Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Young Leo

Higgs-like particle found

Recommended Posts

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

 

Your words are always so elegantly written ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

 

I thought the same thing. Well done with articulating it so well.

 

Arguing for/on the basis of "absolutes" is very shaky ground. It would be like saying "because there are no moral absolutes, we cannot make any real determination of right and wrong." :doubt:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

I thought the same thing. Well done with articulating it so well.

 

Arguing for/on the basis of "absolutes" is very shaky ground. It would be like saying "because there are no moral absolutes, we cannot make any real determination of right and wrong." :doubt:

Not really the same thing. It's logically impossible to claim an objective right or wrong if one believes there are no moral absolutes (and trust me, I've seen people try to pull that off).

 

I think the quote points out a legitimate flaw in the dictum as extreme skepticism is still alive and well, and many of those extreme skeptics claim Sagan's dictum even though considering their presuppositions on epistemology it's a fool's errand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we found god particle! suck it, atheists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

I thought the same thing. Well done with articulating it so well.

 

Arguing for/on the basis of "absolutes" is very shaky ground. It would be like saying "because there are no moral absolutes, we cannot make any real determination of right and wrong." :doubt:

Not really the same thing. It's logically impossible to claim an objective right or wrong if one believes there are no moral absolutes (and trust me, I've seen people try to pull that off).

 

I think the quote points out a legitimate flaw in the dictum as extreme skepticism is still alive and well, and many of those extreme skeptics claim Sagan's dictum even though considering their presuppositions on epistemology it's a fool's errand.

I think the extraordinary that Sagan mentioned is quite obviously things which are out of the ordinary of reality. When quantum mechanics was first hypothesised it was extraordinary but the evidence came forward with extreme accuracy and it is the most experimentally validated theory in existence.

 

A higher being is an extraordinary claim so requires such evidence.

 

Semantics is fun but does actually deal with the crux of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

I thought the same thing. Well done with articulating it so well.

 

Arguing for/on the basis of "absolutes" is very shaky ground. It would be like saying "because there are no moral absolutes, we cannot make any real determination of right and wrong." :doubt:

Not really the same thing. It's logically impossible to claim an objective right or wrong if one believes there are no moral absolutes (and trust me, I've seen people try to pull that off).

 

I think the quote points out a legitimate flaw in the dictum as extreme skepticism is still alive and well, and many of those extreme skeptics claim Sagan's dictum even though considering their presuppositions on epistemology it's a fool's errand.

I think the extraordinary that Sagan mentioned is quite obviously things which are out of the ordinary of reality. When quantum mechanics was first hypothesised it was extraordinary but the evidence came forward with extreme accuracy and it is the most experimentally validated theory in existence.

 

A higher being is an extraordinary claim so requires such evidence.

 

Semantics is fun but does actually deal with the crux of the argument.

No it doesn't.

 

Why are you comparing quantum mechanics to religion.

 

What.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to sound like a wannabe mod here, but can we really not bring up religion and "where is ur proof of god" crap here? There's a thread for that in the debate room.

 

So congratulations to everybody who understands what a god particle is (which is a small percentage of the world population but unsurprisingly a large percent of Sal's population).

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

I thought the same thing. Well done with articulating it so well.

 

Arguing for/on the basis of "absolutes" is very shaky ground. It would be like saying "because there are no moral absolutes, we cannot make any real determination of right and wrong." :doubt:

Not really the same thing. It's logically impossible to claim an objective right or wrong if one believes there are no moral absolutes (and trust me, I've seen people try to pull that off).

 

I think the quote points out a legitimate flaw in the dictum as extreme skepticism is still alive and well, and many of those extreme skeptics claim Sagan's dictum even though considering their presuppositions on epistemology it's a fool's errand.

I think the extraordinary that Sagan mentioned is quite obviously things which are out of the ordinary of reality. When quantum mechanics was first hypothesised it was extraordinary but the evidence came forward with extreme accuracy and it is the most experimentally validated theory in existence.

 

A higher being is an extraordinary claim so requires such evidence.

 

Semantics is fun but does actually deal with the crux of the argument.

No it doesn't.

 

Why are you comparing quantum mechanics to religion.

 

What.

Because the concept of extraordinary claims. Bohr stated that particles do not exist in one place but in a probabilistic distribution across space. Einstein said that photons behaved as both particles and waves. Schrodinger proposed that a particle with sufficient energy could pass through a wall of infinite potential. These are extraordinary claims, they are well out of the ordinary understaing of the Unvierse, and blow Newtonian mechanics out of the water. So the response to these claims is extraordinary evidence. Religion has made extraordinary claims and has yet to provide any compelling evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence.

 

And like all analogies, it is not accurate, just a way to explain a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very exciting news.

Has anyone ever watched Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" lecture? Great stuff; not stereotypically boring and not too mind-boggling.

 

Re: the God question: Burden of proof lies in the hands of the theist/deist. Simple as that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with [sagan's] dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.” In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe. In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. As the comedian Elayne Boosler used to quip, “Popcorn is magic if you don’t know how it happens.”

 

I think it's a legitimate rebuttal.

I think it's a bit weak, albeit rather clever, by attacking a rather insiginficant semantical issue.

 

I think it's pretty straightforward that by extraordinary he means unnatural/unobservable. I think it has very little to do with knowledge and belief and much more to do with sheer ability of observation. You can't observe god, so that's an extraordinary claim. You could claim that your teacher is wearing pink underwear, but that's not extraordinary. Even though there's no proof as of yet, proof is easily obtained when you sneak up and pull her pants down.

 

I dunno

I thought the same thing. Well done with articulating it so well.

 

Arguing for/on the basis of "absolutes" is very shaky ground. It would be like saying "because there are no moral absolutes, we cannot make any real determination of right and wrong." :doubt:

Not really the same thing. It's logically impossible to claim an objective right or wrong if one believes there are no moral absolutes (and trust me, I've seen people try to pull that off).

 

I think the quote points out a legitimate flaw in the dictum as extreme skepticism is still alive and well, and many of those extreme skeptics claim Sagan's dictum even though considering their presuppositions on epistemology it's a fool's errand.

I think the extraordinary that Sagan mentioned is quite obviously things which are out of the ordinary of reality. When quantum mechanics was first hypothesised it was extraordinary but the evidence came forward with extreme accuracy and it is the most experimentally validated theory in existence.

 

A higher being is an extraordinary claim so requires such evidence.

 

Semantics is fun but does actually deal with the crux of the argument.

No it doesn't.

 

Why are you comparing quantum mechanics to religion.

 

What.

Because the concept of extraordinary claims. Bohr stated that particles do not exist in one place but in a probabilistic distribution across space. Einstein said that photons behaved as both particles and waves. Schrodinger proposed that a particle with sufficient energy could pass through a wall of infinite potential. These are extraordinary claims, they are well out of the ordinary understaing of the Unvierse, and blow Newtonian mechanics out of the water. So the response to these claims is extraordinary evidence. Religion has made extraordinary claims and has yet to provide any compelling evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence.

 

And like all analogies, it is not accurate, just a way to explain a point.

Science and Religion are meant to be separate. All of your examples are of scientific breakthroughs resulting from observation, analysis, and experimentation. Religion is based on declarations of faith that were never based on any of these things.

 

I don't understand your point.

Edited by Adam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaand there it is.

 

I knew there was going to be a catch.

Not really a 'catch.' The particle is Higgs-like, it has decays that we would expect of the Higgs. The issue is whether it is the Standard Model Higgs or not. The battery of tests that it will be going under now will determine whether it is SM or not, and if it is not SM then we have a lot more fun, and hopefully a new wave of Particle Physicists that get to try and reinvent the wheel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changed title to something more accurate.

 

 

 

Probably too late for that now, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.