174
Please drive carefully: scientists plan to transport volatile antimatter for first time (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -34 points 7 months ago (8 children)

On the contrary, the universe, the state of matter, the mechanisms of astro physics, are the subjects most deserving of being skeptical of experts claiming to know things they have no way of knowing. Now you may be referring to some humble scientists, but the "exerts" absolutely do claim to know everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You dont have a good understanding of what science is. No scientist claims to know what charge is, what causes it, nor what dark matter is or dark energy.

    Scientists say what they can say with reasonable certainty. If they state something, you can research why they state it, and find sound reasoning and experiment that supports it.

    If you dont, you can disprove it, and then now you're a scientist.

    Just because you dont know a thing, doesn't mean others cant know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I'd also like to interject that physics deals with models of how the world works, i.e. physicists make predictions about what would happen in specific scenarios. That has nothing to do with knowing what goes on underneath, because we can't know that.

    Consider quantum physics. It might be that the universe is indeed a wave and that's just how things are. But it could also be possible that we're living our entire lives in a simulation, whoever hosts the simulation is having a tea party and giggling at us silly being on how we're confused by our observations. You can't really tell these two apart, experimentally, since they would have the same outcome. So physics can't really tell about what things are, just how they behave in certain situations. That's why i think of physics as models, not theory (because "theory" carries a starker claim to absolute truth to me).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Why does "theory" carry starker claim absolute truth to you?

    Theory, theoretical, these are not claims to absolute truth. Rules maybe, but then id say you're more correct that they'd be rules of a model.

    Relativity is a theory. Its in the name. You might not like it, but it is definitely a theory, and referred to as such by all of science. Maybe you call it model of special relativity, but you'd be the exception. However it would not be incorrect to refer to it as a model, either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Why does “theory” carry starker claim absolute truth to you?

    I think the word "theory" derives from the words "theo" (meaning god) and "ergy" (meaning work). So it's "god's work" literally translated.

    What is meant by that is that people recognize the truth, such as truths about how the world works. The truth is called "god", or rather, "god" in the christian context is understood to be the set of all truths. So mathematical insights and physics rules are a subset of god, because they represent truths of some sort. And applying these truths in practice, i.e. building machinery according to them is the work that people put into it. So people work according to "god", i.e. according to rules. Like when you build a car, you have to know about thermodynamics. The knowledge makes you do the work. So it's insight->work, or in latin/greek: "theo-ergy" or "theory" for short.

    You have to remember that all these words were invented in the 1800 so it's not unreasonable to claim that there's a heavily christian background in them since that's how people thought at the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    This is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read. You've broken down a word to its roots, and then used its etymology to create a new definition of the word, and then claim that's what the definition must be because of the etymology.

    Whats the etymology of vaccine? I mean, there are so many words that have gone on to have a changed meaning from the roots of it. How a word developed and what it used to mean, does not determine the definition today.

    There's nothing theocratic about the theory of relativity. If someone says "oh I have a theory as to what happened" they are more closely saying they have a hypothesis, than they are saying they have God's truth on the subject.

    So, i question your authenticity in this discussion, because i find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe what you're saying to me. Im skeptical you're even a real person.

    I'll just leave this here

    https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/54072318

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Come on Hector, just go back explaining everything with baby Jesus back in your room and stop making an ass of yourself in public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •