The problem with...

[Blix]

Re: Planets, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet , then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

Jupiter and Saturn are definitely "planets" but that definition. The "planetary discriminant" (μ) parameter for them and the other "true" planets is a very large number (orders of magnitude greater than 1), while the value of μ for what are labelled as dwarf planets is clearly very small (1 or much smaller). The distinction between true planets and dwarf planets is therefore quite apparent.

That said, the IAU definition does have other issues (e.g. it is a heliocentric definition, not a general one), but that is a separate argument that is beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[jatay3]

I still await evidence for your claims, DFW. You say "read the article", but the article does not present any such evidence.

To summarize: It states that established models have been turned "upside-down" by recent discoveries. This much is true; but then this is how science works. New data can and does often change or overturn older theories.

The article then goes on to point out some of the new discoveries, while also presenting some of the new ideas that can explain them (e.g. gas giant migration, gravitational interaction, the kozai mechanism). Again, there is nothing in the article to suggest that these new ideas are being hidden from people, or that scientists have been unwilling to incorporate them.

You claim to know better than scientists "when it comes to painting something as fact for the entire universe before the data is in". But what would you propose should be done instead? Should scientists not say anything at all until every single scrap of data that can possibly be gathered has been found? By that logic, you would dismiss Newtonian gravity completely because it fails to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit; yet it worked well enough for scientists for hundreds of years. It is of course impossible to gather all the data about everything before forumulating a theory; as technology advances, new methods of observation and more sensitive instruments will provide new data, and as described above that may cause existing models of the universe to change to accomodate them. Until that time though, the old models suffice (how could it work otherwise?). This is entirely normal for science.

So, in light of all that, why do you think that scientists are "myopic"? Why do you think that everything we know about the universe is an "uneducated guess" (this is particularly nonsensical, given that new theories are built on what came before them, and all are based on solid data and observations. There is nothing "uneducated" about them, and there is no "guesswork" either)? The field of extrasolar system studies and planetary formation is still very new, and we have only had the instruments and the means to study it effectively for the past 20-40 years, so of course it will change dramatically during that time. None of this means that scientists do not know what they are talking about or are short-sighted, and I cannot recall any instance where they have rejected the wealth of observations that contradict the long-established theories. It certainly came as a surprise, but when it became apparent that they were real, they had to be accomodated, and the theories adapted to account for them. Again, this is how science works.

I should note that Traveller's system generation rules have remained somewhat constant during this time, such that they look extremely dated today. It seems that your criticisms would be better directed at the game's authors, given that they have not adapted their rules to the new paradigms that are unfolding in the field.

That would be all very well if one doesn't set up reason as the sole judge of knowledge and then set up science as the sole judge of reason, and then berate those who disagree as many people do. To be rational one must demand a respect for the law of non-contradiction. Other disciplines have the same problem, but other disciplines are not as hubristic. I am something of a historian but I have no intention to "restore history to it's rightful place".

When science claims to be the sole judge of reality and when people are berated for disagreeing with the conclusions of science, then it is no longer science, it is ideology and not an ideology I am particularly fond of. As long as science has the humility to be just another discipline it has as much right to guesswork as any other. If it clams to have a "rightful place" as the ultimate judge of reality then it is simply irrational because it contradicts itself repeatedly. And science is dependent on reason not it's master, and all the talk of "that's the glory of science" doesn't matter. Science may have glory, worship of science has none. If you wish to say that is a straw man, I will point out that I have run into a number of people exactly like I have described. If this description does not apply to you, that is perfectly fine.

If science can contradict itself, that means science can be wrong. It does not mean "the glory of science". It means science can be wrong. And if so, non-scientists can be right even when they disagree with scientists. Saying only scientists have a right to disagree with science, is making scientists into priests.

 

[jatay3]

Blix,

That is so very true and the inability to grasp that lays at the root of many people's "trouble" with science.

People want certainties, people want truths unalterable for all time, and people continually insist on mistaking theories for those sort of truths.

When science states "X is Y", science is actually stating "Currently X is Y on the basis of most of the facts and observations".

The inability to be comfortable or even comprehend uncertainty makes many people unable to be comfortable or comprehend science.




Regards,
Bill

People may want "certainties" is. People also want reason out of those who would appeal to reason. Incoherence is not reason.

