Flat Earthers

[Piston ZA]

Got some coals for your fire right here. 

 

Hindsight is 20/20, right? That's the premise of a new book that poses the question:  What if we were wrong? Chuck Klosterman's "But What If We're Wrong?" (Blue Rider Press, 2016) deals with the fact that the great march of history shows us that, well … we're always wrong. Aristotle had his run as the smartest man on the planet, but he got disproved by Galileo, who was trumped by Newton, until Einstein ruled the roost. And while there have been some hints of "proving Einstein wrong," nothing has really stuck. But even so, scientific "fact" is a fact only until it's proved wrong.

 

A quote from a book I'm trying to source locally. And admittedly, inspiration for ruffling some feathers up in here. The interview about the book between the author and livescience.com can be found here

Scientific facts, or established Scientific Theories (Gravitational Theory, Evolution, Heliocentrism, Germ theory etc etc.) are not generally proven wrong. It's a body of work that explains certain aspects of the natural world using the scientific method, and as technologies improve, and testing methods become better, this body of scientific knowledge is added to, or aspects may be modified, or some aspects even rejected.

 

However, that does not change the fact that gravity still occurs, or evolution happens, or that the planets revolve around the sun. It just explains it better or refines the model.

 

Darwin got many parts of his Theory of Evolution "wrong", but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen.

[popcorn_skollie]

Everything and everyone is wrong, except for flat-earthers and Christian fundamentalists.  They are always right....

 

My honest opinion. This whole flat earth thing. It probably started as some elaborate trolling prank. Unfortunately its resulted in some of our more feeble minded folk to actually swallow the idea hook line and sinker. What should have been a joke intended to generate a very well predicted over reaction. Has backfired into a full blown cult.

[Thor Buttox]

Scientific facts, or established Scientific Theories (Gravitational Theory, Evolution, Heliocentrism, Germ theory etc etc.) are not generally proven wrong. It's a body of work that explains certain aspects of the natural world using the scientific method, and as technologies improve, and testing methods become better, this body of scientific knowledge is added to, or aspects may be modified, or some aspects even rejected.

 

However, that does not change the fact that gravity still occurs, or evolution happens, or that the planets revolve around the sun. It just explains it better or refines the model.

 

Darwin got many parts of his Theory of Evolution "wrong", but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen.

To add to this, people/scientists with agendas or simple mistakes get things wrong. Some of science itself is incomplete, but predictive modelling and properly assembled theories are there to be tested. That it took decades to discover things like the Higgs Boson and gravitational waves actually makes the predictive process more correct long term. Measurement may be difficult but in most cases it is inevitable, as knowledge is added to. People who claim 'wrongness' as a synonym for 'incomplete' are generally ideologically bent in some form, or are doing the usual pseudo-scientific cherry picking that permeates our modern world.

[Thor Buttox]

My honest opinion. This whole flat earth thing. It probably started as some elaborate trolling prank. Unfortunately its resulted in some of our more feeble minded folk to actually swallow the idea hook line and sinker. What should have been a joke intended to generate a very well predicted over reaction. Has backfired into a full blown cult.

I really don't think it is anything more than a joke, even to the members themselves. It's like the British Royal family.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Yeah, that's my thought as well.

 

Re fact: There are facts (evolution happens) and then theories. Facts are facts. IE observable truths. The theories attempt to explain the mechanics behind those facts, so that we can better understand them. 

[popcorn_skollie]

Scientific facts, or established Scientific Theories (Gravitational Theory, Evolution, Heliocentrism, Germ theory etc etc.) are not generally proven wrong. It's a body of work that explains certain aspects of the natural world using the scientific method, and as technologies improve, and testing methods become better, this body of scientific knowledge is added to, or aspects may be modified, or some aspects even rejected.

 

However, that does not change the fact that gravity still occurs, or evolution happens, or that the planets revolve around the sun. It just explains it better or refines the model.

 

Darwin got many parts of his Theory of Evolution "wrong", but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen.

 

Everything is under scrutiny. Always. It's an integral part of scientific discovery.

There are obviously many established findings which continue to stand firm against such scrutiny. And through continued application and testing, illicit the general acceptance of renown scientists today and by extension the general public. Evolution is an example of one of those pre-established, generally accepted truths. But its important to realise that even though we have this body of knowledge that has stood the test of time. Scrutiny must continue. Thorbuttox made a very good point previously. We're getting closer. Edging towards establishing more ideas which can cement themselves as truth. But that doesn't mean that everything we think we know now should be considered infallible. 

[Barend de Arend]

.

[Piston ZA]

Everything is under scrutiny. Always. It's an integral part of scientific discovery.

There are obviously many established findings which continue to stand firm against such scrutiny. And through continued application and testing, illicit the general acceptance of renown scientists today and by extension the general public. Evolution is an example of one of those pre-established, generally accepted truths. But its important to realise that even though we have this body of knowledge that has stood the test of time. Scrutiny must continue. Thorbuttox made a very good point previously. We're getting closer. Edging towards establishing more ideas which can cement themselves as truth. But that doesn't mean that everything we think we know now should be considered infallible. 

Absolutely, and science never claims to know everything, otherwise progress would stop. There is always more to learn, always more knowledge to gather.

[madbradd]

Yeah, that's my thought as well.

 

Re fact: There are facts (evolution happens) and then theories. Facts are facts. IE observable truths. The theories attempt to explain the mechanics behind those facts, so that we can better understand them. 

 

 

This is a nice one to explain what "theory" means in science

[Jenna Chicky]

How about you use those fees of yours, rise above the 1 line insults and prove me wrong? Present me with some evidence that wavelength changes during reflection.

 

As far as I understand it the speed of light doesn't change during reflection so the frequency and wavelength remain the same - during refraction the speed of light changes so the frequency and/or wavelength have to change to keep the frequency x wavelength = speed of light formula true.

 

Edit: This is how I always thought it worked:

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/47-colours-of-light

 

Edit edit: I can't find diddly squat showing specular or diffuse reflection changes wavelength - please en"light"en me. No sarcasm or anything - If I'm wrong I'm keen to learn why.

You are on the right track and spot on with your understanding.

But let's take it back to what Myles suggested and you so willfully supported.

On a rough surface we get diffuse reflections.

This scatters the light in all directions,you are only focused on specular reflections from what I can read in your comment above.

Assuming also up to this point you are discussing white objects.

Let's for a minute think color and blue in this case and let's also think matte paint.

Now we are dealing solely with diffuse reflections,White will also be very effective in giving back all the light.

When an object has specular and diffuse reflections then only the diffuse component is colored.

The two different components of reflection is what makes the human eye see different colour.

We are not even going as far as the fact that the human eye can't see the infrared range but science can.

As I suggested the other day,it really depends if specular or diffuse reflections are being tested,bearing in mind that a surface giving diffuse reflections doesn't absorb all the colours.

Diffusion affects colours quite substantially.

['Kaze Pete]

Yeah, that's my thought as well.

 

Re fact: There are facts (evolution happens) and then theories. Facts are facts. IE observable truths. The theories attempt to explain the mechanics behind those facts, so that we can better understand them.

separate thread really, but I have evolution as a theory, not fact.

 

Edit: Will watch the video posted

[MTBeer]

separate thread really, but I have evolution as a theory, not fact.

 

Edit: Will watch the video posted

then you need to look up the scientific definition of a theory. It's not the same as the stand around the braai definition of a theory.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

separate thread really, but I have evolution as a theory, not fact.

 

Edit: Will watch the video posted

no. Evolution is a fact. It happens. The WAY in which it happens is explained by the theory of evolution. The mechanism, if you will. 

 

Evolution exists, and is how we got to where we are. It is demonstrable, recordable and verifiable. It is a fact.

 

You have to separate the thing itself (fact) and the thing that attempts to explain the mechanics behind it (theory)

 

Gravity exists. Fact.

Evolution exists. Fact.

The world is globular in nature. Fact (ellipsoid, actually, but globular sounds cool)

 

Gravitational Theory - the theory of how gravity works

Evolutionary Theory - the theory behind how evolution works

 

and so on. 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

then you need to look up the scientific definition of a theory. It's not the same as the stand around the braai definition of a theory.

yeah. A scientific theory is essentially the result of a hypothesis that has a significant amount of evidence backing it up, that it is determined that it is reasonably certain that the theory explains how the process works. It explains it, to such a level that it nears certainty. THAT is the thing that is refutable and / or subject to change as more evidence comes to light, or more understanding is gleaned.

 

The fact, however, remains. Call a fact an "objective truth" and you will see what I mean. 

 

A theory (explanation of the process / mechanism) cannot be an objective truth, as it must always remain refutable to allow for future evidence against the current theory. BUT - it can *approach* objective truth (fact) by weight of evidence. 

 

Similarly, should someone try to refute it (the theory) they need to be able to demonstrate with EQUAL or GREATER evidence, as to why their hypothesis is the more accurate one and should supercede the current, accepted theory. 

 

Again, though - the fact remains. 

[Eldron]

You are on the right track and spot on with your understanding.

But let's take it back to what Myles suggested and you so willfully supported.

On a rough surface we get diffuse reflections.

This scatters the light in all directions,you are only focused on specular reflections from what I can read in your comment above.

Assuming also up to this point you are discussing white objects.

Let's for a minute think color and blue in this case and let's also think matte paint.

Now we are dealing solely with diffuse reflections,White will also be very effective in giving back all the light.

When an object has specular and diffuse reflections then only the diffuse component is colored.

The two different components of reflection is what makes the human eye see different colour.

We are not even going as far as the fact that the human eye can't see the infrared range but science can.

As I suggested the other day,it really depends if specular or diffuse reflections are being tested,bearing in mind that a surface giving diffuse reflections doesn't absorb all the colours.

Diffusion affects colours quite substantially.

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correcty- are you saying that colour depends whether the reflection is specular or diffuse?

 

If you are then you're wrong.

 

Colour depends on which wavelengths are reflected not how they're reflected.

 

Here you go: https://www.livescience.com/32559-why-do-we-see-in-color.html

[Thor Buttox]

separate thread really, but I have evolution as a theory, not fact.

 

Edit: Will watch the video posted

You really don't need a video. As I said in an earlier post, when engaging in semantic arguments it is necessary to follow through with the courage of your convictions and see your argument through to it's conclusion. You are more than capable of testing the Theory of Gravity by stepping off a high roof. That simple action can assist in amending your position on the others, like Evolution, Electromagnetism, and the like. #DIYscience