No idea for a title..

[Mytical]

Not sure where this should go, so I am putting it in Grab Bag. Before we get to the meat of the problem, I want to state a few things for the record..if I can make it make any sense.

I know as a species we have to have a common understanding of some things. Like what color something is, math, etc. I will be the first to admit, I have some very odd and unusual beliefs. I do not expect people to share these beliefs. Some of these beliefs will no doubt sound crazy. Now on to the actual issue.

Often I find myself asking very odd questions. Things like 'why is that color called red and not say Hypopotimoose' (no that is not a misspelling). Why? I do not think humans know as much as some people think. I often express it like this.

"We are ants, who have never left the one single grain of sand we are on, and claiming to know not only to know everything about the beach, but everything beyond it as well."

Our perception of how things work is colored by past experiments that tell us "This is how things work" and we don't question it. Simply because it is repeatable, and the results come out the same every time. So we believe that this works the same everywhere, every time..when it simply may not be the case.

People are flawed, have preconceived ideas, and even if only subconsciously these preconceptions can affect everything we do. I will give an example.

I do not remember the scientist name, but there was a scientist who wanted to prove a soul existed so he weighed a person right before death, and right after death. 21 grams difference. This did not happen with animals. It was what he was looking for, was repeatable (though the 21 grams differed, every time a human body was lighter after death), so did the experiment actually prove there was a soul? That is another debate for another time.

I am not sure how to phrase my thoughts on the matter of what we 'know'..or rather what mankind thinks it knows. What I will say is that we are flawed, and any understanding we do have of the universe might be based on wrong information. Everything from how old the universe is, to time/gravity/etc.

As stated, I know we need constants and unified theories to progress. Even if we are on the wrong track (which we may not be). I get it. To think that we have a clue how things work really is laughable to me however. We do not even understand .001% of .001% of all the information, but a lot of people seem to think we know a lot more then we do.

Just because something is 'laughable' today, does not mean that tomorrow we might not come across information that says it is legit. Dismissing things just because they are not currently testable, means that there will never be a time where they are testable. There I go rambling again, thinking outside the box means there is a lot of distractions.

Anyhow thoughts? Besides that I need professional help ..been told that enough times.

[Andara Bledin]

A two-dimensional being will never understand what a sphere is. They might have a theory explaining what a sphere might be, with enough proof behind it so that many will think they know more than just a set of repeatable tests with consistent results.

As for why we cal the color red such... Why do we call anything what we do? Someone came up with a name and the consensus grew to accept it as proper.

^-.-^

[linguist]

As for why we cal the color red such... Why do we call anything what we do? Someone came up with a name and the consensus grew to accept it as proper.

^-.-^

this. forms and concepts are given names by convention; that is, enough people decided that "red" was "red," so that's what it became. if enough people decide that "red" is actually "hippopotamoose," then that's what it becomes. that, however, is unlikely to happen given thousands of years of convention that would need to be broken.

as for the so-called 21 grams theory, it's a bunch of bullshit. the original experiment was conducted by a doctor named duncan macdougall, who already had a preconceived notion as to what he was looking for, so he twisted data to fit the conclusions that he'd already made. the experiment was performed on a grand total of 6-9 (depending on your source) dying people, hardly enough of a sample size for effective conclusions. at least 4 of the subjects' weight loss could be explained by mechanical failure. further, his results have never been repeatable outside of his original experiment. also, his animal experiments did show a loss of weight upon death, except in the case of dogs. to add to his dickery, he complained about the inability to find dogs dying of natural causes, which means, you know, he killed them himself to prove his point.

there are a number of possible explanations to explain why one may lose weight upon death. for one, when you die the air in your lungs escapes in a rush, and if you have a full bladder or colon, that gets released as well. a more likely explanation is that he was conducting his experiments on people dying of tuberculosis, which means they were likely feverish and sweating. it's not unusual to experience a temperature spike immediately before death, which would lead to heavier sweating and consequent evaporation. weight loss through moisture loss would then occur. this explanation is given further weight through macdougall's results with dogs, since dogs cool their bodies though panting, not sweating.

[Mytical]

*nods* That was sort of my point. Lets take a harmless radiation that has not yet been encountered. A scientist creates a machine that picks up this radiation. Is it because the radiation actually exists, or because the scientist was convinced it existed and created something that would show that?

There is no such thing as a 'pure' experiment (imo) as much as some would like to think they have no preconceived notions, they do. Even if repeatable, the method used to repeat it would be based on the experiment already used. Any future experiment that used that information in any way would also be using preconceived notions. I hope this is making any sense

[SkullKing]

I think it is making sense, If I understood correctly you want a debate about humanity´s modes ti aquire information and knowledge, how much that information and knowledge can be trusted, and how do we indentify and correct things that we "know" to be right but are actually wrong as well as how we deal with things we don´t know, and estimate how much we don´t know.

Is that what you mean?


If so it falls in many diferent categories.

The question about why the collor is called "red" is a matter of linguistics, which is a completely diferent question of why something is red.(or why we perceive something to be red)

The weight of the soul experiments falls on a discussion of science impartiallity, and religion, that is largelly unrelated to the discussion about color.

