Another scientific retraction?
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/31-Death_of_Dinosaurs.htm
LOL
psik
This is a retraction how? Notice it was published five years ago (and is an opinion piece in my alumni magazine). I think since this piece was published additional evidence from the US has been discovered supporting the Yucatan hypothesis.
I haven’t heard much about the Nemesis theory for a while. Asimov published a novel based on it. I think they found that the periodicity was not as regular as originally thought. With large regions of uncertainty around a date, it is easy to find a pattern which disappears as the error bars go down.
Upthread I mentioned that the ability to predict was crucial in evaluating the worth of a theory. It just so happens I went to hear Luis Alvarez speak at Princeton late 1980 or early 1981. This was before the Yucatan crater was discovered. In his talk, he predicted that a crater should be found for the asteroid impact. The closest thing they had at the time was in Iceland, but he freely admitted that this was not a satisfactory site for several reasons. His prediction came true quite nicely. Score another one for science - the process.
I’ve also heard the Solar System’s up-and-down oscillations through the galactic plane given as a hypothesis, and also evolution. The latter idea being that for some time after a major impact the surviving species are those which are good at surviving an impact ( or descended from them ); so another impact won’t be as effective at rendering species extinct. Only after enough evolution away from the survivors would an impact have the same catastrophic effect.
But as far as I know it’s an open question at the moment if there even is a pattern much less what causes it.
I was about to make a comment when a big pile of philosophy plopped into my lap. The problem with common word usage and its usage in scientific philosophy.
Scientists would be seeking the truth and can’t help but find it by observation. That truth may confirm, negate or modify a hypothesis of that or some other scientist.
In science both experiment and theoretical a lot more time and energy gets spent in finding truth that isn’t supportive of a hypothesis. It is a very slow process of intelligent trial and error. You spend way more time finding evidence than isn’t supportive than is.
Science takes years to get very small factiods which add with other factiods which may someday lead to a fact that people outside of science might find useful. Much of science time and effort is taken by confirmation and isolation of a very small factoid. The majority of the time and energy goes to finding truth that doesn’t confirm a hypothesis, though it may aid in eventually going down a path to finding a small bit of truth that does.
In the end I think you have to have a thick skin to be a scientist and if you go into it knowing scientific philosophy then failure (in the common use of the word) is to be expected. You shouldn’t have the same idea about getting pissed off as nonscientists if you don’t want to be miserable. I am making the comment of scientists in the aggregate, those that get prizes and honors, appear on tv, write books are very small in number; their character or outlook may be different or may have changed over time from other scientists. Also my comment is speaking of pure science here and I am not thinking any about applied science.
Well, perhaps a layman *should *be aware, but please explain to me how nuclear reactors are evidence that quantum mechanics works. How specifically was the knowledge of quantum mechanics used to build nuclear reactors?
Thanks.
What is the relevance of what "anyone can understand"? The point of this thread is that many people do not understand the details of scientific research and yet they still accept it.
Well, there’s no smilie so I guess you are serious. I’ll add one: :dubious:
What’s the point of your mini-lesson? The fact is that many people don’t know what you just said. Somehow, it seems that you think that your role here is to educate the masses. Doesn’t than mean that you accept the fact that most people don’t know? Otherwise, why are you spending your time explaining something that is common knowledge?
No, you can easily look up the primary sources. And, even if it is easy, non-scientists rarely look up primary sources of scientific research. Why would they? They trust what the scientists say.
But that’s true of almost everything. My sense of this question is that it’s really about something bigger than science – it’s about the limits of direct experience compared to the almost limitless indirect access we have to (certain canned versions of) the experiences of others.
I have no proof the Lincoln existed, except the writings of historians whom I have also never met. I do not understand metallurgy but I trust my life to the subway rails. I wasn’t at the Cubs game but the newspaper claims the score was x to y. Come to think of it, I couldn’t do any of those athletic myself achievements either. Yet (until the steroid scandal) I believed them to be true. I’ve never made ratatouille but I don’t disbelieve in it when I see it on a menu.
The world is a gigantic place nowadays. The information we’re all exposed to is far vaster than any Renaissance man ever mastered. We all take huge amounts of stuff at face value; indeed, we have no choice.
Why are you cherry-picking this small subpart of that pool of knowledge (or, if you prefer, assertions)? Is this the set-up for some more general claim about science, education, or belief systems? Yeah we’re not physicists. We’re also, in various combinations, not chefs, athletes, governors, mechanics, pregnant, historical figures, market researchers, TV critics, zookeepers, delinquents, or whatever, yet we also have access to their thoughts and experiences and can choose to learn about and believe what they do/know/understand, because of the nearly limitless power of our information culture.
Well, as I said upthread:
And also:
Ah ha. And there it is.
Thanks for the information. The last thing I read about this was from an anti-Nemesis researcher, so I probably got a jaundiced view. I don’t get the survivability thing, though, since the time between impacts is so great that all the non-survivable niches will be filled. Like by us.
And I’m saying this happens because the average person feels they can understand scientific principles if they cared to. I don’t know the rules of football, but I’ll believe John Madden when he says something about them since he is an authority and I can look them up if for some reason I doubt him.
