Bashing -- repeatable experiments
At various times, you two (particularly Jeff) have declared something like the following:
The only things which should be accepted are things which can be demonstrated/proven by some repeatable experiment.
For convenience, I'll call this "The JB Prinicple", though I know that Jeff B. is by no means the only one who would hold to such a thing.
So my questions would be:
(1) Is my statement of the JB Principle accurate?
(2) What is the repeatable experiment which establishes the JB Principle?
Jeff
Gibsons, B.C.
Craft Beer Radio is an Internet talk show about craft and micro brewed beers. The mission of the show is to spread the word of good beer. We introduce people to craft beer, and teach them about different beer styles, brewers who make them, and beer history. Whether you are new to craft beer or have been drinking it for more than 20 years we have something for you.
If you have comments or questions that you would like us to read over the air, Email Us.
Not to comment on the JB
Not to comment on the JB principle, but an idea for an experiment: Throw a ball up in the air. It comes down. Throw it up again. It comes down. Go 50 miles away, throw it up in the air. It comes down.
Repeatable experiment. proves that when you throw something up, it comes back down.
Sure, it doesn't get into the fact that if you threw it up at faster than 32 ft/sec/sec it would be able to get out of Earth's orbit. It's therefore incomplete. But any explanation for what happens has to take into account this provable, repeatable experiment: You throw the ball up in the air, it comes back down.
Adding to Greg's post,
Adding to Greg's post, another part of repeatability is that a scientific experiment must be repeatable by other people/scientists. If Greg calls me up and says, "Hey, I just threw a ball into the air and it came back down," I can say, "Ok, I'll try." I go outside, throw the ball up, and it comes back down. Ah-ha! There is something to this falling thing! If, however, I don't get the same results, then further research is required to see what is going on.
Why Greg is wrong
>if you threw it up at faster than 32 ft/sec/sec it would be able to get out of Earth's orbit.
That (32 ft/sec/sec) is an acceleration, not a velocity. You cannot throw something "at" an acceleration.
Besides that, throwing an object at the veolicty of 32 ft/sec will not let it leave Earth's orbit. Escape velocity is more like 7 miles/sec, and that isn't even a velocity it's a speed, we just call it "velocity".
Ya got me. I was of course
Ya got me. I was of course thinking of acceleration due to gravity. That is not the same thing as what is required to get out of the earth's gravitational pull.
Corrections are a good thing!
>Corrections are a good thing!
Of course they are, figuring out what is right is the point of science :)
Hmmm....
I smell an attempt at a trap.
IT'S A TRAAAAP
/begin definition of trap (for Greg)
"Hey Greg I just drank a Stone beer and it was totally tasty and not sticky. Then I drank another one and it was even tastier (Repeat 12 times). Try and repeat the experiment where you are and see if you get the same results."
/end definition
Just kidding Greg (both Gregs, heh) ;-)
-JDZJ
Tempe, AZ
Something tells me this is going to turn into the next religion thread...
Yeah, I smell trap too.
Yeah, I smell trap too.
Trapped?
It seems to me that proponents of the JB Principle are indeed trapped, but it's not because I'm being tricky or something. I did not set the trap, I am merely pointing it out. I am showing that (unless I'm missing something) adherents to the JB Principle are not able to be consistent.
I recognize the attempt at a
I recognize the attempt at a trap but just saying "aha, you're trapped!" doesn't make it so.
An experiment is like throwing a ball up in the air and it comes back down, and it's repeatable and consistent. How do you get from throwing a ball up in the air to the Big Bang theory? I'm not going to discuss 500 years of scientific thought and advancement in a forum post. Suffice it to say, whether you wanted to trap or not, there's no "there" there. It's a non-starter.
Jeff, I'm perfectly willing to continue discussing why I believe in science and why you believe in faith, and believe me, I can go on and on about what I find fascinating in science and what I find insane about some scientists, and I will probably continue to do so. But trolling to make "gotcha" points isn't accomplishing anything.
Not a troll ... still trapped
You're correct, saying "you're trapped" doesn't make it so. But to demonstrate that you're not trapped there needs to be an answer to the inconsistency I'm pointing out. The ad hominem (calling me a troll) (1) didn't answer it, and (2) was inaccurate. If I had never listened to your show, and came on here bringing up religion even though you hadn't talked about it on your show, then for sure, I'd be a troll. But I've been a pretty faithful listener since about CBR 88, and religion-related issues come up fairly frequently on your pre and post shows.
So it seems that you like talking about religion, and science. And I enjoy listening to some of it too. But what if I think I see inconsistencies, logical fallacies, or errors? I could just sit back and ignore it, but then I see you've got this nifty little message board.
I know what an experiment is, and I'm not asking you to go from gravity to the Big Bang. I am pointing out that, as far as I can tell, proponents of the JB Principle do not live up to it.
Where's the inconsistency?
Where's the inconsistency? You haven't even mentioned what it is. You say you're pointing it out, but I see no inconsistency. Therefore I see no trap.
I beg your pardon...
I beg your pardon... I thought that you (and others) already saw it.
What is the repeatable experiment which proves the JB Principle?
The throwing-a-ball-up test shows that you can devise a repeatable experiment. That's fine. But the JB principle says that the only things which should be accepted are things which can be proven by an experiment. So if I'm to accept the JBP, I want to see the experiment that proves it. If there isn't such an experiment, then according to the JBP, the JBP should not be accepted.
Repeatable experiments prove
Repeatable experiments prove themselves by their nature of being repeatable. I mean, what else can you say?
I don't understand what it is you're getting at.
It seems that you fully
It seems that you fully understand my example of the JB Particle. That if it can not be experimentally detected, then there is no way of knowing if it exists or not. And at that point, does it even matter if it exists.
Then I went on to say this particle is the same as god. but I have no intention on commenting about this any more on this forum.
Jeff, I've let you speak your mind and I beleive your right to do so since we kind of called you out on the show and you had not direct retort. But I agree with some of the others that you seem to be trolling with some of your comments.
Please don't take that as a threat either, I have no intenion on moderating you unless I see that you are keeping arguments going for just for arguments sake.
Don't be upset that I don't participate in these conversations any longer, but I have a newborn to take are of.
Okay... thanks for the
Okay... thanks for the explanation Jeff, and Greig. There's more I'd like to say, but I don't want to be pest so I'll be quiet now... for a while. :-)
Enjoy taking care of the newborn -- that picture is very cute!
Why it seems troll-ish
Hi Jeff,
I see why you'd be upset at being labelled a troll, but from where I am sitting it did look like one also. The main reason for this to me is that in the previous thread, most people had pretty much thrown up their hands and decided that you're totally entitled to your faith, but the argument had descended to the point where there was no point going on. "You" can't prove anything, you just have faith, and "we" can't disprove faith. People seemed to want to stay amicable, so the thread died a natural death.
Next, you started another religion thread. It got no replies. So you started a third one! It really seems like you want to keep bringing it up. If that's because you want to keep discussing it, that's cool, but you have to admit it does look a bit like someone just trying to generate replies/flames. That's what a troll does.
I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt - I enjoy a good religious debate too. From an atheist perspective, I have never been able to understand the need/desire to believe in something which seems highly unlikely just for its own sake. I like trying to understand the mindset of people who can believe in something which has nothing to support it other than itself. I just thought that we had pretty much talked it to death on here.
Make sense?
As always, no offense meant. Just trying to explain my view to someone in a different country, of a different culture, and with a different perspective on reality to myself. :)
Well said Greig
What a great community Jeff and Greg have here. The troll (sorry jroe) is one of the most well spoken and articulate of the variety. The replies to the troll like behavior are well thought out and polite. I don't think anyone has yet called anyone else Hitler even!
Uh
Is not this "JB Principle" nothing more than the Scientific Method? I'm not the science geek here, but I remember that pretty much summing up what I learned in science.
I concur
I concur.
Also, I learned that methane bubbles are great for lighting ceilings on fire. Ah High School...
-JDZJ
Tempe, AZ
And I only thought methane
And I only thought methane was good for lighting farts on fire.
Nope
Get a tub of soapy water and pump methane through it with a hose and make a tower of bubbles then throw a match on it. Good times. I think that was the only day of A.P. Chemistry when I got an A.
-JDZJ
Tempe, AZ
I've seen that done on
I've seen that done on mythbusters, I had grander thoughts of ceiling on fire. like where you have a layer of methane up against the entre ceiling of the classroom and then it's lit. looks like a ceiling of fire for a second and burns out harmlessly.
At least that is what I'd want to see.
That sounds awesome! I have
That sounds awesome! I have a feeling it could very well actually set the roof on fire though.
Well, I was in high school
Well, I was in high school long before they did it on mythbusters. I think it's been kind of a closet awesome thing that chemistry teachers have shown their students for quite some time. My dad told me a similar story of a chemistry teacher he had that took the first day of class to show everyone what NOT to do, one of which was turn on every methane valve and then throw a match from the classroom into the lab. All I got was methane bubbles.
In response to the second part, most of the time it only appeared to light the ceiling on fire and did not, however when we made an enormous pillar of bubbles that coated the ceiling, for whatever reason, it actually caught the ceiling on fire. Being in proximity to that kind of heat for long enough made it combust I would guess.
-JDZJ
Tempe, AZ
Relevance?
I forget where I heard it, but:
"Everyone believes in something, whether it be God or some other higher being. Those that do not believe in some sort of higher being believe in themselves."
An extension to the quote was something like "Those that believe in nothing cease to exist and/or commit suicide."
For example...People believe in God or mankind or in scientists or the government or belly lint etc. etc. etc.
Just thought it was a couple of interesting quotes that these religion threads constantly remind me of.
-JDZJ
Tempe, AZ