Over-complication of science
Discussion
So I was watching something about the expansion of the universe, and it was supposedly discovered that by looking at a certain type of dying star the universe is expanding at an increasing rate rather than decreasing as would have been expected using our current laws of gravity. Which apparently means there must be Dark Matter and Dark Energy throughout our universe and everything we know about that has never before been detected or known about or observed in any way shape or form…*.
…Whoah hold on there cowboy. Just because one measurement wasn’t quite what you expected you have now come up with a completely over the top and (IMO) ridiculous explanation. Isn’t it far more likely that you have just done it wrong, missed something out, or you are basing your hypothesis on something a little wrong?
Now it’s not just this example, multiple universes, anti-matter, time travel, particles being in several locations at one time, black holes, quantum entanglement, and I’m sure there are plenty more all seem a bit far-fetched. They all seem over-dramatic and complicated ways of explaining an unexpected result.
Many of them also seem to point towards the fact that star-trek is the inevitable future of humanity and we will all be flying around in USS Enterprises in tight spandex suits. I am not suggesting there is a correlation between the science community and the kids of school that spent too much time watching star-trek… but I’m just saying.
Could it be self-justifying scientists trying to earn money? Could it be scientists being self-centred, thinking they have the definitive answer? Or could it just be I am talking a load of balls?
*Facts may well be exaggerated or not even correct, don’t let that take away from what I am trying to convey
…Whoah hold on there cowboy. Just because one measurement wasn’t quite what you expected you have now come up with a completely over the top and (IMO) ridiculous explanation. Isn’t it far more likely that you have just done it wrong, missed something out, or you are basing your hypothesis on something a little wrong?
Now it’s not just this example, multiple universes, anti-matter, time travel, particles being in several locations at one time, black holes, quantum entanglement, and I’m sure there are plenty more all seem a bit far-fetched. They all seem over-dramatic and complicated ways of explaining an unexpected result.
Many of them also seem to point towards the fact that star-trek is the inevitable future of humanity and we will all be flying around in USS Enterprises in tight spandex suits. I am not suggesting there is a correlation between the science community and the kids of school that spent too much time watching star-trek… but I’m just saying.
Could it be self-justifying scientists trying to earn money? Could it be scientists being self-centred, thinking they have the definitive answer? Or could it just be I am talking a load of balls?
*Facts may well be exaggerated or not even correct, don’t let that take away from what I am trying to convey
Well I got about the response I expected. My knowledge of the areas I listed are not fantastic, some much better than others, and some (such as quantum entanglement) almost nil.
What I am more talking about is human nature I suppose. When someone see's a dust particle through a camera the first reaction is not, oh there's a dust particle reflecting light from the flash, it's "oh my god there is a ghost from another dimension come to drain my soul" or some other such nonsense.
In a similar vein, when the CERN results first came back, instead of just saying, hang on this is quite new science, maybe we measured it wrong, the response was the particles are jumping between dimensions to get there quicker.
Now I'm not saying all of these theories are wrong, but what I am saying is if to validate a measurement you have taken you have to create a new type of energy. Given that this measurement was of something we know very little about, would it not be more plausible that we just don't know why yet, or more likely that it's been done wrong.
What I am more talking about is human nature I suppose. When someone see's a dust particle through a camera the first reaction is not, oh there's a dust particle reflecting light from the flash, it's "oh my god there is a ghost from another dimension come to drain my soul" or some other such nonsense.
In a similar vein, when the CERN results first came back, instead of just saying, hang on this is quite new science, maybe we measured it wrong, the response was the particles are jumping between dimensions to get there quicker.
Now I'm not saying all of these theories are wrong, but what I am saying is if to validate a measurement you have taken you have to create a new type of energy. Given that this measurement was of something we know very little about, would it not be more plausible that we just don't know why yet, or more likely that it's been done wrong.
The Black Flash said:
Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
Basically, it's what you are saying, and should be a central test of new theories.
That's not to say that people shouldn't speculate in terms of hypotheses of course, as long as they're testable
I'll confess to still not being sold on Dark Matter, yet. But it does fit the observations, so far.
I hadn't heard of it, but have now Basically, it's what you are saying, and should be a central test of new theories.
That's not to say that people shouldn't speculate in terms of hypotheses of course, as long as they're testable
I'll confess to still not being sold on Dark Matter, yet. But it does fit the observations, so far.
I also agree that coming with any possible hypothesis and eliminating those you can is a good plan, and it is tougher if you are unable to corroborate the hypothesis. However there are also other hypothesis that are equally as wild that would fit the observations, or the much simpler explanation that the measured it incorrectly, or have based their assumptions on something wrong.
Anyhow, that is to say I am unsold on dark matter, multi dimensional theory, and am only half sold on some of the theories coming from time-dilation; I think there is something being missed there.
TheHeretic said:
Is this the 'there is only one quark and it whizzes about very fast so it is everywhere at once' type answer, like the photon one?
I'm not going to search the net for an answer, but this is what I would have said, either this, or only part of a quark, if that makes sense.oh and some other thoughts on what has been said in this thread as I realise I have not really responded to it all...
When I was younger I did read up on that science malarkey a lot more than now. Though I haven't seen him in a while did have a friend who landed himself at CERN eventually and used to have some fairly deep discussions back at uni about this sort of stuff.
Hopefully they are not reading this, but now I do work in an office with a load of fairly uneducated idiots. It does not stimulate the brain cells. I suppose I also do not read such media to give me a good insight into what is actually happening, rather than just the reactionary and exaggerating kind. Is New Scientist still the most common source these days?
Yes I am very suspicious of anything I hear for the first time. I prefer to only agree with something once I have fully understood everything behind it
When I was younger I did read up on that science malarkey a lot more than now. Though I haven't seen him in a while did have a friend who landed himself at CERN eventually and used to have some fairly deep discussions back at uni about this sort of stuff.
Hopefully they are not reading this, but now I do work in an office with a load of fairly uneducated idiots. It does not stimulate the brain cells. I suppose I also do not read such media to give me a good insight into what is actually happening, rather than just the reactionary and exaggerating kind. Is New Scientist still the most common source these days?
Yes I am very suspicious of anything I hear for the first time. I prefer to only agree with something once I have fully understood everything behind it
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff