Intelligent Design

[Dr.Who]

It means a lot of things. Recently I saw a fictional movie of a US civilian pilot, flying an ill Inuit woman to a hospital. Their plane crashed. Neither were injured, but he was incapable of surviving but she fed them, kept them warm with fire, and eventually saved his life.

I just saw that movie about a month ago. Great movie!

 

[PLC1]

Yes, you came back with a smartass answer. Not only a smartass answer, but a wrong answer. How is the discussion moved forward by coming back with a smartass wrong answer?

Who said 2 + 2 = 4 is simple? There was a time not too long ago when shepherds did know how to count and could not tell how many sheep they had.

Numbers are not simple.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

However the original point remains valid. There is no "interpretation" of scientific data. Two scientists don't disagree about the facts.

How is it a wrong answer? Two and two don't always add up to four, because, as you said, numbers are not simple.

It really doesn't matter if the numbers are binary or decimal.

But yes, the original point holds true: Scientists don't disagree about the facts.

 

[Lagboltz]

Newton would have said:
2 mph plus 2 mph = 4 mph

but Einstein would have said:

186,000 miles per second plus 186,000 miles per second = 186,000 miles per second.

Additionally from Einsteins work we learn that even the 2 mph plus 2 mph are not exactly 4 mph.

Einstein said no such thing. He did say

 

[ProudLefty]

....

But yes, the original point holds true: Scientists don't disagree about the facts.

Please give an example of two scientists differing on facts. I would like to see what you believe science is, and this might throw some light.

 

[PLC1]

Please give an example of two scientists differing on facts. I would like to see what you believe science is, and this might throw some light.

Why would I give an example of two scientists differing on facts in order to show that scientists don't disagree on facts?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

How is it a wrong answer? Two and two don't always add up to four, because, as you said, numbers are not simple.

It really doesn't matter if the numbers are binary or decimal.

But yes, the original point holds true: Scientists don't disagree about the facts.

It would appear, given your example, that the numbers are simple -- it's the real-world quantities or qualities being described that aren't.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

It means a lot of things. Recently I saw a fictional movie of a US civilian pilot, flying an ill Inuit woman to a hospital. Their plane crashed. Neither were injured, but he was incapable of surviving but she fed them, kept them warm with fire, and eventually saved his life.

The point is this: Everyone is stupid about something. I would make the case though that slavery, and several generations of being treated as cattle will hold back the bloodstock of any group. As anecdotal evidence I would propose that an African-America who has no heritage of slavery in his family will do well. Barack Obama would be my example.

I wasn't actually asking what you think the answer would be. (IQ, for the record, doesn't refer to knowledge or skill or talent but generalized cognitive ability). I was simply proferring an example of a fact (the racial gap in IQ test scores) about the implications of which scientists can disagree in good faith.

 

[ProudLefty]

I wasn't actually asking what you think the answer would be. (IQ, for the record, doesn't refer to knowledge or skill or talent but generalized cognitive ability). I was simply proferring an example of a fact (the racial gap in IQ test scores) about the implications of which scientists can disagree in good faith.

The point being made is that the questions asked to determine IQ are largely based upon a vocabulary. If a test taker knows the vocabulary the IQ will measure higher than for a test taker who is not comfortable with the vocabulary. That explains a difference in IQs that is unrelated to the actual IQ of the persons tested. Because of that, there is a recognition that a culture that is different than normal Caucasian house holds will have a lower IQ score, just because of that difference. It has nothing to do with race, in and of itself, and probably more to do with being treated as cattle for generations. Just to be clear: today's descendants of slaves are less than 60 years away from a time when their schooling was ineffective, inadequate, and designed to keep the blacks down.

The issue isn't race; its opportunity. President Barack Obama would be my example that the issue is heritage, not race.

 

[PLC1]

The point being made is that the questions asked to determine IQ are largely based upon a vocabulary. If a test taker knows the vocabulary the IQ will measure higher than for a test taker who is not comfortable with the vocabulary. That explains a difference in IQs that is unrelated to the actual IQ of the persons tested. Because of that, there is a recognition that a culture that is different than normal Caucasian house holds will have a lower IQ score, just because of that difference. It has nothing to do with race, in and of itself, and probably more to do with being treated as cattle for generations. Just to be clear: today's descendants of slaves are less than 60 years away from a time when their schooling was ineffective, inadequate, and designed to keep the blacks down.

The issue isn't race; its opportunity. President Barack Obama would be my example that the issue is heritage, not race.

Yes, the issue is heritage and opportunity, or more specifically, culture. There is no way to take culture out of any measure of IQ that has been developed to date.

Barack Obama is not from the same culture as the black child whose parents live in the "projects", nor is his VP from the same culture as the child of the white welfare queen.

It is not race, nor are humans defined by race. Our DNA varies very little, and varies more from individual to individual than from race to race. Race is an invented concept anyway, based on superficial physical differences.

Humans are defined by culture.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

The point being made is that the questions asked to determine IQ are largely based upon a vocabulary. If a test taker knows the vocabulary the IQ will measure higher than for a test taker who is not comfortable with the vocabulary. That explains a difference in IQs that is unrelated to the actual IQ of the persons tested. Because of that, there is a recognition that a culture that is different than normal Caucasian house holds will have a lower IQ score, just because of that difference. It has nothing to do with race, in and of itself, and probably more to do with being treated as cattle for generations. Just to be clear: today's descendants of slaves are less than 60 years away from a time when their schooling was ineffective, inadequate, and designed to keep the blacks down.

The issue isn't race; its opportunity. President Barack Obama would be my example that the issue is heritage, not race.

You are simply asserting the claim that IQ tests are racially biased. That's one possible explanation for the objective fact of racial differences in IQ.

It's also not the only one.

Hence, it can reasonably be said that scientists disagree about the facts -- or, at the very least, about the practical value of facts.

 

[Dr.Who]

Einstein said no such thing. He did say

First, why present that mathematical bit? It is not even an equation, makes no assertion or statement. It is merely a ratio or fraction. One could say that Einstein said: E = mc squared, that is a statement. But how could one say 2/3.

Add the speeds of Einsteins lighting strikes and trains.
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Einstein'sTrain.html

Here is a more applicable example:

Thus, light emitted from a moving airplane does not travel with the speed of light plus the speed of the airplane, it travels with the "speed of light", no matter what the speed of the airplane! Although this seems strange, it has been confirmed in many experiments. These experiments show that it is our "common sense" that is wrong in this case!

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/lightspeed.html

In other words the speed of the plane plus the speed of the light does not equal the speed of the plane plus the speed of the light. For a plane traveling at the speed of light this is written as an equation thus: speed of plane (186,000 miles per seconds) + speed of headlight (186,000 miles per second) = speed of headlight beams (186,000 miles per second).

Nothing can be faster than the speed of light. Any time you add anything to it the speed remains the same.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why would I give an example of two scientists differing on facts in order to show that scientists don't disagree on facts?

I don't think you would do that.

But we might ask ourselves questions about these facts::

Do neutrinos have mass?
Does cold fusion exist?

One might say that we simply don't know the answer but the heart of the matter is that many scientist would say it is a fact that neutrinos have mass and many others would say it is a fact that they do not. Likewise for cold fusion. These are facts and they are disputed.

 

[PLC1]

I don't think you would do that.

But we might ask ourselves questions about these facts::

Do neutrinos have mass?
Does cold fusion exist?

One might say that we simply don't know the answer but the heart of the matter is that many scientist would say it is a fact that neutrinos have mass and many others would say it is a fact that they do not. Likewise for cold fusion. These are facts and they are disputed.

They might call them facts, but if no one knows whether they are true or not, then they aren't facts. They are opinions. In the opinion of one scientist, neutrinos have mass. In the opinion of another, they don't.

Once it is proven one way or another, then the mass of neutrinos will be as much of a fact as the mass of a baseball. I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that baseballs have mass.

Except perhaps on an internet forum.

Just a little joke, that last sentence. no need to take it seriously.

 

[ProudLefty]

I don't think you would do that.

But we might ask ourselves questions about these facts::

Do neutrinos have mass?
Does cold fusion exist?

One might say that we simply don't know the answer but the heart of the matter is that many scientist would say it is a fact that neutrinos have mass and many others would say it is a fact that they do not. Likewise for cold fusion. These are facts and they are disputed.

Please souce thqt assertion. It surprises me greatly to read that scientists disagree on facts, so I would like to see exactly what they do say, their own words, if you will.

 

[Lagboltz]

First, why present that mathematical bit? It is not even an equation, makes no assertion or statement. It is merely a ratio or fraction. One could say that Einstein said: E = mc squared, that is a statement. But how could one say 2/3.

Add the speeds of Einsteins lighting strikes and trains.
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Einstein'sTrain.html

Here is a more applicable example:

Thus, light emitted from a moving airplane does not travel with the speed of light plus the speed of the airplane, it travels with the "speed of light", no matter what the speed of the airplane! Although this seems strange, it has been confirmed in many experiments. These experiments show that it is our "common sense" that is wrong in this case!

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/lightspeed.html

In other words the speed of the plane plus the speed of the light does not equal the speed of the plane plus the speed of the light. For a plane traveling at the speed of light this is written as an equation thus: speed of plane (186,000 miles per seconds) + speed of headlight (186,000 miles per second) = speed of headlight beams (186,000 miles per second).

Nothing can be faster than the speed of light. Any time you add anything to it the speed remains the same.

You are correct. I'm sorry, I should have posted V =

where v is the velocity of system Sv with respect to inertial system So, u' is the velocity of a system Su with respect to system Sv and V is the velocity of Su with respect to So.

This is the famous relativistic addition of velocities equation which would be applicable to your plane example.

No physicist would ever use an example where v and u' are both at the speed of light because anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, only a massless particle can do that.(A photon.) So your consideration that
(186,000 miles per seconds) + speed of headlight (186,000 miles per second) = speed of headlight beams (186,000 miles per second)
could never happen physically, even though the equation makes sense if both velocities = c, the common notation for the speed of light.