beecee

Yep, and I accepted that correction and admit mostly through laziness, that sometimes my grammar is not strictly in line with proper English...It was though blown way out of proportion with nonsensical pedant and attempted science lessons by another. Of course, couldn't agree more! And that is evident every day with science and scientists correcting themselves... Agreed again.

My question again was "How can science improve and promote its image?"

Bingo ! What I actually said was, and as I already corrected John Cuthbert on was... "Something should be explained as simple as possible, but not any simpler"....or words to that effect." So, obviously I was not sure of the exact quote, nor of who to attribute it to, despite the questionable antics from some quarters. What was the general consensus though with regards to quantum theory before Einstein kicked the bucket? And ironically, he actually contributed to it himself!

You have yet to convince this forum, let alone the world.

In practical mechanics a carpenter will find a rule accurate enough to fit a door or window frame, and need not use a Vernier caliper which a Tool maker would require to hone a piston or cylinder. I'm beginning to see the point in Laurence Krauss' criticism against philosophy. Who is hero worshiping? We simply have a difference of opinion...and that same difference of opinion, on the same issue, is seen among professional scientists. Please don't let my past criticism of philosophy and philosophers, influence that difference of opinion.

Einstein came up with a more accurate model that accounted for that anomaly. Yep, OK agreed...an example of Newtonian lacking the accuracy/precision along with the precession of Mercury, But again, still [as far as I know] used in most all space endeavours.

Exactly! GR was simply a more precise, more accurate theory of gravity, that explained anomalies like the precession of Mercury, that Newtonian could not. Newtonian though is still accurate enough to be used in all means of physics on Earth, and and far as I know, in near all, if not all, space endeavours that have been undertaken.

Your idea of respect is greatly misconstrued. Einstein was wrong on occasion...that is a simple fact, and something the great man was humble enough to accept and admit. Also ideas have moved on since 1955 when he died, and more observations have been made, that have modified some of his opinions and further validated other predictions and GR. He does not need to defend himself, as I believe he was and is man enough, and humble enough to admit when and how he was at times wrong. A quality sometimes lacking in many "would be's if they could be's", participants on science forums.

Interesting article I came across, and which I find appropriate particularly with the undeserved and mostly invalidated criticism leveled at science, by many "would be's if they could be's" out there....My question is highlighted at the end of the two articles........ In Praise of Scientific Theory Just a hunch? Hardly. Think germ theory, atomic theory and the theory of evolution. Science can make life difficult for manipulators and demagogues. Without science, it would be much easier to convince the public that an intelligent designer created the world, or that greenhouse gas warming and lead contamination are just the fantasies of “alarmists.” To physicist and historian Gerald Holton, attacks on science tend to go along with moves toward authoritarian rule. “History has shown repeatedly that a disaffection with science and its view of the world can turn into a rage that links up with far more sinister movements,” he wrote in his 1993 book “Science and Anti-Science.” Those who want to fight the conclusions of scientific research often strike at its points of vulnerability -- like scientists’ insistence on using the word “theory” to describe even well-established ideas. In popular language, a “theory” implies a hunch or guess –- something less than a fact. That wrongly suggests weakness. “The theory of global warming is just that: a theory,” then-congressman and climate skeptic Mike Pence told an Indiana newspaper in 2003. He probably couldn’t get away with a similar dismissal of germ theory, atomic theory or Einstein’s theory of relativity. “It’s unfortunate the way the word ‘theory’ is used,” said philosopher of science Peter Godfrey-Smith. “To say something is a theory is to say it’s been expressed as an idea. It’s not to say anything about whether the claim is justified or not justified -- true or false.” The 19th-century philosopher William Whewell was one of the first people to put forward a definition of scientific theory as a product of observation and reasoning. And he had in mind a particular form of reasoning -- inductive reasoning, by which people draw broad conclusions from individual examples. That lines up with Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is backed by the fossil record, DNA evidence and even changes in animal anatomy. more at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-07-05/in-praise-of-scientific-theory extract: The most insidious misperception skewing today’s debate over climate change is confusion between uncertainty about the predictions of a theory and uncertainty about the theory itself. To illustrate the difference, Harvard University philosopher Peter Galison brings up evolution by natural selection: The theory is on solid ground, but that doesn’t mean it can predict exactly what foxes will look like 800,000 years in the future. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: another at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-23/science-s-weakness-is-also-its-strength Science's Weakness Is Also Its Strength One of the beauties of science is that it’s self-correcting — and there are times when its methods and the culture need rethinking, too. Pride and self-reproach have both been on display in the scientific community in recent weeks. At this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, for example, some scientists took up pro-science signs and marched in a nearby public square, while others gathered in conference rooms to agonize over a recent proliferation of questionable claims. The fields suffering most from dubious results are social science and medical research, where critics say too many highly-cited findings are evaporating as soon as others try to replicate the original experiments. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: How can science improve and promote its image? I sometimes hear criticism of popular science shows, as giving lay people the wrong message and answers, in their efforts to simplify the concept they are trying to promote. I'm not really sure all this criticism is deserved. To my way of thinking, the likes of Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, Brian Greene, Sir David Attenbourough, are at least getting the message out there. Now of course sometimes the analogies they use to get their message/s across may not be strictly correct...[eg: the BB being an explosion] But at least they could be promoting an Interest in science out there, and just as obviously, those that are Interested, may be just interested enough to at least start asking questions, taking specific courses, or coming to forums such as this for extra clarification of the science aspect they find an interest in. Isn't this a good thing? and doesn't it over ride the pop sci message that the BB was an explosion? Isn't this far better then still only having the myth forged into one's brain of some magical, unscientific, mythical all powerful, omnipotent deity doing the deed? I'm simply a retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/welder with absolutely no professional education in science above high school physics and chemistry. I have though read plenty of reputable stuff, starting with Hawking's "Brief History of Time, Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps", Stephen Weinbergs, "The First Three Minutes""and many others to promote and improve my general scientific knowledge. Those readings were prompted actually by the late great Carl Sagan and his "Cosmos" TV series in the early/mid seventies. Another great TV series that got me on the road to learning and over riding the brain washing that I received was Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" Anyway, that's how pop science, reputable reading, science forums participation, and a couple of well presented TV shows, sparked my now insatiable thirst for knowledge and science.

Not really, what I said was "Something should be explained as simple as possible, but not any simpler"....or words to that effect.

Yep, that's why I made the distinction. Thanks Marcus.

Yep, I accept that. It's probably relevant to say that explaining GR to the majority of people, is best left as portrayed in most pop science shows, with the bowling ball and trampoline analogy. In that respect some credence is always put in the fact that we accept what reputable professionals have and do tell us...In the same mode as expecting your morning commute bus to work to be on time.

I havn't seen the show in question, but for some unknown reason, my facebook page is being infestated with similar tripe from a mag called Gaia. All in all, I agree with exactly what you have said...I certainly accept that we on planet Earth are not the only place where life has evolved, but in saying that, we have as yet no evidence for any life existing anywhere else.

A delightful Italian number as played by Andre Rieu and the Johann Strauss orchestra in Melbourne 2008 at a concert I attended along with 38,000 others.

I would agree with that and I'm pretty sure Occam's Razor can be summed up with the quote "Something should be explained as simple as possible, but not any simpler"....or words to that effect.

Saying something is so, and making claims on a public science forum without any real evidence, will not convince the world or even the thinking members of this forum. And spacetime is four dimensional geometry.

I'm now getting the Magazine Gaia nonsense infecting the Facebook page I sometimes comment on...

Are all matter/anti matter living, in some sense? Not at all, although scientifically speaking, at one time there was no life, then sometime later there was....So that is the prime evidence for the process of Abiogenesis, or the evolution of life from inert matter/anti-matter.

I rest easy in the fact that all members here are able to see who has misinterpreted, misquoted, acted dishonestly in continued obtuseness and general disregard and ignoring of the facts, here and elsewhere that absolutely invalidate all that you have claimed...and it certainly is not swansont. And as I have continually explained to you, and as you have insidiously continued to ignore, mainstream science in general dispute your claim that science is the search for truth and/or reality...The evidence and the scientific methodology shows it is not....Of course every discipline in this big wide wonderful world will always have mavericks that stand against the general well held view. You standing for them, does not validate your already invalidated claims. Sure a blanket statement can be made about science, ignoring the pseudo and maverick brigade which is only a small percentage anyway, but obviously make a lot of noise on forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick, Harry or Reg. Let me make that blanket statement now...science is the pursuit of knowledge of how the universe operates, based on repeated observations and experiments as detailed by the tried and true foundations of the scientific methodology. You said it, not me. He certainly is not the only one to make that observation..at least four have inferred it in one way or another.

Yep, and in line with the rules. But hey! instead of quibbling about pedant, I also have asked you some relevant questions and made some relevant comments, not the least being, what is your opinion of the article? I mean if the rest of the forum and myself can know that, then we may have an idea of what you want to discuss.

I'm really at a loss to know what you actually want to discuss...Was it a good article? yes....Does the article mention science, truth and reality...yes, So again I ask, what is your opinion on the article? That may give the rest of us here, who as far as I can see, all have actually no idea what you want to discuss, some semblance of what you want to discuss. i mean sometimes pedant can be way over the top, and I believe your claims and otherwise in this thread, are just that. Anyway getting back to your article..... "Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist". So the article mentions "scientific theories" and consequently I see no reason that this should not or does not entail, scientific truth and/or reality...do you agree? Again, if the great man is saying as the author has inferred, that science is actually after some truth and/or reality, then I believe that the evidence says that is untrue, and it is something to do with the article and on topic, despite your pedantic claims and exclusions as to what is and should be discussed.

from your quote.... Science in my opinion is seeking knowledge and explanations as to the structure of the universe and everything in it via empirical observation and experiment. If that basically is not what Einstein actually believed [and I'm sure he did] then I also believe he was wrong. Einstein said many things and is known for many wise quotes attributed to him. I respectfully suggest that what Einstein was supposed to have said, [following this] in your article, and the quibbling that you have instigated with this thread is relevant. eg: Science...Truth...Reality, and "Science, truth and reality" The third post, mine, actually answered another poster and his question.

The point I was making was that sometimes people do use it as a means to decry science. That's the point I am making. A scientific theory or model is the top rung of science, and as best as it gets...eg: SR/GR Theory of evolution.

As distinct from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420717/why-spacetime-on-the-tiniest-scale-may-be-two-dimensional/ or microscopic spactime? Any thoughts Marcus? [speculative obviously but could it be observed theoretically one day?]

Firstly, welcome, secondly, congratulations for actually posting in the correct forum...we often have newbies with new ideas, that immediately post in the mainstream sciences sections, thirdly I'm only an amateur, and can't really offer any validity or otherwise to what you are claiming. Does it have anything to do with, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420717/why-spacetime-on-the-tiniest-scale-may-be-two-dimensional/ noting that that article came out in 2010 and I havn't heard anything re this 2x2. ps: Remember also, scientific theories are not about, and never have been about proof, although obviously, the longer a theory matches newer and newer observations and is making the correct predictions, they do grow in certainty over time.