Friday, September 30, 2011

Astronomy.

The natural science that deals with the study of celestial objects and phenomena originating outside the Earth's atmosphere is called Astronomy.

Astronomy’s main activity is the observation of celestial objects measuring their properties such a mss, diameter, brightness and composition. Observations are usually made by way of some form of telescope. The types of telescopes used include visible light, radio, inferred, ultraviolet, X – ray, and gamma ray telescopes.

The telescope has produced a giant leap in astronomy allowing observations beyond the rage of the unaided eye. Since its introduction developments in telescope technology have opened up many new ways of looking at the Universe. Professional astronomy has often come to be seen as equivalent to astrophysics

The 20th century produced a division of astronomy into two main fields. Observational Astronomy is the acquiring of data from observations and analyzing that data using physics. Theoretical Astronomy is the development of computer models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena.

Today Observational and Theoretical Astronomy complement each other. The theoretical Seeks to explain observations and observations used to test the theoretical. Amateur astronomers have also contributed to many important astronomical discoveries making astronomy one of the few sciences that amateurs can still play an active role.

Collisions as Used in Physics

An event in which two or more bodies exert relatively high forces on each other for a short period of time is called a collision.

A collision in which the total kinetic energy of the particles before and after the encounter is the same is called elastic collision.

A collision in which the total kinetic energy of the particles before and after the encounter is not the same is called inelastic collision.

The danger of collisions results from the sudden high acceleration whic can damage equipment, cause injuries and even kill. It can cause damage from the deformation of object. It can cause colliding objects to shatter and fly apart at high speeds.

On the other hand collisions can hammer nails. They are used in sports such as pool, golf, and baseball. They have also been used to probe the makeup of matter by way of near light speed collisions inside particle accelerators.

In conclusion collisions are sudden interactions that can be elastic or inelastic. They can be dangerous and destructive but yet they can be useful.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Using Deductive Reasoning in Science

Deductive reasoning is reasoning that starts with a given set premises and draws a conclusion.

Deductive reasoning starts with general concepts and principles and does to specific conclusion by starting with a given set premises and draws conclusions from them. The conclusions made from deductive reasoning are only as valid as the premises that are used such that only one false premise can produce a false conclusion. A deductive argument is considered valid if its truth necessarily follows from the starting premises and it is sound if the argument is valid and all of its premises are true other wise it is considered unsound.

A common form of deductive reasoning is called a syllogism It has three parts.  

  1. A general characteristic of a category of objects.
  2. The object under discussion belongs to that category
  3. The conclusion that the object under discussion has that general characteristic.
Deductive reasoning dependents heavily on the validity of premises being used. The premises used may be facts derived from observation or a totally philosophical assumption.

A good example comes from proponents of the Big Bang Cosmology. All observations of the universe are constant with the Earth being near the center of the universe. Starting with the philosophical assumption that we are totally the result of natural process; as opposed to being created by God; it is a logically valid conclusion that we can not be in a special place in the universe such as the center. As a result they invented an explanation for the evidence that eliminate the center by making all locations seem to be at the center. However if we were created by God then we could easily be near the center of the universe. This is why Creationists and Evolutionists can look at the same evidence and draw totally different conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is a very useful tool of reasoning however it does have its difficulties. It depends heavily on the accuracy its starting premises. However flawed premises result in flawed conclusions. These difficulties need to be properly understood to properly understand scientific statements including those of both Creationists and Evolutionists.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Observation: The Viewing and Recording of. Data

Observation is the process of viewing and recording events. Viewing and recording are basically watching a phenomenon and recording the observation.

There are limits to the accuracy of observations because real world observations some times miss stuff. A critical event may occur when observations are not being made. A critical event may occur outside the range of the observer’s sight. As a result observations can be some what subjective since it is too easy for an observer to see what he wants to see because the observer is looking for what he wants to see So patterns resembling what the observer wants to see are more likely noticed. It is also  too easy for an observer to not see what he does not want to see because the observer is not looking for what he does not want to see and patterns not resembling what the observer is not looking for can be over looked. Knowing of such problems helps avoid them.

 As important scientific as Observations  are in science but it does have its limitations and pitfalls. Being aware of those limitations helps one to avoid them.



Tuesday, September 27, 2011

A Discussion of Inductive Reasoning in Science

Inductive reasoning is reasoning that draws a general conclusion based on a set of examples.


Basic pattern of Inductive Reasoning
a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h are part of group A.
a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h have property G.
All member of group A have property G.

As used in Science the process starts with observations and looks for the patterns in the observations to develop a hypothesis as general description of the observations. Inductive Reasoning allows for general conclusions to be drawn from specific observations and evidence allowing conclusions based on patterns in observations and evidence. The possibility that the sample size may be too small for a general conclusion is a risk of inductive reasoning. It is esily affected by philosophical assumptions and biases in selection of sample, in the patterns recognized, as well as the conclusions drawn from those patterns. Knowing about these problems helps one avoid them.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Measurements: A Major Tool of Science

Measurement is the process of obtaining numerical values representing physical properties, such as length, mass, or time, by way of a unit of measurement. A unit of measurement is a magnitude representing a physical quantity by use of a standard for measurement of that physical quantity. A measuring device is a piece of equipment used to measure a physical quantity based on a standard for measurement.


Measurement and Objectivity
Measurement is the most objective part of science since the resulting numbers are what they are. The use mechanical devices for measurement aide thus objectivity by removing human subjectivity. The validity of a measurement is only as valid as the theory behind it.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

A Discussion of Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacy: An error within a logical argument that is a flaw in the argument’s structure that is said to invalidate the argument.

A logical fallacy is independent of the truth so a fallacy does not necessarily invalidate the argument's premises and conclusions. However arguments derived from logical fallacies often do lead to an incorrect conclusion due to faulty reasoning.

Examples

Ad hominem
Latin: “To the Man”
It is an argument that attacks people holding a particular point of view rather than attacking the point of view itself.
Example: The case where an opponent starts insulting you in some manner rather than countering your argument.

Overgeneralization
It is an argument which makes a statement so broad as to exceed the original point that was trying to be proved. Often it involves taking a small sample and generalizing it to the whole group.


Non sequitur
Latin: "It does not follow"
It is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion where no connection exists between the two.

Proof by authority
It is an argument which is based on a person's authority, rather than on the merits of the authority's position.
Example: A argument is assumed correct because it comes from a person with a PHD.

Proof by assertion
It is an argument which simply states something as true without evidence or argument to support it.

Circular reasoning
It is an argument that tries to prove something by first asserting it and then trying to "prove" it.

Straw man
It is an argument where a person argues against a position similar to but weaker than their opponent’s real position.

Manufacturing facts from a theory
It is an undemonstrated or unobserved idea that is stated as fact because it agrees with a particular theory.


Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong
Often used by Evolutionists against Creationists, it is a form of circular reasoning. The person tries to disprove a point of view by interpreting the facts through a different view. It originated from discussions with evolutionists where interpretation from Evolutionary theories are used as arguments against Creation Science despite the fact that Creation Science interprets the same thing differently.


There are many more logical fallacies avoid them

Logic and Reason in Science

Logic is the set of principles and rules for reasoning. When used correctly and qith the right starting point one will arrive at the correct conclusion.

Deductive reasoning is reasoning that starts with a given set premises and draws a conclusion. Inductive reasoning is reasoning that draws a general conclusion based on a set of examples. So deductive reasoning goes from general principles to specific conclusions. Inductive reasoning goes from specific principles to general conclusions. Both forms of logic are used in science.

Inductive and Deductive reasoning are different and even opposite concepts but in practice deductive and inductive reasoning are often used together even without knowing it.  For example one may be drawing a general conclusion form observed evidence (induction) based on general principles called assumptions. (deduction)

Mistakes in reasoning called Logical fallacies are some times made and they can be made both deliberately and accidentally. It is important to avoid them since they resultant in erroneous conclusions.

Friday, September 23, 2011

A Discussion of the Burden of Proof


Burden of Proof is the obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence in support of their side of a dispute or issue.

The term “burden of proof” is actually a little on the strong implin the need to prove beyond any doubt so in practice it is really the burden of evidence. The side that has the burden of proof is obligated to provide evidence to back up their view point.

Determining the burden of proof is not always easy to do because it varies in different circumstances and changes in the course of the discussion.

The burden of proof usually goes to the party making the claim. A criminal trial in the United States is a good example of this since the prosecution has the burden of proof since the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. However this is not an absolute rule given thay some circumstance can change the burden of proof to some one denying a claim. A party making the new claim about an accepted idea has the burden of proof. For example those claiming that the Apollo Moon landings did not really happen have the Burden of proof.

 The Burden of Proof Fallacy is the act of wrongfully trying to switch the burden of proof to your opponent. As an example proponents of abiogenesis need to prove that it is possible because it is already know that intelligence can produce complex organized systems. On the other hand there is no real evidence for abiogenesis. Al its proponents provides is unproven stories about how it could have happened.

The Burden of Proof can legitimately switch sides if new arguments have been made or evidence presented. If the opposition wishes to dispute the new evidence or argument, they have the burden of proof in doing so. Hence the burden of proof has switched.

The biggest problems in a discussion is agreeing on who has the burden of proof. It can consume much time and render a debate useless. Another problem is that since each side sees the issue differently it may be hard to agree on burden of proof.

Debate an its Place in Science

Debate is a formal interactive discussion of opposing ideas on a specific topic.

In science debate is a method for handling disputes over competing theories because both sides get to make their case. An example of this are debates on Creation Vs Evolution how ever it seldom actually settles the dispute.

A long as both sides can make their case it is an opportunity to learn about the other side as well as one’s own. It is important that both sides are given equal footing and respect which doses not always happen.

Since debate usually does not settles the dispute and one side can actually get insulting ruining the discussion in practice it is only useful as long the participants and observers learn from it. If no one learns anything from a debate it’s a waste of time.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Experimentation a Process of Science

Experimentation is the investigation of the causal relationships among variables or the testing of a hypothesis.

Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed the Michelson-Morley Experiment in 1887 by splitting a beam of light in two sending in two directions to measure by interference the difference in the transition of the two beams. It is considered the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether helping lead to the development of Special Relativity.

Controlled Experimentation is fundamental to the ideal of science. It is where the scientific method and repeatability works best. However not all area of scientific study lend them selves to experiments. Most real world observations are beyond the possibility of a controlled experiment do to things like distance, size and time. In many case experiments can only be used to test the possibility of a hypothesis which is some times done in historical sciences. Trying to replicate a past event to show it could have happened.

The Ideal Experiment should reduce the number of variable to one and be easily repeated by other scientists to increases the likely hood that someone will try to repeat it. It also makes it more likely that the attempt to repeat it will succeed. It should also limit complexity and cost so as to increase the likely hood that someone will try to repeat it making it more likely that the attempt to repeat it will succeed.

The Importance of Repeatability in Science


Repeatability is the replication of a scientist’s experiments and results by other scientists. The can be done because the physical laws are the same every place so an experiment conducted by one scientist should work for any other scientist so as to double check the results. Repeatability is not to be confused with replicating passed events which is done to show the possibility or feasibility of that event which is a totally different from the repeatability being discussed.

Repeatability works best with experiments with well controlled variables so that replication can be as completely as possible. It does not work well in situations where there are difficulties in controlling variables. In such cases results are not easily replicated. The degree of repeatability varies from field to field.

So while repeatability is important to science it is not the absolute principle some make it out to be and some fields are more repeatable than others.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Using Theoretical Systems in Science

A Theoretical System is the conceptual structure that a scientific community uses as the bases for developing testable theories and interpreting data it is also referred to as a paradigm. A scientific community’s theoretical system is accepted as true by that community and it is generally fixed and not subject to change with new data. This is true only of core concepts to which theoretical patches are often added to make a theoretical system fit reality when reality is not what was originally expected. The theoretical system forms the bases for developing testable theories and interpreting data.

Example

Origins sciences has two main theoretical systems. Biblical creation which has a 6 days creation, a global flood and a young Earth and General evolution has the Big Bang cosmology, Nebula theory of star and planet formation, Uniformitarian Geology, Abiogenesis and Biological evolution. All other theoretical systems are basically mixtures of these two including old earth creation and theistic evolution.

The key to understanding theoretical systems is that they can only be evaluated internally because they are self contained systems. Different theoretical systems often produce different and even contradictory interpretations for the same evidence so that an interpretation from one theoretical system can not be used to disprove another because an interpretation from one theoretical system may not be valid in another.

Parts of a theoretical system can start out as testable theories and become so entrenched that they loose all testability by being patched to the point where they can absorb any new data. The Big Bang is a good example of this. It has be come so entrenched that there is no mainstream thought of abandoning it because contradicting data is absorbed when possible such as the accelerating expansion of the universe; which was  by the invention of dark energy; or ignored such as the relationships between active galaxies and quasars.

