Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Foo
Reload this Page >

Is Science Debatable?

Notices
Foo Light hearted off-topic chit chat with no general subject.

Is Science Debatable?

Old 03-07-22, 10:02 AM
  #1  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Is Science Debatable?

If science is all about establishing a set of facts, what exactly is there to debate? The Method?

I think one can debate theories, but you can't debate the facts.

For example, there is a debate among scientists on whether there is life elsewhere. There is absolutely no proof of this anywhere. But, yet, it's still a hot topic of debate. And, what does it really matter if there is other life out there anyway? Don't we have enough to concern ourselves with already? lol!
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 10:37 AM
  #2  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,110
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3410 Post(s)
Liked 864 Times in 600 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
And, what does it really matter if there is other life out there anyway? Don't we have enough to concern ourselves with already? lol!
You manage to sink yourself with your own torpedo. You could ask this of your post.
njkayaker is online now  
Old 03-07-22, 10:41 AM
  #3  
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 551 Times in 411 Posts
Of course science is debatable, except when the so-called elites shut down any objection(s) to the established scientific fact, which there are virtually no scientific facts established, only theories. And this is why science is NOT self-correcting, contrary to popular belief. A war must happen for before established science is overthrown.

There are countless examples of this throughout history, one of my favorite is when the Big Bang theory replaced the Steady State universe theory. And now some are casting a critical eye on the Big Bang theory --- never ending


.
work4bike is offline  
Likes For work4bike:
Old 03-07-22, 10:43 AM
  #4  
Hondo Gravel
Life Feeds On Life
 
Hondo Gravel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Hondo,Texas
Posts: 2,117

Bikes: Too many Motobecanes

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2942 Post(s)
Liked 3,155 Times in 2,040 Posts
Hondo Gravel is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 11:05 AM
  #5  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
You manage to sink yourself with your own torpedo. You could ask this of your post.


Yeah, man. It's called karma.


If I could have asked this of my post I would have.
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 11:51 AM
  #6  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 22,826
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17332 Post(s)
Liked 9,252 Times in 5,209 Posts
Some people really need lots of attention.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Likes For Seattle Forrest:
Old 03-07-22, 11:55 AM
  #7  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,734

Bikes: Breezer Radar

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked 1,524 Times in 736 Posts
Science isn't really about establishing a set of facts, it's a method of constructing explanations. And science is evolutionary - older explanations are constantly being replaced by newer, better explanations.
tyrion is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 12:27 PM
  #8  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
So, then anything is possible given enough TIME. What's the debate?
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 03:41 PM
  #9  
Juan Foote
LBKA (formerly punkncat)
 
Juan Foote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jawja
Posts: 4,032

Bikes: Spec Roubaix SL4, GT Traffic 1.0

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1701 Post(s)
Liked 553 Times in 387 Posts
When I went to school Pluto was a planet, dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles that dragged their tails, and the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Scientific "fact" is merely a repeatable experiement used to prove it up until the time we expand our knowledge and thus finding out what we didn't know. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Juan Foote is offline  
Likes For Juan Foote:
Old 03-07-22, 03:53 PM
  #10  
Polaris OBark
Dirt Roadie
 
Polaris OBark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked 598 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
If science is all about establishing a set of facts, what exactly is there to debate? The Method?

I think one can debate theories, but you can't debate the facts.

For example, there is a debate among scientists on whether there is life elsewhere. There is absolutely no proof of this anywhere. But, yet, it's still a hot topic of debate. And, what does it really matter if there is other life out there anyway? Don't we have enough to concern ourselves with already? lol!
Science is all about formulating and testing hypotheses. Experimental empirical observations ("facts") are used to test hypotheses. Some experimental facts may refute a hypothesis, or force us to reformulate and improve a hypothesis. Debate (the legitimate variety) is typically involved when the interpretation of an experiment (or a theory) is ambiguous.

People with alternative agendas often try to pretend that denying scientific evidence (like evidence for the existence of Evolution, or continental drift, or viral pathology) somehow constitutes legitimate debate. Others do the same thing with historical events, like the NAZI holocaust. We are in an era where many people with ideological, religious or political agendas try to mask their baseless claims as reasonable and legitimate debate, so it is worth establishing what that actually means. Some of these extreme elements claim that science is just another "belief system." The crucial point is that science is more of a "disbelief system." You try to test and refute a hypothesis as vigorously as possible. If it survives all of the attempts, you can cautiously and tentatively start to believe it.

Last edited by Polaris OBark; 03-07-22 at 03:58 PM.
Polaris OBark is offline  
Likes For Polaris OBark:
Old 03-07-22, 04:07 PM
  #11  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
So, it's consensus of the facts based on some rudimentary tools. However, once established facts will eventually evolve as our tools evolve most like?. So, these things are only really "debatable" as they apply to TIME and the willingness to 'observe.'

