# What Is Bad Science?



## Doer (Nov 21, 2011)

It's not always so easy to tell. Some folks say the DDT ban was the result of bad science.

One example is called the barn side or six-shooter mistake. If I take a pair of six-guns and fire 12 times at a barn, I can go up with my chalk, (with no one looking) and draw a circle around the best group. "Yep, good shootin!"

Real world example is cancer clusters. Take an area, neighborhood, town, whatever.
Place a red dot where there is a cancer patient. Now try to correlate that with
fire plugs...What?? Why??

How about PCB filled electrical transformers? Oh, yeah! Different from fire plugs right? Wrong.

If you take transformers and draw circles around them and see cancer clusters associated with the transformers, that is the broad side of a barn. Same with fire plugs.

Any science of observation and record keeping is only as good or bad as the records. 
Bad science, is looking at the records and drawing inferences that haven't been tested and stating them as scientific correlations.

Any other examples come to mind?


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 21, 2011)

Your confusing science with idiots.

An idiot would look at a barn, circle a shot, and say good shot.

Nobody would look at observations in science once and say "Thats fact!". Science is about REPEATING observations and independent verification of those observations.

What you are describing is idiotic, nothing more.

Most of the time a good scientist looks at the data, and if there are surprises in the data, they will check OTHER data of the same substance to ensure that their data isnt bad.  THAT is science!


----------



## Doer (Nov 21, 2011)

So, like art, no bad science? There are plenty of logical pitfalls. And this is a textbook
example, I gave. Real world. Not idiots, or combative forum mates. Just sub-conscious bias. Not practicing mis-conduct. Simply seeing a mis-conclusion. A self fulfilling vision. No one is perfect, right?

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 21, 2011)

Doer said:


> So, like art, no bad science?


You totally misunderstood the post.

Art is art. Expression of anything you want.

Science is science. Understanding the actual true physical reality of everything.

Apples are apples.

Oranges are oranges.

An artist pretending to know science and represent as such is equal to most of the science posts we see on rollitup, though. 

Bad science usually comes from people who just jump the gun, look at bad data, or follow the wrong path. Or from people who claim to know things about their field, and dont. (e.g., Finshaggy and Black holes, this amounts to trying to teach an average person something technically detailed and the person not even wanting to listen or trying to hear other arguments. Scientists are never closed minded like that, we listen to ALL arguments).


----------



## Heisenberg (Nov 22, 2011)

Doer said:


> So, like art, no bad science? There are plenty of logical pitfalls. And this is a textbook
> example, I gave. Real world. Not idiots, or combative forum mates. Just sub-conscious bias. Not practicing mis-conduct. Simply seeing a mis-conclusion. A self fulfilling vision. No one is perfect, right?
> 
> http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm


Science is aware of these mistakes and attempts to control for them, if it doesn't, then it's not science. Bad milk is still milk, bad science is not really science.


----------



## chris75 (Nov 22, 2011)

First thing that came to mind:


http://www.badscience.net/


Anyone else read the book? I don't remember much of it as it was quite a few years ago, though I do remember finding it a very well written and quite often hilarious explanation of the more modern examples of "bad science" (e.g. MMR scare, homeopathy, and many other completely ludicrous theories being paraded as 'science'). Apart from some statistics, it's more than easily readable by the layman, thus good to recommend to open-minded friends and family who seem to lean towards believing in pseudo-scientific nonsense on a regular basis. Also definitely an entertaining and worthwhile read for those of us with some scientific education.


----------



## guy incognito (Nov 22, 2011)

I got blinded by some bad science once.


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 22, 2011)

Doer said:


> Any other examples come to mind?


Holding a preconceived belief, not a thought or a question or a theory, but an actual belief and then setting out to prove it. Invariably you shape facts to prove what you want to prove rather than to compile facts and then in a totally non-biased way analyze them and see what proof is there to be found.


----------



## Brick Top (Nov 22, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I got blinded by some bad science once.


If so you must have felt rather Thomas Dolby-like.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Dec 7, 2011)

Brick Top said:


> Holding a preconceived belief, not a thought or a question or a theory, but an actual belief and then setting out to prove it. Invariably you shape facts to prove what you want to prove rather than to compile facts and then in a totally non-biased way analyze them and see what proof is there to be found.


This is how I feel about the Big Bang Theory. Every time I hear it mentioned, it is referenced more as accepted fact than theory. 
Just like the earth centered universe, the flat earth, the unbreakable sound barrier and many more erroneous beliefs from the past... the BBT is the mantra of the religion of modern science. The religion of main stream science has replaced "God" or a spiritual belief with a theory about the origin of the universe and quite often disregard any conflicting arguments.


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 7, 2011)

I dont know Mr Neutron..... The Big Bang Theory didnt just arise out of some guys wet dream..... It arose from observational evidence, in fact! Previous to the "BBT", scientists thought that the Universe was in a "Solid State" where galaxies created new matter as they moved further away. Since Hubble (you know, the guy they named the telescope after) showed that the Universe was not in a solid state, but expanding, if its expanding, it has to have started from something small, right?

There's also the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is everywhere at about 3 degrees in temperature. That's the static you see on analog televisions when a television station isnt on the channel you are watching. Since the CMB is "everywhere" around the Universe, that also suggests pretty strongly that our modern view on cosmology is accurate enough that we're at the very least in the right direction, if not pretty spot on. The WMAP data is very very easy to read! 

Many less people argue the big bang "theory" these days because of so much observational evidence in so many different fields that suggest the very same thing.........

Sorry for typos, posting on a stupid smartphone.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Dec 7, 2011)

The earth centered universe and the flat earth ideas were supported by the leading minds of the time, were they not?
Explain to me how...
1) if the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from each other, why are galaxies colliding?
2) if the Big Bang happened just shy of 14 billion years ago, why is the radius of the known universe somewhere around 46 billion light years? is everything traveling at more than 3 times the speed of light?
On another note, what if the observational data that supports the BBT is flawed? In other words, what if the "red shift" is not evidence of perpetual expansion but caused by something else?
Observational research is dependent upon the validity of the data. If the observations are incorrect because of circumstances unknown, then the conclusions drawn from said data is also flawed.


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> The earth centered universe and the flat earth ideas were supported by the leading minds of the time, were they not?
> Explain to me how...
> 1) if the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from each other, why are galaxies colliding?
> 2) if the Big Bang happened just shy of 14 billion years ago, why is the radius of the known universe somewhere around 46 billion light years? is everything traveling at more than 3 times the speed of light?
> ...


1.) Galaxies are colliding because each galaxy has gravitational weight to it, so they are attracted together. That's why we have the Sloan Wall of galaxies, that's why we have Superclusters and Clusters as well.

2.) Its because nobody explained the math for you very well....... If light is emitted in all directions, light that travels one year for us to see also travels one year in the other directions, too.  The radius of the Universe expressed in light years (distance) is not the same as the age of the Universe which is not measured in light years (distance) but years (time). Head to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe and scroll down to "Size" for the nitty gritty.

You asked what if the data we observe is wrong, well, then its wrong. We'd change to the newest best theory, all the time. The reason we didnt see things until the 20th century is because we needed to invent telescopes first to be able to see things better.  Our instruments, which have helped further the telescope evidence from decades ago, have also greatly improved, and those have further validated existing theories and better improved our accuracy, too.


Keep in mind, the Solid State Theory and all others before it were based on human eyeballs as the only observational device to figure things out. Todays modern theories are from actual instruments that measure and record things for us a lot better than human eyes.  The Big Bang Theory comes out of evidence, rather than thinking.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Dec 7, 2011)

Are you a scientist?


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 7, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Are you a scientist?


Yes, Quantum Physicist. Oops?


----------



## Mr Neutron (Dec 7, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Yes, Quantum Physicist. Oops?


Yeah, right.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 8, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> An artist pretending to know science


...we get the ball rolling for you guys. Then you claim it as science. Pfft!


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 8, 2011)

I love out of context, makes forums go 'round n 'round n round!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 8, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> I love out of context, makes forums go 'round n 'round n round!


...makes me put little laughy happy faces at the end of jokes too  <---see?


----------



## snowmanexpress (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> 1) if the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from each other, why are galaxies colliding?


I believe it is due to the trajectory of any given mass after the "explosion", or maybe it was an "implosion" of this "big bang"? I dunno which way it 'sploded. In or out. Not to exclude gravity pull or possibly push from nearby mass as well I would propose.

All that dark matter talk is neat to read.


----------



## MixedMelodyMindBender (Dec 8, 2011)

I think this question is going to bring in many subjective answers. Following hindsight I think it needs to be expanded more for some. Personally I think of Nuclear Arms ...Nerve Gas.....DDT..Etc..to be bad humans.. I don't see a logic in blaming the science, blame the people using the tool. Its not the mediums fault rather the thinker behind the pen. 

Humans have a Bad capacity for Evil.

So, What is Bad Science? Merely Humans doing bad deeds. Science is not a matter of good or bad. But I could be wrong, and in that case, do as I always recommend...Think for Yourself


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 8, 2011)

MixedMelodyMindBender said:


> I think this question is going to bring in many subjective answers. Following hindsight I think it needs to be expanded more for some. Personally I think of Nuclear Arms ...Nerve Gas.....DDT..Etc..to be bad humans.. I don't see a logic in blaming the science, blame the people using the tool. Its not the mediums fault rather the thinker behind the pen.
> 
> Humans have a Bad capacity for Evil.
> 
> So, What is Bad Science? Merely Humans doing bad deeds. Science is not a matter of good or bad. But I could be wrong, and in that case, do as I always recommend...Think for Yourself


I think the original question was not about "good science/engineering put to bad ends", which you describe, but a line of inquiry or induction that uses either bad premises or bad process. The initial Cold Fusion results were eventually proven to be bad science. 

Interesting split here between "technically bad" and "morally/ethically bad". Perhaps an example of a scientific endeavor that was both would be Lysenkoist "genetics". cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 8, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I think the original question was not about "good science/engineering put to bad ends", which you describe, but a line of inquiry or induction that uses either bad premises or bad process. The initial Cold Fusion results were eventually proven to be bad science.
> 
> Interesting split here between "technically bad" and "morally/ethically bad". Perhaps an example of a scientific endeavor that was both would be Lysenkoist "genetics". cn


...s'up U-Gene?


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> The earth centered universe and the flat earth ideas were supported by the leading minds of the time, were they not?


They were not. 
Earth centered and flat earth ideas were around because of popular misconception and religious beliefs, not because of science. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere and proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. 


> Explain to me how...
> 1) if the universe is expanding and all galaxies are moving away from each other, why are galaxies colliding?  Local effects of gravitation. There are regional clusters of galaxies that are gravitationally bound but are still moving away from other galaxies and clusters.
> 
> 2) if the Big Bang happened just shy of 14 billion years ago, why is the radius of the known universe somewhere around 46 billion light years? is everything traveling at more than 3 times the speed of light? Space is expanding...fast. If it was expanding at the speed of light, we wouldn't be able to see any distant stars or galaxies as their light couldn't outpace the expansion. Where do you get 3 times the speed of light from?
> ...


