8 ms·

Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory

27 points by twampss 18y ago

alexandros 18y ago
Sometimes you have to go against the grain though. After all, evolution is true, and marketing it as 'this is a great way to supplement your creationism' (which Darwin actually did) may not exactly go over well or be the most honest approach.
- smanek 18y ago
  We don't know evolution is true. The most you can say is that evolution is the best explanation we have for the data collected so far. There have been pretty major revisions to the evolution since Darwin's time, and I think it still needs a lot of work to explain some of its fuzzier points ('chemical evolution', cambrian explosion, etc). It's entirely possible that a new explanation (i.e., not evolution) could better explain those and other data points. It could be similar to how newtonian mechanics works 99% of the time, but couldn't explain the orbit of mercury. We needed relativity (which arguably disproved gravity) to explain the handful of non-conforming data points.
  - alexandros 18y ago
    granted. perhaps 'a better theory than what came before it' might be a better description.
  - kirse 18y ago
    We don't know evolution is true I think scientists are still waiting on the results of the 100m year experiment where a fish pen turns into a group of intelligent humans. Honestly, I'm sure I'll get flak for this, but I can't believe people accept Evolution as if it's some inherent and proven physical law as gravity. On the macro-evolutionary level, there's so much bullshitting/extrapolation going on (especially in the arena of speciation) that there's so many questions and holes left unanswered. Despite the fact that we only ever observe variation within a given type, we're supposed to have faith in the scientists that (given enough time) we'll get whole new kingdoms of life. As far as I'm concerned, those experiments prove one thing: variation exists within a given type. Period.
    - justindz 18y ago
      Most people I've met that accept evolution (well, the ones that accept evolution and also think about what they accept) accept it as requiring less bullshitting than other proposals and are also willing to reject it if something better comes along. I haven't met any reasoned person in a while that accepts evolution and isn't okay with the fact that it might not be right or at least finished yet.
    - KirinDave 18y ago
      So the overwhelming genetic evidence for evolution (viral markers shared between species, shared genome, etc.) simply don't count for anything? The fact that non-trivial organisms like E. coli have seen undergoing radical "in type" changes that culminate the in creation of a new bacterial species doesn't mean anything? We've seen speciation occur in short-lived creatures, even above the single-celled level. The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years). I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's problem is not a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the evidence.
      - kirse 18y ago
        The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation. Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other. So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro). So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it: Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    ... "this is the best explanation for the data" is the most you can ever say about anything at any time. ever.
danhak 18y ago
It always irks me a bit when science is pushed out of its comfort zone to make some non-scientific point. Subtlety is lost, misconception introduced. And language like "just a theory" suggests that scientific theory is much less rigorous than it actually is.
- maximilian 18y ago
  Exactly. A theory has been vetted by both experimentalists and theorists multiple times until they are all so convinced a hypothesis works that it moves into theory land. In the vernacular, a theory is just an idea, which isn't the way its used in science.
Eliezer 18y ago
Wow... apparently Seth Godin is my uncle wearing a clever disguise. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html
tokipin 18y ago
i think gravity 'waves' travel at the speed of light
- KirinDave 18y ago
  You're right. As far as anyone can tell, gravity propagates at the speed of light. We're just not really sure what is propagating, or why. LHC will hopefully finally give us some useful observations on the subject.
mamama 18y ago
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. e.g. General relativity has a lot of mathematics backing it up. Law: a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. e.g F = ma. We don't know why it's true, it just is some sort of an axiom.
mixmax 18y ago
Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know anything about science. ----------- Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it. Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a while before Newton. What he did do, however, was to publish the Principia Mathematica in 1687 that gives an in-depth explanation of gravity, including the famous inverse square law. In the book he theorised his three laws of motion, invented calculus and basically lay the whoole foundation for classical mechanics. This is what we remember him for, not for having named gravity. ----------- Seth: Everyone 'believes' in gravity. And yet, we know virtually nothing about it fact: Seth should read up on his physics, starting with Einstein. ----------- seth: There are very few people doing serious gravity research Fact: One of the major goals of modern physics is a theory of everything where the four natural forces (weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force and gravity) are combined into one. Gravity has always been the odd one out and hard to explain, thus spawning massive research into gravity. One of the reasone the LHC, the most expensive physical experiment to date, was conceived was to learn more about gravity. Oh, and there's this guy called Einstein that apparently did some work in this area too. ----------- Seth: There are evolution skeptics who would prefer a different story, but no gravity skeptics, even though there's a lot less science there. Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture, and gravity is no exception since it implies that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Seth doesn't seem to get this though, since the battle was lost by the church long ago. Take Gallileo who was on trial on the suspicion of heresy in 1633 because of his theories of gravity. If found guilty he would have paid with his life. The laws of gravity were much more opposed by the church than evolution is today.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture Fact: Not "always". For the most part, religious people are oblivious to science, and only highly visible matters like heliocentricity (gravity, less so) become contentious. It's clear that he's making an imperfect metaphor and the details aren't especially important. That is, are you marketing evolution? Even the smart lads believe in evolution because it's fashionable, like the iphone, and not because they followed through all the relevant citations. Rather, merely quoting the full title of "On the origin of species" is enough to put fair weather Darwinists in a tizzy--and the atheists are right in there with the Pope, depending on how you advertise the inquisition. It's a marketing problem and has a marketing solution.
zupatol 18y ago
Newton's cheap trick to get famous is not giving a name to something everybody knows. It's standing on the shoulder of giants.
- zupatol 18y ago
  Maybe my post is not very clear. Seth Godin implies that Newton became famous because of something that amounts to a cheap marketing trick, instead of just being a genius who revolutionized math and physics. I say if you want to find something cheap in what Newton has done, the only thing you can do is look at what modesty made him say about himself:'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants'. So now if you vote my post down, I'll know it's not a misunderstanding.
PStamatiou 18y ago
I might be going on a limb here but do we really need to have every single Seth Godin post on Hacker News? Every few days there's a new one that somehow reaches the top, doesn't offer much value and even has significant issues (like this one).. I didn't really think this comment through but I know I have become slightly annoyed with his posts flooding HN as of late.
- llimllib 18y ago
  I thought it was posted so we could make fun of his scientific ignorance? Did the poster really think this was a good metaphor? (I'm not saying the marketing advice he gives is bad. In fact, I couldn't even get past his nonsense at the top of the article)
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Totally agree. Most of his posts are useless. His total lack of physics knowledge aside, most of his stuff doesn't even tell me how to market better.
  - petercooper 18y ago
    His posts are, however, often insightful and usually feature a fresh observation. While these rarely give you step 1 - do this, step 2 - do that type advice, enough insights, when compiled together, can help you come up with ideas and inspire insights of your own.
raheemm 18y ago
Seth's analogies of gravity and evolution may not be accurate, but his point stands that the theory of gravity is less controversial than the theory of evolution. Its also interesting how he illustrates the power of a story as a marketing device. It is one of the many factors in the the success of evolution vs. gravity. He goes a step further and provides insights into the kinds of stories that sell (or dont) - long stories and stories that go against the conventional wisdom are harder to communicate. Obviously, if you have a super-spectacular product like google search or iphone (add in your fav product), you dont need to tell a silly story. But for most folks who are in the business of creating/delivering mundane products/services or who dont have a huge marketing budget, its nice to gain an advantage. I think this is one of the reasons for the success of the Balsalmiq guy - he has a nice product but his story of a totally transparent one-person ISV going it alone is really compelling.
debt 18y ago
Poor Seth, just can't get it right.
zeynel 18y ago
I think Seth Godin got it right. Some of the comments here also prove how much Newton is a brand around which a perfect marketing campaign has been formed. I wrote a post about this: http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-greatest-marketing-genius-of-all-time/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-greatest-market...

27 points by twampss 18y ago

Sometimes you have to go against the grain though. After all, evolution is true, and marketing it as 'this is a great way to supplement your creationism' (which Darwin actually did) may not exactly go over well or be the most honest approach.

smanek 18y ago
We don't know evolution is true. The most you can say is that evolution is the best explanation we have for the data collected so far. There have been pretty major revisions to the evolution since Darwin's time, and I think it still needs a lot of work to explain some of its fuzzier points ('chemical evolution', cambrian explosion, etc). It's entirely possible that a new explanation (i.e., not evolution) could better explain those and other data points. It could be similar to how newtonian mechanics works 99% of the time, but couldn't explain the orbit of mercury. We needed relativity (which arguably disproved gravity) to explain the handful of non-conforming data points.
- alexandros 18y ago
  granted. perhaps 'a better theory than what came before it' might be a better description.
- kirse 18y ago
  We don't know evolution is true I think scientists are still waiting on the results of the 100m year experiment where a fish pen turns into a group of intelligent humans. Honestly, I'm sure I'll get flak for this, but I can't believe people accept Evolution as if it's some inherent and proven physical law as gravity. On the macro-evolutionary level, there's so much bullshitting/extrapolation going on (especially in the arena of speciation) that there's so many questions and holes left unanswered. Despite the fact that we only ever observe variation within a given type, we're supposed to have faith in the scientists that (given enough time) we'll get whole new kingdoms of life. As far as I'm concerned, those experiments prove one thing: variation exists within a given type. Period.
  - justindz 18y ago
    Most people I've met that accept evolution (well, the ones that accept evolution and also think about what they accept) accept it as requiring less bullshitting than other proposals and are also willing to reject it if something better comes along. I haven't met any reasoned person in a while that accepts evolution and isn't okay with the fact that it might not be right or at least finished yet.
  - KirinDave 18y ago
    So the overwhelming genetic evidence for evolution (viral markers shared between species, shared genome, etc.) simply don't count for anything? The fact that non-trivial organisms like E. coli have seen undergoing radical "in type" changes that culminate the in creation of a new bacterial species doesn't mean anything? We've seen speciation occur in short-lived creatures, even above the single-celled level. The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years). I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's problem is not a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the evidence.
    - kirse 18y ago
      The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation. Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other. So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro). So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it: Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  ... "this is the best explanation for the data" is the most you can ever say about anything at any time. ever.

danhak 18y ago

It always irks me a bit when science is pushed out of its comfort zone to make some non-scientific point. Subtlety is lost, misconception introduced. And language like "just a theory" suggests that scientific theory is much less rigorous than it actually is.

maximilian 18y ago
Exactly. A theory has been vetted by both experimentalists and theorists multiple times until they are all so convinced a hypothesis works that it moves into theory land. In the vernacular, a theory is just an idea, which isn't the way its used in science.

Eliezer 18y ago

Wow... apparently Seth Godin is my uncle wearing a clever disguise. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html

tokipin 18y ago

i think gravity 'waves' travel at the speed of light

KirinDave 18y ago
You're right. As far as anyone can tell, gravity propagates at the speed of light. We're just not really sure what is propagating, or why. LHC will hopefully finally give us some useful observations on the subject.

mamama 18y ago

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. e.g. General relativity has a lot of mathematics backing it up. Law: a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. e.g F = ma. We don't know why it's true, it just is some sort of an axiom.

mixmax 18y ago

Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know anything about science. ----------- Seth: They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it. Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so. The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was around for a while before Newton. What he did do, however, was to publish the Principia Mathematica in 1687 that gives an in-depth explanation of gravity, including the famous inverse square law. In the book he theorised his three laws of motion, invented calculus and basically lay the whoole foundation for classical mechanics. This is what we remember him for, not for having named gravity. ----------- Seth: Everyone 'believes' in gravity. And yet, we know virtually nothing about it fact: Seth should read up on his physics, starting with Einstein. ----------- seth: There are very few people doing serious gravity research Fact: One of the major goals of modern physics is a theory of everything where the four natural forces (weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force and gravity) are combined into one. Gravity has always been the odd one out and hard to explain, thus spawning massive research into gravity. One of the reasone the LHC, the most expensive physical experiment to date, was conceived was to learn more about gravity. Oh, and there's this guy called Einstein that apparently did some work in this area too. ----------- Seth: There are evolution skeptics who would prefer a different story, but no gravity skeptics, even though there's a lot less science there. Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture, and gravity is no exception since it implies that the earth is not at the center of the universe. Seth doesn't seem to get this though, since the battle was lost by the church long ago. Take Gallileo who was on trial on the suspicion of heresy in 1633 because of his theories of gravity. If found guilty he would have paid with his life. The laws of gravity were much more opposed by the church than evolution is today.

mynameishere 18y ago
Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory conclusions than scripture Fact: Not "always". For the most part, religious people are oblivious to science, and only highly visible matters like heliocentricity (gravity, less so) become contentious. It's clear that he's making an imperfect metaphor and the details aren't especially important. That is, are you marketing evolution? Even the smart lads believe in evolution because it's fashionable, like the iphone, and not because they followed through all the relevant citations. Rather, merely quoting the full title of "On the origin of species" is enough to put fair weather Darwinists in a tizzy--and the atheists are right in there with the Pope, depending on how you advertise the inquisition. It's a marketing problem and has a marketing solution.

zupatol 18y ago

Newton's cheap trick to get famous is not giving a name to something everybody knows. It's standing on the shoulder of giants.

zupatol 18y ago
Maybe my post is not very clear. Seth Godin implies that Newton became famous because of something that amounts to a cheap marketing trick, instead of just being a genius who revolutionized math and physics. I say if you want to find something cheap in what Newton has done, the only thing you can do is look at what modesty made him say about himself:'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants'. So now if you vote my post down, I'll know it's not a misunderstanding.

PStamatiou 18y ago

I might be going on a limb here but do we really need to have every single Seth Godin post on Hacker News? Every few days there's a new one that somehow reaches the top, doesn't offer much value and even has significant issues (like this one).. I didn't really think this comment through but I know I have become slightly annoyed with his posts flooding HN as of late.

llimllib 18y ago
I thought it was posted so we could make fun of his scientific ignorance? Did the poster really think this was a good metaphor? (I'm not saying the marketing advice he gives is bad. In fact, I couldn't even get past his nonsense at the top of the article)
mattmaroon 18y ago
Totally agree. Most of his posts are useless. His total lack of physics knowledge aside, most of his stuff doesn't even tell me how to market better.
- petercooper 18y ago
  His posts are, however, often insightful and usually feature a fresh observation. While these rarely give you step 1 - do this, step 2 - do that type advice, enough insights, when compiled together, can help you come up with ideas and inspire insights of your own.

raheemm 18y ago

Seth's analogies of gravity and evolution may not be accurate, but his point stands that the theory of gravity is less controversial than the theory of evolution. Its also interesting how he illustrates the power of a story as a marketing device. It is one of the many factors in the the success of evolution vs. gravity. He goes a step further and provides insights into the kinds of stories that sell (or dont) - long stories and stories that go against the conventional wisdom are harder to communicate. Obviously, if you have a super-spectacular product like google search or iphone (add in your fav product), you dont need to tell a silly story. But for most folks who are in the business of creating/delivering mundane products/services or who dont have a huge marketing budget, its nice to gain an advantage. I think this is one of the reasons for the success of the Balsalmiq guy - he has a nice product but his story of a totally transparent one-person ISV going it alone is really compelling.

debt 18y ago

Poor Seth, just can't get it right.

zeynel 18y ago

I think Seth Godin got it right. Some of the comments here also prove how much Newton is a brand around which a perfect marketing campaign has been formed. I wrote a post about this: http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-greatest-marketing-genius-of-all-time/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-greatest-market...