The Universe

[ravells]

I was really enjoying the thread 'The universe might be bigger...'

I know my response will probably get locked down, but I do have a few comments to make.

1. I found Mal's comments about Americans utterly racist and I hope they think that not all of us Brits think that way. I'd like to think that we take people on their own merits wherever they come from.

2. I was very sad that a very interesting discussion got derailed by people who had an axe to grind with each other. TE was right, this is historical, but I guess it was hoped that closing down the political pulpit would have put a stop to it, instead it has infected other discussions. Hopefully that will stop.

3. It costs nothing to be polite.

be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

(Desiderata)

4. What does it possibly matter if someone who you will never meet, who has no influence in your day to day life disagrees with you or throws arrows at you? It matters not a jot. If your aim is to be better thought of then be moderate and answer in polite terms. If you are ignored then so be it. It doesn't really matter. People will think better of you that you didn't react.

5. This is a great forum, there are lots of wonderful people here who have a lot to contribute to keeping the ethic of Traveller alive. We all need to keep it alive, god knows there are few of us as it is.

6. Traveller is about science fiction role playing in the far future. Anything is possible. This is not about Science, it's about the imagination. We are all old enough on these boards to make up our own minds about what may be scientifically (or otherwise) correct or incorrect. You only have to make your point once. If it's really that important to you as to whether quarks exist or don't, or whether the albedo of a planet is 0.25 or 0.26 then this is not the right place. Go to an astronomy forum.

7. I hope we can continue our discussions without this utter awfulness. The world is a horrid enough place already. Given that we all subscribe to a fantasy universe the least we could do is to keep personal hatred out of it.

[/rant]

Ravs

 

[Spinward Scout]

Very well said.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by ravs:
I know my response will probably get locked down, but I do have a few comments to make.

You're right, it probably will be locked down.

1. I found Mal's comments about Americans utterly racist and I hope they think that not all of us Brits think that way. I'd like to think that we take people on their own merits wherever they come from.

I made an observation that the people who had been responding in an anti-science/anti-knowledge manner were all American, and opined that this it didn't reflect that well on the US education system. How you can construe a valid observation as "utterly racist" is utterly beyond me, but it's one more thing that confirms how ridiculous the CotI community has gotten lately. And do you really think that people are stupid enough to assume that just because one guy says something means that everyone from the same country thinks the same?!

It's not like I generalised that all Americans were stupid or anything like that anyway. That said, I hate stupidity and wilful ignorance, I don't care what nationality the person is.

Personally, I do take people on their merits. Unfortunately there are quite a few people here who lack them.

2. I was very sad that a very interesting discussion got derailed by people who had an axe to grind with each other. TE was right, this is historical, but I guess it was hoped that closing down the political pulpit would have put a stop to it, instead it has infected other discussions. Hopefully that will stop.

"I'll act nicer if you act smarter".

This has nothing to do with politics or people. It's the simple fact that people here seem to prefer to believe those who spout ignorant opinion as fact than those who quote well-researched observations and facts. And as a scientist, I'll damn well battle against the former and defend the latter.

4. What does it possibly matter if someone who you will never meet, who has no influence in your day to day life disagrees with you or throws arrows at you? It matters not a jot. If your aim is to be better thought of then be moderate and answer in polite terms. If you are ignored then so be it. It doesn't really matter. People will think better of you that you didn't react.

It may not matter to you, but it does matter to me. Deal with it.

6. Traveller is about science fiction role playing in the far future. Anything is possible. This is not about Science, it's about the imagination. We are all old enough on these boards to make up our own minds about what may be scientifically (or otherwise) correct or incorrect.

And again, you prove your ignorance.

SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT OPINION!

We're talking about science here, not science fiction or imagination. How big or how old we think the universe is has nothing to do with your opinion or anyone else's for that matter - all that determines that are the facts and observations gathered by people who know a damn sight more about the subject than you or most of the other people here. You can "make up your own mind" all you like about science, but it's not going to change the facts - your opinion on the validity of the science is completely and utterly irrelevant to anything.

Ignorant people are in no position whatsoever to pass judgement on what is or isn't scientifically valid - that's for the scientists to determine. It's just like how you're in no position to tell a mechanic whether his diagnosis of a problem with your car is right or wrong if you don't know the first thing about cars. Or do you go round telling mechanics that your opinion on what's wrong with your car is more important than theirs?

The universe doesn't work based on what people "feel" is right - it works based on physical laws that don't care about opinions or feelings. The universe doesn't give a damn what anyone's opinion about it is - it just works the way it's always done. Get that into your collective thick skulls and we might get somewhere.

You only have to make your point once. If it's really that important to you as to whether quarks exist or don't, or whether the albedo of a planet is 0.25 or 0.26 then this is not the right place. Go to an astronomy forum.

Ah, I see. So we're not allowed to discuss any factual matter now here for fear of offending someone who would prefer to wallow in their ignorance, is that it? Give me a break.

You can apply the same argument to gearheading or alien design or anything else. All you seem to be saying is that people who know about a subject shouldn't post about it since it'd "spoil the fun" for everyone else, which is utterly ridiculous.

How about you practice what you preach. If you don't care about science or facts or anything like that, or don't think that science is valid or whatever, then stop participating in threads about that subject. Leave it to the people who do care about it and/or who know about the subject so that the discussion can be educational and informed.


But, like I said on the other thread, this is all going to fall on deaf ears anyway. You're just going to carry on making stuff up and passing it off as "science", or ignoring and shouting down people who do have some actual knowledge to contribute, thus adding to and reinforcing the growing ignorance of the community.

Gah. This preference for ignorance disgusts me to the core.

 

[Spinward Scout]

SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT OPINION!

Good Lord - is that what all this was about? Mal, every theory is OPINION until it's been proven. Let it go. I understand you have strong feelings about this, but there are better things to do with your life than to keep arguing. Your point has been made - so has anyone else's that participated. Just please let it drop.

Please.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sir Dameon Toth:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT OPINION!

Mal, every theory is OPINION until it's been proven. </font>[/QUOTE]Except that statement is not true. Not even remotely true at all. And that's exactly the sort of uneducated statement passed as fact that pisses me off so much here.

If it's a theory, it's proven. A theory is a proven hypothesis. The hypothesis has been formulated, the data gathered, and that has confirmed the hypothesis. That's it. Maybe more data will be gathered later on that requires that the theory be changed, but that's how science works. Doesn't make it "opinion" though, it just makes it dynamic.

See, it's even the first definition of "theory" at dictionary.com:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

And hypotheses aren't opinions either. They're provable, testable statements about reality. There's no subjective opinion in them at all - either data supports the hypothesis or it doesn't, or it remains unknown til data is gathered.

But you go right ahead and keep claiming that theories are just "opinions". I mean, who the heck am I - a guy who has spent 20 apparently wasted years, a good two-thirds of his life, studying science, and being a professional scientist - to tell anyone else how science works, eh? I've got a doctorate in planetary science and I know a heck of a lot about astrophysics, and yet I have the sheer unmitigated gall to tell people how the universe works? For shame on me, clearly! That's how utterly ridiculous this whole bloody attitude that some people have here is - that people who know what they're talking about have to waste so much of their time defending themselves and fighting against ignorant people who either accidentally or willfully want to subvert and misrepresent their knowledge.

And you really have to wonder why I don't want to post any science here any more?

I'd drop the point if it really had been made, but these arguments have come and gone several times here and nobody seems to be getting that point, which is namely that they should damn well make an effor to know what they're talking about before they start touting their ignorant opinions about a subject as facts. So it's clear to me that while the point may have been made, it's evidently either still being ignored or hasn't been understood by the people it was aimed at.

 

[Spinward Scout]

If we are going to talk semantics...

From dictionary.com

theory
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

opinion
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:

hypothesis
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption .

assumption
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof ; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance

THEOREM:

#1 under opinion: held with confidence but not substantiated by... proof
#4 under assumption: accepted as true without proof

Dameon's definition:
Held with confidence = tentatively accepted as true unless something changes or different information is provided

therefore opinion = assumption (tentatively)

#6 under theory: theory = assumption
#2 under hypothesis: hypothesis = assumption

If theory and hypothesis = assumption

And opinion = assumption (tentatively)

Then opinion = theory and hypothesis (tentatively)


You're splitting hairs, Mal. Let it go.

