Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 really if there are any of you that are watching nbc to see if this is coming out you need a new hobby. Or at least get out there and find it yourself. This paper has been "about to come out" for about two years too long. If they had something it would have been out by now. No need for all the build up. After all this will be the biggest discovery in the last hundred years. No need to keep putting a little out there at a time. I hope it comes out so I can tell my friends that think im crazy to shut their mouths. Really though they are so secretive but give a little bit of info. Which is not needed at all. If you have the proof step up to the plate and put it out....besides no one will buy it without a body anyways. They will have no specimen to compare the dna to. Until you do mainstream people will think it's another hoax. Honestly I hope they keep holding onto there "proof". Everyday they do I get closer to silencing the critics myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Just a little wee quibble here, but belief does matter in science, in fact in everything. You don't build a particle accelerator worth millions to detect previously undetected particles, for example, unless you believe they are out there. No, I fundamentally and utterly disagree with this. Belief is defined by lack of evidence. Science works on evidence. If you accept something to be the position and you have no evidence, then that is belief. If you have good repeatable evidence, or make testable predictions, then that isn't belief, it is science. Take your particle accelerator example. We have big particle accelerators now because we got to the limits of what small ones could show us, and we were still finding stuff at the edge of their range. The maths to work out that there was something to find outside of the range of the small ones would have taken about 30 seconds. No science springs out of nowhere these days. That happened back in the times of the Greeks and the Romans, to an extent, and then during the Enlightenment, but nowadays no science or scientist exists in a vacuum, no particle accelerators are built on a hunch, and nothing about science.........proper science.......runs on belief. It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that science has produced so much in the last 300 years and 30 years, and yet seems to be held in more contempt now than ever it was in the Dark Ages. It is truly extraordinary to me that science suffers so much distrust and indeed malevolence, in some quarters, when we are in the midst of a golden age, with so much being achieved that was only ever dreamt about by our parents' generation. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 NFL - I'm a little confused as to why it's such a big deal to check the NBC website? You make it sound as if it requires a significant time commitment or effort. I make it a point to glance at the NBC website on Thursdays. I have it book marked on my computer and it takes me about 5 seconds to click on it and look at the content. If I don't see anything related to BF, I go right back to what I was doing. In fact, I have not had to sacrifice any of my hobbies in order to do this. I even manage to get outside and do a little snooping around for evidence of the Big Guy, every now and then. Quite honestly, as far as time is concerned, my 5 second click on nbc.com is faster and more efficient than my preparations to spend an afternoon with Mother Nature. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I don't consider my 5 second, weekly check, for the discovery of the century, a waste of effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 from dictionary.com, be·lief    [bih-leef] Show IPA noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. Your definition is too narrow, Mike. Between the last accelerator and the next one is plenty of belief that people put millions, nay, billions of dollars behind. There is nothing that says that evidence is not part of the formation of a belief. You believe the chair you sit in at a movie will hold you up not because you have sat in it before or even seen it before, but because you see others coming out of the movie, having sat in it. The next particle accelerator is built in hopes that evidence for the next sought after particle will be found. But it may, or it may not. In that place of the unknown we find trust, or hope, or you may call it, belief. And I may say, that most of the time scientist's hypotheses do not pan out. Most experiments fail. I know this because when I spent a year doing research it also failed, which was the norm and not that remarkable. As they say, "back to the drawing board!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 "put millions, nay, billions of dollars behind." Euros, actually!! There's no belief involved in sitting in a chair the same as you've just seen hundreds of others sitting in. There is the evidence of hundreds of stress tests performed before your very eyes! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 As a biologist I have great faith in science, Mike. Nevertheless I am realistic about it and the processes it takes. You seem to have a very trusting and old fashioned view about it by comparison. Of course, if beliefs never occur in science, paradigm shifts must occur seamlessly and confirmation bias is never, ever a problem, right? Right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Vil, those particle accelrators are being built to test hypotheses about particles. The evidence of these particles is mathematical if I read this stuff correctly. The experiments will test hypotheses about these particles and perhaps find more. Belief isn't really what the process is about. Unless you figure that several good mathematical descriptions that fit previously described patterns and yield up possible new information is belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 You seem to have a very trusting and old fashioned view about it by comparison. Trusting and old fashioned? As opposed to untrusting and modern, you mean. As I said, I despair of the modern anti-science stance that seems so prevalent. My first degree was in Environmental Science. I have a biologist for a wife, and a zoologist for a daughter. I've spent the day proof reading a paper for the latter on the feeding habits of passerine birds. Yes, I have great faith in science, and great contempt for anti-science propaganda. Sometimes I guess I should review my stance, but this clunky old system has served us remarkably well for a long time now, and it needs as many advocates as it can get as various groups chop away at it in their own self-interest. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Just a little wee quibble here, but belief does matter in science, in fact in everything. You don't build a particle accelerator worth millions to detect previously undetected particles, for example, unless you believe they are out there. http://public.web.ce...e/higgs-en.html Scientists believe in their theories or hypotheses. Good scientists don't hold on too tightly to those beliefs though, because they could be mistaken. And many have made the mistake of doing so. In order for that particle accelerator to be built, there had to be evidence in physics first, so acceptance based on physics is the basis there. Not just a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 SY, That premise will change when there are fifty thousand Youtube videos of people running around in Higgs Boson particle costumes claiming to be the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I predict that will never happen. They will all be misidentifications, or be BlobBoson's at best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 If you are saying that what is accepted in science changes with new evidence, I follow that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 lol BFSleuth is on fire. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Yeah BFSleuth, what FuriousGeorge said ! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Hey, I have try out the skoftic side of things sometimes, just to walk a sandbar in their shoes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts