The Use of Inductive Reasoning in Science

Reasoning that draws a general conclusion based on a set of examples is called Inductive reasoning.

Basic pattern of Inductive Reasoning

a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h are part of group A.

a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h have property G.

All member of group A have property G.

When in Science it starts with observations looking for the patterns to develop a hypothesis as general description of the observations.

With inductive reasoning general conclusions can be drawn from specific observations and the evidence allowing conclusions based on patterns in that observations and evidence. Having too small of a sample size for a general conclusion is a major risk of inductive reasoning. As a result it can easily be affected by philosophical assumptions and biases. This can occur in the selection of the sample and in the patterns recognized, as well as the conclusions drawn from those patterns. Knowing about these problems helps one avoid them.

The Use of Deductive Reasoning in Science

The act of  reasoning that starts with a given set premises and draws a conclusion is called deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning begins with general concepts and principles and draws specific conclusion by starting with a given set premises and draws conclusions from them. The conclusions made by way of deductive reasoning are only as valid as the premises on which they are based such that only one false premise can produce a false conclusion. A valid deductive argument t is one where its truth necessarily follows from the starting premises. A sound deductive argument is one that is valid and all of its premises are true other wise it is considered unsound.

A common form of deductive reasoning is called a syllogism It has three parts.  The first part is a set of general characteristics belonging to a category of objects. The second shows that the object under discussion belongs to that category The conclusion that the object under discussion has that general characteristic.

Deductive reasoning dependents entirely on the validity of premises being used. The premises used may be facts derived from observation or a totally philosophical assumption.

Deductive reasoning is a very useful tool of reasoning however it does have its difficulties. It depends heavily on the accuracy its starting premises. However flawed premises result in flawed conclusions. These difficulties need to be properly understood to properly understand scientific statements including those of both Creationists and Evolutionists.

Observation and the Viewing and Recording of. Data

The process of viewing and recording events is called observation. Viewing and recording mainly consist of watching a phenomenon and recording the observation.

The accuracy of observations are limited because real world observations some times miss stuff. An important event may occur when observations are not being mad or outside the range of the observer’s sight. As a result observations can be some what subjective since it is too easy for an observer to see what he wants to see because the observer is looking for what he wants to see So patterns resembling what the observer wants to see are more likely noticed. It is also too easy for an observer to not see what he does not want to see because the observer is not looking for what he does not want to see and patterns not resembling what the observer is not looking for can be over looked. Knowing of such problems helps avoid them.

As important as Observation  is in science it does have its limitations and pitfalls. Being aware of those limitations helps one to avoid them.

The Major Tool of Science, that of Measurements

The process of obtaining numerical values representing physical properties is called measurement. These properties include such things as length, mass, or time, by way of a unit of measurement. A unit of measurement is a magnitude representing a physical quantity by use of a standard for measurement of that physical quantity. A measuring device is a piece of equipment used to measure a physical quantity based on a standard for measurement.

 Measurement and Objectivity

Measurement is the most objective part of science since the resulting numbers are what they are. Using mechanical devices for measurement improves objectivity by removing human subjectivity. The validity of a measurement is only as valid as the theory behind it.

A Description of Logical Fallacies

A Logical Fallacy is an error within a logical argument that is a flaw in the argument’s structure that is said to invalidate the argument. A logical fallacy is independent of the truth so a fallacy does not necessarily invalidate the argument's premises and conclusions. However arguments derived from logical fallacies often do lead to an incorrect conclusion due to faulty reasoning.

Examples

Ad hominem
Latin: “To the Man”
It is an argument that attacks people holding a particular point of view rather than attacking the point of view itself. A good example is the case where an opponent starts insulting you in some manner rather than countering your argument.

Overgeneralization
It is an argument which makes a statement so broad as to exceed the original point that was trying to be proved. Often it involves taking a small sample and generalizing it to the whole group.

Non sequitur
Latin: "It does not follow"
It is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion where no connection exists between the two.

Proof by authority
It is an argument which is based on a person's authority, rather than on the merits of the authority's position. A good example is a argument is assumed correct because it comes from a person with a PHD.

Proof by assertion

It is an argument which simply states something as true without evidence or argument to support it.

Circular reasoning
It is an argument that tries to prove something by first asserting it and then trying to "prove" it.

Straw man
It is an argument where a person argues against a position similar to but weaker than their opponent’s real position.

Manufacturing facts from a theory

It is an undemonstrated or unobserved idea that is stated as fact because it agrees with a particular theory.

Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong
It is a form of circular reasoning where the person tries to disprove a point of view by interpreting the facts through a different point of view.

There are many more logical fallacies avoid them.

A Discussion of Logic and Reason in Science

The set of principles and rules for reasoning is called logic. If used correctly beginning with the right starting point one will arrive at the correct conclusion.

Reasoning that starts with a given set premises and draws a conclusion is called deductive reasoning. Reasoning that draws a general conclusion based on a set of examples is called inductive reasoning. So deductive reasoning goes from general principles to specific conclusions and inductive reasoning goes from specific principles to general conclusions. Both of these types of logic are used in science.

Inductive and Deductive reasoning are different and even opposite concepts but in practice deductive and inductive reasoning are often used together even without knowing it.  For example one may be drawing a general conclusion form observed evidence (induction) based on general principles called assumptions. (deduction)

Mistakes in reasoning called Logical fallacies are some times made. This can happen both deliberately and accidentally. The important thing is to avoid them since they resultant in erroneous conclusions.

The Burden of Proof; an Issue in Science

The obligation of a party to provide sufficient evidence in support of their side of a dispute or issue is called the Burden of Proof.

Actually the term “burden of proof” is a bit strong implying the need to prove beyond a doubt. As a result it is really more like the burden of evidence since the side that has the burden of proof is obligated to provide evidence to back up their view point. However determining who has the burden of proof is not always easy to do because it varies in different circumstances and changes in the course of the discussion.

Under most circumstances the party making the claim has the burden of proof. However this is not an absolute rule given there are some circumstance that can change the burden of proof to the person denying a claim since a party making the new claim about an accepted idea has the burden of proof. For example those claiming that the Apollo Moon landings did not really happen have the Burden of proof.

The Burden of Proof Fallacy is the process of wrongfully trying to switch the burden of proof to your opponent. However the Burden of Proof can legitimately switch sides if new arguments have been made or evidence presented. If the opposition wishes to dispute the new evidence or argument, they have the burden of proof in doing so. Hence the burden of proof has switched.

A common problem in a discussion is agreeing on who has the burden of proof. It can consume much time and render a debate useless. Another problem is that since each side sees the issue differently it may be hard to agree on burden of proof.

Debate as a Tool of Science

A formal interactive discussion of opposing ideas on a specific topic is called a debate.

In science debate is a way of discussing competing theories where both sides get to make their case. Since both sides get to make their case it is an opportunity to learn about the other side as well as one’s own. However it is critical that both sides are given equal footing and respect which doses not always happen.

Because debates usually does not settle the dispute in practice debate is only useful as long the participants and observers learn from it. If no one learns anything from a debate it’s a waste of time.

Repeatability its Importance in Science

The replication of a scientist’s experiments and results by other scientists is called Repeatability. Since the physical laws are the same every place any experiment conducted by one scientist should work for any other scientist so to provide a double check the results.

Experiments with well controlled variables are the best prospects for repeatability to work because replication can be as completely as possible. It does not work well in situations where there are difficulties in controlling variables. In such cases results are not easily replicated. The degree of repeatability varies from field to field.

The Scientific Process of Experimentation

The investigation of the causal relationships among variables or the testing of a hypothesis is called Experimentation. Experimentation under controlled conditions is fundamental to the ideal of science. Both the scientific method and repeatability works best with controlled experiments but not all area of scientific study lend them selves to experiments. There are a lot of real world observations that are beyond the possibility of a controlled experiment do to things like distance, size and time. In some cases such as in historical sciences experiments can only be used to test the possibility of a hypothesis by trying to replicate a past event to show it could have happened.

In an Ideal Experiment the number of variable should be reduced to one and be easily repeated by other scientists. This increases the likely hood that someone will try to repeat it and makes it more likely that the attempt to repeat it will succeed. It should also be limited in complexity and cost which also increases the likely hood that someone will try to repeat it making it more likely that the attempt to repeat it will succeed.

The Use of Theoretical Systems in Science

A Theoretical System is the conceptual structure that a scientific community uses in developing testable theories and interpreting data it is also referred to as a paradigm.

A scientific community’s theoretical system is considered to be true by that community and its core concepts are generally fixed and not subject to change with new data. Theoretical patches are often added to make a theoretical system fit reality when reality is not what was originally expected. The theoretical system forms the bases for developing testable theories and interpreting data.