 

[Malenfant]

And your entire point rests on a definition of "theory" that is for a completely different context of that word. I picked the one that was appropriate for the context, you didn't. Multiple definitions are there to illustrate different meanings in different contexts - they're not there for you to pick whichever one you fancy most or which is the most convenient for you to try to prove your point. Part of the skill in using a dictionary is to refer to the definition that fits the context the word is being used in. So if you want to split hairs, at least have the decency to do it properly.

Do you want to continue to prove my point, or do you want to drop this? Because you really don't know what you're talking about, but you're STILL pretending that you do.

 

[Spinward Scout]

I'll let you continue to think you are right and join the ranks of the people who just don't care about it...

 

[sid6.7]

Originally posted by ravs:
[QB] I was really enjoying the thread 'The universe might be bigger...'


1. I found Mal's comments about Americans utterly racist and I hope they think that not all of us Brits think that way. I'd like to think that we take people on their own merits wherever they come from.

it was close..but a better word would be biggoted
which may be the same but maybe a hair less...

 

[sid6.7]

MAL

Do you want to continue to prove my point, or do you want to drop this? Because you really don't know what you're talking about, but you're STILL pretending that you do.

i though it had been dropped and you "left"
to other traveller forums? why are you back?


just curious

 

[RandyT0001]

I think what we have been seeing has been people using and debating this word 'theory'. So from Dictionary.com here is the complete list:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Since the word conjecture has come up also I'll give those definitions from Dictionary.com:

1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.

The scientific method is used to develop a theory about something as is defined in #1.

Let's go back to Dictionary.com to find out about the scientific method:

A. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
(From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

B. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
(From The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary)

C. Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
(From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002)

D. A method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses.
(From WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)

I think that we can all agree that the use of the word 'theory' in the last version of scientific method is used to reflect the meaning as given by #6, maybe #4.

Therefore somebody's 'theory' might be reflective of their opinion but in threads that deal with primarily scientific topics there should not be the (seemingly purposefully) injection of arguements using the other definitions of the word theory into the discussion. Why, because in topics of a primarily scientific nature the use of the word 'theory' is going to be associated with it's meaning as derived from the scientific method (definition #1). If you have an idea or an assumption on how something works then you should try to use phrases like "I think (something)" or "(something). IMO" or use the word 'conjecture' instead of 'theory'.

This is my opinion about it.

 

[sid6.7]

one of the defintions of theory
also includes "speculation"
which would be based on assumption...


not all science is "provable" by
far...such as the "big bang thoery"
it can't be proven it actually happend
since it can't be reproduced to study/test
so much of it is based on speculations
and assumptions...even well known
acredited scientist argue and debate
over many "theories and hypthosis"
so again some science can be called
"opinion" also...

is anyone here an "acredited" sceintist?


we can even take it further with some
of our favorite "scientific" myths
like UFO's, bigfoot and the lochness
monster....since were in space lets
tackle aliens/UFO's while MANY
scientist "assume" there are, MANY
do not...carl sagan even said something
wise about this to this effect
"theres just no hard proof
that there are aliens"...

sceince has been likend to religon
in manys ways as alot of sceince
is taken on "faith"...

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sir Dameon Toth:
I'll let you continue to think you are right and join the ranks of the people who just don't care about it...

Evidently you cared enough to try (and fail) to press the point. :roll:

And evidently you, like many others here, have a problem admitting when they're wrong or that what they thought they knew was wrong. There's no shame in doing that, you know. I have deferred to superior knowledge plenty of times and not had a problem doing so.

I wonder if any of you folks in the anti-science crowd here have told your mechanic - who's just taken apart and put together their engine and diagnosed a complex problem - that your own uniformed opinion about what was wrong with your car was more valid than his?

Or told a doctor that - despite the tests, biopsies, blood samples, and everything else that unequivacobly proves that they have a particular ailment - their diagnosis doesn't "feel" right and that the conclusion formed by your own opinion that ignores the data is actually correct?

Or told an expert engineer that - despite all his measurements and experience that he's used to determine that there is only one way to build something to get the job done in the way you want it - you're going to build it in a completely different way just because you don't like how his nasty "facts" and "measurements" conflict with your uninformed presumptions?

Or told a teacher - who knows a lot about the subject that she's teaching, who is there to educate you so you can become as informed as she is - that she's wrong in front of the class and claim that your assumptions and opinions are actually fact and that she's wrong when you know absolutely nothing about the subject at all?

And what's more, have you openly and publicly undermined what any of these people do by questioning and ridiculing their knowledge, conclusions and credentials and implying that you know more about the subject when you don't, or that they know nothing about their subject or that the skills that they know and the knowledge that they impart (which I might add are done for your own benefit) aren't valid because you think your opinion takes precedence over reality?

I'm sure you wouldn't do that. If you did, you deserved everything you got afterwards.

So why the hell are you telling a scientist - who's done the research on the subject, who's spent most of his life working in science, who knows how to use data and observations to come to valid conclusions, who understands the scientific method, and who understands the implication of those conclusions - that you think you know better than he does about how science works and that your view of reality, based on assumption and ignorance, is more valid than his?

Think about it. Because if you react to information imparted by other skilled, knowledgeable people the way you react to information imparted by me then you really won't get anywhere in the world.

is anyone here an "acredited" sceintist?

Er, YES!!! Sweet jesus. I've got a BSc, MSc and a goddamned PhD!! I've worked as a research scientist. I've even worked for freakin' NASA. Is that perhaps going to persuade you that I bloody well know what I'm talking about?!

Just... please, sid. Stop posting about this subject - you really haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about, you're not listening to a word that's been said, and you're only proving my point further and further.

 

[rhoneycutt]

maybe it might be a good idea to ask the site to put actual real science posts in a seperate category, so that the science of the real universe is not confused with the science as portrayed in OTU, or the confusion that occurs when ppl 'handwave' real science as a springboard to fantastic fiction.

if nothing else...mal's rants would not infringe on game related matters....and yet everyone would know where to go to discuss real science as opposed to traveller scinece.........

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
maybe it might be a good idea to ask the site to put actual real science posts in a seperate category, so that the science of the real universe is not confused with the science as portrayed in OTU, or the confusion that occurs when ppl 'handwave' real science as a springboard to fantastic fiction.

None of this had anything to do with "game matters" or "handwaving real science" though. The universe thread started with someone pointing out a new discovery that a nearby galaxy was further away than we'd previously thought. The "planets definition" thread started because the IAU are meeting to define planets. All of this came about because people were posting articles about real science - with no direct reference to Traveller, but that could have been of general interest - and others came along and tried to trashed them or undermine them based on their own opinions.

So while your suggestion is a reasonable one (and has already been implemented on the Avenger TAS boards), it's not going to solve the problem, because the same people who want to try to trash the science will still do the same thing on a dedicated science board.

You want to stop this happening? Then either completely ban any and all real science discussion from all fields (which would be utterly ridiculous, given that this is a board for a sci-fi game) or change peoples' attitudes to become more accepting and friendly toward science and knowledge.

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
None of this had anything to do with "game matters" or "handwaving real science" though. The universe thread started with someone pointing out a new discovery that a nearby galaxy was further away than we'd previously thought. The "planets definition" thread started because the IAU are meeting to define planets. All of this came about because people were posting articles about real science - with no direct reference to Traveller, but that could have been of general interest - and others came along and tried to trashed them or undermine them based on their own opinions.

The "Size of the Universe" thread is more of a 'general' science topic for basic information and discussion really hard to directly relate to Traveller. My topic about "Defining Planets" had (IMO) a little bit relation to Traveller in that we use some form of 'system generation rules' in Traveller. I know that some Traveller fans tweak the system generation rules for home use and I wanted to enlighten them about what the IAU is going to do next month.

So while your suggestion is a reasonable one (and has already been implemented on the Avenger TAS boards), it's not going to solve the problem, because the same people who want to try to trash the science will still do the same thing on a dedicated science board.

