is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

on to a more meaningful question

i was going to ask a scientific question regarding the universe, but i have to have some guarantees that you aren't going to look down from your perch on high and pretend i'm an idiot for even asking.

nah, come to think of it, nevermind.

reply to post by KrzYma


You are focusing on the light equal wave or particle question.
That is not the issue.
The central question is "what is scientific truth?".
Is it a belief system and hence a religion?

What is a scientific “truth”?
It is what the community of scientists agree it is at the time.
They may change their mind later.
That makes scientific “truth” a belief system.

leostokes
reply to post by KrzYma

 

You are focusing on the light equal wave or particle question.
That is not the issue.
The central question is "what is scientific truth?".
Is it a belief system and hence a religion?

What is a scientific “truth”?
It is what the community of scientists agree it is at the time.
They may change their mind later.
That makes scientific “truth” a belief system.

Spot on!!

Science is to Islam as Islam is to Christianity as Christianity is to Buddhism as Buddhism is to Hinduism ad nauseam.

The moment a scientist denies God the scientist completely, totally, and entirely discredits him/herself. It become imperative for him/her to DISprove God's existence. Most 'scientists' are not foolish enough to step over the edge of the pit. I suspect the ones who do just want to draw attention to themselves.

A lot of science flat out sucks ... but I'm willing to let them have their faith, as long as they're not trampling on what I KNOW yet am unable to express properly to anyone else. At least I'm man enough to admit it.

leostokes
reply to post by KrzYma

 

You are focusing on the light equal wave or particle question.
That is not the issue.
The central question is "what is scientific truth?".
Is it a belief system and hence a religion?

What is a scientific “truth”?
It is what the community of scientists agree it is at the time.
They may change their mind later.
That makes scientific “truth” a belief system.

You are playing word games here, changing definitions halfway your post.

You first state that a belief system is a religion. You then state that whatever set of beliefs that may be shown to be false is a belief system.

However, sets of beliefs exist that do not involve any god, nor any rituals, and hence is no religion.

I think a better and more useful definition of a belief system is a set of beliefs for which there is no rigid evidence. Then science is no longer a belief system. The more generic a term becomes, the less meaning it gets.

reply to post by KrzYma


I fail to see what your title question has to do with the contents of your OP. I can however say, that modern science is only likened to religion by people who are simply doing it wrong.

TrueBrit
reply to post by KrzYma

 

I fail to see what your title question has to do with the contents of your OP. I can however say, that modern science is only likened to religion by people who are simply doing it wrong.

Exactly.

TrueBrit
reply to post by KrzYma

 

I fail to see what your title question has to do with the contents of your OP. I can however say, that modern science is only likened to religion by people who are simply doing it wrong.

nice though.

and what little question your answer relates to exactly ? I question a lot in here.
I also don't link science to religion in sense that God exists or not.

I try to say, that what I see in science, is believe-like system itself (without the God question for now)

like in this example of the Dark Matter www.youtube.com...
scientist make thinks up ! Also in double slit experiment, particle-wave duality is just made up !

I see it that way... there is the theory that doesn't hold, theory the scientists hold to because
they must.
every time somebody says something different then the main stream science is telling us, he gets kicked out of the community, he gets crucified for "blasphemy", even if he may be right !

that's why nobody goes against the Relativity for example.
science is a believe system, like religion

can you see my point ?

reply to post by AbleEndangered


That was a way better explanation than I ever heard at University.

OP video is bull. The point about leaving the light on and "consiousness being required" is false. Not true. New age hippies hijack this interesting phenomenon to try and make some kind of spiritualistic claims. People love this idea that that our minds create reality in some way. So they try and justify it by misrepresenting quantum physics.

Maybe people treat science like a religion, expecting it to know all the answers. And some scientists make excessive claims about the origins of the universe etc. But in theory science is deductive, I get knowledge from investigation. Religion is inductive I get knowledge from higher authority.

undo
good video explaining, in simple terms, the holographic universe

I like the Leonard Susskind lectures a lot !



look how he is explaining the black hole

there is this event horizon, where the 'pull in' exceeds the speed of light
this pull in it is even faster near the black hole centre

do you see it ??

in one theory, nothing can move faster than the speed of light, in the black hole it suddenly can.
why ? wouldn't matter get infinitely heavy ?
here is the thing... if something is infinitely heavy you can not accelerate it, there is no way it moves faster between the event horizon and the centre of the black hole

according to this theory, moving faster than light would also cause the time to go backwards
that is what the math is saying.
what happens if time goes backwards ? am I still in the back hole ?

sure there is this gamma correction value, constructing 'local speed of light/time' to hold the theory... bla bla




have anyone ever seen the explanation on Time Dilation and Length Contraction?
with this light pulse going up and down
sure you have, like this one www.youtube.com...

how does it come that this 'clock' is always pointing perpendicular to the moving axis ??
it holds only that way... how convenient

there are also other explanations like this one www.youtube.com...
here the light beam moves with the moving axis.

make yourself your own gedankenexperiment and use 4 'clocks' for this system or 6 'clocks' in 3D and you will see
it doesn't work for the moving system.
it's a false statement

KrzYma


nice though.

and what little question your answer relates to exactly ? I question a lot in here.

My answer relates to your title question, as I made perfectly clear.

I also don't link science to religion in sense that God exists or not.

I try to say, that what I see in science, is believe-like system itself (without the God question for now)

Do you mean a BELIEF system? See, I have a problem here. First of all, English is the language spoken here on ATS, for better or worse, and if I am to understand you, and you understand me, both of us must have a certain talent for communication in that language. Right now, your grammar appears somewhat opaque.

like in this example of the Dark Matter www.youtube.com...
scientist make thinks up ! Also in double slit experiment, particle-wave duality is just made up !

Scientists THEORISE! There is a massive difference between a work of fiction, and a logical thought process which has a thus far unproven conclusion! If you cannot see that, it is because you have not studied, nor attempted to use logic for yourself. It is through the sort of "making things up" that you so lambast, that we know our planet to be an oblate spheroid, that we are able to vaccinate ourselves against things which used to kill us by the thousand, that we can communicate with one another from other sides of the planet without more than a few seconds gap between sending and receiving a message.

I see it that way... there is the theory that doesn't hold, theory the scientists hold to because
they must.
every time somebody says something different then the main stream science is telling us, he gets kicked out of the community, he gets crucified for "blasphemy", even if he may be right !

What utter rot. People are "kicked out" of scientific communities, because scientific communities are run on money, and money comes from some well meaning, but often relatively moronic people, who believe, falsely, that they have read enough science to know whats what, and make unpleasant noises about people who go against accepted science. These things have nothing to do with science itself and are to do with politics and finance. You are confusing science as a subject, with science as a social network, and one rarely has much to do with the other.

that's why nobody goes against the Relativity for example.
science is a believe system, like religion

can you see my point ?

Not really. Relativity is just a theory, and people have been prodding and poking at its outer regions for years. Not only that, but there are loopholes which have been discovered recently, and imagined for decades, which might be able to skirt round its principle claims, namely the impossibility of getting to the speed of light. Of course, these methods involve folding space/time, so that two locations become much closer together, which bypasses the impossibility of acceleration to the speed of light.

Now... either your understanding of physics is pretty sub par, or your ability to communicate is. Science is not a belief system, a religion, or even a philosophy in any realistic sense. Science is a tool of the mind, which helps a person gain an understanding of the physical universe around themselves. It requires no faith what so ever, because its findings are confirmed by repeatable experimentation, or are classified as THEORY, rather than law. Unlike religions and belief systems, its laws are subject to change, as the level of understanding that mankind can access, of the universe in which it exists, changes and improves over time.

Hebrews 11:1 describes faith in the only correct manner I have ever heard used to describe it:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"

Science however, is the opposite of that. Science demands observable evidence, it insists upon being able to operate without ignorance, with a full understanding of what it is about. Only when science is hijacked by morons does it ever step outside of that particular shell. An example would be the detonation of the first atomic weapon, when allegedly, scientists were not sure what would happen, and the worst case scenario that came up before its detonation, was the potential for the entire atmosphere to ignite, burning everything on the face of the earth to ruins.

Let me give you an example of the difference between faith and scientific thinking:

A man of faith may walk off the edge of a building, but only a man of science will be able to give a good estimate of how fast he was going when he hit the floor.

Science does not dictate morality, it comes with no inherent commandments, there are no "thou shalt not" instructions in its entire history. There are theories, unproven thoughts, which though as yet unproven have shown merit thus far, and there are laws, which amount to being theories which have yet to be surpassed by the exponential advancements in our understanding of the universe. Unlike faiths, beliefs, science is an ever changing landscape, and a rapidly changing one. Look at the laptop computer for example. When they were first invented, they were considered the pinnacle of mobile computing, even though the first laptops had no wireless communications capacity what so ever. Now we have palm sized gadgets that can allow you to send voice, text, and visual messages, as well as communicate in real time over the entire span of the globe.

Science is not a belief system, it is an understanding system. Belief systems, the way you look at the issue, are rigid, and do not change from one century to the next in any but the smallest of ways. But the understanding mankind has of the universe around himself, the physical processes involved with everything from the smallest interactions between particles, to the largest interactions between cosmic forces, changes on a constant and unceasing basis.

Scientists take into account new data, assimilate it into their codices of understanding as quickly as they are able more often than not, in order that their next project benefits from the latest data. No belief system on this planet does that.

Belief requires faith, but science does not, and that is where your argument collapses upon itself, rather like a massive star does, before becoming a black hole (which ,incidentally, no one would know existed, if indeed science was a belief system, rather than a tool of investigation and understanding).

leostokes

What is a scientific “truth”?
It is what the community of scientists agree it is at the time.
They may change their mind later.
That makes scientific “truth” a belief system.

Scientific truth is not something that a community of scientists agree at the same time... This is not subjective at all, that is simply the where currently evidence points to, the best that can be said based on current data, using current methods. It is imperfect not wrong, although constantly efforts are made to reach the perfection . Absolute proof is possible for example in mathemathics. With numbers it is easier to prove certain conditions a´la (a+b)(a-b)=a^2-b^2 can be proved as (a+b)(a-b) = a*a-a*b+a*b-b*b=a*a-b*b=a^2+b^2 That is absolute truth.

In most other fields the current data/methods simply get perfected a´la in the beginning of scientific data came which showed it was actually spherical (perfect sphere), new information surfaced which showed it was actually an ellipsoid (polar and equatorial radius differ by a small amount (around 20 km difference). The first one was not wrong,it was the best that could be shown during that time, when technology advanced it was just perfected and still is when additional data surfaces trying to reach the absolute truth. When new methods are discovered, additional information can be used the current data has to updated. This does not mean it was wrong, simply it was imperfect.

Minds are not changed later because "opinion " changes, but because new data comes up and either disapproves the current theory fully (which is extremely rare nowadays) or adds something to the previous conclusion.

Science as a whole, as everything is connected in a way can be compared to a compurised picture. There are millions of people around the world trying to fill the picture with pixels, although the amount of pixels is very large. A lot of pixels have been filled, although there are still many empty pixels. If something new is discovered this does not mean that the previously filled pixels were wrongly coloured, but that additional empty pixels can be coloured. The picture is not fully coloured yet, that is why constantly additions are being made. Science is improving fast, nearly every day something new is discovered and an additional pixel or two can be coloured out of the millions making the picture it more clear, but still not fully coloured.

For something to reach a scientific theory status, it needs to have widespread evidence behind it supporting it. For example currently the mathemathical formula which have reached the status theory are near to being a fact. They simply do not have proof behind them, which would prove that they always work like that. It is constantly being researched to find the proof or some case which would disapprove these but there are none found even when the number count (numbers in the number) reaches 100s of millions. Everything points to it being the absolute truth, but it has not been fully proved yet.

In science nothing is subjective. That is something only a person without no clue about scientific method would think.

KrzYma
I think the biggest dilemma in today's science is the dogmatic explanation of facts


the double slit experiment

www.youtube.com...

all he is saying about the observation must be right, as it is what we are observing, and this is the scientific proof.



(1)
0:47 Einstein and his Photoelectric Effect

EM wave looked like a particle, because it has momentum and kicks out electrons from a metal. Act like a particle, so... IT MUST BE A PARTICLE
"He ( Einstein ) said, light is a particle"
and his ( Einstein's ) theory supported that

( I wonder how scientist would not support his own theory and have looked for any proof of that theory )

BTW: he knows how to manipulate the audience, his tone change, body language...


(2)
1:30

"They, 'very claver, have found a way' how to fire one photon at a time and.... "
(1:38) "... of course one photon ISN'T enough to measure... especially those days... but they fired a thousands... "
"... detector on the slits... bla bla "

remember what he said before? one photon is not enough to measure ?
how it comes those detectors work ?

he also mixes up which way the photon goes through as it is detected on the slit...

anyway, I don't actually want to talk about the details on double slit experiment... lets continue on what he is saying about "this whole thing"

(4:00) he starts to introduce Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger to us,
how brilliant he was and so on...

(5:00) now, photon is not a particle, it is a probability, where did the wave ended up ???

"...probability acts like a wave..."

I say
moves like a wave, acts like a wave... must be a wav... sorry... probability !
( come on, that is just mathematic calculations )

".. when he ( Schroedinger ) did it with the math, OF COURSE it worked, and he had his patterns... " and theory

STOP !!!
what about the slits with detectors and no patterns ???
Where is the explanation for this in Schroedinge's theory ??


He continues...
Quantum Theory is great, blah blah blah to the end

"Quantum physics are the most successful brunches of physics EVER, and it still doesn't make any sense... "
haha, he is right on this for sure

he is not explaining the experiment at all, but uses it as proof for QT

than he shows some quotes from people who have helped develop the QT like Eugene Wigner and Max Plank ( that could be easily interpret in a different way )

...I don't even talk about how he is playing the audience with his voice and other tricks... slowing down at the tight place, making pause, simply manipulating the audience...

I'm at 8:00 btw

this is the best... 8:24...
without any real proof ( I assume the mathematics are right, or can be DONE right if needed ) he tells us the SUMMARIES of that..

here is something I agree with, "...when you write papers and get funded..."
sure, I will write the science I'm paid for

looks like he doesn't know what to say on the end

are you a shill?

reply to post by KrzYma


that made me think of the paper i read on traversable wormholes. the guy's premise was that sometimes violations do exist, something about the null energy condition. i'll find it so you can read it. these are 2 different articles

in this, sergei krasnikov discusses new type of wormhole that generates its own exotic matter to keep a wormhole open
news.bbc.co.uk...

in this, 2 other scientists argue against it because of the null energy condition, to which krasnikov responds that violations of the null energy condition are known to exist
news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by TrueBrit


Thank you TrueBrit for sharing your opinion with me.

Indeed, English is my third language and still not perfect. I admit I use an automatic correction system as I write my thoughts. Sometimes it changes my words and not always I read it carefully enough before I send a post. Biggest issue IS the translation, next is misreading, 'title question' for example I misread as 'little question', so as for me, it is not a LITTLE question, you can imagine how indignant I was ( if this is even the right word for what I mean ).
I don't feel comfortable with my written interpretations of my thoughts for now, but I will hopefully get better so please for now, try to understand me as it is.

reply to post by Cabin


Thank you.
Your post and post from TrueBrit give me hope that science is not a belief system.

I think now, science is an hierarchal system. A new 'beginner' have to propagate the "old system" and make himself a name, before even thinking of postulation new evidences mutual to existing theories.

I can live with that

still, any break through doesn't come with gradient knowledge, one needs to break the 'old'.
This could be the real challenge.

undo
reply to post by KrzYma

 

that made me think of the paper i read on traversable wormholes. the guy's premise was that sometimes violations do exist, something about the null energy condition. i'll find it so you can read it. these are 2 different articles

in this, sergei krasnikov discusses new type of wormhole that generates its own exotic matter to keep a wormhole open
news.bbc.co.uk...

in this, 2 other scientists argue against it because of the null energy condition, to which krasnikov responds that violations of the null energy condition are known to exist
news.bbc.co.uk...

edit on 2-11-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

Thank you, will have a look at this.

mrphilosophias
are you a shill?

NO !

This word does not exists in my vocabulary, I had to look up what it even means... so... NO

KrzYma
I think now, science is an hierarchal system. A new 'beginner' have to propagate the "old system" and make himself a name, before even thinking of postulation new evidences mutual to existing theories.

I can live with that

I wouldn't call it hierarchical and that's not the most accurate description, though the general idea is not way off. Here's a better description in simple terms:

In order to "think outside the box", you have to first know what is in the box, and why it's in there.

Why should anybody be taken seriously if they reject mainstream ideas without fully understanding them or why other mainstream scientists support them? Whenever I have attempted to do this myself, and start digging into why mainstream scientists think the way they do, I start reading a lot of scientific papers and discover a lot of support for the mainstream ideas that I just didn't know about nor do most other people who are not professionals in that field. This is not a situation of hierarchy, but one of knowledge.

leostokes
reply to post by KrzYma

 

You are focusing on the light equal wave or particle question.
That is not the issue.
The central question is "what is scientific truth?".
Is it a belief system and hence a religion?

What is a scientific “truth”?
It is what the community of scientists agree it is at the time.
They may change their mind later.
That makes scientific “truth” a belief system.

In a mathematical theory, of which Euclidian geometry is a long standing example, proved theorems, like the Pythagorean theorem, are not true in the absolute sense but only in a relative sense.

The scheme for a mathematical theory is to state a set of AXIOMS and use deductive logic to prove theorems starting with the axioms. Euclid stated his axioms and used deductive logic to prove the Pythagorean theorem.

The theorems in the theory are “true” relative to the axioms. If the axioms are true then so are the theorems. All mathematical theorems are true relative to the truth of the axioms. There is no absolute truth in mathematics. The axioms are not proved. They are assumed. Any assumption is based on a belief system.

Euclid’s most complex and famous axiom is the parallel postulate. Through a point not on a line, one and only one line can be drawn parallel to the given line. It is this axiom that makes Euclidean geometry euclidean. If you replace this axiom with another you get another geometry. A non-euclidean geometry. For example your replacement might be: through a point not on a line many lines can be drawn parallel to the given one (or alternatively, no line can be drawn parallel to the given one). You thus have a new valid mathematical theory.

In Euclidean geometry there is a theorem that says the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles. This theorem does not hold in non-euclidean geometry.

reply to post by leostokes


So all mathematically based concepts are actually based on assumptions established for the benefit of such concepts, but have no actual basis themselves? Almost sounds like a religion...