The "idiot" scientists

[Deleted]

While in most cases physical order can be used as an analogy for thermodynamic entropy it can't in all cases.

Evolution is evolution. Entropy is entropy. Efficiency is efficiency.

Entropy impedes upon a system's ability to exchange heat. As a closed system heats up the laws of thermodynamics state that the range of temperatures found within that system will be more uniform. And that heat will only move from high to low temperature. Until such a point that the system reaches equilibrium. I.e. there is no temperature exchange within the system.

Basically anybody who compares that to physical order or lack thereof is just completely wrong and doesn't understand thermodynamics at all.

Now when you take this to the scale of life on earth...

Now, the average mean temperature of the earth's atmosphere is typically figured at around 15C. Water freezes at 0C, and we know we need liquid water for life, but most known organisms will die off when reaching a temperature of roughly 71C.

That sounds like a pretty big range... but then Celsius is a relative temperature scale. While it's good for describing the human experience, you have to convert it to absolute temperature (i.e. Kelvin) in order to do any meaningful science with it.

71C might feel 5-6 times as hot as 15C, but the reality is that water freezes at 273.4K, and that 71C where all the bacteria die is 344.4K.

So it actually only takes about 25% more thermal energy to kill all life, as it does to have liquid water in order to support life.

So life exists in a very narrow slice of all possible temperatures in the universe. (between absolute zero and the planck temperature).

And then you have to consider that there's also no such thing as a perfectly closed thermodynamic system.

TLDR Thermodynamic entropy has nothing even remotely to do with biological evolution, but rather describes the ability for heat to migrate within a closed thermodynamic system.

I guess youre missing the "OT" a bit but since I find it really interesting I thought I should add my 2 cents anyway. So in in any case, I was curious about evolution. Entropy strives towards uniformity and simplicity. Life on the other hand towards complexity. Why is that? Assume life just happens. Why does it evolve towards complexity then? Bacteria are far more efficient and spend less energy than multi-cellular organisms. So instead of humans, why dont we have really efficient, almost inert passive bacteria now?

- - - Updated - - -

Unless your definition is different than typical person with a more diverse exposure to mathematics, higher mathematics is not as inapplicable as you are claiming it is. What exactly is your definition of higher maths?

Everything that involves "lets assume shit equals shit" or "lets assume this is possible". Mostly dealing with imaginary numbers, infinities, paradoxes and things like that

[Kokolums]

Our brains arent designed to be very mathy

Our brains are actually designed for pattern recognition, not math. People with what some call "photographic" memory are able to recall amazing amount of detailed information because they visualize it as a pattern and learn the pattern. The human brain wants to learn by example. It wants 500 examples thrown at it and then it will discern the patterns from there. An ideal setting to learn is apprentice-master, where the master guides the apprentice through everyday examples of the craft.

What's interesting about that is colleges don't teach that way. Colleges actually teach the WRONG way. Colleges start by drowning students in vague theory. Theory gets emphasized. And then (if there is time) some examples are tossed in. The human brain HATES to learn that way. What colleges should do is bring 500 examples up front, and then the theory behind it all should come AFTER the examples.

If colleges weren't doing it backwards, the human race would be a LOT smarter. Even worse, there is almost some sort of "teaching cult" for lack of a better term that seems to fiercely believe theory should be emphasized and examples should not. But I think part of the problem is its a lot easier on a teacher to teach a classroom of 90 students if they just focused on vague theory and only did a few examples (as sticking to vague theory is vastly more efficient at covering the material). So you get an education that is a mile wide and an inch deep compared to learning by example.

[Deleted]

Your premise in this thread seems to be built on fallacy.

And I choose to ignore that! Oh wait, actually no. Let me explain. I know very well how math and language works and I personally understand the "big words" and the mathy parts. However, this is about elitism in a sense. how most educated people tend to ignore the lower senses or how the primitive brain works but think thats actually the most important part of us. Just think. Can you compete with a calculator? No? Does it mean youre dumber than it?

[Filathorn]

Didn't read the whole thread, only skimmed it, but my two cents: If you have an idea, it's not up to someone else to prove / disprove it. Everyone can think, but there's a limited amount of people that can verify (technically fail to disprove) your thoughts (when it comes to science at least). This means it's up to you to provide either a sound theoretical proof or a sizable set of data that confirms your theory in a controlled environment. After you've provided this, you send it to some publisher who checks if it makes even the slightest amount of sense and is presented in a suitably decent way, and if so it'll get published and peer-reviewed, and if it holds up to peer-review, it'll get adopted into the pool of "known/verified science" and taught the next generation so the can keep building on it.

If anyone could just state anything and demand that the very tiny percent of people who are actually scientists proves their theory, the scientists wouldn't have time to do any actual science, but would have to waste their time disproving every single stupid theory every person in the world had. So it's purely a time saver, if you have a theory, prove it, don't just sprout gibberish and expect someone else to disprove it for you.

[Deleted]

Our brains are actually designed for pattern recognition, not math. People with what some call "photographic" memory are able to recall amazing amount of detailed information because they visualize it as a pattern and learn the pattern. The human brain wants to learn by example. It wants 500 examples thrown at it and then it will discern the patterns from there. An ideal setting to learn is apprentice-master, where the master guides the apprentice through everyday examples of the craft.

What's interesting about that is colleges don't teach that way. Colleges actually teach the WRONG way. Colleges start by drowning students in vague theory. Theory gets emphasized. And then (if there is time) some examples are tossed in. The human brain HATES to learn that way. What colleges should do is bring 500 examples up front, and then the theory behind it all should come AFTER the examples.

If colleges weren't doing it backwards, the human race would be a LOT smarter. Even worse, there is almost some sort of "teaching cult" for lack of a better term that seems to fiercely believe theory should be emphasized and examples should not. But I think part of the problem is its a lot easier on a teacher to teach a classroom of 90 students if they just focused on vague theory and only did a few examples (as sticking to vague theory is vastly more efficient at covering the material). So you get an education that is a mile wide and an inch deep compared to learning by example.

I could literally kiss you!!! SEE someone gets it.

[Kuntantee]

I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Science does have complex, technical jargon a lot of the time, but there's really no way around that. Fields with legitimate complexity can't really be stripped of their verbiage.

I do not think science has complex jargon. It just has technical jargon and that's the part causing problems for laymen.

[Linkedblade]

As someone who reads a lot of science related articles and watches science shows and videos, I noticed that they usually use a lot of obscure formulas and fancy words to prove their point and also how most people dismiss all ideas when the person who comes up with them cant formulate them and just uses small words and illustrative descriptions. But does that mean they are automatically wrong?

For example, I guess you all know the third law of thermodynamics, that the universe always strives towards entropy. Well I googled about why life doesnt. Life gets more complex over time as opposed to more efficient (bacteria being far more efficient than large life forms). And guess what, a bunch of greek letter and numbers. Articles both proving its false and its true. Always those obscure formulas with greek letters and numbers. So it got me thinking. Our brains dont work using these formulas. We come up with abstract ideas and often the formulas come later. Say you wanted to move your leg. Do you think about how many voltages you feed into your muscles, the angles? Precise calculations maybe? No, you just move it and you walk.

Sooo, should we dismiss the ideas of people who arent educated enough or cba to put then into formulas off the bat? Or maybe there can be some truth in it if the logic holds otherwise?

Entropy increases in a closed system. The universe is a closed system. So overall entropy is increasing. But our planet where life exists is not a closed system. If you consider the planet a system, you have to consider the sub providing energy in multiple ways, light, gravitation, various other radiation.

And that's not idiotic and i can see you posing this bastardization as a way to start an argument trying to prove science wrong.

Our brains work yes. They don't use those formulae, they just work. Those formulae are derived by us to model how it works. And it's not just mathematical formulae, there are numerous computer algorithms that model how it works as well. We may some day drive a formula or algorithm as efficient or more efficient than the human brain. And it isn't you brain calculating some voltage it what have you, buy the neuronal response skins a signal through other neurons to your Donal cord to various nerves and muscles. And it's quite minimal of an electric charge.

[Detritivores]

I guess youre missing the "OT" a bit but since I find it really interesting I thought I should add my 2 cents anyway. So in in any case, I was curious about evolution. Entropy strives towards uniformity and simplicity. Life on the other hand towards complexity. Why is that? Assume life just happens. Why does it evolve towards complexity then? Bacteria are far more efficient and spend less energy than multi-cellular organisms. So instead of humans, why dont we have really efficient, almost inert passive bacteria now?

Your question is based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics as well as a lack of understanding about evolution. Very abbreviated, math-free explanations are that the second law doesn't apply to life on earth because earth isn't a closed system. Also evolution is based on variable reproductive success caused by genetic differences in the same species, which obviously isn't striving for simplicity.

Edit: To be clear, delving into the nasty greek symbols and math would answer this question for you, which I encourage you to do. Random thoughts and ideas are great if they cause us to learn something new and understand a bit of reality that we didn't understand before. But it can't just stop at "I had this random thought about evolution. Why can't I be right?" You can be. But in this case you aren't. The whole second law thing is a commonly raised, easily dismissed creationist argument. Some brief googling will explain it in more detail than I have time to here.

[Fencers]

And I choose to ignore that! Oh wait, actually no. Let me explain. I know very well how math and language works and I personally understand the "big words" and the mathy parts.

That is not what I am talking about in a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics and language. This is another misunderstanding you are exhibiting.

The statement; "Math leads nowhere.", is simply false.

However, this is about elitism in a sense.

What?

I am seriously confused here despite your assertions of knowing about this or that subject- because this could not make sense otherwise. Science and math are impartial. There is no elitism- only the degree to which one has over a particular language or disciple.

Algebra isn't magic. Not knowing algebra is just ignorance. Not elitism.

Anyone can be taught algebra. If it seems arcane to some school children it is because they have not been taught or grasped the basic underlying principles of algebra. Or geometry, or calculus, or dynamical systems theory, etc. These are impartial.

Faulting a scientist or mathematician for elitism is one thing- but that elitism is not the result of either science or mathematics. That is perceived failing of character.

how most educated people tend to ignore the lower senses or how the primitive brain works

This honestly seems like nonsense speech. It makes little sense and is ill defined- in fact, you have not defined it at all.

What lower senses?
What primitive brain?

Can you compete with a calculator? No? Does it mean youre dumber than it?

Of course I can compute without a calculator. A calculator does not have intelligence- the secondary question is nonsensical.

I really think your are arguing from a position of fallacy and irrationality, with all due respect. I recognize the spirit of what you may be saying in this thread but in form and expression it is categorically incorrect and/or fantastical.

[Garnier Fructis]

"Math leads nowhere" is horrifying false. Science without math leads nowhere. You don't build airliners, achieve stable orbits for satellites, and design machines capable of detecting cosmic neutrinos with a bunch of hand-waving and vague statements.

[Gheld]

@Cherise while uniformity is a fair tendency to assign to entropy simplicity is not. While entropy would necessitate that a system with higher entropy would have temperatures closer to the maximum temperature of the system it doesn't speak to whether or not the number of temperature anomalies in the system would be higher or lower, or whether or not they would create more or less complex patterns.

And as far as evolution favoring efficiency or not; that's simply not the case. If evolution favored more complex organisms then we wouldn't still have single celled organisms. Not to mention single celled organisms too have evolved into other single celled organisms.

So there's no indication that evolution favors more or less complex life.

[Deleted]

The statement; "Math leads nowhere.", is simply false.

Is it though? Can pure math lead to any discoveries? If so, then how?

What?

I am seriously confused here despite your assertions of knowing about this or that subject- because this could not make sense otherwise. Science and math are impartial. There is no elitism- only the degree to which one has over a particular language or disciple.

Algebra isn't magic. Not knowing algebra is just ignorance. Not elitism.

Anyone can be taught algebra. If it seems arcane to some school children it is because they have not been taught or grasped the basic underlying principles of algebra. Or geometry, or calculus, or dynamical systems theory, etc. These are impartial.

Faulting a scientist or mathematician for elitism is one thing- but that elitism is not the result of either science or mathematics. That is perceived failing of character.

Science and math are impartial, people however are not. It was about those people who are adept at math at science who consider themselves superior and elite just because they can use the greek letters and formulate things and dismiss everyone who cant do the same off the bat.

This honestly seems like nonsense speech. It makes little sense and is ill defined- in fact, you have not defined it at all.

What lower senses?
What primitive brain?

I meant the part thats done automatically, by the brain without you even knowing how its done, I did explain it though.

Of course I can compute without a calculator. A calculator does not have intelligence- the secondary question is nonsensical.

I really think your are arguing from a position of fallacy and irrationality, with all due respect. I recognize the spirit of what you may be saying in this thread but in form and expression it is categorically incorrect and/or fantastical.

Actually no you cant. The point I was trying to make there was that your brain does a lot of things automatically. Very complex things. Even a complete moron can do things that even the most sophisticated machines cant.

[s_bushido]

You don't get to dismiss scientific understanding just because you "can't be assed" to get some of it yourself. And while people with limited understanding shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, if what they're suggesting runs completely contrary to what we already know, and they aren't educated enough to tell you why their ideas are better, then there's no reason not to tell them to come back when they've learned more.

I don't want to assume the worst, but you mention entropy and life in your OP...so I immediately think that these other sources you're talking about have to do with creationism... Which just highlights something else about laymen: everyone lets their own personal ideologies influence them. Those Greek letters and big words are a way for everyone else studying a particular field to see if their colleagues are full of shit.

[Deleted]

You don't get to dismiss scientific understanding just because you "can't be assed" to get some of it yourself. And while people with limited understanding shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, if what they're suggesting runs completely contrary to what we already know, and they aren't educated enough to tell you why their ideas are better, then there's no reason not to tell them to come back when they've learned more.

I don't want to assume the worst, but you mention entropy and life in your OP...so I immediately think that these other sources you're talking about have to do with creationism... Which just highlights something else about laymen: everyone lets their own personal ideologies influence them. Those Greek letters and big words are a way for everyone else studying a particular field to see if their colleagues are full of shit.

Ok, first, it has nothing to do with creationism, rest assured. Its about the second law or thermodynamics (although I have a feeling the entropy thing is the 3rd but whatever), also, no problems with accepting scientific proof. Its about certain people who are too full of themselves and dismiss some ideas just because they come from people who dont know how to properly use math and greek letters to prove their ideas.

[twiddler]

I guess youre missing the "OT" a bit but since I find it really interesting I thought I should add my 2 cents anyway. So in in any case, I was curious about evolution. Entropy strives towards uniformity and simplicity. Life on the other hand towards complexity. Why is that? Assume life just happens. Why does it evolve towards complexity then? Bacteria are far more efficient and spend less energy than multi-cellular organisms. So instead of humans, why dont we have really efficient, almost inert passive bacteria now?

- - - Updated - - -



Everything that involves "lets assume shit equals shit" or "lets assume this is possible". Mostly dealing with imaginary numbers, infinities, paradoxes and things like that

That's a very small portion of higher mathematics. The answer to all of your questions is abstraction and yes, it is necessary. You have only so much time so it's better to assume that your esoteric work is something most likely understood and sought by people within the field. Thus, it's more efficient to create and use vocubalary as abstraction. The necessity of mathematics is also abstraction. It helps you build models to represent whatever you've done and with the introduction of certain notation, you're able to more efficiently represent an otherwise abstract numerical model.

[breadisfunny]

The second law of thermodynamics, not third.

As for your concerns, you don't know how science works it seems. An idea is just an idea unless it is shown to be useful in some way empirically or formally. There is no room for philosophy in science.

someone should alert spinner981 to that fact.

[Forogil]

Now, the average mean temperature of the earth's atmosphere is typically figured at around 15C. Water freezes at 0C, and we know we need liquid water for life, but most known organisms will die off when reaching a temperature of roughly 71C.

That sounds like a pretty big range... but then Celsius is a relative temperature scale. While it's good for describing the human experience, you have to convert it to absolute temperature (i.e. Kelvin) in order to do any meaningful science with it.

71C might feel 5-6 times as hot as 15C, but the reality is that water freezes at 273.4K, and that 71C where all the bacteria die is 344.4K.

0C is 273.15K not 273.4K.

However, in reality often freezes below 273.15K - since it is not pure water (e.g. sea-water), or in rare cases since it is really pure water in a really controlled experiment and is then super-cooled (unless the experimenter remembers to stir it).

And all bacteria don't die at 71C - some extremophiles some survive above 100C (and I assume some survive below freezing - I guess I could look it up); but they are not a problem for food (normally) - and thus 71C is good enough when cooking.

(Checked: at least up to 122 degrees C and down to -20 C; and, of course, most extremophiles are not bacteria - but some are.)