 This is true but until someone can demonstrate that there are circumstances that should affect our conclusions about our observations, we will continue to accept the current paradigm. You are essentially saying that maybe we are wrong so we should give up.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Dec 8, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> They were not.
> Earth centered and flat earth ideas were around because of popular misconception and religious beliefs, not because of science. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere and proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system.
> 
> This is true but until someone can demonstrate that there are circumstances that should affect our conclusions about our observations, we will continue to accept the current paradigm. You are essentially saying that maybe we are wrong so we should give up.


Aristotle believed in the geocentric universe and was enforced by the Roman Catholic church, as was the flat earth theory. I know that many believed otherwise but my point is that throughout history, wrong ideas have been promoted and protected by those who have that power.

I have always heard "everything is moving away from everything else", so why do galaxies cluster?

If matter from the BB, 14b years ago, expanded at the speed of light, the radius of the universe would be 14b light years but it is not, the radius of the universe is said to be 46b light years. In other words, if I take off and travel at light speed for 14b years, how far did I travel? 14b light years. 46÷14=3.29 But , of course, the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light,so it has to be somewhat less than 14b light years in radius.

The only thing slower to change than politicians is scientists. 

The Big Bang theory originated in 1927 with Georges Lematre, a Catholic monk. 2 years later, Edwin Hubble announced his "red shift" findings, which supported the BB theory thus the church's beliefs.

Someone has already demonstrated that the "red shift" is questionable... see William G. Tifft. Though his idea was controversial, the Astrophysical Journal published his papers and concluded that there were no errors in his findings, yet they could not endorse said findings.

Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up. 
What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Aristotle believed in the geocentric universe and was enforced by the Roman Catholic church, as was the flat earth theory. I know that many believed otherwise but my point is that throughout history, wrong ideas have been promoted and protected by those who have that power.
> 
> I have always heard "everything is moving away from everything else", so why do galaxies cluster?
> 
> ...


...this is a contender for why I should have a like button to click.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up.
> What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
> "Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."


In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion. -Carl Sagan


----------



## snowmanexpress (Dec 8, 2011)

Well, I was reading how far the Hubble can view. So I see that number is "14b away." Is that where they get 14b? And I see the word "parsect"? To me that looks like computer terms as in kilobyte, or megabyte, I think they are just shortening the 1000 to 1 basically almost. But it's kinda funny how you get that 3.29 number by dividing the 14b, which is close to the speed of light? But I don't think that it's relative to the radius because space is not as you said expanding at the speed of light. Right? I think were just throwing numbers, but I think the descriptor you are looking for mr. neut's is why its 46. The parsect thing tho yo, and comparing it to kilobyte or megabyte, but it looks like the abbreviation for parsect is pc?


The current comoving distance to the particles which emitted the CMBR, representing the radius of the visible universe, is calculated to be about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the current comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is calculated to be 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[1] about 2% larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 8, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> Aristotle believed in the geocentric universe and was enforced by the Roman Catholic church, as was the flat earth theory. I know that many believed otherwise but my point is that throughout history, wrong ideas have been promoted and protected by those who have that power.


Science doesn't wield any power per se. 


> I have always heard "everything is moving away from everything else", so why do galaxies cluster?


I told you, the same reason we have galaxies to begin with, gravity.


> If matter from the BB, 14b years ago, expanded at the speed of light, the radius of the universe would be 14b light years but it is not, the radius of the universe is said to be 46b light years. In other words, if I take off and travel at light speed for 14b years, how far did I travel? 14b light years. 46÷14=3.29 But , of course, the universe is NOT expanding at the speed of light,so it has to be somewhat less than 14b light years in radius.


You misunderstand. The universe itself is expanding. The more distant galaxies are moving away faster than close ones but the rate of expansion is the same everywhere, about 71 kilometers per second, per Megaparsec or 7% every billion years. 



> The only thing slower to change than politicians is scientists.


 Ridiculous and categorically untrue. They change as fast as the evidence comes and gets confirmed. 


> The Big Bang theory originated in 1927 with Georges Lematre, a Catholic monk. 2 years later, Edwin Hubble announced his "red shift" findings, which supported the BB theory thus the church's beliefs.


The church agreeing with science is not the norm, most of the time they are at odds with science. The church has no power over science like it did in Galileo's time. I'm not sure what you are insinuating. 


> Someone has already demonstrated that the "red shift" is questionable... see William G. Tifft. Though his idea was controversial, the Astrophysical Journal published his papers and concluded that there were no errors in his findings, yet they could not endorse said findings.


link?


> Now, you are playing that game of trying to make me look ridiculous by putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said anyone should give up.
> What I am saying is that if scientists were honest, they would investigate alternate theories instead of condemning them. Science is a lot like religion because so much has to be believed without evidence and sometimes in direct conflict with the evidence. Scientists, like many others, develop an interest in the status quo and it is dangerous for their careers to question it. So, just like religion, they will continue on down a road, even if it is the wrong road.
> "Occasionally, men stumble over the truth but pick themselves up and rush off as though nothing happened."


 You talk about alternate theories, like what? Which scientific theories have been condemned because they weren't honest instead of getting rid of bad science or pseudoscience? It is not dangerous for scientists to challenge the status quo, we live for it. Proving other scientists wrong is what gets us ahead in our fields. You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 8, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...this is a contender for why I should have a like button to click.


 Why? Because it's such a good example of bad science?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 8, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Why? Because it's such a good example of bad science?


...because I thought it was well written. Certainly in a non-offensive way.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Dec 8, 2011)

Would you say it's just a matter of time, to see to the edge of space?! Wow, I wonder if we would fall off the edge lol. (get it, matter of time..... nerd laugh I crack myself up)

Hey wait a parsec, (lol im good) are "most" supernovae observable at the edge of space?? Which doesnt make sense to me, because you'd "think" those stars exploded first on the "edge" and be older, but, due to speed of light, in reality to us, since it's so far away, we'd observe the edge as being YOUNGER than then we are here? No way. Is that right? Or is that just due to our GPS location of Earth? And they would have to take into consideration how far the hubble is from Earth of course, Im sure it's not far, into the equation right, but Im sure it's minimal and insignificant because the Hubbs can't go that far?

I wonder if the radius of space is really a ball shape......hmmmmmm


----------



## Doer (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm not so sure that any of the popular cosmological models, especially Big Bang hold up any more.
Hubble's contribution of Red Shift measurement depends on a steady something, so it can be a constant.
- steady speed of light
- steady expansion rate of the universe

We don't have #2 and I'm beginning to have my doubts about even #1.

Interesting also is the BBT depended on an Inflationary model, supraliminal expansion before photons were first emitted. The IM was to account for newly discovered atomic particles back in the '90s.
Worked OK, if not preposterously so. But, now with Dark this and that, IM is not really accounting for
everything, IMO. 

We observe a variablity in expansion rate of space itself...acclerating now. When did that start? How long will it go on w/the acceleration? Does the rate of change, change? What is the driver of the acceleration?

And even without all that, the center of the universe in BBT is not even in our timespace. Our universe is a blast front of Matter Energy Space and Time. Big Bang. Really? Then a ballon skin as NASA still describes it for children? 

How thick is the skin? Where are we in the skin? What is the radius of this skin? 

Also, there is no evidence that light is forever. Maybe it just burns out after 18 billion years or so?
That background radiation could just be the glow just over the edge of our "universe horizion," as light
fuzzes naturally to no energy left.


----------



## Mr Neutron (Dec 9, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Science doesn't wield any power per se.


What about the scientist's employer or the benefactor who funds the research or the government that legislates what can be researched and what cannot or the scientist who has strong religious values influencing his thinking?



mindphuk said:


> I told you, the same reason we have galaxies to begin with, gravity.


Thank you for making my point.



mindphuk said:


> You misunderstand. The universe itself is expanding. The more distant galaxies are moving away faster than close ones but the rate of expansion is the same everywhere, about 71 kilometers per second, per Megaparsec or 7% every billion years.


According to science, the Big Bang happened around 13.75b years ago, right? The universe has been expanding ever since, right? The universe is not slowing it's expansion rate but is speeding up, right? The expansion rate is not at the speed of light, right? So is a train leaves the station and travels at 100 mph for 10 hours, how far does it go? 3000 miles?



mindphuk said:


> Ridiculous and categorically untrue. They change as fast as the evidence comes and gets confirmed.


Untrue as I have already mentioned with the geocentric universe and flat earth theory.



mindphuk said:


> The church agreeing with science is not the norm, most of the time they are at odds with science. The church has no power over science like it did in Galileo's time. I'm not sure what you are insinuating.


I think it is more common than you realize. The church's influences are still in the mind of the believer.



mindphuk said:


> link?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft



mindphuk said:


> You talk about alternate theories, like what? Which scientific theories have been condemned because they weren't honest instead of getting rid of bad science or pseudoscience? It is not dangerous for scientists to challenge the status quo, we live for it. Proving other scientists wrong is what gets us ahead in our fields. You have no idea what you are talking about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-New-Cyclic-Anti-Big-Bang-Theory-45883.shtml
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

These links are just about the BB. When you get into companies like Monsanto, Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline, DuPont, et al... I think you will find a great deal of dishonesty and psuedo-science.
... and thank you for keeping the conversation on an intellectual level and not attacking me personally, it shows how mature you are.


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 9, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> What about the scientist's employer or the benefactor who funds the research or the government that legislates what can be researched and what cannot or the scientist who has strong religious values influencing his thinking?


What about them? As I said, science has no power per se. You are talking about individuals now. You speak as if these are universal problems, they are not. 



> Thank you for making my point.


I made your point? You didn't seem to have a point. You asked a question. Space is expanding, according to our models, in spite of the fact that local gravitational effects will clump stars and galaxies. 


> According to science, the Big Bang happened around 13.75b years ago, right? The universe has been expanding ever since, right? The universe is not slowing it's expansion rate but is speeding up, right? The expansion rate is not at the speed of light, right? So is a train leaves the station and travels at 100 mph for 10 hours, how far does it go? 3000 miles?


I don't think you will understand the math so I will not go into it here but suffice it to say, you just don't understand. You are thinking three-dimensionally, you are thinking that our universe is spherical with a defined edge and center. These are incorrect. 


> Untrue as I have already mentioned with the geocentric universe and flat earth theory.


As I pointed out, conventional wisdom != scientific thought. Science did not come up with these ideas but was the common belief held by everyone, just like a child today thinks before he is taught the truth. Your example is a straw man. 


> I think it is more common than you realize. The church's influences are still in the mind of the believer.


Yet over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences consider themselves non-believers. 


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft


It appears his work was published. If there is anything that can be figured out using his work, I'm sure he will get full credit. Where is your evidence that his work is condemned and will be ignored and not investigated? 


> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/


I see nothing here special. Has he published? If he can forumlate a testable hypothesis, then great. However, his claim that metaphysics needs to be incorporated into science would create problems. 


> http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


I don't see any lack of support, however asking for funding for completely unidentified, possibly non-existent alternate theories is a little strange. 


> http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-New-Cyclic-Anti-Big-Bang-Theory-45883.shtml


It appears this is an active area that is being researched. What's your problem?


> http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
> http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
> http://bigbangneverhappened.org/


I'm sorry but your links do not describe systematic condemnation of alternative theories. In fact, your links demonstrate that science is wide-open with fresh, new ideas to help explain some of the inherent problems with our current models. 
I will give you another one, of someone that has dedicated his life to overturning the inflationary model. He is working on a variable speed of light hypothesis which would help explain the horizon problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_Magueijo 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305457v3

Just because these alternative theories do not get the publicity does not mean they aren't out there right now working on these. Your indictment of science is unjust and incorrect. Scientists, including friends of mine working in cosmology, will be ecstatic if someone can come up with an alternative theory to the Big Bang that explains everything that it does plus explain all of the things that are problematic.


----------



## Doer (Dec 10, 2011)

hey, thanks for the *João_Magueijo links! *


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 10, 2011)

Doer said:


> hey, thanks for the *João_Magueijo links! *


NP.

Have you ever heard him speak? He does such a good job explaining difficult physics concepts. Here's one lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlCp1x57pow&feature=gv


----------



## Doer (Dec 11, 2011)

Just reading some of the comments about religion and "non-believers." Does personal belief influence investigation? It does influence personal investigation. But, science is not about that. It has to withstand as much objectivity as can be thrown at any idea. Of passing note, Cold Fusion claims were from Brigham Young University, I think. Did the "I BELEIEVE" mentality have something to do with that, at some level? Maybe.

To me religion is simply politics cloaked in bad science. To believe something in the absence of objective agreement and repeatable proof is a legacy from the Dark Ages. Let's not forget ruthlessness. And, of course, the Chruch didn't invent that play book. It's Tyranny 101.

So, while science struggles with tyranny of thought via Method, religion snuggles with it via fear.


----------



## redivider (Dec 11, 2011)

kinda late for the party but the big bang theory isn't really an 'observable' theory.....

it rises out of a bunch of complicated mathematical equations.... most of the 'telescopes' used to study this type of thing don't show images at all... it's a bunch of sine graphs n shit... lol


----------



## Doer (Dec 11, 2011)

What was observed was Red Shift. Doppler Effect. Seems to work well in our galaxy, but Hubble was before, I think, before we knew about other galaxies. It still seemed to apply until the acelleration was discovered via another, shaky, IMO, Constant, the 1A SuperNova. But, perhaps it can provide a "standard candle." Maybe not, considering this next point.

To have a Hubble Constant, to even measure this "standard candle" one has to suppose a steady state spacetime of some ilk and use another Constant, the speed of light, which assumes a steady state light speed over billions of years. The Candle data suggests we don't have steady, we have piling on of velocity, like a rocket.

To make the math work, for new discovers concerning the energy budget of the Universe, new math was created to account for that. An Inflationary period was devised and now with Dark E&M a hyperInflation period could work in the math.

No one in the popular science parlance, to my knowledge, has a clue about or much less faces the implications of a non-steady Universe.


----------



## boneheadbob (Dec 11, 2011)

Evolution is bad science if you want to go so far as to call the worlds lamest theory science


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 11, 2011)

How do you figure evolution to be "the world's lamest theory"? It has withstood some impressive challenges. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 11, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> How do you figure evolution to be "the world's lamest theory"? It has withstood some impressive challenges. cn


 He's most likely a fundie that believes all of the "problems" with evolution that Kent Hovind and his ilk propogate. He's unaware that evolution is the basis for all of modern biology and is one of the most successful scientific theories ever developed.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Dec 11, 2011)

5 hr energy drink, oh yeah that's science you can observe after it comes back out the wrong end. Bleh.


----------



## mccumcumber (Dec 11, 2011)

Bad science = pseudoscience.

Some examples:
Most branches of philosophy.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 11, 2011)

[video=youtube;_c6HsiixFS8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8[/video]


----------



## sonar (Dec 11, 2011)

I think where a lot of non-scientists go wrong is by using a correlational data to determine causality.

Example: "Studies have shown people sleep less tend to live longer than people who sleep more."

John Q Citizen reading this might think "well, something about sleep must cause death" without realizing there are other factors. People who sleep less are probably more active and get more exercise. People who sleep more might be sickly and sleep more because of their condition.

One of the first thing I learned in reseach methodology and clinical is to never use a correlation to determine causality.


----------



## Doer (Dec 11, 2011)

boneheadbob said:


> Evolution is bad science if you want to go so far as to call the worlds lamest theory science


Well, I'm a computer scientist. How lame is that? 

Seriously, have you noticed that the highest it goes is Theory. Ideas are tested again and again. 
There really is no other reasonable conclusion. And the evidence continues to mount.

If you were to look at evolution as the origin of species, without bias, it's very easy to see how the timescales and the structures of nature link together. It's a very painstaking, though incomplete record.

Do you have anything but the religious objection? And if you have that, don't you realize that religion of the day set up that objection? No critique of religion is implied.

Nobody understanding the evidence is or was objecting to any religious belief. My awe of Creation, as puny as it is, at least let's me see it as grand enough to use evolution as a tool.


----------



## snowmanexpress (Dec 11, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Video.


Thx for the laugh! Its a conspiracy!. I wonder if saliva would give off rainbows. I never spit one out that big tho.


----------



## sonar (Dec 14, 2011)

Did anyone see the Discovery Channel special a few months back with Stephen Hawking where he goes into his theories on how the universe was created without the use of a God. Very interesting. I'm surprised they had the balls to air something like that.


----------



## Doer (Dec 14, 2011)

He has been very wrong lately.


----------



## PbHash (Dec 29, 2011)

There is a lot of bad science floating around this website, seriously I can't believe some of the crap people think is fact. To me the rise of pseudoscience is cause by a lack of critical thinking by the masses. I just want to punch people in the teeth when they "well evolution is just a theory" what next "gravity is just a theory".

Is there a name for what I call the the "faith fallacy". When creationist say "I have faith, but you can't see it or test it, and I can't tell you why I have it" maybe it's special pleading but I want to give it a new name, Being an Idiot. I have a lot of faith, faith the sun will rise, faith my car will run on gas, faith that I will shit on a regular basis. These faiths are based on observation. Idiot faith is when you have never observed it but expect it. Example faith that I will win the lotto without buying a ticket, it's prob never happened.


----------



## canndo (Dec 29, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> This is how I feel about the Big Bang Theory. Every time I hear it mentioned, it is referenced more as accepted fact than theory.
> .



I get a kick out of this line of reasoning. Gee, every time I hear about the theory of gravity or the theory of flight it is referenced more as accepted fact than theory.


----------



## canndo (Dec 29, 2011)

Mr Neutron said:


> The earth centered universe and the flat earth ideas were supported by the leading minds of the time, were they not?


An earth centered universe and a flat earth were ideas that far predated Frances Bacon and the scientific method, they were suppositions or ideas and nothing more, they are not to be considered as comparisons with scientific theory.


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 29, 2011)

Not only that they were supported by the leading minds, not scientists, because the word scientist hadnt even been invented till after the 1820's.


----------



## PbHash (Dec 29, 2011)

Where do you think pseudoscience is most prevalent. I would say, antivaccine people, paranormal investigators, alternative medicine. All of these get my blood boiling.

I would challeng anyone to convince me that the MMR vaccine is bad or ghosts are real. I love debating this stuff usually because I like to read the crap people believe.


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 29, 2011)

PbHash said:


> Where do you think pseudoscience is most prevalent. I would say, antivaccine people, paranormal investigators, alternative medicine. All of these get my blood boiling.
> 
> I would challeng anyone to convince me that the MMR vaccine is bad or ghosts are real. I love debating this stuff usually because I like to read the crap people believe.


These things are generally discussed in the spirituality, sexuality, philosophy sub-forum. We can always use another voice of reason. There has been several discussions of ghosts, a bit about CAM, but so far no vaccine nuts.

I have to say god theory trumps all of those.


----------



## PbHash (Dec 29, 2011)

I kinda group the god stuff with ghosts, I'll head over to some of those threads to check out the garbage floating around


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 29, 2011)

I always get a bit upset when I hear the word "energy" applied to spirit-action. Imo it is nothing less/better than an effort to legitimize a belief in magic by appropriating the language of science. Thing about energy is ... it is definible, measurable, entirely describable in mundane/material terms. Jmo. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 29, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I always get a bit upset when I hear the word "energy" applied to spirit-action. Imo it is nothing less/better than an effort to legitimize a belief in magic by appropriating the language of science. Thing about energy is ... it is definible, measurable, entirely describable in mundane/material terms. Jmo. cn



One of my first threads... How naive I was thinking that would be the last time i'd have to explain it.

https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/388385-correct-use-word-energy.html


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 29, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> I always get a bit upset when I hear the word "energy" applied to spirit-action. Imo it is nothing less/better than an effort to legitimize a belief in magic by appropriating the language of science. Thing about energy is ... it is definible, measurable, entirely describable in mundane/material terms. Jmo. cn



...but what if the energy is that aspect it is motivating? It can't be separated from action for description. Hoping that made a bit of sense!

Origins of energy? Any thoughts?


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 29, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...but what if the energy is that aspect it is motivating? It can't be separated from action for description. Hoping that made a bit of sense!
> 
> Origins of energy? Any thoughts?



Origins of Energy............ This could be a fun one for a few pages.......... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_energy

There's a quick brush-up for all the folks wanting to join in! 

Oh, and if Finshaggy is reading, here's the History of Energy, but for Children:

http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=timelines


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 29, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Origins of Energy............ This could be a fun one for a few pages..........
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_energy
> 
> ...



There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law&#8212;it is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
&#8212;​

...and speaking of pseudo, I just had an instant association to the Georgia Guidestones. *shrugs*


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 29, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...but what if *the energy is that aspect it is motivating?* It can't be separated from action for description. Hoping that made a bit of sense!
> 
> Origins of energy? Any thoughts?


Oh dear, eye, my head; it spins! I feel the siren song of recursive logic! Y'know what a sucker for such I am!!

My inner purist would like to reserve the term "energy" for the quantities described by physicists and other natural philosophers. For the other sort that speaks of spirit andor consciousness andor ai yee yee ... I would dearly like to see another term introduced that can exist rather chastely alongside the strictly material[istic] term. Just my thoughts. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 29, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Oh dear, eye, my head; it spins! I feel the siren song of recursive logic! Y'know what a sucker for such I am!!
> 
> My inner purist would like to reserve the term "energy" for the quantities described by physicists and other natural philosophers. For the other sort that speaks of spirit andor consciousness andor ai yee yee ... I would dearly like to see another term introduced that can exist rather chastely alongside the strictly material[istic] term. Just my thoughts. cn



...sweet, let's see if someone in here can coin the term


----------



## mindphuk (Dec 30, 2011)

Let's call it metergy, metaphysical energy.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2011)

I would use the Maori term appropriated by Larry Niven: "mana". cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Let's call it metergy, metaphysical energy.



