OT: Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity

Han wrote:

>
> Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
> reasoning.

Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in
everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well that one
would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just what are these
"verifiable facts" you speak of?


> Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
> knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the
> combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to
> something totally new.

"Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree with
you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not incremental
"maybe this could be" stuff...


> Mars may or may not have had water and a
> potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus
> far do not prove one way or another.

In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive.


> Curiosity may or may not find
> evidence to substantiate those hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We
> won't know until ...

Agreed, but curisosity is just that - curiosity.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:

>I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is
>not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do
>they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change.

Science is not in the business of proving facts. Science doesn't prove, it only
disproves. If enough attempts to disprove something fail, that something is
believed to be true. Always subject to some successful attempt to disprove it.


>I guess it must be me - if an out come is different then it is very
>likely to be (or must be) different no matter how you measure it. That
>is the proof that one test was wrong - never of course proof that
>somethiing may be wrong with the theory.

Nonsense. One test is never proof of anything. One test is evidence in
support of a theory or evidence against the theory (or hypothesis).


>Your saying that if light is found 1 out of 10,000 tests to travel 1
>meter per hour instead of the 300,000 then the theory that light travels
>at 300,000 meters per second is still good [...]

300,000 meters per second is still good, pending understanding of the outlying
test result. That understanding could lead to a whole new theory of physics.
Look up Michelson-Morley and special relativity.

>First not elevate it beyond a faith. That is all it is - faith that a
>group of people have got it right (or at least close to right). It is
>taught in school - yet school can't deal with other faiths.

Science is indeed a faith in that it is anchored in beliefs that cannot be
proven. Roughly, these are:

1) The universe operates by a fixed set of laws.
2) These laws are the same for everyone everywhere.
3) These laws can be determined by observation.

>It isn't just science. In the "advanced" modern world we have an expert
>for everything. You expert for roofing, expert for plumbing, expert for
>car work, expert for your lawn, expert for your health, expert for your
>knowledge, expert for your religion. "Well He's/She's the expert."i

Yep. Our world is too complex for everyone to know everything. It has been
that way for centuries.

>Wow? It does? There sure seem to be a lot of mistakes in science and
>their "developments" to say it works? How many people have been killed
>or hurt because science said it works - and it doesn't (or at least not
>that time)?

You are looking for perfection in a human endeavor? Good luck.

>You seem to confuse the unavoidable fact with the field of science.
>A plane flies not because of scientific research. In fact if I recall
>history (what we get of it) inventors got the plane working not
>scientist. Scientist then try to tell us why it works.

The Wright brothers were pretty damn fine scientists. Great inventors, too.
They discovered that Lilienthal's aerodynamic data was just plain wrong and did
the research needed to get it right.


>I know the answer - but they corrected it... yes. They always are right,
>because the only time the admit being wrong is when they say they were
>(they don't listen to others) and then of course they are right because
>they have already changed their minds. Ahh. I am always right, unless I
>am wrong - but since I am the only one to say when I am wrong - I am
>then right again.

That's the great thing about science. Anybody can say it is wrong. Don't
expect to be taken seriously unless you have data to back you up.


-- Doug

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Zz Yzx wrote:
>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
>> geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>
>> Good job!
>
>Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.

Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account
that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral
exploration industries. So I'll explain:

In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud
between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put
humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we
irritate, we compete for promotions.

Hence the put-down reference to real science.

Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>Han wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
>>>reasoning.
>>
>>Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in
>>everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well
>>that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just
>>what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of?
>
>
> Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on
> the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the
> evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but
> there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ...
>

I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't
have much to do with facts. In science there really are none.


>
>>>Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
>>>knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the
>>>combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to
>>>something totally new.
>>
>>"Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree
>>with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not
>>incremental "maybe this could be" stuff...
>
>
> Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them,
> generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a
> long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree.
>

Was that story ever verified?
How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as
facts?

The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is
complete opinion (layman's term for theory). The majority wins. But the
problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not
always result in the exact same outcome. The "wrong" outcomes get
attributed to someone doing something wrong. How does one know that that
1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole
idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a
1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a
method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results?

All the work of science is based on limited knowledge. The problem is
that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is
faith). And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the
experts". So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look
at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply
accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to
have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them).

Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used...
isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on
previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results?

When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on
other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar.


>
>>>Mars may or may not have had water and a
>>>potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus
>>>far do not prove one way or another.
>>
>>In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive.
>

Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water".
"ancient"...blah..blah.."water"

Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of
water discovered?

....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 23:36:15 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, anybody who plonked him for that particular "religioius garbage"
>> >would have plonked the crew of Apollo 8.
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, I don't believe in any of it, but some of it is pretty damned
>> >good poetry and people who get angry at the recitation of said poetry I
>> >find to be exceedingly annoying.
>>
>> I am a major believer in separation of church and state. But that reading, on
>> Christmas eve, circling the moon, was perfect. Even if my tax dollars were
>> paying for it. -- Doug
>
>I think we've gone way too far. The Constitution says "Congress shall
>make no law", not "no government employee shall mention". By the way,
>NASA got sued over that one. They won but they also forbade the
>astronauts from any further mention during a mission.
>
...and the words "Congress shall" weren't just fluff, either. That right
wasn't taken away from the states.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, anybody who plonked him for that particular "religioius garbage"
>would have plonked the crew of Apollo 8.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't believe in any of it, but some of it is pretty damned
>good poetry and people who get angry at the recitation of said poetry I
>find to be exceedingly annoying.

I am a major believer in separation of church and state. But that reading, on
Christmas eve, circling the moon, was perfect. Even if my tax dollars were
paying for it. -- Doug

On 8/8/2012 4:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Whoa, you're making the same mistake he is. Science is very interested
> in determining facts such as the mass of the Earth or the velocity of
> light or the permeability of free space. The thing is though, a
> scientist wouldn't say that he had "proven" one of these facts, he would
> say that he had "measured" it.
>
> Theory on the other hand is not fact, and is valid only to the extent
> that its predictions agree with established facts.
>
> That the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is
> approximately 9.8 meters per second is a fact. No new discoveries are
> going to change that.
>
> The theory that gravitation is an inverse-square force on the other
> hand, is subject to change as improved models are developed--it's not
> going to change much mind you but it could change some.
>

Whoa again!
Might be that some of your hard core facts are slightly off...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jan/24/scientists-weigh-up-shrinking-kilogram

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> no_email_please@void_void.void says...
>
>>Han wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
>>>>>reasoning.
>>>>
>>>>Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in
>>>>everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well
>>>>that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just
>>>>what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on
>>>the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the
>>>evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but
>>>there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ...
>>>
>>
>>I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't
>>have much to do with facts. In science there really are none.
>
>
> I think you have never met a real scientist.
>

I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is
not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do
they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change.

>
>>>>>Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
>>>>>knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the
>>>>>combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to
>>>>>something totally new.
>>>>
>>>>"Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree
>>>>with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not
>>>>incremental "maybe this could be" stuff...
>>>
>>>
>>>Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them,
>>>generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a
>>>long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree.
>>>
>>
>>Was that story ever verified?
>>How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as
>>facts?
>
>
> What field would that be?

Science. That water is falling down the rocks....(science) are we sure
the water is falling down the rocks or are the rocks moving through the
water? - that is a very low level version of the questioning. What
everyone (almost everyone) can say - yeah it is that way... scientist
must take years to contemplate to decide everyone was right. They they
start dissecting it trying to figure out why and how.

>
>
>>The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is
>>complete opinion (layman's term for theory).
>
>
> No, that's the layman's term for a hypothesis.

Lets see the definition of the words,
Hypothesis (noun):
A *tentative explanation* that accounts for a set of facts and can be
tested by further investigation.

Theory (noun):
1. Systematically *organized knowledge*, especially a set of
*assumptions* or *statements devised* to explain a phenomenon or class
of phenomena.
2. *Abstract reasoning*; *speculation*.
3. A set of rules or principles for the study or practice of an art or
discipline.
4. An *assumption*; *conjecture*.

I didn't see much difference.
Hypothesis is the opinion before they all agree to interpret the results
the same way - then it become a theory - which is a majority opinion.
Maybe the test results aren't subject to interpretation?


>
>
>>The majority wins.
>
>
> No, the model that most closely fits the facts wins.
>
>

No not at all - not all the time at all. It all depends on what they
want. You have never seen science agree on a theory that some didn't
agree on and later change to the other's theory?

>>But the
>>problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not
>>always result in the exact same outcome.
>
>
> That is called "precision".
>

You mean imprecision? Unless science deals with different English?


>
>>The "wrong" outcomes get
>>attributed to someone doing something wrong.
>
>
> Only if the "wrong" outcomes are different from many, many other
> measurements of the same quantity.

I guess it must be me - if an out come is different then it is very
likely to be (or must be) different no matter how you measure it. That
is the proof that one test was wrong - never of course proof that
something may be wrong with the theory.

>
>
>>How does one know that that
>>1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole
>>idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a
>>1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a
>>method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results?
>
>
> Different experimenters perform the measurement using different
> techniques. Yes, it's possible that one in 10,000 times the velocity of
> light is 1 meter per hour instead of 300,000 kilometers per second, but
> that's not the way to bet.

Let me get this straight.
Your saying that if light is found 1 out of 10,000 tests to travel 1
meter per hour instead of the 300,000 then the theory that light travels
at 300,000 meters per second is still good (isn't there other theories
that claim a photon must travel at the speed of light (i.e. the 300,000
m/ps) or it doesn't exist?)

>
>
>>All the work of science is based on limited knowledge.
>
>
> All the work of everything is based on limited knowledge. So what do we
> do, just sit aroung wringing our hands and accomplishing nothing because
> we can't know everything?
>

First not elevate it beyond a faith. That is all it is - faith that a
group of people have got it right (or at least close to right). It is
taught in school - yet school can't deal with other faiths.

>
>>The problem is
>>that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is
>>faith).
>
>
> You are conflating fact, which is a measured observation, with theory,
> which is a model that attempts to establish rules base on the facts.
>

Measured? I guess one could say that - I prefer being plain - it can be
seen, it happened.

>
>>And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the
>>experts".
>
>
> If teachers are teaching that we should believe scientists because the
> are experts, well, we all know that the education system is down the
> crapper and this is just another symptom.

Someone used the words in this thread "their the experts". If you say
you don't hear this then I think we might as well stop the conversation,
because someone isn't being genuine.

It isn't just science. In the "advanced" modern world we have an expert
for everything. You expert for roofing, expert for plumbing, expert for
car work, expert for your lawn, expert for your health, expert for your
knowledge, expert for your religion. "Well He's/She's the expert."

>
> We believe science for one simple reason. It works, where religion and
> all the various philosophical systems that are not based on the
> scientific method do not.
>

Wow? It does? There sure seem to be a lot of mistakes in science and
their "developments" to say it works? How many people have been killed
or hurt because science said it works - and it doesn't (or at least not
that time)?

You seem to confuse the unavoidable fact with the field of science.
A plane flies not because of scientific research. In fact if I recall
history (what we get of it) inventors got the plane working not
scientist. Scientist then try to tell us why it works.

>
>>So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look
>>at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply
>>accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to
>>have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them).
>
>
> Which "insane things" are these?
>

If I had to come up with a list it would take a while (it is definitely
doable), but to get just one - The pre-historic man that actually was a
pig's skull.

I know the answer - but they corrected it... yes. They always are right,
because the only time the admit being wrong is when they say they were
(they don't listen to others) and then of course they are right because
they have already changed their minds. Ahh. I am always right, unless I
am wrong - but since I am the only one to say when I am wrong - I am
then right again.

>
>>Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used...
>>isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on
>>previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results?
>
>
> And yet we have numerous examples of scientists coming up with
> experimental results that invalidate previous models or with models that
> more accurately explain the facts and toss the earlier models down the
> .....
>

Do not get rid of the power of ego.
Besides even people who think alike do not always think the same.

>
>>When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on
>>other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar.
>
>
> Theory is based on observation, not on other theory. If you think you
> have a counterexample please present it.
>

Maybe I am mistaken... I was almost sure other theories take their bases
on previous theories? Quantum - seems it relied on a bit? Trajectory -
seems to rely on the theory of gravity? Aren't there others?


>
>>>>>Mars may or may not have had water and a
>>>>>potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus
>>>>>far do not prove one way or another.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive.
>>>
>>Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water".
>>"ancient"...blah..blah.."water"
>
>
> Which photos are those? There are photos that show what appear to be
> ancient water courses. If you have a better explanation for them please
> present it.
>

I think it was the photos a few pictures after the dust storm photo. Of
course it was water. It must of course be recently water or it must not
be dust storms - seems one or the other would kind of mess up the other.

But whale bones on top of a mountain sure aren't a sign there may have
been a flood.

(Not that they have proven themselves very good at recognizing bones)

>
>>Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of
>>water discovered?
>
>
> Who has claimed that water was discovered?

I don't know - when you label photos as being ancient river beds or
ancient ground water, seems a strong hint... You're sure that some
theories at least aren't the result of really wanting it to be a certain
way?

>
>
>>....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given.
>
>
> You'd ignore the answers if the answers beat you to death with a
> baseball bat.
>
>

No actually I know the meaning because I don't ignore the answers.
I don't toss the manual over my shoulder and then bemoan the need to
figure it all out.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Michael Joel" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Zz Yzx wrote:
> >>I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
> >>geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
> >
> >
> > SEE?!?! Results already:
> >
> > http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-now-almost-positive-mars-is-rocky,29069/?ref=auto
>
> They may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.
>
>
>
> ...The heavens declare the glory of God
> ================================================================================
>
> Now how many people do you think plonked you due to your uncalled for
> spewing of religious garbage?

Well, anybody who plonked him for that particular "religioius garbage"
would have plonked the crew of Apollo 8.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in any of it, but some of it is pretty damned
good poetry and people who get angry at the recitation of said poetry I
find to be exceedingly annoying.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Well, anybody who plonked him for that particular "religioius garbage"
> >would have plonked the crew of Apollo 8.
> >
> >I'm sorry, I don't believe in any of it, but some of it is pretty damned
> >good poetry and people who get angry at the recitation of said poetry I
> >find to be exceedingly annoying.
>
> I am a major believer in separation of church and state. But that reading, on
> Christmas eve, circling the moon, was perfect. Even if my tax dollars were
> paying for it. -- Doug

I think we've gone way too far. The Constitution says "Congress shall
make no law", not "no government employee shall mention". By the way,
NASA got sued over that one. They won but they also forbade the
astronauts from any further mention during a mission.

In article <[email protected]>,
no_email_please@void_void.void says...
>
> Han wrote:
> > "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >
> >>Han wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
> >>>reasoning.
> >>
> >>Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in
> >>everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well
> >>that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just
> >>what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of?
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on
> > the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the
> > evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but
> > there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ...
> >
>
> I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't
> have much to do with facts. In science there really are none.

I think you have never met a real scientist.

> >>>Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
> >>>knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the
> >>>combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to
> >>>something totally new.
> >>
> >>"Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree
> >>with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not
> >>incremental "maybe this could be" stuff...
> >
> >
> > Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them,
> > generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a
> > long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree.
> >
>
> Was that story ever verified?
> How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as
> facts?

What field would that be?

> The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is
> complete opinion (layman's term for theory).

No, that's the layman's term for a hypothesis.

> The majority wins.

No, the model that most closely fits the facts wins.

> But the
> problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not
> always result in the exact same outcome.

That is called "precision".

> The "wrong" outcomes get
> attributed to someone doing something wrong.

Only if the "wrong" outcomes are different from many, many other
measurements of the same quantity.

> How does one know that that
> 1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole
> idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a
> 1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a
> method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results?

Different experimenters perform the measurement using different
techniques. Yes, it's possible that one in 10,000 times the velocity of
light is 1 meter per hour instead of 300,000 kilometers per second, but
that's not the way to bet.

> All the work of science is based on limited knowledge.

All the work of everything is based on limited knowledge. So what do we
do, just sit aroung wringing our hands and accomplishing nothing because
we can't know everything?

> The problem is
> that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is
> faith).

You are conflating fact, which is a measured observation, with theory,
which is a model that attempts to establish rules base on the facts.

> And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the
> experts".

If teachers are teaching that we should believe scientists because the
are experts, well, we all know that the education system is down the
crapper and this is just another symptom.

We believe science for one simple reason. It works, where religion and
all the various philosophical systems that are not based on the
scientific method do not.

> So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look
> at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply
> accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to
> have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them).

Which "insane things" are these?

> Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used...
> isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on
> previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results?

And yet we have numerous examples of scientists coming up with
experimental results that invalidate previous models or with models that
more accurately explain the facts and toss the earlier models down the
crapper.

> When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on
> other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar.

Theory is based on observation, not on other theory. If you think you
have a counterexample please present it.

> >>>Mars may or may not have had water and a
> >>>potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus
> >>>far do not prove one way or another.
> >>
> >>In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive.
> >
>
> Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water".
> "ancient"...blah..blah.."water"

Which photos are those? There are photos that show what appear to be
ancient water courses. If you have a better explanation for them please
present it.

> Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of
> water discovered?

Who has claimed that water was discovered?

> ....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given.

You'd ignore the answers if the answers beat you to death with a
baseball bat.

In article <[email protected]>,
no_email_please@void_void.void says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > no_email_please@void_void.void says...
> >
> >>Han wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Han wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
> >>>>>reasoning.
> >>>>
> >>>>Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in
> >>>>everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well
> >>>>that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just
> >>>>what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on
> >>>the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the
> >>>evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but
> >>>there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ...
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't
> >>have much to do with facts. In science there really are none.
> >
> >
> > I think you have never met a real scientist.
> >
>
> I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is
> not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do
> they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change.

Please provide a quotation from a scientist to the effect that "science
is not in the business of proving facts". I suspect that you have
misunderstood something.

What facts do you believe keep getting changed?

> >>>>>Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
> >>>>>knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the
> >>>>>combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to
> >>>>>something totally new.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree
> >>>>with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not
> >>>>incremental "maybe this could be" stuff...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them,
> >>>generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a
> >>>long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Was that story ever verified?
> >>How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as
> >>facts?
> >
> >
> > What field would that be?
>
> Science.

Again you claim that science does not observe facts. But you have not
provided any information to support your argument.

> That water is falling down the rocks....(science) are we sure
> the water is falling down the rocks or are the rocks moving through the
> water?

Scientific fact: Water is moving past rocks at a differential velocity
of x meters per second +/- y estimated inaccuracy in the measurement.

Scientific hypothesis: Water is falling down the rocks.

Now science performs addition experiments to determine whether water is
falling down the rocks.

> - that is a very low level version of the questioning.

Actually your phrasing is more typical of a high school philosophy class
than anything in science.

> What
> everyone (almost everyone) can say - yeah it is that way... scientist
> must take years to contemplate to decide everyone was right. They they
> start dissecting it trying to figure out why and how.

Please provide an example.

> >>The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is
> >>complete opinion (layman's term for theory).
> >
> >
> > No, that's the layman's term for a hypothesis.
>
> Lets see the definition of the words,
> Hypothesis (noun):
> A *tentative explanation* that accounts for a set of facts and can be
> tested by further investigation.
>
> Theory (noun):
> 1. Systematically *organized knowledge*, especially a set of
> *assumptions* or *statements devised* to explain a phenomenon or class
> of phenomena.
> 2. *Abstract reasoning*; *speculation*.
> 3. A set of rules or principles for the study or practice of an art or
> discipline.
> 4. An *assumption*; *conjecture*.
>
> I didn't see much difference.
> Hypothesis is the opinion before they all agree to interpret the results
> the same way - then it become a theory - which is a majority opinion.
> Maybe the test results aren't subject to interpretation?

Google "term of art". "Theory" in science does not mean any of the
things that you include in your definition. "Theory" in science means a
descriptive model that allows predictions to be made, which predictions
have come true every time they have been tested.

> >>The majority wins.
> >
> >
> > No, the model that most closely fits the facts wins.
> >
> >
>
> No not at all - not all the time at all.

Please provide an example of a case in science in which the majority won
and the model was accepted event though it was falsified by observation.

> It all depends on what they
> want. You have never seen science agree on a theory that some didn't
> agree on and later change to the other's theory?

You are conflating science and scientists. Individual scientists
believe many things. Sometimes they believe things that are wrong or
untrue. Sometimes they are persuaded to alter those beliefs, sometimes
they aren't. However science is a process by which wrong beliefs get
systematically rejected. That doesn't necessarily happen instantly, and
for an anomalous result to be accepted it has to be replicated by
different researchers in different facilities.

> >>But the
> >>problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not
> >>always result in the exact same outcome.
> >
> >
> > That is called "precision".
> >
>
> You mean imprecision? Unless science deals with different English?

Precision in experimental science is a number. An experiment is
accurate to a certain precision.

> >>The "wrong" outcomes get
> >>attributed to someone doing something wrong.
> >
> >
> > Only if the "wrong" outcomes are different from many, many other
> > measurements of the same quantity.
>
> I guess it must be me - if an out come is different then it is very
> likely to be (or must be) different no matter how you measure it. That
> is the proof that one test was wrong - never of course proof that
> something may be wrong with the theory.

If one thousand researchers do something and get exactly the same
result, and one does the same thing and gets a different result, odds
are that he didn't do the same thing, he just thought he did.

It's not proof that anything is wrong with the model until multiple
researchers doing the same thing as the one who got the anomalous result
get the same anomalous result.

> >>How does one know that that
> >>1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole
> >>idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a
> >>1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a
> >>method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results?
> >
> >
> > Different experimenters perform the measurement using different
> > techniques. Yes, it's possible that one in 10,000 times the velocity of
> > light is 1 meter per hour instead of 300,000 kilometers per second, but
> > that's not the way to bet.
>
> Let me get this straight.
> Your saying that if light is found 1 out of 10,000 tests to travel 1
> meter per hour instead of the 300,000 then the theory that light travels
> at 300,000 meters per second is still good (isn't there other theories
> that claim a photon must travel at the speed of light (i.e. the 300,000
> m/ps) or it doesn't exist?)

If there have been 10,000 tests giving 3e8 meters/second and one that
gives 1 meter per second, then it is reasonable to believe that the 1
experiment had some kind of problem. If there have been a a million
tests and 100 of them by different scientists all give 1 meter per hour,
now it is time to start trying to figure out what is wrong with our
models.

> >>All the work of science is based on limited knowledge.
> >
> >
> > All the work of everything is based on limited knowledge. So what do we
> > do, just sit aroung wringing our hands and accomplishing nothing because
> > we can't know everything?
> >
>
> First not elevate it beyond a faith. That is all it is - faith that a
> group of people have got it right (or at least close to right). It is
> taught in school - yet school can't deal with other faiths.

The only faith involved in science is the faith that the universe is
comprehensible. Everything else is based on measurement and
observation.

As for what is taught in school, the schoobooks have to be acceptable to
both California and Texas, which makes them effectively content-free.
If school is teaching that we believe science by faith then school is
teaching lies.

> >>The problem is
> >>that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is
> >>faith).
> >
> >
> > You are conflating fact, which is a measured observation, with theory,
> > which is a model that attempts to establish rules base on the facts.
> >
>
> Measured? I guess one could say that - I prefer being plain - it can be
> seen, it happened.

You're quibbling now over meaningless distinctions.

> >>And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the
> >>experts".
> >
> >
> > If teachers are teaching that we should believe scientists because the
> > are experts, well, we all know that the education system is down the
> > crapper and this is just another symptom.
>
> Someone used the words in this thread "their the experts". If you say
> you don't hear this then I think we might as well stop the conversation,
> because someone isn't being genuine.

A point comes where you have to trust the other guy to know what he's
doing you know. Do you think that in order for a physician to trust the
results from an MRI he should be able to construct the machine himself
from scratch? There is too much human knowledge at this time for one
person to master in a lifetime.

However if there is a point in science that you disagree with, go
research it. Nobody is hiding it from you or telling you that you may
not read the literature. If you find that the research is in error,
write up your observations in the form of a paper and submit it to
Physical Review Letters and if your argument makes any sense to the
peer-revievers they will likely publish it. On the other hand, most
people who find that science is in error don't understand what they are
criticizing and their criticism get rejected as the work of crackpots,
which leads to them putting up web sites about how they were persecuted.

The trouble is that you can't research a point of science for free on
the Internet. The journals charge for copies of papers, even electronic
ones, so if you don't have library access you can easily go broke.

> It isn't just science. In the "advanced" modern world we have an expert
> for everything. You expert for roofing, expert for plumbing, expert for
> car work, expert for your lawn, expert for your health, expert for your
> knowledge, expert for your religion. "Well He's/She's the expert."

Yes, we do. Most people don't have the time to fix their own car or
their own roof or their own pipe and are interested in other things, so
they hire experts. One is not obligated to do so--the last time I hired
an expert to do anything it was a roofer and that was because the roof
had a hole in it and I was recovering from surgery at the time (another
expert).

> > We believe science for one simple reason. It works, where religion and
> > all the various philosophical systems that are not based on the
> > scientific method do not.
> >
>
> Wow? It does?

Yes, it does.

> There sure seem to be a lot of mistakes in science and
> their "developments" to say it works? How many people have been killed
> or hurt because science said it works - and it doesn't (or at least not
> that time)?

Try living without it for a month and see if you still think it doens't
work.

We have an unprecedented degree of power over the physical world,
because we have science. If it doesn't work then explain how that
happened.

Yes, engineers make mistakes and people get killed. That's not because
the science is wrong, it's because a human didn't apply it properly.

Give us one example of people being killed because a well established
scientific model was in error.

> You seem to confuse the unavoidable fact with the field of science.
> A plane flies not because of scientific research. In fact if I recall
> history (what we get of it) inventors got the plane working not
> scientist. Scientist then try to tell us why it works.

The Navier-Stokes equations, which are the ones that are used to analyze
the operation of aicraft wings, were first discovered in 1822. The
first heavier than air flight was in 1906. So the science was there
before the airplane was.

And I don't know where you get the idea that the airplane was invfented
by people who were not scientists. It wasn't found under a rock you
know, the Wrights developed and tested every part of it, failed many
times, and learned from their failures. Their approach was entirely
that of experimental science. You seem to think that the only
scientists in the world are people with doctorates and white lab coats.
A great deal of science has been done by people who had neither.

> >>So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look
> >>at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply
> >>accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to
> >>have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them).
> >
> >
> > Which "insane things" are these?
> >
>
> If I had to come up with a list it would take a while (it is definitely
> doable), but to get just one - The pre-historic man that actually was a
> pig's skull.

Which prehistoric man was this? The only example of "prehistoric man"
in which a pig was involved was the London newspapers running an article
that the original researcher though laughable based on his announcement
of the possible discovery of a New World ape.

> I know the answer - but they corrected it... yes. They always are right,
> because the only time the admit being wrong is when they say they were
> (they don't listen to others) and then of course they are right because
> they have already changed their minds. Ahh. I am always right, unless I
> am wrong - but since I am the only one to say when I am wrong - I am
> then right again.

Actually science never accepted it, gullible journalists looking for a
story did and lied about it.

Don't assume that what the newspapers say about science is correct.
Most of it is wrong.

> >>Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used...
> >>isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on
> >>previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results?
> >
> >
> > And yet we have numerous examples of scientists coming up with
> > experimental results that invalidate previous models or with models that
> > more accurately explain the facts and toss the earlier models down the
> > .....
> >
>
> Do not get rid of the power of ego.
> Besides even people who think alike do not always think the same.

How is that a response to the many cases in which scientific models were
invalidated by new facts with the result that more complete and accurate
models arose?

> >>When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on
> >>other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar.
> >
> >
> > Theory is based on observation, not on other theory. If you think you
> > have a counterexample please present it.
> >
>
> Maybe I am mistaken... I was almost sure other theories take their bases
> on previous theories? Quantum - seems it relied on a bit? Trajectory -
> seems to rely on the theory of gravity? Aren't there others?

What other theories do you believe that quantum theory "relies on"?

There is no scientific theory called "trajectory". One uses mechanics
to calculate trajectories.

> >>>>>Mars may or may not have had water and a
> >>>>>potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus
> >>>>>far do not prove one way or another.
> >>>>
> >>>>In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive.
> >>>
> >>Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water".
> >>"ancient"...blah..blah.."water"
> >
> >
> > Which photos are those? There are photos that show what appear to be
> > ancient water courses. If you have a better explanation for them please
> > present it.
> >
>
> I think it was the photos a few pictures after the dust storm photo. Of
> course it was water. It must of course be recently water or it must not
> be dust storms - seems one or the other would kind of mess up the other.

It would help if you provided sources so that one can have a hope of
figuring out what you are raving about.

> But whale bones on top of a mountain sure aren't a sign there may have
> been a flood.

Not if there is already an established model that puts them there
without one.

> (Not that they have proven themselves very good at recognizing bones)
>
> >
> >>Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of
> >>water discovered?
> >
> >
> > Who has claimed that water was discovered?
>
> I don't know - when you label photos as being ancient river beds or
> ancient ground water, seems a strong hint... You're sure that some
> theories at least aren't the result of really wanting it to be a certain
> way?

You're conflating theory and observation again. There are features on
Mars that look very much like features on Earth that were caused by
running water. The null hypothesis is that the ones on Mars had the
same cause. Either that hypothesis will be falsified or it won't. Time
will tell. Research involving another planet is a slow process--you
can't just jump in the Land Rover and drive out there and start making
measurements.

> >>....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given.
> >
> >
> > You'd ignore the answers if the answers beat you to death with a
> > baseball bat.
> >
> >
>
> No actually I know the meaning because I don't ignore the answers.
> I don't toss the manual over my shoulder and then bemoan the need to
> figure it all out.

And yet you've done just that by rejecting science.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >...and the words "Congress shall" weren't just fluff, either. That right
> >wasn't taken away from the states.
>
> The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that it does
> apply to the states.
>
> "Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a religion. Neither can
> pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
> another. Neither can they force...a person to go to or to remain away from
> church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
> religion."

Which the founders would have looked on with horror seeing as to how the
primary reason for the establishment clause was to ensure those states
that had state religions that the Federal government would not interfere
with those state religions.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Michael Joel <no_email_please@void_void.void> wrote:
>
> >I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is
> >not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do
> >they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change.
>
> Science is not in the business of proving facts. Science doesn't prove, it only
> disproves. If enough attempts to disprove something fail, that something is
> believed to be true. Always subject to some successful attempt to disprove it.

Whoa, you're making the same mistake he is. Science is very interested
in determining facts such as the mass of the Earth or the velocity of
light or the permeability of free space. The thing is though, a
scientist wouldn't say that he had "proven" one of these facts, he would
say that he had "measured" it.

Theory on the other hand is not fact, and is valid only to the extent
that its predictions agree with established facts.

That the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is
approximately 9.8 meters per second is a fact. No new discoveries are
going to change that.

The theory that gravitation is an inverse-square force on the other
hand, is subject to change as improved models are developed--it's not
going to change much mind you but it could change some.

> >I guess it must be me - if an out come is different then it is very
> >likely to be (or must be) different no matter how you measure it. That
> >is the proof that one test was wrong - never of course proof that
> >somethiing may be wrong with the theory.
>
> Nonsense. One test is never proof of anything. One test is evidence in
> support of a theory or evidence against the theory (or hypothesis).

Exactly.

> >Your saying that if light is found 1 out of 10,000 tests to travel 1
> >meter per hour instead of the 300,000 then the theory that light travels
> >at 300,000 meters per second is still good [...]
>
> 300,000 meters per second is still good, pending understanding of the outlying
> test result. That understanding could lead to a whole new theory of physics.
> Look up Michelson-Morley and special relativity.
>
> >First not elevate it beyond a faith. That is all it is - faith that a
> >group of people have got it right (or at least close to right). It is
> >taught in school - yet school can't deal with other faiths.
>
> Science is indeed a faith in that it is anchored in beliefs that cannot be
> proven. Roughly, these are:
>
> 1) The universe operates by a fixed set of laws.
> 2) These laws are the same for everyone everywhere.
> 3) These laws can be determined by observation.
>
> >It isn't just science. In the "advanced" modern world we have an expert
> >for everything. You expert for roofing, expert for plumbing, expert for
> >car work, expert for your lawn, expert for your health, expert for your
> >knowledge, expert for your religion. "Well He's/She's the expert."i
>
> Yep. Our world is too complex for everyone to know everything. It has been
> that way for centuries.
>
> >Wow? It does? There sure seem to be a lot of mistakes in science and
> >their "developments" to say it works? How many people have been killed
> >or hurt because science said it works - and it doesn't (or at least not
> >that time)?
>
> You are looking for perfection in a human endeavor? Good luck.
>
> >You seem to confuse the unavoidable fact with the field of science.
> >A plane flies not because of scientific research. In fact if I recall
> >history (what we get of it) inventors got the plane working not
> >scientist. Scientist then try to tell us why it works.
>
> The Wright brothers were pretty damn fine scientists. Great inventors, too.
> They discovered that Lilienthal's aerodynamic data was just plain wrong and did
> the research needed to get it right.

Yep.

> >I know the answer - but they corrected it... yes. They always are right,
> >because the only time the admit being wrong is when they say they were
> >(they don't listen to others) and then of course they are right because
> >they have already changed their minds. Ahh. I am always right, unless I
> >am wrong - but since I am the only one to say when I am wrong - I am
> >then right again.
>
> That's the great thing about science. Anybody can say it is wrong. Don't
> expect to be taken seriously unless you have data to back you up.

Yep.

On 8/8/2012 2:10 PM, Pat Barber wrote:
> On 8/7/2012 1:56 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>
>> What, no thanks for the mathematicians who told the engineers when Mars
>> would be in the right place?
>> Kerry
>
>
> OK...thanks ...good job...way to go...atta boy .... sit ....stay.
>
> Now...how the hell are we gonna get that thing back here ?
>
>
>


Better yet, prove that they are actually there. There was small news
comment on my news source, it showed a pictured of the "Mars" landscape
with a shadow of what appeared to be a human head and shoulders. I
guess they did not notice that the guy taking the picture had his shadow
in it.

On 8/8/2012 9:27 AM, Michael Joel wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> no_email_please@void_void.void says...
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
>>>>>> reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens
>>>>> in everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well
>>>>> that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just
>>>>> what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the
>>>> "facts" on the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the
>>>> experts. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that there is no or not
>>>> much water on Mars, but there could have been. Further facts to be
>>>> gathered ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science
>>> doesn't have much to do with facts. In science there really are none.
>>
>>
>> I think you have never met a real scientist.
>>
>
> I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is
> not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do
> they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change.
>

You have apparently have not watched the news in the last 50 years if
you think facts can not be changed. ;~)

Zz Yzx wrote:
>>I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
>>geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>
>
> SEE?!?! Results already:
>
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-now-almost-positive-mars-is-rocky,29069/?ref=auto

They may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.



...The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Psalm 19:1

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath shewed it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse: Romans 1:19-20

"Michael Joel" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Zz Yzx wrote:
>>I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
>>geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>
>
> SEE?!?! Results already:
>
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-now-almost-positive-mars-is-rocky,29069/?ref=auto

They may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.



...The heavens declare the glory of God
================================================================================

Now how many people do you think plonked you due to your uncalled for
spewing of religious garbage?

"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
> geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>
> Good job!
>
> -Zz
> "Zz Yzx" rhymes with "physics"; or " Isaacs" if you prefer.
> http://www.abandonedbutnotforgotten.com/zzyzx_road.htm

What, no thanks for the mathematicians who told the engineers when Mars
would be in the right place?
Kerry

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 8/7/12 12:13 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so
>>>> we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>>>
>>>> Good job!
>>>
>>> Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it's just hyperbole.
>> Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer
>> says, "Now, that's some real pitching."
>
> Yeah - perhaps. It's just that the term "science" or "real science"
> is thrown around so much here by people who remember back to their
> high school physics classes, that it may just bring about a
> reaction...

Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
reasoning. Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined
facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally
new. Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some
point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or
another. Curiosity may or may not find evidence to substantiate those
hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We won't know until ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and
>> reasoning.
>
> Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in
> everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well
> that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just
> what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of?

Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on
the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the
evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but
there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ...

>> Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous
>> knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the
>> combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to
>> something totally new.
>
> "Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree
> with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not
> incremental "maybe this could be" stuff...

Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them,
generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a
long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree.

>> Mars may or may not have had water and a
>> potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus
>> far do not prove one way or another.
>
> In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive.

Indeed.

>> Curiosity may or may not find
>> evidence to substantiate those hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We
>> won't know until ...
>
> Agreed, but curisosity is just that - curiosity.

Curiosity the rover/laboratory is what I meant, not "being curious"

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:jvsh53$pno$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> Actually, I believe the previous landers proved that surface water once
> existed on Mars. In one of the interviews about Curiosity, A NASA
> spokesman said something on the lines of "now we've proven water, we're
> looking for organic compounds".

Yes, I agree. There is an abundance of indirect evidence that surface
water existed. Does it still exist? Then we get the search for organic
compounds. That will be interesting, because there are organic compounds
in meteorites. So different organic compounds need to be found for "life"
to be proven. It is science, search and research for the evidence ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so
>>> we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>>
>>> Good job!
>>
>>Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.
>
> Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account
> that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral
> exploration industries. So I'll explain:
>
> In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud
> between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put
> humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we
> irritate, we compete for promotions.
>
> Hence the put-down reference to real science.

