New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Polymath257]

I'm sure I don't know but I don't see how an acceleration can be reconciled here. If it can then why was it not predicted?

Einstein had introduced a cosmological constant in order to allow for a static universe. When it was found that the universe does, in fact, expand, the CC was discarded as it complicates the math and was thought unnecessary.

However, the CC is a good explanation for the expansion. It just has a different value that Einstein thought.

So, there was a rather natural extension of the basic Big bang scenario that was considered and put on a shelf. When the date went that way, it was taken off the shelf.

The basic aspect of the CC (or dark energy, the two are mostly equivalent) is that it represents an energy density that stays constant upon expansion or contraction: an actual energy density of space itself. When that is added in, you get an expansion.

 

[ecco]

So we have two camps; God is disproven and science is proven/ God is established and science is not.

That is an inaccurate comment. It is far more accurate to say:
There is overwhelming evidence that the scientific method and science have produced greater and greater insights into the reality of nature; There is no evidence for any gods.

 

[cladking]

That is an inaccurate comment. It is far more accurate to say:
There is overwhelming evidence that the scientific method and science have produced greater and greater insights into the reality of nature; There is no evidence for any gods.

I think it would be far more true to say that science provides insight into most apparent facets of the nature of reality and far too little is known at this point to assume or preclude the existence of any Creator(s).

So long as people believe in physical "law" and a magical science that has meaning outside its metaphysics there is an extreme danger that scientific results will be used inappropriately. Just as you can calculate how how much fuel a steam locomotive will consume to go from Australia to Hawaii, results of science can be used to address questions that can't be addressed.

Science is a powerful engine but everything has its limitations. Most of what most of us believe about science is extrapolation based of definitions and experiment and is not "truth" and is only a part of reality. I'd remind people that chaos theory is still in its infancy and a real understanding of reality which might never come would have to incorporate it and still render accurate prediction. People lost track of the immense complexity of reality. This apparent complexity has increased a virtually infinite number of orders of magnitudes just in my own lifetime but people are still trying to see reality in terms of a few equations. While it's most impressive how far and how fast science has progressed this seems to actually mask just how little we actually know. It seems the more we must learn to specialize the less we can see of the complexity. The more closely we examine a facet the harder it is to see the boundaries between reality and extrapolation and the harder to see how little any of us really know.

Obviously there are lots of great scientists but this hardly changes any of these calculations. Even in aggregate humans are nearly perfectly ignorant because we can still see almost none of reality and its sum total. To some extent we are even looking in all the wrong places. Instead of examining the faces using mathematics maybe we should concentrate on the crystal or the light.

 

[cladking]

None of this has ANY bearing on whether or not the Big Bang theory is a good scientific model.

All consciousness is individual. All ideas are individual. All models are individual.

Models are an attempt of individuals to understand and remember complex knowledge and simple experiment. They are mnemonics that are held as beliefs.

Not only are models individual but in a population they evolve over time as more is learned and more experiment is done. Individuals tweak their models. We each use our models to make predictions and calculations or to explain actual events (predictions after the fact).

By definition a good model will make good prediction but I don't remember anyone in the old days even suggesting that the universe might be accelerating. Perhaps that model was a bad model.

 

[cladking]

The basic aspect of the CC (or dark energy, the two are mostly equivalent) is that it represents an energy density that stays constant upon expansion or contraction: an actual energy density of space itself. When that is added in, you get an expansion.

Interesting, and I presume well said.

I've long suspected the problem and the need for constants of all sorts are bad definitions for space, time, etc. It's like defining the surface of the earth as flat and then having to do calculations to get to Mars.

 

[exchemist]

All consciousness is individual. All ideas are individual. All models are individual.

Models are an attempt of individuals to understand and remember complex knowledge and simple experiment. They are mnemonics that are held as beliefs.

Not only are models individual but in a population they evolve over time as more is learned and more experiment is done. Individuals tweak their models. We each use our models to make predictions and calculations or to explain actual events (predictions after the fact).

By definition a good model will make good prediction but I don't remember anyone in the old days even suggesting that the universe might be accelerating. Perhaps that model was a bad model.

So? All you are saying here is that we have learnt more through observation than was known when you are at school. The big bang model accounts for the CMBR and isotropic expansion. It is so successful at that that people now look for anisotropies in the CMBR of one part in 10,000 and treat them as significant when they find them. That suggests it is a good model.

Anyhow, all this is about details of one theory, chosen by you out of thousands in physical science. Your original contention was that science continually contradicts itself and that this was a good example. Clearly it is nothing of the kind. Even if it were, it would be far from enough evidence to support such a sweeping statement.

 

[sooda]

That is an inaccurate comment. It is far more accurate to say:
There is overwhelming evidence that the scientific method and science have produced greater and greater insights into the reality of nature; There is no evidence for any gods.

Science does actually make a difference.

You may find this interesting.

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia

 

[cladking]

So? All you are saying here is that we have learnt more through observation than was known when you are at school. The big bang model accounts for the CMBR and isotropic expansion. It is so successful at that that people now look for anisotropies in the CMBR of one part in 10,000 and treat them as significant when they find them. That suggests it is a good model.

Anyhow, all this is about details of one theory, chosen by you out of thousands in physical science. Your original contention was that science continually contradicts itself and that this was a good example. Clearly it is nothing of the kind. Even if it were, it would be far from enough evidence to support such a sweeping statement.

If we actually understood things like constants, gravity, and the fundamental forces; if we understood small scale or long term events; if we could explain all observations and make predictions outside of the models or how any model might evolve, any of these things, then I'd completely agree with you.

When I said science contradicts itself I was referring to Look and See Science and especially soup of the day science and not to cosmology except cosmology at the cutting edge and especially cosmology based strictly on mathematics with little or no supporting evidence and no experiment at all. It's highly improbable that all or even any two of the cutting edge hypotheses can be correct. Any one might but not any two. But, again, I am referring principally to soup of the day science where experts in things like nutrition or climatology go look and see what's what and then tell us about the "reality" they see. One day it's coffee bad then it's coffee good. One day we are causing an ice age and the next we're all gonna melt. Most of what people now call "science" isn't science at all and we are so woefully miseducated half of aviation engineers think a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt and we spend millions to shut down swimming pools in steel frame building and send the swimmers out into the lightning storm.

I have nothing against real science though I am out of date. I do know enough real science to recognize clap trap and ignorance when I see it (usually).

 

[ecco]

I think it would be far more true to say that science provides insight into most apparent facets of the nature of reality and far too little is known at this point to assume or preclude the existence of any Creator(s).

It is not science that precludes the existence of any Creator(s). It is history that shows the errors of those who believe in a Creator. Creators, God, gods, whatever you want to call them, are the creations of man's imaginings. Get it? God(s) do not create Man; Man created Gods. You believe this almost as much as I do.

You do not think for a minute that Hichaba Nihancan created the Universe.
You do not think for a minute that Mulungu created the Universe.
You do not think for a minute that Purusha, created the Universe.

But you do believe that one of the gods written about 6000 years did create the Universe.

The reason is that you were probably born and raised in America to God-Fearin' parents. You were not a child of the Arapaho or in the Congo or in India.

So long as people believe in physical "law" and a magical science that has meaning outside its metaphysics there is an extreme danger that scientific results will be used inappropriately. Just as you can calculate how how much fuel a steam locomotive will consume to go from Australia to Hawaii, results of science can be used to address questions that can't be addressed.

Huh? "used to address questions that can't be addressed"??? What?

Science is a powerful engine but everything has its limitations. Most of what most of us believe about science is extrapolation based of definitions and experiment and is not "truth" and is only a part of reality. I'd remind people that chaos theory is still in its infancy and a real understanding of reality which might never come would have to incorporate it and still render accurate prediction.

Chaos theory is used in predicting weather.

Weather prediction will never be perfect because we will never be able to correctly pinpoint the starting position of every molecule. Nevertheless, weather prediction is much, much better than it was a mere 100 years ago.

People lost track of the immense complexity of reality. This apparent complexity has increased a virtually infinite number of orders of magnitudes just in my own lifetime but people are still trying to see reality in terms of a few equations.

