5 ms·

Many textbooks and scientific resources describe phenomena from hundreds of millions of years ago as "indisputable facts", this include everything from the orig

by soup10 3y ago

Many textbooks and scientific resources describe phenomena from hundreds of millions of years ago as "indisputable facts", this include everything from the origins of life on earth, to the big bang theory, what happens in black holes, formation of the solar system and galaxy, how geology has evolved and many more. Additionally they make pseudoscientific predictions about exactly when and what will happen millions of years in the future. For instance the sun will turn into a red giant in "approximately 5 billion years". I don't know why they try to pass off so many theories as facts, probably a bunch of science politics combined with hubris and unwillingness to admit what we don't know.

akasakahakada 3y ago
Because we have theories and proofs for those theories. Others like "god created the world" or something have nothing to support them. Therefore those are currently being viewed as facts as long as there is no alternative theory and proof. You can't say that "but we will find disproving material in the future so this is not fact". If this kind of argument is valid, I can also say that "you will be wrong anyway in the future so you are just wrong all the time". Do not use future to determine today.
noSyncCloud 3y ago
Since you're obviously such an expert in all these fields that you can confidently assert that none of them know what they're talking about, why don't you link to some of your published papers where you prove that the accepted theories and analyses are wrong? If you're going to insult and denigrate entire fields of research, I think you should put your money where your mouth is.
moh_maya 3y ago
Stellar lifecycle models are based on a combination of theoretical physics, experimental physics results that set bounds on (in a way) the theoretical predictions, and mathematical modeling - all of which is also validated through observational physics of stars that are, actually, at the red giant stage, and sampling stars at the intermediary stages - based on actual observations. Armed with all of this data, and working on an assumption that current ‘laws’ of physics will continue to apply in the future, scientists can make reasonably confident predictions. Similar approach, though admittedly with far less mathematical modeling, is also the case in biology. Even textbooks and scientific resources have to assume, at some point, that we start with a framework of axioms. But most science textbooks also first introduce the idea of models, hypothesis and the notion that a ‘law’, is only as good as the most recent experiment that supports it - and that the scientific method requires us to discard or amend the ‘law’ if new evidence contradicts its predictions. To keep repeating this foundational idea every step of the way seems tedious - it’s reasonable to treat gravity on earth as a fact in the face of overwhelming observational evidence, for instance. I don’t see how any of this reflects hubris and unwillingness to admit what we don’t know. For instance, as an (ex-)biologist, I completely agree we do not have a good model for consciousness; or that we simply don’t have a solid functional model of a cell that allows us to model and predict its behaviour at detail and with all its complexity - we are still, in fact, discovering layers of complexity and nuance. But there are some things we do understand well. Same in physics - the search for a Grand Unifiying Theory continues. ‘Dark matter’, as I understand it, is an acknowledged proxy for many things we don’t yet understand. So..not sure I agree with your position :)
- soup10 3y ago
  i believe in science, i just think sometimes it goes a little too far with what it claims to know as fact if we knew all the secrets of the universe we wouldn't be stuck on this rock and dying every 80 years you have to admit there's some dissonance between claiming to know the fine details of the ancient origins of the universe and struggling to predict if it will rain next week
strogonoff 3y ago
Much of what the “scientific” (being indeed pseudo-scientific in many ways) textbooks that we see from the young age present as fact are what is merely metaphors used in current physical models or predictions of those models—not at all statements of some absolute ground truth, yet presented as such. Of course, there is more than one model, all of them evolve all the time, none of them are perfect (the map is never the territory), and none of them concern themselves with philosophy (a.k.a. unfalsifiable statements about what is “real reality” and the like). This misrepresentation leads to all sorts of confusion (the quintessential example being light as waves vs. particles), physicalism-by-default (along with illusionism and determinism) as mainstream philosophical worldview among the STEM crowd, and perhaps even distrust to natural sciences among some others. I blame it on the age-old patriarchal desire to appear a knowledgeable, reputable and indisputable authority to young students, and I’d wager that such people self-select for the job of writing and vetting textbooks.
bee_rider 3y ago
That’s an interesting perspective. Any decent science curriculum will cover the inherent mutability of scientific knowledge, the fact that it is just a model that is updated as we add knowledge—these facts and the process of updating the model are the main takeaways of the scientific method. If you weren’t exposed to that sort of stuff, that’s a substantial strike against somewhere’s education system.
dotnet00 3y ago
While I somewhat agree that all too often science reporting, especially in "pop science" type rags, reporting tends to often pass off theory and speculation as fact. I think the issue in schools is less to do with textbooks and more to do with teachers failing to properly convey what science is supposed to be, instead turning it into the same drab memorization and regurgitation. It's just the same issue that's plaguing teaching in other subjects. Plus, in some cases, especially for younger students, the truth is twisted (even if to the point of being wrong) because the real answer would be a bit beyond their ability to understand. For example, explaining atomic structure as if electrons are just balls spinning around a nucleus or describing light as simple rays. They're very wrong, but convey enough information to build some other concepts on before the students are able to understand the truth.
pfdietz 3y ago
The Big Bang is indisputable, in the sense that there's no other model that can generate the CMBR except having the universe in the past be very dense and hot.

by soup10 3y ago

akasakahakada 3y ago

Because we have theories and proofs for those theories. Others like "god created the world" or something have nothing to support them. Therefore those are currently being viewed as facts as long as there is no alternative theory and proof. You can't say that "but we will find disproving material in the future so this is not fact". If this kind of argument is valid, I can also say that "you will be wrong anyway in the future so you are just wrong all the time". Do not use future to determine today.

noSyncCloud 3y ago

Since you're obviously such an expert in all these fields that you can confidently assert that none of them know what they're talking about, why don't you link to some of your published papers where you prove that the accepted theories and analyses are wrong? If you're going to insult and denigrate entire fields of research, I think you should put your money where your mouth is.

moh_maya 3y ago

Stellar lifecycle models are based on a combination of theoretical physics, experimental physics results that set bounds on (in a way) the theoretical predictions, and mathematical modeling - all of which is also validated through observational physics of stars that are, actually, at the red giant stage, and sampling stars at the intermediary stages - based on actual observations. Armed with all of this data, and working on an assumption that current ‘laws’ of physics will continue to apply in the future, scientists can make reasonably confident predictions. Similar approach, though admittedly with far less mathematical modeling, is also the case in biology. Even textbooks and scientific resources have to assume, at some point, that we start with a framework of axioms. But most science textbooks also first introduce the idea of models, hypothesis and the notion that a ‘law’, is only as good as the most recent experiment that supports it - and that the scientific method requires us to discard or amend the ‘law’ if new evidence contradicts its predictions. To keep repeating this foundational idea every step of the way seems tedious - it’s reasonable to treat gravity on earth as a fact in the face of overwhelming observational evidence, for instance. I don’t see how any of this reflects hubris and unwillingness to admit what we don’t know. For instance, as an (ex-)biologist, I completely agree we do not have a good model for consciousness; or that we simply don’t have a solid functional model of a cell that allows us to model and predict its behaviour at detail and with all its complexity - we are still, in fact, discovering layers of complexity and nuance. But there are some things we do understand well. Same in physics - the search for a Grand Unifiying Theory continues. ‘Dark matter’, as I understand it, is an acknowledged proxy for many things we don’t yet understand. So..not sure I agree with your position :)

soup10 3y ago
i believe in science, i just think sometimes it goes a little too far with what it claims to know as fact if we knew all the secrets of the universe we wouldn't be stuck on this rock and dying every 80 years you have to admit there's some dissonance between claiming to know the fine details of the ancient origins of the universe and struggling to predict if it will rain next week

strogonoff 3y ago

Much of what the “scientific” (being indeed pseudo-scientific in many ways) textbooks that we see from the young age present as fact are what is merely metaphors used in current physical models or predictions of those models—not at all statements of some absolute ground truth, yet presented as such. Of course, there is more than one model, all of them evolve all the time, none of them are perfect (the map is never the territory), and none of them concern themselves with philosophy (a.k.a. unfalsifiable statements about what is “real reality” and the like). This misrepresentation leads to all sorts of confusion (the quintessential example being light as waves vs. particles), physicalism-by-default (along with illusionism and determinism) as mainstream philosophical worldview among the STEM crowd, and perhaps even distrust to natural sciences among some others. I blame it on the age-old patriarchal desire to appear a knowledgeable, reputable and indisputable authority to young students, and I’d wager that such people self-select for the job of writing and vetting textbooks.

bee_rider 3y ago

That’s an interesting perspective. Any decent science curriculum will cover the inherent mutability of scientific knowledge, the fact that it is just a model that is updated as we add knowledge—these facts and the process of updating the model are the main takeaways of the scientific method. If you weren’t exposed to that sort of stuff, that’s a substantial strike against somewhere’s education system.

dotnet00 3y ago

While I somewhat agree that all too often science reporting, especially in "pop science" type rags, reporting tends to often pass off theory and speculation as fact. I think the issue in schools is less to do with textbooks and more to do with teachers failing to properly convey what science is supposed to be, instead turning it into the same drab memorization and regurgitation. It's just the same issue that's plaguing teaching in other subjects. Plus, in some cases, especially for younger students, the truth is twisted (even if to the point of being wrong) because the real answer would be a bit beyond their ability to understand. For example, explaining atomic structure as if electrons are just balls spinning around a nucleus or describing light as simple rays. They're very wrong, but convey enough information to build some other concepts on before the students are able to understand the truth.

pfdietz 3y ago

The Big Bang is indisputable, in the sense that there's no other model that can generate the CMBR except having the universe in the past be very dense and hot.