There is science, theoretical science, engineering, applied science,
technology, etc, etc. All worthwhile, all prone to jokes about ivory
towers or mechanics ... Sigh <grin>.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 8/7/12 12:13 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so
>>> we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>>
>>> Good job!
>>
>> Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.
>>
>
> Perhaps it's just hyperbole.
> Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer says,
> "Now, that's some real pitching."

Yeah - perhaps. It's just that the term "science" or "real science" is
thrown around so much here by people who remember back to their high school
physics classes, that it may just bring about a reaction...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Zz Yzx wrote:
>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so
>> we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>
> SEE?!?! Results already:
>

Please go upstairs and change your pants. You're too old to be doing that
in them...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>...and the words "Congress shall" weren't just fluff, either. That right
>wasn't taken away from the states.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that it does
apply to the states.

"Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a religion. Neither can
pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
another. Neither can they force...a person to go to or to remain away from
church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion."

-- Doug

Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so
>>> we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>>
>>> Good job!
>>
>> Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.
>
> Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account
> that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral
> exploration industries. So I'll explain:

Whoosh.... right over my head. The Saawwwwwry is all mine...

>
> In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud
> between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put
> humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we
> irritate, we compete for promotions.
>
> Hence the put-down reference to real science.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Zz Yzx wrote:
> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
> geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>
> Good job!

Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

>I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
>geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.

SEE?!?! Results already:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-now-almost-positive-mars-is-rocky,29069/?ref=auto

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:26:34 -0500, Douglas Johnson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>...and the words "Congress shall" weren't just fluff, either. That right
>>wasn't taken away from the states.
>
>The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that it does
>apply to the states.
>
>"Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a religion. Neither can
>pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
>another. Neither can they force...a person to go to or to remain away from
>church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
>religion."

That is a "penumbra" SCotUS found somewhere. The FF had no inclination to
control the states. Indeed there were state religions at the time and the
Constitution would have never been ratified with that restriction.

On 8/7/12 12:13 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
>> geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>
>> Good job!
>
> Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be.
>

Perhaps it's just hyperbole.
Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer says,
"Now, that's some real pitching."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 8/7/12 4:21 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Michael Joel" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we
>>> geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>
>>
>> SEE?!?! Results already:
>>
>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-now-almost-positive-mars-is-rocky,29069/?ref=auto
>>
>
> They may even find out it is "reddish"... and ... round.
>
>
>
> ...The heavens declare the glory of God
> ================================================================================
>
>
> Now how many people do you think plonked you due to your uncalled for
> spewing of religious garbage?


You're so tolerant.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:52:38 +0000, Han wrote:

> Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some
> point
> in the past.

Actually, I believe the previous landers proved that surface water once
existed on Mars. In one of the interviews about Curiosity, A NASA
spokesman said something on the lines of "now we've proven water, we're
looking for organic compounds".



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 8/7/12 10:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, anybody who plonked him for that particular "religioius garbage"
>>> would have plonked the crew of Apollo 8.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I don't believe in any of it, but some of it is pretty damned
>>> good poetry and people who get angry at the recitation of said poetry I
>>> find to be exceedingly annoying.
>>
>> I am a major believer in separation of church and state. But that reading, on
>> Christmas eve, circling the moon, was perfect. Even if my tax dollars were
>> paying for it. -- Doug
>
> I think we've gone way too far. The Constitution says "Congress shall
> make no law", not "no government employee shall mention". By the way,
> NASA got sued over that one. They won but they also forbade the
> astronauts from any further mention during a mission.
>

Which is funny, because later decisions ruled that federal employees
(astronauts) don't lose their constitutional rights to free speech nor
free exercise of religion when they walk through the doors of the
workplace... or in this instance, space capsule.

Bottom line, the forefathers wanted us to have freedom "of" religion,
not freedom *from* it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 8/8/12 1:26 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ...and the words "Congress shall" weren't just fluff, either. That right
>> wasn't taken away from the states.
>
> The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that it does
> apply to the states.
>
> "Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a religion. Neither can
> pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over
> another. Neither can they force...a person to go to or to remain away from
> church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
> religion."
>
> -- Doug
>

None of which forbids a person from exercising free expression of his
religious beliefs while in any official capacity as a government
employee. But they'll sure try to stop you from doing so.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 8/7/2012 1:56 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>
> What, no thanks for the mathematicians who told the engineers when Mars
> would be in the right place?
> Kerry


OK...thanks ...good job...way to go...atta boy .... sit ....stay.

Now...how the hell are we gonna get that thing back here ?

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:43 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so
>>> we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science.
>>
>> SEE?!?! Results already:
>>
>
>Please go upstairs and change your pants. You're too old to be doing that
>in them...

...or too young?

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That is a "penumbra" SCotUS found somewhere.

They found it the due process clause of the 14th amendment. I very glad they
did. Government intrusion into a matter as personal as religious beliefs is a
particularly egregious form of government intrusion. Federal, state, or local.
>The FF had no inclination to
>control the states. Indeed there were state religions at the time and the
>Constitution would have never been ratified with that restriction.

The founding fathers had many inclinations. Each of the 55 delegates to the
Federal Convention had their own inclinations. Each of the members of the state
legislators that ratified it had theirs. You don't have to read very far in
history to realize they often disagreed.

I'll agree completely they had no political ability to impose the establishment
clause on the states. But they did put some controls on the states. The
commerce, full faith and credit, and supremacy clauses come to mind.

-- Doug