Stephen Hawking warns over making contact with aliens

[AnnaG]

A little long, but a good read:

[SIZE=+2] Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][Last Update: October 1, 2003][/SIZE]

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

• Evolution has never been observed.
• Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
• There are no transitional fossils.
• The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
• Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Now you have it, Juan.

 

[AnnaG]

There was no second funeral. Einstein is admired universally, respected universally and accepted universally.

I knew it. You are an alien. No human could tell how far out in the universe Einstein's existence is known.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Regardless of scientific etiquette there are some things Joseph that are far beyond the realm of mere theory. Evolution is a good example. With the fossil record and the happenings in places like the Galapagos Islands, evolution is pretty much accepted as fact. by most reasonable people.
General relativity has been encountered and confirmed dozen times by NASA.

Is it also a theory that water will boil if it is heated to the point where the vapour pressure exceeds the ambient pressure plus the bit of pressure induced by surface tension?

Juan, let me explain in terms of deductive logic why a theory can never be proved beyond any doubt. I don’t know if you have studied deductive logic, but what is involved here is very elementary.

P∩Q is a logical statement, it means P implies Q. However, Q does not imply P. Q does not prove P. Grass is green, but that does not mean that something green is necessarily grass.

Now, in science, somebody proposes a theory, and based upon that he makes predictions. Let us say, that Big Bang predicts expansion of universe. So P is Big Bang, Q is expansion. P∩Q.

Now, we experimentally observe Big Bang. But that doesn’t prove Big Bang theory or P. We are trying to argue that because we observe expansion, that proves Big Bang theory. Logically that is false. P implies Q, Q does not imply P.

So we say that expansion of universe supports Big Bang theory, it does not prove it. But then let us take a whole bunch of statements.

P∩Q1, P∩Q2, P∩Q3 and so on. Then if we observe Q1, Q2, Q3 etc., that gives even more support to P. Thus Big Bang predicts background radiation, it predicts formation of galaxies, it predicts expansion of universe, it predicts a starting point for the universe. If all these are observed, that lends even more support to Big Bang theory.

However, proving existence of Q1, Q2, Q3 etc. still does not prove P. It simply tells us that it is more and more likely that P is true. No matter how many Qs you prove, hundreds, or thousands, you still cannot prove P by deductive logic.

You can however, disprove P by deductive logic. If P∩Q, then if Q is false, that proves that P is false. So there may be 1000 Qs which may be true. But if P∩Q1001, and if Q1001 is false, that proves that P is false, notwithstanding that Q1 to Q1000 are true.

Thus let us say that Big Bang predicts that the sunlike star would explode when it dies (it doesn’t predict that, but let us assume). And then astronomers observe that sunlike stars do not explode when they die. That will disprove the Big Bang theory, it won’t matter that it has predicted many of the observations successfully.

So let me summarize.

P∩Q. by observing Q, we cannot prove P, we can only speculate that P is probably true.

P∩Q. If we prove that Q is false, then we have proved by deductive logic that P is false.

That is why a scientific theory can never be proven, it can only be disproved.

 

[CDNBear]

:roll:Another one that flings his ignorance around like it is something to be proud of.

I'm looking forward to him appearing in this thread...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/91895-geologic-time-scale-when-how.html

 

[Tonington]

...still a theory?

So what does a theory become when it's no longer a theory? Can a theory be anything more than a theory? If I pull an apple out of my refrigerator, and let go of it, it will fall. If I do this in space, it will maintain it's position, or float off in the direction of any momentum it may have gained when my hand opened.

We have a theory to describe this. It describes both cases, in space, and on our planet, and even on the moon. The theory is sound, because it allows us to predict. If we ever find something that modifies the theory, say on a similar planet we can let go of the apple and it falls up, then our theory is not disproved. It just means we need to modify our theory. What was true before is still true, the story just gets more complete when we add the new information. It will still be a theory...a very powerful scientific tool which has allowed us to make huge gains.

Still a theory...cracks me up every time!

 

[CDNBear]

cracks me up every time!

Oh that's just a theory...

 

[AnnaG]

...still a theory?

So what does a theory become when it's no longer a theory? Can a theory be anything more than a theory? If I pull an apple out of my refrigerator, and let go of it, it will fall. If I do this in space, it will maintain it's position, or float off in the direction of any momentum it may have gained when my hand opened.

We have a theory to describe this. It describes both cases, in space, and on our planet, and even on the moon. The theory is sound, because it allows us to predict. If we ever find something that modifies the theory, say on a similar planet we can let go of the apple and it falls up, then our theory is not disproved. It just means we need to modify our theory. What was true before is still true, the story just gets more complete when we add the new information. It will still be a theory...a very powerful scientific tool which has allowed us to make huge gains.

Still a theory...cracks me up every time!

I GUESSED it would. lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

...still a theory?

So what does a theory become when it's no longer a theory? Can a theory be anything more than a theory? If I pull an apple out of my refrigerator, and let go of it, it will fall. If I do this in space, it will maintain it's position, or float off in the direction of any momentum it may have gained when my hand opened.

Scientific theory never becomes a fact, it can never be proved beyond all doubt.

We have a theory to describe this. It describes both cases, in space, and on our planet, and even on the moon. The theory is sound, because it allows us to predict.

We had a theory to describe this, Newton's theory of gravitation. That was proved to be false (or rather, proved to be a special case of another theory).

Indeed, that is why in scientific papers, research papers they never say that their observations prove a particular theory. The language invariably is, 'our observations are not inconsistent with theory A', or if one wants to be more emphatic 'our observations are consistent with theory A', but never 'our observations prove theory A'.

So Big Bang theory, Relativity theory, theory of evolution etc. will remain theories forever (unless they are disproved at some stage).

If we ever find something that modifies the theory, say on a similar planet we can let go of the apple and it falls up, then our theory is not disproven. It just means we need to modify our theory. What was true before is still true, the story just gets more complete. It will still be a theory...a very powerful scientific tool which has allowed us to make huge gains.

That depends upon how severe the modification is. Thus Newton's Theory of gravitation was not modified, it was disproved. We still use it because it is convenient and holds true in some special cases, but it is a special case of the Theory of relativity. If tomorrow Big Bang theory needs to be modified, it will be known as the Modified Big Bang Theory, to distinguish it from the original Big Bang Theory.

A modified theory is a disproved theory.

 

[Tonington]

Scientific theory never becomes a fact, it can never be proved beyond all doubt.

The question was rhetorical...

 

[#juan]

My engineering degree is thirty odd years old but it seems to me that most good theories gather enertia as the years go by. The theory of evolution itself gathers strength and enertia as more information is added with each new discovery in the field. We have now observed evolution as it happens.(fruit flies etc)

The big Bang theory remains the most logical way to explain the expanding universe and background radiation.

Seems to me I've read that General relativity has been used to predict the orbital positions of space probes.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The question was rhetorical...

Sorry, I thought you were arguing against me. But as I recall, you recently graduated form a university, so I assume you are familiar with the scientific method. To average person it may sound strange, but a scientific theory remains a theory forever. It can never be proved to be true, it can only be proved false.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

My engineering degree is thirty odd years old but it seems to me that most good theories gather enertia as the years go by. The theory of evolution itself gathers strength and enertia as more information is added with each new discovery in the field. We have now observed evolution as it happens.(fruit flies etc)

The big Bang theory remains the most logical way to explain the expanding universe and background radiation.

Seems to me I've read that General relativity has been used to predict the orbital positions of space probes.

Everything you say is true. But that does not mean that these theories have been proved to be true. All it means is that there is overwhelming evidence to support these theories and they have been accepted as valid by most of the scientific community.

It really goes back to my previous post on deductive logic. In the case of these theories, P∩Q1, P∩Q2, P∩Q3 etc., Q1, Q2, Q3 have been proved to be true, that strengthens these theories.

However, there may still be P∩Q1001, where Q1001 is false, therefore the theory is false. The chances of that happening are extremely remote, but they are not zero.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Did Mr. Hawking's handlers leave him sitting out in the sun a bit too long? What aliens?

 

[Cliffy]

Did Mr. Hawking's handlers leave him sitting out in the sun a bit too long? What aliens?

Only an alien would deny the presence of aliens to throw doubt into a numb and placated public.

 

[#juan]

Did Mr. Hawking's handlers leave him sitting out in the sun a bit too long? What aliens?

Are you telling us that there are no aliens, that we few humans are the only inhabitants of this universe. As Carl Sagan used to say, "With billions and billions of planets, surely there are other beings looking hopefully at the universe for possible neighbors".

 

[Cliffy]

Are you telling us that there are no aliens, that we few humans are the only inhabitants of this universe. As Carl Sagan used to say, "With billions and billions of planets, surely there are other beings looking hopefully at the universe for possible neighbors".

Or food! Or perhaps, like the US of Aggression, to fight so as to bolster the finances of their military/industrial complex.

 

[El Barto]

damn those UV rays !

 

[Icarus27k]

Did Mr. Hawking's handlers leave him sitting out in the sun a bit too long? What aliens?

Hawking did make a good point in the show. Life being present on our planet shows that the improbable does occur. So why not aliens in other parts of the universe?

 

[Praxius]

Nope. Evolution is reproduciblew and a lot of people practise it every day. It is fact, not assumption.

Oh really? Then tell me a few other things people "Practice" every day. I can think of a number of things humans practice every day.... one is religion.

Just because someone practices or believes in something, doesn't make it fact except maybe in the eyes of the individual. Because a process is repeatable, doesn't make it absolute either. I can walk day in and day out from my home to the store and the same process/outcome will almost always occur.... maybe dozens or thousands of times, yet all it takes is one unknown factor to occur to change the parameters, such as a truck's breaks failing and plowing into me. Suddenly the expected factors and parameters have changed and gave a completely different result.

At present, science can only show us a part of the overall picture, we can only predict a certain distance ahead in the future, but the bigger the equation, the bigger we try and expand out perspective, the more factors one has to calculate, most of the time, many of the factors aren't even known, thus can not be calculated.... and even if one tries, it now just falls under Educated Guess, Probabilities, Limited Statistics, and nothing absolute.

If you rely yourself to be unquestionably attached to the theories of the scientific process, just as religious people unquestionably attach themselves to their God(s) and commandments, then there is no difference between the two in many aspects, and this seems to be where you fail to understand my position...... most likely because you're offended that someone would tie your thought process with science, to the thought processes of religion.

Wrong.

Telling me I'm wrong without any counter argument or reasons why and expressing such a level of bias to not even entertain the possibility, is proof enough that I'm right.

Fact or Theory

Thanks for not specifying any one particular part of that poorly designed web site, but looking through and reading it, it doesn't explain much more then what I already knew. Many of the processes described, in particular "Trial and Error" (the car stopping example) isn't originally a scientific process of thinking.... that's just common sense, something we've all done to solve problems since probably the dawn of humanity and long before Science ever became a reality. All Science is, is a leech religion, where it finds something that most believe to be true, runs it through a few tests, and if it fits their quota of testing, they claim it's scientifically proven/true/fact and stamp it as Kosher..... yet all these people already knew through using general common sense and their own ability to understand, that this was the case.

Science has been wrong on a number of occasions in our history, and most times, Science was wrong and we as a society paid the price. Many times in our past, have we been told something was better or far safer to use, only to find out after 20-30 years of doing something a certain way, or using a product for so long, that the mass population that was used as guinea pigs for so long, now have various illnesses or complications..... and then and only then, does science admit its mistakes.... but only by saying that they either didn't know something at the time, or didn't factor something in that they should have.

Either way, their scientific process didn't give them the whole picture, everybody relied on them to be telling people the truth and doing things safely, and ended up using all of us as lab subjects for a mass study of the effects of their theories, on us.

Lead, Asbestos, Hydrogenated Oils, PVC Plastics, Insecticides/DDT, that Delousing powder crap people had tossed onto them, including children..... the list just keeps going.

The point being is that Science and those who follow science told everybody these things can benefit our society in some fashion or another, never explained any of the dangers or side effects.... probably didn't even know they existed (or just didn't care) and tested it on a mass scale of humanity to see what the results are.

In my opinion that's almost as bad, if not, worse then what many religions have done in the past to various societies.

You know, with all the wrongs everybody sees churches doing and all the lawsuits and compensation demanded from religious organizations, you'd think people would start to sue and hang scientists by the toes for the damage they have done to people's lives through their arrogance & ignorance.... but very few do.

Why?

Because it's never the science community's fault for all of these things they threw on us to try/use before ensuring they're indeed safe..... They didn't know.

Funny thing is that I thought it was their job to know these things.... I thought these people in our society to study and learn all the pros and cons about something.... to inform us.... to seek out the truth, yet we have so many scientists either too concerned about making a name for themselves, or to pander to special interest groups with loads of money.... they don't even know how to look at anything objectively anymore, let alone think out side of the box to look at the bigger picture of what they're doing, and in my opinion, that's just as corrupt and just as bad as the corrupt priests in a church who take for granted the trust people put on to them in their positions.

 

[Praxius]

Now you have it, Juan.

Except for near the bottom of his posted link, where even they, once again, say:

....Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Which is exactly what I and others in here have already said countless times in this thread.... and while they can attempt to twist their words and their meanings as much as they can, in the end, they say themselves "we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain."

Which sounds a lot like a religious person twisting their words and meanings around to always make themselves right, even when they're proven wrong. If it's not A, then it's B, and therefore, in either case, we're right. :-?

They call something "Fact" because they want to, not because it actually is, and because they're scientists, they feel they're permitted to twist the original meanings of words to suit their arguments.

It's a fact because we did all these tests and studies, can't be bothered to do more, or can't think of anymore to do, so we're stopping here and it's good enough for us.... therefore we dictate it's fact, because we say so.... our evidence says so (even though there may exist plenty of other evidence they never calculated)

Also:

"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong."

The Idea it tries to Convey?

What idea is that? Isn't the idea and what it may suggest be subjective to the individual? How do they know what it means to me without even asking me? They're assuming what it may mean to me and then telling me what it may or may not mean to me. They admit that calling it a theory is indeed true and we're correct in what we state and how we state it.... yet to complicate matters, they also say it's wrong because apparently "Theory" can have two meanings because scientists decided to make two meanings to cover their asses so that if it's not covered by one meaning, it's covered by the other meaning, therefore they're always right :-? That makes a pile of sense and sounds quite familiar to the style of argument another organization does we've all heard of.

I'm not saying I don't believe in Evolution.... what I have issue with is the process and reasoning used to defend it, which not only contradicts itself, is not perfect, often puts society at risk for their own studies, but only further confuses the issue at hand.