Page 2 of 2
#41
Quote by strat0blaster
Good thing scientists have never been wrong before. Thanks for telling me; I feel much better knowing that Gods aren't the only beings that are viewed as infallible.

I mean, how can I NOT unconditionally accept the assurance that the sun won't flare for 0.4 seconds and kill everything on Earth when they've had such concrete evidence that oranges and coffee are good for us, then bad for us, then give us cancer, then make our minds sharper, or that we can "lose weight and get in great shape in just 15 minutes a day?"

Get in the sack.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#42
Why all the hate towards strat0blaster? He raises a very valid point.

When I was in Engineering Analysis, the first thing and most memorable point that our teacher taught us was that when using statistical methods to model anything, the model is only good when analyzing within the limits of the data set. In other words, you can't predict the future with absolute certainty, all you can really say is, "If x system continues to behave as it has as long as we have been observing it then it will yield this result." Note the "If." This assertion, like all science, requires certain assumptions in order to hold any merit.

Hardly foolproof, which gives rise to the various forms of psuedo/journalism/junk-science he speaks of.
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
#43
I haven't listened to the new album yet, but from the sound of things Muse just needs to put down their instruments and enjoy the success of the 4 good albums they previously made. This does not include The Resistance, which I found to be just OK.
#44
Quote by J-Dawg158
Why all the hate towards strat0blaster? He raises a very valid point.

When I was in Engineering Analysis, the first thing and most memorable point that our teacher taught us was that when using statistical methods to model anything, the model is only good when analyzing within the limits of the data set. In other words, you can't predict the future with absolute certainty, all you can really say is, "If x system continues to behave as it has as long as we have been observing it then it will yield this result." Note the "If." This assertion, like all science, requires certain assumptions in order to hold any merit.

Hardly foolproof, which gives rise to the various forms of psuedo/journalism/junk-science he speaks of.

We can't be certain of any scientific discovery then. But the chance of something like a star to just disappear for no reason is probably negligible.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#45
Quote by Neo Evil11
We can't be certain of any scientific discovery then. But the chance of something like a star to just disappear for no reason is probably negligible.


We can't be 100% certain, but for a large portion of applications we don't have to be. That's what seperates engineers from hardcore scientist and mathmaticians.
Like my favorite joke on the subject:

"An engineer and mathmatician walk into a room with a naked woman laying on a bed who says, 'You boys can do anything you want to with me. The catch is you can only walk half the distance between us at a time. Then half that distance, and half that distance.' The mathmatician says to the engineer, 'We'll never be able to make it ' The engineer replies, 'True, but we can get close enough '

It's all about what you are willing to accept as "good enough."

What I percieve to be strat0's point is that many people take scientists on their word because they have research to back it up, all while not even thinking about all of the assumptions that they could've made to come to that conclusion.
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
#46
Quote by J-Dawg158
What I percieve to be strat0's point is that many people take scientists on their word because they have research to back it up, all while not even thinking about all of the assumptions that they could've made to come to that conclusion.

Scientists make assumptions?...

WHAT?!


(I'm being sarcastic, btw. EVERYONE makes assumptions. Science is never infallible or proved 100%; rather, it's proved to be highly probable, within a certain set of parameters.)
#47
Quote by J-Dawg158
We can't be 100% certain, but for a large portion of applications we don't have to be. That's what seperates engineers from hardcore scientist and mathmaticians.
Like my favorite joke on the subject:

"An engineer and mathmatician walk into a room with a naked woman laying on a bed who says, 'You boys can do anything you want to with me. The catch is you can only walk half the distance between us at a time. Then half that distance, and half that distance.' The mathmatician says to the engineer, 'We'll never be able to make it ' The engineer replies, 'True, but we can get close enough '

It's all about what you are willing to accept as "good enough."

What I percieve to be strat0's point is that many people take scientists on their word because they have research to back it up, all while not even thinking about all of the assumptions that they could've made to come to that conclusion.


I think you're over-exaggerating the degree of assumption one needs to assume to believe that a star which has been not exploding/blinking out of existence for the last 4.6 billion years isn't going to do so randomly any time soon.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#48
Quote by J-Dawg158
We can't be 100% certain, but for a large portion of applications we don't have to be. That's what seperates engineers from hardcore scientist and mathmaticians.
Like my favorite joke on the subject:

"An engineer and mathmatician walk into a room with a naked woman laying on a bed who says, 'You boys can do anything you want to with me. The catch is you can only walk half the distance between us at a time. Then half that distance, and half that distance.' The mathmatician says to the engineer, 'We'll never be able to make it ' The engineer replies, 'True, but we can get close enough '

It's all about what you are willing to accept as "good enough."

What I percieve to be strat0's point is that many people take scientists on their word because they have research to back it up, all while not even thinking about all of the assumptions that they could've made to come to that conclusion.
no, he simply wants to act like a ****. There is no obvious reason why the sun would stop shining in the,next billion years.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#49
Quote by Todd Hart
I think you're over-exaggerating the degree of assumption one needs to assume to believe that a star which has been not exploding/blinking out of existence for the last 4.6 billion years isn't going to do so randomly any time soon.
Plus, if stars like the sun were to spontaneously explode, then I'm guessing we'd see more supernovae than we do.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#50
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Plus, if stars like the sun were to spontaneously explode, then I'm guessing we'd see more supernovae than we do.

But stars like the sun are not big enough to form supernovae (according to scientists).


Nah I get what you mean. Something could ofcourse happen. But there is no reason to take that into account when discussing a song man.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#51
They've yet to read my doctoral thesis on the future of conflict between orbital and lunar space colonies.

and I've yet to write it.
#52
Quote by Todd Hart
I think you're over-exaggerating the degree of assumption one needs to assume to believe that a star which has been not exploding/blinking out of existence for the last 4.6 billion years isn't going to do so randomly any time soon.


I agree. All I'm really trying to say is that the future is outside of a person's observation, therefore to make any claim about it requires assumptions based upon the data at hand. Like you suggest, different conclusions concerening the future require varying degrees and number of assumptions. It's one thing to say it's going to rain tomorrow, and an entirely different thing to say it's going to rain from the ground to the sky tomorrow.

This is The Pit afterall, is there not room for the epistemological equivalent of a "Grammar Nazi?"
I'm an
Engeneer
Enginear
Enginere

I'm Good at Math
#53
Quote by J-Dawg158
I agree. All I'm really trying to say is that the future is outside of a person's observation, therefore to make any claim about it requires assumptions based upon the data at hand. Like you suggest, different conclusions concerening the future require varying degrees and number of assumptions. It's one thing to say it's going to rain tomorrow, and an entirely different thing to say it's going to rain from the ground to the sky tomorrow.

This is The Pit afterall, is there not room for the epistemological equivalent of a "Grammar Nazi?"

There is not. If my textbooks of the bachelor program say 5 bn years till red dwarf phase, that's the truth.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#54
Quote by Neo Evil11
But stars like the sun are not big enough to form supernovae (according to scientists).


Nah I get what you mean. Something could ofcourse happen. But there is no reason to take that into account when discussing a song man.

Scientists obviously don't know what Tolian Soran knows.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#55
Quote by Neo Evil11
So basically Muse says that it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics that will stop human advancement in the end. But of all reasons why humans should live better etc. bladiebladiebla, that must be one of the worst ones. The earth isn't a closed system, the sun will shine for another billion years. And maybe then we can go to another solar system who knows.

So why does Muse take this natural law as reason why we should change the Human system? While it will take a massive amount of time, before that becomes the problem?


..the band?
#56
Quote by technicolour
..the band?

No, the Greek mythical creatures.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#58
Quote by technicolour
Quote by technicolour
...the band?
Quote by NeoEvil11
No, the Greek mythical creatures.

o okay, that makes more sense.

#59
Io non comprende...


So a scientific law of thermodynamics has a direct link to the future of human evolution and more specifically, pointing its foreseeable fate...


Is that what's going on here? Kind of like, electrons are found on the outside of an atom, and because of that, plants will cease to exist one day.
#60
Quote by metalblaster
Io non comprende...


So a scientific law of thermodynamics has a direct link to the future of human evolution and more specifically, pointing its foreseeable fate...


Is that what's going on here? Kind of like, electrons are found on the outside of an atom, and because of that, plants will cease to exist one day.

Don't know what that thing about plants is. But the second law probably explains the end state of the universe yeah and therefore human kind.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#63
Quote by RedDeath9
lol @ pit scientists.

Some of us already have a scientific degree, mate.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#67
Quote by Neo Evil11
So you want to give up growth, to preserve high grade energy? To what end? If you want everthing to become more efficient; say that. If you want us to invest more in solar energy: say that. Saying: high grade energy is being lost? No shit sherlock, we're using it.


They're saying that resources are decreasing (they loosely tie this with peak oil, etc. in interviews) and they try to tie it all in with the EU crisis and the heat death of the universe. They just didn't make that clear on the album like they should have.

With that said, I only partially agree with them on the economic aspect, my knowledge of thermodynamics only comes from late night wikipedia reading so I can't comment on that.

Edit: And they are trying to make it a metaphor, which wasn't clear either.
Last edited by slipknot5678 at Oct 12, 2012,
#68
Quote by slipknot5678
They're saying that resources are decreasing (they loosely tie this with peak oil, etc. in interviews) and they try to tie it all in with the EU crisis and the heat death of the universe. They just didn't make that clear on the album like they should have.

With that said, I only partially agree with them on the economic aspect, my knowledge of thermodynamics only comes from late night wikipedia reading so I can't comment on that.

Edit: And they are trying to make it a metaphor, which wasn't clear either.

I am afraid that it wasn't a metaphor. I hope it was.

Everyone gets what they mean, I just think that the metaphor taken literally completely misses the mark.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#71
All he said (I'm assuming it was Bellamy?) was that it was what he thought was going to stop human advancement, he didn't predict an extinction over it or anything, he's just saying that engineering faces a very real limit to its possibilities, which is the second law of thermodynamics

It makes sense, I guess... A 100% efficient system would not even make sense in our reality, though there are loads of other limits to our understandings of the universe
#72
Quote by crazysam23_Atax


it makes more sense because the band can barely write music, so I don't see why anyone would care what their opinion on science is, unless one of those have a doctorate.
Page 2 of 2