...though the Bear (of all polarity ) got it right, I do like metergy. It has nice expanding rings to it  In metaphysics, and perhaps elsewhere, there's a known term for this energy in it's 'grounded' state - enpolar, I believe. (will check for my own curiosity)


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 30, 2011)

PbHash said:


> There is a lot of bad science floating around this website, seriously I can't believe some of the crap people think is fact. To me the rise of pseudoscience is cause by a lack of critical thinking by the masses. I just want to punch people in the teeth when they "well evolution is just a theory" what next "gravity is just a theory".
> 
> Is there a name for what I call the the "faith fallacy". When creationist say "I have faith, but you can't see it or test it, and I can't tell you why I have it" maybe it's special pleading but I want to give it a new name, Being an Idiot. I have a lot of faith, faith the sun will rise, faith my car will run on gas, faith that I will shit on a regular basis. These faiths are based on observation. Idiot faith is when you have never observed it but expect it. Example faith that I will win the lotto without buying a ticket, it's prob never happened.



...what's that website again?...hmm, I think it's nasa.gov ...that's the one with all the good science. In here, it's more like "haute science".

Calling a creationist an idiot could get you some lost chiclets of your own, eh? You'd be lucky (a branch of) science came up with dental veneers and implants.

"Lucky"...oh dear, I crack me up!


----------



## Doer (Dec 30, 2011)

canndo said:


> I get a kick out of this line of reasoning. Gee, every time I hear about the theory of gravity or the theory of flight it is referenced more as accepted fact than theory.


The Big Bang in a fact, is it? And I'm quite sure we have no idea of what gravity is. The LHC found no evidence of a Higgs bosun. We don't know what causes matter to attract itself. We don't know what is responsible for Mass. We don't have a workable Theory of Gravity.

The discovery of the accelerating expansion of spacetime means we have no way to say what we are looking at. We don't know if the rate of expansion has changed or even been negative in the past. So no, Big Bang is not a fact.

And flight is a technology, not a theory.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2011)

Doer, you highlight an interesting point in re the semantics of "theory". We do have a working theory of gravity ... have had since Newton published, but is it a practical theory, not one describing the physical basis of gravity. In the 20th century and the bit of time since, an implication has crept in that "theory" need describe the (usually microscopic/atomistic) physical basis of the phenomenon under examination. However I would like to draw attention to Darwinian ebvolution, a theory that has steadily advanced to the point of universal acceptance (if you forgive those opposed for counterscientific reasons) for many decades before even an inkling of its physical basis (genes, DNA, mutations, ) became known.
As for flight, there too we can properly use the term descriptively: the technology is necessarily underlain by great reams of math and physics describing the behavior envelopes of airfoils, propellers, jet engines of various types etc. Calling this "theory" is eminently valid imo. Consider that a college course divided into "lecture" and "lab" components in the USA would be "theory" and "practicum" in some European equivalents. The word stands herd over a fairly rich flock of closely-grouped meanings. cn


----------



## Doer (Dec 30, 2011)

eye exaggerate said:


> There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this lawit is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
> ​ ...and speaking of pseudo, I just had an instant association to the Georgia Guidestones. *shrugs*


Right you are. We name a "thing" (is it a thing?) Energy. In it's most basic form it can be a quantum of information. Cosmological bets have been won and lost recently regarding the conservation of information, re: Black Holes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Right now, there seems to be a suprisingly small, (it's a vast universe) amount of energy being inserted somehow into our timespace. Dark Energy.
Where is the conservation of energy there? In other words, when I was young, things seemed well understood. Now it seems none of those
scientific assumptions are holding up. What is Energy? Quantum math can describe only one electon force. You don't need individual "particle."
With non-locality, it could just be one thing operating through some un-known vector.


----------



## Doer (Dec 30, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Doer, you highlight an interesting point in re the semantics of "theory". We do have a working theory of gravity ... have had since Newton published, but is it a practical theory, not one describing the physical basis of gravity. In the 20th century and the bit of time since, an implication has crept in that "theory" need describe the (usually microscopic/atomistic) physical basis of the phenomenon under examination. However I would like to draw attention to Darwinian ebvolution, a theory that has steadily advanced to the point of universal acceptance (if you forgive those opposed for counterscientific reasons) for many decades before even an inkling of its physical basis (genes, DNA, mutations, ) became known.
> As for flight, there too we can properly use the term descriptively: the technology is necessarily underlain by great reams of math and physics describing the behavior envelopes of airfoils, propellers, jet engines of various types etc. Calling this "theory" is eminently valid imo. Consider that a college course divided into "lecture" and "lab" components in the USA would be "theory" and "practicum" in some European equivalents. The word stands herd over a fairly rich flock of closely-grouped meanings. cn


OK, I'll grant that. We have a lot of tech around the use of Gravity. But, Newtonian calculus allows us only to describe how gravity works, not what it is. So we know the operating priciples of tech that uses gravity. I can't call that a Theory any more. Too much is unknown.

I think we had a theory of flight in my lifetime. I remember much todo about Bumblebees. Shouldn't be able to fly, etc. Hummingbirds were a mystery, as well. Now, with high speed photography we know how a bee and a hummingbird can fly. We can make robot drones to copy the tech in nature.

To me a Theory is the height of science. We don't really know yet, but this is where we are with painstaking method. All else has fallen from Occam's Razor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor 

Evolution is a perfect example. Big Bang was, but is no longer. Flight however, IMO, is no longer Theory, since the Operating Principles are well described mathmatically, it's a done deal. The math works in all fluids, you have to have a fluid to fly. It's all understood. No more bees and hummingbird confusion.

A solid technology. Of course, everyone studies the math, even myself as a pilot, and call it Theory, but filght is beyond theory, I'd say. Not so, Evolution. If we had time travel tech, I imagine, Evolution would no longer be a Theory, one way or another. That's all I mean.


----------



## canndo (Dec 30, 2011)

Doer said:


> The Big Bang in a fact, is it? And I'm quite sure we have no idea of what gravity is. The LHC found no evidence of a Higgs bosun. We don't know what causes matter to attract itself. We don't know what is responsible for Mass. We don't have a workable Theory of Gravity.
> 
> The discovery of the accelerating expansion of spacetime means we have no way to say what we are looking at. We don't know if the rate of expansion has changed or even been negative in the past. So no, Big Bang is not a fact.
> 
> And flight is a technology, not a theory.



flight is a theory, basd on weight drag thrust and lift, the technology is how the theory is used to accomplish actual flight. I am not claiming that the big bang is a fact, it is a theory. The point is that theories are not just idle suppostitions and there is plenty of evidence for the big bang and very little in the way of alternative theories.


----------



## Doer (Dec 30, 2011)

But, Big Bang evidence is largely based on the Hubble Constant. Dark Energy means that we now have, instead, a big Variable. Namely, the Rate of Expansion's accleration.

Everything to my knowledge, that has been postulated mathmatically depends on the Constant. That is back until Inflationary period,
another piece of math-magic. But, even that has a big unknown unrelated to Dark Energy and Matter. Why did the Inflationary Period end?
That is a blank, right now.

So, dare I say, with the discovery of measurable acceleration in the expansion of spacetime, and no idea of what caused the forces of Inflation
and the cessation of Inflation, there is no evidence, at all, of the Big Bang.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 30, 2011)

Doer said:


> But, Big Bang evidence is largely based on the Hubble Constant. Dark Energy means that we now have, instead, a big Variable. Namely, the Rate of Expansion's accleration.
> 
> Everything to my knowledge, that has been postulated mathmatically depends on the Constant. That is back until Inflationary period,
> another piece of math-magic. But, even that has a big unknown unrelated to Dark Energy and Matter. Why did the Inflationary Period end?
> ...



Afaik, Doer, there are independent corroborations (not conclusive, but highly supportive) of/for the Bang.
1) the microwave background radiation.
2) The very-large-scale galactic distribution ... the "cobwebby" unevenness that shows up when the scale approaches a gigaparsec. My 2¢ ... cn


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 30, 2011)

Newton thought that being able to describe what something did was good enough and simply did not really care why it was. If his description works, who cares why it works, it does, right? 


Theory vs Law...... This one has bothered me on RIU for a while, and I wanted to make a thread about it one day...... Laws and Theories are the same thing. Example, Newton's "Laws". Oops, they are revised, now called "Einstein's Theory". The only reason the word Law and Theory got changed is because of the simplicity of sciences origins. Newtons laws we're pretty easy to understand and understood as common sense. A theory, however, goes beyond our "senses" and has to have a mathematical background to be a theory. A theory is NOT someone who says "I think this works this way", it is someone who says "I think this works this way, and here's the math to prove it..."


So remember next time you here the Laws of blah blah and the Theory of blah blah, that the Laws are generally "common sense understandings of natural phenomenon" and Theories are "mathematical understandings of the complexities our senses cant naturally sense".


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 30, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Newton thought that being able to describe what something did was good enough and simply did not really care why it was. If his description works, who cares why it works, it does, right?
> 
> 
> Theory vs Law...... This one has bothered me on RIU for a while, and I wanted to make a thread about it one day...... Laws and Theories are the same thing. Example, Newton's "Laws". Oops, they are revised, now called "Einstein's Theory". The only reason the word Law and Theory got changed is because of the simplicity of sciences origins. Newtons laws we're pretty easy to understand and understood as common sense. A theory, however, goes beyond our "senses" and has to have a mathematical background to be a theory. A theory is NOT someone who says "I think this works this way", it is someone who says "I think this works this way, and here's the math to prove it..."
> ...


As I understand it, a law describes an observation that always occurs under certain conditions, while a theory attempts to explain the why and how.


----------



## researchkitty (Dec 30, 2011)

And an observation is one of our senses abilities, and a theory goes to the dynamics involved.  Yup!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Dec 30, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> And an observation is one of our senses abilities, and a theory goes to the dynamics involved.  Yup!



...whenever I hear 'dynamics involved', my theist self stands up and says "small scale model". So is this sense ability inherent in us? I hope y'all don't mind that I chirp in with the other factor of this discussion


----------



## Doer (Dec 31, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Afaik, Doer, there are independent corroborations (not conclusive, but highly supportive) of/for the Bang.
> 1) the microwave background radiation.
> 2) The very-large-scale galactic distribution ... the "cobwebby" unevenness that shows up when the scale approaches a gigaparsec. My 2¢ ... cn


Yes, except, to me these are linked. And are therefore equally discounted. They don't stand one without the other as a BB supoprt, they prop each other. That's how I see it.