If the CotI boards had a seperate section where those interested can post topics for scientific discussion, then those people that want to discuss such matters can 'report' to the moderators individuals that inject posts with the intent to sow discord into the discussion by introducing debates about the meanings of words such as 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which in a scientific thread would have a generally accepted specific and well defined meaning. The moderators could (as a suggestion, what they do is really up to them) at first caution, then strongly caution, followed by a short revocation of posting privelges of the repeating offender instead of locking down a thread people are trying to have a discussion on. Of course those that are discussing the topic proper need to excersise some restraint from 'reporting' a post by some one who is possibly uninfromed or misinformed about the topic and seeks clarification.

You want to stop this happening? Then either completely ban any and all real science discussion from all fields (which would be utterly ridiculous, given that this is a board for a sci-fi game) or change peoples' attitudes to become more accepting and friendly toward science and knowledge.

Banning all scientific discussions on a scifi game board would be a disservice. Having a seperate section for scientific discussions and moderators that act to correct problems would be a better choice. It is easier to react to their mis behavior than it is to change attitudes.

IMO

 

[sid6.7]

Originally posted by Malenfant:

Er, YES!!! Sweet jesus. I've got a BSc, MSc and a goddamned PhD!! I've worked as a research scientist. I've even worked for freakin' NASA. Is that perhaps going to persuade you that I bloody well know what I'm talking about?!

Just... please, sid. Stop posting about this subject - you really haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about, you're not listening to a word that's been said, and you're only proving my point further and further. [/QB]

your funny....while you "maybe" acredited and
even worked for NASA, you do take a real
immature method in your posting...

it comes accross as someone sitting in a dark
room, age 15...furiously typing out his
teenage frustration on the computer...

if there were any validity to any of your
statements it goes right out the window
with the method you choose to operate under..

kinda sad really....

i already said "thank God" i dont understand
the science stuff, you should pay attention
more most of my posts are to
show you how goofy you've taken this
subject...

BTW
im wondering how long you lasted at NASA
before you got fired?...from what i see here
you can totally mess up any thread by
particpating in it....so using "science"
i'm gonna theorize you didnt last long there.
using science also (since i dont know you)
can you prove your acreditation, NASA job
and such as there is no real way we can be
sure your not lying...

and really im serious i thought you were leaving
for greener pastures so to speak...why
are you back here? the insults, biggoted
comments and anger your displaying arent
changing anything..esp since the moderator
said enough already...

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
I know that some Traveller fans tweak the system generation rules for home use and I wanted to enlighten them about what the IAU is going to do next month.

Even the IAU don't know what they're doing next month! . Apparently the meeting where they're supposedly going to define a planet is starting in Prague tomorrow though.

The moderators could (as a suggestion, what they do is really up to them)

Therein lies the problem. I've reported some anti-science posts before, and nothing's been done about them. It seems that people can say the most inflammatory things here, but if there's no 'personal attack' involved then the moderators don't do a darn thing about it.

But it's kinda moot, since the Comstar TAS boards have a dedicated Sci/Tech board. Though it makes no sense to post the same threads both on CotI and on the TAS board. Unless the Avenger thread is the real science discussion and the CotI thread is there solely for the entertainment of the resident poop-flinging monkeys...

Having a seperate section for scientific discussions and moderators that act to correct problems would be a better choice. It is easier to react to their mis behavior than it is to change attitudes.

Again, that's down to the moderators, who since TLP has departed seem to have gone back to their previous "do nothing while the trouble is ongoing and then lock the thread" behaviour.

As it is, I certainly wouldn't be interested in contributing to a science board on CotI anyway. There's the one on the TAS boards, which I hope will be moderated more effectively to keep the anti-science crowd at bay.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by sid6.7:
using science also (since i dont know you)
can you prove your acreditation, NASA job
and such as there is no real way we can be
sure your not lying... [/QB]

I'd take you more seriously if you made the effort to use basic punctuation and actually spelt words correctly... and understood basic logic... and if you demonstrated basic reading comprehension... and if you knew what the hell you were talking about...

I've run into people like you a lot here - I know that even if I was to prove it to you, you'd still find another excuse to undermine me. So I'm not wasting my time on you.

The answers to your questions are on the web. See if you're smart enough to find them.

 

[sid6.7]

Originally posted by Sir Dameon Toth:
I'll let you continue to think you are right and join the ranks of the people who just don't care about it...

i'm gonna join you.. move over...there is only
room for him in his little lonely world...