RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events ghosts / aliens / the loch ness monster...

any logical reasons as to why they do, or do not, exist?

no logical reasons for aliens?

look at our own planet -- there's SO many variations of life! first and foremost, there are humans. but, humans look nothing like, say, elephants. elephants look nothing like, say, squids. squids look nothing like, say, eagles. eagles look nothign like, say, ants. our own planet has SUCH a variety, such a wide and broad definition of life... why would other planet's be reduced to just having humanoid aliens?

so, do i think there are other life forms out there? yes. definitely. be it in the form of mold or humanoids or even elephish... or something.

but, do i think we've ever encountered these beings? no, probably not.

As for the supernatural, I work nights, done so in a few compacities, Army, Security,........Print shop! And some freaky things have happened especially when I was a security guard!

I used to work on a number of different sites, one place sticks out in my mind! It was a one man site in Westminster, everybody would leave around 2130, the lifts faced the Reception desk. Sometimes the lift would go up of it's own accord, stop at a few floors then come down again, other times I would get internal calls on the switchboard from certain offices....no one was on the other line, I'd hang-up and go to that office, nobody was there!

What's that all about? Freaked the shit out of me some nights!

Probably the main reason I can't stand the X-Files...All it does is give people hair-brained ideas that every thing is some kind of alien conspiracy...

Aliens: There is way to many facts to ignore. But i'm not jumping to conclusions.

wow.

Xy

quote:

---

Originally posted by JQ:
Studies show there is not enough fish in that lake to feed a monster of nessie's size.

---

All this proves is that if the Loch Ness Monster exists, it isn't surviving on a strict diet of fish.
I don't know if she's true or not. Noone does. All I'm saying is that the fact that she has become so well known suggests that the myth had to start somewhere. All legends have some basis of truth to back them up, and Nessie is no exception. Someone must have seen something in there, I just don't know what it was!

Look closely at the picture and notice the size of the waves. If that were an actual photo of an actual sea creature, I would have to have been taken in a hurricane for the wave to be that big. He admitted to taking a small model and photographing it in the lake with nothing around to give away any kind of scale. Pretty damn lame hoax if ya ask me...I just can't believe that people have fallen for it for so long...

To transcend the laws of nature, be "supernatural" is ... impermissable in the Universe as interpreted by science, in the "Scientific Universe" ....

It might easily be argued that human beings have no right to say that this or that is "impermissable"; that something that is called supernatural receives its name by arbitrary definition out of knowledge that is finite and incomplete. Every scientist must admit that we do not know all the laws of nature that may exist, and that we do not thoroughly understand all the implications and limitations of the laws of nature that we think do exist. Beyond what little we know there may be much that seems "supernatural" to our puny understanding, but that nevertheless exists.

Quite right, but consider this --

When we lead from ignornace, we can come to no conclusions. When we say, "Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say 'This is' or 'This isn't,'" then all reasoning comes to a halt right there. We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing. All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.

What we must do is set rules and place limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be. We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits.

The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.

have you ever seen a snow tiger? do you know anyone who has? is there any logical reason and/or evidence of the animal's existance?

no.

there exists but a dozen photos (in relative poor quality) of this animal, in addition to hundreds of "eye witness" tesitmonials. no one has ever killed on and claimed the body, no one owns one, no one holds it in their museum...

so, how is this animal's existance more believable than, say, the lochness monster -- who, if anything has MORE "proof" backing its claim to reality?

further, asimov, you can take yer theories and shove'em! :-D

we ARE weak. we ARE feebile. and we're ALWAYS wrong. defining issues and setting up rules is the only thing we do well, and thats consistantly wrong, as well. for every rule that exists, there are examples of it being broken, in addition to exceptions, sometimes numbering in the thousands.

as soon as we think we've reached a limit, and we stamp our "there is no more" bit to it, someone else surpasses that limit.

"cells are the smallest things in the universe!"
"wait a minute... atoms are in cells, and thus, the smallest things in the universe"
"um, i mean, no wait, damnit, atoms are made up of smaller protrons, etc, and THEY are the smallest things"

"europe is the universe"
"uh... ok, europe and the new world make up the universe"
"crap... other planets... damnit... ok, solar system. thats it."
"shit, what the hell was that... ok, fine, there are other systems out there, too"

ill agree with him that my claiming there are aliens is just as justifiable and logical as someone else claiming there aren't. i cant prove it, they cant disprove it. thats the bottom line.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell

but, my gripe with science is that same thing. whatever science can't prove "doesnt exist" -- which, for centuries, included stuff that DOES exist: like atoms, or neutrons, or pluto, or america, or, perhaps, aliens.

i suppose thats the way it HAS to work -- like a "innocent til proven guilty" legal system. however, it seems to make unexplanable phenomena, like ghosts, or aliens, or other things science CANT explain (even GOD), like a fairy tale -- making those who truly believe in them look like fools, just cuz they cant prove'em.

well, prove these, asimov!

As for scientists' alleged slowness on the uptake, being only human, they are, it's true, sometimes guilty of that. Most of the resistance to new information, however -- whether it pertained to the New World, evolution of species, plate tectonics, the age of the Universe, you name it -- comes from people who cannot be budged off beliefs which, they have already made up their minds, are The Truth.

"All research," the Swedish writer Andreas Ehrencrona has noted, "presupposes a world-view, a collection of fundamental objects, natural laws and above all definitions of what research is. Where the natural sciences differ from less developed sciences such as economy or psychology is precisely the presence of such strict rules. These often appear obvious to us."

Thomas Kuhn was the first to point out that the conventional view of scientific progress, as a flow of new discoveries added to old ones to form a greater whole, was flawed. Kuhn understood scientific progress to be a succession of world-views, called paradigms. As Ehrencrona notes:

"... Immature sciences are characterized by not having established any paradigms yet. Therefore every researcher has to invent the building stones of his research on his own. Research becoms a random collection of observations that cannot be structured into a whole, since there is no framework to put them in....

"As the field matures, a paradigm establishes itself as the dominant one. Research progresses quickly since the paradigm gives certain fundamental concepts and laws to build on. In addtion, it becomes clear which areas of research are fruitful to work on: those that cannot be explained yet, but on the other hand are no totally incomprehensible in the current view.

"Ptolemian astronomy that placed earth in the center with other heavenly bodies in more of less complex orbits around it, is an example of a long-lived paradigm. When it was established it was possible to concentrate on getting the calculations to correspond better with the observed orbits of the heavenly bodies. This work within the paradigm was successful and it seemed like they were getting closer and closer to a total correspondence with reality.

"Originally, the heliocentric astronomy of Copernicus could not give better orbital predictions than Ptolemios. What was needed to make it a success was a crisis within the earlier world-view. Ptolemeian astronomy step by step became more complicated by the addition of laws for the movements of heavenly bodies. After a while it became obvious that they were not on the right track and the search for alternatives was on.

"According to Kuhn, this is a typical development. Paradigm shifts seldom occur as soon as a new paradigm is invented, but only when the old one is shown to be inadequate. Then a total reevaluation of research is needed. Concepts are turned upside down, earlier research must be reinterpreted and nothing is what it seemed to be, despite it still being the same phenomenon that is described."

There is going to be a test on this material, incidentally, and it will count for half of your grade.

As far as ghosts goes, I have had a few times where I was convinced that there was some spiriual force at work, things moving from place to place in a house in which I was the only occupant and hadnt moved it, now in retrospect there could have been a logical explanation that I just didnt think of.

Big Foot, Lochie, the Yeti et al, can probably be chalked up to over imaginative shysters but its not unlikey that there are species of some sort that humans have not yet had intimate contact and perhaps purposely as a survival mechanism for that species, look how many species that have becoma extinct as a result of contact with man.

Again all of the above may be possible but to truly believe I need more than a picture on the supermarket tabloid rack.

