Why Doubt Is Essential to Science - Sci. Am.

[earlevel]

Where you get into problems, for instance, is if you want to generate gravity. It's a force, right? We can generate lots of forces (magnetic, electromotive, etc.). Why can't we figure out how to generate or amplify gravity? Sure, we can generate something that behaves like it (centrifugal/centripetal force), but that's not the same thing as gravity from a large body like a planet.

It is the same thing. If I put you in a room accelerating at 1g out in space you could not tell the difference between that and the room your sitting in right now (nor measure one). Or spin a large Halo out in space. You want to amplify that gravity go to 2gs. This is the thought experiment that helped leed Einstien to relativity.

You misinterpreted what I meant by "it's not the same thing". I guess I could have been clearer, but was trying to not make make a huge post. I meant that if we could generate gravity as a force, we could have something like the starship USS Enterprise, where people feel their weight on the floor, without the starship being as big as a planet beneath them. Instead, we'd have to have a centrifuge on the ship to create a limited simulation of gravity. Hence, my comment that they weren't the same thing.

 

[raif71]

You misinterpreted what I meant by "it's not the same thing". I guess I could have been clearer, but was trying to not make make a huge post. I meant that if we could generate gravity as a force, we could have something like the starship USS Enterprise, where people feel their weight on the floor, without the starship being as big as a planet beneath them. Instead, we'd have to have a centrifuge on the ship to create a limited simulation of gravity. Hence, my comment that they weren't the same thing.

That's a great idea, also localize the gravity pull to just the insides of the ship. We don't want asteroids to be pulled by the ship when it is moving through space.

 

[Grumpish]

Doubt is the essence of science - until it has been proved, say by making a prediction that can be proved correct by experiment, a theory is just that, a theory.

 

[clearnfc]

And that will make zero difference in the functionality of the model. That is, its accurate enough for what we use it for. Its a model.

Not quite. There are way too many things we dont even know and cant comprehend at this point of time.

Right now, we dont even understand what our space actually is and how it bends and stretches.

Neither do we know what gravity is and how it "transmits" and "bends" space...

 

[clearnfc]

Doubt is the essence of science - until it has been proved, say by making a prediction that can be proved correct by experiment, a theory is just that, a theory.

That wouldnt be called theory. It would be hypothesis

 

[clearnfc]

Anyway, i will stop here because we are going too far off topic and nothing about audio

 

[AdamG]

There appears to be no topic. So yeah, just wing it.

 

[Newman]

Thread Warning: Absolutely no Politics, Global politics, including climate change politics permitted. Please refrain from posting any further political content. Thank you for your understanding.

And how are you going to moderate the No Politics rule in a science-based forum, when science itself is being politicised (and especially so in the country where this forum is based, BTW)? Just to clarify, I don't mean the funding of science by politics and vested interests and all that, I mean doubt is being sown maliciously about the consensus academic scientific community views, the evidence-based 'working hypotheses', because people don't want them to be true for any number of reasons.

I agree with the No Politics rule, absolutely. But - honestly - @amirm needs to poll all his mods and get a statement from each of them that they do not hold an Anti Science view in relation to any scientific topic or field, if they want to be a mod here. Specifically, they are not opposed to the scientific community consensus view on any topic or field.

Because if they are, then I guarantee it already has and will continue to impact the moderation of this forum, negatively. How so? Well, for example, by issuing a thread warning over the merest hint of an aside mentioning Politicised Science Topic X, even from the pro-science position, while allowing any amount of poo-pooing of science itself. Because THAT IS POLITICS: it is not science to poo-poo science itself. It is not internal scientific scepticism, the healthy sort. It is political BS. It is politics, mainstream politics. It doesn't fit with a No Politics rule. If any mods think that is different from poo-poing global warming or evolution, then they are making a grave error.

When I eventually see the mods here enforce the No Politics rule in relation to the politicisation of science itself, then some of these shoddy threads, started with shoddy motivations, will be shut down and it will be a good thing, not a bad thing. The discussion will have been shut down for the same reason global warming and evolution threads get shut down: No Politics. Definitely a good thing.

The litmus test for the No Politics Rule, especially in the 'tricky' areas where science has been politicised, is easy: the current consensus working hypotheses of the legitimate scientific community need to be respected on ASR, and any questioning of it, while very welcome, needs to be based on legitimately-sourced evidence. Are you guys ready to enforce that? It's the No Politics Rule, done right.

Sadly, politics has entered audio discussions, not limited to denying global warming, evolution, etc, but by denying science itself. Sorry, but That Is Politics. Please eliminate it from ASR.

You have seen how much damage and vitriol and endless circle work comes from allowing discussion of global warming, evolution, political parties and allegiances, elections, etc. You have banned it: hooray! Surely you can see that denial of science itself has become a topic just as damaging, futile, questionably motivated, and, as @Shazb0t and I have recently posted, tiresome. It is now, truly, politics.

cheers

 

[Holmz]

…
I agree with the No Politics rule, absolutely. But - honestly - @amirm needs to poll all his mods and get a statement from each of them that they do not hold an Anti Science view in relation to any scientific topic or field, if they want to be a mod here. Specifically, they are not opposed to the scientific community consensus view on any topic or field.
…

Really? He needs to do that?
What else does he need to do?

I thought that the last person that poled his moderators was Vlad.

 

[SIY]

And how are you going to moderate the No Politics rule in a science-based forum, when science itself is being politicised (and especially so in the country where this forum is based, BTW)? Just to clarify, I don't mean the funding of science by politics and vested interests and all that, I mean doubt is being sown maliciously about the consensus academic scientific community views, the evidence-based 'working hypotheses', because people don't want them to be true for any number of reasons.

I agree with the No Politics rule, absolutely. But - honestly - @amirm needs to poll all his mods and get a statement from each of them that they do not hold an Anti Science view in relation to any scientific topic or field, if they want to be a mod here. Specifically, they are not opposed to the scientific community consensus view on any topic or field.

Because if they are, then I guarantee it already has and will continue to impact the moderation of this forum, negatively. How so? Well, for example, by issuing a thread warning over the merest hint of an aside mentioning Politicised Science Topic X, even from the pro-science position, while allowing any amount of poo-pooing of science itself. Because THAT IS POLITICS: it is not science to poo-poo science itself. It is not internal scientific scepticism, the healthy sort. It is political BS. It is politics, mainstream politics. It doesn't fit with a No Politics rule. If any mods think that is different from poo-poing global warming or evolution, then they are making a grave error.

When I eventually see the mods here enforce the No Politics rule in relation to the politicisation of science itself, then some of these shoddy threads, started with shoddy motivations, will be shut down and it will be a good thing, not a bad thing. The discussion will have been shut down for the same reason global warming and evolution threads get shut down: No Politics. Definitely a good thing.

The litmus test for the No Politics Rule, especially in the 'tricky' areas where science has been politicised, is easy: the current consensus working hypotheses of the legitimate scientific community need to be respected on ASR, and any questioning of it, while very welcome, needs to be based on legitimately-sourced evidence. Are you guys ready to enforce that? It's the No Politics Rule, done right.

Sadly, politics has entered audio discussions, not limited to denying global warming, evolution, etc, but by denying science itself. Sorry, but That Is Politics. Please eliminate it from ASR.

You have seen how much damage and vitriol and endless circle work comes from allowing discussion of global warming, evolution, political parties and allegiances, elections, etc. You have banned it: hooray! Surely you can see that denial of science itself has become a topic just as damaging, futile, questionably motivated, and, as @Shazb0t and I have recently posted, tiresome. It is now, truly, politics.

cheers

Looking forward to see what you do with your own forum.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I thought that the last person that poled his moderators was Vlad.

 

[dc655321]

There was a big oops revealed recently with the mass of the W boson that calls for some head scratching: https://phys.org/news/2022-04-key-particle-bit-heavy-confounding.html

Not an oops. More like a hmmmmm. Maybe.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I remember a few years back an Italian (I think) astrophysicist proved mathematically that it is impossible for black holes to form, and published her findings. Nobody was immediately able to spot the mistake, but other astrophysicists weren’t overly worried. After all, there is much observational evidence for black holes. One researcher that I asked about this just shrugged his shoulders and said “it’ll come out in the wash”…

 

[Pogre]

You misinterpreted what I meant by "it's not the same thing". I guess I could have been clearer, but was trying to not make make a huge post. I meant that if we could generate gravity as a force, we could have something like the starship USS Enterprise, where people feel their weight on the floor, without the starship being as big as a planet beneath them. Instead, we'd have to have a centrifuge on the ship to create a limited simulation of gravity. Hence, my comment that they weren't the same thing.

Or accelerate at 1g...

 

[mhardy6647]

Or accelerate at 1g...

... or even any reasonable fraction of 1g, I'd opine. Even "just" a sense of up and down would beat long term weighlessness, I would think.

 

[Pogre]

... or even any reasonable fraction of 1g, I'd opine. Even "just" a sense of up and down would beat long term weighlessness, I would think.

Yup, I agree. Even a fraction would be better than nothing, but 1g would be ideal. Accelerate at that for half the journey, then decelerate at 1g for the rest. You can reach some pretty incredible speeds too.

I'm a big geek about this stuff, but admittedly still just a dilettante. I do know there's a lot of studying being done on the effects of microgravity on the human body tho and were still figuring it out. It could be that extended periods on Mars' 1/3 gravity might have deleterious effects too, but we just don't know enough yet.

We do know that extended periods in microgravity wreaks havoc on our bodies in many different ways. The heart shrinks, muscles atrophy, immune system weakens and even the shape of the eye and brain changes after a while.

 

[JRS]

Not an oops. More like a hmmmmm. Maybe.

The analysis cited suggested a) that the rigor with which the mass was arrived at is unparalleled and 2) while the magnitude was a fraction of one percent and seemingly trivial, it is a very big deal wrt the standard model. I'm not a physicist of any sort, but found the result unsettling, given the success of the standard model in tying everything together. Of course, as the Chinese description of crisis reminds us, it is the intersection of danger and opportunity. So perhaps this will spur some refinements that will point in the direction of a better model.

 

[Vacceo]

One of the beauties of math is that you don't necessarily have to have any knowledge of the scientific discipline in question to review the math used. And that can be quite eye opening. Ditto assumptions.
This is especially significant in those fields where papers are written for the benefit of, or to influence, policy makers (such as environmental matters). At the risk of sounding cynical some papers are padded out with a lot of impressive equations which add a lot of gravitas and the authors trust that people in the policy sphere don't understand the math and assume any document with lots of equations must be correct. I think years of working in air emissions has made me cynical.

For those of us in the humanities, it used to be a common element to include equation-like expressions and charts to add gravitas to the text. From top of my head, authors like Levi-Strauss employed the tecnique and unlike others, he at least gave the charts and equation-like elements in meaningful ways.

Philosophy, particularly the most Pythagorean-minded authors, love to still employ it. Personally, I think most of the time is a trick to look dark and enticing.

 

[MaxBuck]

There's a creative tension between trusting science and questioning science that is extremely important.

Blind trust is rarely a good thing, except for the very ignorant. But incessant questioning by dilettantes regarding largely established science can be problematic and a waste of time.

It's not really possible to say a priori whether a specific question of science is reasonable or not. Galileo might have a few remarks on the subject.

 

[earlevel]

Or accelerate at 1g...

Obviously. But if your goal is to simulate gravity on a starship while trying to get from point a to point b efficiently, that is not a practical solution

I can just see the logistics of this...accelerate to 1g, settle in...if you can continue to accelerate at that rate till half way, commence decelerating at 1g and turn your habitat upside down (enjoy the transition). If you can't sustain the acceleration, split the trip up into segments of accelerating and decelerating (refuel repeat)—in either case fuel is going to be a pretty severe practical limitation.