A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 12:05 On 2 Mar, 16:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 6:10 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Well I'm not sure I'd rely on Wikipedia for a contentious subject like > > this, but in any event we needn't talk specifically about how the > > basic DNA first developed. > > The prevailing theory is that it was RNA first, not DNA. Does that > help? I know. That's why I hedged my bets in a later post by saying "the basic building blocks, like DNA".
From: PD on 2 Mar 2010 12:07 On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 16:23, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 5:53 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, and that is done by self-selection. In the community of > > > > > > scientists, the presumption is that open questions will be addressed > > > > > > by someone eventually. And there is reward in the community for that > > > > > > adventurism. The assessment of the risk vs benefit of the adventurism > > > > > > is made individually. > > > > > > Indeed. But it is then a sociological question, to ask which > > > > > scientific questions are answered and which are not, and why. > > > > > That's true. What I just stated is that the presumption is that > > > > essentially all questions get answered eventually. > > > > Perhaps, but the question is "in what circumstances". > > > That depends. There's no clean answer I can muster. Why is it > > important to have one? > > The answer is important in order to verify that science is in fact > likely to deliver the goods that it claims to be able to deliver. I'm not sure what you think the claim is. > Unless, of course, proof denies faith. > > And if science is not likely to deliver the goods, then it's useful to > know ahead of time. I would judge that on performance. If someone is the world record holder in the 100 m dash, and you ask the question how it is that the record holder trained to be the fastest, and you were not convinced that those methodologies were sound or were guaranteed to produce a world-class sprinter, there is still the fact that he is the world- record holder.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 12:23 On 2 Mar, 16:38, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 7:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > To go back to my original formulation of this issue, the question is > > whether science, scientists, and adherents of science more generally, > > have the same hallmarks as traditional religions, theologians, and > > religious believers more generally. These are not questions of the > > supposed scientific method, but of the psychology and sociology of how > > science is actually practiced. In the same way that the question of > > how Christianity has been in fact practiced is not determined by > > reference to the Bible. > > > To start asking questions like "is law a religion" or "is medicine a > > religion" is like asking whether canon law "was a religion", or > > whether faith healers "are a religion", and of course the answer is > > no. Canon law is informed by religious belief, and faith healers are > > religious, but neither of them alone comprise "a religion". > > > Also, my point here is not to get into a long (and surely fruitless) > > debate of arguing how exactly religion is defined. My point is that, > > from a social and psychological perspective, an adherence to science > > cannot be distinguished from religious belief in any meaningful and > > significant way, and that the supposed differences tend to be either > > based on a misapprehension of what function religion actually > > performed and how it was practiced in the past, or on a literal appeal > > to concepts like "the scientific method" that bears little > > correspondence to how science is really practiced. > > It is certainly possible to find similarities in how science is > conducted and how religion is conducted. This does not make science a > religion, any more than a cow and a turtle both having four legs and a > tail would make mammals reptiles. This was the point of my statement > about law and medicine, which also show similarities in conduct > between those pursuits and religion, but this does not make law a > religion or medicine a religion. > > Mammals are distinguished from reptiles by having features that > reptiles lack. It does no good to point to the four legs and a tail > and comment that, no matter what mammals have, they still have four > legs and a tail and so that makes them resemble reptiles. Likewise, > though you dismiss the scientific method as a distinguishing trait and > choose to focus on the practices that make them seem like religion to > you, this does not make science a religion, just by your choice of > what will occupy your attention. The point about emphasising the similarities between science and religion is to combat some of the more absolute assertions about the nature and value of science. In reality, what you really have is two religions at war, where 99% can be the same and yet both insist that the remaining 1% difference is a fundamental difference. And certainly, one can discuss the differences between science and religion, and its significance, but the debate certainly *cannot* be conducted in terms of sayng that science invariably produces more truth, or is more functional, or is more objective, or involves less faith at its core. > > > > > Just because there is an agreed-upon methodology by the collective > > > > > that practices in the discipline does not warrant that discipline > > > > > being called a religion, at least as I understand the meaning of > > > > > "religion". > > > > > There is more to religion than an "agreed-upon methodology", but there > > > > is more to the practice of science than this, too. > > > > Then you'll have to be precise about your meaning of the word > > > "religion" and therefore how it is that science satisfies it. > > > I personally think it's more convenient to compare and contrast, > > rather than trying to establish a definition for either religion or > > science. Indeed, attempts to establish a consistent definition of > > science, by men better than me, have time and again died a thousand > > deaths. > > By that approach, one could easily be convinced that cows are > reptiles, no? Indeed. But if people are determined to focus on the differences, the question is why. If you want cow's milk to drink, then it's convenient to distinguish between cows and reptiles. But people are less clear about why they want science and not traditional religion.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 12:36 On 2 Mar, 17:07, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:01 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2 Mar, 16:23, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 5:53 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, and that is done by self-selection. In the community of > > > > > > > scientists, the presumption is that open questions will be addressed > > > > > > > by someone eventually. And there is reward in the community for that > > > > > > > adventurism. The assessment of the risk vs benefit of the adventurism > > > > > > > is made individually. > > > > > > > Indeed. But it is then a sociological question, to ask which > > > > > > scientific questions are answered and which are not, and why. > > > > > > That's true. What I just stated is that the presumption is that > > > > > essentially all questions get answered eventually. > > > > > Perhaps, but the question is "in what circumstances". > > > > That depends. There's no clean answer I can muster. Why is it > > > important to have one? > > > The answer is important in order to verify that science is in fact > > likely to deliver the goods that it claims to be able to deliver. > > I'm not sure what you think the claim is. > > > Unless, of course, proof denies faith. > > > And if science is not likely to deliver the goods, then it's useful to > > know ahead of time. > > I would judge that on performance. If someone is the world record > holder in the 100 m dash, and you ask the question how it is that the > record holder trained to be the fastest, and you were not convinced > that those methodologies were sound or were guaranteed to produce a > world-class sprinter, there is still the fact that he is the world- > record holder. Yes, but it is relevant to determine whether he is the record-holder because of his naturally strong physique, or whether it is the training regime, or indeed whether it is the various expensive snake- oil supplements and drugs that he has been given.
From: Jerry on 2 Mar 2010 13:23
On Mar 2, 7:30 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > I expect that some time in the next couple of decades, > discrepancies will finally be discovered between the predictions > of GR and experimental findings. Experiments in planning such as > the Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle are finally > reaching a level of sensitivity such that, if a discrepancy is > -NOT- found, it would indicate that something is deeply wrong > with our current understanding of physics. Here is a fascinating article on STEP: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/astro2010/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=16 |