------------------- Oh, please. That is SUCH a scientist thing to say. Ya can't get the math to work. And each time you do, there will be someone else who comes along with a disputing 'hypothesis' that is just as accurate, but throws a wrench into the former. Or... you get SEVEN accurate but disputable hypothesis and you need someone like Edward Witten to come along and develop an M Theory so that EVERYONE gets to be valid, at least on some level... -------------------------
I realize that you are yanking my chain, but the situation we are in right now with BB, M theory, etc. is commonplace in the history of science. Take for example the "ultraviolet catastrophe." Using classical wave theory of light, the observed blackbody spectrum could not be replicated. Fortunately, about the same time this problem was being scrutinized, people were beginning to have equipment sophisticated enough to show quantization of light (e.g. photoelectric effect). The problem with the Big Bang is that we have gotten WAY ahead with the hypotheses. Its not that we don't necessarily know how to set up the experiments to test Quantum Gravity, its just that the lab equipment is too darn expensive. Remember the super-conducting super-collider that was canned about a decade ago. That would have been able to replicate the environment in the universe at the end of GUT time (when the strong and electroweak forces were combined). It is estimated to replicate the environment of Planck time would require a particle accelerator big enough to encircle the Earth. Such equipment is simply not feasible at this time, so the theorists are left wallowing in "seven different hypothesis" which cannot be discriminated because the differences in their predictions are within the experimental error of current equipment.
And I do not see new hypotheses coming in and forcing science to alter its models as a weakness of science. In fact it is a strength.
--------------------------- Backed up by a lot of evidence. Yeah. Well. There have been a number of innocent people put to death based upon a lot of evidence. Then that one little fact emerges that changes everything. Oops. Well. They did the best they could with what they had at the time, huh? -------------------------------------
Well, if you will notice, the instances in which you speak were based mostly on non-scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence by biased witness, scheming prosecutors, dogmatic judges, and tampered evidence are not scientific in nature. I will admit that some scientists do approach there science with too much bias, but that is what the process of peer review is all about. If bias is tainting the result, it will be weeded out.
And yes, science does the best job it can with the evidence at hand. As I stated earlier, science is only a model to explain observations, with a goal of perhaps being able to manipulate those phenomena (i.e. the engineering side of science). Any scientist (and unfortunately there are more than a few) who pretends that science seeks truth is deluding themselves. Actually, at its core, science seeks falsehood. Science will never be able to prove something TRUE, there could always be new data. But it can show what is false.
----------------------------------- LOL!!! Great way of saying 'it's an educated guess,' or 'we're hedging our bets.' And that is my point exactly when scientists look with disdain upon "philosophical" points.
For example... do I love my kids? Yep. Without a doubt. I love them. Do you love your kids? I will assume, for agrument's sake, an affirmative answser. Do you know you love your kids? Yes. Great.
Prove it. Theorize it. Mathematically represent it. But until you can do that... does it change the fact that you love your kids? ----------------------------------
Well, there are some scientists who like to sit in their ivory towers and disdain philosophy ... and vice versa. I can assure you that I and most of my close colleagues are not in that company. I have nothing but respect for philosophy, theology, religion, social science, etc. I do have a measure of disdain for some practicers of philosophy, religion, etc., especially those that use it to inflict emotional or physical harm on people.
I think you misunderstand my point a bit though. I do not seek to diminish philosophy by excluding philosophical points from scientific inquiry. I only assert that to attempt to insert philosophical arguments in science is fraught with peril, as these arguments can oftentimes not be tested by the scientific method, thus their veracity is suspect. If you do not have observational data to support your hypothesis, if your assertion is based on belief or that the argument sounds right or is just logical, then you are not doing science. Does that make the argument less vaild or sound or useful, no. It is just not science.
But you see, your query about loving your kids could be tested. We could set up a number of agreed-upon parameters that define love and then check to see if some or all of those parameters are verified. Granted, this is social science, which relies a little more on subjective assertions (again not implying disdain here, just categorizing). But there is no fundamental difference here between what you suggest, and defining momentum to be mass times velocity and then doing a bunch of experiments to see if it is conserved. Yes, it is possible that an experiment could come along and show violation of momentum conservation. And yes, we could show that I love my children based on our definitions, only to find out later that there was another factor left-out that showed that I really don't. But that is how science progresses. Constantly questioning the results and either modifying if the theory has flexibility or rejecting if it doesn't.
------------------------------------- Hm. Well, everything I've read so far says that there is NOTHING that moves faster than the speed of light. Oh. But wait. In order for light to move, it must have SPACE... and unhindered space at that (NOTHING) in which to do it, or it is forced into a perpetual ground state.... darn, I hate when that happens... ---------------------------------------------
But that is the point. Nothing (space) was moving faster than the speed of light during that time. Space itself is not bound by the speed of light restriction. The inflationary epoch, as it is called, was a sort of phase change in the universe (much like solid to liquid).
I am not sure what you mean by light being forced into a perpetual ground state. Are you confusing it with electrons in atomic energy levels?
And if you think about it, your statement that light needs space to move is really a tautology. To move requires a change in coordinates by definition.
-----------------------------------------------No. Not really. I'm not talking polarity here, but the creation of polarity. Consider this. Let's say that all which exists is 1. That's it. That's all you've got. Actually, you don't even have perspective, so it's just 1. You can't add to it, you can't take away from it, you can't multiply it or divide it, for there is no 'you' and nothing else to consider.
Now what? -------------------------------------------------
OK, I see where you are going with this. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the primordial singularity that preceeded the Big Bang. Granted, we do not know the mechanism by which this singularity took the step to universe with space and time dimensions anymore than we know how the spark of life began. But unexplained does not imply inexplicable. I think the fact that we have such a conundrum is GREAT for science. If and when we figure out that particular problem, I hope there is another bigger one beyond it, or else a lot of scientists will be out of jobs.
The way you phrase your statements is in a philosophical way. But the fact of the matter is something happened to bring the universe to its current state. It is the job of science to determine how that occured, not why or by whom.
--------------------------------------- "Really? When did polarity come into being?" -------------------------------------------
I don't know, but that is not the same question or statment you made earlier. When or how polarity came into being is something that ultimately should be answerable. It will take a great deal more sophistication in experimental methods and mathematics than we currently have, but I have hope that humanity will not destroy itself before that occurs.
-------------------------------------------- They are theoretical in nature. From where do you think theory emerges? A philosophical mind. That which is able to consider itself. And how does that happen? ---------------------------------------------
Again, we have to go back to how we define theory. In science a theory is NOT a hypothesis, something that is just dreamed up. It is something that has been verified by testing and data. String theory should NOT be called a theory. Big Bang does stretch the word a bit, but it does have evidence to back it up (I'll get back to you later Z-bube ).
Agreed, many scientific discoveries ultimately emerged from wild guesses, eureka moments, etc. But to become scientific THEORIES, the scientific community must go back and trace through the steps of the scientific method. So yes, many theories originated as hunches based on how a scientist thought the world SHOULD work. But if that scientist cannot go back and show that is how the world DOES work, the hypothesis never becomes a theory.
As far as your other statement, the origin of "sentience" is another unanswered question in science. But again, unexplained does not mean inexplicable.
-------------------------------------- No. It all begins with a question. Otherwise, all is as it is. --------------------------------------
Ahhh, but all questions are not created equal. A truly scientific question must make testable predictions. A philosophical question is not bound by such strictures. It is for that reason that philosophy does a better job searching for TRUTH. Unfortunately, the instrument of philosophy (the human mind) is very fickle so that ultimate truth is elusive.
---------------------------------------------- "Well, no, not yet but there are some pretty good theories out there that have stood the test of time which many believe and will stick with until something comes along to prove otherwise." -------------------------------
Please elaborate. Are you saying there are theories out there that can demonstrate scientifically that God exists? What are they and what specific testable predictions do they make? I know of none that have stood the test of time as you say. I agree with you completely that many believe in them (I personally believe that God created the universe), but belief is not scientific. And I know of no creationist theories that have been proven to be true.
------------------------------------------------ Gotta disagree with you there. I think it has every place in science class. I personally believe science is suffering from its unwillingness to explore philosophy and theology, just as they can suffer without science. -------------------------------------------------------
Point conceded. In an ideal world, all disciplines would overlap to some degree and we would take a more "holistic" approach to science, philosophy, etc. Unfortunately, most people (teachers, professors, myself included) have great difficulty mixing philosophy and theology with science. Because the tools of philosophy and theology are not well designed to answer scientific questions and vice versa. For example, in the creation science circles, the inherent bias that the literal (well, their literal) version of the Bible is infallibly correct causes them selectively pick out only data that fit with their hypotheses and reject the overwhelming data against it. On the other hand, many of the so-called "philosophical materialist" scientists are IMHO doing a disservce to science by attempting to use it to disprove the existence of a Creator, to fit their atheistic beliefs. While the tenants of philosophy and science can be mixed to some degree, GREAT care must be taken or misuse will lead to false conclusions.
Let me just say in conclusion that I really hope I am not coming across as preachy or snooty here. I really do appreciate the discussion and have great respect for your point of view. If I ever do start sounding snooty, please let me know.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Space itself is not bound by the speed of light restriction. The inflationary epoch, as it is called, was a sort of phase change in the universe (much like solid to liquid).
