The "idiot" scientists

[Forogil]

This is something Feynman criticized harshly. He said that all important ideas should have a qualitative, easy to understand and interpret, explanation, rather than a bunch of abstract lifeless formulas. Amidst scientific debates, he liked to say, "Okay, hold on, hold on. Explain to me what this formula means. In terms of physics".

Makes sense, his lectures of QED in terms of Feynman diagrams are wonderful - and really good for that aspect (and it also works mathematically - even if that was tricky).

[Kuntantee]

Science without math leads nowhere.

Science without math is philosophy, and it indeed leads to no where.

[Gheld]

Science without math is philosophy, and it indeed leads to no where.

That's why Newton invented calculus. Whose name means pebbles.

[Forogil]

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.

Having all the hydrogen atoms in one part would be more orderly, similarly as people who open an M&M and sort them into color people normally perceive that as being more orderly than the original.

And at least I don't normally hear people say: let's put this jars of paints in order by mixing everything to an even color. Have you?

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

And the reason for the insults is that you don't know that 0C is 273.15K? And after some thought I assume you mean that the cereal box version is that life uses energy to counter-act the 2nd law of thermodynamics and gravity - which unfortunately for you is correct, but obviously there are details missing.

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".

Ice is solid, but have you tried take a swim in water below 4C - I can tell you that it feels pretty fluid (and cold).

[Mongo42]

As I understand it, the usual argument about thermodynamics is against the formation of the first cells, and not so much about adaptive mutations.

I still find it amusing how people want to separate abiogenesis from the rest of evolution, yet still make claims that evolution explains all life. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson said in season 1 episode 2 of Cosmos, "Some of the things that molecules do", the one about evolution, that "Nobody knows how life got started. All the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science exists on the boundary between knowledge and ignorance. Not ashamed to admit what we don't know. The only real shame is to pretend we have all the answers".

Originally we had a theory about "primordial soup" and things just bumping into each other to form the "building blocks" etc etc... but as scientific knowledge has advanced, we know it takes a lot more to form a cell, and that heating the "building blocks of life" just makes tar. Furthermore, we can currently piece bits of a cell together in a lab, but jump starting it to life is a bit more difficult. Not quite as simple as Frankenstein might make it seem. Franken-cell would take a bit more than the "building blocks of life" bumping into each other to start up those complex processes. Thus the arguments about entrophy and such.

Currently, we have theories that "life" could have come from Mars because conditions there are assumed to have been much more favorable for the formation of Ribose, a key part of RNA. Another theory shows that various compounds necessary for a cell would have to form in different conditions and somehow flow together into one area. One suggestion was they could have formed in various meteor craters, thus allowing for difference concentrations of chemicals and such. Other theories suggest that life formed in pockets in ice, because anyone who's cooked a meal knows that heating organic things for a long time tends to turn them into a chaotic mush instead of organizing them into complex patterns.

Regardless, the existence of an extradimensional entity that could have manipulated this planet is not disproved by full explanations of abiogenesis or adaptive mutations. Thus the many religious doctors, scientists, and various people with masters and doctorates.

And just to add a little extra for thought, research continues on how multiple complex organisms could have experienced simultaneous mutations so as to have sufficient numbers with a given mutation to not need to inbreed to preserve that mutation. We see this with White Tigers, which we have had to inbreed to preserve that mutation due to their small numbers. Actually, any time a species is endangered or going extinct, people will say that unless more of its kind are found to breed with, that species will go extinct. That's a direct contradiction to the grossly oversimplified explanation of random mutations and natural selection. A single sexually reproducing organism that experiences a significant mutation that then breeds back with the general population that does not share that mutation will produce hybrids, if able to produce offspring at all. Those hybrids breeding back with the general population that does not share those mutations will see those mutations bred out. Charles Darwin knew this and likely assumed it was common knowledge. It's part of "Darwin's doubt", that if any organ could be found to not be the result of many small successive mutations, his theory would fall apart. That's not because of any "borrowing" of genetic material, as was suggested in the Michael Behe Dover trial, but rather because Darwin knew how hereditary traits were a limit on mutations being passed on. It's also convenient that many people arguing about evolution and adaptive mutations focus on single celled organisms that reproduce by cell division rather than being governed by hereditary traits.

Again, research continues on how life began and on how a larger population could experience simultaneous mutations. Neither of which disproves the existence of any extradimensional entities otherwise known as "gods".

[Gheld]

Having all the hydrogen atoms in one part would be more orderly, similarly as people who open an M&M and sort them into color people normally perceive that as being more orderly than the original.

M&M Colours aren't a closed thermodynamic system. Your example is bad.

Life is not a 2nd law violating perpetual motion machine. Everything that happens that has ever been observed under laboratory conditions does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact the opposite is true. That's why it's called the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And entropy is not disorder, nor has it ever been defined as disorder. In fact you pretty much point out yourself that "order" and "disorder" are strictly human abstractions.

[spinner981]

I'm sure somebody else has already posted this in this thread by now, but just to drive the point home:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

Science without math is philosophy, and it indeed leads to no where.

Well, it leads to somewhere. Just because you might not like where it leads doesn't mean it leads to no where.

Both science with math and science without math (ie: philosophy as you put it) lead to answers for various questions, that each and every individual can either choose to accept or deny.

Ironically, philosophy is the only way to attempt to give ultimate meaning and/or ultimate purpose to that which isn't philosophical.

[s_bushido]

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.

If you don't know how to properly use "math and greek letters" to express an idea where that sort of thing is appropriate, you really have no business trying to challenge those who do. Just like if you don't understand how a vehicle is put together, you have no business tearing your car's engine apart. And taking that analogy to the bitter end: if you know nothing about cars, and yet somehow manage to build one from scratch, you can't really be surprised if an engineer comes along and points out every reason why the one you just built is less efficient, less powerful, and more expensive than something you could have bought from a dealership.

It's nothing about people being "full of themselves" and everything about ensuring that things are done properly.

[Detritivores]

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.

The entire second law argument, as I've said already, is a commonly used creationism argument when the person advancing it wants to sound vaguely "science-y" instead of outright thumping their bible, usually because they have a nefarious agenda of getting their religious ideas into a science classroom.

If you are truely ignorant of that, then ok, but I hope you'll pardon everyone's skepticism. Additionally, it is very easy to understand why life on earth doesn't violate the second law (or the third). I've already explained it in layman's terms, but a full understanding is going to take greek symbols I'm afraid.

Again, in the abstract, there's no reason a layman's idea can't be right. But it has to be proven right. And it the case of your example, it is indeed the opposite of right (wrong).

[spinner981]

Again, in the abstract, there's no reason a layman's idea can't be right. But it has to be proven right. And it the case of your example, it is indeed the opposite of right (wrong).

I think the point that he is trying to make is that it is pretty arrogant of people to dismiss any idea that they don't personally deem to be 'up to snuff' with their perception of their own intelligence.

[Spectral]

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.

Can you provide real world examples of this happening and being an actual problem? It really seems like you're just taking an anti-elitist stance for the sake of not liking elitism, but not pointing out any real problems.

[Deleted]

SEEE!! Actually I dont know. But this is what I meant. Just human errors, obscurity. Our brains arent designed to be very mathy I think but errors and not using the big words doesnt mean youre automatically completely wrong, does it?

generally yes it does.

You see science is the attempt to remove bias and speculation, to remove guesses and gut feelings and actually test and experiment to provide evidence to back up theories.

It does not always get it right, it does not always last forever as our understanding develops, but its a continual journey.

Just going with whatever you think may be right and not testing, or checking whats been previously done, is just wandering around lost.

[Forogil]

M&M Colours aren't a closed thermodynamic system. Your example is bad.

I compare sorting M&M's according to color to sorting out a system such that all atoms of one kind (hydrogen) are in one part - in both cases it would be more orderly than the total mix.

And thermodynamic entropy is defined regardless of whether the system is closed or not - it is just that it is supposed to increase in a closed system; whereas the M&M sorting is using the information theory concept of entropy (the entropy-concepts are related) - the information theory entropy is important for compression: it's easy to compress data to a small compressed size if it is in order.

The point of this thread is exactly that many scientific ideas can be communicated without going into the mathematical details; but you need the mathematics to get the results (assuming you can make the mathematics work - e.g. superstring theory has some problems there).

[Garnier Fructis]

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.

Anything else could be more orderly than that, because at equilibrium there is really no order left: you can jumble up system, shake it all over and change the location of all the molecules and it will still look the same.

In contrast, if you were to put all the hydrogen molecules into a tiny sub box, then this has much more order: because you have forced the system to occupy a very restricted region of its phase space, and you have thus decreased the amount of freedom there is.

[Vash The Stampede]

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?

The scientific method is to explain something. It's very simple, if you can test it and prove the hypothesis, then it's true and becomes a theory. At any point you prove it's wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. If something has been proven by science to be true, then it's true. Nothing you can do to dismiss it, unless you have a test that shows it's not true.

If you don't understand what's going on, git gud. That's what the human brain is for.

[Detritivores]

I think the point that he is trying to make is that it is pretty arrogant of people to dismiss any idea that they don't personally deem to be 'up to snuff' with their perception of their own intelligence.

I guess if the argument is, "people shouldn't be elitist assholes," you'd be hard-pressed to find people who disagree. But when the example provided is a common and easily debunked "creation science" myth, it isn't arrogant to dismiss it. Maybe that's just a bad example.

[Gheld]

Anything else could be more orderly than that, because at equilibrium there is really no order left: you can jumble up system, shake it all over and change the location of all the molecules and it will still look the same.

In contrast, if you were to put all the hydrogen molecules into a tiny sub box, then this has much more order: because you have forced the system to occupy a very restricted region of its phase space, and you have thus decreased the amount of freedom there is.

Again though, the only "ordered" factor that entropy refers to is heat itself. Heat is 100% ordered in a system at equilibrium. It's all the same. It will never change.

[Forogil]

Can you provide real world examples of this happening and being an actual problem? It really seems like you're just taking an anti-elitist stance for the sake of not liking elitism, but not pointing out any real problems.

Well, if it happens there is a solution - get help from someone who can codify your idea in mathematical terms -
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...great-science/

[spinner981]

The scientific method is to explain something. It's very simple, if you can test it and prove the hypothesis, then it's true and becomes a theory. At any point you prove it's wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. If something has been proven by science to be true, then it's true. Nothing you can do to dismiss it, unless you have a test that shows it's not true.

If you don't understand what's going on, git gud. That's what the human brain is for.

Just for clarification. Science isn't an entity. Science doesn't 'prove' anything. Humans use science as a tool, and arrive at conclusions that can be accepted as 'proof', or accepted as 'true'. That said, just because something is accepted as 'true' doesn't necessarily make it actually true. There have been scientific conclusions before that were wholly or partially false. Ultimately it boils down to what is accepted as the truth, and that is what is referred to as the truth or as that which is 'proven'. Ultimately, we can't 'prove' anything, we can only accept something as proven. Does this mean that nothing humans ever claim to be true is true? No. This isn't to say that we should reject all scientific theories right off the bat, but rather just be aware that that is the reality, and not get too caught up in 'decisively proven truth' being the 100% accurate truth of the universe.

[Forogil]

Again though, the only "ordered" factor that entropy refers to is heat itself.

No. No. No. Entropy is not just about "heat" or temperature - even if that is included.