The key to understanding theoretical systems is that they can only be evaluated internally because they are self contained systems. Different theoretical systems often produce different and even contradictory interpretations for the same evidence so that an interpretation from one theoretical system can not be used to disprove another because an interpretation from one theoretical system may not be valid in another.

Parts of a theoretical system can start out as testable theories and become so entrenched that they loose all testability by being patched to the point where they can absorb any new data. The Big Bang is a good example of this. It has be come so entrenched that there is no mainstream thought of abandoning it because contradicting data is absorbed when possible such as the accelerating expansion of the universe; which was  by the invention of dark energy; or ignored such as the relationships between active galaxies and quasars.

Theoretical systems can have concepts in common but while different system may share some concepts while concepts are totally different. They are an unavoidable but little understood part of Science because data is not self interpreting and needs a theory on which to base the interpretation. Unfortunately it is often unclear as to where a testable theory end and theoretical system begins.

Digging Out Archaeology

Archaeology is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior based on the remains, ruins and artifacts left behind. There archaeology and geology can have conflicts because some times geological features can be confused for ruins and artifacts and ruins and artifacts can be confused for geological features.

Archaeology allows the studying of history with out historical records which is helpful because there are some things you can’t just learn about from historical records, such as art, physical characteristics, and architectural. This allows the discovery about aspects of history not found in written historical records since historical records only contain what is considered important and much of every day life is not considered important enough to be recorded.  It also allows the discovery of additional written records and confirming the existence of civilizations only known by being written about by other civilizations. The most famous example of this is the discovery of Troy. Discovering civilizations not yet known and discovering things about groups that left no written records.

Artifacts are not always preserved because they decay over time and are damaged by natural disasters. Artifacts are frequently destroyed by war and the accidental destruction by reuse of land.  Carelessness of both non- scientists and scientists are another source of artifact loss because archaeologists have not always been a careful as they should be. Sadly artifacts have been deliberately destroyed by both scientists and non- scientists. Being human scientists are not always honest, while this is not necessarily a big problem in that most archaeologists do not deliberately destroy artifacts but it is still occasionally a source of artifact loss. An example of non-scientists deliberately destroying artifacts is the fact that Moslems have a history destroying religions artifacts in countries they conquer. The looting of archaeological site is a major problem in some case. The further you look back in time the bigger this problem of the loss of archaeological artifacts becomes.

Governments often hinder archaeological research by blocking excavation and investigation other than by approved archaeologists so as to control access to potential digs. They also some times block the excavation and investigation of sites they don’t like. This includes the fencing off of a possible Mount Sinai site in Saudi Arabia. They further control evidence by demanding that artifacts discovered in their boarders be turned over to their officials. The reason given is to prevent the looting of National Treasures but it allows Governments to hide evidence that goes against their official view of history while allowing Governments to control access to the artifacts they have.

Artifacts are not self interpreting they need to be interpreted by way of a theoretical system. The accuracy of the interpretation is dependent on the accuracy of the theoretical system. Artifacts and ruins are easily dismissed if they do not fit the theoretical system being used because there are just too many different ways artifacts be interrelated. This is particularly true when sites are poorly preserved which can cause interpretation mistakes since the evidence that makes the difference can easily be lost. The discovered of sites by armatures can easily be dismissed since the claim can be they did not know what they were doing or that they messed up the site. Furthermore the theoretical systems used are based on philosophical assumptions.

Since archaeology is an historical science it is greatly influenced by philosophical assumptions. For example a purely naturalistic theoretical system requires assuming that any supernatural claims in history are mythological. The point is that the Philosophical Assumptions behind any claim needs to be understood.

What is Peer Review is in Science

Peer Review is the submission of scholarly works and research to the review of other’s in the same field.

Peer Review practically speaking refers to review for publication in a journal proving a way to find and correct mistakes before publication of a paper includes spelling, grammar, mathematical and other form of mistakes. It a method of quality control to the research being published helping guard against poor research.

Unfortunately this provides a means of blocking the publication of novel concepts that run contrary to the current paradigm. If dissenters respond be publishing their own peer review journals they are criticized and their journals are often decried as non reputable. Some times it is denied that they are even legitimate peer review. This has been shown too happened in origins research with Creation Science peer review journals and climate research with climate peer review journals that publish papers that go against Global Warming.  So called reputable journals seemed to be defined based on agreement with establishment paradigms. Attacking sincere peer review efforts in this way harms scientific Research.

Archaeology people Dig It

Archaeology is the scientific study of past human culture and behavior based on the remains, ruins and artifacts left behind. Some times there are conflicts between archaeology and geology because some times geological features be confused for ruins and artifacts can and vise versa.

Archaeology has a number of benefit of studying history apart from historical records because there are some things you can’t just learn about from historical records, such as art, physical characteristics, and architectural. Discovering things about history not found in written historical records since historical records only contain what is considered important and much of every day life is not considered important enough to be recorded. Discovering additional written records and confirming the existence of civilizations only written about by other civilizations. The most famous example of this is the discovery of Troy. Discovering civilizations not yet known and discovering things about groups that left no written records.

Unfortunately  many artifacts are not preserved because they are lost as it decays over time and is damaged by natural disasters. Artifacts are frequently destroyed by war and the accidental destruction by reuse of land.  They are also lost do to the carelessness of both non- scientists and scientists because archaeologists have not always been a careful as they should be. Sadly artifacts have been deliberately destroyed by both scientists and non- scientists. Being human scientists are not always honest, while this is not necessarily a big problem in that most archaeologists do not deliberately destroy artifacts but it is still occasionally a source of artifact loss. An example of non-scientists deliberately destroying artifacts is the fact that Moslems have a history destroying religions artifacts in countries they conquer. The looting of archaeological site is a major problem in some case. The further you look back in time the bigger this problem of the loss of archaeological artifacts becomes.

Government have often hindered archaeological research by blocking excavation and investigation other than by approved archaeologists so as to control access to potential digs. They have blocked the excavation and investigation of sites they don’t like. This includes the fencing off of a possible Mount Sinai site in Saudi Arabia. They further control evidence by demanding that artifacts discovered in their boarders be turned over to their officials. The reason given is to prevent the looting of National Treasures but it allows Governments to hide evidence that goes against their official view of history while allowing Governments to control access to the artifacts they have.

Artifacts do not interpreting themselves but are interpreted by way of a theoretical system. The accuracy of the interpretation is dependent on the accuracy of the theoretical system. Artifacts and ruins are easily dismissed if they do not fit the theoretical system being used because there are just too many different ways artifacts be interrelated. This is particularly true when sites are poorly preserved which can cause interpretation mistakes since the evidence that makes the difference can easily be lost. The discovered of sites by armatures can easily be dismissed since the claim can be they did not know what they were doing or that they messed up the site. Furthermore the theoretical systems used are based on philosophical assumptions.

Since archaeology is an historical science it is greatly influenced by philosophical assumptions. For example a purely naturalistic theoretical system requires assuming that any supernatural claims in history are mythological. The point is that the Philosophical Assumptions behind any claim needs to be understood.

Are Scientists really objective?

It is not possible for human beings be totally objective since we all have preconceptions about the world. It is only possible to be really objective if you know nothing about a topic since knowledge on a topic creates opinions that influence preconceptions. This is the reason every effort is made for juries to know little or nothing about the case in advance. The fact is that you can only be totally objective if you are totally ignorant.
There are three steps in dealing with data collection, organizing and interpreting Collecting data involves measuring and recording and it is the most objective part of science. Since much of this is done by machines it is where true scientific objectivity is found. Even this process is not totally objective since the selection of data to be tested is not always objective and is often based on the theory being used says to look for. This part of the process is still the most objective. Organizing Data includes the categorizing of data sets. As soon as an organizing system exists it influences how the data is seen and this causes a loss of objectivity. The interpretation of data depends on the theoretical system being used to do the interpretation because different theoretical system produces different interpretations. Scientists using different theoretical systems on the same data can produce different and even contradicting interpretations and a flawed theoretical system causes flawed interpretation,

What is the Difference Between Historical and Operational Science

Operational science is an explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of scientists. This is the type of science that curses disease, discovers new sources of energy and leads in invention. On the other hand historical science is an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present.

Because we live in the present we can only observe the present that is what we observe. Because of this the past can not be observed since we do not live in the past and so we do not observe the past. The past can only be studied by observing in the present. This the case even with distant star light which is only observed in the present even if we do see the stars as they looked in the past.

As a result studding the past requires making some assumptions about the past even studying distant stars requires making assumptions about the history and structure of the universe.  This makes studying the past more likely to be affected by philosophical assumptions.

The study of origins is by definition a historical science the study of origins is highly influenced by philosophical assumptions. If those philosophical assumptions are wrong then so are the conclusions.

What is the Scientific Establishment?

The scientific establishment  consists of all of the mainstream scientific institutions and those that run them. Those in these positions give them the ability to control many aspects of main stream science making it possible for them to limit research and distribution of material they don’t like. These positions include those with control over publishing, employment, research grants, research facilities and education.

Such control hampers innovation by keeping concepts down that are outside the ruling paradigm. This not only includes Creation Science and Intelligent Design but alternative totally naturalistic concepts as well. There are areas where progress occurs only because older influential scientists die and are replaced by younger more receptive scientists. It has been said that scientific progress occurs one funeral at a time.

This is not conspiratorial but just people protecting their power and world view. However the result is the same. This actually happens in all fields of human endeavor such as science, religion, politics, business, and education. It is a result of human nature.

A discussion on Science Education

At least  basic knowledge of science is important if you are going to understand the world around us and since science affects most aspect of life so some knowledge of it is needed to get along. It helps students with an interest in science to pursue a scientific career by helping them discover that interest.

The problem with science education for example many pre collage science classes are taught by teachers who did not major or minor in math or science so as a result classes are often of low quality a often uninteresting.  As a result children are often thought only facts and theory and are often not taught how to actually do science.They often not thought how to critically evaluate scientific claims.

Even worst some times political agendas get in the way of teaching science, a good example is the teaching of man caused global warming without presenting the other side except in ridicule. Furthermore science and other topics are usually taught in a way that encourages conformity which can a actually discourage independent thinking. As a result many people can not think out side the box of what they were taught and it is the independent thinkers and that tend make the great discoveries.

This shows up big time in the way origin is taught in public school science class. Big bang to man Evolution is taught as fact. Efforts to change this to date have been blocked by the courts. Big bang to man Evolution is further pushed by TV programs and other media were in most cases if Creation Science or Intelligent Design are mention all it is in ridicule. As a result people are bombarded by Big bang to man Evolution giving them the impression that it is proven fact despite scientific reasons for questioning it. As a result some people develop a condescending attitude towards Creation Science while actually being ignorant of it, producing an arrogant ignorance that makes an intelligent discussion impossible

 

References

Parents Understand Importance of Science
But Student Achievement Lags Parental Expectations

Knoxville Father Wants Biology Book Banned.

The Problem of Politicized Science

The politicization of Science is what happens when politics interferes with scientific enquiry for the purpose of political gain. This often takes the form of support for one side over the other in a scientific dispute.

When ever a particular theory is pushed for political gain the scientific process gets corrupted. The side being supported will get lots of funding while the other struggles encouraging researchers to backup the supported theory or risk loosing funding. The result is that the supported theory is given the appearance of being overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, even if it is not. Furthermore support or opposition for the theory becomes based more on politics than science. The result is that it becomes hard to find the truth, because no one is unbiased

The worst example of the politicization of Science is of Man caused Global Warming  theory, which is favored by politicians who see it as an excuse for increased government control. More conservative politicians tend to oppose this idea of global warming because of the associated big government political agenda associated with it.

However there is not only scientific against man caused global warming but the entire global warming theory as well. There evidence also indicates that the solutions being pushed by global warming proponents are the worst way to dale with it even if their science is right.

The point is that the politicization of global warming has greatly hampered the scientific process by hiding and distorting facts making it hard to find the truth. This is bad for and destructive to science. As a result when ever science is politicized the process of science is damaged.

References

 Global Cooling Continues - by James M. Taylor - Environment & Climate News

The Trouble With Government Grants

           

The Problem of Government Grants

Money or other items of value given by a government to non-government individual or group to enable their activities is called a government grant.

The funding of science by government produces many good results but it has the down side of politicizing science and the politicization of science harms the scientific process. It provides a source of funding for research making it easier for research to be funded allowing some research to be done that probably could not get funded other wise.

The problem is that  science has become too dependent on government grants as is evident by the fact that 90% of scientific research is funded by government. To get funding from any source requires that you appease that source. So to get government funding you need to appease government officials. Now grant requests do go through peer review but altimetry the money comes from politicians and this has a chilling affect on science because some areas of research are funded while others are not. The fact that about 1 in 10 unsolicited grant applications are approved proves that some legitimate research is rejected. Also some paradigms are favored by government over competing ones.  For example research in to manned caused global warming gets funded while opposing research does not get funded.

The reason for this it that politics is about acquiring and holding on to power not knowledge and as a result politicians are often not really interested is the science but sending money to their districts and pushing a political agenda.

In conclusion science needs to reduce its dependence on Government funding. Priority needs to be given to private funding which can take several forms, foundations, universities, and other nonprofit organizations and for profit organizations while these are already used to some degree, private funding should be encouraged more. It is less corrupting because there is more than one source of funding. This does not mean that Government funding should be eliminated just reduced. Science should be as independent of government as possible to reduce these problems. 

References

 Science corrupted

The Trouble With Government Grants

Newton's Laws of Motion They Really Move

The three basic physical laws of classical mechanics are called Newton's Laws of Motion. They describe the relationship between a body, the forces acting on it andhow that affects the resulting motion.

Newton's First law says a body will remain in rest or in motion unless acted on by an out side force. It is also known as the law of inertia since inertia is the resistance to changes in motion.

Newton's Second law says a mass acted on by a force undergoes acceleration in the direction of the force, with a magnitude inversely proportional to the mass and proportional to the force.

Formula

f = ma

f   = force

m = mass

a  = acceleration

Newton's Third law states that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.  Put another way when you push on an object it pushes you back. This is the bases of rockets and jets.

 These three laws along with gravity form the cornerstone of modern physics. Not much outside quantum mechanics makes since with out them. They affect every aspect of our lives and are involved in some way with every thing we do.

 The three laws are most evident in space flight. The 3rd law provides force to move a rocket, the 2nd law turns that force into acceleration and the 1st law keeps a space craft in obit or moving through deep space.

In conclusion Newton's Laws of Motion are the three basic physical laws of classical mechanics. They affect every aspect of our lives, in fact we use them every time we move.

Units of Measure in Physics

Numerical values given physical quantities relative to some standard are called unites of measure. The global standard system of measurement units is called the International System of Units or SI units for sjort.

Seven SI Base Units
meter	distance
kilogram	mass
second	time
ampere	current
kelvin	temperature
mole	amount of substance
candela	intensity of light

---

Common Derived SI Units
newton	force		coulomb	charge
Joule	energy		volt	potential
tesla	flux density		farad	capacitance
hertz	frequency		ohm	resistance

---

SI unit prefixes
Prefix	10n	Scale	Decimal
yotta- zetta- exa- peta- tera- giga- mega- kilo- hecto- deca- none deci- centi- milli- micro- nano- pico- femto- antto- zepto- yocto- 10 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 -18 -21 -24    Septillion Sextillion Quintillion Quadrillion Trillion Billion Million Thousand Hundred Ten One Tenth Hundredth Thousandth Millionth Billionth Trillionth Quadrillionth Quintillionth Sextillionth Septillionth    1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,000,000 1,000 100 10 1 0,01 0,01 0,001 0,000,001 0,000,000,001 0,000,000,000,001 0,000,000,000,000,001 0,000,000,000,000,000,001 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001

As a result 1,000 meters is a kilometer, a hundredth of a meter is centimeter and a thousandth of a meter is a millimeter.

Science and Politics

When ever science and politics interact more often than not science looses. Now not all interactions between science and government are negative but the overall affect on science is negative.

Politics is about acquiring and holding on to power and not knowledge. In fact politics often is destructive to knowledge since ignorant people are easier to control. Also politicians are often not really interested is the science but sending money to their districts. The biggest example of this is manned space flight which stagnated for 30 years under government control.

Even worst government often favors some lines of research over others in funding, education, and recognition. Government even favors one side in a scientific dispute over others. The best examples are in origins research and climate research.

Government can block lines of research from being perused. Now sometimes this legitimate such as preventing dangerous experimenting on humans, but other times it’s pandering to irrational fears such as those against nuclear power simply because some people can’t separate reactors from bombs. Giving in to this fear has hampered the development of nuclear power.

Government can hide lines of research which often happens with research conducted by the military. The reason given for this is national security and some time it is legitimate but other times it’s just an excuse. The worst examples of these are climate research and origins research because politics has played a major anti-scientific role in both areas.

In climate research global warming has been favored by progressive politicians who see it an excuse for increased government control. They have backed and promoted pro global warming claims over data to the contrary despite emails showing the hiding of climate data contrary to Global warming. This issue has become so politicized that finding the truth is hard because it is almost impossible to find an objective source on the topic.

