Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just pointing out that a majority of people are fairly ignorant when it comes to science and they take everything that a scientist says at face value, no different than how most people are fairly ignorant about spirituality (place/significance in the universe) and take everything that a cleric says at face value... A theory is not a hypothesis, but its not a law either - most people don't (can't?) make the distinction... They tend to fall back on belief instead of trusting in scientific rigor, but I guess even scientists can get sick of answering the question "why?" over and over - especially since there's more grant money in answers than questions (hello, peak oil and global warming debates?)

A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion, which is diluting its ultimate purpose: the search for truth (which happens to be the same place where religion started...)

Maybe our current theories about our origins are correct, but there's a pretty decent chance that whatever the actual truth is will make those theories look as ridiculous as anything you can find in a religious text... Claiming that we KNOW anything at this point is a belief, and any responsible scientist can admit that... Hell, we don't even know how consciousness works - how can we pretend to know how the universe works??

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion...

Wow...that is a wild, wild claim. And it certainly does not mesh at all with my experience. What are you working off here?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

[MavsFTR]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

You don't know what you are talking about. Gravity is also a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...of_gravitation

And as your article states, "Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

You don't know what you are talking about. Gravity is also a theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...of_gravitation

And as your article states, "Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Yeah, but the reason why you're so damn confident that I'd fall if I stepped off the side of a cliff is because it's an easily measurable/repeatable experiment... You can't explain why I'd fall (the theory), but you know that I will every time I try (the law) - it was your "I dare you to jump off a cliff" statement that created the context here.

The theory of relativity, on the other hand, is not so measurable - you'll just have to rely on faith unless you have a Millennium Falcon, since the stepping stone between theories and laws is tangibility... Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)

[The Ghost of Championship]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?

Gravity has a few holes, as all physicists know.

I'll have to go through the rest of this thread sober. For now, Krugman is a fanatic rockstar of the left and used plenty of fanatical fear mongering in that article. Wish he'd stick to econ from a puristic view.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.