When science states X is Y that does not mean X is Y. And it certainly does not mean, "all who say X is not Y are ignorant fools". When science states X is Y it means, "We think X is Y." If it means anything else it is being absurd. People have a right to expect certainty out of those who claim certainty. If they don't make such claims they should say "we think" and disavow any who would imply that they mean different. If they do claim certainty they forfeit the right to contradiction. But they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If science wishes to be emperor of our thoughts then it should wear clothes.

 

[Blix]

That would be all very well if one doesn't set up reason as the sole judge of knowledge and then set up science as the sole judge of reason, and then berate those who disagree as many people do.

Science has repeatedly been demonstrated to be the most effective tool for understanding observable reality. It is not based on faith and belief, it is based on observation, hard data, and solid evidence. It is not "personal" either - anyone can repeat the same experiments and make the same observations and get the same results. It is also based on what has come before, so is built up on the sum of hundreds (if not thousands) of years of data.

If something can be independently and repeatedly observed and detected, then data can be gathered on it and understanding of it falls within the purview of science. If this is not the case, then it is not part of science, and should not be considered as such.

When science claims to be the sole judge of reality

Science is the sole judge of observable reality, as described above. Anything outside that (e.g. the supernatural, or religion) is outside the purview of science.

If it clams to have a "rightful place" as the ultimate judge of reality then it is simply irrational because it contradicts itself repeatedly.

Please cite some of these "contradictions".

If science can contradict itself, that means science can be wrong.

Again, please cite some of these contradictions. Also, as stated, science is evolving. It does not give absolute answers, theories are based on the data that is currently available and that can and does change over time (as do the theories). If you are claiming that science gives absolute answers then you are completely failing to comprehend how science works.

It does not mean "the glory of science". It means science can be wrong. And if so, non-scientists can be right even when they disagree with scientists. Saying only scientists have a right to disagree with science, is making scientists into priests.

Science is based on knowledge; professional scientists have the knowledge to understand the subject that they are studying, but non-scientists also have the capability to learn that knowledge themselves (also, "priesthood" is a religious term. Science is not a religion; it is not based on faith). To "disagree" with science requires evidence that the scientific theory or hypothesis is wrong, and this would have to be verified by other scientists. The source of that evidence (whether from a professional scientist or not) does not really matter; what matters is that others can examine it for themselves. If the evidence against it is valid, then the theory changes. If it is not valid, then it does not.

It seems to me that you have deep-seated personal issues against science here (for example, you keep citing "the glory of science", but nobody here has mentioned anything of the sort), as well as a total lack of understanding of how science works.

 

[Blix]

When science states X is Y that does not mean X is Y. And it certainly does not mean, "all who say X is not Y are ignorant fools". When science states X is Y it means, "We think X is Y." If it means anything else it is being absurd. People have a right to expect certainty out of those who claim certainty. If they don't make such claims they should say "we think" and disavow any who would imply that they mean different. If they do claim certainty they forfeit the right to contradiction. But they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If science wishes to be emperor of our thoughts then it should wear clothes.

Science has never claimed "certainty" about anything. It has only claimed that "this is our understanding based on currently observable data and evidence, and is subject to change as new data arrives". If you believe that science produces absolutes and cannot be contradicted then you are completely mistaken.

If you want absolutes, I suggest you turn to religion instead. Faith has no concern about whether reality contradicts its absolutes, and no requirement to conform to reality either.

 

[jatay3]

Science has never claimed "certainty" about anything. It has only claimed that "this is our understanding based on currently observable data and evidence, and is subject to change as new data arrives". If you believe that science produces absolutes and cannot be contradicted then you are completely mistaken.

If you want absolutes, I suggest you turn to religion instead. Faith has no concern about whether reality contradicts its absolutes, and no requirement to conform to reality either.

Nonsense. People are always saying "thus sayeth science". When they do so they are claiming certainty. There are so many who constantly say "thus sayeth science" that scientists should disavow them or their discipline is corrupted.

As for whether I should turn to religion, my point is that "thus sayeth science" IS a religion. And enough people hold to it and hold to it more obnoxiously then most people who hold to conventional religion for me to be annoyed. I do not demand absolutes of science when no one claims that science gives them. When they say "Thus sayeth science" I have a right to say "put up or shut up"

 

[jatay3]

I demand honesty and humility, not to mention good manners of science not certainty. If they are not certain they should say "we think".

