Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Eternal Student on 30/11/2024 15:26:16
-
Hi.
So, in Britain a few years ago there was a radio show where someone chooses the three music discs that they would take with them to play if they became stranded on a desert island, that was called "Desert Island Discs".
Let's do a science version of that. Moreover, why doesn't the TNS radio show do a version of this?
Due to some problem, civilisation is leaving earth and will try to colonise some other planet and start a new world. You can take the material that describes three theories in science. Which three theories would you choose to take?
Thinking time allowed: I don't mind but 5 minutes is adequate, it's fun not something that is happening. Yes, you will be critically judged based on your answers but it's better than doing some personality quiz. I may give out the prestigious award of a "thankyou" mark for the first few answers and possibly the more prestigious award of a "best answer". Then again, I may not but instead just thoroughly deride the response you make. Life must have some risk.
Best Wishes.
-
(1) Thermodynamics, (2) optics and (3) electrical theory. More advanced theories such as relativity and quantum would not be of great use initially but would become important at a later stage when the basics have been taken care of.
-
Hi.
Optics seems an unsual choice.
Overall, it all seems like something I would have expected you to choose and say.
You seem to be choosing on the basis of what will be useful to do practical stuff on the short term. Your personality profile is that of an engineer based on this task.
More advanced theories.... when the basics have been taken care of.
You're biased toward the view that science will emerge from the need to solve practical problems.
Best Wishes.
-
That's what I came up with after a couple of minutes thought, as prescribed. A longer perusal of your question might have yielded a different answer. After such a move the basics for survival take precedence and advanced science will have to wait.
-
Desert Island Discs is still running on Radio 4. The limit is 8 discs (now tracks), one book, and one luxury.
Presumably we are leaving on a rocket, so I'd take Newtonian mechanics, the atomic theory of chemistry, and probably the Krebs cycle if I'm not allowed the whole biochemistry library. Then my descendants would understand how we got here, and religion (the reason why we left Earth) might not take root.
DID participants are asked to name the one track they would save above all else. Gerry Mulligan's "Golden Notebooks" encompasses the apex of civilisation in four minutes and should set the tone for humanity's next gig.
-
Hi.
So far, I'd say @alancalverd is more likely to get the best answer award and 2 people is about half of the entire forum.
Why is the later reply better?
1. Some thought has been put into how your choices may shape the new society.
2. Some consideration of non-physical sciences like Biology has been made even though the original question used the therm "theory" and nearly everything with that name belongs to the physical sciences.
Counter-arguments:
1. People are getting more insight into how to respond with each previous reply.
2. I'm not sure I can endorse a statement that opposes all religions. Moreover, isn't it likely that a society left in that position starts its own religious beliefs anyway? Aren't you leaving science at risk of becoming a religion?
.... and probably the Krebs cycle if I'm not allowed the whole biochemistry library. Then my descendants would understand how we got here...
They are likely to believe "this is how it was" rather than "this is some attempt at explaining things and most certainly not exempt from future examination and adjustment".
What might be left to do for anyone wanting that coveted "best answer" award?
It's up to you to come up with ideas. Here's a couple of things you could try but I'm sure you can find something else.
1. You might try writing something with a bit of comedy, however I won't too favourably on anything that's just comedy.
2. You might go strongly in an unusual direction and be able to argue for it. For example, perhaps we would better off not taking ANY of the old science theories forward into the new world.
Best Wishes.
-
something with a bit of comedy
Chemistry, Biology and Physics.
It must be useful there and then, nuclear physics just isn't going to be worthwhile. Depending on the constraints, material properties, material extraction and material production. If that's one as Materials Science then medicine and agriculture. Depends really whether you take this science as common knowledge.
-
Religion is all about selling undisprovable hypotheses in order to control people's actions. Science is all about offering disprovable hypotheses to help people make their own decisions. You want to export civilisation, not parasitism, conflict and oppression.
Dawkins pointed out that the one thing all religions have in common is that they tell you to despise all the others. Science, on the other hand, is about being sceptical of your own hypotheses. As Eddington said, the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast, and certainly the practice of engineering, where we extend the boundaries of achievement by taking a lot of science for granted, frequently gives us pause to wonder whether our axioms were valid outside the old boundary - and there's a difference between "back to the lab" and a fatwah against the infidel.
So They are likely to believe
is a dire warning about exactly the sort of people we don't want to export. I always tell students that I will not teach them what to think, but how to think, including how to think about how they think and what they think they know! The stuff in the book, even Kaye & Laby or Landolt-Bornstein, is only our best guess to date at the numbers and how things work, and if your experiment shows otherwise, everyone else may indeed be wrong. You won't find many priests selling that line.
-
You're biased toward the view that science will emerge from the need to solve practical problems.
It's a reasonable extrapolation from "thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics", "necessity is the mother of invention", etcetera.
I was struck by the story of the American captain who, lost in fog somewhere outside the Bristol Channel, managed to get one sun sight and calculated his position from first principles, thus establishing an entirely new chapter in coastal navigation and avoiding an expensive shipwreck. I only wish I could remember the technique, or his name!
Probably the only counterexample was the laser, which was derided for at least 20 years as a solution looking for a problem.
-
Hi ES, a couple of points. I think you meant "non physics" science rather than "non physical" science. As regards religion it is inevitable that new religions would arise if the existing ones failed to transport to the new location. Man has always sought complete answers to various physical and metaphysical problems and science cannot answer all these and most likely never will.
-
The notions that (a) metaphysics means anything and (b) there are complete answers to it, have no foundation in fact.
They are the basis of the most immoral form of advertising, and serve only to excuse bad behavior.
If humans really need this garbage, it would do the universe a great disservice to export humans, and the project should be abandoned.
-
Questions such as (1) why are we here, (2) why is there good and evil, (3) what is the nature of human consciousness, (4) why does the universe exist, and many others may not trouble a logical being like your good self but a lot of humans seek answers to these questions and science cannot provide the answers. Like it or not these questions have been asked for millennia and will continue to be asked in the future. PS: I missed part of your reply- I am not suggesting that there are complete answers to various questions but that man, by nature, seeks complete answers.
-
Hi.
Religion is all about selling undisprovable hypotheses in order to control people's actions.
No, that just sounds like human selfishness, corruption and some desire for power by a few people who have come to be in charge of the religion or else in charge of something else and just citing religion as supporting them. Religion is about not wanting to be alone, left feeling pointless, worried about not existing any longer, seeking the answers to fundamental questions etc. etc. Things that you aren't going to make disappear just by not bringing any religion to the new world.
c.f. @paul cotter 's reply.
- - - - - - - - - -
I think you meant "non physics" science rather than "non physical" science.
Physical sciences involve studying the inanimate stuff while Biological science is the study of the animate (living) stuff. There's definitions on the web and it's reasonable to split science into these two broad categories. I think I can say non-physical sciences and just hope people understood I meant Biological sciences rather than the study of nonsense with no physical basis.
- - - - - - - - -
It must be useful there and then
Thanks for your time and response. It's good and perfectly understandable. It does have some comedy but is otherwise similar to the response first given by @paul cotter so probably won't get the best answer award..... Which really doesn't matter anyway and would not change your life.
Best Wishes.
-
Religion is about not wanting to be alone, left feeling pointless, worried about not existing any longer, seeking the answers to fundamental questions etc. etc.
AFAIK no other species suffers from any of these, though many prefer the company of their fellows for protection and efficient hunting. In my experience they are not innate concerns but have to be taught by the people who will profit from the fear they inculcate.
The question "why does the universe exist" is absurd. "Why" implies an ulterior purpose and therefore some entity outside of the system being studied, that will benefit from that system. But by definition the system being studied is "everything" so there cannot be an external entity and the question is meaningless. "How does the universe work" is an entirely legitimate question, to which the answer appears to be physics, chemistry, and nothing more.
Turning good and evil into nouns is one of the despicable tricks of religion. Rational man holds his fellow man entirely responsible for his actions, to which we apply good and evil as adjectives. Perverts and criminals claim in their defence that they are subject to forces beyond their control, hence the nouns.
The nature of human consciousness is another meaningless phrase. Nobody seems to agree on a definition of consciousness, and certainly not one that is uniquely human.
Religion provides an excuse to treat other humans worse than animals - witness any public debate on birth control, abortion, assisted suicide, or the rights of women. It is the antithesis of civilisation.
-
Science can answer the "hows", most of the time, but man has sought answers to the "whys" as long as he has inhabited this planet and it is this searching nature of man that has spawned the various religions. I fully get that you consider these questions as absurd but many, many people past , present and future have sought these answers.
-
I have never asked "why" for the very reason I pointed out above - the question is meaningless.
Religious professionals do not "seek" an answer but make a living by selling a defective one that they have invented.
I understand that, as a consequence of deep religious thought and study, the perverts in charge of Afghanistan have today announced further restrictions on the education of women. The penalties for unbelief remain as savage as you could wish for. Do we really want to export this filth to another planet?