People are flawed, have preconceived ideas, and even if only subconsciously these preconceptions can affect everything we do. I will give an example.

I agree with this.

[Gravekeeper]

Reality is merely perception and science is merely what we all collectively agree is the same amongst all of our own perceptions.

Which is why quantum physics is so damn fascinating, yet abjectly terrifying as it both indicates and suggests things about how reality operates under the hood. For example its possible reality is actually 2 dimensional but being projected into 3D and distance is actually an illusion of our limited perception.

Heck, I recall one experiment a few months back that showed evidence of the universe resisting paradox at a quantum level, meaning you could not go back in time and change the future. It would actively stop you. Think about that. >.>

On a side note, listening to Stephen Hawking for extended periods is both enlightening and terrifying.

As for the soul experiment, there was actually a guy looking for a quantum alternative. Don't recall his name though. He theorized that brain waves could be maintained at a quantum level without the need for a physical form. But it required a quantum particle with specific properties ( namely rate of decay I think it was, as it needed to maintain exsistence for at least a certain length of time ) but we don't know of any.

But we haven't found the Higgs-Bison yet either so who knows.

[Andara Bledin]

Which is why quantum physics is so damn fascinating, yet abjectly terrifying as it both indicates and suggests things about how reality operates under the hood.

I love this sort of stuff. Everything I ever hear people saying about what it indicates is shit I gave up trying to explain to my friends a decade ago.

But we haven't found the Higgs-Bison yet either so who knows.

I'm going to assume this is an auto-correct failure. But it's funny, either way.

I'm wondering if that would be the Higgs Boson's bigger cousin?

^-.-^

[Mytical]

Yes Skullking, pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I also wonder if the red I see is the same as the red somebody else does. I mean for all I know, the color I am seeing that has been labeled 'red' would be somebody else's 'blue'. If growing up (assuming seclusion for the most part) if somebody told you a cat was a dog..every time you saw a cat you would think 'dog'. So if everybody points to something and tells you 'it is red', regardless of what color you might actually see..it would always be 'red'.

We have come a long way, and essentially know a lot more then we did a century ago..but how much of that knowledge is based on incorrect information? How far off are we actually?

Think of a very long math problem...one that in very small print takes up a square mile. As you are working through that problem, you forget to carry a one early on..then a bit latter forget to carry another one..and so on and so on. How far off would the answer be? You might never discover where the mistake was made..or even be aware of the mistake.

[Andara Bledin]

I also wonder if the red I see is the same as the red somebody else does.

My though on this has always been no. While each color has it's own wavelength (except for fuchsia, which dosn't appear naturally but is actually a combination of both ends of the spectrum), how we perceive them is filtered through our own personal perceptions.

So, while we always recognize the range of wavelengths that is called "red," how we see that set is not going to be the same. But there is no quantifiable way to determine that because all of the ways in which we would try to quantify what "red" is would also be shifted.

But, otherwise, I don't think we're that far off. Science is ultimately an open source project. Just because we have a set of accepted data doesn't mean that the data isn't constantly tested, from start to finish, by new sets of eyes trying to determine whether new data has any effect. If someone had forgotten to carry a 1 at the beginning of the equation, someone coming later would have found it and told the world how much better they were at 1-carrying than the original mathematician.

^-.-^

[Mytical]

But, otherwise, I don't think we're that far off. Science is ultimately an open source project. Just because we have a set of accepted data doesn't mean that the data isn't constantly tested, from start to finish, by new sets of eyes trying to determine whether new data has any effect. If someone had forgotten to carry a 1 at the beginning of the equation, someone coming later would have found it and told the world how much better they were at 1-carrying than the original mathematician.

^-.-^

Oh I agree absolutely, however, the problem comes when we think about how long it takes somebody to find out there even IS a mistake made. Even then, there might be other mistakes that person does not discover.

"At one time people KNEW beyond doubt the earth was flat. At one time people KNEW that the earth was the center of the universe. I wonder what we will KNOW tomorrow." (Paraphrasing Agent K, Men in Black)

Edit : Also, will people believe the person who discovers that the one wasn't carried (ie that there was a mistake made somewhere) or will they dismiss them as insane (or similar)?

[Andara Bledin]

Also, will people believe the person who discovers that the one wasn't carried (ie that there was a mistake made somewhere) or will they dismiss them as insane (or similar)?

Well, now, that all depends on the presentation.

He could be like the guy who said that souls have a weight with a tiny sample size and a massive margin for error far beyond his results. Or he could be like CERN, who tested the hell out of what they found and then opened it up to the rest of the community to test the hell out of it as well to determine if (and where) an error might have been introduced.

The first comes off like a crackpot with a theory he's testing towards. The other comes off as a group testing to see what they find and finding something outside of what they expected.

^-.-^

[bara]

Psh, Im still trying to figure out how fish came to have a taste for worms.

[Mytical]

Hmm may not be the fact that it is a worm, but something smaller then the fish that grabs it.