 

[Blix]

Nonsense. People are always saying "thus sayeth science". When they do so they are claiming certainty. There are so many who constantly say "thus sayeth science" that scientists should disavow them or their discipline is corrupted.

The point you are consistently missing is that "thus sayeth science" is an entirely accurate statement. There is no "certainty" in that statement at all (beyond that this is what science says at the moment); it just says that it is the scientific explanation for a phenomenon or a process. If you understood how science works, you would understand that the scientific explanation for something can and does change and evolve, and there there is no absolute, irrefutable "certainty" in there to start with. What "science sayeth" today may change in a decade, or a year, or even tomorrow.

As for whether I should turn to religion, my point is that "thus sayeth science" IS a religion.

Science, by definition, is not and can never be a religion. Religions are based on faith, not observation and evidence.

When they say "Thus sayeth science" I have a right to say "put up or shut up"

Say what you will and demand all you like, but you should realise that the real problem here is actually your own lack of understanding of how science operates.

 

[RandyT0001]

I demand honesty and humility of science, not certainly. If they are not certain they should say "we think".

Deranged religious fanatics can say "we think x", polititicans can say "we think y", beer guzziling couch potatos can say "we think z". Scientists do more. They say "we observe, formulate an explanation of what was observed, conducted tests through experimentation and computer simulations based on those observations, and we think this theory best explains what was observed."

 

[jatay3]

The point you are consistently missing is that "thus sayeth science" is an entirely accurate statement. There is no "certainty" in that statement at all (beyond that this is what science says at the moment); it just says that it is the scientific explanation for a phenomenon or a process. If you understood how science works, you would understand that the scientific explanation for something can and does change and evolve, and there there is no absolute, irrefutable "certainty" in there to start with. What "science sayeth" today may change in a decade, or a year, or even tomorrow.



Science, by definition, is not and can never be a religion. Religions are based on faith, not observation and evidence.




Say what you will and demand all you like, but you should realise that the real problem here is actually your own lack of understanding of how science operates.

If science is not a religion, why are you wasting my time with ad hominems that I have heard a thousand times before and which would disgrace any reputable bumper sticker? Do you agree that the statement "is" is different from the statement "I think"? Do you have the humility to accept that you have no right to make disproportionate claims? Do you even accept the law of non-contradiction? Will you accept the statement Science Can Be Wrong ?

If not then you are a religion.

My "understanding of real science" is that it claims to be rational and worthy of respect. If it contradicts itself and yet says each time it is the ultimate source of reality until it contradicts itself again, it is not rational and not worthy of my respect.

 

[Blix]

If science is not a religion, why are you wasting my time with ad hominems that I have heard a thousand times before and which would disgrace any reputable bumper sticker? Do you agree that the statement "is" is different from the statement "I think"? Do you have the humility to accept that you have no right to make disproportionate claims? Do you even accept the law of non-contradiction? Will you accept the statement Science Can Be Wrong ?

Nobody has ever claimed that science cannot be mistaken about something; again, you keep claiming that it does, but I have repeatedly asked you to provide examples of this and you have not given any (and to get back on topic, the OP actually demonstrated this perfectly; our view of solar system formation was based on data from our own system, and when new data was gathered from other solar systems our theories of solar system formation changed as a result. We have even changed our view of our own solar system's formation as a result). But if it is found to be mistaken, then it is corrected by adapting or even rewriting or coming up with new theories to explain things. That is what you apparently cannot (or do not wish to?) understand.

And if you have heard these arguments and supposed "ad hominems" so often before, then has it occurred to you that it might be because your view about science is consistently incorrect? If you made an effort to understand it, then I'm sure you won't be hearing them anymore.

My "understanding of real science" is that it claims to be rational and worthy of respect. If it contradicts itself and yet says each time it is the ultimate source of reality until it contradicts itself again, it is not rational and not worthy of my respect.

It doesn't do that though. But if that is the way you feel, then I would suggest that you should forsake it completely and live your life without any of the benefits that science has provided. It would surely be hypocritical for you to do otherwise. Do you hate yourself or complain every time you are forced to use medicine, or cook food, or drive a car, or use a computer? Perhaps you should mistrust anything that any technician or mechanic or scientist tells you, because you feel it is "not worthy of your respect".

