Neil Degrasse Tyson does Cosmos

metalman said:
When people say "I love science!" what they really mean is "magic"
Click to expand...
"While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is "science" even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114."
Click to expand...

Except we ARE running the experiment and we will have what we have by 2114. But it's not fair to constrain science to the repeatable experiment (that is also a popular misunderstanding of science). We can run experiments that demonstrate principles and quantify effects but for any of that work to be useful we need to try to apply that knowledge to things that have not yet happened. We learn to catch a ball by observing the motion of moving balls in our gravitational field. We then use these observations to create rules (not consciously, of course) and can use the rules to catch balls that have never been thrown before. It would be ridiculous to say that we had to watch the flight of every ball to know where it would go. Our theories of gravity and motion tell us to high precision where a ball is going to end up after observing just a small part of its flight - to good enough precision we can hit comets with robots from a hundred million kilometres away.

And we CAN do experiments on global warming and we do and we hone our models by going back in time and seeing if they can replicate what has already happened. We have an existing result set that we need to explain and the better we match the past data the more predictive our model should be (and really THAT is what science is about - building models that we can use to predict things whether it's the effect of a drug on an enzyme of the flow of air over a wing).
 
Sir Isaac Newton believed all manner of absolute horsefeathers.
 
because Science!!

ByFg2WLCAAALGVJ.jpg
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Equations always had letters in them. The equals sign was invented in the early 1500s and the first known instance of its use included letters in the equation. But science isn't equations. That's Mathematics (or a branch of it). Mathematics is a useful tool in science but it's not science in and of itself.
Click to expand...

it requires a knowledge of calculus to understand physics


When you "love science" it's all about giant papier mache puppets and magic
 
metalman said:
it requires a knowledge of calculus to understand physics
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out what point you are trying to make.
As best as I can gather, it's something like, "this scientist can be shown to be not always accurate therefore everything he says is questionable."

This makes it even more baffling that you would mention calculus. As I pointed out above, the man responsible for the introduction of calculus was demonstrably wrong about numerous other things (alchemy, chronology). Does that mean everything else Newton said, including calculus, is questionable?

If this is the point you are trying to make, I'm afraid it's completely bankrupt.
If it isn't, perhaps you could enlighten us to what your point is?

Incidentally, Newton is de Grasse-Tyson's hero.
 
Robert said:
This makes it even more baffling that you would mention calculus. As I pointed out above, the man responsible for the introduction of calculus was demonstrably wrong about numerous other things (alchemy, chronology). Does that mean everything else Newton said, including calculus, is questionable?
Click to expand...

Calculus was independently discovered by Leibniz, Leibniz notational symbols are now the standard calculus symbols.

Newton invented what he called "fluxions" ( now known as derivatives ) to derive the laws of physics. Newton kept fluxions secret until after Leibniz's Calculus was published


real world physics problems are modeled using differential equations
 
metalman said:
Calculus was independently discovered by Leibniz
Click to expand...

A claim which is not only disputed but also completely irrelevant.

As you ignored my question regarding the point you have apparently been failing to articulate, I'll take it as confirmation that you have indeed been engaging in a rather ham-fisted attempt at undermining the entire work of a successful scientist by petty character assassination. I suppose we've all gotta get our kicks somehow.
 
metalman said:
it requires a knowledge of calculus to understand physics
Click to expand...

Without going into the details of which physics I'm not at all sure what you say is true. It's certainly the case that lots of people can do the maths and can arrive at correct answers without having any idea what the math means (how the operations map to the the theory they are trying to model). On the other hand, it is quite possible for a math naif to get a pretty firm understanding of certain physics (and while certain physicists like to claim that physics is ALL of science there are enormous swaths of real phenomena it is impractical to describe in only physics terms) with mere linear algebra or even no math at all. Newtons laws of motion, conservation of energy, laws of thermodynamics - all can be understood without maths. Math just gets you the answer in numbers, it doesn't substitute for understanding. Often the mathematics gets tacked on after the initial insight to see if the insight works out to produce results similar to the real world.
 
faethor said:
http://www.alternet.org/culture/ins...ive-obsession-taking-down-neil-degrasse-tyson

If you want to poison the well...
Click to expand...

From the link:
For the most part, conservatives were fine with Tyson when he stuck to talking about space and black holes and other otherworldly stuff. But this past year he stuck his toe into the climate change non-debate and you would have thought he wanted to sex up a Duggar daughter, such was the umbrage.
Click to expand...

Suddenly the latter half of this thread makes sense.
 
Robert said:
Suddenly the latter half of this thread makes sense.
Click to expand...
unfortunately when you LIVE in America you become very familiar with these racist pigs

and you don't have to try hard....they make themselves VERY obvious.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
(and while certain physicists like to claim that physics is ALL of science there are enormous swaths of real phenomena it is impractical to describe in only physics terms) with mere linear algebra or even no math at all. Newtons laws of motion, conservation of energy, laws of thermodynamics - all can be understood without maths. Math just gets you the answer in numbers, it doesn't substitute for understanding. Often the mathematics gets tacked on after the initial insight to see if the insight works out to produce results similar to the real world.
Click to expand...

Newtonian physics is all based on either a differential or an integral relations

Real world problems are modeled on differential equations

the ONLY physics classes that qualify for a degree in physics require calculus as the prerequisite. Physics without calculus can be simplified to solve certain types of problems, those classes are for non-majors. Similar to non majors understanding of music by taking a music appreciation class.
 
metalman said:
Newtonian physics is all based on either a differential or an integral relations
Click to expand...
No. Read what I said again. Newton's physics is not BASED on differential or integral relations. That's just the math that comes out of the physics. The physics itself is based on much simpler things. F1+F2=0. F=ma and F=(G1G2)/r*r are pretty straightforward equations. It's only when you want to see how that evolves over time you start to get into calculus and that is only a technique since you can also get decent approximations iteratively. The maths isn't the physics. People can get the physics without the maths.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
No. Read what I said again. Newton's physics is not BASED on differential or integral relations. That's just the math that comes out of the physics. The physics itself is based on much simpler things. F1+F2=0. F=ma and F=(G1G2)/r*r are pretty straightforward equations. It's only when you want to see how that evolves over time you start to get into calculus and that is only a technique since you can also get decent approximations iteratively. The maths isn't the physics. People can get the physics without the maths.
Click to expand...

F= m * dv/dt

∑ F = dP/dt

v = v0 + dv/dt * t

P = m dS/dt

Fg = − (Gm1m2/r2 ) r̂
 
metalman said:
F= m * dv/dt
Click to expand...

All you seem to be doing is demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying - and since what I am saying doesn't have an equation you may never be able to understand it.

Math is one of the tools used to test models. It is not physics. Physics is physics. Math is both of tool of physics and something that makes physics practically useful. You can understand many things in physics without math. Your brain can solve many kinetics and dynamics problems without a single equation.
 
@metalman:

For some weird reason I find your irrational disdain for this scientist reassuring. :D
 
metalman said:
Neil deGrasse Tyson finally kinda sorta admits he got that Bush quote wrong
Click to expand...
Awesome! It's good to see that when a problem is pointed out the guy takes some responsibility.

Now that because Tyson said something wrong about Bush means he's lying about all science is the poison in the well those that reject the science of evolution and reject the climate science wish you'd believe. Perhaps that group will step up and take some responsibility and admit that using fallacies doesn't help them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top