Theoretical systems can have concepts in common but while different system may share some concepts while concepts are totally different. They are an unavoidable but little understood part of Science because data is not self interpreting and needs a theory on which to base the interpretation. Unfortunately it is often unclear as to where a testable theory end and theoretical system begins.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Archaeology People Dig It

Archaeology is defined as the scientific study of past human culture and behavior based on the remains, ruins and artifacts left behind. Some times there are conflicts between archaeology and geology because some times geological features can be confused for ruins and artifacts and vise versa.

Archaeology has the benefit of allowing the studying of history apart from historical records because there are some things you can’t just learn about from historical records, such as art, physical characteristics, and architectural. Things can be discovered about history not found in written historical records since historical records only contain what is considered important and much of every day life is not considered important enough to be recorded.

It allows the discovery of additional written records and confirming the existence of civilizations only written about by other civilizations. The most famous example of this is the discovery of Troy. Discovering civilizations not yet known and discovering things about groups that left no written records.

Artifacts are not preserved because they are lost as it decays over time and is damaged by natural disasters. Artifacts are frequently destroyed by war and the accidental destruction by reuse of land.  They have also been lost do to the carelessness of both non- scientists and scientists because archaeologists have not always been a careful as they should be. Sadly artifacts have been deliberately destroyed by both scientists and non- scientists. Being human scientists are not always honest, while this is not necessarily a big problem in that most archaeologists do not deliberately destroy artifacts but it is still occasionally a source of artifact loss. An example of non-scientists deliberately destroying artifacts is the fact that Moslems have a history destroying religions artifacts in countries they conquer. The looting of archaeological site is a major problem in some case. The further you look back in time the bigger this problem of the loss of archaeological artifacts becomes.

Governments often hinder archaeological research by blocking excavation and investigation other than by approved archaeologists so as to control access to potential digs. They also some times block the excavation and investigation of sites they don’t like. This includes the fencing off of a possible Mount Sinai site in Saudi Arabia. They further control evidence by demanding that artifacts discovered in their boarders be turned over to their officials. The reason given is to prevent the looting of National Treasures but it allows Governments to hide evidence that goes against their official view of history while allowing Governments to control access to the artifacts they have.

Artifacts are not self interpreting they need to be interpreted by way of a theoretical system. The accuracy of the interpretation is dependent on the accuracy of the theoretical system. Artifacts and ruins are easily dismissed if they do not fit the theoretical system being used because there are just too many different ways artifacts be interrelated. This is particularly true when sites are poorly preserved which can cause interpretation mistakes since the evidence that makes the difference can easily be lost. The discovered of sites by armatures can easily be dismissed since the claim can be they did not know what they were doing or that they messed up the site. Furthermore the theoretical systems used are based on philosophical assumptions.

Since archaeology is an historical science it is greatly influenced by philosophical assumptions. For example a purely naturalistic theoretical system requires assuming that any supernatural claims in history are mythological. The point is that the Philosophical Assumptions behind any claim needs to be understood.


Monday, September 19, 2011

A Discussion of Peer Review in Science

Peer Review is the submission of scholarly works and research to the review of other’s in the same field. Peer Review practically speaking refers to review for publication in a journal proving a way to find and correct mistakes before publication of a paper includes spelling, grammar, mathematical and other form of mistakes. It a method of quality control to the research being published helping guard against poor research.
Unfortunately this provides a means of blocking the publication of novel concepts that run contrary to the current paradigm. If dissenters respond be publishing their own peer review journals they are criticized and their journals are often decried as non reputable. Some times it is denied that they are even legitimate peer review. This has been shown too happened in origins research with Creation Science peer review journals and climate research with climate peer review journals that publish papers that go against Global Warming.  So called reputable journals seemed to be defined based on agreement with establishment paradigms. Attacking sincere peer review efforts in this way harms scientific Research.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

A Description of Archaeology

Archaeology is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior from the remains, ruins and artifacts left behind. Some times archaeology and geology can clash because some times ruins and artifacts can be confused for geological features and vise versa.
Archaeology has a number of benefit of studying history apart from historical records because there are some things you can’t just learn about from historical records, such as art, physical characteristics, and architectural. Discovering things about history not found in written historical records since historical records only contain what is considered important and much of every day life is not considered important enough to be recorded. Discovering additional written records and confirming the existence of civilizations only written about by other civilizations. The most famous example of this is the discovery of Troy. Discovering civilizations not yet known and discovering things about groups that left no written records.

Archaeology’s biggest problem is the fact that many are not preserved because it is lost as it decays over time and is damaged by natural disasters. Artifacts are frequently destroyed by war and the accidental destruction by reuse of land.  They are also lost do to the carelessness of both non- scientists and scientists because archaeologists have not always been a careful as they should be. Sadly artifacts have been deliberately destroyed by both scientists and non- scientists. Being human scientists are not always honest, while this is not necessarily a big problem in that most archaeologists do not deliberately destroy artifacts but it is still occasionally a source of artifact loss. An example of non-scientists deliberately destroying artifacts is the fact that Moslems have a history destroying religions artifacts in countries they conquer. The looting of archaeological site is a major problem in some case. The further you look back in time the bigger this problem of the loss of archaeological artifacts becomes.

Government have often hindered archaeological research by blocking excavation and investigation other than by approved archaeologists so as to control access to potential digs. They have blocked the excavation and investigation of sites they don’t like. This includes the fencing off of a possible Mount Sinai site in Saudi Arabia. They further control evidence by demanding that artifacts discovered in their boarders be turned over to their officials. The reason given is to prevent the looting of National Treasures but it allows Governments to hide evidence that goes against their official view of history while allowing Governments to control access to the artifacts they have.

Artifacts do not interpreting themselves but are interpreted by way of a theoretical system. The accuracy of the interpretation is dependent on the accuracy of the theoretical system. Artifacts and ruins are easily dismissed if they do not fit the theoretical system being used because there are just too many different ways artifacts be interrelated. This is particularly true when sites are poorly preserved which can cause interpretation mistakes since the evidence that makes the difference can easily be lost. The discovered of sites by armatures can easily be dismissed since the claim can be they did not know what they were doing or that they messed up the site. Furthermore the theoretical systems used are based on philosophical assumptions.

Since archaeology is an historical science it is greatly influenced by philosophical assumptions. For example a purely naturalistic theoretical system requires assuming that any supernatural claims in history are mythological. The point is that the Philosophical Assumptions behind any claim needs to be understood.

Friday, September 16, 2011

It There really Scientific Objectivity

Human beings can not be totally objective since we all have preconceptions about the world. You can only be really objective if you know nothing about a topic since knowledge on a topic creates opinions that influence preconceptions. This is also why every effort is made for juries to know little or nothing about the case in advance. You can only be totally objective if you are totally ignorant.

Dealing with data involves three steps collection, organizing and interpreting Collecting data includes measuring and recording and it is the most objective part of science. Since much of this is done by machines it is where true scientific objectivity is found. Even this process is not totally objective since the selection of data to be tested is not always objective and is often based on the theory being used says to look for. This part of the process is still the most objective. Organizing Data includes the categorizing of data sets. As soon as an organizing system exists it influences how the data is seen and this causes a loss of objectivity. The interpretation of data depends on the theoretical system being used to do the interpretation because different theoretical system produces different interpretations. Scientists using different theoretical systems on the same data can produce different and even contradicting interpretations and a flawed theoretical system causes flawed interpretation,

Thursday, September 15, 2011

What is the Difference Between Historical and Operational Science

Operational Science: an explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of scientists.
This is the type of science that curses disease, discovers new sources of energy and leads in invention.
Historical Science: an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present.




Since we can only observe the present because we live in the present and that is what we observe. The past can not be observed since we do not live in the past we do not observe the past. The past can only be studied by observing in the present. Even distant star light is observed only in the present even if we do see the stars as they looked in the past.

So to study the past requires making some assumptions about the past even studying distant stars requires making assumptions about the history and structure of the universe.  This makes studying the past more likely to be affected by philosophical assumptions.

The study of origins is by definition a historical science the study of origins is highly influenced by philosophical assumptions. If those philosophical assumptions are wrong then so are the conclusions.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

What is The Scientific Establishment

The scientific establishment is all of the mainstream scientific institutions and  those that run these institutions. These positions give them control over many aspects of main stream science making it possible for them to limit research and distribution of material they don’t like. These positions include those with control over publishing, employment, research grants, research facilities and education.
This control can and does hamper innovation by keeping concepts down that are outside the ruling paradigm.

This not only includes Creation Science and Intelligent Design but alternative totally naturalistic concepts as well. There are areas where progress occurs only because older influential scientists die and are replaced by younger more receptive scientists. It has been said that scientific progress occurs one funeral at a time.

This is not necessarily conspiratorial but is most likely just people protecting their power and world view. However the result is the same. This actually happens in all fields of human endeavor such as science, religion, politics, business, and education. It is a result of human nature.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Creationism

Creationism: The philosophical position that the earth and universe and life were created by God or some other supreme being.
Despite claims by anti creationist Creationism and Creation Science are not equivalent. Creationism is a philosophical position while Creation Science is a scientific discipline based on Creationism.

Natural process are recognized under Creationism because the Universe generally works by natural process; however supernatural events and process are seen as possibilities. It is actually a more open minded position than naturalism which denies the existence of the supernatural.

There are several views that extend from creationism Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Creation, Intelligent design if God is the intelligents Theistic Evolution and any other view of origins that involves God Theistic Evolutionists may deny that there view comes from creationism but as soon as you insert God into the equation you’re outside naturalism. None of these views are Creationism because Creationism is a philosophical starting point. These views are theoretical positions that come logically from Creationism.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Science Education

A basic knowledge of science is important for understanding the world around us and since science affects most aspect of life so some knowledge of it is needed to get along. It helps students with an interest in science to pursue a scientific career by helping them discover that interest.

The problem with science education for example many pre collage science classes are taught by teachers who did not major or minor in math or science so as a result classes are often of low quality a often uninteresting.  As a result children are often thought only facts and theory and are often not taught how to actually do science.
They often not thought how to critically evaluate scientific claims.

Even worst some times political agendas get in the way of teaching science, a good example is the teaching of man caused global warming without presenting the other side except in ridicule. Furthermore science and other topics are usually taught in a way that encourages conformity which can a actually discourage independent thinking. As a result many people can not think out side the box of what they were taught and it is the independent thinkers and that tend make the great discoveries.

This shows up big time in the way origin is taught in public school science class. Big bang to man Evolution is taught as fact. Efforts to change this to date have been blocked by the courts. Big bang to man Evolution is further pushed by TV programs and other media were in most cases if Creation Science or Intelligent Design are mention all it is in ridicule. As a result people are bombarded by Big bang to man Evolution giving them the impression that it is proven fact despite scientific reasons for questioning it. As a result some people develop a condescending attitude towards Creation Science while actually being ignorant of it, producing an arrogant ignorance that makes an intelligent discussion impossible



References


Saturday, September 10, 2011

The Problem of Politicized Science

Politicization of Science is the process where politics interferes with scientific enquiry for the purpose of political gain. It often involves support for one side over the other in a scientific dispute.
Pushing a theory for political gain corrupts the scientific process. The supported side will get lots of funding while the other side struggles. This encourages researchers to backup the supported theory or risk loosing funding. It also gives the supported theory the appearance of being overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, even if it is not. In addition support or opposition for the theory becomes based more on politics than science. The result is that it becomes hard to find the truth, because no one is unbiased

The worst example is the theory of Man caused Global Warming. Favored by progressive politicians who see it as an excuse for increased government control and opposed by conservative politicians tend because of the associated big government political agenda associated with it.

The fact is that there is scientific evidence against man caused global warming and the entire global warming theory as well. The evidence also indicates that the solutions being pushed by global warming proponents are the worst way to dale with it even if their science is right.

The point is that the politicization of global warming has greatly hampered the scientific process by hiding and distorting facts making it hard to find the truth. This is bad for and destructive to science. As a result when ever science is politicized the process of science is damaged.
References


Friday, September 9, 2011

The Problem of Government Grants

A government grant is money or other items of value given by a government to non-government individual or group to enable their activities.
While Government funding of science produces many good results it has the down side of politicizing science and the politicization of science is detrimental to science. The benefit is that it provides a source of funding for research making it easier for research to be funded. It obviously allows some research to be done that probably could not get funded other wise.

However science has become too dependent on government grants such that 90% of scientific research is funded by government. To get funding from any source requires you to appease that source of funding. So to get government funding you need to appease government officials. While grant requests do go through peer review, altimetry the money comes from politicians and this has a chilling affect on science because some areas of research are funded while others are not. Furthermore about 1 in 10 unsolicited grant applications are approved which means that some legitimate research is rejected. Also some paradigms are favored by government over competing ones.  For example research in to manned caused global warming gets funded while opposing research does not get funded.

The reason for this it that politics is about acquiring and holding on to power not knowledge and as a result politicians are often not really interested is the science but sending money to their districts and pushing a political agenda.

In conclusion science needs to reduce its dependence on Government funding. Priority needs to be given to private funding which can take several forms, foundations, universities, and other nonprofit organizations and for profit organizations while these are already used to some degree, private funding should be encouraged more. It is less corrupting because there is more than one source of funding. This does not mean that Government funding should be eliminated just reduced. Science should be as independent of government as possible to reduce these problems. 

References




Thursday, September 8, 2011

Newton's Laws of Motion

Newton's Laws of Motion are the three basic physical laws of classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body, the forces acting on it and the resulting motion.

Newton's second law states that a body will remain in rest or in motion unless acted on by an out side force. It is also known as the law of inertia since inertia is the resistance to changes in motion.

Newton's Second law states that a mass acted on by a force undergoes acceleration in the direction of the force, with a magnitude inversely proportional to the mass and proportional to the force.

Formula

f = ma
f   = force
m = mass
a  = acceleration

Newton's Third law states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.  Put another way when you push on an object it pushes you back. This is the bases of rockets and jets.

These three laws along with gravity form the cornerstone of modern physics. Not much outside quantum mechanics makes since with out them. They affect every aspect of our lives and are involved in some way with every thing we do.

The three laws are most evident in space flight. The 3rd law provides force to move a rocket, the 2nd law turns that force into acceleration and the 1st law keeps a space craft in obit or moving through deep space.

In conclusion Newton's Laws of Motion are the three basic physical laws of classical mechanics. They affect every aspect of our lives, in fact we use them every time we move.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Units of Measure in Physics

Unites of measure are numerical values given physical quantities relative to some standard. The International System of Units (SI) is the system of units of measure used as a global standard by international treaty.


Seven SI Base Units



meter
distance


kilogram


mass


second


time


ampere


current


kelvin


temperature


mole


amount of substance


candela


intensity of light



There is a list of
SI unit prefixes
that that multiply the values from 1024 and
10-24 below is a partial list.



SI Prefixes



Prefix



Symbol



10n



Scale




decimal



giga-


G
109

billion


1,000,000,000


mega-


M
106

million


1,000,000


Kilo-


k
103

thousand


1,000


Hecto-


h
102

hundred
100


deca-


da
101 ten 10
- - 100 one 1


deci-


d
10-1 tenth

0.1


centi-


c
10-2

hundredth


0.01


milli-


m
10-3

thousandth


0.001


micro-


m
10-6

millionth


0.000,001


nano-


n
10-9

billionth


0.000,000,001
As a result 1,000 meters is a kilometer, a hundredth of a meter is
centimeter and a thousandth of a meter is a millimeter.


Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Science and Politics

When ever science and politics interact science is more often than not the looser. This does not mean that all interactions between science and government are negative but the overall affect on science is negative.

The Reason for this is that politics is about acquiring and holding on to power and not knowledge. In fact politics often is destructive to knowledge since ignorant people are easier to control. Further more politicians are often not really interested is the science but sending money to their districts. The biggest example of this is manned space flight which has stagnated for 30 years under government control.

Even worst government often favors some lines of research over others in funding, education, and recognition. Some times government favors one side in a scientific dispute over others. The best examples are in origins research and climate research.

Government can block lines of research from being perused. Now sometimes this legitimate such as preventing dangerous experimenting on humans, but other times it’s pandering to irrational fears such as those against nuclear power is a good example simply because some people can’t separate reactors from bombs. Giving in to this fear has hampered the development of nuclear power.

Government can hide lines of research which often happens with research conducted by the military. The reason given for this is national security and some time it  is legitimate but other times it’s just an excuse.

 The worst examples of these are climate research and origins research because politics has played a major anti-scientific role in both areas.

In climate research global warming has been favored by progressive politicians who see it an excuse for increased government control. They have backed and promoted pro global warming claims over data to the contrary despite emails showing the hiding of climate data contrary to Global warming. This issue has become so politicized that finding the truth is hard because it is almost impossible to find an objective source on the topic.

