Internet Hoaxes

(For General Discussion)

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:01 am

Science is certainly the pick of the litter yes, but when the 'unknown' is a factor in the equation, then it's still a prediction or at best an inforned guess until you can start to gather sufficient evidence - hence the flat earth theories persisting into the renaissance, until science could confirm categorically what most people had already accepted as fact.

Also although a lot was known about the Moon before Armstrong took those first steps, nobody could be absolutely sure what it would be like or what minerals resources, if any, might be present there. Ditto space walks and whether we could function in zero gravity. So science can tell us some things about unknown environments but until enough evidence is gathered which has to involve people getting in close sometimes to explore and experiment and build the knowledge base, before you can turn around and say - this is what we know we're going to find, as far as we can be sure...

If we'd known that there's very little viable reason to go the moon (as in its a pile of rock that mostly isn't worth the effort or expense to mine or populate) we would never have bothered going there in the first place - we had to go see it 'properly' first to establish that. Now we know more about it science will eventually make it worthwhile for us to go back again when there another reason and less effort involved in getting up there - or send robots or automated AI machines? At present space commerce is viable because we need to get satellite's up there and can do that fairly easily now as we've had a lot of practice - going to Mars is the next step perhaps because there's atmosphere and some water and so you get the next question of whether terraforming is perhaps a possibility so maybe that's more likely as the next manned mission to gather more evidence....

So on this rare occasion Bush was probably right and maybe even a little too optimistic - for now it's not worth going back to the Moon for so little at such cost when there's so much more down here to sort out... :roll:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Catch-up » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:34 pm

I think the most significant difference between science and politics is intent. Even with the unknown, the majority of scientists seek to clairify things and get the most accurate information possible. Politicians however.... need I say more? :roll: :wink:
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:00 pm

I'd trust a politician about as far as I could spit (I'm useless at it too so it ain't too far :twisted: )

Scientists I'd certainly trust to measure the distance I managed, as that is reliably quantifiable! :wink:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby bogieman » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:15 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:I'd trust a politician about as far as I could spit (I'm useless at it too so it ain't too far :twisted: )

Scientists I'd certainly trust to measure the distance I managed, as that is reliably quantifiable! :wink:

Yes but do you measure it from the very smallest droplet that hardly leaves your lips or the tiny ones that go for hundreds of yards as they were cought in a breeze. :twisted:
Science can be difficult to quantify as well :P
bogieman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:46 pm

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:36 pm

Well obviously they would have to film me spitting and measure/estimate trajectory and wind speed etc - not necessarily an insuperable task as I honestly don't produce a lot :P

And yes Science is only as good as the corroborative evidence and the accuracy of how its measured... So reliability is subjective but measuring that sort of thing is not as fuzzy as estimating whether rocket burners actually burn on the Moon, but if you can leave footsteps in the dust, then the pressure caused by the rockets will leave some sign of disturbance on the surface in some way...

After all - we;ve not really been really been in space that long, but people have been spitting for millions of years and the male of the species have always been obsessed with size and measurement... :twisted:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby poohbcarrot » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 am

If anyone still doubts the US landed on the moon (eg; me because of political reasons) read this. It debunks every moon hoax claim.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:25 am

Thanks for that Pooh - it was getting boring actually :P

Told y'all it would have much easier (and possibily cheaper) to have gone to the rotten little dustbowl a couple of times... :twisted:

I still think our beloved 'leaders' are a bunch of crooks and/or jerks - you don't have to try so hard to convince me of that :wink:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Batty » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:54 am

I'm not sure that I totally trust scientists for the simple reason that to a scientist, every unproven theory is correct, until debunked. Whereas to a detective, all facts are gathered and a conclusion is then reached.

My own personal 'scientific' theory is that water isn't wet.
This is based on observation. Whenever you see someone swimming under water, their hair is billowing about and they do not look 'wet'. However, the second they reach the water's surface their hair becomes plastered to their skull, and water runs off them.
Therefore, water isn't wet - in its own environment - it is only when water comes in to contact with oxygen that it reacts to a chemical change.

Based on the scientific principle of reasoning (as outlined above), my theory is correct!

:wink:
Going to my school was an education in itself. Which is not to be confused with actually getting an education (Schultz)
User avatar
Batty
Member
 
Posts: 4654
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: East Anglia

Postby Dotsie » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:46 pm

Batty wrote:I'm not sure that I totally trust scientists for the simple reason that to a scientist, every unproven theory is correct, until debunked.


Not true. So there.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby poohbcarrot » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:32 pm

Isn't an unproven theory called a hypothesis?
First you have a hypothesis and if it stands up to rigurous testing it becomes a theory.
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:08 pm

Like the Curies hypothesised Radium was good for you? :?
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Dotsie » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:30 pm

poohbcarrot wrote:Isn't an unproven theory called a hypothesis?
First you have a hypothesis and if it stands up to rigurous testing it becomes a theory.


Your second sentence is spot on. The first isn't strictly correct as all theories are unproven - if there was proof it would be fact. I'm being picky as some people think it's a fault of scientists that they might believe something which has no proof. But of course, it's the rigorous testing part that we can't just ignore.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby Dotsie » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:39 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:Like the Curies hypothesised Radium was good for you? :?


Did they really though? It's true that Marie Curie was around to see it's use in treating cancer (radiotherapy - still used today), although her belief that it would be used to treat other diseases didn't come to pass. But the other supposed health benefits weren't proposed by her. And of course it killed her, which really should have been a big clue to anyone else.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby Catch-up » Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:13 pm

Dotsie wrote:
poohbcarrot wrote:Isn't an unproven theory called a hypothesis?
First you have a hypothesis and if it stands up to rigurous testing it becomes a theory.


Your second sentence is spot on. The first isn't strictly correct as all theories are unproven - if there was proof it would be fact. I'm being picky as some people think it's a fault of scientists that they might believe something which has no proof. But of course, it's the rigorous testing part that we can't just ignore.


I think that's the biggest problem. Too many people don't understand that a scientific theory is not the same as a theory that someone would come up with out of thin air.

Scientific theory.
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6703
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:09 pm

Dotsie wrote:
Jan Van Quirm wrote:Like the Curies hypothesised Radium was good for you? :?


Did they really though? It's true that Marie Curie was around to see it's use in treating cancer (radiotherapy - still used today), although her belief that it would be used to treat other diseases didn't come to pass. But the other supposed health benefits weren't proposed by her. And of course it killed her, which really should have been a big clue to anyone else.


I knew the radiotherapy aspect as my father may have to have some soon - :( Sometimes cures are worse than the ailment, is the aspect I was thinking of there, although of course when radiotherapy works it is most certainly good for you in the long term - poor Marie and Pierre had no idea of the effects of prolonged exposure of course... Although did they use radium on clock faces back then or afterwards, as I know some of the factory workers were also dropping like flies around that time, because they also were unaware of the ill effects?

Once at theory status of course if still doesn't get to be scientific fact without really hard testing - which is why a Mr. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is also stalled at the theory stage :)

So Im still convinced that Science is king in this particular instance Batty - pity we had to go all the way to the moon to get the answers, but of course there are many spin-offs as a result of that dream - and all of us use one of them to use this forum. One modern scientific advance I deem essential to life is the PC :lol:
Last edited by Jan Van Quirm on Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10518
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

PreviousNext

Return to The Broken Drum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests