0 members (),
434
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well, the arsenic based life forms are very doubtful. A new study of bacteria in the lake hasn't been able to find any with arsenic in their DNA.
I am not going to come out and say that our DNA is the only way that life can evolve. From our point of view this is the most probable form of inheritance. But we do only have one example of life to look at. So it is possible that someplace in the universe there is life that uses some other molecule in place of DNA. It may be a while before we get confirmation one way or the other.
In the mean time we know that DNA works, so that is one thing to look for as we start being able to determine what is going on on extra solar planets. Finding out that other life forms do or do not use DNA would really be a major contribution to science.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
It's true. Even facts are open to question in science. They don't always change, but they do change. And, yet, Asimov had the perfect comment to the childish implication that somehow all mistaken views were equal or scientific knowledge never grows. Repeated from above: "... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." ~Isaac Asimov, The Relativity of Wrong, The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44 , http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htmMoreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.
Or it implies that the subject of knowledge is based upon what each individual makes it to be. Importance being relative to what is desirable to the personality rather than assumed as imperative to the whole. When one looks for something and they look hard enough they can find it. You can find what is wrong or right with anything, and the boundaries of belief always inspire the instruments (inherent, or of manufacture) to work within those boundaries.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
You then give two examples, both of which demonstrate that it is our understanding that changes, not facts.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
TT, looking again at your Asimov quote, and keeping in mind your comment about QM; I suppose there is way in which facts could change.
Perhaps, when people believed the world was flat - it was flat, and when they believed it was spherical - it was spherical.
On the other hand, that could just be some of he "stupid stuff" we should be filtering out.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Perhaps, when people believed the world was flat - it was flat, and when they believed it was spherical - it was spherical. Haha, very good, Bill. Do you think it would be democratic? - you know, if 49% believed it was round, and 51% flat, then the flats would have it? - or would the folks with more willpower win the day, irrespective of numerical majority?
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
'Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.'
should have read
Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does NOT remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
"In the extremest case, quantum mechanics may mean that there are no true facts at all in the universe, only a set of self-consistent but mutually-inconsistent explanations."
Or it could mean that many people gibbering about QM don't know anything about it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
I think you've got me there TFF, what sort of fact is untrue, but still a fact?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Moreover, the fact that science as a cultural activity is actively looking for errors does NOT remotely imply that others who claim to have less malleable "knowledge" actually do have the knowledge they profess to have. Good thing I didn't understand it first time.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Do you think it would be democratic? I'm not sure about that, but if the moon is there only when you look at it, does that mean that it is there for those who are looking, but not for others? That could give a whole new perspective on "facts".
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
If there is an objective reality in the universe, it exists regardless of anything we know or think we know. In the simplest case, "facts" are observations we make. Recorded observations are a "kind of truth," but using that language can lead to confusion, because, for example, sometimes scientists cheat ... but even correct, honest, fair processes can introduce error. Most scientific papers include a section on sources and quantification of error.
I accept that objective truth exists - and so does everyone else who is not insane. Even people who claim to reject objective reality, act as though it exists, but do not think clearly enough to realize it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
Perhaps, when people believed the world was flat - it was flat, and when they believed it was spherical - it was spherical. Haha, very good, Bill. Do you think it would be democratic? - you know, if 49% believed it was round, and 51% flat, then the flats would have it? - or would the folks with more willpower win the day, irrespective of numerical majority? This would be the reverends determination of G0D and how G0D would change the universe thru democratic process. Nevermind whether the world would actually become flat.. it would be enough to believe that the resolute orderliness of will would become so. That would be one way to create a system of order, but in the light of a more expanded state of mind, and universal mind of a different order, the projected order of belief or "ism", would eventually change/collapse. Truth is relative in a subjective world. Absolute in an absolute reality. Objectivity is relative to states of consciousness. Insanity (a relative/subjective measure of cognitive functioning) is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it is just a perception of reality that the majority will refuse to accept. This puts the majority and the person outside of that perceptive mindset at odds with each other. If the beliefs and ideas of the majority change and eventually open to something someone has claimed to be insane prior to that, insanity then becomes normal cognitive functioning. It was once considered insane to sail so far out to sea where one would fall off the edge of the world... "Insanity--a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world."
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
Richard Feynman explains this idea in a different way. In this essay which was a chapter of his book "Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynman" adapted from a commencement address at CalTech, he discusses "Cargo Cult Science."
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490 |
Bill S opined; 'I'm not sure about that, but if the moon is there only when you look at it, does that mean that it is there for those who are looking, but not for others? That could give a whole new perspective on "facts"'
OR-- If the moon is only there if you are looking at it would mean that it is always there because someone else is looking at it and so, therefore, it is always there as someone somewhere is always looking at it.
We could have a roster.
TFF- In the interests of my sanity and to stop me wondering -- please, give an example of an untrue fact.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Do you think it would be democratic? I'm not sure about that, but if the moon is there only when you look at it, does that mean that it is there for those who are looking, but not for others? That could give a whole new perspective on "facts". Take an everyday scene (romantic, for good measure): - "Oh, darling, look, isn't the moon beautiful tonight" - "Sorry, luv, I'm not looking, so you must be hallucinating; and this high tide is an illusion, which is why I'm not bothered about the water lapping around my ears."
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940 |
TFF- In the interests of my sanity and to stop me wondering -- please, give an example of an untrue fact.
I understand it's confusing. Some simple examples of untrue facts: 1. Data that are deliberately fudged. 2. Transcription errors. Suppose I am reading an instrument and marking down a value. On one occasion (and perhaps more), I am tired. I read "73" from the instrument, but I write it down as "37." This is purely a definitional thing - facts are observations, which can be colored (figuratively AND literally) by our interaction with the environment. I understand that most people view the words "fact" and "truth" as practical synonyms, or at least that facts are a subset of truths. I'm not utterly averse to using this terminology, but I think it's confusing (more so than otherwise). You didn't ask for it, but I will also include an example of how we interact with our environment as we are collecting facts (recording observations). Here's an interesting thing. Every year my colleagues and I put on a "Science Night" for local kids and I have an exhibit of illusions that includes this exact example: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...roy-your-brain/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Some simple examples of untrue facts: "1. Data that are deliberately fudged." That's not a fact, it' a lie! If I make up some "data" to "prove" that God exists, does that make his/her existence a fact? "2. Transcription errors." I'm 71, that's a fact. If someone inadvertently writes my age as 17, that is not a fact - unfortunately. As far as the coloured squares are concerned (good video, by the way), the comment later in the link says it all: "In this illusion, though, you do not perceive the “true” color correctly." The only fact here is that it is an illusion.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Wouldn't you say that a fact is a concept, or piece of information, that has been verified as correct? Seems that what we accept as a 'fact' depends upon the degree of verification that we think is sufficient. So, I agree that facts are not necessarily truth. What is initially taken to be satisfactory verification can later be shown to be flawed. In that case the supposed fact is no longer a fact - at best, it could be slightly at variance with reality, and at worst, completely false.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
|