Robbie said:
Just trying to point out the absurdity of society being mislead (in some cases purposely) that science somehow is tied to something 'different' and 'more true' than beliefs.
All that statement shows is that you really don't know what science is. But that's as close as I'm going to get to the edge of that particlular rabbit hole.
Robbie said:Not trying to say Nye or his accuser is political or not or good or bad.
Just trying to point out the absurdity of society being mislead (in some cases purposely) that science somehow is tied to something 'different' and 'more true' than beliefs.
Provable reality is as real as it gets and way more true than beliefs. Someone might believe that the moon is made of cheese, but try eating regolith...
Sorry for derailing this into something other than a thread about cool rockets.
Does anyone know if I can watch Beakman's World on Netflix?
JamesMcD said:Does anyone know if I can watch Beakman's World on Netflix?
Turns out you can!
https://newonnetflix.com/usa/movie/274190/beakman%27s-world-season-4
I thought it was a decent show, but I preferred Bill Nye's.
Beakmans world must have come up after my time. I remember watching Bill Nye but have never heard of beakmans world.
Do you guys 'believe' in gravity? Or is gravity more true than a belief?
What about when 200 years from now someone figures out that gravity is not at all what we currently believe it to be, but rather our mathematical models tend to be close to modeling the effects of something different under a specific set of parameters?
You can get all high and mighty about it (politics does this), but if you can't admit that science is just a well-tested but ever-evolving set of beliefs, then you will get yourself into trouble.
Is science a trustworthy set of beliefs because of all the testing? Probably. But that does not make them anything other than beliefs.
T.J. said:In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) :
I thought politics weren't allowed here anymore? That dude may be a celebrity, but not really much to do with science.
He's the CEO of the Planetary Society, a mechanical engineer, and primary driver of the LightSail project....
So yea he's pretty involved in hardcore science.
Robbie said:Just trying to point out the absurdity of society being mislead (in some cases purposely) that science somehow is tied to something 'different' and 'more true' than beliefs.
Eyeglasses are science and they don't require belief in them to work. Your lights in your house don't come on because you believe in electricity. Your car is full of science that doesn't require any belief in it to work. (In fact, it won't work if all you want to use is belief: you need those burning hydrocarbons to make it go. Wishes won't do it). Your computer is full of science that doesn't require any belief in it to work (it may not work all the time, but that has nothing to do with belief). Science does have hard, repeatable truths (known as facts) that don't require belief in it to work. The fallacy is thinking that science requires belief just like faith. Yes, sometimes stretching existing science into NEW science requires belief that it'll work, but unlike faith, it's put to the test and if it doesn't work, the science wins out over belief.
Nick Comstock said:Beakmans world must have come up after my time. I remember watching Bill Nye but have never heard of beakmans world.
I remember when Bill Nye was just a comedian on KING 5 TV's "Almost Live" variety show in Seattle in the '80s.
Robbie said:Do you guys 'believe' in gravity? Or is gravity more true than a belief?
What about when 200 years from now someone figures out that gravity is not at all what we currently believe it to be, but rather our mathematical models tend to be close to modeling the effects of something different under a specific set of parameters?
You can get all high and mighty about it (politics does this), but if you can't admit that science is just a well-tested but ever-evolving set of beliefs, then you will get yourself into trouble.
Is science a trustworthy set of beliefs because of all the testing? Probably. But that does not make them anything other than beliefs.
You're right. It's a fair assessment to say that science is a well-tested and ever-evolving set of beliefs. But look how much better those beliefs work than those that aren't well-tested and ever-evolving:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Considering that belief in general has no lower bound for proof, and science, a very specific kind of belief, has an extremely high and ever-rising one, it's reductio ad absurdum to say that science is no different or more true than any random belief. Testing, evidence and proof are the difference between the theories that made yesterday's launch and recovery possible and a belief that the earth is a flat disc with ice walls keeping all the ocean water from falling off.
Really, folks? Are we really having this discussion?
In reply to Chris_V :
Aha. I call glasses and cars and computers "technology", which is usually developed from concepts learned in science, but not always. Technology does not require belief. You are correct you don't need to believe in gravity to use a cup to hold water.
Science is about the hypothesis: if this, then that, because of _____. Every single hypothesis is a belief, no matter how well tested it may be. If I drop a ball and it falls, I could choose to believe that the reason is gravity, or I could choose to believe the reason is something else. No number of tests can prove that gravity is the reason, we can only prove what isn't the reason, and those would not be good beliefs. Technology however leaves the "because of" out. The ball still falls, and that is good enough to make the clock work.
Maybe it sounds like I am splitting hairs here, but remember how dumb everyone thought Columbus was? And how dumb we now think everyone who thought Columbus was dumb was? It's because our collective scientific belief changed between then and now, and lots of people like to confuse a scientific belief with an absolute truth.
Tom_Spangler said:Really, folks? Are we really having this discussion?
I'm finding it interesting.
In reply to Robbie :
It does not sound lik you are splitting hairs...It does, however, sound like you are confusing concepts.
hey! I started this thread about a cool rocket launch.
quit bitchin.
GameboyRMH said:Robbie said:Do you guys 'believe' in gravity? Or is gravity more true than a belief?
What about when 200 years from now someone figures out that gravity is not at all what we currently believe it to be, but rather our mathematical models tend to be close to modeling the effects of something different under a specific set of parameters?