[Regarding] the question of whether Americans today are more or less gullible than their forebears. My own opinion is that the gullibility of the public today makes citizens of the nineteenth century look like hard-nosed skeptics. A larger fraction of Americans now go to college, science has made astounding strides, popular books and magazines about science abound, and big newspapers have first-class science editors. The result? Almost every newspaper runs a daily horoscope, and astrology books, like books about crank and sometimes harmful diets, far outsell books on reputable science. A Gallup survey in 1986 found that 52 percent of American teenagers believe in astrology and 67 percent in angels. A 1974 poll by the Center for Policy Research in New York reported that 48 percent of American adults are certain that Satan exists and 20 percent more think his existence probable. Electric belts are out but crystal power is in. Time-Life vigorously promoted a set of lurid volumes about paranormal powers. Mesmerism now stimulates memories of past lives and the recall of being abducted by aliens from outer space. The most preposterous book ever written about UFO abductions, INTRUDERS, by Budd Hopkins, was published by Random House with full-page ads in The New York Times Book Review. Acupuncture charts show paths of energy-flow as non-existent as the paths of similar flow on chiropractic charts. The Hite Report and treatises on the "G-spot" are as comic as any sex manual of the past century. Spiritualism is back in full force in the form of trance channeling. Shirley MacLaine has become richer and more influential -- she is certainly prettier -- than Madame Blavatsky ever was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Utley:
What follows is from Isaac Asimov's Extraterrestrial Civilizations (1979):

To transcend the laws of nature, be "supernatural" is ... impermissable in the Universe as interpreted by science, in the "Scientific Universe" ....

It might easily be argued that human beings have no right to say that this or that is "impermissable"; that something that is called supernatural receives its name by arbitrary definition out of knowledge that is finite and incomplete. Every scientist must admit that we do not know all the laws of nature that may exist, and that we do not thoroughly understand all the implications and limitations of the laws of nature that we think do exist. Beyond what little we know there may be much that seems "supernatural" to our puny understanding, but that nevertheless exists.

Quite right, but consider this --

When we lead from ignornace, we can come to no conclusions. When we say, "Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say 'This is' or 'This isn't,'" then all reasoning comes to a halt right there. We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing. All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.

What we must do is set rules and place limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be. We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits.

The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.

---

You maniac! You blew it up!!!

<<Rob, it isn't the case that "whatever science can't prove 'doesnt exist'" but that whatever science can't prove simply hasn't been proved or disproved.>>

but, thats not really true--not on a technical, grammatical basis, anyway. it is or it should be, more specifically, "whatever science can't prove simply hasn't been proved or disproved in the world of science"

<<There are methods for proving that atoms and subatomic particles exist, that the speed of light is a universal constant, that the obloid Earth orbits the sun, etc.>>

sure. now there is. now, science can prove them. but, they were true long before that. and many people had "proof" of their own, or even just "faith" that they were true. some say columbus knew (or hoped, anyway) that the earth was round long before it could be absolutely scientifically proven (which, really, wasn't until satelites spotted our planet from afar)

it is only now that science can prove those things, and thus, they become more "accepted" somehow.

heck, fer all i know, these "scientists" are alchemists. hell, i've never been to the moon, i dunno if its really there're not. for all i know kansas doesnt exist (you ever been there??) science proves and disproves things for science, only. perhaps science is the standard and/or the norm, and thus, it is accepted without question (or without much disapproval), however, im still against this whole "lets wait til science can prove it" bit.

read on, for more details! (and dont forget to drink your ovaltine!)

<<Thus far, there is no conclusive proof that ghosts exist, that a cryptozoan inhabits Loch Ness, that our world is being visited by extraterrestrial beings in saucer-shaped vessels.>>

agreed. and, i make no personal claim that any of'em are really there.

but, there's also no real scientific proof of the emotion of love (chemicals, my ass!). there's no real scientific proof of a god (or the god).

so are they not true? are you going to tell the christian "army," 1 billion people strong, that science can't prove their god yet, so, just "hold on a minute" till they get their paperwork square?

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world. Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References

1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

At Syene (now Aswan), some 800 km (500 miles) southeast of Alexandria in Egypt, the Sun's rays fall vertically at noon at the summer solstice. Eratosthenes noted that at Alexandria, at the same date and time, sunlight fell at an angle of about 7° from the vertical. He correctly assumed the Sun's distance to be very great; its rays therefore are practically parallel when they reach the Earth. Given estimates of the distance between the two cities, he was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth. The exact length of the units (stadia) he used is doubtful, and the accuracy of his result is therefore uncertain; it may have varied by 0.5 to 17 percent from the value accepted by modern astronomers. He also measured the degree of obliquity of the ecliptic (in effect, the tilt of the Earth's axis) with great accuracy and compiled a star catalog. His mathematical work is known principally from the writings of Pappus of Alexandria.

After study in Alexandria and Athens, Eratosthenes settled in Alexandria about 255 BC and became director of the great library there. He worked out a calendar that included leap years, and he tried to fix the dates of literary and political events since the siege of Troy. His writings include a poem inspired by astronomy, as well as works on the theatre and on ethics. Eratosthenes was afflicted by blindness in his old age, and he is said to have committed suicide by voluntary starvation.

"i aint got time f'no jibba jabba"

hh!

your documented response is long, ill give y'that much. but, its not length, its how y'use it!

focussing on both V, the exceptions, and VI, the conclusion, one can get the gist that the "escape clause" of the scientific explanation is always intact.

i find the scientific knowledge, theories, and method best summed up by the exception's starting argument:

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving.

im summation; its necessary for science, and (perhaps) useful for not-science. which, i take to mean, its great for things that can be calculated, but horrible for anything involving a human.

and, were we machines, perhaps, the scientific method WOULD be exact and presise... fortunately, we're not. our human nature gives us the ability to be 100% irresponsible, completely unpredictable, and resilient beyond belief.

but because of our inherent nature, we, for the most part, are both beyond and above science and its method.

one will never find, discover, or deduce the true calculations of love. hundreds of years from now, when mechanics and engineers have developed robots with AI to resemble love (more so than young haley joel)... thats all they'll do, is resemble. doctors, even those of the current day, can tell me all they want that love, or the emotion it represents, is an influx of chemicals and blood rushed to specific sections of the brain... but so what!

love is undefinable, unproveable, un-science-able. its merely something you have faith in -- to know its there, without caring, without the need, or even the possibility, to truly understand it. and, that could be used to define the fundamentals of many religions, or even the basic belief of god.

using that principle, however weak, as a structured backbone, you now have the opportunity to prove, disprove, or "merely" believe in other items of that same catagory, be it aliens, or spirits, life after death, etc.

none of those fit into the (current) methodical patterns of science and are, thus, dismissed, even laughed at; (much like the heliocentric view, america, and even planes.)

but are they any less real? because i cant tell you how tall aliens are, that mean they're not there? if you say ghosts are green, and i say they're red, did we disprove each other?

repeated proof might be a techinical, "hard edged," more-so definable characteristic... but there's so much more to be said of belief, and faith.

bottom line... you wanna make me a medical chemical? science all the way, baby. how's bout buildin me a bridge... you wanna build me a bridge? bring my ass a scientist!

but, unless you wanna include the makes of william shakespear, michaelangelo, jesus christ, etc, within the sacred realm of scientists? ... then keep that high school subject the hell away from the important stuff.

references

1. Kamphausen, Robert. "i have a book?" (ghostdog productions, 1978).

2. T, Mr. "that fool i did pity" (gold productions, 2001).

"Supposing is good, but finding out is better." -- Mark Twain

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have." -- Albert Einstein

You may of course accept or decline to accept anything I cast in your path. But at least consider the following, from ANATOMY OF LOVE: THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MONOGAMY, ADULTERY, AND DIVORCE, by Helen E. Fisher, Ph.D., published by W.W. Norton and Company (1992). This should command your attention: it's about sex!

This violent emotional disturbance that we call infatuation (or attraction) may begin with a small molecule called phenylethylamine, or PEA. Known as the excitant amine, PEA is a substance in the brain that causes feelings of elation, exhilaration, and euphoria. But to understand exactly how PEA might contribute to attraction, you need to know a few things about the inside of your head.

The human brain is about the size of a grapefruit, weighing approximately three pounds, with an average volume of about 1,400 cubic centimeters....

In the 1970s neuroscientist Paul MacLean postulated that the brain is divided into three general sections. Actually, it is a good deal more complex than this, but MacLean's perspective is still useful as an overview. The most primitive section surrounds the final bulb at the end of the spinal cord. This area, which deserves its reputation as the "reptilian brain," governs instinctual behaviors such as aggression, territoriality, ritual, and the establishment of social heirarchies. We probably use this area of the brain in courtship when we "instinctively" strut, preen, and flirt.

Above and surrounding the reptilian brain is a group of structures in the middle of the head known collectively as the limbic system.... these structures govern the basic emotions -- fear, rage, joy, sadness, disgust, love, and hate. So when you are ovecome with happiness, paralyzed with firght, infuriated, revolted, or despondent, it is portions of the limbic system that are producing electrical and chimical disturbances. The storm of infatuation almost certainly has its physical origin here.

Overlaying the limbic system ... is the cortex, a gray, convoluted rind of spongy matter that lies directly below the skull. The cortex processes basic functions like sight, hearing, speech, and mathematical and musical abilities. Most important, the cortex integrates your emotions with your thoughts. It is this section of the brain that thinks about "him" or "her."

Here, then, is how PEA (and probably other neurochemicals, such as norepinephrine and dopamine) may play a role. Within and connecting the three basic parts of the brain are neurons, or nerve cells; there are at least one hundred billion of them. Impulses travel through one neuron and jump across a gap -- a synapse -- to the next nerve cell. This way they gambol along the neuronal highways of the mind.

PEA lies at the end of some nerve cells and helps the impulse jump from one neuron to the next. Equally important, PEA is a natural amphetamine; it revs up the brain. So psychiatrist Michael Liebowitz of the New York State Psychiatric Institute speculates that we feel infatuation when neurons in the limbic system, our emotional core, become saturated or sensitized by PEA and/or other brain chemicals -- and stimulate the brain.

No wonder lovers can stay awake all night talking and caressing. No wonder they become so absentminded, so giddy, so optimistic, so gregarious, so full of life. Naturally occurring amphetamines have pooled in the emotional centers of their brains; they are high on natural "speed."

...

With time, however, the brain can no longer tolerate this continually revved-up state. The nerve endings become either immune or exhausted, and exhilaration wanes. Some people sustain that smitten feeling for only weeks or months. Those who have a barrier to the relationship, like a marriage to a third party, can sometimes maintain elation over their beloved for several years. But most partners who see each other regularly feel the euphoria of attraction for some two to three years.

Then, as the excitement and novelty subside, the brain kicks in new chemicals, the endorphins, natural morphine-like substances that calm the mind. And as the endorphins surge along the brain's primeval pathways, Liebowitz maintains, they usher in the second stage of love -- attachment -- with its sensations of security and peace.

So infatuation and attachment have physiological components, and these emotions are common to humankind. Moreover, Liebowitz has proposed that these two distinctly different chemical systems in the brain evolved in the human animal for a simple reason: "For primitive man two aspects of relating to the opposite sex were important for survival as a species. The first was to have males and females become attracted to each other for long enough to have sex and reproduce. The second was for the males to become strongly attached to the females so that they stayed around while the females were raising their young and helped to gather food, find shelter, fight off marauders and teach the kids certain skills."

***

What follows next, from WOMAN: AN INTIMATE GEOGRAPHY, by Natalie Angier, published by Houghton Miffin (1999), is for rufusTfirefly, who mentioned boobies. It's from the chapter about breasts.

We live life vertiginously, attending to the round. Who knows why. It may have all started with the face. The first thing that a newborn pays visual attention to is not the breast, which the infant cannot adjust its focus to see from its ringside position, but the mother's face. Human faces are round, much rounder than those of other adult apes. The white of the human eye, which is absent in our simian cousins, serves to emphasize the roundness of the iris. When we smile, our cheeks become round, and the uplifted corner of the eyebrows create an image of a circle within a circle. Only humans universally interpret the smile as a friendly gesture. Among most primates, a smile is a grimace, an expression of threat or fear.
...
The breast is the body's most transparent way of paying homage to the circle. Over the centuries, the human breast has been compared to all the round things we know and love -- to apples, melons, suns, moons, cherries, faces, eyes, Orient pearls, globes, mandalas, worlds within worlds. Yet to focus exclusively on the breast is to neglect the other ways in which the human body commemorates and resonates with roundness. The buttocks, of course, are round and conspicuous. Our long human necks curve into our shoulders, a parabola of grace when seen from behind. Our muscles too assume a species-specific roundness and prominence. Other animals become extremely, densely muscular without forming the projecting curves seen on human athletes. Many creatures can outrun us, but none have our distinctive calf muscles, which, like the buttocks, are curved on men and women alike. The biceps of the arms can look breastlike. So too can the deltoids, the muscles of the shoulders. Highly developed chest muscles give the impression of cleavaged breasts. The curvaceous sensuality of the muscular male was not lost on the Greeks, nor on Michelangelo, nor on the photographer Bruce Weber, who in his pictures for Calvin Klein underwear gave us a nude male chest as vociferous as the conventional female cleavage shot. Dancers of both sexes, who have radiant, muscular bodies that are as if drawn with spirographs, emphasize and consecrate the curve through movement. To defy the choreographed curve is to renounce, mock, or affront the pretty.
...
To say that all breasts are pretty is like saying that all faces are pretty: it's true but false. Yes, we all have our winsome components, and we are genotypically and anatomically unique and uniqueness has its merit. At the same time, we know beauty when we see it. Beauty is a despot, but so what? Our mistake is in attributing grander meaning to a comely profile than it already has. High cheekbones, a high butt, and a high bosom are nice, but none should be viewed as the sine qua non of womanliness. If breasts had something important to say, they would be much less variable and whimsical than they are. They would be like mammary glands, a teaspoon per breast per woman. If breasts could talk, they would probably tell jokes -- every light-bulb joke in the book.

***

Dang, we still haven't got around ghosts, UFOs, or Nessie, have we?

steven:
<<"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.">>

a good quote. allie and i go way back. i tend to agree more with the first half tho, rather than the second.

science, more precious than love? faith? friends? laughter? ... not in my book.

<<But at least consider the following, from ANATOMY OF LOVE: THE NATURAL HISTORY OF MONOGAMY, ADULTERY, AND DIVORCE, by Helen E. Fisher, Ph.D., published by W.W. Norton and Company (1992). This should command your attention: it's about sex!>>

im all uva sudden so hungry and tired... strange...

<<This violent emotional disturbance that we call infatuation (or attraction) may begin .... SNIP SNIP SNIP... their brains; they are high on natural "speed.">>

sadly... i've read this before... i dont even remember where or why... mebbe that sex thing. anywho... sure, its all well n'good. we are, if anything, animals, and, share those basic urges and instincts. and, like i said before, it is possible, even for todays scientists and doctors, to somewhat explain the mechanics of emotions as an influx of blood and/or chemicals, electrical pulses, etc...

but that doest really say anything. these are the reactions caused by love and/or the direct result of love, not love itself.

one cant truly explain why one person could love another so deeply, and not, say, a third party. one cant truly explain how a love could be so deep that it alters an individuals entire personality. one cant truly explain how, if your love one is threatened, some could be driven to defend and/or kill. they cant understand the unique love of a father and son, or a pair of war veterans, or a man and a woman... there are explanations for what happens afterward, but no real explanations like, say, how my mother met and stayed with my father. why him and not someone else? or someone else now? or the immense torture endured by the individuals within sofie's choice (deciding life and death for her own children).

again, it seems to be the difference between cold and warm, science and life, calculable and incalculable. were we machines, you'd be able to process when i was going to fall in love, whom i was going to fall for, and when, and if, i was going to fail in that relationship. but, again, as humans, as unique individuals, there IS no recipie. you could read 8 books by 8 different specialists all on the same subject and get 8 differing opinions.

the truth is (well, my truth, anyway) that as good as science and math can ever get, they'll always, at best, strive for 99.9% accuracy. we're too screwy, man! and, as a part of nature, perhaps the best part, we're just one example of something completely un-understandible.

i stand firm in the belief that science is great for proving and/or disproving. but, its not the only thing, not the final word. there's too much relating to humans, alone, for which science is poorly suited. there's too much in our very world that science just can't comprehend.

again, the example of previous scientists, who mocked the idea of a "new world." who mocked the idea of vaccinations. who mocked the idea of cells. their theories were "proven" by their current science, and disproven by (relative) future science. any constant we know today could, later, be broken by newer findings and technologies.

everyday, on our very own planet, we're discovering new species in rain forests, or rediscovering "extinct" ones. we just recently, within the past few months, discovered bacteria and other single- (or small mutli-) celled organisms living in the arctic, at temperatures previously (as in 1 year ago) thought hundreds of degrees below the realm of "live preserving"

with these basic concepts and discoveries, right under our own noses, that exist in a science-proofable world and catagory, unable to be contemplated until shown... how can we be so arrogant as to assume knowledge over everything in human nature? in life? in death? in space?

that is my beef with science.

.... that, and cuz my chemistry teacher was a hideous whore beasted sea monster.

Rob, any good scientist will tell you that science does not have all the answers, or even most of them -- as H.G. Wells put it, science is a match which we have just got lighted -- and, in fact, there are no final truths in science. But as a learning method, it is unparalleled, and I personally believe that it is our best tool for coping with the vast, cold, indifferent cosmos we inhabit.

Permit me to recommend an excellent book by Daniel J. Boorstein, THE DISCOVERERS, being the history of human learning

And, yes, rufusTfirefly is a wise man. Without him, we'd be up to our armpits in JGoldman10.

Rob, any good scientist will tell you that science does not have all the answers, or even most of them -- as H.G. Wells put it, science is a match which we have just got lighted -- and, in fact, there are no final truths in science. But as a learning method, it is unparalleled, and I personally believe that it is our best tool for coping with the vast, cold, indifferent cosmos we inhabit.

Permit me to recommend an excellent book by Daniel J. Boorstein, THE DISCOVERERS, being the history of human learning

And, yes, rufusTfirefly is a wise man. Without him, we'd be up to our armpits in JGoldman10.

im already lost, my friend.

anywho, i dig tyler's quote. i connect with it, i suppose.

but, my stance is not that science does nothing... its to defend truths that dont need, or cant benefit from, science; i.e; love, god, ghosts, spirits...

it just always seems that things not "scientifically standardized" are perceived as wrong, or impossible, or imaginary -- like ghosts, aliens, bigfoot, etc.

however, the reason i brought up the subjects of love and god is to show that science cant prove them, either... and yet billions of individuals simply know them to be true.

science doesnt know anything about love... but its still there. and one shouldnt scoff (scoff! scoff!) at me, or others who believe in it, just because it cant truly be defined in a text book.

the same, i feel, should be encapsulated within the catagories of aliens and spirits -- simply because there's no high school classes that cover them, they dont exist. and, if someone claims to have some sort of experience, their shamed into disbelieving it, themselves.

you give the eample that you personally "believe that it is our best tool for coping with the vast, cold, indifferent cosmos we inhabit." well, i've got you now, you wascally wabbit! right there's the definition of religion. and if we were to judge our responses by all populations thru out history, surely, religion would slaughter science (sorry, nitzche!)

anywho, do i appreciate science for everything its done? hell yeah. do i agree with you that its the best thing we got? sorta. do i see inherent problems with the "belief" theory? course. do i ask myself questions? do i!.

Well, perhaps I'll type it all up again, but, for now, suffice it to say that we have, you and I, widely divergent world-views, we probably are never going to agree, and it would appear that we are never even going to close on the topics listed in the title of this thread. We seem to have run off everyone else, too.

bwah hah hah!

(anywho, utley, i'd use some of this "free time" to start checkin out the other posts in this forum. i like the cut of your jib, and would be interested in your opinions on the other topics within "deep thoughts")

Xyzandra