-
Alan, you have not asked that question and I fully accept your answer in that regard. Others do ask such questions and whether you approve or not it will continue. I am not arguing against your position regarding organised religion but just stating the simple fact that these unanswerable questions have been posed for as long as we have historical records and most likely for much longer. I cannot envisage a future where these questions will not arise.
-
So in order not to export the worst of human behaviors, we must either find some means of preventing people from asking meaningless questions, which would be difficult to do, or agree that pretending that such questions are important, or inventing unprovable answers to them, would be a criminal offence. I'm very much in favor of the latter approach as we already have workable precedents in the Sale of Goods Acts, Insolvent Trading, Impersonation, and suchlike consumer protections: broadly, it is an offence to advertise or solicit if you do not have the intention or capability of delivering goods or services.
Beware of calling such questions "unanswerable". That raises them from the level of contemptible and dangerous absurdity to a spurious importance such as "what is 0/0?"
-
Hi.
....we must either find some means of preventing people from asking meaningless questions, ...
You can't and probably shouldn't even try to censor peoples thoughts or prevent them from asking questions. However, that's some issue you could read about in a Dystopian novel or else move to a country that doesn't allow such novels if you want to experience something similiar to it in practice.
None-the-less, thank you for your time and responses, @alancalverd . Your views are valid and .... left uncensored.
I've re-read one of your earlier replies and decided that including the atomic theory of chemistry may be some attempt to help a new society get past some of the bigger problems that were faced by science. For example, perhaps someone would feel that the most important theories to take are the ones that seemed to have been the biggest hurdles for our society and has the greatest risk of de-railing or slowing the development of science if we didn't have it. With your example, that might be allowing a society to by-pass alchemy and get straight to something resembling modern chemistry.
Best Wishes.
-
Most of the "whys" are unanswerable but you cannot stop the questioning nature of man short of universal lobotomy. These questions will always arise and since there are no valid answers, this is how religions arise. Man, by nature, is prone to asking philosophical questions- any study of anthropology will affirm this. Alancalverd's thought police to the rescue!!
-
We prevent people from doing many stupid and dangerous things by education, passing on the summary of hard experience about poisons, predators, jagged rocks, icy water, and so forth. But where religion is taught in schools it is either presented as a set of mandatory practices and beliefs, or as something to be respected (even in the USA, where the former is forbidden ). That is perverse. How, in the light of all the harm done in the name of faith, can you respect the denial of enquiry and criticism?
So no need for censorship (which is very much the weapon of religious organisations), but an emphasis on thinking for yourself, including questioning the validity of your own thoughts. It all comes back to my objective in reply #4 above, of preventing religion from taking root.
-
By education we hope to prevent people doing stupid things, sometimes it works and sometimes it fails. I am not arguing with you concerning the bloodshed and mayhem that organised religion is responsible for- we are at one regarding that. What I am saying is that it is in man's nature to seek answers for the "whys" and since there are no valid answers to these questions, religion, de novo, is bound to arise even if it had previously been supressed.
-
My suggestion is not to suppress religion, but to build a civilisation where superstition never arises in the first place. If you teach kids that "why" is meaningless in terms of the origin of the universe and suchlike (see para 2 of reply # 13 above) your civilisation will avoid a lot of the pitfalls of philosophy. Perhaps we should add Russell's Principia Mathematica to the bookshelf, or at least the Open University Mathematics Foundation course, where set theory is presented rather more gently.
After a few more exchanges, I may have to write my own version of Brave New World and Last and First Men.
-
If you teach kids not to ask about the "whys", do you think that will work? People are told base jumping is an inherently dangerous pursuit yet it is still practiced. Things that are forbidden are often the focus of increased curiosity. Knowledge can be vertically transmitted but unfortunately wisdom cannot.
-
I quite like this one Alan
-
If you teach kids not to ask about the "whys", do you think that will work?
I would simply teach them that "why" implies an external agent that stands to benefit from the action. So you can reasonably ask why an animal (or even a plant) does something, but in the absence of a demonstrable agent and potential benefit thereto, the question is meaningless.
Thus "how does the universe work?" is a reasonable question to which we are gradually finding the answer, but "why does it exist" is a waste of words. It's just a matter of precise use of language.
-
I quite like this one Alan
I never did.
-
I quite like this one Alan
I never did.
Oh, I thought you would have appreciated the brass jazzy aspects.
If we are to get rid of religion and stop people asking why, we must either get rid of scientists or stop people thinking such questions as what lies at the edge of the universe?
-
Oh, I thought you would have appreciated the brass jazzy aspects.
I've played too many similar pieces, just counting bars and waiting for something to happen. And when it does, it is usually predictable. The downside of brass bands with "modern" pretensions.
we must either get rid of scientists or stop people thinking such questions as what lies at the edge of the universe?
"What?" isn't "why?" It's a perfectly sensible question because it doesn't presume anything.
On further contemplation, I can see a huge difference between the spurious and demonstrably dangerous and divisive religions that rely on anthropic gods, and the more rational and less harmful beliefs of many aboriginal groups who acknowledge some sort of "life force" in their ecology, to the point of respecting their prey and their ancestors. This is entirely consistent with scientific enquiry and good behavior.
-
I do not think we can restrict what questions may be asked. It is simply human nature to ask all the "hows", "whys", "whens", "wheres" and many others. Humans are incredibly inquisitive, valid and outright dumb questions are regularly posed. I cannot imagine a scenario where a lot of the "whys" are not raised. Simply telling someone that asking why will not yield a profitable answer will just increase curiosity as to the reasons for this logical cul-de-sac.
-
And I have explained the reason, clearly and succinctly. "Why" only has meaning if there is an external agent with a purpose, and since "the universe" means "everything", there cannot be an external anything.
By all means ask why humans tolerate and even venerate parasites like Justin Welby or Donald Trump (two real mysteries) and why such parasites preach nonsense to their victims (sex, money, power). But realise that only an agent can have purpose, so in the absence of an agent the question is void.
-
There is nothing whatsoever in your last post, #30 , that I can find disagreement with, but you are missing my point. Human nature dictates that the why questions will be asked and there is no way of preventing this.
-
Agreed. But a little education as to the limited validity of the question may prevent our new civilisation from collapsing under the acquired filth of religion.
-
Hi.
But a little education as to the limited validity of the question may prevent our new civilisation from collapsing under the acquired filth of religion.
OK @alancalverd, I guess that you don't always get to your chosen place of worship (church, temple etc.) right on time every week. That's ok.
However, I can't really put the "best answer" on your post because I'd be at risk of offending quite a few people and that may not be completely in-line with the Forum acceptable usage policy.
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
[ subsection 2 of the A.U.P. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0 ]
Insulting every religion is something I'm not sure we can do. However, you've put a lot of time into making replies and responses and in most other respects you would have had the best answer award. Thank you for your time and well done.
I may not be following this thread after today and so there may not be any "best answer" given out. Thank you to everyone who has made a reply.
Best Wishes.
-
Well then, give it to me!! Of course I am joking as I have not the slightest interest in any accolade. I just enjoy the discourse here, especially my jousts with Alan. And of course the learning of new facts and understandings.
-
Insulting every religion is something I'm not sure we can do.
There is no need for us to do so. Most of them insult all the others, and all of them claim to be at least better than all the others. Unlike detergents, there is no objective test of any of them, but current events in the Middle East and Myanmar demonstrate how they can destroy civilisations.
Last night I attempted to bring a taste of civilisation (live music) to a group seated in a place where they appear to worship a Roman instrument of torture - a huge illuminated crucifix. Strange things, people.
-
Hi.
That's a nice reply and can have the best answer award.
And of course the learning of new facts and understandings.
I'm sure you're smart enough to realise that not everything in the forum is the gospel truth.
Best Wishes.
-
Last night I attempted to bring a taste of civilisation (live music) to a group seated in a place where they appear to worship a Roman instrument of torture - a huge illuminated crucifix. Strange things, people
"Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war"?
-
That's a nice reply and can have the best answer award.
Perhaps we need to have a "nicest answer" or "future diplomat" box, since however civilised and gentlemanly it was, it didn't actually address the question!
-
Many thanks, Eternal Student, for this most auspicious and illustrious award, even though I feel I did not deserve or desire it. Anyway I like your idiom of "gospel truth" concerning the forum contents!
-
Virgin birth, water into wine, feeding 5000 people with half a loaf, walking on water....is "gospel truth" not an oxymoron?
-
Due to some problem, civilisation is leaving earth and will try to colonise some other planet and start a new world. You can take the material that describes three theories in science. Which three theories would you choose to take?
I had a hard time with this and have not until now contributed. I find it pretty implausible that the means to get to another world is somehow feasible but the means to take significant information along is not.
I would think skills would be more important than any scientific theory. Literacy? What good does even that do if certain other skills are not yet acquired? How primitive is our group? Need to start there if we're to give them something useful to advance.
#1: I'd send some kind of record of where they came from, since that will not easily be gleaned if the information is lost. The ability to read the record can wait in necessary. This one counts since who knows what scientific theory they'd otherwise come up with to explain their sudden appearance without a nice trail of biological fossils to support something like evolution.
Concerning philosophy.
Questions such as (1) why are we here, (2) why is there good and evil, (3) what is the nature of human consciousness, (4) why does the universe exist, and many others may not trouble a logical being like your good self but a lot of humans seek answers to these questions and science cannot provide the answers.
That's right. Sans answers to these, there seems nothing to send with the ship.
Alan has posted an awful lot of philosophy for somebody who pokes so much fun of it.
Hi.
Religion is all about selling undisprovable hypotheses in order to control people's actions.
No, that just sounds like human selfishness, corruption and some desire for power by a few people who have come to be in charge of the religion or else in charge of something else and just citing religion as supporting them.
Sorry, but I agree with Alan here. Religion is for herding sheep, and a group of herded sheep is more fit than the same sheep not herded. Hence it is not entirely a good idea to debunk religion as part of our 3 tidbits we take along. People who know what is going on are not so easily herded.
Religion is about not wanting to be alone, left feeling pointless, worried about not existing any longer, seeking the answers to fundamental questions etc. etc.
AFAIK no other species suffers from any of these.
I would differ. Any social creature suffers from severance from its society. Go to a good pet shop and they'll tell you which species/breeds do well in isolation and which need to be kept with their own kind. Love birds are notoriously on the 2nd list. I had a budgie which suffered significant stress from severance from his deafening buddies, but he eventually bonded with us and became super friendly.
I'm not sure how religion satisfies loneliness, but I do see it providing purpose. The loneliness is perhaps how they rope you into cults and financial scams and such, a tool for the herders.
.
-
Apart from the need for society, which would anyway be satisfied by being cooped up in a space ark with likeminded individuals, I seriously doubt whether the average dog or rat could make a living by persuading others to worry about ceasing to exist, or the origin of the universe. And even when groups of other species fight each other, it seems to be mostly about territory or food, not what they think the other guy's mother did on Sunday.
-
Hi.
I had a hard time with this and have not until now contributed. I find it pretty implausible that the means to get to another world is somehow feasible but the means to take significant information along is not.
Indeed, the old radio show (which @alancalverd states is still running in a modernised form) has some issues that are just never asked about or answered. In the radio show "Desert Island Discs", you could choose to take some music discs to a desert island that you've become stranded on (following a ship-wreck), possibly deported to (following some crime you were falsely convicted of), or perhaps you just went there of your own choice because you've had enough of the rat-race etc. You just don't ask questions like "is there a record player on the island and a small power station that provides a standard British mains electrical socket?" Instead you just understand that all you're being asked to do is select the music you would most like to have with you on that desert island.
If it helps, you can assume an alien race has kindly turned up at the last moment and agreed to take you and a few others to another planet. Then they're going to leave us alone because...... i.d.k. .... stuff about minimal interference with other cultures until we develop our own FTL systems. There is no time to find other people or download everything from a science repositiory. So it just turns out that the job of taking some science stuff has fallen to you.
I would think skills would be more important than any scientific theory. Literacy?
You can assume the few people start with whatever skills they had when they were on earth. It may be reasonable to assume they can read and may teach this skill to their children. However, it's fine if you want to take some basic literacy teaching material to ensure that literacy skills are not lost. That'll be one slot used in the 3 scientific theories you can take. There's no rigid rules for this game, you get a yellow or red card at the discretion of the umpire.
----------------
What's more interesting is that your personality can now be put under a microscope because you've made a reply.
You're worried about the fine details and you've spent a lot of time analysing a thing rather than jumping to some action. In this situation, that possibly means that you end up taking very little because you just run out of time. In other situations it's a good thing. For example, you'd make a fair forum moderator in the new world.
What you've actually ended up recommending can be paraphrased as follows:
1. You don't have to take many scientific theories.
2. You just take some facts. Science will probably develop if evidence and facts can be found and especially if knowledge can be passed down rather than discovered anew in every generation.
And maybe that'll work better than anything else. However, you spent too long analysing rather than doing, the best answer award has already been given out and so you get nothing - but thanks for your reply.
Best Wishes.
-
You just don't ask questions like "is there a record player on the island and a small power station that provides a standard British mains electrical socket?"
DID was first broadcast in 1942. The "given" was a wind-up gramophone and an infinite supply of gramophone needles
which suggests that the originator, Roy Plomley, was a mathematician. A physicist would have insisted on a semi-infinite supply with an initial condition of n> 0 and a minimum amplitude of 1.
I'm not sure how religion satisfies loneliness, but I do see it providing purpose.
No shortage of purpose here - we are going to export "civilisation", however we define it. Which raises an interesting question: if we are going to a habitable planet, it is reasonable to assume it already contains a balance of flora and fauna. To what extent are we entitled to alter that balance?