[Shocking?] Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Science is true whether or not we believe in it."

[iNow]

Speculations and brainstorming should not be conflated with assertions and conclusions. The reason scientific claims don't rely on an appeal to authority is because they can be directly tested and even falsified with evidence by anyone with the desire to try. Beliefs don't have that same character, nor do naked appeals to authority.

[Lord Antares]

I understand appeal to authority cannot be used in actual science. That is not what I was talking about.

 

I was talking from the perspective of a layman who may not be able to tell what is true on their own.

[Strange]

But, for example, when Stephen Hawking talks about wormholes and time travel, that is not to be taken seriously, as it is not his (or anyone's) area of expertise.

 

 

If that is not his area of expertise, I struggle to think whose it might be... Surely, he is one of the leading authorities on space-time? (There seems to a be a slight irony there... )

[iNow]

I was talking from the perspective of a layman who may not be able to tell what is true on their own.

The critical point here is that they could if they desired to try.

[Lord Antares]

 

 

If that is not his area of expertise, I struggle to think whose it might be... Surely, he is one of the leading authorities on space-time? (There seems to a be a slight irony there... )

 

I mean, it's outside the estalished knowledge of physics. If he were to talk about parallex between galaxies, our observation of black holes, life cycles of a start etc. he is most certainly eligible to do so. You can assume that he will give you correct information.

 

However, wormholes and time-travel through black holes and similar SF talk is what his knowledge doesn't cover, and therefore you shouldn't trust his (or anyone's) speculation about that.

 

 

The critical point here is that they could if they desired to try.

 

Even if this is true (and it isn't necessarily), it would take copious amounts of time.

[Strange]

However, wormholes and time-travel through black holes and similar SF talk is what his knowledge doesn't cover, and therefore you shouldn't trust his (or anyone's) speculation about that.

 

 

The idea of travel through wormholes is based on the work of Hawking and others.

[Argent]

 

I mean, it's outside the estalished knowledge of physics. If he were to talk about parallex between galaxies, our observation of black holes, life cycles of a start etc. he is most certainly eligible to do so. You can assume that he will give you correct information.

 

However, wormholes and time-travel through black holes and similar SF talk is what his knowledge doesn't cover, and therefore you shouldn't trust his (or anyone's) speculation about that.

So you deny the seriousness of Einstein-Rosen bridges, you object to the concept of closed time-like loops, you consider the detailed mathematical considerations in this field by experts to be trivial, and the consistency of these concepts with General Relativity you reject as irrelevant?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. Well, I might change "observed" to "defined"; especially as science is occasionally observed to be affected [temporarily] by the personal beliefs of individual scientists.

 

But more generally, belief seems to be an essential component of human life - despite your belief to the contrary.

 

Do cats believe?

Do insects believe?

Do bacteria believe?

[Strange]

 

Do cats believe?

Do insects believe?

Do bacteria believe?

 

 

Who knows. But that is why I said "human life".

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

 

 

Who knows. But that is why I said "human life".

 

Science/belief properties:

Science is likely to contain empirical, testable sequences.

Belief is likely to contain non-science.

 

 

Your Words:

Belief is essential to human life.

 

 

Conclusion from your words and properties of science/belief:

Today, there exists one moment for which science is not applicable, while one cannot avoid approaching that moment.

 

 

FOOTNOTE:

In simpler words, today, you are expressing that there must be some event where:

(1) Science is not applicable (i.e. merely belief is applicable)

and

(2) Where (1) occurs, in which ONE HAS NO CHOICE but to apply belief.

 

 

Tell me, what event satisfies (2) in the footnote above?

Edited March 19, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan