What i dont get about science.

[Stonecoldvampzy]

Let me start by saying i dont know everything in the field of science, and i beleive there are some things that it cant explain. But i am trying to look into it and learn more.

Now, the part about science i dont get is the fact that it keeps changing until it fits somehow. For instance a particle is discoverd, but it cant work without another "unknown particle" then suddenly, that particle exsist we just havent found it yet. How can that be credible?

Also the food science. That also keeps changing. I remember a few years ago chocolate was one of the worst things to eat. now its being recommendet. this also keeps going on and on. One moment its good, next moment its not. Then it is again. I just dont understand it.

If there is anyone who can explain this to me, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Knight Of Shadows]

it's normal i think

when first tobaco was discovered they used to burn it and smell it

thinking it treats lungs disases and am not joking !

untill some king came and warn people about it's real effects

[Rlyeh]

So you don't understand new discoveries?

[Stonecoldvampzy]

So you don't understand new discoveries?

No thats not the issue, how can u say a particle exists when you cant prove it yet? Its seems to me, like they just keep inventing stuff that fits theyr picture of how it works

[aquatus1]

Let me start by saying i dont know everything in the field of science, and i beleive there are some things that it cant explain. But i am trying to look into it and learn more.

Can't ask for a better start than that.

Now, the part about science i dont get is the fact that it keeps changing until it fits somehow. For instance a particle is discoverd, but it cant work without another "unknown particle" then suddenly, that particle exsist we just havent found it yet. How can that be credible?

Okay, what you are talking about there is what is known as "theoretical science". Theoretical science is science based on hard logic, not necessarily evidence. In other words, you start with a known fact or phenomena, and from there you extrapolate a possible cause, and what would be required for that cause to exist. In other words, you make an assumption about a particular process, and then work backwards to try to see if it could work.

So, let's say that that we have a particular force called blue, and another force called purple, and we have an inkling that the forces are somehow connected, but we just aren't sure quite how. A scientist creates a theoretical cause and effect trail, saying "well, if blue does this, and then does that, and then does this again, we would logically get purple." Now, there is no evidence that the three steps in between exist, but for the sake of theoretical science, the scientist assumes they do. Now, they work backwards to validate the three assumptions they made. Sometimes, working backwards, they can actually find proof that one of the assumptions they made is actually correct, and that is pretty cool when it happens. Einstein, for all intents and purposes, simply assumed that light traveled at a constant speed. He then spent twenty years finding the proof that he needed for it, and eventually did.

But, sometimes, you work the problem all the way around, and although you can prove beyond a doubt that the process would indeed work if your assumption is correct...you just can't quite manage to find proof that your assumption is actually responsible, or even exists. That is the particle that you are talking about in your post. Somewhere, some scientist has a theory about something, and as far as they can tell, their theory will work...if the particle exists. They simply have to wait and hope that technology will catch up to the theory and prove them right.

To make it even more simplistic, I could say that I have a box outside my home, and inexplicably, several times a week, letters and flyers seem to magically appear in there. Now, I theorize that somehow, at some moment in time when I am not watching, there must be some sort of process at work that makes those papers appear in the box. I will assume, for the purposes of the theory, that it is a person who is putting the papers in there, because when I follow the logical chain of progression, a person does indeed have the ability to create the phenomena of putting flyers in my mailbox. All I have to do is prove that my assumption is correct (I could be wrong. For all I know, a trained bird or a robot is doing it). Technology catches up to me in the form of a camera. I set up the camera and manage to take a picture of some guy wearing a blue uniform appearing regularly by my box and putting letters and papers in it. Now my assumption has been proven, with the discovery and documentation of this missing particle, the mailman.

Also the food science. That also keeps changing. I remember a few years ago chocolate was one of the worst things to eat. now its being recommendet. this also keeps going on and on. One moment its good, next moment its not. Then it is again. I just dont understand it.

Ah, okay, that one you can't really blame science for.

See, the big problem with science is that it sucks at PR. Scientists spend too much time in their labs to be good at communicating with people who don't find ridiculously large and abstract numbers and tediously long hours staring through a microscope fascinating. To make matters worse, the field which usually is in charge of passing on scientific message from scientists to the world is the media, and the media is the polar opposite of boring. They are, frankly, not physically capable of being boring (it's evolution in action; media that develops the ability to become boring is soon eliminated by its competition). So you have the media, who absolutely needs things to be exciting, and scientists who, as a rule...tend to be anything but.

The long and the short of it is that the moment scientists say anything, the media plays it up like there is no tomorrow. They exaggerate, embellish, and cover every angle with 10 different cameras and show the video forwards, backwards, and upside down. Even worse, is that most people don't know enough about science to be properly skeptical, and don't have enough common sense to realize that the media is playing them like a kitten and a string.

So, a scientists says "We may want to cut down on carbs a little..."

The media picks that up and publishes "CARBS ARE EVIL!"

And the common folk immediately start ritualistically chanting "ATKINS! ATKINS!"

The scientists, meanwhile, are back in their labs, acutely unaware of what is going on outside.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell, ruthlessly compressed and incredibly simplified, but if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

[Stonecoldvampzy]

Angelicos, on 10 April 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

Let me start by saying i dont know everything in the field of science, and i beleive there are some things that it cant explain. But i am trying to look into it and learn more.

Can't ask for a better start than that.

Quote

Now, the part about science i dont get is the fact that it keeps changing until it fits somehow. For instance a particle is discoverd, but it cant work without another "unknown particle" then suddenly, that particle exsist we just havent found it yet. How can that be credible?

Okay, what you are talking about there is what is known as "theoretical science". Theoretical science is science based on hard logic, not necessarily evidence. In other words, you start with a known fact or phenomena, and from there you extrapolate a possible cause, and what would be required for that cause to exist. In other words, you make an assumption about a particular process, and then work backwards to try to see if it could work.

So, let's say that that we have a particular force called blue, and another force called purple, and we have an inkling that the forces are somehow connected, but we just aren't sure quite how. A scientist creates a theoretical cause and effect trail, saying "well, if blue does this, and then does that, and then does this again, we would logically get purple." Now, there is no evidence that the three steps in between exist, but for the sake of theoretical science, the scientist assumes they do. Now, they work backwards to validate the three assumptions they made. Sometimes, working backwards, they can actually find proof that one of the assumptions they made is actually correct, and that is pretty cool when it happens. Einstein, for all intents and purposes, simply assumed that light traveled at a constant speed. He then spent twenty years finding the proof that he needed for it, and eventually did.

But, sometimes, you work the problem all the way around, and although you can prove beyond a doubt that the process would indeed work if your assumption is correct...you just can't quite manage to find proof that your assumption is actually responsible, or even exists. That is the particle that you are talking about in your post. Somewhere, some scientist has a theory about something, and as far as they can tell, their theory will work...if the particle exists. They simply have to wait and hope that technology will catch up to the theory and prove them right.

To make it even more simplistic, I could say that I have a box outside my home, and inexplicably, several times a week, letters and flyers seem to magically appear in there. Now, I theorize that somehow, at some moment in time when I am not watching, there must be some sort of process at work that makes those papers appear in the box. I will assume, for the purposes of the theory, that it is a person who is putting the papers in there, because when I follow the logical chain of progression, a person does indeed have the ability to create the phenomena of putting flyers in my mailbox. All I have to do is prove that my assumption is correct (I could be wrong. For all I know, a trained bird or a robot is doing it). Technology catches up to me in the form of a camera. I set up the camera and manage to take a picture of some guy wearing a blue uniform appearing regularly by my box and putting letters and papers in it. Now my assumption has been proven, with the discovery and documentation of this missing particle, the mailman.

Quote

Also the food science. That also keeps changing. I remember a few years ago chocolate was one of the worst things to eat. now its being recommendet. this also keeps going on and on. One moment its good, next moment its not. Then it is again. I just dont understand it.

Ah, okay, that one you can't really blame science for.

See, the big problem with science is that it sucks at PR. Scientists spend too much time in their labs to be good at communicating with people who don't find ridiculously large and abstract numbers and tediously long hours staring through a microscope fascinating. To make matters worse, the field which usually is in charge of passing on scientific message from scientists to the world is the media, and the media is the polar opposite of boring. They are, frankly, not physically capable of being boring (it's evolution in action; media that develops the ability to become boring is soon eliminated by its competition). So you have the media, who absolutely needs things to be exciting, and scientists who, as a rule...tend to be anything but.

The long and the short of it is that the moment scientists say anything, the media plays it up like there is no tomorrow. They exaggerate, embellish, and cover every angle with 10 different cameras and show the video forwards, backwards, and upside down. Even worse, is that most people don't know enough about science to be properly skeptical, and don't have enough common sense to realize that the media is playing them like a kitten and a string.

So, a scientists says "We may want to cut down on carbs a little..."

The media picks that up and publishes "CARBS ARE EVIL!"

And the common folk immediately start ritualistically chanting "ATKINS! ATKINS!"

The scientists, meanwhile, are back in their labs, acutely unaware of what is going on outside.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell, ruthlessly compressed and incredibly simplified, but if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

That actually does make sense. Thank you very much for explaining this. It made things alot clearer. I will look into it deeper, and when i come up with more questions i will certainly post them. Thank you once again

[ninjadude]

No thats not the issue, how can u say a particle exists when you cant prove it yet? Its seems to me, like they just keep inventing stuff that fits theyr picture of how it works

Science cannot "prove" anything. It seeks the best explanation for the available evidence. As evidence changes, the best explanation changes. Constantly.

[danielost]

Let me start by saying i dont know everything in the field of science, and i beleive there are some things that it cant explain. But i am trying to look into it and learn more.

Now, the part about science i dont get is the fact that it keeps changing until it fits somehow. For instance a particle is discoverd, but it cant work without another "unknown particle" then suddenly, that particle exsist we just havent found it yet. How can that be credible?

Also the food science. That also keeps changing. I remember a few years ago chocolate was one of the worst things to eat. now its being recommendet. this also keeps going on and on. One moment its good, next moment its not. Then it is again. I just dont understand it.

If there is anyone who can explain this to me, it would be greatly appreciated.

that is how science works. it redefines itself as new things are discovered.

as for the food thing, i think it is more about polictly correctness.

as for chocolet, the chocolet itself is good for you, it is a fruit. what is bad for you is the suger in it. so the best chocolet to eat is dark chocolet that is at least 60%.

as for fat, a diet high in fat is better for than a no fat diet. the body burns fat and stores carbs.

[StoneSmasher]

Do not confuse hypothesis with theory. Theory, in science does not mean a guess or a unproven method of causation like we understand its use in crime dramas. The term for that is hypothesis. In science, a theory is:"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing." (1) or "

An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence" (2) So replace Aquatas1's use of theory with hypothesis and you got it.

1. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

2. http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html