The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Well, I don't know there Jasper. I think we should keep faith as one part of us, science as another. This world you and me lives in works on trust, although wars and disaster pointing to something opposite. We all have faith, because that's the greater part of why we survive, as well as progress, our ability of trust in each other. There's a blind spot when it comes to science, arguing that logic is all there is. You can do it if you choose, but you must incorporate the world as it is if so. And that then will include a lot of stuff, that science has no contemporary explanations for, as us 'thinking', emotions, etc etc. I do believe they too can place under logic, and must be, if we want to understand the world we exist in.
2
I feel as if this post I'm about to make is right now very important on here as there are some members who have made it their objective to target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' to validate their own beliefs. I don't want the members this post is referring to, to get offended, rather understand what I'm about to say and start making actual difference.

I originally posted this on another topic 'Poll: Are you an Atheist' in the 'Just Chat' section. In reply to Jccc.

"Why would you expect science to have the answers to EVERYTHING? Theories are evidence based conclusions with the highest confidence that we can have, but they all have gaps in understanding including Gravity, Germ theory of disease, General Relativity, etc. Complete understanding may be impossible but the strength of science is admitting that our understanding is not complete and therefore continuing to pursue knowledge and refine current understanding. That's why science works.
Usually people target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' and then just keep iterating it to feel as if they have won the debate/argument. Science didn't just fall down from space in the form of books giving us answers to everything. We have been evolving to understand concepts we would have deemed impossible to understand a century ago. And we will continue to evolve and maybe, just maybe have answers to everything, someday. The type of argument you start here, usually everyday... Isn't helping Science or the mankind in any way. If you want to follow something which claims to have the answer to everything then you should ditch Science and start following religion. Because having ALL of the answers is the domain of religion. Just don't question those answers or try to verify them, that's blasphemy. Your only job there is to believe what you are told by a book and other human beings, and have faith (not evidence) that they are correct."

I know I should have made this post in the 'Just chat' section but I wanted everyone to see this.
3
You misunderstand me--I do not think that the states determine the arrow, or that entropy determines the arrow, or anything like that. The local arrow is defined by something else--it is only the successive evolution of states that allows us to observe the direction of time. As time progresses the universe changes in predictable ways, but those changes do not drive time, they are a result of it.

good to know Chiral :) I'm starting to become a great fan myself, of the 'coexistence of stuff', which also can be translated to symmetries as I think, or 'everythings dependence on everything' (Mach principle in a way). Or even possibly the idea of decoherence? If you imagine it as a whole description of what a 'universal container' should mean? Although that one is far fetched.
4
Just Chat ! / Re: Poll: Number of Atheists on a Science forum.
« Last post by Jasper Hayden on Today at 08:19:36 »
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?

how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?


Why would you expect science to have the answers to EVERYTHING? Theories are evidence based conclusions with the highest confidence that we can have, but they all have gaps in understanding including Gravity, Germ theory of disease, General Relativity, etc. Complete understanding may be impossible but the strength of science is admitting that our understanding is not complete and therefore continuing to pursue knowledge and refine current understanding. That's why science works.
Usually people target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' and then just keep iterating it to feel as if they have won the debate/argument. Science didn't just fall down from space in the form of books giving us answers to everything. We have been evolving to understand concepts we would have deemed impossible to understand a century ago. And we will continue to evolve and maybe, just maybe have answers to everything, someday. The type of argument you start here, usually everyday... Isn't helping Science or the mankind in any way. If you want to follow something which claims to have the answer to everything then you should ditch Science and start following religion. Because having ALL of the answers is the domain of religion. Just don't question those answers or try to verify them, that's blasphemy. Your only job there is to believe what you are told by a book and other human beings, and have faith (not evidence) that they are correct.
5
Jccc, wouldn't it be easier to understand if one just accepted a electron as a bunch of rules quantum mechanically? I see that you want it to have classical properties, but that's not how it is treated. Atomic Structure: The Quantum Mechanical Model. Quantum mechanically decoherence is the idea of what leads from the microscopic to the macroscopic. Even macroscopically there are only a few parameters holding this universe together, as causality. Without that observer dependencies should make it magical to us.
=

(don't get fooled by the shapes shown in 'atomic structure' btw. They just represent the probability density of where one most probably expect a electron to be found in a measurement.)
6
Geek Speak / Re: Making remote access
« Last post by Jasper Hayden on Today at 06:53:57 »
I have been to a lot of airports but never have I had to take permission to download anything or access the internet. Although you will only get 10 minutes of free internet access I believe you are allowed to download anything. I have never used PogoPlug before so I had to read about it, just now. You can actually just sign-in to your account and download the files you need. You don't need to download any pogoplug software to get your files. Just sign in to the website with your account and download the files. And, don't worry! Airport staff is usually very friendly so even if you are out of money, just tell an airport staff person your problem and he/she will help you. No matter how remote the airport might be. By the way, are you travelling internationally? If you are, I'm pretty sure you need original passport instead of scans. I might be wrong though. Anyways, good luck!
7
Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Feedback: feeling sated
« Last post by thedoc on Today at 06:50:01 »
Jon  asked the Naked Scientists:
   In the recent NS podcast, a guest discussed a biochemical that makes one
feel sated.  This is the second time I listened to this discussion (the
first was on the Science Friday podcast).

Throughout the NS discussion, it sounded as if one included this
chemical with the meal so that one would stop eating that meal sooner.  
It was only at the end of the conversation that he mentioned, in
passing, that the chemical is processed in the colon, and thus takes
effect 3 hours after one eats it.

This is not a very effective way to stop eating a meal. I  can eat a lot
in 3 hours.  And given the odd spacing of meals throughout the day, it
might not even help me with my next meal (since he never discussed  how
long the feeling of satiation stayed).  My evening meal is often more
than 6 hours after my mid day meal.

At first this sounds like a great idea, but the details make it seem
ridiculous.  Why was there no discussion about the difficulties that
this 3 hour delay will introduce in using this chemical?  Inadequate
coverage, not only by NS but by Science Friday.

Thanks for listening ... as I do to the NS

Jon
   

What do you think?
9
Just Chat ! / Re: Poll: Number of Atheists on a Science forum.
« Last post by jccc on Today at 06:18:05 »
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?

how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?

pls don't be cheap as ethos, he won't share his wow moment. i have reasonable doubt that he was bluffing or mistook wowed.
10
Just Chat ! / Re: Poll: Number of Atheists on a Science forum.
« Last post by jccc on Today at 06:09:52 »
Many views are the same people returning to look again. I haven't voted.

i believe the views are counted by ip. bet?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines