7 ms·

> Physics used to be "hard science" - Physics is still a hard science. However, the edges of physics are difficult to test. > In cosmology, you can only obse

by adekok 11y ago

> Physics used to be "hard science" - Physics is still a hard science. However, the edges of physics are difficult to test. > In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". It's a naive approach to science. In both cases, you can use theories to make predictions about new things to look for. e.g. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ > Physics is funded because it produced the atomic bomb and semiconductors. Physics is funded because it's cool. And it still gets less funding than major sports leagues. So by your definition, the NFL is funded because it's part of a national defence strategy?

gamesbrainiac 11y ago
The NFL is funded because it provides entertainment, and we all know how well that sells.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  The German word for entertaiment is "Unterhaltung", which is composed of "unten" and "halten" ("down" and "hold") - and that is what entertainment is: Holding the masses down (such that they don't ascend or revolt). Guess who is thus interested in funding entertainment.
  - justinsingh 11y ago
    Because having freedom in how you spend your leisure time obviously means that taking away that optionality would lead to.. revolt!!! I just don't see your logic here. It seems outdated.
  - chki 11y ago
    I think that is not only incorrect considering the content but probably also the semantics involved. There are many German words that have "Unter" in them ("Unternehmen" --> Company; "Untersuchung" --> study) where it does not relate to the word "unten" in any way.
    - kgwgk 11y ago
      In fact it seems to be related to the "among" meaning of "unter". The etymology is similar for other languages: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=entertain http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=entertain
- malka 11y ago
  and how well that prevents people from critical thinking.
vacri 11y ago
> Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". We do see new species evolve every day. We also see microevolution so commonly that it's a standard high-school biology task. > Physics is funded because it's cool. The point being made is that for a long time, it was common for physicists to look down their nose at other sciences "because what we do is real". Now they're finding themselves in the same boat.
- purpled_haze 11y ago
  > We do see new species evolve every day. We also see microevolution so commonly that it's a standard high-school biology task. Can you describe? My memory of high school genetics involved experiments with Drosophila eye color, etc. which were really about the passing of genes and, sometimes, mutation. However these experiments didn't prove that natural selection or seemingly random mutation were necessarily what drove species to change over time to create new species based on their environment. I had to accept that. I also accept that people tell me human and chimp DNA is similar. Theoretical physicists also attempt to explain things that they cannot see or experience, and if people believe it, they believe it. Science, in part, requires faith. Think of everything you think you understand about science and about our world. How much of it did you really prove with your hands, and how much instead did you just read or hear and understand to be true because others wrote or said it was true? You can put your faith in theories, and that has proved practical for many physicists and biologists, just to name a few. A god or gods could also be driving those evolutionary processes in part, or could have set things in motion. Accepting religion and scientific facts both require faith, and that's ok.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > Science, in part, requires faith. Only at the bleeding edge, which you don't need to use in your everyday life. Most science-related things at human scale can be done with your own two hands; you don't require billion-dollar tools to fiddle with materials science, for example. Youtube is filled with videos of people doing human-scale science. The whole 'science requires faith' argument is largely thrown out to give credence to religion. The problem with that argument is that the fundamental building blocks of science do not require faith, and you build from those. The SI units are convention - you can make your own. What constitutes validity is convention - you can decide your own way. You don't require faith to start doing basic science. On the other hand, religion's basic building blocks require faith from the outset. Person X is divine, 'trust us'. God Y likes or doesn't like that, 'trust us'. And from these basic religious building blocks, whole edifices are built. For example, most catholics are unaware of how the bible was pieced together by committee. That information doesn't affect their day-to-day lives, however the religious rules that do affect them are based on those fundamental building blocks that are unverifiable by anyone. Faith is required because the foundational blocks are not verifiable at all. This does not happen in science - you can verify the foundational rules yourself, and build as far along the tree as your interest and tooling allow. Theoretical physics existing in the 'faith' world is largely a canard - most science is not like this, and theoretical physics is at the exploratory edge of science, not at the core foundational blocks. In short, the Planck Length is defined by the meter which we can see and confirm; the meter is not defined by the Planck Length which we theorise about. Not to mention that in general, 'scientific facts' are constantly tested, and 'religious facts' are not. The engineering capabilities of steel are in constant use in almost every part of our lives; if science was wrong about them, the material would fail in unexpected ways. The divinity of the christ figure... well, it isn't even testable. Christ is only divine to christians, but a steel bridge needs to hold up regardless of the mental state of the humans using it.
Avshalom 11y ago
>> In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment >Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". It's a naive approach to science. In general it's also true of almost all astronomical research, and large whacks of geology. Which is fine because experiments are just observations that scientists are the impetus for. Science works by gathering data, experiments just let us produce data to gather at our own speed instead of having to wait around for something to happen and hope we're looking in the right direction when it does. In the case of astronomy instead of relying on experiments to produce more data we mostly build better instruments.
rsfern 11y ago
Actually, at least in the US, physics is funded because of things like the atomic bomb and the transistor, as GP points out. Observe the rhetoric of any congress member. They don't care if physics is "cool", any more than the general public probably does. Football isn't funded by the federal government at all, so your point about national security is just silly.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Maybe not by the feds, but they squeeze an incredible amount of money from state and local governments.
danieltillett 11y ago
There are two types of science that are fundamentally very different to each other; observation science and experimental science. The base thinking of the two types of science are very different and even the people drawn to each type are quite different. Physics is interesting in that both types of science are successful, where in say molecular biology or geology only one type dominates.
choosername 11y ago
of course the image that the nfl puts forth of strong men fighting battles with what might seem like intelligent strategies plays into the hands of military types. Players get points for shooting. Is this a trap question? Casting shows OTOH are all about mating and increasing the troop strength.

by adekok 11y ago

gamesbrainiac 11y ago

The NFL is funded because it provides entertainment, and we all know how well that sells.

wolfgke 11y ago
The German word for entertaiment is "Unterhaltung", which is composed of "unten" and "halten" ("down" and "hold") - and that is what entertainment is: Holding the masses down (such that they don't ascend or revolt). Guess who is thus interested in funding entertainment.
- justinsingh 11y ago
  Because having freedom in how you spend your leisure time obviously means that taking away that optionality would lead to.. revolt!!! I just don't see your logic here. It seems outdated.
- chki 11y ago
  I think that is not only incorrect considering the content but probably also the semantics involved. There are many German words that have "Unter" in them ("Unternehmen" --> Company; "Untersuchung" --> study) where it does not relate to the word "unten" in any way.
  - kgwgk 11y ago
    In fact it seems to be related to the "among" meaning of "unter". The etymology is similar for other languages: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=entertain http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=entertain
malka 11y ago
and how well that prevents people from critical thinking.

vacri 11y ago

> Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". We do see new species evolve every day. We also see microevolution so commonly that it's a standard high-school biology task. > Physics is funded because it's cool. The point being made is that for a long time, it was common for physicists to look down their nose at other sciences "because what we do is real". Now they're finding themselves in the same boat.

purpled_haze 11y ago
> We do see new species evolve every day. We also see microevolution so commonly that it's a standard high-school biology task. Can you describe? My memory of high school genetics involved experiments with Drosophila eye color, etc. which were really about the passing of genes and, sometimes, mutation. However these experiments didn't prove that natural selection or seemingly random mutation were necessarily what drove species to change over time to create new species based on their environment. I had to accept that. I also accept that people tell me human and chimp DNA is similar. Theoretical physicists also attempt to explain things that they cannot see or experience, and if people believe it, they believe it. Science, in part, requires faith. Think of everything you think you understand about science and about our world. How much of it did you really prove with your hands, and how much instead did you just read or hear and understand to be true because others wrote or said it was true? You can put your faith in theories, and that has proved practical for many physicists and biologists, just to name a few. A god or gods could also be driving those evolutionary processes in part, or could have set things in motion. Accepting religion and scientific facts both require faith, and that's ok.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Science, in part, requires faith. Only at the bleeding edge, which you don't need to use in your everyday life. Most science-related things at human scale can be done with your own two hands; you don't require billion-dollar tools to fiddle with materials science, for example. Youtube is filled with videos of people doing human-scale science. The whole 'science requires faith' argument is largely thrown out to give credence to religion. The problem with that argument is that the fundamental building blocks of science do not require faith, and you build from those. The SI units are convention - you can make your own. What constitutes validity is convention - you can decide your own way. You don't require faith to start doing basic science. On the other hand, religion's basic building blocks require faith from the outset. Person X is divine, 'trust us'. God Y likes or doesn't like that, 'trust us'. And from these basic religious building blocks, whole edifices are built. For example, most catholics are unaware of how the bible was pieced together by committee. That information doesn't affect their day-to-day lives, however the religious rules that do affect them are based on those fundamental building blocks that are unverifiable by anyone. Faith is required because the foundational blocks are not verifiable at all. This does not happen in science - you can verify the foundational rules yourself, and build as far along the tree as your interest and tooling allow. Theoretical physics existing in the 'faith' world is largely a canard - most science is not like this, and theoretical physics is at the exploratory edge of science, not at the core foundational blocks. In short, the Planck Length is defined by the meter which we can see and confirm; the meter is not defined by the Planck Length which we theorise about. Not to mention that in general, 'scientific facts' are constantly tested, and 'religious facts' are not. The engineering capabilities of steel are in constant use in almost every part of our lives; if science was wrong about them, the material would fail in unexpected ways. The divinity of the christ figure... well, it isn't even testable. Christ is only divine to christians, but a steel bridge needs to hold up regardless of the mental state of the humans using it.

Avshalom 11y ago

>> In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment >Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". It's a naive approach to science. In general it's also true of almost all astronomical research, and large whacks of geology. Which is fine because experiments are just observations that scientists are the impetus for. Science works by gathering data, experiments just let us produce data to gather at our own speed instead of having to wait around for something to happen and hope we're looking in the right direction when it does. In the case of astronomy instead of relying on experiments to produce more data we mostly build better instruments.

rsfern 11y ago

Actually, at least in the US, physics is funded because of things like the atomic bomb and the transistor, as GP points out. Observe the rhetoric of any congress member. They don't care if physics is "cool", any more than the general public probably does. Football isn't funded by the federal government at all, so your point about national security is just silly.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Maybe not by the feds, but they squeeze an incredible amount of money from state and local governments.

danieltillett 11y ago

There are two types of science that are fundamentally very different to each other; observation science and experimental science. The base thinking of the two types of science are very different and even the people drawn to each type are quite different. Physics is interesting in that both types of science are successful, where in say molecular biology or geology only one type dominates.

choosername 11y ago

of course the image that the nfl puts forth of strong men fighting battles with what might seem like intelligent strategies plays into the hands of military types. Players get points for shooting. Is this a trap question? Casting shows OTOH are all about mating and increasing the troop strength.