Are scientist trying to be too smart?

[Mook]

So I was watching a few programs yesterday about space. They were mostly focused on planets. During the programs they were discussing the planets components all they way down to the core. As you probably know that they send satellites out into space to get their info. None of these satellites have the capabilities to survive the harsh conditions of the planets. They stated that. So basically they know nothing hardly. They have also stated how big the sun is. But how could they know that? Nothing could get close enough to the sun to accurately measure it's size and how ridiculously big it is. How about all the galaxies? Whose to say there is a lot or a few. Surely no telescope could ever measure that.

That led me to think of how much scientist actually know.

This same question came into my head while being in a thread discussing pain. How can u accurately measure pain? Of course you can say a bullet shot would hurt worse than a stomach ache but when it comes to extreme pain such as natural childbirth or cluster headaches. How can we truly determine the pain felt unless we have experienced both?




what are some of the things that scientist claim they know about but you actually think they don't? I say space. Everything is mostly theories even though they act like a lot are facts.

I'm amazed you morons graduate high school anD still don't know theories in science are facts.

 

[KinksandCoils]

I'm amazed you morons graduate high school anD still don't know theories in science are facts.

A theory is not a fact. Go back to elem school

 

[Mook]

A theory is not a fact. Go back to elem school

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomenon

I bet you thought you are smart too you dumb bytch. Go back to the kitchen

 

[Kenny West]

Lowkey OP I kinda had the same kinda skeptical idea as you.

Read this book

Answers all those questions

 

[KinksandCoils]

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomenon

I bet you thought you are smart too you dumb bytch. Go back to the kitchen

The Big Bang is a theory. It can not be proven so therefore it can not be a fact it will only be a theory.

A fact is something that can be proven is true. If it can not be proven it's a damn theory. Smh at you tryna sound smart but actually sounding dumb as fukk.

 

[godkiller]

No my question is simply something to make y'all click on the thread. Like when people post PAWGS in the title but the girl is huge as hell.

Smh

OK, but let me explain: The pursuit of knowledge always starts from a notion of uncertainty (scepticism) to a notion of certainty (relative surety). Do scientists ever know anything 100%? No, but they reasonably assume findings based on the scientific method: the power of observation and experimentation. Are we sure of the size of the sun? No, but we have equations and theories which we know work to measure other things and might aid us in measuring the sun (even if we can't do so directly with a giant ruler tape). And although the sun's measurement might always be a best estimate, that doesn't make the measurement worthless, only flawed. And "flawed" in science can mean "correct" depending on the margin of error. If we had taken your view that difficult scientific problems aren't worth undertaking, scientists would discover very little. Science advances partly through exploring supposedly unsolvable problems and findin solutions. Does science always find them? No, but how can we know there are no solutions if we don't look?

 

[godkiller]

All that aside, is money spent on scientific exploration and measuring the sun probably better spent somewhere more productive like the economy, education or business? Yeah.

 

[Turbulent]

if a dude made this thread, this shyt wouldnt of even made it past the first page.

wrong. remember the "not even square he cube" thread. thread went diamond and OP was male.

 

[KinksandCoils]

It is as conducive for scientists to expl


OK, but let me explain: The pursuit of knowledge always starts from a notion of uncertainty to a notion of certainty. Do scientists ever know anything 100%? No, but they reasonably assume findings based on the scientific method: the power of observation and experimentation. Are we sure of the size of the sun? No, but we have equations and theories which we know work to measure other things and might aid us in measuring the sun (even if we can't do so directly with a giant ruler tape). And although the sun's measurement might always be a best estimate, that doesn't make the measurement worthless, only flawed. And "flawed" in science can mean "correct" depending on the margin of error. If we had taken your view that difficult scientific problems aren't worth undertaking, scientists would discover very little. Science advances partly through exploring supposedly unsolvable problems and findin solutions. Does science always find them? No, but how can we know there are no solutions if we don't look?

Right! So my point is that since they are uncertainties they should be labeled as such. They should not be labeled as facts if it can't be truly proven. If it can be proven than fine it's a fact.

I never said that the estimates of the sun are worthless. It goes back to what I said. If you can't prove something it's not a fact. Everyone is calling me dumb but the bottom line is no matter how good an estimate is that doesn't mean that estimate can or should be presented as a fact. I was simply saying in the particular vids I watched they were trying to present things as facts but then they would turn around and say their equipment couldn't get no where close to the objects without being distroyed.

Everyone thinks I'm trying to say scientist don't know shyt. I'm simply saying don't classify something as a fact if it can't be proven.

 

[Turbulent]

Right! So my point is that since they are uncertainties they should be labeled as such. They should not be labeled as facts if it can't be truly proven. If it can be proven than fine it's a fact.