It's the MBR folks that see a pattern to the cobwebbyness. Cobweb universe is one of the basic mysteries. Why is it not a smooth disribution? How can a Bang condense into Cobwebs? If we can link that to something....MBR has compelling unevenness as well.

My problem here is the MBR. If the spaceframe is not static and not Constant based, we can't surmise that the radiation has cooled by a standard rate. The idea is if you rev the MBR back up over 18 billion years, you get the energy of the BB. That takes a Constant.

Another thing we don't know is the scale of Expansion's acceleration rate. Is it universal or patchy? I'm going to GUESS patchy. Patchy across time, as well as space. There could be random contactions and expansions happening right NOW, in a patchy universe.

So, cobweb and MBR could be the result of Patchiness in our manifold. That's just a guess. 

But, I'd say surely,the A1 standard candle proof of Acceleration as overtaken even these slim "evidence."


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jan 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, except, to me these are linked. And are therefore equally discounted. They don't stand one without the other as a BB supoprt, they prop each other. That's how I see it.
> 
> It's the MBR folks that see a pattern to the cobwebbyness. Cobweb universe is one of the basic mysteries. Why is it not a smooth disribution? How can a Bang condense into Cobwebs? If we can link that to something....MBR has compelling unevenness as well.
> 
> ...


Matter groups together inside the universe because of gravity, that's why it's a 'cobweb'. 

The rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is constant;

*Hubble's law* is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (interstellar space) are found to have a doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, _and_ to each other; and (2) that this doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[SUP][1][/SUP] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hubble_Constant


----------



## Doer (Jan 1, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Matter groups together inside the universe because of gravity, that's why it's a 'cobweb'.
> 
> The rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is constant;
> 
> ...



Yo, Padwan, you are a bit behind in your reading. Hubble detected expansion, He surmised that it was steady, Thus the Hubble Constant. The Red Shift.

But, a new candle was discoverd, recently, the 1A supernova, and it showed that the expansion is accelerating. In fact the research is turning toward what I'm suggesting here. What is the rate of accleration? If they find a patchy or "taffy" like spread of acceletration rates. Well, let the fun begin, huh?

Here is a peer reviewed paper on it. You can dig up the story. It was a physics guy not an astronomer that worked it out. Had a lot of trouble getting the telescope time, I iunderstand.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn.html
"To distinguish between a cosmological constant and quintessence the time variability of the acceleration should be checked. Tracing the supernova distances in detail can do this. A large sample of supernovae out to a redshift of about z=1.5 is needed. Proposals to obtain such samples have already been made."

BTW, saying there is gravity because there is gravity? We are discussing spread of energy density before matter condensed, not what happened after that.


----------



## newbyy (Dec 6, 2012)

researchkitty said:


> You totally misunderstood the post.
> 
> Art is art. Expression of anything you want.
> 
> ...


well said. and i agree with you totally. it is not science that is bad, it's the people who use science as a weapon or a cure are bad or good. Science is one of those things that you can never live without. so a better question is what is science and how it affects Good and Evil or Human condition. read the below article where you can get a good insight about it 

http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/


----------



## Doer (Dec 7, 2012)

OK, I read it, fwiw. I totally disagree. An Australian Biologist is entitled to opinion and may well blog about it, so what? This is wrong. But, it points to fact that this is a blog about woo. Hope to change science into force for shifting morality to the good. This is what is incorrect.
-----------------
Yes, the real frontier for the human race&#8211;and most particularly for its designated vehicle for inquiry, science&#8211;was never outer space but inner space, the search for this makes-us-&#8216;whole&#8217;, &#8216;good-and-evil&#8217;-reconciling, psychologically-rehabilitating, human-race-transforming-and-thus-human-race-saving understanding of the human condition! In terms then of the question &#8216;what is science?&#8217;, the truth is science was established to solve the human condition&#8211;that was its all-important objective.
-----------------

No one established science to solve the human condition. BTW, no one established science. Science is a Method, Religion is a Method, trying to jack everything into earth mother awareness and "&#8216;good-and-evil&#8217;-reconciling, psychologically-rehabilitating, human-race-transforming-and-thus-human-race-saving...." That falls under woo, if not out right Gaia worship.

So let's not miss the point. Good and Bad Science refer to the Method, only. Not the result or the application. Those falls under wishful think and snake oil.

I don't accept the premise of good and evil in mankind. Religion puts us in these camps, not Science.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 9, 2012)

researchkitty said:


> Your confusing science with idiots.
> 
> An idiot would look at a barn, circle a shot, and say good shot.
> 
> ...


it took "real scientists" decades to figure out that Silent Spring (the Mrs O'Leary's Cow of the DDT ban) was full of shit. the numbers were all fabricated, the research papers cited didnt exist, and even some of the experts named as sources were fictional, but NONE said what the author claimed. 

to this day some textbooks still claim DDT was the cause of eggshell weakening, when it has been proved to be mercury. 

bad science happens all the time, usually it gets started by a silly notion from a retarded book or government report made for no purpose other than to sell the author's latest line of claptrap.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich
The EPA Report on Landfill Utilization by A Faceless Mandarin who admitted on Penn and Teller's show Bullshit (season 2 episode 5) that he made it all up. 
Earth in the Balance by Al Gore

and dozens of others, all make spurious claims, then the public demands that we act on their claims, and if science gets in the way, Boom Goes The Dynamite! any who dare question the beliefs of the ignorant masses are branded heretics or "deniers" 

where does Bad Science come from? Science in service to political interest groups, particularly Science In The Public Interest.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> I don't accept the premise of good and evil in mankind. Religion puts us in these camps, not Science.


not believing in good is just common sense, believing in "goodness" is as useless as believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Strippers With A Heart Of Gold. 

but i find it impossible to accept that you dont believe in Evil. That's crazy!

not believing is Evil is like not believing in the legendary Cetopsis Candiru , the deadliest fish in the amazon! you may not believe in Candiru, but he sure believes in you, and has a plan for swimming up your dick and making a meal from your urethral blood flow!

Candiru is real, and to disbelieve does not protect your dick. only Microfiber Underpants, and urinary restraint can keep Candiru out of your joy department.

Disbelief simply lets you relax your guard, and then, Candiru is all up in your underwear, turning your junk into rubbish.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 9, 2012)

Interesting point. "I don't believe it, so it isn't there". The reality shows it _is there_. It would seem, no matter your _subjective_ opinion of it, it still remains very real.


----------



## Doer (Dec 9, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> not believing in good is just common sense, believing in "goodness" is as useless as believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Strippers With A Heart Of Gold.
> 
> but i find it impossible to accept that you dont believe in Evil. That's crazy!
> 
> ...


Not if you pack with Vaseline.


----------



## Doer (Dec 9, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Interesting point. "I don't believe it, so it isn't there". The reality shows it _is there_. It would seem, no matter your _subjective_ opinion of it, it still remains very real.


What is very real, EVIL? You will need to prove that. Design a double blind experiment, etc. It has never been shown. Otherwise, it is just a label from religion. There is not even good and bad as anything but a societal agreement and those are always religion based.

And I carefully said, "...don't accept the premise..." Nothing to do with belief. I am quite sure by now, that we all have these labeled attributes. All have fallen quite short of the ideal. To fall short is not evil. Heinous deeds are just that, 
as well as twisted thoughts. Nature and nurture, alone, makes the snowflake of human consciousness. Not good. Not evil.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> Not if you pack with Vaseline.


if you can pack your urethra with anything durable enough to keep the legendary Amazonian Dick Fish out of your pizzle, then youre a stronger man than I. 

also, vaseline? dude. they swim up your cock, not your butt. and easing their passage IN is irrelevant, it's getting them out thats the problem. 

currently the only solution is surgery, they make a banana split, and extract the fish and it's spines from your filleted trouser snake,, then they try to sew your mangled man-meat back into a semi-recognizable form.


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 9, 2012)

Soooo is there a market for bandages with pics of mustard, onion and relish on them? cn


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 9, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Soooo is there a market for bandages with pics of mustard, onion and relish on them? cn



a bun-shaped splint, and condiment print wrapping for the Candiru Victim On The Go would be a fine idea!


----------



## Doer (Dec 10, 2012)

How about a tiny bung plug sealed w/
Vaseline ??


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> How about a tiny bung plug sealed w/
> Vaseline ??


~whispers~ this is NO time to be discussing Romantic Accessories. cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 10, 2012)

Doer said:


> How about a tiny bung plug sealed w/
> Vaseline ??


superfluous your in no danger till you need a wizz at which point you'l be restricted by bunging


----------



## ginjawarrior (Dec 10, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> ~whispers~ this is NO time to be discussing Romantic Accessories. cn


lol im sure doer isnt the kind to do things by halves


----------



## Doer (Dec 11, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> superfluous your in no danger till you need a wizz at which point you'l be restricted by bunging


don't pee in the river?


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 11, 2012)

Doer said:


> don't pee in the river?


the amonia in piss draws Cetopsis Caandiru from his hiding place in the mud. 

holding your water in the water caan reduce the chance you play host to a piscean parasitic penile plunderer, but it's no sure bet. residual ammonia in your urethra can attract them even if you dont open the golden floodgates. 

plugging your snake-eye is of dubious value, i would prefer to block entry with durable microfiber, not a bent over rusty nail coated in crazyglue.


----------



## Doer (Dec 12, 2012)

How about one of those rain covers the M-16 rifle muzzle? You know, the thin latex thing they have for swallowing drugs? Almost like a water balloon?


----------



## Heisenberg (Dec 12, 2012)

Doer said:


> How about one of those rain covers the M-16 rifle muzzle? You know, the thin latex thing they have for swallowing drugs? Almost like a water balloon?


I was wondering why a condom wouldn't do the trick.


----------



## Doer (Dec 12, 2012)

Good Science!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I was wondering why a condom wouldn't do the trick.


condom adhesion would require a constant state of tumescence, lest it detach rendering you vulnerable. 

it is rumored they can even squirm up into a wetsuit via the ankle openings. any non-porous protective device would simply draw them along the path taken by the ammonia aroma, leading directly to your gristle.


----------



## Doer (Dec 13, 2012)

Viagra combo therapy then. If you don't still have an erection after 4 hrs in the water, take 2 more!


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> Viagra combo therapy then. If you don't still have an erection after 4 hrs in the water, take 2 more!


BRILLIANT!

and since obamacare will fund Cialis and Viagra prescriptions with all the money they save by waging war on women, it's win-win!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Dec 14, 2012)

Obamacare doesn't fund things like that (Viagra, Cialis). They're not covered under that insurance


----------



## Doer (Dec 14, 2012)

What we have here is a wagging war, toward wimmins.


----------



## Doer (Dec 14, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Obamacare doesn't fund things like that (Viagra, Cialis). They're not covered under that insurance


But, female birth control is free. Young studs only.


----------



## olylifter420 (Dec 15, 2012)

Bad science is people on the web thinking they are actual scientists and passing off as one around their peers.






Doer said:


> It's not always so easy to tell. Some folks say the DDT ban was the result of bad science.
> 
> One example is called the barn side or six-shooter mistake. If I take a pair of six-guns and fire 12 times at a barn, I can go up with my chalk, (with no one looking) and draw a circle around the best group. "Yep, good shootin!"
> 
> ...


----------



## brimck325 (Dec 15, 2012)

researchkitty said:


> Your confusing science with idiots.
> 
> An idiot would look at a barn, circle a shot, and say good shot.
> 
> ...


the government needs men like you...peace


----------



## Doer (Dec 15, 2012)

olylifter420 said:


> Bad science is people on the web thinking they are actual scientists and passing off as one around their peers.


And you are simply full of shit.

First off if, you are taking to me, (you quoted me) you are hardly my peer, with this kind of crap. More ignorant than not. 

And second, I surely qualify as a Computer Scientist, involved in Computer Science and peer reviewed research and you I repeat are full of shit and perhaps a plumber by trade.  (not that there is anything wrong with that)


----------



## Dr Kynes (Dec 18, 2012)

Doer said:


> And you are simply full of shit.
> 
> First off if, you are taking to me, (you quoted me) you are hardly my peer, with this kind of crap. More ignorant than not.
> 
> And second, I surely qualify as a Computer Scientist, involved in Computer Science and peer reviewed research and you I repeat are full of shit and *perhaps a plumber by trade.*  (not that there is anything wrong with that)









[video=youtube;JpBGRA6HHtY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpBGRA6HHtY[/video]


----------



## biostudent (Sep 18, 2013)

Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.


----------



## thcme (Sep 19, 2013)

biostudent said:


> Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.


^ what he said


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

biostudent said:


> Bad science is when you have people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation. Next, a theory is a good theory if it is testable, experimentally replicatable. But keep in mind, a theory is not an absolute truth, like a law. For nearly 2,000 years, the infinite divisibility of matter (searching for the smallest particle) was considered a good theory, and experimentally tested, proved for a long time that matter can keep dividing into a smaller piece. Much later, with the discovery of the atomic theory, the good old theory of divisibility was proved wrong. The moral is that scientific theories are always changing, sometimes revolutionary. But the problem occurs when people (even some scientists) consider a theory to be an absolute fact (ex: theory on origins of life). That is bad science.


^^^^a complete misunderstanding on what scientific laws and scientific theories are.


a scientific law is a law because of the equation at its heart. 

how can evolution be treated as an equation?

you would be hard pushed to find anything as well supported as evolution its only the complexity making an equation beyond our capabilities.


you do realise that we've been dividing atoms for a while now?


----------



## srh88 (Sep 22, 2013)




----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 22, 2013)

everything can be described as a math equation . .even evolution

we just havent solved it yet

fibernachi code and the golden rule


----------



## thcme (Sep 22, 2013)

Yes, it's kind of presumptuous to assume evolution cannot ever be described in terms of an equation or underlying computations...


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 22, 2013)

their is only two constants in life . . mathematics can describe everything . .and everything will change


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> everything can be described as a math equation . .even evolution
> 
> we just havent solved it yet
> 
> fibernachi code and the golden rule


the goldern rule?

possibly with all the variables you could make such an equation (it would be mind bogglingly complicated tho)

however biostudent was saying that people are now treating the theory of evolution as a law

without the elusive equation how can it possibly be treated as a law?

unless of course he is misunderstanding scientific theory and scientific law


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

thcme said:


> Yes, it's kind of presumptuous to assume evolution cannot ever be described in terms of an equation or underlying computations...


thats not what i was saying


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 22, 2013)

read up on fibernachi code


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the goldern rule?
> 
> possibly with all the variations you could make such an equation (it would be mind bogglingly complicated tho)
> 
> ...


and its called organic algorithms . . . the mathematics that predict DNA sequences


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the goldern rule?
> 
> possibly with all the variables you could make such an equation (it would be mind bogglingly complicated tho)
> 
> ...


i dont thnk he siad that . . he siad laws like th elaw of gravity . . . and theors are theores . . .laws unproven to be true . . . . seems pretty basic to me

theory of evolution and unproven body of laws governing a species evolution

law of gravity a constant in our reality here on earth, that law chagne sin space or on another planet with different atmosphere

so even laws or subject to conditions . . . . 

laws define a state

theories propose and infer/imply a state 

idk im just brainstorming . . .


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> the goldern rule?
> 
> possibly with all the variables you could make such an equation (it would be mind bogglingly complicated tho)
> 
> ...


_Paging Dr. Feynman... Dr. Feynman, you are needed in operating room #6...

_[video=youtube;M5fc4oV2F3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fc4oV2F3o[/video]

Then there is his classic clip on the Scientific Method..._
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
_


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

heckler73 said:


> _Paging Dr. Feynman... Dr. Feynman, you are needed in operating room #6...
> 
> _[video=youtube;M5fc4oV2F3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fc4oV2F3o[/video]
> 
> ...


I think Feynman would turn in his grave if he heard you comparing evolution to social sciences

He goes on about organics not being proven to be better

Evolution has been shown again and again to be true


Again I'll ask how can you treat evolution as a law when a law is an equation (one we haven't discovered yet)

I'll settle for one example in lieu of explanation


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 22, 2013)

i think you are mixing up the theory of evolution and the term evolution . . .they are independent of each other 

evolution happens it is true 100%

the theroy or evolution is a theory not a law and has continued to be argued to this day . . .genetic drift and random mutation/variation have very strong arguments as causality to evolution being true vs Darwin's theory based on observations and conclusions at the time


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> I think Feynman would turn in his grave if he heard you comparing evolution to social sciences
> 
> He goes on about organics not being proven to be better
> 
> ...


Whoa there, champ... I'm not here saying anything about evolution.
I can't treat evolution as a law... unless you can parametrize variables for it.
Perhaps Agent-based modeling can be useful in exploring particular "micro-theories" of evolution?

And I don't think Feynman would care over me posting an old clip of him on a stoner forum. But he might play the bongos for you while you rhapsodize on about the differences of laws and theories...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i think you are mixing up the theory of evolution and the term evolution . . .they are independent of each other
> 
> evolution happens it is true 100%
> 
> the theroy or evolution is a theory not a law and has continued to be argued to this day . . .genetic drift and random mutation/variation have very strong arguments as causality to evolution being true vs Darwin's theory based on observations and conclusions at the time


Please define the 2 as separate from each other?

I don't know of anyone apart from bible bashers who contend Darwin's work was the final chapter for theory of evolution


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

heckler73 said:


> Whoa there, champ... I'm not here saying anything about evolution.
> I can't treat evolution as a law... unless you can parametrize variables for it.
> Perhaps Agent-based modeling can be useful in exploring particular "micro-theories" of evolution?
> 
> And I don't think Feynman would care over me posting an old clip of him on a stoner forum. But he might play the bongos for you while you rhapsodize on about the differences of laws and theories...


You quoted me for that clip and bolded my quote

If that was not your purpose then why?


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 22, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> You quoted me for that clip and bolded my quote
> 
> If that was not your purpose then why?


Indeed I did quote you and use that clip... The reason being I wished to address the thread's original question:
What is Bad Science?

However, since you are interested in my opinion, I'll just look at accepted definitions from the English language.

_*Theory* --A supposition or a system of *ideas intended to explain something*, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...

*Law* -- __a *statement of fact, deduced from observation*, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific *phenomenon always occurs* if certain conditions are present
_
How can evolution be a law if the phenomenon doesn't always occur?
It is a probabilistic subject... until you get down to the DNA, I suppose... but then it ceases to be a "theory of evolution" and a function of genetic chemistry and phenotype expressions. Laws of processes, perhaps.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 22, 2013)

If this is a deterministic universe and we were able to get all the variables (like down to neutrino events) then possibly it would work

However it's mindbogglingly complicated and I doubt even in the next thousand years we wouldn't have comps powerful enough to run such equation even if we did find it

*

people treating scientific theories like scientific laws, as such is the case with the theory of evolution in contrast to the law of mass conservation.​




*That still doesn't make sense tho


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 23, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> However it's mindbogglingly complicated and I doubt even in the next thousand years we wouldn't have comps powerful enough to run such equation even if we did find it
> 
> *
> 
> ...


*

*
A thousand years is a long time for _*Moore's Law*_ 
Is it a law? It has equations! 
Is it testable? Depends on definitions...
Is it Science? 

And yes, I agree; his original statement was poorly crafted.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 23, 2013)

heckler73 said:


> [/B]
> A thousand years is a long time for _*Moore's Law*_
> Is it a law? It has equations!
> Is it testable? Depends on definitions...
> ...


Moore's law cannot carry on indefinitely it's already starting to fail
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226758/Physicist_says_Moore_s_Law_is_collapsing_?pageNumber=1

While I pulled a thousand years out of my arse I stand by it wrt the complexity needed to for evolution equation


----------



## Doer (Sep 23, 2013)

thcme said:


> Yes, it's kind of presumptuous to assume evolution cannot ever be described in terms of an equation or underlying computations...


But, these changes we observe as Evolution are mostly (completely) random. For it not to be random, there has to be a design.

No design is necessary, obviously. Evolution is a Theory. But, that is a grant, we hard science types, yield to the Paleo-types.

As far as I am concerned it is no Theory at all. It is still just a very solid Hypothesis. In real science, the game is to disprove the big H. But, it is non-observational and takes place in the most spotty evidence chain of all, the paleo-record. As such, there is no instance of an experiment to show that Evolution is impossible. Yet, it is not proven to be actual. No Theory is actual.

We cannot "evolve" lab mice, for instance. We cannot turn off Gravity and we cannot observe the Big Bang.


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 23, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> Moore's law cannot carry on indefinitely it's already starting to fail
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226758/Physicist_says_Moore_s_Law_is_collapsing_?pageNumber=1
> 
> While I pulled a thousand years out of my arse I stand by it wrt the complexity needed to for evolution equation


Heheh... Moore's Law was a calculable limit in the first place, based on the gap limits for layering silicon (if one looks at processing speed).
But it's funny that it is a "law", and not "Moore's Theory"...

As for the model of evolution, it is indubitably more complex than even the BC Gov't's model of the BC Economy.
But this may be where Biology has its role to play. They need to develop their _laws_ of processes, and through those types of simplifications, variables in the grand model of evolution can be compiled more efficiently, and reduced in number.

