist and the Easter Bunny is real and is the one really responsible for all the chocolate eggs people find. There are centuries of evidence for the correctness of the theory of evolution and no one in all that time has been able to refute it using the scientific method.

If you feel though that there is some grand conspiracy, then I can't help you there. I'm clearly in on it too. But otherwise I'll rely on the same scientific method that produced the science behind the Internet, computers and EVE itself.

It's hard to take someone seriously when their main source of evidence / main argument is "google it."

Maybe I am just too lazy and academically challenged to... ask you a question?

I have. Google it.

I guess mountains of evidence is relative. As far as climate science is concerned, the thing we're measuring is less than a century old -- human effects on climate change due to massive amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. And frankly, the ice age is still a concern and global warming is still a concern and they're not mutually exclusive. In fact global warming is what leads to the theorized ice age.

If you really want to post something more elaborate, then grab a blogger account, right a blog and post it here -- minor derailment. Though discussing what is and isn't real science in a thread about adding more scientific realism I think is at least a minor tangent.

My knowledge of the subject of human evolution and evolution in general is probably in excess of the average person because it has been a personal interest of mine and something I have kept up with. Both challenges to it and responses. That doesn't make me right. That doesn't make evolution right. The incomprehensible mountains of evidence and observed fact make the theory of evolution most likely correct on the major points.

Please don't deride scientists and science because you don't understand it while dismissing the large quantity of education that it requires to achieve such an understanding about some limited part of the universe.

Any theory can be proven wrong. In fact it can't be a theory unless it can be proven wrong -- testability is a key component of scientific theories. But you actually have to prove it wrong.

As for scientists ignoring challenges to evolution. One, they normally come from people unfamiliar with the subject. Most common challenges have already been explained. Secondly anyone able to fundamentally change our understanding of evolution, especially human evolution, would do so in a heart beat because you would do it and then go get your Nobel prize. Major advances in our understanding of the universe are what scientists are after. Few want to spend their lives researching things that are provably wrong.

Science self-adjusts because it's what science is -- the application of the scientific method -- hypothesis, observation, test, new hypothesis and on and on.

My understanding of it is more then adequate. I know just enough to realize that I, and we as a race, know just short of jack. Believe what you want, the rest of the world is with you. That is why I refer to it as "the science religion".


As for a blog, no thanks. I'll write a book.

I never said that we don't know how to make stuff work. A scan disk memory card runs on quantum tunneling. We can build them even though we have no idea how quantum tunneling works.


We know how gravity accelerates objects and how far it can propagate through space. We can send probes beyond our solar system, but we have no idea what gravity is.

Magnets?

Inertia is a property of matter. We can make cars go and make them stop, but be damned if we know what gives matter inertia, mass and momentum.



You as a human monkey, exhibits great skill in observing phenomena and repeating it for the sake of profit margins. Ya know, things like computers, trains, cheap textiles and EVE. All of which are designed, mass produced and improved upon to make the builders wealthy, not to advance the species. That is merely a side effect. You have alternatively proven yourself to be lacking in the "actual understanding" department however. The two things are entirely separate ideas--the ability to manufacture and recreate VS actual understanding of that thing.

So yes, you can build scan disks based on quantum tunneling. You can use gravity to probe Jupiter. You can understand inertia enough to build fighter jets. You can do all of these things without ever having a clue about what they actually are, what makes them what they are and how they came into being.



You have just been enlightened. No thanks needed.

Higgs boson give stuff inertia. Higgs bosons are excitations of the Higgs field and when other particles attach to them it gives them the ability to not travel at the speed of light -- intertia. Why are there Higgs bosons... that we don't know, but we'll get there.

Science doesn't promise answers, it just gives then where it can.

And building the second one is engineering. Building the first one is science.
Chemisty was required for the internal combustion engine as well as physics. How did we know what the best mixture of gasoline to air was and how to refine gasoline in the first place -- science!

Cars also require metallurgy and the scientific study of plastics. Antibiotics required biology and biochemistry. The Internet required radiology and physics. Electronics required the basic work of scientists like Benjamin Franklin. Glasses required the study of optics. Climatology is where you got your thermostat. Germ theory came from optics, biology, and chemistry among others. Recorded music required the knowledge of chemistry. As did the original gas lamps. Telephones too. Mass production relied on many things including climatology because of what scientists learned about vacuums and pressure. Video recording relied on the work of audio plus chemistry to create film. Hard drive technology requires chemistry and something called laser lithography. Sound cards require physics. Modern construction also relies heavily on physics, plate tectonics, metallurgy, chemistry, biology and many other studies including psychology and sociology. The light bulb relied on chemistry and physics.

Literally everything on my list was the culmination of much of the science and mathematics of their time. And each piece of knowledge gained gave them more to work with till they could discover more and more things through the scientific method.

Do not confuse engineering with science. Science is what's necessary for invention.

Please by all means, explain how an Higgs Boson gives all matter inertia. I am truly looking forward to your reply



Also, the ability to recreate a thing is not the ability to understand that thing. You can make a pendulum without ever knowing what gravity is. You can improve on the pendulum without ever understanding what gravity is. You can make a clock without ever understanding what time is.


Open your mind just a little bit wider, and reap the benefits that come with being a free and independent thinker.

Not an in-depth video, but it gets the idea across:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw