Isn’t a lot of science anchored on a great deal of faith and pseudo fact?

There is a lot of science, especially astronomical science, that is conjecture. When it comes to “facts” about places we’ve never been, they ultimately are guesses. The methods are what I don’t necessarily know about. But I’m not going to deny that they are hypotheses, conjectures, etc.

No, science is not

What many people mistakenly believe or call science is.

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. Science is based on proving a hypothesis in a repeatable experiment.

It is the opposite of pseudo-fact.

Science relies making models of reality based on previously assembled data that may later be put to the test as new data comes in.
The core of Jupiter issues comes from what we know our solar system is generally made of, what the surface of Jupiter is made of, and how materials (may) behave in high densities and gravitational fields. This conjecture may be put to the test as contradictory information comes out with later experiments.

Every scientific paper I’ve ever read has an entire section laying out possible sources of error. Science is a fallibilistic discipline. Absolute certainty is never assumed, let alone asserted (regardless of what some may try to do on its behalf). That’s one of the main reasons it keeps going.

No, science is based on the scientific method. Attempting to prove hypotheses and theories using controlled experiments or mathematical proofs.

@zenvelo Science is based on proving a hypothesis in a repeatable experiment.
Then what test or experiment was used to determine Fluid Metallic Hydrogen was next to the core, no core within Jupiter? Would it not be more honest to place a disclaimer by any posted schematic or theory of fact that has not been 1st hand observed, experienced, etc.? If there is no core and Jupiter is just a big ball of gases maybe they should sidebar on how gravity was produced from nothing but gas; which would also mean if scientist were able to cobble up a large enough amount of gas, they could create gravity, or cause it to happen.

@drhat77 Science relies making models of reality based on previously assembled data that may later be put to the test as new data comes in.
Again, they should state that fact that it is the best guess, and tell children in school the same. That it is the best guess of the day but may change in their life time.

There’s no need for some scientific theory to be “100% accurate”, whatever that even means.

Science produces models which are useful, workable, and have predictive value. All the technology you ironically use to ask your ill-framed and weasel-worded question is based on the models produced by science.

They are not “proven”. They’re not “best guesses” (there is no guessing through the process and no guessing in the methodology of an experiment). Some models are actually wrong and inaccurate, but that’s okay, because the process of improving the models never ends.

Scientists don’t make “assertions”. They reach conclusions based on evidence derived from their experiments. They go to where the evidence leads them. An “assertion” would be a statement made despite any evidence.

Lastly. Science is peer-reviewed and the methodologies used to reach their conclusions are published and accessible to anyone interested. Instead of bringing up red-herrings about the chemical composition of Jupiter, on a forum where I doubt anyone knows anything about Jupiter or how the scientists know what they know about Jupiter, you could—if you were sincerely interested—find out yourself by going to the appropriate science journal and reading about it from the primary sources.

You have confused scientific hypothesis with scientific fact.
You have also confused hypothesis with “guess”.
Please see: scientific method

If your premise was true, than no human would have any knowledge of anything except that which was a result of direct sensory experience.
And yet, everybody uses medicine, that they did not actually test in a lab, and in many cases it manages their disease.
Everybody eats something eventually, without having somebody else test it first to see if it is poison.
Much of our knowledge is indeed second hand. Evidence presented by a credible witness is still evidence.

Plus, pseudo fact is a contradiction. A fact simply is, before you draw any conclusion. You discover facts, you do not create them.

Simple answer. No.

Complicated answer. You obviously do not even know what science is. Two words. If you type them so that I know that you know what science is then I will expand on this and address the ” faith ” question you have.

PS: I see you are getting a deserved lambasting here. Learn from it.

I an not knowledgeable enough in astrophysics to say what methodology is used to infer (infer) the chemical makeup of planets. But I can say it is not simply a Wild-Ass Guess.

And there is never a 100% certainty claim. Ever. The book is never closed in science. Any claim can be questioned and retested, and made to stand up to the data.

Also, what the frak?

@hypo:
gravity was produced from nothing but gas; which would also mean if scientist were able to cobble up a large enough amount of gas, they could create gravity, or cause it to happen

It is quite sad that he does not even know that everything that has mass, also has a gravitational pull.
The more stuff with mass you have the greater the gravitational pull.
inb4 “since when does gas have mass?”

Also, as to how scientists have a grasp on the composition of jupiter, it is called “thermal infrared spectroscopy” the cassini spacecraft did that on its flyby.
The basis of which is the fact that different chemical compositions emit different electromagnetic frequencies. If you observe the emitted frequencies, you can deduce the chemicals that produced them.

@Seek_Kolinahr No fracking allowed

@Kropotkin Science produces models which are useful, workable, and have predictive value. All the technology you ironically use to ask your ill-framed and weasel-worded question is based on the models produced by science.
Curious, when people do not have an answer, other than science is science, they attack the question instead of attempting, even in feeble fashion how those smart guys in white jackets came to what they believe and did so well enough that many accept it without question. So I guess “weasel-worded”, “ill-framed” questions produce duck-dodge-and-hide answers. I can at least tip my hat to @ragingloli, and @syz was able to at least muster up SOMETHING that could be investigated.

I doubt anyone knows anything about Jupiter or how the scientists know what they know about Jupiter, you could—if you were sincerely interested—find out yourself by going to the appropriate science journal and reading about it from the primary sources.
Ahhh…..how do you know I didn’t? But at least you were right in one respect; hardly anyone here would know the dynamics of Jupiter, which is part of the point. Though many here don’t know they will take what is told to them as true, or true enough not to question it. That imparts faith, but you can transpose confidence, seeing faith scares so many people, on the scientist or process they used. I did poke around a few science sites to find the answers I guess they were the wrong ones or ones that did not explain themselves completely because they certainly left me with the impression that Jupiter was mostly gas, or liquefied gas, and if so, they did not explain where or how it’s massive gravity is produced.

@syz @ragingloli I am going to investigate the link and the method you mentioned, then I will comment if need be. I am not going to try to blow through it now less I miss something. However, I must mention, by science own theory just because you have more mass doesn’t mean you have more pull. That would make them a liar on white dwarfs, and the alleged black holes.

@Seek_Kolinahr I an not knowledgeable enough in astrophysics to say what methodology is used to infer (infer) the chemical makeup of planets. But I can say it is not simply a Wild-Ass Guess.
If I gave the impression I think it is a Wild-Ass guess, let me clear it up; I don’t think it was made off the seat of their pants but it is still a guess no matter what method used. If I seen an obese person I could use the last 5 obese people I met or knew of and say that obese person in front of me got that way because they were lazy, and stuffed their face with too much food because that was what the five before had done. Not being a fly on that person’s shoulder I have no real way to know what made them that way. I don’t know their medical history, it could be the reason for their weight, and I would be wrong in my theory of why they are so fat. That fact would stand until the info of their illness and treatment came into play. If it never did, why would I consider it? If I seen a rail thin person who lived in a district full of eateries I could assume or use as theory they are anorexic because the last 6 people I seen that emaciated in that district was anorexic. If because they did not live in a dumpy neighborhood I did not make the possibility they were metheleptic, or crackheads, I would not include those possibilities as to why they are surrounded with food and places to eat that they should be able to afford but yet still emaciated. Going off just what I could see I would be wrong.

Kudos for you in at least saying you don’t know enough to say what they did. To illustrate a point, even though you don’t know what they did or exactly how they did it, you accept it. There is a lot I accept—for now. I always hold the notion that before I die it may be totally different. If I homeschooled any child I would tell them as much, it is the ”it” belief for now; don’t purchase all the tickets yet. Whether or not I understand it, I know Jupiter is there, it has been seen in teleshops before satellites, Jupiter is what Jupiter does. I don’t know what it is made of, or explain why it doesn’t fly off.

@josie If your premise was true, than no human would have any knowledge of anything except that which was a result of direct sensory experience.
You missed it. I am saying if they did not have direct knowledge they believe what someone else told them it is or was. If someone said they had an ability to chose winning teams or horses at the track if they missed 3 out of 20 many will not believe they have anything special just that they somehow beat the odds of coincidence and probability, even if they did not know how. They know something happened, that they seen, way more winning predictions than mere coincidence or chance could produce they just won’t understand how it was done thus they will not allow themselves to believe it.

And yet, everybody uses medicine, that they did not actually test in a lab, and in many cases it manages their disease.
People can see the pill, the needle, the machines that is suppose to scan their body etc, so when a doctor or pharmacist tell them to do something, it is easier for them to believe even if they did not test it directly. If they were told to walk backwards for 30 min chanting a phrase and that would eradicate their cancer they might not.

Science does not prove. Science infers…

And that’s the best science can do, lest we hear the wing of a black swan flapping.

@hypo : that just seems silly. I mean, day what you want, but I’m not one of the people all upset because they reclassified Pluto. The fact that we may know more later doesn’t mean we should negate our current knowledge.

All of science says “the data show…” Not “it is so…”

The fact that scientific inferences change is a strength, not a weakness.

@Hypocrisy_Central The real difference between science and belief is that belief based on the inerrancy of some ancient text can NEVER change and cannot even be questioned without a terrible stink being raised by that belief system’s adherents. Science, on the other hand, is continually changing. When scientist publish papers, they go to great lengths to calculate and state the degree of certainty for their results. They state what might have possibly skewed their findings and encourage the broad scientific community that reads the peer reviewed scientific journals they publish in to review their work, find out what would have to be true if it is correct, then devise experiments to see if those predictions hold true. That process is as far from absolutist religious belief assertions as it is humanly possible to get.

Sir Isaac Newton may well have been the most brilliant human who ever lived. A friend asked him why the planets orbit the sun in elliptical patterns and not pure circles. Until his time, many assumed the truth of the Bible’s claim in Genesis that the planets, Sun, Moon and stars are all fixed in spherical domes which God moves around the Earth in their appointed rounds. That should give circular orbits.

Newton replied that he didn’t know, but that he would think about it, and get back to his friend. In thinking about it, he realized that mass created attraction that we now blithely call gravity. He realized that gravity plus angular momentum form orbital velocity would create a trajectory for a planet orbiting the Sun. He also realized that there were no maths capable of dealing with the complexity of the competing forces of angular momentum and gravitational attraction. And so he invented differential calculus to deal with the necessary equations. Without a computer, the calculations to predict the orbit of a given planet were of enormous complexity, but when he worked them out, the exact ellipses the outer planets follow emerged. And Newton did all this before he turned 26 years of age.

Because they were so accurate for so many conditions, planets, comets, moons going around planets, we used these findings for several hundred years but even Newton knew he didn’t have ALL of the answer. The orbit of tiny Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, is slightly more eccentric than Newton’s equations would predict. Kepler struggled with this.

Scientist knew something was ever-so-slightly wrong, but Newton’s equations were so amazingly useful they were willing to wait for an explanation of their minor discrepancies, and that came when Albert Einstein published his theories of Special and General Relativity in 1905 and 1916 respectively. With the equations of Relativity, we were able to exactly explain the orbit of Mercury based on the distortion of space itself due to the massive gravitation of the Sun. Without factoring in Relativity, Earth’s GPS satellites would soon fail to report accurate locations. So it’s Newton’s Theory of Gravity and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity together are VERY useful.

But is it possible physics has more to reveal? It’s not just possible, it’s a near certainty. Perhaps all of spacetime is just an illusion that is powerful at the macro level where we humans interact with it, but breaks down at the quantum level. Perhaps all is a single locality. Someday we will know, and we will know because instead of accepting pet beliefs as inerrant, we keep looking for more answers.

As far as how we know what we do currently know about the composition of Jupiter, here’s a good source

Science is based on theory then an opposing theory after that. Or even an addition to existing theory. Science is a growing process. Many scientific theories of the past we laugh at today or thank them for their error since they formed the basis of opposing theories. So, many theories that exist today might be trashed in time to come.

@hypocrisy_central I think I got your main beef: it’s that when a scientist says something we take it at face value without independently examining or verifying it. Unfortunately science is too broad and too deep for any one person to understand all of it.
So when a scientist publishes something, I don’t trust him. I trust the peer review process that got the publication approved. This involves noted scientists in the same field reviewing his findings and making sure every step he took was kosher, and his conclusions sound.

We’ve never been remotely close to black holes or witnessed what they are and can do yet scientists believe they know a lot about em

End of Theory… The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Because more isn’t just more… More is different

Just like the quantum scale is different.

Truth is beginning to speak for itself. It doesn’t need human interpretation anymore.

@Schmidtybang Welcome to Fluther, but the statement that scientists believe they know a lot about Black Holes is patently false. Scientists readily admit all they do not know about black holes. They state that the laws of physics break down in a singularity, and that we may never know what goes on in their centers. They state that the event horizon is the current limit of our observational powers. And all we can observe of that is the effects of the event horizon.

Big difference between science and faith. Science is the only discipline that gets points for being wrong. Some faiths will kill to protect their perceived rightness.

@Hypocrisy_Central
“However, I must mention, by science own theory just because you have more mass doesn’t mean you have more pull. That would make them a liar on white dwarfs, and the alleged black holes.”
Mass is not the same as volume.
Geez.

@Hypocrisy_Central It seems that your game is to foist “faith” on those who claim to not have it, and then smugly reproach them for being too embarrassed to admit to their supposed faith.

You don’t seem to appreciate the concept of a model and its relative usefulness, and that science does not produce literal facts, or truth. It produces models of reality which often (not always) have real-world applications, regardless of their accuracy or truth value, and these useful models (and theories) put satellites in space, have charted the entire Earth, have mapped the human genome, and have produced the technologically advanced civilisation you live in today.

If there can be any sort of faith attributed to science, it is that it will keep on working and producing useful knowledge with practical applications—Most laypersons ignorant of science at least appreciate its results.

To anyone reasonably grounded in what science is, it is not a matter of faith, because there can be no faith in tentative knowledge that is every changing, ever revising, and being built upon with new research and evidence.

Those who go so far as to understand the difference between volume and mass may even be able enough to read and understand a research paper. As for you, I’d forget pretending that you know anything about science at all, or that you’re remotely qualified to ask anything about it, and instead pick up an elementary book on the philosophy of science, and start with nothing more complicated than basic classical mechanics.

You make it impossible for me to not come across as condescending.

@Kropotkin
You can go further.
Science has produced the most technologically advanced civilisation this solar system has ever seen.

@Hypocrisy_Central One final point. While it’s absolutely true that no scientist was around 4.6 billion years ago to observe the gas and dust cloud left over from an earlier supernova slowly aggregate due to gravitational forces, forming our Sun, our planets including Jupiter, and all the other features of our current Solar System; we can observe solar system formation going on in other places today. Here are some stunning images of a new star being born, and the hot, glowing clouds left to form bodies orbiting it. To our eyes, this appears to be happening today, but it actually occurred 1,400 years ago; because this protostar is 1,400 light years from Earth.

All I can say is…

Fact From Fiction, Truth From Diction, peoples!

I just have to…

@zenvelo “Science is based on proving a hypothesis in a repeatable experiment.”

Wrong. Science proves nothing. Scientists don’t use the word “prove.” Science is based on supporting a hypothesis in a reputable experiment.

I’m sorry, but this has been pounded into my head in every science class I’ve ever taken, so that comment was driving me nuts.

@livelaughlove21 I use it as the past tense of proof in this sense:

The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

The proof is in the pudding.

@drhat77 @hypocrisy_central I think I got your main beef: it’s that when a scientist says something we take it at face value without independently examining or verifying it.
Elementary my dear Watson, you missed it. I am merely pointing out the way you believe things you believe is no different than I. However, if there was a beef to be made is that you want to enjoy the liberty to believe [redacted] when they are fallible, but until they are your [redacted] are believed as correct, so you put a measure of faith in them—knowing they are wrong some of the time, maybe more.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Science is the only discipline that gets points for being wrong. Some faiths will kill to protect their perceived rightness.
Only those faiths which have a god who cannot defend themselves. God made everything why does He need to fear His creation? That is all I have to say on that, respond and lurva up ;-I

@Kropotkin @Hypocrisy_Central It seems that your game is to foist “faith” on those who claim to not have it, and then smugly reproach them for being too embarrassed to admit to their supposed faith.
This question is about people saying ”You should not believe this because it can’t be proven, believe what we do even though all is not known, and in time often proven wrong”. Some of you will NEVER HAVE FAITH, I already know that for the Word revealed it. I have done _my part, what you do after that is then on you, not on me. If you ever draw closer to Him, then He will draw closer to you and unlock some of what you see as a mystery. I am trying to get a better understanding why someone will believe what a man tells them about someplace or something they have not seen or been too.

You don’t seem to appreciate the concept of a model and its relative usefulness, and that science does not produce literal facts, or truth.
Boy was that a big swing and a miss. I appreciate science; the fruits of it are about me every day. I am not 100% sure how a remote works and I don’t have to know what method of science or physics make it works. If I push the button and the channel changes, then what do I care? I love the study of the heavens, I have many science things I look up, how do clouds fly when it is gallons of flying water and not only that, how come the wind can push it? Why does this flying water not all stay at the same altitude. I just reserve that what is being said might be all the way true, partly true, or completely false but believed to be true until someone in the future proves it false as it is.

As for you, I’d forget pretending that you know anything about science at all, or that you’re remotely qualified to ask anything about it, and instead pick up an elementary book on the philosophy of science, and start with nothing more complicated than basic classical mechanics.
I can say As for you, I’d forget pretending that you know anything about Christ and salvation at all, or that you’re remotely qualified to ask anything about it, and instead pick up a children’s Bible to learn the basic attributes of God and salvation, and start with nothing more complicated than basic than you are a sinner and will be doomed without the freely given salvation you adamantly refuse to believe See? That can work both ways……so refreshing.

@ETpro While it’s absolutely true that no scientist was around 4.6 billion years ago to observe the gas and dust cloud left over from an earlier supernova slowly aggregate due to gravitational forces, forming our Sun, our planets including Jupiter, and all the other features of our current Solar System; we can observe solar system formation going on in other places today. Here are some stunning images of a new star being born.
I did look at that, it was short enough. Not that I am ignoring @ragingloli, and @syz, I do plan to get back to them. It is not like I am oppose to reading over science material with an open-mind, unlike so many who open the Bible just to find holds in it too scared they might learn to save their souls. Sadly it did not answer questions I would have asked it. I agree, there were no scientist around 4.6 billion years ago therefore, that declaration of time could be wrong. That would be like trying to say when the very 1st lime tree came to existence. If this gas is because of a super nova it might have been nice for them to mention where or how that nova came to be.

(taken from the actual text off the Website)
In the images above, you are not seeing the young star itself, but rather massive jets of gases such as carbon monoxide and ionized oxygen that are shooting away from the forming star at speeds of up to 1 million kilometers per hour (about 621,000 mph).
Now they are saying up to 1 million kph as more fact than guess. If so, how did they measure it? People, myself included, would be at the mercy to have faith in those numbers or not, but those are the numbers that would be on the test.

The outflows are caused as the magnetic field of the protostar interacts with the magnetic fields of the thin disk of material that surrounds it, he said.
They know it is a thin disk, or they believe it is a thin disk? If they know 100% that it is a thin disk, show me the money. Then I can decide if it is counterfeit or real.

In previous images, this jet was almost invisible because of a large cloud of dust and gas that visible light could not penetrate.
Maybe, just maybe, a black hole is just this dense stuff tightly wrapped around a cloud or something else, not a hole or portal at all.

That second site you linked I thought more joke or something else than serious, but I figured I would look to see if there was any emeralds in that mine. There was. It illustrates my point to a tee.

Jupiter has three thin rings. The rings were discovered in 1979 by NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft. Jupiter’s rings are made up mostly of tiny dust particles.
What was on the test when I was a boy in school was Jupiter had only 9 or 10 moons and no rings. If you thought differently you were wrong. You could not state on the test that it was the best guess of the day, it was played as fact. Lo and behold, you get a satellite up there, (which is the closest thing to boots on the ground), you find out there is what, rings and near 60 some odd moons? Those things seen but never flew by could be drastically wrong once man can get a satellite out there but by the time that happens we will all be older than mummy dust, any children, their children, and their children after them. Unfortunately a lot of science takes longer to prove wrong than it is to believe that it is right.

Once upon a time, on Wis.dm I commented that “I believe in evolution.” Some rowdy astronomer doctor dude named Benny Mattson corrected me. He said, “You accept the evidence for evolution. That’s a different thing from belief altogether. Belief means you accept certain things to be true, even if there is no evidence for them. There is plenty of evidence for evolution.”

The thing about science is, if you have questions, you can go out and find the answers. If there IS no answer, you abandon the question.

However, a certain amount of my acceptance for the evidence could be considered “belief.” I accept it based on the word of hundreds of people, over years and years and years of studies and examination and presentation by people who live and breath their field. I choose to accept their word, without having to actually do the studies, or make the discoveries myself. But if I want to, I can track it all down.

@Hypocrisy_Central Why have you started preaching to everyone? I’ll start heeding Matthew 7:6, so I’m done here.

@Hypocrisy_Central [redacted] doesn’t get to be heard until a peer review committee analyzes his findings and verifies that they’re at least plausible. There is a whole academic infrastructure operating prior to the publication of science. This is what allows me, a medical doctor, to tacitly accept what astrophysicists publish. But my trust is not in “science” but this infrastructure.

Why is everybody redacting? Is the CIA here again, investigating the frizzer issue?

“This question is about people saying ‘You should not believe this because it can’t be proven, believe what we do even though all is not known, and in time often proven wrong.’”

Can you point to any examples of people saying that you should not believe something or other because it cannot be proven? There may be people who have used those words, but it’s also possible you are misinterpreting them. Either way, it seems to me that what people who pursue that line of argument are trying to say is something like this:

“When deciding what to believe, we ought to consider the amount and reliability of evidence available for the various positions we could take. Whichever position has the greatest amount of reliable evidence is the one we ought to believe—pending further evidence.”

This is, more or less, the guiding epistemological principle of both modern philosophy and modern science and has been since the Enlightenment era. A longer, but more influential statement of it can be found in David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event. In other cases, he proceeds with more caution: He weighs the opposite experiments: He considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines, with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence, proportioned to the superiority. A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experiments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior evidence.”

On the basis of this epistemological principle, many then claim that religious faith is not justifiable. They argue that it is based on bits of human testimony—an already questionable source—that were passed on by way of the notoriously unreliable process of oral transmission (until finally being written down after several retellings). They may also have more specific arguments against particular religious beliefs. This they contrast with science, which is based on fairly large amounts of relatively reliable evidence. You are of course free to contest this argument, but it is no good to misrepresent it in an effort to defend your own views. A Christian, after all, should be on the side of the angels in all things.

@Hypocrisy_Central “God made everything…”

God didn’t make this question. Nor my answer. God did not make everything. But she did make the ingredients for Ben & Jerry’s so she’s alright by me.

@Hypocrisy_Central ”...why does He need to fear His creation?”

Because “He” is afraid that we’ll discover that “He” is really a She.

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m on to you now. You gave your motives away here. Your post above proves you are wrong about everything you said, and there is no reason for me to discuss your obvious, deliberate error any further, because you have already disproved your claims.

See, two can play that silly game.

@SavoirFaire Can you point to any examples of people saying that you should not believe something or other because it cannot be proven?
Why not ask me to toss a Panzer tank that would be easier. To go back over my history here and cobble that data together would take about as much time as a Franciscan Monk copying the Bible and be as thick as the Iliad when done.

In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event.
Gravity is foolproof, watertight, and perfect, if you can call it that. It has not failed or changed that I ever heard of. With many other parts of science, it is not perfect. Peer reviews be damned. Does it matter if three people are wrong with say, how many moons Jupiter has or three hundred, if they were wrong, they were wrong. Numbers of agreeable people don’t make something correct. I say again, given time a portion of what science say today is correct will be obsolete, and others will remain inconclusive.

@no one @Hypocrisy_Central ”...why does He need to fear His creation?”
Because “He” is afraid that we’ll discover that “He” is really a She.
Lord don’t smote him he doesn’t know what he is saying.

@ETpro You gave your motives away here. Your post above proves you are wrong about everything you said, and there is no reason for me to discuss your obvious, deliberate error any further, because you have already disproved your claims.
Nah, I believe what I believe and know why I believe them. I like science, it helps back up what I believe, not that I need signs and wonders as those who do not believe. I can find it annoying that people who have no working knowledge of what I believe trying to tell me about it as if they do know. But that doesn’t mean I will let those misinformed people frame my belief on science. Science is not perfect as the link you provided pointed out in great fashion. Just as there was much more information on Jupiter revealed once a satellite was able to provide the data, there is a lot out there that will be exposed as errors if and when manned exploration or satellites get there. Until that happens, I will keep an asterisk by it, unless they can come up with something as solid as gravity which hasn’t appeared to change, at least here on Earth, since God created it.

”I like science, it helps back up what I believe”
And yet you do not even know the difference between mass and volume.

@Hypocrisy_Central I just pulled one thing out of your post above because, I admit, I’m a little lost.
You said ” Does it matter if three people are wrong with say, how many moons Jupiter has or three hundred, if they were wrong, they were wrong.” Well, yeah. Science is often wrong. The difference is, they admit when they are wrong.

Hypocrisy_Central

” thick as the Iliad when done. ’

The Iliad is not thick..

You’re getting so rat packed here I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

” Nah, I believe what I believe and know why I believe them ”

Too much belief perhaps? I think you do not understand the difference between the Newtonian laws of gravity and the theory, by Eisenstein, that explains much about gravity, or you would not use the gravity example!

@Neodarwinian
It is ‘Einstein’.

@ragingloli

Gee, you can spell/avoid typos very well!

Now, simply, explain his theory of gravity. Also tell me is it under special or general relativity, smarty pants?

Massive objects distort spacetime and objects “fall” into this distortion, rather than being attracted by a gravitational force. Oh, and it is from general relativity, little ducky.

@ragingloli

I am impressed, grasshopper!!!

Aren’t you a little bored here with no challenging questions to answer? I know I am and I will probably be banned soon fighting with all the ideologues here

So, just a warp in the space time continuum. Newton described this effect but he didn’t have a clue how to explain it.

tentacle-bump to my favorite alien overlord

@Neodarwinian You don’t get banned here for fighting with ideologues. Trolling, personal insults, that sort of thing will get you banned. Feel free to hold forth for your opinion. Just don’t resort to personal attacks to do it. But then, I would hope you wouldn’t support an assertion via an ad hominem fallacy.

This is crazy. What is happening?

@Dutchess_III it was kind of a crazy question. I think we all got troll baited.

@Hypocrisy_Central I asked for examples only because I was curious as to whether you were accurately interpreting past objections. Unless they used the exact words you are using—which is doubtful given that you say you cannot remember any specific examples—it is unclear that your argument here actually applies to them.

As for much of science being imperfect, no one here has denied that. Indeed, many have stated it themselves. The first post I made here also pointed out that recognizing the fallibility of our current understanding of things is a standard part of the scientific method. That’s why research papers are published with sections detailing possible sources of error.

The issue is not what we can prove with certainty, but to what we should give credence. That’s the point of the Hume quote: a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. So if one hypothesis is better supported than another, the logical thing to do is believe that until it is disproven (if it ever is).

What you seem to misunderstand about the peer review process is that it is not supposed to give us certainty or ensure that we only publish things that will never be disproven. The point is to make sure that what gets published lives up to the rigorous standards of good science.

No, more people believing something doesn’t make it more true. This is just as true for science as it is for religion. But the issue here is not truth—it is belief. Given that we lack certainty, the rational thing to do is believe only that which is based on reliable evidence.

@ETpro

The thread was lost long ago and we were way past opinion. I do not go looking for trouble but I will defend myself against attack and I will comment when I see utter foolishness. ( much of that here ).

As I said before, this site is nothing to lose so I treat it as I have nothing to lose. Perhaps some fence sitter will see that religious trolls can be stood up to and then they will be able to do it themselves.

Support what assertion? As I said this thread was lost long ago.

” Isn’t a lot of science anchored on a great deal of faith and pseudo fact? ”

You don’t think this question is incredible ill posed at the least?

@Neodarwinian Suggestions for comity. Take them or leave them. If your position is that all who express flawed ideas are deserving of open derision and you’re here to insure they get it, you will not change opinions and you will not be here long. You can write off this community as unimportant, but the same goes for all other human communities. Take that tack, and you marginalize yourself and whatever good your good mind might accomplish.

@drhat77 it was kind of a crazy question. I think we all got troll baited.

The OP is a bit of an odd ball. He’s been here almost 4 years now, I’m 100% certain he believes everything he says.

^ I’ve known him for almost seven. Yep.

I envy you, Seek.

It seems he’s referring to gravity as the physical constant, and not the theory of gravitation.

He seems to have a psychological need for continuity and certainty, and feels betrayed by the science “facts” which get overturned and superceded with new evidence.

And despite so many excellent responses, I doubt he’s learned anything at all. He probably thinks he’s the one putting everyone else straight.

Also, he claims that science “helps back up” what he believes.
Except of course when it does not, then he goes to the “science is based on faith” schtick so he can ignore every bit of science that contradicts him.

It’s the danger inherent in religious thinking.

I know this is fact, 100%, because it’s a fact. It’s a fact because it says it’s a fact.

Once you have absolute certainty of anything (regardless of how flawed that certainty is) you require it of any answer to any question.

Have a moral debacle? I know where you can get an absolute solution! Anything that does not provide absolutes looks weak in comparison.

Problem is, that certainty is based on a logical fallacy. And the admission that your basis of comfortable certainty holds the possibility of error is painfully worldview-altering.

There is a long recovery period for that pain. Believe me.

@ETpro

You ’ if ’ too much and you give too much advice.

” You can write off this community as unimportant, but the same goes for all other human communities. ”

The first part of the sentence. This community is unimportant. The second part of the sentence. This ” community ” is certainly not representative of any human community I know. When I go to my local city shelter to volunteer walking and training dog, what my good mind accomplishes, I am not called a liar, a woman, a child or another name that comes to some less than good mind.. Where did you get the idea this is some kind of community? This is the Internet!! As far as derision, I give it back when I receive it.

We are through here. As to staying here? ” What, me worry? ”

PS:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_vertex_of_this_parabola_is_at_3_-2_When_the_x_value_is_4_the_y_value_is_3_What_is_the_coefficient_of_the_squared_expression_in_the_parabolas_equation

A small sample of work done at a Q and A site. This is what good minds are meant to do.

In a forum in which one’s gender is not visibly apparent, is “woman” an insult? If so, what does that say about the one offended?

A specific answer to a math question? Hardly representative of good work for a social discussion site. Do you have any examples of friendly banter or deep insight or useful advice?

@Neodarwinian I assume this is your amusement

Now you’re catching on. Social. Discussion. Site. We come here specifically for amusement and camaraderie.

@ragingloli And yet you do not even know the difference between mass and volume. You do not know the difference from a relationship with the Father and religion, so we are even, though that is another issue.. All though not knowing the difference between mass or volume will not keep me from salvation; knowing everything and everything about science won’t grant me salvation. I am happy with what I know.

Massive objects distort spacetime and objects “fall” into this distortion, rather than being attracted by a gravitational force.
Did they captured it on video? Other than that it is liken to a UFO, but at least the UFO was witnessed by many and sometimes up close.

Except of course when it does not, then he goes to the “science is based on faith”
Let’s get it right, it takes a measurer of faith for you, or anyone else, to believe the science you believe. If you did not put faith in the test yielding the proof you expected how could you trust it?

@Dutchess_III I’m a little lost. You said ” Does it matter if three people are wrong with say, how many moons Jupiter has or three hundred, if they were wrong, they were wrong.” Well, yeah. Science is often wrong. The difference is, theyadmit when they are wrong.
Most of the time they don’t know they are wrong, they really are, but what shows them they are wrong as not manifested itself yet. How many decades were they wrong about Jupiter but thought they were right; at least that is what they told people to the point that is what was printed in text books.

@Neodarwinian You’re getting so rat packed here I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
When you are doing something right everyone is convicted and go on the attack. Besides, if they did not come to my questions to pat themselves on the back and lurve each other up, they would not get to their next mansion quicker. I somewhat relish the role of being a lurve kingmaker. Watch, there will be more quips with tons more people patting themselves on the back.

@SavoirFaire Massive objects distort spacetime and objects “fall” into this distortion, rather than being attracted by a gravitational force.
I can go with that so long as it is understood some of the stuff is wrong just not proven yet, because of time or technology.

@FutureMemory The OP is a bit of an odd ball. He’s been here almost 4 years now, I’m 100% certain he believes everything he says.
Curious, to be an “odd ball” I would have to be outside the normal, but we know we are far too squeamish and PC to admit anyone or any people are outside the norm, so “odd ball” loses all of its steam. I will believe what I believe until someone comes up with the smoking gun, they rarely do.

@Seek_Kolinahr I’ve known him for almost seven. Yep.
I have been here that long and all I have is a 10k mansion that was in foreclosure when I got it! I better start sucking up and brownnosing. My questions are brooming everyone else into the mansion but making it the old fashion way; one question and answer at a time is taking too long.

”I am happy with what I know.”
In your case, nothing.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Huh?!?

If you say so.

PS: Still no to your original question. Science rules!

@Hippy C….You keep coming back to the Jupiter thing. Can you show me where and when they thought Jupiter had 3 moons and it actually has 9 or whatever it is you’re claiming?

The thing is that no one ever said Jupiter has three moons and no more will ever be found. All anyone says is Jupiter has three moons. Which it does.
And more.

It would be an entirely different story if people claimed Jupiter had nine moons and it turned out to have only three.

Better information leads to more discoveries. That doesn’t mean the people working with less information were stupid or lying. They simply told what they saw.

Jupiter has hundreds of satellites. It’s a huge planet with a ginormous gravity well, situated next to an asteroid belt. Of course it has a bunch of satellites.

Earth has one satellite. I can say that with 99% certainty.

We could have another tiny satellite that we can’t see orbiting around the Earth, in which case we would have 2 satellites orbiting the Earth.

@Dutchess_III We could have another tiny satellite that we can’t see orbiting around the Earth, in which case we would have 2 satellites orbiting the Earth.
What I got from the physics and science we do have, which could be wrong, producing another moon as you say, this other satellite would have to be smaller than a man-made satellite and thus would not be called a planet anyhow, and disqualified as being a moon, but something else floating in an orbit around the Earth. Seeing science is near infallible on that, Earth has one satellite.

Satellites are not planets. The moon is not a planet. It is not big enough to be a planet. The moon is a satellite.

Based on size alone, the moon could be considered a planet, since it is actually bigger than Pluto.
So, if the moon did not orbit Earth, but the sun directly, it would be a planet.

Pluto isn’t a planet any more. Well, OK. It’s a dwarf planet. So is the moon a dwarf planet?

The Moon is also only slightly smaller than Mercury.

So what makes the moon a satellite and not a planet? The fact that it’s orbiting Earth and not the sun?

how is this still going on?

IDK