(December 7, 2022 at 10:44 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 7, 2022 at 5:26 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But science is not just a collection of facts - it is primarily a method for arriving at a close approximation of those facts. It is not inconceivable that a different methodology will someday establish an age for the world of, say, 4.61 billion years or 4.48 billion years. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that somewhere there is at least one credible geologist or cosmologist working on refining this data.

ALL scientific knowledge is provisional. As it should be.

Boru

We'll have to agree to disagree.  On an existential level, I think that you are absolutely correct; we may all be, in fact, brains in vats.  On a practical level, the age of the Earth will, a billion years from now, be calculated as being 5.543 billion years +/- a few million years.

This is not about solipsism, so we'll dispense with the brains-in-vats stuff for now.

But what if our instruments are not entirely accurate? What if there's another variable in the equation we have yet to account for? Of course there's that whole +/- a few million years thing, which actually points to uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge is in one sense asymptotic. We can approach facts, but probably cannot fully understand them, perhaps because we're inside the system and thus can't analyze it objectively. Godel's Theorem implies at that as well.

Everything we think we know should always be subject to revision. Certainty is the greatest obstruction to learning.

(December 10, 2022 at 12:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But what if our instruments are not entirely accurate? What if there's another variable in the equation we have yet to account for? Of course there's that whole +/- a few million years thing, which actually points to uncertainty.

I'm no nuclear physicist, but they would be the first to say that where theory meets observation a web of interconnectedness exists. If radioactive decay were not highly statistical and outside the 3-sigma Gaussian confidence intervals, smart phones & computers would never successfully boot, nuclear reactors would not be stable and stars would not shine, making life impossible. The alternative is magic, which is akin to brains being in vats. The whole notion of BP ("before present), which is the number of years prior to January 1, 1950 is, in itself, a statement of confidence, for that was just after the time when Willard Libby discovered the phenomenon of C14 radiocarbon dating. Clair Patterson, around the same time, discovered the uranium–lead dating method.

As far as I know, no exception to radiometric dating has ever been found, where different materials with different radiometric decay constants in the same strata result in different ages.

(December 10, 2022 at 7:58 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 10, 2022 at 12:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: But what if our instruments are not entirely accurate? What if there's another variable in the equation we have yet to account for? Of course there's that whole +/- a few million years thing, which actually points to uncertainty.

I'm no nuclear physicist, but they would be the first to say that where theory meets observation a web of interconnectedness exists.  If radioactive decay were not highly statistical and outside the 3-sigma Gaussian confidence intervals, smart phones & computers would never successfully boot, nuclear reactors would not be stable and stars would not shine, making life impossible.  The alternative is magic, which is akin to brains being in vats.  The whole notion of BP ("before present), which is the number of years prior to January 1, 1950 is, in itself, a statement of confidence, for that was just after the time when Willard Libby discovered the phenomenon of C14 radiocarbon dating.  Clair Patterson, around the same time, discovered the uranium–lead dating method.

As far as I know, no exception to radiometric dating has ever been found, where different materials with different radiometric decay constants in the same strata result in different ages.

Way to miss the point, McFly. I didn't say that nothing can be known.

Perhaps you should read for content rather than argumentation.

(December 8, 2022 at 11:42 am)Ahriman Wrote: I think of agnosticism as unnecessary fence sitting, it's easy enough to know there isn't a God, why not just own the belief/fact that there isn't a God?

That's nice. Here, have a cookie.

(December 10, 2022 at 9:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 10, 2022 at 7:58 am)Jehanne Wrote: I'm no nuclear physicist, but they would be the first to say that where theory meets observation a web of interconnectedness exists.  If radioactive decay were not highly statistical and outside the 3-sigma Gaussian confidence intervals, smart phones & computers would never successfully boot, nuclear reactors would not be stable and stars would not shine, making life impossible.  The alternative is magic, which is akin to brains being in vats.  The whole notion of BP ("before present), which is the number of years prior to January 1, 1950 is, in itself, a statement of confidence, for that was just after the time when Willard Libby discovered the phenomenon of C14 radiocarbon dating.  Clair Patterson, around the same time, discovered the uranium–lead dating method.

As far as I know, no exception to radiometric dating has ever been found, where different materials with different radiometric decay constants in the same strata result in different ages.

Way to miss the point, McFly. I didn't say that nothing can be known.

Perhaps you should read for content rather than argumentation.

You state, "another variable in the equation we have yet to account for"; this is a profound claim, which suggests the existence of so-called hidden variables.  The following equation describes our World extremely well:



In this respect, there are no "hidden variables", and we are free to regard certain propositions in Science as constituting facts.

(December 10, 2022 at 9:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 8, 2022 at 11:42 am)Ahriman Wrote: I think of agnosticism as unnecessary fence sitting, it's easy enough to know there isn't a God, why not just own the belief/fact that there isn't a God?

That's nice. Here, have a cookie.

Are you saying there is, or could be, a God? Because there isn't and it's impossible. We don't need science to figure out there isn't a God.

(December 9, 2022 at 10:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 8, 2022 at 11:42 am)Ahriman Wrote: I think of agnosticism as unnecessary fence sitting, it's easy enough to know there isn't a God, why not just own the belief/fact that there isn't a God?

You can be an agnostic atheist (don't know, don't believe) or an agnostic theist (don't know, believe anyway).

All atheists and theists alike are agnostic (don't know) so in the interest of parsimony we just cancel out the extraneous terms on both sides of the equation.

(December 10, 2022 at 10:44 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 10, 2022 at 9:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Way to miss the point, McFly. I didn't say that nothing can be known.

Perhaps you should read for content rather than argumentation.

You state, "another variable in the equation we have yet to account for"; this is a profound claim, which suggests the existence of so-called hidden variables.  The following equation describes our World extremely well:



In this respect, there are no "hidden variables", and we are free to regard certain propositions in Science as constituting facts.

Yeah, you're definitely missing the point even though your own graphic stipulates "so far". What a waste of time you are.

(December 10, 2022 at 11:07 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(December 10, 2022 at 9:28 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That's nice. Here, have a cookie.

Are you saying there is, or could be, a God? Because there isn't and it's impossible. We don't need science to figure out there isn't a God.

Where did you learn how to read that you drew that out of my comment?

Quote:Where did you learn how to read that you drew that out of my comment?

I figured your comment was derisive. It was, wasn't it?

(December 10, 2022 at 12:07 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 10, 2022 at 10:44 am)Jehanne Wrote: You state, "another variable in the equation we have yet to account for"; this is a profound claim, which suggests the existence of so-called hidden variables.  The following equation describes our World extremely well:



In this respect, there are no "hidden variables", and we are free to regard certain propositions in Science as constituting facts.

Yeah, you're definitely missing the point even though your own graphic stipulates "so far". What a waste of time you are.

(December 10, 2022 at 11:07 am)Ahriman Wrote: Are you saying there is, or could be, a God? Because there isn't and it's impossible. We don't need science to figure out there isn't a God.

Where did you learn how to read that you drew that out of my comment?

By "so far", the above formula will never become invalid, ever, at least in our Universe. The standard model of quantum mechanics is totally complete at low to very high energies. Physicists are only looking for TOEs at energies thar are well out of reach of the present particle accelerators and may be forever out of reach. In short, no discovery will invalidate radiometric dating any more than Science will someday discover that all apples rise slightly first before falling.