Do things only exist if humans have proof ?
Do things only exist if humans have indispensable proof? This seems to be the backbone of many arguments. Can things exist that humans are completely unaware of ?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Mamapolo2016 · F
If there’s anything history has proven - it’s that the general consensus of ‘truth’ in any generation we have information about - was wrong, at least about some things.
For instance, we learned the three states of matter: gas, liquid, solid.
Only solids aren’t solid, are they?
Now they’re debating the accuracy of some of Einstein’s work.
We’re wrong about some of the stuff we scientifically believe now, too.
For instance, we learned the three states of matter: gas, liquid, solid.
Only solids aren’t solid, are they?
Instead, think of electrons like a swarm of bees or birds, where the individual motions are too fast to track, but you still see the shape of the overall swarm.
Now they’re debating the accuracy of some of Einstein’s work.
We’re wrong about some of the stuff we scientifically believe now, too.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Mamapolo2016 True my friend.
But Science is not defined by it´s knowledge but by it´s object.
What is in itself, no mater any opinion or even any conciousnes about.
Apples had the habit of falling before Newton.
And most of what exists, existed for around 15000 millions years before any eye or brain were involved and had no problems to do it for the lack of them.
But Science is not defined by it´s knowledge but by it´s object.
What is in itself, no mater any opinion or even any conciousnes about.
Apples had the habit of falling before Newton.
And most of what exists, existed for around 15000 millions years before any eye or brain were involved and had no problems to do it for the lack of them.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Mamapolo2016 "Now they’re debating the accuracy of some of Einstein’s work."
Curious because the more recent knews since 2005 / 2015 and right now, about Gravitational Waves (and it´s factual correlates with massive astronomical objects: black holes, neutrón stars) are an impressive new confirmation of the goodness of Einsten´s conception of the Universe.
Curious because the more recent knews since 2005 / 2015 and right now, about Gravitational Waves (and it´s factual correlates with massive astronomical objects: black holes, neutrón stars) are an impressive new confirmation of the goodness of Einsten´s conception of the Universe.
Mamapolo2016 · F
@CharlieZ I am not, I hasten to say, a scientist. I try in my own feeble way to keep up.
Here is one of the articles I read that led me to make the conservative statement “they are challenging some of Einstein’s work.”
Read it - and there are others - and reach your own conclusions.
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/
Here is one of the articles I read that led me to make the conservative statement “they are challenging some of Einstein’s work.”
Read it - and there are others - and reach your own conclusions.
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Mamapolo2016 Thank you.
Of course I will read them.
Besides that, few scientists had been more challenged than the dear Albert for more than 90 years (since the Solvay conference, 1927).
Of course, all Theories (ALL) have failures and ALL Will be eventually replaced (by other scientific ones, not by pseudoscience).
Just a suggestion for remaining updated, follow what is now being published about Gravitational Waves.
In some decades ahead History will remember how this and NOW shaked (for good) Physycs and our imagen of the Universe.
Of course I will read them.
Besides that, few scientists had been more challenged than the dear Albert for more than 90 years (since the Solvay conference, 1927).
Of course, all Theories (ALL) have failures and ALL Will be eventually replaced (by other scientific ones, not by pseudoscience).
Just a suggestion for remaining updated, follow what is now being published about Gravitational Waves.
In some decades ahead History will remember how this and NOW shaked (for good) Physycs and our imagen of the Universe.
Mamapolo2016 · F
@CharlieZ Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. I am in favor of scientists and I am supportive of science (like science cares). It’s the people who advance the idea that any spiritual idea is nonsense because it can’t be proven, when they cannot prove it’s nonsense.
For some, Science has become both God-lite and anti-God.
I don’t mind what people believe - unless they argue theirs is the only possible position for non-crazy people.
I have my own theory that at some point in the future we will find God and Science are inextricably connected.
For some, Science has become both God-lite and anti-God.
I don’t mind what people believe - unless they argue theirs is the only possible position for non-crazy people.
I have my own theory that at some point in the future we will find God and Science are inextricably connected.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Mamapolo2016 May be the Science versus Faith debates are fueled at US as mask to political involvement.
Believe me, amongst hundreds of thousands of actual practicioners and researchers within the scientific comunity worldwide, the ones who even give a thought to that debate are so few that are rare exceptions.
They are of all faiths or, others, of no religión, they work fine together and do same work.
No conflicts about amongst them.
Believe me, amongst hundreds of thousands of actual practicioners and researchers within the scientific comunity worldwide, the ones who even give a thought to that debate are so few that are rare exceptions.
They are of all faiths or, others, of no religión, they work fine together and do same work.
No conflicts about amongst them.