Last edited by Bandrada; 03-07-22 at 04:11 PM.
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 04:14 PM
  #12  
Polaris OBark
Dirt Roadie
 
Polaris OBark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked 598 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
So, it's consensus of the facts based on some rudimentary tools. However, once established facts will eventually evolve as our tools evolve most like?. So, these things are only really "debatable" as they apply to TIME and the willingness to 'observe.'
No.

It is about truth, or veracity. Truth is not established by social consensus. I'm not sure what is meant by tools, but it might be that, with improved instrumentation, you can conduct better experiments more able to produce observations that are better at testing theories. Observation isn't a passive thing, and "facts" are impregnated by theory.
Polaris OBark is offline  
Likes For Polaris OBark:
Old 03-07-22, 04:25 PM
  #13  
clemsongirl 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 506 Post(s)
Liked 2,197 Times in 708 Posts
Originally Posted by Polaris OBark View Post
No.

It is about truth, or veracity. Truth is not established by social consensus. I'm not sure what is meant by tools, but it might be that, with improved instrumentation, you can conduct better experiments more able to produce observations that are better at testing theories. Observation isn't a passive thing, and "facts" are impregnated by theory.
For those who don’t or even worse can’t understand science…..scientific theories are explanations of some aspect of the natural world that incorporate facts, data, and tested observations…..they aren’t just hunches or social opinions. That bacteria can become immune to antibiotics is a fact through investigated, established, and substantiated application of the scientific method and helps make up part of the scientific theory of natural selection. Through the scientific evidence, facts, data and direct observations made on and above Earth’s surface also show the planet’s climate is significantly changing and that human activities are the primary driver of those changes ….and are the substantiated facts for the scientific theory of our climate change problems.

Only when scientists start gathering many facts, data etc. together can theories start to be built and they change/are updated through new factual accuracy found through, again, the proper application of scientific method.
__________________
"The negative feelings we all have can be addictive…just as the positive…it’s up to
us to decide which ones we want to choose and feed”… Pema Chodron
clemsongirl is offline  
Likes For clemsongirl:
Old 03-07-22, 04:26 PM
  #14  
Moe Zhoost
Half way there
 
Moe Zhoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,656

Bikes: Many, and the list changes frequently

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 882 Post(s)
Liked 681 Times in 411 Posts
Good science is peer-reviewed, mate. This is the perfect definition of debatable.
Moe Zhoost is offline  
Likes For Moe Zhoost:
Old 03-07-22, 04:30 PM
  #15  
jack pot 
Fxxxxr
 
jack pot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: falfurrias texas
Posts: 914

Bikes: wabi classic (stolen & recovered)

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2608 Post(s)
Liked 1,078 Times in 816 Posts
Scientific "observations" need to be distinguished from Scientific "concoctions". Debates can occur in regards to interpreting certain observations but concoctions such as TNT, Plastics, etc etc are matter of factly the result of specific equations & calculations
__________________
Nothing is true---everything is permitted
jack pot is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 04:59 PM
  #16  
Riveting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,221

Bikes: '13 Diamondback Hybrid Commuter, '17 Spec Roubaix Di2, '17 Spec Camber 29'er, '19 CDale Topstone Gravel

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 589 Post(s)
Liked 443 Times in 260 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
For example, there is a debate among scientists on whether there is life elsewhere. There is absolutely no proof of this anywhere.
There is hard proof that life exists, RIGHT HERE. So the question should be "What proof is there that life DOESN'T exist elsewhere?" I know of no facts to support that position.

In the vastness of the universe it's estimated that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a trillion trillion, solar systems (there's only a billion billion ants on this planet). To think we are the ONLY planet in all of THAT to have fostered life (intelligent or primordial ooze) is thinking far too much of ourselves. The data pool of planets that we've actually tested for signs of life is extremely small, but so far we've found life on 1 out of 8/9 planets in our own solar system. In theory, that means there may be life in ~100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the solar systems out there.

The reason to search for life is because in about 4 billion years, planet Earth will no longer support life due to the sun growing in size, which will eventually scorch the Earth to the point of no longer supporting life as we know it. Earthlings WILL need to leave this planet if we want to survive as a species, and what better time than right now to start looking for other planets that support life. Unfortunately, at our current speed of space travel (Voyager probe), it would take
well over 73,000 years to reach the next closest planet (Proxima Centauri B) that MAY support life. That's 3,650 generations that need to be born and die on that travelling spacecraft, just to find out IF that planet could support humans.
Riveting is offline  
Likes For Riveting:
Old 03-07-22, 05:01 PM
  #17  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 22,826
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17332 Post(s)
Liked 9,252 Times in 5,209 Posts
Originally Posted by Juan Foote View Post
When I went to school Pluto was a planet, dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles that dragged their tails, and the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Scientific "fact" is merely a repeatable experiement used to prove it up until the time we expand our knowledge and thus finding out what we didn't know. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
Dinosaurs and atoms were our best understanding at the time, never pronouncements of truth. If you didn't understand that, that's on you.

Pluto, we changed the definition of what a planet is.

Communication is a two way street. People need to do a good job speaking, people also need to do a good job listening.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Likes For Seattle Forrest:
Old 03-07-22, 05:05 PM
  #18  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by Polaris OBark View Post
No.

It is about truth, or veracity. Truth is not established by social consensus. I'm not sure what is meant by tools, but it might be that, with improved instrumentation, you can conduct better experiments more able to produce observations that are better at testing theories. Observation isn't a passive thing, and "facts" are impregnated by theory.

So, you have observations on one side and theories on the other. Through experimentation you draw some lines and with any luck they match up and we call this a consensus (better known as fact). Sometimes I cheat, and there are only a few options left so by default the theory and the observation are a "pair." lol, the art of test taking.

Last edited by Bandrada; 03-07-22 at 05:09 PM.
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 05:05 PM
  #19  
Darth Lefty 
Disco Infiltrator
 
Darth Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 12,821

Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Timberjack, Expert TG, Samba tandem

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2708 Post(s)
Liked 1,543 Times in 1,006 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
So, then anything is possible given enough TIME. What's the debate?
I thought this was a science thread but it's an existential crisis thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...the_far_future
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Darth Lefty is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 05:11 PM
  #20  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by clemsongirl View Post
For those who don’t or even worse can’t understand science…..scientific theories are explanations of some aspect of the natural world that incorporate facts, data, and tested observations…..they aren’t just hunches or social opinions. That bacteria can become immune to antibiotics is a fact through investigated, established, and substantiated application of the scientific method and helps make up part of the scientific theory of natural selection. Through the scientific evidence, facts, data and direct observations made on and above Earth’s surface also show the planet’s climate is significantly changing and that human activities are the primary driver of those changes ….and are the substantiated facts for the scientific theory of our climate change problems.

Only when scientists start gathering many facts, data etc. together can theories start to be built and they change/are updated through new factual accuracy found through, again, the proper application of scientific method.
Immunity was probably well understood before there was any actual science behind it. Science discovered a few of the "mechanisms."
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 05:12 PM
  #21  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
I thought this was a science thread but it's an existential crisis thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...the_far_future

Is this a critique of my methodology? lol!
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 05:13 PM
  #22  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by Riveting View Post
There is hard proof that life exists, RIGHT HERE. So the question should be "What proof is there that life DOESN'T exist elsewhere?" I know of no facts to support that position.

In the vastness of the universe it's estimated that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a trillion trillion, solar systems (there's only a billion billion ants on this planet). To think we are the ONLY planet in all of THAT to have fostered life (intelligent or primordial ooze) is thinking far too much of ourselves. The data pool of planets that we've actually tested for signs of life is extremely small, but so far we've found life on 1 out of 8/9 planets in our own solar system. In theory, that means there may be life in ~100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the solar systems out there.

The reason to search for life is because in about 4 billion years, planet Earth will no longer support life due to the sun growing in size, which will eventually scorch the Earth to the point of no longer supporting life as we know it. Earthlings WILL need to leave this planet if we want to survive as a species, and what better time than right now to start looking for other planets that support life. Unfortunately, at our current speed of space travel (Voyager probe), it would take
well over 73,000 years to reach the next closest planet (Proxima Centauri B) that MAY support life. That's 3,650 generations that need to be born and die on that travelling spacecraft, just to find out IF that planet could support humans.
Whoa! I have enough to worry about! Personally, if I live to be 73,000 years old I will have to assume I didn't work hard enough. hahahaha!
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 05:18 PM
  #23  
Bandrada
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426

Bikes: ...

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6591 Post(s)
Liked 383 Times in 334 Posts
Originally Posted by jack pot View Post
Scientific "observations" need to be distinguished from Scientific "concoctions". Debates can occur in regards to interpreting certain observations but concoctions such as TNT, Plastics, etc etc are matter of factly the result of specific equations & calculations
So, if we follow the scientists we will eventually get to some science?

Last edited by Bandrada; 03-07-22 at 05:23 PM.
Bandrada is offline  
Old 03-07-22, 05:26 PM
  #24  
Polaris OBark
Dirt Roadie
 
Polaris OBark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 900
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked 598 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
So, you have observations on one side and theories on the other. Through experimentation you draw some lines and with any luck they match up and we call this a consensus (better known as fact). Sometimes I cheat, and there are only a few options left so by default the theory and the observation are a "pair." lol, the art of test taking.
That's why I like using free response questions rather than multiple guess. It is very easy to see when the student simply doesn't get it.
Polaris OBark is offline  
Likes For Polaris OBark:
Old 03-07-22, 06:01 PM
  #25  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,110
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3410 Post(s)
Liked 864 Times in 600 Posts
Originally Posted by Bandrada View Post
For example, there is a debate among scientists on whether there is life elsewhere.
This is less science than speculation since it's near impossible (at the moment) to find evidence one way or another.

Anyway, is there any scientist that says life elsewhere is impossible?

It seems the "debate" (probably not the best word for what is being done anyway) is about probability.

It's a bit weird to use this as an example.
njkayaker is online now  
Likes For njkayaker:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.