I don't think people in the sciences have "lost track of the immense complexity of reality".


Perhaps it is you that has been overwhelmed by the immense complexity of reality.

While it's most impressive how far and how fast science has progressed this seems to actually mask just how little we actually know. It seems the more we must learn to specialize the less we can see of the complexity. The more closely we examine a facet the harder it is to see the boundaries between reality and extrapolation and the harder to see how little any of us really know.

Substitute your "I" for the "we".

Obviously there are lots of great scientists but this hardly changes any of these calculations. Even in aggregate humans are nearly perfectly ignorant because we can still see almost none of reality and its sum total.

Nonsense.

To some extent we are even looking in all the wrong places. Instead of examining the faces using mathematics maybe we should concentrate on the crystal or the light.

OK, you just went back to your mysticism.

 

[ecco]

Science does actually make a difference.

You may find this interesting.

The Bible Unearthed - Wikipedia

I wouldn't bother to read an article where you didn't bother to show your own thoughts.

 

[cladking]

God(s) do not create Man; Man created Gods. You believe this almost as much as I do.

I believe man created the gods in his own image but the concept became confused.

Huh? "used to address questions that can't be addressed"??? What?

What kind of mileage did the locomotive get?

How long did it take to get to Honolulu?

I don't think people in the sciences have "lost track of the immense complexity of reality".

Most scientists don't seem to have a clue. Many actually believe every electron is identical.

Perhaps it is you that has been overwhelmed by the immense complexity of reality.

In a sense. There aren't enough powers of ten.

Nonsense.

Homo Omnisciencis. We see what we believe rather than reality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If we actually understood things like constants, gravity, and the fundamental forces; if we understood small scale or long term events; if we could explain all observations and make predictions outside of the models or how any model might evolve, any of these things, then I'd completely agree with you.

So all you require is that we understand everything...with perfect predictive power...

When I said science contradicts itself I was referring to Look and See Science and especially soup of the day science and not to cosmology except cosmology at the cutting edge and especially cosmology based strictly on mathematics with little or no supporting evidence and no experiment at all.

I wonder what journals, conferences, proceedings, seminars, etc. ,you are basing your conceptions of "Look and See Science" (whatever that is) on. My guess is that this:

But, again, I am referring principally to soup of the day science where experts in things like nutrition or climatology go look and see what's what and then tell us about the "reality" they see. One day it's coffee bad then it's coffee good. One day we are causing an ice age and the next we're all gonna melt.

indicates that your principle source for understanding what such "science" is consists of popular science reporting and "science" news. Indeed, this is typically filled with contradictions, almost always conflicts with established results, and is generally written to by non-scientists for the general public in order to make money. Since nobody ever made money in the news by reporting findings that were already quite well known and because sensationalism sells, the view of scientific research one gets from such sources on just about any field is going to be horribly, horribly skewed, inaccurate, and generally wrong.
In science literature in climatology (or nutrition, or quantum computing, or neuroscience, or big data, or any other fad field or popular topic) it is normal for studies and papers published in journals to rely heavily on work done 20+ years ago, and nothing gets published that doesn't build out of work done over many years (usually much of the most relevant work having been carried out by the lab(s) involved in the work behind the study and/or their collaborator). What makes it to the press release articles is a great deal less. What makes it to popular science and science news is generally mostly distortions and gross simplifications with sensationlist headlines designed to make it look like any study reported on is somehow breaking news (which can usually be shown to be baseless by a perusal of the introduction in the actual study where previous work on the question(s) addressed by the study is reviewed).

 

[cladking]

indicates that your principle source for understanding what such "science" is consists of popular science reporting and "science" news. Indeed, this is typically filled with contradictions, almost always conflicts with established results, and is generally written to by non-scientists for the general public in order to make money.

I confess that much of the "science" I read is reported by the media. I'm fully aware that the media lie and is populated with uneducated and ignorant reporters and editors so they mangle every story (and imaginary event) that they report. I frequently decry the failed educational system that has led to this situation.

