Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Scientific Misconceptions

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:28 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
June 22, 2025, 03:34 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
June 21, 2025, 01:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
June 21, 2025, 07:37 AM
New Britain
June 20, 2025, 09:26 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
June 18, 2025, 09:24 PM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 10:20 PM
News From Syria
June 17, 2025, 05:58 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 17, 2025, 10:47 AM
ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 02, 2025, 10:25 AM
What happens in these day...
June 02, 2025, 09:27 AM
What's happened to the fo...
June 01, 2025, 10:43 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Scientific Misconceptions

 (Read 6138 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     OP - July 20, 2014, 01:06 PM
    So, we've probably all of heard of "evolution is just a theory", or "goldfish have a memory span of just a few seconds", etc.

    So this is the thread where we can quell these misunderstandings. All can participate! If you have heard of silly things in your life, state them here and tell us why/how they're wrong.

  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #1 - July 20, 2014, 01:15 PM
    Physical sciences or can it span social science too?
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #2 - July 20, 2014, 01:17 PM
    Yes, they can span all things classified as 'science'. And Math as well.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #3 - July 20, 2014, 01:32 PM
    .
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #4 - July 20, 2014, 01:58 PM
    Misconception: (As defined by classical Economics) "Efficient" is good whilst "Inefficient" is bad. This is widely promulgated within public policy.
    Politicians generally extoll policies which lead to "efficient" outcomes whilst decrying policies that lead to "inefficient" outcomes.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Why this is wrong:

    Essentially because it is a false dilemma.


    To start with, let's see the nuanced definition of what efficiency actually is within Economics.  

    Outcome x is efficient if there exists no other outcome y that is technologically feasible (that is, feasible given the available resources and technology) and that Pareto dominates x. Otherwise, x is inefficient.
    Pareto optimality is when you reach a situation where a further movement can't occur without someone else losing out.

    Let's assume that we are sharing a cake.
    Let "1" represent the whole set which represents the entire cake.  Any permutations and combinations which lead to a sum of 1 are the feasible sets.
    I.e. (0.4, 0.6), (0.3, 0.7) , (0.2  0.8 ) etc...

    A pareto optimal situation is where any further movement would cause someone to lose out. I.e., let's say that between myself and you, we decide to share the cake 50/50, so the feasible set is (0.5,0.5).
    Any movement from here would cause at least one of us to lose out, this is therefore a situation which pareto dominates all others.

    Now, we can tie this back into our definition of efficiency:
    X is efficient if there is no way to make someone strictly better off without making someone else strictly worse off.

    An Efficient outcome need not be better than the inefficient outcome.
    Who can say that, in dividing-a-pie example, (1,0) is better than (0.4,0.4)?
    The efficient outcome can be grossly unequal.

    Example: First Welfare Theorem

    Under certain conditions (many buyers and sellers, no externalities, etc.), free markets lead to an efficient outcome.
    Hence, free markets are “good”.

    I'm not starkly opposed to the idea that something is better than the other, and politicians want to call it "efficient". However, they are making these assumptions from a positive framework whilst it is actually normative.
    They are elluding to efficiency being some sort of objective principle which can evaluate policies with ease.

    Most policies involve winners and losers.
    Whether they are good or bad depends on subjective ethical judgments.
    In my view, instead of pretending to have objective answers, economists should focus on describing which policy leads to what outcome and who gains/loses what.
    Which policies are “good” or “bad” should be left up to politicians/citizens/students and whoever is impacted by them.














    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #5 - July 20, 2014, 02:10 PM
    I think Evolution in general is poorly understood. Climate change is another and so is nutrition. Basically any topic that is heavily politicised is open to interest groups distorting how facts are perceived.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
     Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
     Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God." - Epicurus
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #6 - July 20, 2014, 02:47 PM
    This is quite interesting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWn86ESze6M
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #7 - July 20, 2014, 02:51 PM
    one of the most annoying misconceptions is the idea that 'science is based in induction; induction is just generalising; generalising is stupid; and therefore any scientific ideas that we don't like can be dismissed'.

    this is especially annoying when it is prefixed with 'if you study the philosophy of science...' (as if they have done)
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #8 - July 20, 2014, 02:56 PM
    It's even cuter when they conflate inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning as Imran Hussein aptly demonstrates here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtgnFZWJd0I&list=UUEK62eT4ZUPxLHckTpNZNAA
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #9 - July 20, 2014, 03:01 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on July 20, 2014, 02:51 PM
    one of the most annoying misconceptions is the idea that 'science is based in induction; induction is just generalizing; generalizing is stupid;  ......................

    well dr_sloth  I am not sure in what sense you are using that word "induction"  but  In sciences and even in biology whether it is animals or humans., This "induction" plays  a very important initial role to start up new things.,  But if you stop right at the induction level and don't improve with time then we  stagnate at that initial level and  that is stupid.

    with best regards
    yeezevee
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #10 - July 20, 2014, 03:07 PM
    What he is trying to say Yeez, is that apologists try to create a straw man out of the Scientific method by claiming that it is only based on induction. They then argue against this straw man by claiming that induction can never lead to absolute conclusions hence the scientific method is limited.
    Therefore, God.

    What they forget to mention is that the scope of the Scientific method is not limited to Induction, deductive reasoning also plays a part as does abductive reasoning.

    The first argument is guility of the fallacy of division.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #11 - July 20, 2014, 03:15 PM
    they think 'the problem of induction' is 'the problem of science'. Whereas it is merely a problem of not having all knowledge. I.e, a problem for everybody including the apologists. Or more pragmatically, not a problem at all.

    Science uses all methods that work, including deduction, induction, and abduction. Whereas the apologists suggest that we can avoid the 'problem of induction' by simply not testing our deductions at all.  They suggest we stick to pure deduction, and only accept scientific conclusions if they agree with the quran (which is already deductively proven to be mega miraculous.)

    If we can deduce that an object can't be in two places at once, because that would violate the (god given) laws of logic, then we can dismiss everything in quantum mechanics, because deduction can produce certainty, and induction (by which they mean science) sucks in comparison.

    They dont know anything about science, logic, or philosophy of science. These misconceptions about 'the limitations of science' are particularly annoying because they combine misconceptions about all three.


  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #12 - July 20, 2014, 03:25 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on July 20, 2014, 02:51 PM
    this is especially annoying when it is prefixed with 'if you study the philosophy of science...' (as if they have done)


    This.

    Read one book, is now an expert.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #13 - July 20, 2014, 03:27 PM
    Quote from: dr_sloth on July 20, 2014, 03:15 PM

    ...........They don't know anything about science, logic, or philosophy of science. These misconceptions about 'the limitations of science' are particularly annoying because they combine misconceptions about all three.

    that is the core problem there, these high school dropped out idiots are projecting themselves as Scientific intellectuals at the same time they want stupid religious book as manual to modern science and on the way they act as headless chickens or Islamic preachers..  .. A fellow in Science will not cut butter with Scientific knife and  religious knife.   He/she will only use one knife...
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #14 - July 20, 2014, 03:32 PM
    ok i spoke to some scholar today
    they had to say this about 86;7
    'science could be wrong 20 years down the line-what then'

    didnt really know how to respond to him

    any ideas, hit me with some definitive logic no puns or jokes please
    Life is like a box of chocolates, shut the fuck up and eat them!
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #15 - July 20, 2014, 03:36 PM
    My reply:

    Yes it could be wrong, as could pretty much everything we know in 20 years. Allah could decide to wipe out the cosmos tomorrow, does that mean that he WILL wipe out the cosmos tomorrow?

    Everything so far points to Science being the best method in terms of testable predictions and verifying observations.
    If you use the scientific method to build a plane, it flies.

    Mr. Scholar, if you want to claim that Islam is the absolute truth then you have inadvertently asserted it as hypothesis which is in competition with Science. (when in reality, they are not even on the same spectrum)
    So, what valid predictions has Islam made, that can be tested and verified?

    Remember that he has the burden of proof here, if he wants to demonstrate that all of Science could be wrong within 20 years, he has to bring some evidence to the table.

    This is why metaphysical naturalism > supernaturalism.


    Watch this video, it tackles the "absolute truth" argument in a very intuitive manner.


    Tl;dr:

    So what?

    Scientists have been wrong before, so they made amendments.

    He is arguing against Scientism- not the Scientific method.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnlW59--JE
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #16 - July 20, 2014, 03:40 PM
    Quote from: Navtheshocker on July 20, 2014, 03:32 PM
    ok i spoke to some scholar today
    they had to say this about 86;7
    'science could be wrong 20 years down the line-what then'

    didnt really know how to respond to him

    any ideas, hit me with some definitive logic no puns or jokes please

    scholarHuh?  Hu!   scholar .. Fool..

    That fool is partially correct., Science does change  all the time provided if some one proves that the field of science he/she working-in  is not correct either experimentally or mathematically  or with models and   examples.  UNLIKE THIS STUPID RELIGIOUS MAMBO JUMBO in some silly books written by some cave men whose IQ level and knowledge in sciences is less that of an 8 year old kid of 21st century  

    That is exactly the reason all Scientific fields and their  publications asks for error bars, probabilities and  statistical weights for every paper published.
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #17 - July 20, 2014, 03:44 PM
    the scholar is suggesting that we must choose between Islam, and the best currently available evidence.
    i think he is correct

  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #18 - July 20, 2014, 05:08 PM
    Quote from: Navtheshocker on July 20, 2014, 03:32 PM
    ok i spoke to some scholar today
    they had to say this about 86;7
    'science could be wrong 20 years down the line-what then'

    didnt really know how to respond to him

    any ideas, hit me with some definitive logic no puns or jokes please


    You just ask them if they think that the various sophisticated technologies that are premissed on that scientific understanding, which we take for granted and are embedded in our daily lives - communications, computing, imaging systems, satellites, materials etc etc etc - wil then mysteriously stop working too.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #19 - July 20, 2014, 11:55 PM
    I was hoping to avoid bringing religion into this discussion, but it's probably inevitable as religion can be the source of many misconceptions. Anyway:

    How about two misconceptions that I commonly run into:

    Misconception: Evolution is "just" a THEORY.

    This misconception is one we've all heard of. It likely stems from the common English usage of the word "theory", meaning an educated guess.

    Firstly, saying something is "just" a theory somehow implies that a theory can turn into a law or a principle. This assumed hierarchy in science is entirely non-existent, and is the result of ignorance of scientific terminology. Each term is no better than the other, or evolves into another.

    The National Academy of Sciences describe the terms as such:

    Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

    Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

    As you can see, theories can incorporate laws, postulates, principles, etc.

    Finally, to criticize the theory of evolution by saying it is "just a theory" is also a criticism on the theories of special and general relativity, the Standard Model, QED, etc, etc.

    Misconception: The radius of the observable universe is about 14 Billion Light Years

    I was having a chat with a fellow member on Skype and the question came up. Unfortunately I may have not been able to clearly get the idea across back then.

    This time, I’ll try to be concise:

    The radius of the observable universe would be defined by the greatest distance light would have had time to reach us since the Big Bang. Naturally, with the age of the universe at about 14B years, you would assume the furthest observable part we can see is 14 Billion light years around Earth since x=ct for motion at a constant velocity c (speed of light). X is distance.

    However, throughout this time the universe has been expanding. Imagine that as a ray of light travels from galaxy A to galaxy B, extra space is being created in between A and B, so that by the time the light arrives, the distance is greater than ct. Take the oldest light to be about 14 billion years. In that time light travels 14 billion light years, the distance has grown since the light traveled, and the object which emitted it is much further away, by factor N.

    This factor can be calculated mathematically to about 3.3 giving a radius of about 45.5B ly. If you're interested in the math, I can tell you.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #20 - July 21, 2014, 12:12 AM
    Fantastic thread. Carry on. popcorn
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #21 - July 27, 2014, 01:07 AM
    Misconception: Microwaves are radioactive

    Microwaves are low-frequency, non-ionizing EM radiation. Inside the oven, microwaves are produced by an electron tube called a magnetron and the microwaves are reflected within the metal interior of the oven where they are absorbed by the food. Microwaves cause water molecules in the food to vibrate, causing it to heat up. This is obviously a very basic outline of how microwave ovens work.

    Seriously, you're not going to get cancer from your microwave.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #22 - July 27, 2014, 01:35 AM
    It's good that we have Descent to clear these things up.

    I think once he gets his degree he will be the second physicist to join CEMB.

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #23 - July 27, 2014, 01:44 AM
    Who was the first, may I ask?
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #24 - July 27, 2014, 02:10 AM
    Quote from: Stardust on May 14, 2009, 09:37 PM

    IsLame - I'm doing pure physics, I never heard of applied until I got into uni.

       

    This is from a reaaaaly old thread. 
    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #25 - July 27, 2014, 05:09 AM
    I have a question. Theoretically, would it be possible to create a universe, cage it and leech power from said baby universe?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #26 - July 27, 2014, 11:15 AM
    Quote from: TheDarkRebel on July 27, 2014, 02:10 AM
       

    This is from a reaaaaly old thread. 

    Cool, I always suspected Stardust to be a physicist, due to her name and signature. I wish she was still active.
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #27 - July 27, 2014, 01:32 PM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on July 27, 2014, 05:09 AM
    I have a question. Theoretically, would it be possible to create a universe, cage it and leech power from said baby universe?

    I'm no physicist, but theoretically it could be possible. However how would you cage it? and more importantly how would we leech energy from it? (which i'm assuming is what you meant by power.) and how can we generate enough energy to create this hypothetical universe?

    Descent we need you.
    Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #28 - July 27, 2014, 05:07 PM
    How would (and could) you create a universe when you don't even know all the variables in this one?
  • Scientific Misconceptions
     Reply #29 - July 27, 2014, 05:19 PM
    I know the secret of Dark energy/Matter.
    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »