I'm happy to admit that high level physics is extremely weird, and very fascinating, and it seems a reasonable interpretation of it to say that we will never figure things out fully (at least there is apparently a credible school of thought in physics that thinks that physics will never end, not even just for limited minds like the human mind but even in principle). Those who understand and respect science are free to admit that there is much about reality that we do not understand and will likely never understand; to me it seems like it is those with supernatural beliefs who are saying they _do_ understand the nature of reality, and it turns out that all of this amazing shit is here just so some primates like us can have psychic powers and attend to our middle-class interests - and these claims are made without the sort of evidence that scientists use. Please. 

The key to understand physics theories and their relation to "reality" is to accept the fact that they are not laws, they are theories. They describe observable phenomena in a way that allows us to predict their outcome. As technology advances, our ability to observe reality advances as well. This often leads to contradictions to existing theories that forces us to dismiss or refine them in order to integrate those new observations.

The other motivation for refining or dismissing existing theories is unification of existing theories into a grander theory. This is what string theory is. It allows us to explain phenomena in the very large as well as phenomena in the very small. It's a nice thought experiment, and as long as it explains reality precisely, you can argue that it is "correct", since there is no way to observe its primary subject, strings. It doesn't really matter if there really are "strings" as long as the theory explains our observable reality precisely.

Apart from that, what nonentity says! 

So, string theory was developed by the crew at Monty Python? Theories are also based on non-observed forces and phenomena. String is an extension of past theories that build up more confusion. 

If mainstream science can't explain exactly what the origin of everything is, it doesn't have any basis to work from.

I don't think you "get" science. I think Sleepy and nonentity covered everything else. 

how can science be mainstream anyway? it's not like music or film, ffs. it's a way of thinking and a method to employ to arrive at conclusions. 

I was just speaking specifically about string theory, not science in general. We built televisions without knowing "everything", and had a basis to get one working. Life is not an equation, but we have science to help keep the truth in check. If I punch someone in the face, it's gonna hurt. If I choose not to punch someone cause I don't wanna hurt anybody, it holds my actions in check. That's science!

Non_Sleep didn't expain anything with string theory, though. String theory is based mostly on non observed (made-up) ideas. It's really dumb... There are a lot of people who contributed to creating many things in our civilization. I doubt string was a factor in getting to their goals. 

Ask me again in about 8 hours, firefox! 

non observed (made-up) ideas

*sobs gently*

I get your point. It's one I've made before about pragmatism in regard to absolute cynicism. But 'god' damn. 

Oh. And that's not science. That's a thinly veiled reference to violence in an intelectual discussion. And nothing more than a basic understanding of causality as it appears from the comprehension of humanity.

You are a rock with perception. Deal with it. 

how can science be mainstream anyway? it's a way of thinking and a method to employ to arrive at conclusions.

Laugh. In theory - of course you're right. In practice, science is like every other aspect of our lives... run by governments and powerful companies with agendas.

Sometimes "pure science" and "mainstream science" are in direct conflict, with catastrophic effects for the health of the populace and natural worlds. A couple of base examples: DDT's widespread use as a pesticide in Europe, and Cane Toads introduction into australia. 

Still not sure what mainstream science means. A definition would be nice. 

Take global warming for example. Amongst the "scientific" community there's no doubt human's population explosion, oil and big agriculture economy is changing our planet. Oceans, rain forests, coral reefs and whole species are dying at an unprecedented rate. Still, it's in many media, politician's and even scientist's interest to create doubt. Plenty of people believe the "scientific evidence" is inconclusive, when this is not the case. When oil and drug companies fund research - pay the scientists' wages - who's going to tell the bosses they're wrong.

Though it's nice to regard science as something pure, it's intricately tied up with our political, social and economic structures. 

There are many potential roads to knowledge. Some lead nowhere, some get your somewhere.

String theory was an honest attempt at understanding. Perhaps it hasn't worked, but it wasn't just 'made up'. People worked on it for a long time attempting to build on previous work and solve incredible problems at the heart of physics. They poured a lot of work into it, and no one knew what results it could have produced.

The existance of Atoms was proven by studying brownian motion. The movement of little pollen grains in water lead to the confirmation of the otherwise invisible. In fact it has been discovered that a vacuum has energy due to 'Virtual particles', so we have no idea what might be round the corner that suddenly proves that yes, matter at it's smallest scale is strings or loops.

Stop having such a beef with mathematics and theory. Just because it's not provable now, doesn't mean that it won't be proven in the future, or that the theories will be applicable in another area.

And nothing wrong with being wrong, it helps on the path to being right. 

If an area of space has virtual particles in it, can it truely be a vacuum? Sometimes the energy involved with a vacuum is really the potential difference of energy between a vacuum and a surrounding mass of particles. The vacuum will get infiltrated. 

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' vacuum. The universe is full of background radiation so you can't ever have a true vacuum, but what I was referring to is the nature of probability in quantum physics. The idea of quantum foam (iirc) being that any given area of a vacuum has no particles 'on average'. But particles are emerging and disappearing instantly, thus being called 'virtual' because you can't see them.

However, they can exert a (tiny) force on objects if carefully observed, and thus although originally just theory, it has been proven to exist. It's just not directly observable. 

Scientists allow industries to develop. Wether or not the "research" becomes contrived in the process doesn't matter, it's a means to an end.

Besides, Einstein - he was a fruit! 

I will tone down my violence at least. Oops, wrong Icon. Anyone who just got a black eye raise yer hands. My legal defense though is string theory. I just don't know where my fist particles are these days. 

Science is not a means to an end, at least not industrial development. Science is the pursuit of understanding the world around us. Whether it leads to the development of actual products is not its first priority. Sure, there is "industrial science", but that's not what we are talking about here. 

No one has given me a definition of mainstream science yet. I'm still unsure what that means. 

My posts are not amounting to much. Posts like #132 by ZQF has a better attitude about this, and can amount to something.

mainstream science = what's taught in schools? 

Take global warming for example. Amongst the "scientific" community there's no doubt human's population explosion, oil and big agriculture economy is changing our planet. Oceans, rain forests, coral reefs and whole species are dying at an unprecedented rate. Still, it's in many media, politician's and even scientist's interest to create doubt. Plenty of people believe the "scientific evidence" is inconclusive, when this is not the case. When oil and drug companies fund research - pay the scientists' wages - who's going to tell the bosses they're wrong.

Though it's nice to regard science as something pure, it's intricately tied up with our political, social and economic structures.

what the hell does that have to do with science? you're just talking about ethics. 

= the mainstream media's modern scientific approach? 

Complex numbers do not exist in reality. There is no real square root of -1.

Also, without them then we wouldn't have the plethora of modern electronics.

Something, something, I can't see it so it's not real? (Except god/soul/magikal energy) 

Also uncertainty principle is part of quantum physics. Which would be the whole 'my fist don't know where they are now'. Wow. You are funny. Cat is dead?

And science is the pursuit of knowledge through empirical evidence/testing.

The misuse/pretence of science is not the same thing.


I presume that 'mainstream' science is 'science that disagrees with my viewpoint however well researched or peer reviewed'. Thankfully the principles scientific method accept the possibility of error. Hence; 'theory'. An oft misunderstood point.

Science that is taught in schools is hardly 'mainstream', it's just outdated/simplified 'lies to children' that roughly explain things without the increased complexity.

Or maybe just science that isn't 'discovered' by a crackpot (sorry, misunderstood genius) working in his basement against 'the man'. Ironically, a viewpoint derived in part from hollywood depictions of scientists. 

The misuse/pretence of science is not the same thing.

yeah, this is why i was so confused at first. you can't say that science is bad because asshole scientists do asshole things. that's just telling me assholes are assholes.