real truth about 'the truth about aliens'

[mr d]

Hello

 

So here’s the real truth about ‘the truth about aliens”.

 

Some time back I read an article about disturbing trends in science among them,

1) excepting theories as laws

2) perception that facts now known are the only facts, and that there is no further need to explore questions current science tags as answered.

3) Over dependence on technology to do our thinking.

4) Polarization of ideas

 

And others, wish I could remember were I had read it to list a site, but it was some time ago. But as I’ve browsed through posting on this site I’ve often felt many of these trends seem to be alive and well right here.

How many times have you seen here where a question was posed “ could a person insert a finger up their nose to the knuckle?” And a reply comes, ‘Sydner’s 4th law of nose picking states a finger can only be inserted to the second joint. So your wrong.’

Or other such statements. Well at least say why you think that law is relevant, perhaps give your opinion or observations as to why. ‘I’ve stuck my own finger up my nose many times an found it was true I could not get past the second joint.’

Same for books are articles.

And how many post do you see like this

Post: could chickens prove intelligent design

Reply: there is no such thing as intelligent design. It is evolution.

Response: but could a chickens left toe be anything but designed by an all powerful being.

Reply: your obviously to ignorant to understand science, please crawled back to the middle ages where you belong.

Response: well, if you weren’t a molester of under age chickens you might be able to understand.

Also do you every get the feeling that these posters who only state laws and such know how those laws were arrived at, or what applications they may have on current thinking? How many are simply repeating what they’ve been told in class, or found out on the web. Been and instructor before and would deliberately give out misinformation to students, to see if they would discover my mistakes on their own or at least challenge my information occasionally. Must admit none ever did.

Probably why I always thought Da Vinci had it right. Text were available to him, but he spent most of his time not reading them, but instead wandered about observing the world around him and writing down his observations in books.

 

That’s why ‘the truth about aliens’, a question there is no real answer to at the moment. How would people respond? Would they discuss what they read?

Would they merely come out and state what is the real truth?

 

Interesting results, with perhaps a bit of all the trends showing up. I leave it to you to decide which trend some, but not all, may belong to.

Do apologize for sampling you unknowingly to fulfill my interest. But did have a morbid curiosity I wished to explore.

 

Now climbing down off my soap box, I shan’t ring a bell to see who salivates for a while. Like to hear your thoughts on the matter, and for those who view and do not post, please do so. I know many people don’t care to because they fell their ideas may be ridiculed by a vocal minority. But your ideas are just as valuable as anyone else’s, so join in and be heard.

 

Strange thoughts

 

Mr d

[bascule]

Hello

 

So here’s the real truth about ‘the truth about aliens”.

 

Some time back I read an article about disturbing trends in science among them' date='

1) excepting theories as laws[/quote']

 

We know laws aren't universal. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion wouldn't exactly do the greatest job of describing the behavior of a planet which is in the process of being sucked into a black hole. Newton's Laws aren't valid for objects travelling at nearly the speed of light.

 

Neither of these laws provide universal truth, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful.

 

2) perception that facts now known are the only facts, and that there is no further need to explore questions current science tags as answered.

 

Oh please, anyone who has espoused this attitude is not thinking scientifically and will quite shortly be proven wrong. I forget who it was, but Brian Greene quoted some 19th century yokel in The Fabric of the Cosmos who made the ludicrous claim that physics had fully explained the universe but for two things: the behavior of light and the nature of radiation, and that these problems would be solved shortly and our knowledge of physics would be complete. These two problems became the basis of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

 

Science operates under the premise that any accepted idea is potentially falsifiable given enough evidence. Science isn't afraid to be wrong. Science wants to be wrong, because when it is shown to be wrong we move closer to the truth.

 

3) Over dependence on technology to do our thinking.

 

Technology doesn't think... yet.

 

4) Polarization of ideas

 

The main polarization I notice is science vs. pseudoscience, as made painfully clear in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World

 

And how many post do you see like this

Post: could chickens prove intelligent design

Reply: there is no such thing as intelligent design. It is evolution.

Response: but could a chickens left toe be anything but designed by an all powerful being.

Reply: your obviously to ignorant to understand science, please crawled back to the middle ages where you belong.

Response: well, if you weren’t a molester of under age chickens you might be able to understand.

 

That was a lame attempt at a strawman.

 

Also do you every get the feeling that these posters who only state laws and such know how those laws were arrived at, or what applications they may have on current thinking? How many are simply repeating what they’ve been told in class, or found out on the web. Been and instructor before and would deliberately give out misinformation to students, to see if they would discover my mistakes on their own or at least challenge my information occasionally. Must admit none ever did.

 

Anecdotes are fun!

 

Probably why I always thought Da Vinci had it right. Text were available to him, but he spent most of his time not reading them, but instead wandered about observing the world around him and writing down his observations in books.

 

I don't think Leonardo da Vinci would've bothered with that if he had the knowledge of physics at his disposal that we do today. He was in an age mired with pseudoscience.

 

That’s why ‘the truth about aliens’, a question there is no real answer to at the moment. How would people respond? Would they discuss what they read?

Would they merely come out and state what is the real truth?

 

I did state the real truth: we don't know. There is no hard evidence of aliens.

[gcol]

Lovely stuff. Those you are alluding to won't recognise themselves, of course. If they do, they won'trespond. Unfortunately we need them from time to time to keep our feet on the ground, but they need to be poked with a sharp stick occasionally just to test for signs of life. Just like the dinosaurs, they will die out eventually, but probably not in our lifetimes.

[padren]

Just a note about the chicken thing:

 

You are more likely to see posts like that, from people who have heard 1000 arguments as to why such or such could prove intelligent design, including the concept proposed, and that it had been dealt with exhuastively and people were tired of rehashing it.

 

Some simular things that spark the same result:

 

* I can prove math is inconsistent because....

* I have invented a perpetual motion machine just by....

* I invented a machine that can make predictions about the future...

* Relatively is wrong because...

* Evolution is wrong because...

* You can get limitless energy just by...

* I can prove God exists by...

* I can prove God does not exist by...

* I am not racist but since genetics and statistics show that...

 

These sorts of openers tend to rehash old ideas that were already debated, and usually were based on some misconception about the topic. If someone says "no, they evolved" to the chicken question they are usually (and perhaps not so politely) saying "heard it, and no. You should read more so you know why." or something to that effect.

 

I find this board is actually pretty friendly to posts like those, even when you find one or two people react, you find others who will take the time to explain why they feel your concept is wrong.

 

 

Regarding the "polarization of ideas" I think that is a fair concept and I do think it happens more than it should. If I read it right, you mean something to this effect: Lets say camp A think dinosuars died from a meteor, and camp B says they died from bird flu. Someone in camp A likes an idea of one of the camp B people about dino teeth that is entirely unrelated, but won't support the idea publically because of animosity about the A vs. B division, and because he may be viewed as a traitor by his camp A buddies.

 

If that is the case, I am not sure how much it does happen, but any amount would be a shame. It does seem to happen in politics a good deal, but I don't know about the science community enough to assess that.