However, I am not a Biologist. Any discussion on the topic from my end is at best an exploration in degrees of naivety.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Sep 24, 2013)

researchkitty said:


> I dont know Mr Neutron..... The Big Bang Theory didnt just arise out of some guys wet dream..... It arose from observational evidence, in fact! Previous to the "BBT", scientists thought that the Universe was in a "Solid State" where galaxies created new matter as they moved further away. Since Hubble (you know, the guy they named the telescope after) showed that the Universe was not in a solid state, but expanding, if its expanding, it has to have started from something small, right?
> 
> There's also the Cosmic Background Radiation, which is everywhere at about 3 degrees in temperature. That's the static you see on analog televisions when a television station isnt on the channel you are watching. Since the CMB is "everywhere" around the Universe, that also suggests pretty strongly that our modern view on cosmology is accurate enough that we're at the very least in the right direction, if not pretty spot on. The WMAP data is very very easy to read!
> 
> ...


Here's a differing perspective on some of the observed evidence. It's generally assumed that the Universe is expanding - based on what we observe. But think about us if we were circling the drain of a bathtub. Things on the edges of the bathtub would appear to be getting further away - because we are going down the drain at a significantly greater rate than the rest of the water (or Universe) is. It's possible either way, but sometimes we just like to jump to conclusions. And I'd argue that some people's belief in science and the scientific method (and, by proxy - the people - key world being people - who practice them) is well beyond reasonable and well into the grounds of religious. If only because their egos are really gigantic and overwhelming their ability to reason and think objectively. I see it plenty from many folks on here who claim to be kings of objectivity and who probably even have degrees applicable to some field of study (but hold some really foolish and religious like positions based on bad science - see the entire GMO debate where traditional safety study standards have been thrown out the window for "substantive equivalence").


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 24, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Here's a differing perspective on some of the observed evidence. It's generally assumed that the Universe is expanding - based on what we observe. But think about us if we were circling the drain of a bathtub. Things on the edges of the bathtub would appear to be getting further away - because we are going down the drain at a significantly greater rate than the rest of the water (or Universe) is. It's possible either way, but sometimes we just like to jump to conclusions. And I'd argue that some people's belief in science and the scientific method (and, by proxy - the people - key world being people - who practice them) is well beyond reasonable and well into the grounds of religious. If only because their egos are really gigantic and overwhelming their ability to reason and think objectively. I see it plenty from many folks on here who claim to be kings of objectivity and who probably even have degrees applicable to some field of study (but hold some really foolish and religious like positions based on bad science - see the entire GMO debate where traditional safety study standards have been thrown out the window for "substantive equivalence").


If we were circling the drain we would be rapidly moving towards our neighbours while moving away from edge of bath...


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 24, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> It's possible either way, but sometimes we just like to jump to conclusions. And I'd argue that *some people's belief in science and the scientific method* (and, by proxy - the people - key world being people - who practice them) *is well beyond reasonable and well into the grounds of religious*.


For every obsession, there is a zealot.
In Economics, one of the first things one learns is _it is a religion_. They make no bones about it. Many (if not most) of the precepts are based on a quasi-faith.

(Hard) Sciences, in general, are susceptible to these issues, too. Look at the debates of Dark Energy/Matter in Astrophysics, for example. Or the somewhat egregious arguments in climatology.
But if it were not for the impassioned participants, how would the envelope of cognizance grow? It would be a far more static affair composed of mostly "Yes-men" (and Yes-women)...

It took a long time to get from Ptolemy to Copernicus (Aristarchus, be damned!)... Without the ability of zealots (since then) to communicate--and test--their ideas, where would we be now?

Would we have goats that lactate spider silk?
I think not !!!


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Sep 24, 2013)

ginjawarrior said:


> If we were circling the drain we would be rapidly moving towards our neighbours while moving away from edge of bath...


Depending on where you were, these things might not be as readily perceptible - especially on a gigantic scale if you're not really looking.


----------



## OGEvilgenius (Sep 24, 2013)

And yes, Economics is not science. It's a bunch of religious philosophers engaging in mathematical masturbation.


----------



## heckler73 (Sep 24, 2013)

And speaking of Economics and religion,
_Is there Money in Hell ???

_[video=youtube;TsdSxk-qxZE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsdSxk-qxZE[/video]


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 25, 2013)

OGEvilgenius said:


> Depending on where you were, these things might not be as readily perceptible - especially on a gigantic scale if you're not really looking.


I've never had the impression that the multitude of telescopes around the world and in orbit are spending their time "not really looking"


----------



## Jon7 (Sep 27, 2013)

Well gotta agree with the repetition theory that's science dudes!


----------



## Doer (Oct 23, 2013)

This is an example of good science. Challenge it. Dark Matter is not a done deal. BTW, we have discussed the idea of elastic space density in another thread.

And I can show solid math, at least that there is no matter, at all. It is all condensed space. And it is the Higgs field that controls the density. And what controls the Higgs field? OK...Right.  Let's move on.

So, the most simple explanation beyond our particle-wave math constructs is that the vibration of space, in tiny reflecting scalar waves, is the component we call atomic matter. This is much harder to prove than particle-wave math. But, it fits well with String math and 11 dimensions.

Well, you say, P-W behavior is observed. But, I say, we could be observing the Scalar Wave behavior, instead. So, real science says we don't know, but this the Current Understanding.

But, in the Press, you get the done deal. Dark Matter scaffolds is what holds together the Universe. There was an experiment that mapped the lensing of "dark matter" across the Microwave background this year. Great results. But, what the heck is Dark Matter?

No one knows, but that doesn't stop the Press Done Deal Machine. We human must need a bit of fake certainly, I guess.

So, just like the Big Bang and Evolution took hold as the Current Understanding, so has Dark Matter. But, big holes in each. They are constantly challenged. There are giant gaps in the fossil record, for example. And new findings mean new hypothesis. 

The press goes, "But you SAID..." Science says, "no." Big Bang requires a leap of faith, also. A faster than light period of expansion. Then add Dark Matter, the math is blown.

So, outside of the press there are always non-competing theories. They can only compete if they can design proof. And, in math, elegance is a kind of proof. 

What if we didn't need Dark Matter? What if that describes, simply, the regions around galaxies where the space is still quite condensed and constitutes a virtual gravity well for lensing, rotation effects, etc?

That condensed space, never finished condensing into matter? More simple to me.

*A new theory of general relativity* 
In our work, appearing in the July edition of the journal of _Physical Review D_ (a preprint of which is available on arxiv), we have developed a new theory of general relativity that may change our understanding of galaxies and the universe. Our proposed theory does not need dark matter to exist to explain galaxy rotation curves.


----------



## heckler73 (Oct 23, 2013)

Doer said:


> This is an example of good science. Challenge it. Dark Matter is not a done deal. BTW, we have discussed the idea of elastic space density in another thread.
> ...
> So, the most simple explanation beyond our particle-wave math constructs is that the vibration of space, in tiny reflecting *scalar waves*, is the component we call atomic matter. This is much harder to prove than particle-wave math. But, it fits well with String math and 11 dimensions.
> 
> Well, you say, P-W behavior is observed. But, I say, we could be observing the *Scalar Wave* behavior, instead. So, real science says we don't know, but this the Current Understanding.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave

[HR][/HR]In physics, a quantity described as "scalar" only contains information about its magnitude. In contrast, a "vector" quantity contains information both about its magnitude and about its direction. By this definition, a "scalar wave" in physics would be defined as any solution to a "scalar wave equation".[SUP][4][/SUP] In reality, this definition is far too general to be useful, and as a result the term "scalar wave" is used exclusively by cranks and peddlers of woo. 

Solutions to scalar wave equations are actually quite prevalent (and useful) in physics. Some prominent examples include acoustic (sound) waves, the motion of a taut string being stretched (such as a guitar string being plucked), and the motion of waves in water (such as the ripples from a stone being dropped into a pond). In contrast, electromagnetic waves are vector quantities derived as solutions to a set of vector wave equations (in this case Maxwell's equations). 
[HR][/HR]
I'm no fan of Dark Matter, but I thought something was wrong when I saw "scalar wave".
Would you mind elaborating on that particular bit?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Oct 24, 2013)

Doer said:


> This is an example of good science. Challenge it. Dark Matter is not a done deal. BTW, we have discussed the idea of elastic space density in another thread.
> 
> And I can show solid math, at least that there is no matter, at all. It is all condensed space. And it is the Higgs field that controls the density. And what controls the Higgs field? OK...Right.  Let's move on.
> 
> ...


Evolution and the Big Bang... 

For fucks sake.. 

2 of the most well established scientific theories in existence.. 

All credibility lost


----------



## Doer (Oct 25, 2013)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Evolution and the Big Bang...
> 
> For fucks sake..
> 
> ...


You have the lack of cred as we all know. And your opinion here is valueless, fight boy,

These are Theories of the Current Understanding only. THAT IS WHAT I SAID.

They are under constant assault. You, in ignorance are not following along.

Evolution and Big Bang, both, are only one big discovery from Doom.

Dark Matter is only one shift of concept from Doom. We simply don't have the Current Understanding as yet, that it is only Space in various levels of Compression. No "matter" really exists. It is just the human impression.

If you can prove that, and the math is very solid, it is quite possible to gain a new Current Understanding of the Origin of the Universe.

You Hack.

That is science.


----------



## Doer (Oct 25, 2013)

And every year, new finding are brought to light that change the ideas of Evolution.

Currently there is some compelling evidence that perhaps evolution can be viral driven at a rate not even considered before.

A new Species may create itself much faster than we thought. It you prove that, we may be able to gain a new Current Understanding about Evolution.

Or we could find something today that says it is, in fact, un-refutably Intelligent designed Evolution seeded by Ancient Aliens.

You Hack.

That is science. You, as I have always said, follow religious type of Belief thought, and call that science.

You believe the Theory of the Current Understanding is IT. Science say, oh, yea fearful...you wish.


----------



## biostudent (Oct 4, 2014)

ginjawarrior said:


> ^^^^a complete misunderstanding on what scientific laws and scientific theories are.
> 
> 
> a scientific law is a law because of the equation at its heart.
> ...


A scientific law is a law because it won't change; not subject to revision or alteration. Example: Mendelian genetics; the Punette Square: cross a homozygous dominant with another homozygous dominant a million times and you'll get the exact same result. 

A theory otoh, especially Darwin's evolution theory, is not STATIC - it can be revised, altered, discarded, made better, etc. 
This factor is actually one of the core requirements of a theory to be scientific - it must be falsifiable or else its not a legit theory. Darwin's theory is a good theory because it is both replicatable and falsifiable. 
Yes it has been proven many times, but his idea of 'survival of the fittest' has also been disproven many times, which sequentially made it subject to revision. Some examples off the top of my head: G6PD mortality & malaria inhibition, medaka fish, some specie of Finch from the Galapagos among whom the least fit individuals were the only survivors. If you want more detail on these, let me know.

The truth is, theories are NOT static. It is bad science when people consider them so.



ginjawarrior said:


> you do realise that we've been dividing atoms for a while now?


Yup. Reread previous post and you may find this makes my argument stronger.


----------



## biostudent (Oct 4, 2014)

ginjawarrior said:


> Evolution has been shown again and again to be true
> 
> Again I'll ask how can you treat evolution as a law when a law is an equation (one we haven't discovered yet)


You don't need equations for anything to be a law. Here is a law without equations:
*All life is made of cells.

I think you may also be misinterpreting what I said: it is bad science when people treat theories as laws. And this is very common today.


----------



## CaretakerDad (Oct 4, 2014)

^^^^ "some specie of Finch from the Galapagos among whom the least fit individuals were the only survivors"

This is where you show a fundamental lack of understanding. Fitness is defined by survival, not some preconceived notion of yours. I will use a more understandable example for you, Sickle Cell Anemia which affects African Americans. In our society and climate it is a disease that is considered a health problem. In the originating area of the world, it actually helps prevent those populations from contracting malaria as the blood is not palatable for a mosquito. Fitness depends solely on environmental conditions, all of them not just the obvious. That's science.


----------



## bud nugbong (Oct 4, 2014)

OGEvilgenius said:


> And yes, Economics is not science. It's a bunch of religious philosophers engaging in mathematical masturbation.


I think economics is a great tool at least. Might not be an exact science the way it is used to "predict markets" But using things like Basics of economics is very important in life. Dealing with money and finance is something that isn't stressed enough in schools. I took it as an elective and think it was More helpful than Health class, which Is mandatory and doesn't really shed light on anything new to a young person these days.
I think that If d.a.r.e. threw some economics into the act less kids would get into drugs in the first place. Tell them how much money they will spend on the drugs and then compare it to what you could do with that money instead. Kids always love materialistic stuff. Get them hooked on that+saving money rather than drugs.

And that's another reason I have an issue with it. It always seemed to me wanting to make lots of money was a bad thing(when I was really young about 9), It seemed Like you would be being greedy If you had a big house and nice car and strived for these things. Now if I had a little lesson in my Math class about these things, and cut down on the damn algebra (which I havnt used much in the real world) kids like me wouldn't misunderstand rich greedy people with rich successful people.

*just an economics supporter eating edibles on a Saturday...don't mind me


----------



## biostudent (Oct 5, 2014)

CaretakerDad said:


> ^^^^ "some specie of Finch from the Galapagos among whom the least fit individuals were the only survivors"
> 
> This is where you show a fundamental lack of understanding. Fitness is defined by survival, not some preconceived notion of yours.


First off, fitness is defined by the biological ability to reproduce, not reproduction itself. Your idea of fitness is paradoxical - i.e. the survivor is the most fit; if the least able of the individuals is the only one to reproduce then that least able individual is the fittest - this is a paradox which cannot be falsified and as such, it contradicts the fundamental scientific principle of a legitimate theory that states a theory is only legit if its falsifiable.
I cannot say this is bad science actually because it is not even science - it fails to meet the criteria required by scientific methodology.
Secondly, I may as well detail the case of the Finch and the environment: two phenotypes were prevalent on one island, one dominant comprising a larger individual with stronger wings allowing it to fly longer distances that allowed it to gather more resources to sustain a larger brood (this was the most fit); and a less fit phenotype consisting of smaller birds with subordinate physical abilities that could only sustain a small brood merely on chance, more prone to predation and competition, shorter lifespan, comprising a deviating group on the population pyramid although miniscule in numbers. Over time, the less fit would've probably disappeared by natural selection. But what happened is, something that Darwin didn't account for while formulating his magnificent theory, is that the larger phenotype was wiped out by a natural catastrophe which indefinitely skewed the population dynamics pyramid over the deviants. The original island had depleted most of it's resources for the Finch. So the larger of the species was able to fly to another island which promised sustainability, while the smaller phenotype lacked the physical ability to reach the 2nd island and hence got left behind. On the second island, a volcano erupted and killed all of the most fit of birds. The least fit survived on the first island. This case can be defined as: that specie of Finch evolved to have less biological fitness. If we define this according to your logic then it becomes an unfalsifiable paradox which has no place in scientific methodology.



CaretakerDad said:


> I will use a more understandable example for you, Sickle Cell Anemia which affects African Americans. In our society and climate it is a disease that is considered a health problem. In the originating area of the world, it actually helps prevent those populations from contracting malaria as the blood is not palatable for a mosquito.


Blood palatability for a mosquito has nothing to do with malaria. The mosquito will drink the blood and digest it whether the RBC is sickle shaped or not, especially considering that most of the nutrients in blood are not even comprised of red blood cells (RBC is the defective component in sickle celled anemics), i.e free floating ions, fatty acids, proteins, minerals, interstitial fluid, etc. Atleast do some research before you post. Sickle cell anemia confers resistant against malaria because the RBC has an abnormal shape and the malaria parasite (Plasmodium) is unable to bond & effect to that shape. At the same time, the anemic faces premature mortality. What this means is that the individuals who don't even come in to contact with Plasmodium (whether they be African Americans or Africans in malaria infested countries) suffer from premature mortality and because it is a dominant allele it is highly heritable. This reduces the biological fitness of the individual due to a shorter lifespan to reproduce.

People who aren't well grounded in life sciences hold a common misconception about evolution that it leads to a fitter organism. This is completely false. Infact, evolution can lead to an extinction of species as well.

Darwin's theory of evolution is remarkable because it follows all the principles of scientific methodology, which has allowed following scientists to revise and reformulate his work for factors and discrepancies not previously enacted by Darwin. That is the best of science and it continues to improve. The worst of science is when one holds theories such as these as static; that's not only bad but also detrimental to scientific advancement.



CaretakerDad said:


> Fitness is defined by survival
> ...
> Fitness depends solely on environmental conditions, That's science.


That's not science. That's a logical fallacy.


----------



## CaretakerDad (Oct 5, 2014)

biostudent said:


> First off, fitness is defined by the biological ability to reproduce, not reproduction itself. Your idea of fitness is paradoxical - i.e. the survivor is the most fit; if the least able of the individuals is the only one to reproduce then that least able individual is the fittest - this is a paradox which cannot be falsified and as such, it contradicts the fundamental scientific principle of a legitimate theory that states a theory is only legit if its falsifiable.
> I cannot say this is bad science actually because it is not even science - it fails to meet the criteria required by scientific methodology.
> Secondly, I may as well detail the case of the Finch and the environment: two phenotypes were prevalent on one island, one dominant comprising a larger individual with stronger wings allowing it to fly longer distances that allowed it to gather more resources to sustain a larger brood (this was the most fit); and a less fit phenotype consisting of smaller birds with subordinate physical abilities that could only sustain a small brood merely on chance, more prone to predation and competition, shorter lifespan, comprising a deviating group on the population pyramid although miniscule in numbers. Over time, the less fit would've probably disappeared by natural selection. But what happened is, something that Darwin didn't account for while formulating his magnificent theory, is that the larger phenotype was wiped out by a natural catastrophe which indefinitely skewed the population dynamics pyramid over the deviants. The original island had depleted most of it's resources for the Finch. So the larger of the species was able to fly to another island which promised sustainability, while the smaller phenotype lacked the physical ability to reach the 2nd island and hence got left behind. On the second island, a volcano erupted and killed all of the most fit of birds. The least fit survived on the first island. This case can be defined as: that specie of Finch evolved to have less biological fitness. If we define this according to your logic then it becomes an unfalsifiable paradox which has no place in scientific methodology.
> 
> ...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Doer (Oct 7, 2014)

OGEvilgenius said:


> And yes, Economics is not science. It's a bunch of religious philosophers engaging in mathematical masturbation.


Well. no. The lasest Noble prize is for Nash's theory about how we compete to change the game and then we cooperate to change it. then compete again.

It is blisteringly and obviously the real way it works, but he invented the math to prove it.

Keynesian and Supply Side Economics are just political concepts these days, Both are doomed to fail.


----------



## madagaskar (Oct 25, 2014)

The Hall of Shame Examples of bad science causing real damage! Think bad science is only an academic problem?


----------



## jamesroy990 (Nov 1, 2014)

Doer said:


> It's not always so easy to tell. Some folks say the DDT ban was the result of bad science.
> 
> One example is called the barn side or six-shooter mistake. If I take a pair of six-guns and fire 12 times at a barn, I can go up with my chalk, (with no one looking) and draw a circle around the best group. "Yep, good shootin!"
> 
> ...





Doer said:


> It's not always so easy to tell. Some folks say the DDT ban was the result of bad science.
> 
> One example is called the barn side or six-shooter mistake. If I take a pair of six-guns and fire 12 times at a barn, I can go up with my chalk, (with no one looking) and draw a circle around the best group. "Yep, good shootin!"
> 
> ...


----------



## jamesroy990 (Nov 1, 2014)

Bad Science is a book by Ben Gold acre, criticizing mainstream media reporting on health and science issues. The dumbing-down of science to produce easily assimilated wacky, breakthrough or scare stories is criticized.


----------



## UncleBuck (Nov 1, 2014)

guy incognito said:


> I got blinded by some bad science once.


sometimes it just comes out with unexpected force and gets you in the eye. happens to all of us.


----------



## Doer (Nov 1, 2014)

oH bUCKY


----------



## howsitgrowin420 (Nov 12, 2014)

I think that this is an example of bad science purporting to be good science: see article attached

They lost me when they basically said “we used a classification variable (marijuana use) but are presenting it as if we manipulated something.” They continued to lose me when they said “the IQ of marijuana users was significantly lower than the control group”. They of course meant statistical significance and looking at the actual data everyone was within one standard deviation of 100 (15 is the standard deviation for IQ and +/- one standard deviation is as normal as can be for the human population…..not so mind blowing - but IQ is a junk measure to anyone but the ‘pop psychologists’, housewives, and probably the psychiatrists of the world. 

Personally, I wish death upon any person who uses a significant p value to connotatively suggest a “significant” difference in the raw data. At one point they did call marijuana use a “causal variable”, but they did zero manipulation and have no basis for stating causation. Furthermore, you have to look to their recruiting standards. When they parsed out “exclusive marijuana users” why not address that apparently people with comorbid substance abuse apparently had higher IQs (because IQ only played into their experiment for dramatic effect and to pull out a publication in a competitive academic world.)

Ahhh, the behavioral measure- where to start? Wow, measuring a person’s verbal behavior and assuming a correlation to their actual behavior. Wait, did they have low IQs or do they have the ability to reflect and assign a 0-2 value to complex scenarios after applying them to their own life…..as a user, I’d first study the aversiveness of completing those archaic, academic questionnaires - all developed by some student desperately seeking the validation of their cohort and the larger field in which they hope to make a life - and evaluate how much of responding was maintained by finishing versus the content of the questionnaire. How exactly does a scale used for people actively seeking treatment apply to people who answered a flyer regarding research?

If marijuana were not a schedule one drug, someone could take a bunch of non-smokers and do a longitudinal study with some actual manipulation of variables. Someone could answer questions about response times, memory….IQ if you have to go there.


----------



## ayr0n (Nov 12, 2014)

Mr Neutron said:


> On another note, what if the observational data that supports the BBT is flawed?


Like....circling shots on a barn?!


----------