It’s very simple. Say you for some reason want to need to know if a lightbulb was on a few minutes ago, when you were out of the room. You put your hand on it and measure the residual heat. If it is warm you can conclude it was on, if it was cold it wasn’t. The Big Bang theory says the universe was very hot 14 b.y. ago, Steady State says it wasn’t. The CBR is a measure of the residual heat. Measuring it is just like you putting your hand on the light bulb. The equations tell us how how it should be. The average guy couldn’t figure out this (I couldn’t either) but you don’t need to in order to get the important point.
They could look them up, but they couldn’t understand them. They trust what scientists say since someone who can understand the primary sources has simplified it. And, since they have seen and heard of places where the authorities were right, they mostly accept it. There are people who don’t try to understand and who believe no one else does either. These are the “you accept science on faith types.” I’m not denying the existence and prevalence of stupidity at all.
Ah. If the question boils down to whether the willfully stupid base their beliefs on appeals to authority, and consider science and spirituality to be equivalent, I can only say yes. Perhaps the source of the disagreement was the assumption of a reasonably intelligent person who might want to learn for himself.
Because they exhibit behavior predicted by quantum mechanics. Fission energy production happens from energy released using the nuclear weak force, the force that holds the nucleoluses of atoms together. Quantum mechanics describes how the weak force works, and it also describes, through the standard model, what these particles are made of.
Quantum mechnics describes why some atoms are stable and some not, which even a basic understanding of Fission reactors would elucidate as to it’s importance.
Well, I appreciate your attempt at an answer, but the question was: How *specifically was the knowledge of quantum mechanics used to build *nuclear reactors? (Italics added.)
You did not provide any specifics about quantum mechanics, nor did you even mention building nuclear reactors. (Also, are you sure that it is the weak force that keeps the nucleus together? Do you have a cite?)
It seems that you and **Voyager **don’t realize that every time you offer an explanation, you unintentionally demonstrate how difficult it is to explain and understand the specific details of modern scientific concepts. Of course, practically anybody *could *understand those details, given a willingness to dedicate time and effort to learn them, but most people don’t, and yet, they still accept the general concepts as being correct. It seems that this acceptance is based on a general trust of the scientific community. Also, there are many people who trust religious leaders.
So you accept John Madden as an authority and you believe what he says about the rules of football. Seems very similar to what Koxinga is saying about people’s acceptance of science.
BTW, why don’t you just learn the rules of football yourself? Do you think that they are more difficult to understand than the Big Bang theory?
As simple and easy as a light bulb. And yet, Edison (who was a smart guy) didn’t figure it out. 
(BTW, where did you get the 14 billion year figure, and how was it calculated? Yeah, I know, but do you get my point?)
Again, you are, in effect, saying that because *some *people know how the Big Bang theory was verified, then everyone *should *know. And, if they don’t, they’re stupid, right?
Ah, right.
The difference is, it’s rational to given scientists at least some trust when it comes to their speciality, because they have a proven record of being right more often than not. It’s stupid to trust religious leaders about anything because they have a history of being wrong, not to mention ill-intentioned. As far as the argument that “well, people trust religious leaders anyway” goes it’s not the fault of science that so many people are fools.
Science is not going to be more convincing than nonsense to people who are willfully deluding themselves, but the fault is in them and not in science.
You left out the part about my ability to check his statements against the rule book.
Because when and where I was a kid, baseball ruled, plus I went to a high school and a college without football teams. I knew the rules of baseball pretty well at one point in my life.
Understanding what someone did is a lot easier than coming up with it. As for the 14 billion years, I’ve read tons of popular cosmology books, and a biography of Hubble. No equations in any of them, but a clear explanation of this stuff.
Again, no. The could know if they wanted to. If for some reason they have a desire to question authority on this, they can and should do so by trying to understand it themselves. Most people have far better things to do.
In a sense it is like reproducibility. A paper is supposed to be written so that others can reproduce the experiment. That doesn’t mean they will, or should. In 99.9% of the cases hardly anyone cares. But if they ever do, the method is there. And even the biggest authority, the most famous scientist, doesn’t get away with publishing a paper and just dumping results without the method. Everyone gets peered reviewed, and in some cases the identity of the authors is hidden to avoid the halo effect.
Nope. You trust them because they describe how they came to a conclusion. I’ve recommended rejection for papers by people famous in my field because of bad reasoning. I’ve even rejected a few. Some of these guys get really pissed off, but their paper still is rejected.
I’ll trust the Pope on Catholic doctrine, because he is an expert and I can check it. I’m not going to trust him on what god wants, or even if god exists, because he can’t provide any more good evidence than Jimmy Swaggart or one of those other dopes. He just has a bigger house.
Well, it’s interesting to see Voyager (as a scientist) correcting Der Trihs on why scientists should be trusted. I’ve never once suggested that scientists shouldn’t be trusted, or that organized religion or new age hokum ought to be placed on the same level as science. But the fact that even an ostensibly pro SCIENCE guy like Der Trihs may be getting it wrong here illustrates, to me at least that it’s the why of our individual beliefs that are at least as important as what those beliefs actually are.
Duhkecco, it’s a fair question, and honestly reactors aren’t exactly a good in home example (atleast until they invent Mr. Fusion). Also I looked it up and I got the nuclear weak and strong forces mixed up. The strong forces holds things like protons and neutrons together, and also weakly holds nucleases together.
Anyway I thought about it a few minutes. =“Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia”]Double slit experiment
You can do it home.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52659 <- how to set up the double slit experiment at home.
The double slit experiment shows that light is both a wave and a particle. It’s considered one of the founding ideas of quantum mechanics.