I don't have enough time to read the better stuff and am far enough out of date that most of it goes over my head anyway. I lack the interest to try to catch up and somehow my math ability isn't as good as it once was. People see what they believe and in time come to be their beliefs. I haven't believed the answers will be available in my lifetime through math and experiment so now math and experiment are often beyond me. Science does exist. There is still real science but I'm not talking about real science but rather the claptrap which has replaced it. I do read Egyptological "science" and find the bulk of it appalling. Little of it has anything at all to do with science. I read some archaeology, geology, and anthropology as well as some related works. Linguistics!!!

Some of my perspective is dependent on things I've learned only in the last several years and chief among them is that we "think" in "language" but we are unique among life forms for thinking in a language which must be deconstructed. No other animal language shares this characteristic. This has led me to see just how dependent all science, even good science, is dependent on definitions, axioms, and the nature of words and minds that use words. Yes, we all strive to keep opinion and "words" out of experiment and interpretation but then we seem to forget the only way to hold all this knowledge is in models built from language and thought. We don't seem to even notice the importance of the individual brain which is the only source for hypotheses, experiment design, interpretation, and understanding of results. "Science" knows nothing at all and only individuals know anything.

The "problem" with science isn't that we are confused it's that language is confused. It has been confused (deconstructable) for 4000 years. There is no simple solution to the problem but there are simple steps that can be taken to mitigate the results.

 

[sooda]

I wouldn't bother to read an article where you didn't bother to show your own thoughts.

I am a huge fan of Israel Finkelstein..and opposed to pseudoarchaeology.

Pseudoarchaeology - Wikipedia

I don't see how a state could lower the bar for students this way.

 

[ecco]

What kind of mileage did the locomotive get?

How long did it take to get to Honolulu?

Actual or hypothetical? You need to properly define problems before they can be solved.

Most scientists don't seem to have a clue. Many actually believe every electron is identical.

Are they? Aren't they? How do you know?

Homo Omnisciencis. We see what we believe rather than reality.

I see my computer, I believe it's real. Scientists tell me about gravity. They can't see it, I can't see it, I believe it's real.

What's your point?

 

[cladking]

I see my computer, I believe it's real.

What's your point?

Yes! Exactly.

You believe your computer is real but what you mean by "your computer" is unique to every individual. Some wouldn't consider it "your's" if you are making payments on it, acquired it through fraudulent means, or depend on another individual to trouble shoot problems. Some would rank how much "your's" it is.

More to the point though is that not only do computers vary but everyone's understanding varies. Some people see hardware and some software. Some think computers are just to provide dirty pictures or look for things they didn't know about. Some think they are for controlling processes and systems. Some think they work mechanically, electronically, or through a kind of magic that at one time required identical transistors to be measured for function. Of course computers come in all shapes and sizes and some computers contain several computers and most people own far more computers than they realize.

Everyone's model of a computer is different so everyone's definition of "computer" is different.

All knowledge isn't belief. Some knowledge is visceral; you know something in your guts. Visceral knowledge is always at the fingertips and can drive action without the interference of belief and "overthinking". When it occurs in animals we tend to mistake it for "instinct" but the reality is that a great deal of what the individual experiences is a product of and a contributor to its visceral knowledge. Animals experience no "beliefs" because the building blocks of models are all abstractions and animals don't do abstractions because their languages are products of the wiring of their brains. There are no "abstractions" or "beliefs" encoded into neurons until a language is learned that can program the brain in this way. Animal languages are too simple to communicate such ideas.

Humans each model all of reality. We each see all of reality in terms of our models which are all built from abstractions and the beliefs we learn with language on our parents' knees and in school, church, family, and science (experiment hopefully). We each have different experiences and learning and we each see a completely different reality but this is not apparent to most of us. We each use different definitions so communicating these simple facts is exceedingly difficult since we each hear what we expect and we deconstruct every sentence to suit our existing models.

Since all of reality including the most profound statements or empty rhetoric from scientists fits our beliefs we simply believe we know everything. We are wholly blind to reality that lies outside our expectations. A massive world of things we know nothing at all about lies just outside of our perception because we are too busy seeing what we know and expect. This is my point. Obviously a student using this perspective to read, understand, and properly answer questions on a test is going to be counted wrong almost as frequently as if each answer were a mere guess. Obviously the point of testing is not for every question to be taken as a "trick question" despite the fact that every word and every sentence in every modern language are trick words and questions.