You can get all high and mighty about it (politics does this), but if you can't admit that science is just a well-tested but ever-evolving set of beliefs, then you will get yourself into trouble.
Is science a trustworthy set of beliefs because of all the testing? Probably. But that does not make them anything other than beliefs.
You're right. It's a fair assessment to say that science is a well-tested and ever-evolving set of beliefs. But look how much better those beliefs work than those that aren't well-tested and ever-evolving:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
Considering that belief in general has no lower bound for proof, and science, a very specific kind of belief, has an extremely high and ever-rising one, it's reductio ad absurdum to say that science is no different or more true than any random belief. Testing, evidence and proof are the difference between the theories that made yesterday's launch and recovery possible and a belief that the earth is a flat disc with ice walls keeping all the ocean water from falling off.
I agree about the absurdness of the argument in very specific categories. Current scientific beliefs don't seem to be able to make human society happier or fairly distribute the Earth's resources and bounty. Maybe the science just isn't there yet, but the why doesn't matter.
Our science and technology when it comes to rockets is very thorough and impressive. And other beliefs are unlikely to be more useful in that category. But there are plenty of places that non-scientific beliefs seem to be a major improvement, or at least have real benefits that would be noble to pursue.
Here's a scientific compound formula that is relevant to this discussion- CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3,H2O, and SO3
Combine these in the correct amounts and you have cement...
Robbie said:If I drop a ball and it falls, I could choose to believe that the reason is gravity, or I could choose to believe the reason is something else. No number of tests can prove that gravity is the reason, we can only prove what isn't the reason, and those would not be good beliefs. Technology however leaves the "because of" out. The ball still falls, and that is good enough to make the clock work.
Wrong, tests could indeed prove that the theory behind the force we call gravity, or at least something close enough to it for even many of our most intricate uses to work, is the reason. Try to explain it with anything else and you'll either come up with a bunch of nonsense, or a better theory for the force we call gravity. We'd still call it gravity but maybe you could get your name in and call it Robbiesian Gravity.
Robbie said:In reply to Chris_V :
Maybe it sounds like I am splitting hairs here, but remember how dumb everyone thought Columbus was? And how dumb we now think everyone who thought Columbus was dumb was? It's because our collective scientific belief changed between then and now, and lots of people like to confuse a scientific belief with an absolute truth.
Indeed scientific belief is not absolute truth. Science doesn't do absolute truth. Math and religion do. But you seem to be greatly overvaluing "absolute truth" over "a well-proven belief that could evolve," which I guess is sort of splitting hairs. You should really read Asimov's Relativity of Wrong essay that I linked to earlier, if you haven't.
Driven5 said:In reply to Robbie :
Your not splitting hairs, you're confusing concepts.
Which ones? (Honest question)
So it seems the footage of the main core mishap does exist? It's just a matter of when/how it gets released?
I would be interested in seeing it.
*Edit*- it seems the roadster and Starman survived their trip through the Van Allen belt. This was to prove something to the Air Force? What exactly?
Chris_V said:Nick Comstock said:Beakmans world must have come up after my time. I remember watching Bill Nye but have never heard of beakmans world.
I remember when Bill Nye was just a comedian on KING 5 TV's "Almost Live" variety show in Seattle in the '80s.
Speeeeed Walker!
Robbie said:Driven5 said:In reply to Robbie :
Your not splitting hairs, you're confusing concepts.
Which ones? (Honest question)
I'll let people more well-versed the Scientific Method than I am try to simplify this explanation:
One of the most difficult things for students and non-scientists to get ‘straight’ are the terms: Theory, Hypothesis, Law, Fact and Belief.
Fact: A basic statement established by experiment or observation. All facts are true under specific conditions. Some facts may be false when re-tested with better instruments.
Law: A logical relationship between two or more things that is based on a variety of facts and proven hypothesis. It is often a mathematical statement of how two or more quantities relate to each other.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement such as ‘if A happens then B must happen’ that can be tested by direct experiment or observation. A proven hypothesis can be expressed as a law or a theory. A disproven hypothesis can sometimes be re-tested and found correct as measurements improve.
Theory: An explanation for why certain laws and facts exist that can be tested to determine its accuracy.
Belief: A statement that is not scientifically provable in the same way as facts, laws, hypotheses or theories. Scientifically disproven beliefs can still be held to be true.
Guys, take the Bill Nye and science denial stuff to another thread (so it can be locked). This thread is about something too awe inspiring to let it be locked by derailment.
We really may be in interesting times. NASA SLS is set for its first launch sometime after December 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System. Musk announced that they have something bigger than Falcon Heavy in the works https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/07/falcon-heavy-third-burn-bfr/ and that, if it proceeds apace, it Falcon Heavy may not do manned missions at all waiting for Big Falcon Rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket)
I am having a son in July, I am already thinking about going to see a launch of SLS or BFR or Falcon Heavy with him when he gets old enough to understand whats going on at all.
In other news, it looks like they completed their burn and Starman and his roadster are going further than Mars, all the way to the asteroid belt. https://www.space.com/39619-spacex-falcon-heavy-roadster-to-asteroid-belt.html
Another tidbit is that Starman may be a mannequin, but is in an actual suit that Spacex is developing and they are using this as a trial of that suit.
In reply to Apexcarver :
Certain people just have to berkeleying keep pushing.
You'll need to log in to post.