In origins research only evolutionary research funded the government. Both Intelligent design and Creation Science gets no government funding, but they are forced to fund evolutionary research with their taxes. Intelligent design and Creation Science have been kept out of public schools on the claim that they are not science this has even been enforced by law suits when local politicians try to include them in public schools science class. There is nothing more anti-scientific than bringing law suits to settle scientific issues by having a judge (lawyer not a scientist) decree that the opposing views are not science. Regardless of your view on origins, this should disturb you. The fact is that science should NOT be determined by judicial decree such actions are fundamentally opposed to the entire idea of science as a pursuit of knowledge.

Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics

The zeroth law of thermodynamics says that two objects in thermal equilibrium with a third object re also in equilibrium with each other.

The zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law and not the fourth law because it is more fundamental than the first law but it was discovered after the other three. 

Imagine having three interconnected beakers of water so that the water levels in all three are the same height. They are interconnected so that any change in one beaker gets balanced out so all three beakers end up ay the same level.

The reason why this occurs is that heat can flow between all three objects so that if one gets out of equilibrium the others supply heat to it or  removed heat from it there by  restoring equilibrium to all three.

The zeroth law is a rather simple concept and it is the most fundamental of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Philosophy of Science

Several claims are commonly made about science.

1. Scientists are unbiased observers.
2. Scientists use the scientific method to confirm or falsify their theories.
3. Scientists have no preconceptions in collecting data and deriving theories.
4. Science is self-correcting because scientists readily abandon theories, when they don’t fit the facts.  

While the claims are true to a point they are not entirely true.

The problem is that data by itself does not falsify or confirm theories.  The interpretation of data is actually somewhat subjective in practice because it is not self interpreting. It needs to be interpreted by way of a theoretical system. Also the scientific method is a generalization of how science is suppose to work it is not a fixed rule.

Scientists have sometimes shown tremendous loyalty to their theories. Finally a scientist’s theories are always influenced by philosophical assumptions.

Assumptions

Science requires starting assumptions because our knowledge is incomplete which is contrary to the myth of Scientists having no preconceptions. The results of scientific inquiry are greatly influenced by starting assumptions such that having the wrong starting assumptions results in wrong theories.

1. Some basic assumptions of science are as follows:
2. That the Universe can be understood.
3. That it is governed by certain rules.  - Laws of Nature.
4. That these laws apply everywhere.

While these are normally taken for granted they are assumptions

Demarcation

The real question of philosophy of Science is “What is science?”  This is not as easy a question to answer as it may seem because Science dose not fit easily into a box because it is simply impossible to draw a clear line between science and non-science because there is too much overlap between them.

The key concepts of Science are observation, falsification and repeatability. However even these are not absolute since not everything fits into them.  There are things in the universe that can not be seen such as atoms, subatomic particles, black holes. There are things that can not be tested such as an unbounded universe and the Cosmological Principle. Some things can not be repeated such as the origin of life, and the origin of the universe it self.

A big part of the problem is the desire of some scientists to eliminate from science areas of study they don’t like so the question of “What is science?” remains an open question.

3rd Law of Thermodynamics

3rd Law of Thermodynamics: As the temperature of a substance approaches absolute zero it’s entropy approaches zero.

Since heat is a result of the molecules motion of an object and this motion causes those molecules to move around and spread out it causes a condition of high entropy.

As an object cools the object molecules slow down so that the forces between molecules can organize them. At absolute zero all of the heat has removed and the molecules have stop moving. The forces between molecules now fully organize the molecules resulting in zero entropy.

Absolute Zero is the lowest limit possible on temperature is defined as 0 Kelvin which is -273.15 ^oC or -459.67 ^oF.

The lowest temperature actually reached was achieved by MIT researchers in 2003. That temperature is 45 nK which is 45 ten billionth of a ^oC above absolute zero.

In practical application, while absolute zero is the lowest limit on temperature it is not actually achievable. You can get infinitely close but not exactly at absolute zero. You just cant get rid of that last bit of heat.

A Discussion of Global Warming

It is claimed by global warming proponents that the Earth temperature is rising out of control due to human industrial activity. The difficulty with this area of study is that politics is interfering with the science. Liberals tend to support the claims and use them to attack our capitalist economic system, while conservatives tend to discount the claims in defense of our capitalist economic system. The politics of this issue makes getting unbiased information difficult.

In discussion of what to do about global warming there the questions that need to be answered.

1. Is the Earth actually warming or not?
2. If it is what is causes. Is it man caused or natural?
3. If it is man caused what it’s the best way deal with it?

If global warming were an honest scientific endeavor it would have stated out as simply some scientists reporting evidence of an unusual increase in global temperatures. No blame just noticing a trend. Then there would be more research suggesting human activity as the cause and then research would be gin on how to deal wit hit. In stead the issue hit the public with claims of man caused global warming and an obvious politically charged solution.

Historical data says no to both questions.

The "Medieval Warm Period" lasted from 700 to 1300 AD. During this time the Vikings sailed the North Atlantic without ice burgs. They colonized Greenland and named such because it was green at the time. Greenland froze over during later cooling trends. During this warn period average global temperatures were 1-2° warmer than today.

This warm period was followed by the "Sporer Minimum" which was a cool period that lasted from 1300 to 1500 AD. This was in turn followed by a brief climatic warming from 1500 to 1560 AD.

Then came the "Little Ice Age" which occurred between 1560 and 1830 AD. During this time average global temperatures were about 1 degrees cooler than today. Then there was a brief warmer period from 1830 to 1870 AD and a brief cool period from 1870 to 1910 AD. Finally, we have the 20th century warming period which started in 1910 AD and continues through the present.

The ‘Hockey Stick’

In. a 1999 paper published in Geophysical Research Letters tree rings were used to assess temperature change back to 1000 AD. This data was then supplemented with other proxies from more recent centuries. It shows no sign of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, while showing a dramatic seemingly going out of control climate during the 20th century. This research is flawed both scientifically and statistically. The biggest problem is that of combining two totally different sets of data. The two sets of data; temperature and tree rings. They cannot be credibly combined into one data set.

Tree rings are a very poor indication of temperature, because they usually only grow the summer and they are affected by factors unrelated to temperature. By the way, the yellow area is the margin of error.

The first model seems to better represent global climate. It agrees with sun spot activity as measured sense 1600 as shown by the fact that the "Maunder Minimum" occurred at the same time as the "Little Ice Age". Sun spot activity translates into a measure of the variation into overall solar out put; including U.V. which affects the ozone layer. The 2000-2003 Solar Max should be noted here. This is the peek of the 11 years cycle of sun spot activity. It was the most active Solar Max ever observed and it coincides with current warming trend.

Radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in Sargasso Sea

Sediments show that its surface temperatures were about 2°F cooler during the Little Ice Age than today. It was about 2°F warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. It also shows two warm peeks before 500 BC called Holocene Climatic Optimum. The peeks have temperatures up to 4°F warmer than today, all without man-made greenhouse gasses as a cause. The Sargasso Sea data can go no further back than 1,000 B.C. because this is the point where C14 becomes unreliable.

There are many other data sources of data showing that the first model represents the global climate for last 1000 years.

Mars provides additional evidence that the current warming trend is caused by the sun, because it too is experiencing global warming. None of the probes we have landed there burn fossil fuels. They are all solar or nuclear powered, so we can not be the cause. The most likely cause of global warming on two planets is the sun.

Further more the models used to make prediction about future global temperatures are based on erroneous assumptions such as increased clouds increases global warming an assumption proven wrong on every cloudy day by the easily observable fact that when clouds block the sun the temperature goes down. They also assume that when the Earth temperature goes up it radiates less heat in to space which violates the lays of thermodynamics.   

Finally it turns out that even if all of the claims made by global warming proponents and their models are correct, the solutions they are proposing in many cases are worst options available in that they are extremity expensive for little benefits in return. So as a result global warming proponents are pushing for extremely expensive policies to solve a problem that do not exist.

Big Foot

Known to American Indians as Sasquatch, Big foot has become legendary because reports persist to the present. It is called Big foot from the large foot prints the leave behind.
The Patterson Film is the most famous footage of Big Foot is known. Taken by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin in 1967 at a range of approximately 100 feet, it is the most famous imagery of Big Foot. There are those that claim this film was a hoax but even if it is; there many other sightings suggesting that Big Foot could be a real animal.

The Yeti of Asia; also known as the abominable snow man; is found mainly in the Himalayas leaves the same large prints as Sasquatch.

There are problems in establishing their existence, ibecause the eye witness accounts are not taken seriously by zoologists. The result is that efforts to scientifically investigate the claims are under funded and unfortunately there are hoaxes which muddy the water even more.

If they are real, Big Foot’s most likely identity is Gigantopithecus. It is thought to be extinct. While most of its fossils are found in Southeast Asia, migration to North America not impossible. It would stand at 10 feet and would be a prefect match for Big foot. If Big Foot is proven to be Gigantopithecus it would qualify as a living fossil.