 

[jatay3]

Nobody has ever claimed that science cannot be mistaken about something; again, you keep claiming that it does, but I have repeatedly asked you to provide examples of this and you have not given any. But if it is found to be mistaken, then it is corrected by adapting or even rewriting or coming up with new theories to explain things. That is what you apparently cannot (or do not wish to?) understand.

And if you have heard these arguments and supposed "ad hominems" so often before, then has it occurred to you that it might be because your view about science is consistently incorrect? If you made an effort to understand it, then I'm sure you won't be hearing them anymore.




It doesn't do that though. But if that's the way you feel, then I would suggest that you should forsake it completely and live your life without any of the benefits that science has provided. It would surely be hypocritical for you to do otherwise.

"The benefits of science" are a Red Herring. Way to much reverence is demanded as a purchase price for those benefits. If you demand that I respect science as much as I do history that is fine. To demand more is to much.

Furthermore the benefits of science can just as easily be laid to commerce, which makes no such demands on me.

 

[Blix]

It seems clear that you do not wish to engage in a rational discussion about this, and just want to use this thread as a soapbox for your anti-science beliefs.

 

[jatay3]

It seems clear that you do not wish to engage in a rational discussion about this, and just want to use this thread as a soapbox for your anti-science beliefs.

That is what this thread has so far been about. As for "rational" I should think the demand for humility is rational enough if you are going to demand the right to self-contradiction.

 

[Blix]

That is what this thread has so far been about. As for "rational" I should think the demand for humility is rational enough if you are going to demand the right to self-contradiction.

No, it has been about people mistakenly claiming that science provides definite absolutes. This has been repeatedly proven to be an erroneous assumption. I have asked you and DFW several times for examples of "contradiction" where science has not changed in the face of evidence to the contrary, and you have provided none whatsoever.

Demanding humility is not rational, particularly when you refuse to accept that "humility" is not even a factor in science. If there is definitive evidence against a scientific theory, then it will be changed; if the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny, then it will not. What exactly is there to be "humble" about? Every scientist knows from the start that theories change, because that is how science works - and every scientist will admit that they were wrong if the evidence says that they were. Scientists do not pretend otherwise, and have never pretended otherwise.

Perhaps it is you that needs to show humility here, and accept that you are wrong about this.

 

[jatay3]

No, it has been about people mistakenly claiming that science provides definite absolutes. This has been repeatedly proven to be an erroneous assumption. I have asked you and DFW several times for examples of "contradiction" where science has not changed in the face of evidence to the contrary, and you have provided none whatsoever.

Demanding humility is not rational, particularly when you refuse to accept that "humility" is not even a factor in science. If there is definitive evidence against a scientific theory, then it will be changed; if the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny, then it will not. What exactly is there to be "humble" about? Every scientist knows from the start that theories change, because that is how science works - and every scientist will admit that they were wrong if the evidence says that they were. Scientists do not pretend otherwise, and have never pretended otherwise.

Perhaps it is you that needs to show humility here, and accept that you are wrong about this.

And the point was not whether or not it changed "in the face of evidence". The act of change is admission of error. A witness who keeps changing his testimony, even if it is "in the face of evidence" is reasonably considered unreliable.

And demanding humility of those who would seek knowledge is perfectly rational because humility is necessary for impartiality. Being wrong numerous times before is certainly something to be humble about. Acknowledging the possibility that one might be wrong again is a minimal humility that is quite reasonable to demand of others. The minimal humility I demand is simply not to claim to be the molders of people's opinion.

The behavior of scientists or at least their admirers most definitely says that they are claiming to be the source of wisdom. If they are making such a claim, they should put up or shut up. If they are not, they should be less dogmatic and repudiate those that are. I am demanding nothing of scientists or their admirers other then that they do not try to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[far-trader]

That is what this thread has so far been about.

No, that is what you and DFW have made it about. And that stops. The forum does not allow religion or politics and that is what you two have made of it. DFW was given 3 Warnings already for his part in it, and he's not read them or edited his posts to acknowledge them and is due for a Temp Ban for ignoring them. You yourself have already been given a Warning as well in this thread and are aiming to collect more at this rate. Review the rules FAQ.

 

[Blix]

The behavior of scientists or at least their admirers most definitely says that they are claiming to be the source of wisdom.

If I may continue and respond to this: nobody claims that scientists are the "source of wisdom". They are, however, the primary source of knowledge about the universe. Religion will not accurately tell you how planets form, neither will art or any other worldview; science is the only tool we have with which to do that, because it is based on actual observations and data of the phenomena that it is describing, and that view will change as more data is gathered.

Again, you are misrepresenting science to suit your erroneous beliefs about it.

 

[jatay3]

If I may continue and respond to this: nobody claims that scientists are the "source of wisdom". They are, however, the primary source of knowledge about the universe. Religion will not accurately tell you how planets form, neither will art or any other worldview; science is the only tool we have with which to do that, because it depends on actual observations and data of the phenomena that it is describing, and that view will change as more data is gathered.

Again, you are misrepresenting science to suit your erroneous beliefs about it.

No, I am representing science to suit my experience of it's spokesmen which are nothing like your description. I am demanding that they do fit your description.

As for "Religion will not accurately tell you how planets form" that is a philosophical statement not a scientific one. Claiming that it is a scientific statement by your definition demonstrates my point. If science admits to being wrong continually what makes you so sure that science CAN accurately tell how planets form? More to the point, what makes you so sure a non-scientist is not right where you are wrong? If you are what you claim you should stop saying things like that.

Your right to bet on a given horse does not translate into a right to demand that other horses refrain from running.

 

[Blix]

No, I am representing science to suit my experience of it's spokesmen which are nothing like your description. I am demanding that they do fit your description.

Again, you have not provided any examples of what you are complaining about.

EDIT: Until or unless you actually provide examples of what it is that you are complaining about (e.g. "contradictions" in science) then I see no purpose in continuing this discussion. Without such evidence for these claims then I (and others) have no way to see if there is any justification for your viewpoint.

As for "Religion will not accurately tell you how planets form" that is a philosophical statement not a scientific one. Claiming that it is a scientific statement by your definition demonstrates my point.

Religion can claim that the planets were made in seven days by an omnipotent being, or that they spontaneously appeared fully formed out of the void, but we know now that both are inaccurate and incorrect assertions, and more to the point they are based on no physical evidence whatsoever. As such, they cannot be proved one way or another; people can either believe what religion states about this, or they can choose not to do so. Even if religion stated something about the universe that subsequent observations did agree with then that is entirely coincidental, because religion does not rely on observations to create its view of reality.

Science on the other hand has some well estabished theories about planetary formation, that have changed and are still changing over time. The current consensus is that planets form slowly over time, accreting from dust that grows into protoplanets that then collides to form larger planets (there is an alternative model that suggests that larger gas giants can form directly from the protostellar nebula, forming a core that simply grows and grows until it has collected all the material in range). These theories are based on a wide range of observations and data gathered over the years from telescopes, spacecraft, and other sources, and are still evolving themselves. All of this data is available to the public via papers, data archives and universities, and anyone is welcome to examine them and (assuming they know the scientific method) they are very likely to reach the same conclusions as the scientists have done.

If science admits to being wrong continually what makes you so sure that science CAN accurately tell how planets form.

Because mistakes are refined out of the system. Initially a model may be incomplete, and only explain the broad picture. But as time goes on, it becomes more and more refined as more data comes in and more analysis is done. It is unlikely (though not impossible) that our current models will be completely overturned. Even when the Hot Jupiters were discovered, this did not require the old model to be cast out entirely; it merely required it to be modified to account for them (while still being able to explain existing data). When the Einsteinian view of gravity superceded the Newtonian one, everything we knew about gravity was not suddenly rendered invalid; it was simply expanded to explain that which it could not explain before. Again, this is how science works, by building on what came before.

More to the point, what makes you so sure a non-scientist is not right where you are wrong?

Unless the non-scientist can demonstrate that their view is more valid than the scientific one (which again, is based on actual observation of whatever it is being discussed) then it is extremely unlikely that they would be correct. What method would the non-scientist use to demonstrate that the scientist is wrong? Belief? The non-scientist can believe all he likes, but he has no way of proving that his belief is more valid than evidence.

Your right to bet on a given horse does not translate into a right to demand that other horses refrain from running.

They are free to run, and I have not demanded otherwise. But they are also free to have their flawed pointed out and to fail because of them. A healthy four-legged racehorse is much more likely to win a race than a bunch of unhealthy, three-legged old nags, after all.