I believe that you don’t have to believe anything.
So everything boils down to opinion.
There is no “trick” question. It is based on a statement made in another thread.
I normally avoid conversations that start “with all due respect”. It usually means quite the opposite and the conversation is thus pointless. The reference to “kids” would appear to confirm this observation.
However, it should be quite clear that most of us participating are fully aware of the dictionary definition of “Science” and the conversation is based on that assumption.
I think it is human nature to crave certainty and rational explanation. Where we can’t achieve that ‘opinion’ fills the gap eg faith/religion. Conventional belief can be very powerful and useful. Imaginary numbers are, well, imaginary but it seems scientists/mathematicians make good use of them. And is ‘zero’ a convenient invention or does it really exist?
Mike, You should read Roger Penrose’s book “The Road to Reality: …”
Admittedly quite lengthy and likely to tax the brain towards the end but half of it is accessible and might help the reader grasp the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
Imaginary numbers were first invented to deal with the square root of -1. After that they start being used to describe harmonic systems where phase is an important concept. It’s an important branch of mathematics.
Phil
1 Like
I think I started reading this tome of 1099 pages (that does include the index of course) about two years ago.
Solved my insomnia like a dream !
1 Like
I thought you were of a persuasion that reads science books and solves puzzles. Admittedly it should be read in small chunks as a text book. If it helps with sleep that is an added bonus.
Phil
1 Like
A not so weighty tome is Carlo Rovelli’s Seven brief lessons on physics.
2 Likes
Time is worth discussing. The concept of Time is much more interesting.
Not sure how Time relates to mathematics though, perhaps from some known unknowns and unknown knowns.
We all experience it. As a flowing event, plays an important role in many sciences. We can measure it down and to a limit measure it up.
Was once believed to be a universal fact. A heart beat that counts throughout the universe.
Now gaining popularity that that’s not entirely the case.
2 Likes
A few years ago, on the old forum, I created a topic specifically about time.
I started by asking whether time is continuous or is it an intermittent, but regular process.
However, to my mind, time is but an interesting part of the science of the Universe.
2 Likes
However the answer to the question will not be the same for, say, Mathematics, Physics, Medecine or Social Sciences.
The subject started with reference to the Universe, how it works and our understanding of it. Physics, Chemistry and Biology seem to cover most aspects of the science of the Universe, at least to my mind. But can no doubt be discussed.
Maths might well help us to grasp some aspects of the way the Universe works and to help us predict the outcome of some of our actions eg turning left whilst roller-skating.
Medicine is probably a combination of all three science subjects.
Social Sciences, possibly a sub-set of Biology ?
Our understanding and confidence varies enormously across many aspects of (say) physics, let alone all aspects of science.
1 Like
“I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists. And I want you to unite behind science. And then I want you to take real action.” Climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, appeared in front of [United States] Congress before a climate change hearing.
1 Like
Does “strong scientific consensus” amount to “fact” ?
Should it be made illegal to deny “strong scientific consensus”.
In one strand of the social sciences the universe may be considered a social construct made up of physical institutions (e.g. planets, stars, galaxies, etc.). It is the relationship between these institutions that the universe becomes interesting and open to interpretation. Hence the universe is interesting to both scientists and lay people; it’s a matter of fact and opinion. Fact, there are physical entities, but the relation between these entities is a subject of opinion or a best theoretical fit.
Being a cynic, I’m thinking cosmologists are a bunch of charlatans.
Does dark matter really exist, does it matter. Does dark energy exist. Did the big bang/conflation really happen?
The latest joke is the so called image of a black hole.
An array of worldwide radio telescopes collects data from the apparent black hole. The data is used to create an image, but, there isn’t enough data to create an image (sparse data?). Or more likely there isn’t enough data to create the correct image.
So, data is added to the actual data to create an image that the scientists think a black hole should look like. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
1 Like
I’m sure there is as much corruption in cosmology as politics. Those who’s own agenda needs funding.
That large Hadron Collider that cost billions and didn’t do anything until at a cost of a few more million to reboot it. If only there was an individual personality rather than some large abstract group of affiliations to ridicule.
Although for myself there’s something comforting about this - rather than the daily calamities of politics.
Folk still dedicated to that grand narrative. Knowledge accumulated throughout a more historical timescale.
How do you go about funding a cause that could change the course of history ?
Going back down to earth, I mentioned earlier about food science. That to make a cake needs some simple science to follow. Rules or facts that if not followed will have a bad result.
No chef or food scientist will argue about the basics, but could when it comes to the nutritional science. That broad scope to determine it will taste nice and do you some good.
1 Like
Science is a fact - it exists as a discipline.
2 Likes
Someone must have had to stick their neck out and put their head on the line at some point to establish what they thought was right - and others disagreeing as a pointless opinion.
A discipline here must be more that conversation any Scientist has with themeselves.
1 Like
I am a fan of those philosophers that have tried to wrangle this beast.
We are humans and are bound by our human condition - that we can not perceive beyond what our faculties allow.
“You want me to emphatically and empirically prove the excistence of time”?
“No, I just want to know when my pizza is cooked”
2 Likes
Consensus can be a misleading term. Scientific theories don’t become more valid due to increased popular support, but rather the more successful theories (the ones that are not contradicted by evidence) tend to be more widely acknowledged as meaningful. Theories aren’t “elected”.
3 Likes