Another Origin Theory?

[hazelm]

OK so they think the water on the primordial Earth came from comets. But it seems this is not yet definitively settled: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6262/795 This article suggest water was always part of the Earth's makeup from the start. 

 

So it rather looks as if we don't really know yet, though there are several rival hypotheses.

 

Regarding other solvents for life, I've always thought it would be fun if life could have evolved elsewhere using liquid methane, as on Jupiter's moon Titan. But I'm sure a polar solvent would be more versatile. I've always rather fancied liquid ammonia. Unfortunately there does not seem so far to be any evidence of that in our solar system, though it might happen elsewhere I suppose. 

Would it be accurate to say that most things we say about the  cosmos are unproven?    I mean not  proven to the point that no one would question them?  There may be a lot of evidence that makes it seem to be a fact but we'd be in trouble if a true authority were to appear and say "prove it"?  "Show me the evidence"? 

 

This is why I like to leave everybody to talk about his own theory  so long as he can present it in a rational way and not try to shout everyone else down for not agreeing with him.  Some of the "facts" that I get make no sense at all but I let them ride.  Who knows? How often do you ask someone to show you how they know something happens - especially in quantum physics where you cannot see what they are saying is there - and not get an answer at all?  Einstein even had a theory about that.  He is alleged to have said "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you do not understand it.

 

I am off to a good book.  Take care.

 

Oh well.  To each his own.

[exchemist]

Would it be accurate to say that most things we say about the  cosmos are unproven?    I mean not  proven to the point that no one would question them?  There may be a lot of evidence that makes it seem to be a fact but we'd be in trouble if a true authority were to appear and say "prove it"?  "Show me the evidence"? 

 

This is why I like to leave everybody to talk about his own theory  so long as he can present it in a rational way and not try to shout everyone else down for not agreeing with him.  Some of the "facts" that I get make no sense at all but I let them ride.  Who knows? How often do you ask someone to show you how they know something happens - especially in quantum physics where you cannot see what they are saying is there - and not get an answer at all?  Einstein even had a theory about that.  He is alleged to have said "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you do not understand it.

 

I am off to a good book.  Take care.

 

Oh well.  To each his own.

I think responding to that is an issue of the philosophy of science, isn't it?

 

Forgive me is this is already familiar ground to you, but just in case not, it is famously the case that no theory in science is ever proven.  All we have are predictive models of reality, which are always in principle open to correction if there should be  an unexpected observation that does not fit the theory. All models need to be validated by reproducible observations that fit what the model predicts. The more of these you have, the more confidence you have. Conversely if you have difficulty making reproducible observations to test a model, then it may remain relatively poorly validated and so less confidence can be placed in it.   

 

With cosmology it seems to me remarkable that we have gone as far as we have, given that we can only make limited types of observation from our one tiny place in the cosmos. But the Big Bang model is quite well developed and does have a fair amount of corroboration (red shift, cosmic background radiation and so forth).  

 

With the origin of life, there is no model, yet. All we have are speculative hypotheses, based on inferences we can draw from the evolutionary tree we can build of very early organisms, and what we think we know about conditions during and after the formation of the solar system.  This is quite natural, given the lack of physical evidence from this very early period. This is partly due to the operation of plate tectonics, which has renewed the face of the Earth completely since the epoch when we think life must have arisen. 

 

Regarding quantum physics, I think you may have been misinformed. I am aware Rutherford was supposed to have said that if you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics. But then his contributions were made in around 1910, when physics was a lot simpler - and his simple model of the atom turned out not to work. Do you have a reliable source for your quotation of Einstein's about 6 yr olds? I strongly suspect it is an internet myth. (Indeed, when asked to summarise in a few sentences what he got his Nobel prize for, he is said to have replied that if he could do that he would not be worth a Nobel prize*.)

 

Most of quantum physics is extremely well characterised. Certainly the part that covers the behaviour of electrons in atoms, which is one of the two great pillars that underpin the whole of chemistry, is very well worked out and completely uncontroversial. I can explain it to you (I do not know if you are a barmaid or not :) ), but it would be a long job.

 

I seem to detect a whiff of relativism in what you say about theories, which I regard as dangerous thinking. The key with theories in science is that they must be testable by observation and able to predict correctly what future observations will show. Quantum physics does this. Rutherford's model of the atom didn't and that is why it was abandoned.

 

The internet is full of fruitcakes with pet theories. What all of them have in common is that they either do not agree with observation or make no testable predictions at all. (We have examples of both on this forum.) That is the difference between science and pseudoscience.  

 

 

* Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect, one of the key pieces of evidence in the development of quantum theory. It was not for relativity, as is commonly assumed. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by exchemist

[hazelm]

Thanks, exchemist.  I keep getting reminded of that - no theory in science is ever proven. 

 

As for proof that Einsten said what I quoted, no.   That is why I used the word "allegedly".  Somewhere on the internet, someone posted an article showing how many, many famous quotes have been credited to people who never said them. 

 

The rest of your message has some good points I'd like to study on.  One or two I think I very much disagree with. Other, I suspect we are just a case of a well-educated scientist talking to a far lesser "science-challenged" (love that term) but interested person.  For now, just let me say there are some other points to be made and some qualifications to be considered.  Maybe, after thinking, I could get back to this.  But, wouldn't it go in another section?  Philosophy? 

 

I'd better stop before I put my foot where it doesn't belong.  Have a good day.

Edited September 25, 2017 by hazelm

[exchemist]

Thanks, exchemist.  I keep getting reminded of that no theory in science is ever proven. 

 

As for proof that Einsten said what I quoted, no.   That is why I used the word "allegedly".  Somewhere on the internet, someone posted an article showing how many, many famous quotes have been credited to people who never said them. 

 

The rest of your message has some good points I'd like to study on.  One or two I think I very much disagree on; Other, I suspect we are just a case of a well-educated scientist talking to a far lesser "science-challenged" (love that term) but interested person.  For now, just let me say there are some other points to be made and some qualifications to be considered.  Maybe, after thinking, I could get back to this.  But, wouldn't it go in another section?  Philosophy? 

 

I'd better stop before I put my foot where it doesn't belong.  Have a good day.

I'm naturally intrigued as to the part where you disagree, but I'll be content to wait until such time as you want to take up the argument.  It might be a good topic for the philosophy section, as you say. 

 

Until later........

[hazelm]

I'm naturally intrigued as to the part where you disagree, but I'll be content to wait until such time as you want to take up the argument.  It might be a good topic for the philosophy section, as you say. 

 

Until later........

Trouble is I have always avoided philosophy sections like the plague. 

 

 

P. S.  With a little scanning of your post, let me dispense with one of my disagreements.  You said "Regarding quantum physics, I think you may have been misinformed. I am aware Rutherford was supposed to have said that if you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics. But then his contributions were made in around 1910, when physics was a lot simpler"

 

My immediate response was a quote that is attributed to any number of people and with which I definitely agree.  "The mark of an educated man is the ability to talk with an uneducated man without talking down to him." 

 

Notice that it does not say "talk to an uneducated man"; it says "talk with". 

 

Note:  How do we get Buffy or someone to transfer this to philosophy so we can speak freely?  If definitely is not an "origins" story which might be well left open for any grand forthcoming discovery news.

Edited September 25, 2017 by hazelm

[exchemist]

Trouble is I have always avoided philosophy sections like the plague. 

 

 

P. S.  With a little scanning of your post, let me dispense with one of my disagreements.  You said "Regarding quantum physics, I think you may have been misinformed. I am aware Rutherford was supposed to have said that if you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics. But then his contributions were made in around 1910, when physics was a lot simpler"

 

My immediate response was a quote that is attributed to any number of people and with which I definitely agree.  "The mark of an educated man is the ability to talk with an uneducated man without talking down to him." 

 

Notice that it does not say "talk to an uneducated man"; it says "talk with". 

 

Note:  How do we get Buffy or someone to transfer this to philosophy so we can speak freely?  If definitely is not an "origins" story which might be well left open for any grand forthcoming discovery news.

I think all we need is a thread title, open a thread and maybe put a link in across to this thread. I don't think we ought to move this thread, because we are  changing the subject from origin of life (which we did in fact discuss on this thread and someone may want to continue with), to something else, about the nature of science, or something like that, aren't we?  

 

What would be a suitable title from your point of view. Science should be simple? Or Should all science be easily communicable? Or something else? 

[hazelm]

All right.  If you think so. We shall see how it goes.  You ask do I think science should be simple. No, that is impossible.  Do I think all science whould be easily communicable.  Pretty much, yes.  The snag is not whether it can be easily communicable.  The snag is whether the speaker is able to gear his language to the level of the listener - the ability to know exactly how much the listener would be able to grasp.   Would you tell a six-year-old that our sun could burn up and die?  I would not.  But I would tell him how gases are burning in our sun (aren't they?) and we get heat from that sun.  As for telling a barmaid (no, I'm not) too much.  You'd be  surprised at how much your listener is able to turn off and forget if he/she does not understand and appreciate what he/she did understand.  Your only danger is doing too much of this and losing our audience.  Example (kindergarten):  5 apples; add two more; how many?  Seven.   New math:  5 apples; input two; how many?  Blank stare.  "Input"?  They tell me "input" is dying the death it deserves but it's a fast example.

 

I think any language can be geared to the level of your listener and, as parents were often told, "if he is old enough to ask he is old enough to know".  And those who are able to do the telling that satisfies the listener are, to my mind, successes in both their  field of study and their communication talent.  Bless them since they save Ph.D physicists the problem of explaining quantum particles to me.  And "you wouldn't understand" doesn't get it.  Do you know from whom I finally got a meaningful answer?  A friend whose major was Art but who had done some reading on her own and caught on.

 

What often brings this to mind is the many times I have seen (scientists?) or (would-be scientists who have read a lot of books and learned a lot?) deploring the writings of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Antonio Damasio and Michio Kaku because  they write a simplified language for the non-science layman.  We, the laymen, learn from those writers.  We do not learn all the intricacies that scientists know but we learn and that is not only satisfying but breeds respect for those who do the tough plowing of science and do not have time for us. 