 In origins research only evolutionary research funded the government. Both Intelligent design and Creation Science gets no government funding, but they are forced to fund evolutionary research with their taxes. Intelligent design and Creation Science have been kept out of public schools on the claim that they are not science this has even been done by law suits. There is nothing more grossly anti-scientific than bringing law suits to settle scientific issues by having a judge (lawyer) decree the opposing views are not science. Regardless of your view on origins, this should disturb you.

 Science should NOT be determined by judicial decree such actions are fundamentally opposed to the entire idea of science as a pursuit of knowledge.

Monday, September 5, 2011

The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics

0th Law of Thermodynamics: Two objects in thermal equilibrium with a third object re also in equilibrium with each other.
The 0th Law is called the 0th Law and not the 4th because it is more fundamental than the 1st law but was discovered after the other three. 

The idea is like having three interconnected beakers of water such that the water levels in all three are the same height. Furthermore because the beakers are interconnected any change in one gets balanced out so all three end up with the same level.

The zeroth law of Thermodynamics is a simple concept and which why it is the most fundamental of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of science: The philosophical discipline dealing with the assumptions, methodology and implications of science
The several myths about science whuch are that scientists are unbiased observers they use the scientific method to confirm or falsify their theoriesm they have no preconceptions in collecting data and deriving theories and science is self-correcting because scientists readily abandon theories, when they don’t fit the facts.

This view of science is wrong.

Thesw myths are quite easy to bust. Data itself can not confirm or falsify theories becausedata is not self interpreting.so it needs to be interpreted through a theoretical system. Furthermore the scientific method is a generalization of how science is suppose to work but it is not a fixed rule.

Scientists have shown on ocassion tremendous loyalty to their theories. The Steady State Cosmology is a classic example of this where some its original adherents are still holding out on it. Finally their theories are always influenced by philosophical assumptions.
Assumptions
Doing science requires making starting assumptions, this necessary for it work because our knowledge is incomplete. It is also contrary to the myth of Scientists having no preconceptions. So the results of scientific inquiry are greatly influenced by starting assumptions and having wrong starting assumptions results in wrong theories.

Demarcation
 The bigest question in philosophy of Science is “What is science?”  This is not as easy a question to answer as it may seem because Science dose not fit easily into a box because it is simply impossible to draw a clear line between science and non-science.
The accepted key concepts of Science are observation, falsification and repeatability. Unfortunately even these are not absolute because not everything fits into them.  There are things in universe can be seen such as atoms, subatomic particles, black holes and dark mater. Things that can not be tested such as an unbounded universe and the Cosmological Principle. Some things can not be repeated such as the origin of life, and the origin of the universe it self.
 Part of the problem is ta desire on the part of the scientific establishment to eliminate from science areas they don’t like such as Creation Science, and Intelligent design.
So the question of  “What is science?” remains an open question.

Friday, September 2, 2011

3rd Law of Thermodynamics

3rd Law of Thermodynamics: As the temperature of a substance approaches absolute zero it’s entropy approaches zero.

The basic concept is that since heat is a result of the motion of the molecules in an object and that this motion causes those molecules to move around and spread out causing a condition of high entropy.

As an object is cooled the object molecules slow down allowing the forces between molecules to organize the molecules. At absolute zero all of the heat is removed and the molecules stop moving allowing the forces between molecules to fully organize the molecules resulting in zero entropy.

Absolute Zero  is the lowest possible limit on temperature, it is refered to as 0 Kelvin, which is -273.15 oC (-459.67 oF),

While absolute zero is the lowest limit on temperature, in practice it is not actually achievable. You can get infinitely close but not exactly at absolute zero but it is impossible get rid of that last bit of heat.


Thursday, September 1, 2011

Stone Age graves

Neanderthal Man is a group now classified as Homo Sapiens( Man kind ). They buried their dead with religious ritual so the problem for Evolutionists is that there are not enough stone age graves for evolution.
According to Evolution the first humans appeared about 100,000 years ago. The population quickly grows to about 1,000,000, but because they were supposedly hunter - gatherers, for 100,000 years; that's 4,000 generations; the population was limited by land area. This cap was removed by the innovation of farming.

So how many stone age graves should there be? Consider 4,000 generations times 1,000,000 people, equals 4 billion people. However only thousands have actually been found. Now the bodies may have decayed; not even leaving bones, but they were buried with their stone tools, so these should still be around.

The only real explanation is that the so called stone age lasted less 100,000 years. The number of graves discovered is constant with about 500 years. This time could have been during the post Babel dispersion.