I never said that the estimates of the sun are worthless. It goes back to what I said. If you can't prove something it's not a fact. Everyone is calling me dumb but the bottom line is no matter how good an estimate is that doesn't mean that estimate can or should be presented as a fact. I was simply saying in the particular vids I watched they were trying to present things as facts but then they would turn around and say their equipment couldn't get no where close to the objects without being distroyed.

Everyone thinks I'm trying to say scientist don't know shyt. I'm simply saying don't classify something as a fact if it can't be proven.

from what i understand, when the word "fact" is used in the context of science, they have another definition or criterion as the definition of a fact in the context of philosophy. I think you're more talking from a philosophical standpoint and this is where the confusion in this thread comes from.

you gotta admit you could have chosen a better approach and better examples. Had you come with humility, i think everyone involved would have been a little more respectful.

on another random unrelated note:

 

[Brofato]

Right! So my point is that since they are uncertainties they should be labeled as such. They should not be labeled as facts if it can't be truly proven. If it can be proven than fine it's a fact.

I never said that the estimates of the sun are worthless. It goes back to what I said. If you can't prove something it's not a fact. Everyone is calling me dumb but the bottom line is no matter how good an estimate is that doesn't mean that estimate can or should be presented as a fact. I was simply saying in the particular vids I watched they were trying to present things as facts but then they would turn around and say their equipment couldn't get no where close to the objects without being distroyed.

Everyone thinks I'm trying to say scientist don't know shyt. I'm simply saying don't classify something as a fact if it can't be proven.

Roddy pretty much broke it down but what you have to understand is there are some things that have been proven time and time again by different people. Theories are tested over and over again to the point where some of them, such as gravity, can be stated as fact. Even though some things can break that theory, we still know it exists. We're aware of it.

The good thing though is that it's great to question science. That's how things progress and things move forward. If no one ever questioned science then we would basically be at a standstill. No theories would ever be debunked, people would go about believing harmful things. Also you have to remind yourself that there are some things that the scientific community agree overwhelmingly on but at the same time they're not a uniform body.

A lot of things are built upon assumptions. Assumptions steeped in very good math done by very smart people. They treat them as assumptions and they treat them as fact, simultaneously, because until you prove or disprove it, you have to operate as such. And that's a basic hypothesis.

In short, they aren't being too smart. They're being as smart as they can to try to prove the universe works as they believe it works.

I tried to find a video of Neil de Grasse Tyson breaking part of that down about gravity but I kept getting the movie

Well shyt, after looking for the video, I found one that if you have time for it answers, your question specifically:

 

[Spatial Paradox]

from what i understand, when the word "fact" is used in the context of science, they have another definition or criterion as the definition of a fact in the context of philosophy. I think you're more talking from a philosophical standpoint and this is where the confusion in this thread comes from.

you gotta admit you could have chosen a better approach and better examples. Had you come with humility, i think everyone involved would have been a little more respectful.

I think this is where the big disconnect is coming from. "Theory" doesn't have the same meaning in a scientific context that they do in everyday speech. And it's pretty damn hard to talk about a subject when you're not even seeing eye-to-eye on basic definitions.

A theory is not a fact. Go back to elem school

Serious question. Would you question the "fact" that some diseases are caused by microorganisms?

Germ theory of disease

Check out this link. It's pretty short, but it gives a good explanation for what's meant by "theory" in an everyday context versus "theory" in a scientific context: http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Everyone keeps telling me how measurements of the sun are done. But guess what? What if they were off? Oh it's not possible on the Coli.

Do you know what an MDI instrument is? Do you know what stellar parallax is? Do you know have any basic geometry/trigonometry/physics knowledge?

You're trying to debunk something that is well BEYOND your comprehension. Be stupid brehs.

 

[BasketCase]

So I was watching a few programs yesterday about space. They were mostly focused on planets. During the programs they were discussing the planets components all they way down to the core. As you probably know that they send satellites out into space to get their info. None of these satellites have the capabilities to survive the harsh conditions of the planets. They stated that. So basically they know nothing hardly. They have also stated how big the sun is. But how could they know that? Nothing could get close enough to the sun to accurately measure it's size and how ridiculously big it is. How about all the galaxies? Whose to say there is a lot or a few. Surely no telescope could ever measure that.

That led me to think of how much scientist actually know.

This same question came into my head while being in a thread discussing pain. How can u accurately measure pain? Of course you can say a bullet shot would hurt worse than a stomach ache but when it comes to extreme pain such as natural childbirth or cluster headaches. How can we truly determine the pain felt unless we have experienced both?




what are some of the things that scientist claim they know about but you actually think they don't? I say space. Everything is mostly theories even though they act like a lot are facts.

You could've made a man at least three sandwiches in the time you spent writing this.

 

[flea]

wrong. remember the "not even square he cube" thread. thread went diamond and OP was male.

that was like one out of a thousand nikka shut the fukk up