Is science accurate?

Weaver · **#21** by **Weaver** » Oct 29, 2014 4:43 pm

Certainly there are error bars on any measurement data set.

But those error bars are not gaps into which gods should be forced, or from which gods will be found.

As artist Randall Munroe said, the error bars on this graph, which shows the measured Cosmic Background Radiation plotted over the expected, are too small to show on the graph. Fine example of the predictive ability of science - scientists predicted what the plot would look like, then orbited the COBE spacecraft to measure it, and found the measurements fitted the graph with a high degree of precision, and with very small measurement errors.

epepke · **#22** by **epepke** » Oct 29, 2014 5:02 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Shrunk wrote:What sort of measurements are supposed to confirm or refute God's existence, anyway?

Big ones with lots of integers, no fuck it - ALL the integers!

Got those. I want to see some hot ℵ₁ action. Isn't He supposed to be good with Hebrew?

Macdoc · **#23** by **Macdoc** » Oct 29, 2014 7:17 pm

One hopes the worst case here not so accurate

Blackadder · **#24** by **Blackadder** » Oct 29, 2014 7:41 pm

The OP is just a thinly disguised version of "you can't know everything, therefore God". It's God of the Gaps version 1.1.

So we cannot measure everything to absolute presicion? Apart from the fact that the universe at quantum levels defies absolute (deterministic) measurement, I'd like to see a theist define absolute precision. Most of them cannot even define the God they worship.

hackenslash · **#25** by **hackenslash** » Oct 29, 2014 7:47 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Accelerator wrote:...value
There are things we can accuratly count, one hydrogen atom, two h-atoms (it's going to be already here difficult -> isotops, but let's keep it simple) but if we try to measure how fast is X moving or the weight of Y, everythings going to be inaccurate since A)we measure inaccurate in the first place B)X or/and Y are influenced by graviy/other forces, of other objects, of every other photon/electron/atom/molecule/etc.

It's worse than that. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know every single physical parameter of an object at the quantum level. And this is not just a statement of the technological limits of our measuring devices, or of the fact that we cannot measure a value without somehow affecting that value. It is more along the lines of a physical law stating that once one of these parameters is precisely measured, the other parameters do not exist except as a range of possible values, the extent of which varies inversely with the precision of the initial measurement.

That is to say, an object cannot have a precisely defined location and a precisely defined momentum. It not just that we cannot know both of them. It's that they both cannot exist.

That's my understanding, anyway. Hopefully the physics-heads (I'm looking at you, campermon) will correct anything I said there that might be misleading.

That's a reasonably good précis, but there's something even worse waiting in the wings, especially with regard to measuring the masses of the fundamental particles. If the standard model is correct, then all massive particles are actually black holes, because they're all point particles with zero spatial extent, meaning that their masses are entirely contained within their Schwarzschild radii. We measure the masses we do at an arbitrary distance away from them, in all cases.

Shrunk · **#26** by **Shrunk** » Oct 29, 2014 7:52 pm

hackenslash wrote:If the standard model is correct, then all massive particles are actually black holes, because they're all point particles with zero spatial extent, meaning that their masses are entirely contained within their Schwarzschild radii. We measure the masses we do at an arbitrary distance away from them, in all cases.

So that's where God must be hiding: Beyond the event horizon of all those tiny black holes. The sneaky bugger.

hackenslash · **#27** by **hackenslash** » Oct 29, 2014 7:58 pm

It's worth nothing that the Standard Model is almost certainly not correct.

Veida · **#28** by **Veida** » Oct 29, 2014 8:44 pm

I'd say that science is increasingly accurate.

surreptitious57 · **#29** by **surreptitious57** » Oct 29, 2014 9:09 pm

It is important to remember scientific laws are based on the best available evidence at any one time. But evidence is never complete unlike proof which is. The discovery of a theory of quantum gravity will no doubt provide a more accurate picture with regard to the Standard Model. But knowledge can never be absolute so scientific understanding shall always be partial

Spearthrower · **#30** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 30, 2014 12:55 am

epepke wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Shrunk wrote:What sort of measurements are supposed to confirm or refute God's existence, anyway?

Big ones with lots of integers, no fuck it - ALL the integers!

Got those. I want to see some hot ℵ₁ action. Isn't He supposed to be good with Hebrew?

I think the Bible suggests he pwns Hebrew.

laklak · **#31** by **laklak** » Oct 30, 2014 3:59 am

It's good enough for government work.

Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Re: Is science accurate?

Who is online