Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern

[Exalt]

There is observation ala science and there is Revelation.

I know you’re Catholic, and you’re devoted to your Church.

However, it seems that the difference in the quality between scientific inquiry and ‘revealed’ truths by spiritual leaders is huge. One has a wealth of evidence behind it, peer reviews, experimentation… And the other is gleaned from a holy book and traditions dating back to two thousand years ago. It seems pretty obvious to me that one is reliable … And one isn’t. Right?

 

[whitecrayon]

as someone noted above, the claims to the reported findings should be taken now with a grain of salt. there are five things that define scientific findings:

. precision - from a hunch or theory, a scientist derives a hypothesis that attempts to describe or explain a given phenomenon, and this hypothesis must be made precise in terms of predictions and operational definitions.

. skepticism - skepticism means treating conclusions, both new and old, with caution, balanced by an openness to new ideas and evidence; some of the greatest scientific advances have been made by those who dared to doubt what everyone else assumed to be true.

. empiricism - scientific findings must rely on empirical evidence (evidence based on observation or experience).

. risk-taking - a scientist must risk disconfirmation by predicting not only what will happen, but also what will not happen. according to the scientific principle of falsifiability, a scientist must state an idea in such a way that it can be refuted or disproved by counterevidence.

. openness - scientists must be willing to tell others where they got their ideas, how they tested them, and what the results were, all clearly and in detail so that other scientists can replicate their studies and challenge their findings.

i hope this list and these explanations help the forum readers undestand better contemporary philisophy of science.

 

[Darryl1958]

I know you’re Catholic, and you’re devoted to your Church.

However, it seems that the difference in the quality between scientific inquiry and ‘revealed’ truths by spiritual leaders is huge. One has a wealth of evidence behind it, peer reviews, experimentation… And the other is gleaned from a holy book and traditions dating back to two thousand years ago. It seems pretty obvious to me that one is reliable … And one isn’t. Right?

You wouldn’t attempt to get your main instruction to a dance class from a physiology class, or to teach dance purely as a matter if kinesiology.
Or you shouldn’t at any rate.

Similarly, to try to get through life without the wisdom of the ages is having similar rather ridiculous results. Ours is an age of stupidity, in spite of the great advances of science and technology. We now have pictures of each other’s belly buttons and genitalia being sent across the globe at the speed of light—and even that may be too slow, now that even Einstein is being disproved by the latest advance.

 

[Pork_Roll]

What I read is that they didn’t take into account the amount of time it takes to press down and release the stop watch button.

 

[Holly3278]

I know you’re Catholic, and you’re devoted to your Church.

However, it seems that the difference in the quality between scientific inquiry and ‘revealed’ truths by spiritual leaders is huge. One has a wealth of evidence behind it, peer reviews, experimentation… And the other is gleaned from a holy book and traditions dating back to two thousand years ago. It seems pretty obvious to me that one is reliable … And one isn’t. Right?

No offense but I can assure you that the Catholic Church is very reliable. The Bible is also very reliable. Everything that the Catholic Church teaches was revealed by God. God cannot make errors, humans can. Therefore, the Catholic Church is superior.

 

[rlg94086]

So what does the Pope think about these neutrinos breaking god’s natural laws?

Your question is nonsensical.

There is no indication from anyone that the neutinos are breaking “God’s natural laws.”

 

[Darryl1958]

What I read is that they didn’t take into account the amount of time it takes to press down and release the stop watch button.

Fortunately the Neutrinos raced back into time time and did if for them. They got back before they began and as such clocked a negative time.

 

[rlg94086]

I know you’re Catholic, and you’re devoted to your Church.

However, it seems that the difference in the quality between scientific inquiry and ‘revealed’ truths by spiritual leaders is huge. One has a wealth of evidence behind it, peer reviews, experimentation… And the other is gleaned from a holy book and traditions dating back to two thousand years ago. It seems pretty obvious to me that one is reliable … And one isn’t. Right?

You have incredible faith in the limited capacity of human reasoning. It is no different than an unborn chick thinking his egg is all that exists.

 

[ricmat]

I know you’re Catholic, and you’re devoted to your Church.

However, it seems that the difference in the quality between scientific inquiry and ‘revealed’ truths by spiritual leaders is huge. One has a wealth of evidence behind it, peer reviews, experimentation… And the other is gleaned from a holy book and traditions dating back to two thousand years ago. It seems pretty obvious to me that one is reliable … And one isn’t. Right?

I haven’t seen anyone here claim that the Bible is a science book. So you seem to be setting up a false choice.

But, since you bring it up…those scientists that said the earth is flat, and that the sun goes around the earth, and that flies spontaneously generated from decaying meat, and that Venus would be just like earth but a tiny bit warmer…etc…etc…etc…etc. They were all “reliable” eh?

What makes you think that science is now reliable? Faith? It’s never been reliable before.

BTW - I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics. So I’m not anti-science. Science gives useful models to engineers in terms of designing bridges or transistors. It seems to be much less useful in terms of telling us about really big and really small things, or the nature of reality.

It is very useful, however, for generating hubris among it’s blind advocates.

 

[Exalt]

I haven’t seen anyone here claim that the Bible is a science book. So you seem to be setting up a false choice.

But, since you bring it up…those scientists that said the earth is flat, and that the sun goes around the earth, and that flies spontaneously generated from decaying meat, and that Venus would be just like earth but a tiny bit warmer…etc…etc…etc…etc. They were all “reliable” eh?

What makes you think that science is now reliable? Faith? It’s never been reliable before.

BTW - I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics. So I’m not anti-science. Science gives useful models to engineers in terms of designing bridges or transistors. It seems to be much less useful in terms of telling us about really big and really small things, or the nature of reality.

It is very useful, however, for generating hubris among it’s blind advocates.

Interesting. I actually have a degree in Religious Studies. Ironic, isn’t it?

So, about science: The reason scientific inquiry is so important is because it understands that human beings are really bad at coming to correct conclusions about the world. We connect cause and effect where there really isn’t any. We trust rumors. We are predisposed to all sorts of biases and use flawed heuristics which lead us to very wrong conclusions.

Science is revolutionary because it recognizes our biases and sets up this whole system of skeptical inquiry to circumvent them. So, it’s actually not a weakness that general scientific opinion has been wrong about things before. That’s actually a huge strength. And claiming to have infallible knowledge about something – that’s actually a big weakness, I think.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Read Aquinas’ proof of a creator. It’s brilliant.

Also, just to be clear, RC’s have nothing against scientists–we invented the scientific method, after all.

Some things can not be explained by science: miracles, what existed “1 second*” before the Big Bang, etc

*yes, I am aware there was no time then --it’s a rhetorical device

 

[rlg94086]

And claiming to have infallible knowledge about something – that’s actually a big weakness, I think.

It’s much easier to just say “I don’t know” or “we can’t know.” I’m not sure how that’s any “stronger.”

 

[donsnow]

Okay. Thanks for the answers. I wasn’t sure if this was within the purview of the discussion, but I saw folks talking about global warming and such and figured it wasn’t too off course by comparison. When I saw the article, I immediately thought of Catholic Answers and how the community here would look at it.

I will say, though, that I find your response interesting: For all statements about the world that don’t come from the Catholic Church, we need to be skeptical and accept where the evidence leads us. But if it comes from the Church? Well, then we shouldn’t apply our standards of evidence and skepticism.

That doesn’t strike me as reasonable.

Good afternoon, exalt,

Well, you’ve seen how we look at it: rather soberly.

As far as your second paragraph, I guess the standards one goes by in viewing the world depends upon which authority which individual chooses to go by. In most nontechnical matters, I accept the Church as the authority. Since New Testament scripture enjoins Christians to obey secular authorities, I’m not some kind of social loose-cannon in putting the Church first.
You see, exalt, I see science as no more an authority than any other nonlegal and nonelected establishment. Since I’m not in any science field, I don’t have to go by science standards. People don’t have to go by science standards. Although, it’s wise to respect the knowledge which science comes up with.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Space can expand faster than the speed of light. This is what is happening to distant objects. The stretching of the universe between us and them makes them appear to be receding faster than the speed of light (if we define ourselves to be stationary.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Some people have proposed that we might be able to travel faster than light if we invent a way to control the stretching of space.

Good afternoon, TheTrueCentrist,

Thank you for that observation and the link. I accept wikipedia as a valid reference.

However I still wonder if Quasars are what a galaxy becomes when it accelerates to or beyond the speed of light.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

I know you’re Catholic, and you’re devoted to your Church.

However, it seems that the difference in the quality between scientific inquiry and ‘revealed’ truths by spiritual leaders is huge. One has a wealth of evidence behind it, peer reviews, experimentation… And the other is gleaned from a holy book and traditions dating back to two thousand years ago. It seems pretty obvious to me that one is reliable … And one isn’t. Right?

Hi, again, exalt,

There is more evidence for revealed truth: all of nature, than for each individual science observation. The thing is, skeptics reject natural evidence on one ground or another.

You see, it’s God or His angels, who reveals divine truths to different prophets and Apostles. Then, that prophet or Apostle passes on the information.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Good afternoon, all,

Anyway, back to the OP.

Ive been wondering. Would a large and unknown cavern in the path of the neutrinos through the mass of rock account for the discrepancy in the expected time of travel to the actual time of travel?

Does anybody know how big such an unknown cavern would have to be?

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[buffalo]

Interesting. I actually have a degree in Religious Studies. Ironic, isn’t it?

So, about science: The reason scientific inquiry is so important is because it understands that human beings are really bad at coming to correct conclusions about the world. We connect cause and effect where there really isn’t any. We trust rumors. We are predisposed to all sorts of biases and use flawed heuristics which lead us to very wrong conclusions.

Science is revolutionary because it recognizes our biases and sets up this whole system of skeptical inquiry to circumvent them. So, it’s actually not a weakness that general scientific opinion has been wrong about things before. That’s actually a huge strength. And claiming to have infallible knowledge about something – that’s actually a big weakness, I think.

Exactly, man by himself is incapable. That is why Revelation is necessary. We get truth told to us by truth Himself. It is a true compass. Science is a great attempt at it. But science by its own definition is limited as to what it can say about the universe. It also is weak because it depends on fallible human reasoning.

 

[ricmat]

Interesting. I actually have a degree in Religious Studies. Ironic, isn’t it?

So, about science: The reason scientific inquiry is so important is because it understands that human beings are really bad at coming to correct conclusions about the world. We connect cause and effect where there really isn’t any. We trust rumors. We are predisposed to all sorts of biases and use flawed heuristics which lead us to very wrong conclusions.

If you think science is above such things you are mistaken.

Science is revolutionary because it recognizes our biases and sets up this whole system of skeptical inquiry to circumvent them. So, it’s actually not a weakness that general scientific opinion has been wrong about things before. That’s actually a huge strength.

Even assuming that the skeptical inquiry (peer review - lol) circumvents biases, it still leaves you with the fact that science has ALWAYS been wrong. More or less by definition. It’s not a huge strength. How do you know the current explanations are correct when all the previous ones have been wrong - by definition?

How do you know you’re even “getting close?”

And claiming to have infallible knowledge about something – that’s actually a big weakness, I think.

It seems to me that science actually makes that claim on a number of fronts (global warming, darwinian evolution, and until yesterday - string theory and the “God particle”. This is truly amazing. Scientists prance around saying you’ve GOT to trust us, we’re correct, the end is near, the science is settled (which I interpret as “infallible”), and so forth. They prance and dance right up to the point where they say, it turns out we were wrong, but this NEW GREATEST thing that we just came up with, that’s actually infallibly correct.

The human mind is limited. Our resources are limited. Our senses are limited. Our stupidity is unlimited, as is sometimes our pride. The ONLY way we could have infallible knowledge is if God gave it to us. Now you may debate if we interpret it correctly or not. Or if we understand it in its entire depth, or not. But it seems to me that starting with God’s revealed (infallible) information and trying to figure it out is still a whole lot better than starting at the bottom with our limited capabilities and working up.

 

[Exalt]

Even assuming that the skeptical inquiry (peer review - lol) circumvents biases, it still leaves you with the fact that science has ALWAYS been wrong. More or less by definition. It’s not a huge strength. How do you know the current explanations are correct when all the previous ones have been wrong - by definition?

How do you know you’re even “getting close?”

Well, I’m pretty sure that’s the whole point of the scientific method, right? You start with a hypothesis and then you gather more and more evidence to try and disprove that hypothesis. A hypothesis becomes stronger as the weight of evidence grows.

It seems to me that science actually makes that claim on a number of fronts (global warming, darwinian evolution, and until yesterday - string theory and the “God particle”. This is truly amazing. Scientists prance around saying you’ve GOT to trust us, we’re correct, the end is near, the science is settled (which I interpret as “infallible”), and so forth. They prance and dance right up to the point where they say, it turns out we were wrong, but this NEW GREATEST thing that we just came up with, that’s actually infallibly correct.

The human mind is limited. Our resources are limited. Our senses are limited. Our stupidity is unlimited, as is sometimes our pride. The ONLY way we could have infallible knowledge is if God gave it to us. Now you may debate if we interpret it correctly or not. Or if we understand it in its entire depth, or not. But it seems to me that starting with God’s revealed (infallible) information and trying to figure it out is still a whole lot better than starting at the bottom with our limited capabilities and working up.

I think the difference between the approach towards knowledge by science and religion is that science (1) unrelentingly tries to disprove their theories and is built upon massive amounts of evidence, of all different types and that (2) they’re really willing to overturn even their most basic theories about how the world works. Religion doesn’t do either of those things.

About infallible divine knowledge: The idea of infallible divine knowledge itself is a hypothesis, and it should be subject to skepticism and evidence. Questions like: Where did this knowledge come from? How many people did it pass through before it came to us? How reliable are all those sources? Is there anything we can test or measure?

In other words, you can be skeptical and evidence-minded about even divine knowledge, and given the huge number of religions out there, that seems to be a necessary thing if you don’t want to just pick one to believe at random or something.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is observation ala science and there is Revelation.

But how is Revelation revealed if not through some form of observation?