So it actually only takes about 25% more thermal energy to kill all life, as it does to have liquid water in order to support life.

Melting ice requires quite a lot of energy - energy and temperature are only related in a simple way for (ideal) gases.

TLDR Thermodynamic entropy has nothing even remotely to do with biological evolution, but rather describes the ability for heat to migrate within a closed thermodynamic system.

The second part is true, but thermodynamic entropy is clearly connected to biological evolution - it's just that it isn't a closed system. E.g. all the protein path-ways are based on chemistry - and whether they require or use energy is connected with entropy.

I would rather say: life counteracts 2nd law of thermodynamics (disorder) - and gravity (things falling down), but it takes energy.

[Garnier Fructis]

Ok, first, it has nothing to do with creationism, rest assured. Its about the second law or thermodynamics (although I have a feeling the entropy thing is the 3rd but whatever), also, no problems with accepting scientific proof. Its about certain people who are too full of themselves and dismiss some ideas just because they come from people who dont know how to properly use math and greek letters to prove their ideas.

Because the inability to formulate them in mathematical terms leads to too much ambiguity. For instance, we had a thread a while back where someone was talking about how they thought that there was a center of the universe, and how all the gravity cancels there. It was mostly unintelligible, and the more we tried to get specifics, the more unintelligible it got.

With mathematics, most of this ambiguity can be erased. Not only because everyone is now 'on the same page' so to speak, but also because the process of formulating things mathematically forces the person with the idea to really sit down and confront all the shortcomings in their ideas.

It's not just snobbish people looking down at the plebeians (though that more than likely happens as well), but because the people being dismissed are shifting all of the work of understanding that idea onto other people; it's a giant waste of time.

[Forogil]

Ok, first, it has nothing to do with creationism, rest assured. Its about the second law or thermodynamics (although I have a feeling the entropy thing is the 3rd but whatever),

Counting can be tricky (as in this case and sometimes in computer science). They have the 0th, 1st, and 2nd, (and 3rd nowadays) laws of thermodynamics - so it is the 3rd law as people normally count and is called the 2nd law...

[Gheld]

0C is 273.15K not 273.4K.

However, in reality often freezes below 273.15K - since it is not pure water (e.g. sea-water), or in rare cases since it is really pure water in a really controlled experiment and is then super-cooled (unless the experimenter remembers to stir it).

And all bacteria don't die at 71C - some extremophiles some survive above 100C (and I assume some survive below freezing - I guess I could look it up); but they are not a problem for food (normally) - and thus 71C is good enough when cooking.

(Checked: at least up to 122 degrees C and down to -20 C; and, of course, most extremophiles are not bacteria - but some are.)


Melting ice requires quite a lot of energy - energy and temperature are only related in a simple way for (ideal) gases.

The second part is true, but thermodynamic entropy is clearly connected to biological evolution - it's just that it isn't a closed system. E.g. all the protein path-ways are based on chemistry - and whether they require or use energy is connected with entropy.

I would rather say: life counteracts 2nd law of thermodynamics (disorder) - and gravity (things falling down), but it takes energy.

I would say you're incorrect because the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not "Disorder". The second law of thermodynamics is that entropy will always increase in a closed system. If anything the end result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that a thermodynamic system left to it's devices will eventually reach a state of equilibrium on it's own. There's nothing more orderly than that. It's absolute unchangeable uniformity. I fail to see what could possibly be more orderly than that.

Your cereal box version of thermodynamics doesn't apply to reality, let alone evolution.

And if you want to get really specific water begins to enter a solid-like state at around 4C. But water is just the poster child for "unusual states of matter".

In an absolute absence of any impurity to facilitate nucleation water doesn't solidify until -40C. (and all of these numbers only really apply to atmospheric pressure)

As it's been pointed out... if I make a house with an air conditioner to cool down my living space, that does not counter-act the 2nd law. My house is not a closed thermodynamic system. The air conditioner uses the NRE of a substance to create a temperature anomaly that allows the movement of heat outside of the house. The air conditioning itself produces waste heat which along with the heat from my living space is pumped into the atmosphere, heating it up. I didn't counteract the 2nd law. On the contrary, I've fulfilled it's every expectation. I've increased the overall entropy of the atmosphere in order to create a tiny isolated temperature anomaly which on the grand scheme of things amounts to nothing.