If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   What is really going on... on the "dark side"?   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, cosmological constants, dark energy, new physics, telescopes, University of Portsmouth, magnetisms, arXiv, redshifts  
•       •       •

5666 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Mar 2012 at 2:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-31 12:51:33 AM
Eddie.

Also, the Cruisers.
 
2012-03-31 01:45:20 AM
There is no dark side of the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark.
 
2012-03-31 02:04:57 AM

MaxxLarge: Eddie.

Also, the Cruisers.


Whooooooaaaahhhh, yeaaaaaah!
 
2012-03-31 02:29:41 AM
"repulsive" is a bit judgmental before all the facts are in, no?
 
2012-03-31 02:50:01 AM

dobro: "repulsive" is a bit judgmental before all the facts are in, no?


No, I've seen that force. You'd rather gnaw your own arm off rather than wake it up in the morning.
 
2012-03-31 03:09:20 AM
It is really amazing how much cosmology has advanced as a science in the last quarter century.
 
2012-03-31 03:09:32 AM
"This is an incredibly exciting time to be working in cosmology, and we're all privileged to be part of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS)," said Prof Will Percival from the University of Portsmouth - a UK member of the international research group.

And they survey like a boss.
 
2012-03-31 03:44:14 AM

MaxxLarge: Eddie.

Also, the Cruisers.


And we're done here.
 
2012-03-31 04:29:10 AM
FTA: "Scientists now find themselves grasping for new physics to try to explain what is going on. "

At least they are honest enough to admit that.
 
2012-03-31 07:05:40 AM

Kurmudgeon: FTA: "Scientists now find themselves grasping for new physics to try to explain what is going on. "

At least they are honest enough to admit that.


Yeah, they should just give up, because religion already has the answers.
 
2012-03-31 08:02:30 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-31 08:05:15 AM

Kurmudgeon: FTA: "Scientists now find themselves grasping for new physics to try to explain what is going on. "

At least they are honest enough to admit that.



I think the Aether is coming back in a big way.

(Honestly, maybe you've got something else wrong in the math if you're missing 90+% of the universe based on your calculations)
 
2012-03-31 09:16:20 AM
I read the headline, and came running to make a Beaver Brown Band joke.

Alas, I was not fast enough.

/slinks away
 
2012-03-31 10:07:22 AM
Subby:What is really going on... on the "dark side"?

It's always cookie time!

nom nom nom
 
2012-03-31 10:11:33 AM

Ishkur: Kurmudgeon: FTA: "Scientists now find themselves grasping for new physics to try to explain what is going on. "

At least they are honest enough to admit that.

Yeah, they should just give up, because religion already has the answers.


Its Gods will, don't give it a second thought.
 
2012-03-31 10:53:54 AM

Ecliptic: I think the Aether is coming back in a big way.


I was listening to Ira Flatow interview a cosmologist on Science Friday a while back when the topic of the aether came up, and the contortions the guy went through to deny any form of aether made me LOL.

Hellooo...'virtual space' anyone?
 
2012-03-31 11:11:56 AM

Ishkur: Kurmudgeon: FTA: "Scientists now find themselves grasping for new physics to try to explain what is going on. "

At least they are honest enough to admit that.

Yeah, they should just give up, because religion already has the answers.



And why do you assume Kurmudgeon is coming from a religious agenda? Aren't there valid criticisms of the nature of philosophy of science from non-religious corners?
 
2012-03-31 11:18:29 AM

Ecliptic: Kurmudgeon: FTA: "Scientists now find themselves grasping for new physics to try to explain what is going on. "

At least they are honest enough to admit that.


I think the Aether is coming back in a big way.

(Honestly, maybe you've got something else wrong in the math if you're missing 90+% of the universe based on your calculations)


I had a thought the accelerating universe could be explained if gravity were a repulsive force instead of an attractive one. There would be less repulsion pushing on matter from the edges of the the universe inward so it would accelerate its expansion. I then googled my theory and found it's an old theory. (new window)
 
2012-03-31 11:22:48 AM

GilRuiz1: Aren't there valid criticisms of the nature of philosophy of science from non-religious corners?


I took Ishkur's comments as snark on the religious, not on Kurmudgeon, but in any case I'm interested to hear of these "valid criticisms of the nature of philosophy of science from non-religious corners".

Criticism of science's practitioners? Sure. Its funding and administration? Absolutely! But what is there to validly criticize about a process of moving to ever greater levels of knowledge and understanding? After all, science is a process, not an end-state.
 
2012-03-31 11:40:41 AM

StoneColdAtheist: in any case I'm interested to hear of these "valid criticisms of the nature of philosophy of science from non-religious corners".



You're kidding, right?
 
2012-03-31 11:43:38 AM

GilRuiz1: StoneColdAtheist: in any case I'm interested to hear of these "valid criticisms of the nature of philosophy of science from non-religious corners".

You're kidding, right?


Be sure to use short sentences. I'm an ABD in math, not philosophy.
 
2012-03-31 12:01:17 PM

StoneColdAtheist: GilRuiz1: StoneColdAtheist: in any case I'm interested to hear of these "valid criticisms of the nature of philosophy of science from non-religious corners".

You're kidding, right?

Be sure to use short sentences. I'm an ABD in math, not philosophy.



Assuming you're being earnest, a good place to start is Wikipedia's entry on philosophy of science (new window). There are a million questions to consider just on the philosophical nature of science alone; just go down the article. If you'd like to consider something beyond philosophy, the article on Criticism Of Science (new window) briefly covers political, sociological, ethical issues. Each of those two pages are starting points with lots of links to further resources.

You will note that none of the criticisms or issues raised are religious or theological. Thus, going back to Kurmudgeon's initial statement, it is fallacious to assume that anyone who dares raise a question is automatically some religious fanatic trying to destroy science, as though no one else had issues to settle with science.
 
2012-03-31 01:02:30 PM

GilRuiz1: Assuming you're being earnest...


I'm earnest as a heart attack, so let's look at your examples:

...a good place to start is Wikipedia's entry on philosophy of science (new window). There are a million questions to consider just on the philosophical nature of science alone; just go down the article.

These are, in the main, criticisms of what philosophers have written about the philosophy of science, which is not at all the same thing as criticizing the "process of moving to ever greater levels of knowledge and understanding", much less valid criticisms of the "nature of philosophy of science".

In short, they are largely philosophers arguing about each others writings about the nature of philosophy of science, not criticisms of the underlying subject.

If you'd like to consider something beyond philosophy, the article on Criticism Of Science (new window) briefly covers political, sociological, ethical issues.

This falls squarely under the umbrella of criticizing science's paradigms, personalities, funding, administration and politics, which I strongly support, but is not in the slightest a valid criticism of the nature of science. I spent enough time in academia to witness first hand probably all the major criticisms list here, but using this as a basis for criticizing the scientific method is like claiming that the personal failings of the Pope and the Church, and other religious personalities and institutions is a valid critique of the nature of God. It may be entertaining, but criticism doesn't work that way.

You will note that none of the criticisms or issues raised are religious or theological. Thus, going back to Kurmudgeon's initial statement, it is fallacious to assume that anyone who dares raise a question is automatically some religious fanatic trying to destroy science, as though no one else had issues to settle with science.

True, and I also note that none of the criticisms make the claim that science doesn't work. The only ones that do are religious or theological.
 
2012-03-31 01:26:44 PM

StoneColdAtheist: In short, they are largely philosophers arguing about each others writings about the nature of philosophy of science, not criticisms of the underlying subject.



You need to go back and re-read it.

It might also help you to read Wiki's page on the Scientific Method, paying particular attention to the section entitled "Problems and Issues (new window)."

I didn't mention this earlier, since you said your knowledge of philosophy wasn't strong, but if you really want to, go over to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (new window)and browse their articles on the issues surrounding science.
 
2012-03-31 01:45:38 PM
images.cheezburger.com
 
2012-04-03 12:58:58 AM

GilRuiz1:
It might also help you to read Wiki's page on the Scientific Method, paying particular attention to the section entitled "Problems and Issues (new window)."


I read the first two Wiki pages you pointed out, and now went through all those "Problems and Issues". Philosophy's going to have to do a lot better than that. The whole point of science is that it works. The main reason it works is the scientific method catches and corrects human error, wishful thinking, and fraud. That those things exist isn't a problem with science; it's a problem with human beings.

How does philosophy find and correct errors? If philosophy has the same lack of corrective feedback that religion does, count me out. I'll stick with measuring things in the real universe, and believing in independently-confirmed evidence, thank you.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report