So the question here is what is the purpose of testing at all.

 

[cladking]

Actual or hypothetical? You need to properly define problems before they can be solved.

OK.

A vintage steam locomotive leaves Sydney, Australia at 3 PM Tuesday local time and travels an average 40 MPH. It burns 76 cords of wood and arrives in Honolulu on Thursday at 4:56 AM local time.

How far did it travel and what was the mileage per dry pound of cypress wood?

It was built by Pittsburgh Locomotive Works and required 35 minutes of rep[airs enroute.

 

[ecco]

The "problem" with science isn't that we are confused it's that language is confused. It has been confused (deconstructable) for 4000 years.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that you are completely wrong.

 

[cladking]

That is your opinion. My opinion is that you are completely wrong.

It's foolish of me to ask, but just what is your opinion on the deconstructability of modern language?

Are you afraid to just do the math for the train question?

 

[ecco]

Yes! Exactly.

You believe your computer is real but what you mean by "your computer" is unique to every individual. Some wouldn't consider it "your's" if you are making payments on it, acquired it through fraudulent means, or depend on another individual to trouble shoot problems. Some would rank how much "your's" it is.

You believe there are major problems with language. There aren't.

"My computer is real." That is a statement about the reality of what I consider to be my computer. Remember, we were talking about reality. We were not talking about ownership. If one person cannot keep track of the context of a conversation, that is not the fault of language.

More to the point though is that not only do computers vary but everyone's understanding varies. Some people see hardware and some software. Some think computers are just to provide dirty pictures or look for things they didn't know about. Some think they are for controlling processes and systems. Some think they work mechanically, electronically, or through a kind of magic that at one time required identical transistors to be measured for function. Of course computers come in all shapes and sizes and some computers contain several computers and most people own far more computers than they realize.

Everyone's model of a computer is different so everyone's definition of "computer" is different.

Again, we were not talking about what a computer is, we were talking about if things are real. I used a computer as an example.

All knowledge isn't belief. Some knowledge is visceral; you know something in your guts. Visceral knowledge is always at the fingertips and can drive action without the interference of belief and "overthinking". When it occurs in animals we tend to mistake it for "instinct" but the reality is that a great deal of what the individual experiences is a product of and a contributor to its visceral knowledge. Animals experience no "beliefs" because the building blocks of models are all abstractions and animals don't do abstractions because their languages are products of the wiring of their brains. There are no "abstractions" or "beliefs" encoded into neurons until a language is learned that can program the brain in this way. Animal languages are too simple to communicate such ideas.

Many people "know in their guts" that ghosts are real - they aren't. Mothers sit a home late at night knowing junior got into a car accident. 99+% of the time he didn't. Gut feels are worthless.

Instincts, on the other hand, are handed down to us through evolution and should be respected. If you are walking in the woods in bear country and you hear large branches being crushed behind you, you would do well to turn around and see if it's a bear or your drunken buddy.

We each use different definitions so communicating these simple facts is exceedingly difficult since we each hear what we expect and we deconstruct every sentence to suit our existing models.

There is no reason to "deconstruct" anything. If you pay attention and keep track of the context of the conversation, you will know the difference between red and read.

Since all of reality including the most profound statements or empty rhetoric from scientists fits our beliefs we simply believe we know everything.

No. For some reason, you think that "we simply believe we know everything". But we, at least most rational people, know we don't.

We are wholly blind to reality that lies outside our expectations. A massive world of things we know nothing at all about lies just outside of our perception because we are too busy seeing what we know and expect. This is my point. Obviously a student using this perspective to read, understand, and properly answer questions on a test is going to be counted wrong almost as frequently as if each answer were a mere guess. Obviously the point of testing is not for every question to be taken as a "trick question" despite the fact that every word and every sentence in every modern language are trick words and questions.

So the question here is what is the purpose of testing at all.

"A massive world of things we know nothing at all about" may well lie just outside our perception, but we are constantly working to learn about it.

Obviously, some people would rather just throw their hands into the air and bemoan that mankind is "too busy seeing what we know".