 

To some scientists, this over-simplification is deplorable.  At the same time, I see articles from scientists or their interviewer-reporter friends asking "how can we get the respect and support that we need?".  About respect, a father of one of my students once said to me "You can't demand respect; you have to earn it."  A well-learned and remembered lesson from a man who was a plumber by trade.  As for support, I think they are referring to the need for funding from, they wish, the government.  They say - as do a lot of us - that talking to Congress is like talking to empty space.  But I wonder.  Do they realize how many of those Congressmen know no more about science than do I and I promise that is not much.  So, how do you talk to them?  Do you say "Look to us; we are the experts"?  Or do you hit them where they understand - the pocket book?  How much does a wind farm or the solar panels save the company?  How will our work keep the power grid in operation?   How much will keeping people healthy save you in long term care later?  Put what you want in  terms of how it will affect the person(s) that you are approaching and they might listen. 

 

That and other ideas are not mine.  Someone wrote an editorial about how to get what you want by way of support. I thought it was in October Scientific American but a rushed search does not turn it up.  At the same time, in the same publication, a scientist was asking Congressmen to let scientists be part of their committees.  A reasonable request but I doubt it impressed many Congress-persons who already deal with too many committee-persons.

 

Too much chatter above.  Now you know why I avoid philosophy threads. too much verbiage and too much didacticism.    I think (hope) you see what I am trying to say.  Before i quit I want to tell you a true story that very well illustrates my whole point.  I should probably erase all the above and tell you this.  Patience, please. Here it is.

 

Several years ago, I stumbled upon and learned a bit about black holes.  Maybe my mind went scifi  but I had a "great" idea about how black holes could form new stars.  About the same time, two writers had articles in Scientific American about what black holes might do.  Since I had my own theory, I dared to write to one of those men about my "bright idea".  What I did not know until later was that the gentleman to whom I wrote was right at the critical moment of doing his orals for his PhD in cosmology. 

 

Despite that fact, this gentleman sat down and typed a two-page letter in simple English - significant since he is German, lives in Germany and speaks English as a second ( or, who knows, maybe third or fourth) language - explaining to me why my idea would not work.  I just took another look at that letter.  He uses not one technical term anywhere.  I suspect astronomers and cosmologists can do that more easily than physicists can but nevertheless, he talked to me on my level as an interested novice.  He never once told me my idea was "crack-pot" or that I should go away and do a lot of reading before asking.  He simply explained what was wrong with my idea.   He ended the letter with this:

 

"Keep up the imagination though, since as Einstein said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge since knowledge is limited but imagination is limitless."   

 

I have never forgotten that and I never shall.  Have you ever experienced asking someone for an explanation and had them look you up and down and say "You wouldn't understand"?  I have.   But here was a man busy with his finals and readying himself for his career willing to take time out for my wild idea.  Bless him.  I wish him an early Noble prize is Nobel prizes are valued by him.

 

I'd better go before I get run off.  Next:  "pseudoscience, I hope".  No promises.

[exchemist]

All right.  If you think so. We shall see how it goes.  You ask do I think science should be simple. No, that is impossible.  Do I think all science whould be easily communicable.  Pretty much, yes.  The snag is not whether it can be easily communicable.  The snag is whether the speaker is able to gear his language to the level of the listener - the ability to know exactly how much the listener would be able to grasp.   Would you tell a six-year-old that our sun could burn up and die?  I would not.  But I would tell him how gases are burning in our sun (aren't they?) and we get heat from that sun.  As for telling a barmaid (no, I'm not) too much.  You'd be  surprised at how much your listener is able to turn off and forget if he/she does not understand and appreciate what he/she did understand.  Your only danger is doing too much of this and losing our audience.  Example (kindergarten):  5 apples; add two more; how many?  Seven.   New math:  5 apples; input two; how many?  Blank stare.  "Input"?  They tell me "input" is dying the death it deserves but it's a fast example.

 

I think any language can be geared to the level of your listener and, as parents were often told, "if he is old enough to ask he is old enough to know".  And those who are able to do the telling that satisfies the listener are, to my mind, successes in both their  field of study and their communication talent.  Bless them since they save Ph.D physicists the problem of explaining quantum particles to me.  And "you wouldn't understand" doesn't get it.  Do you know from whom I finally got a meaningful answer?  A friend whose major was Art but who had done some reading on her own and caught on.

 

What often brings this to mind is the many times I have seen (scientists?) or (would-be scientists who have read a lot of books and learned a lot?) deploring the writings of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Antonio Damasio and Michio Kaku because  they write a simplified language for the non-science layman.  We, the laymen, learn from those writers.  We do not learn all the intricacies that scientists know but we learn and that is not only satisfying but breeds respect for those who do the tough plowing of science and do not have time for us. 

 

To some scientists, this over-simplification is deplorable.  At the same time, I see articles from scientists or their interviewer-reporter friends asking "how can we get the respect and support that we need?".  About respect, a father of one of my students once said to me "You can't demand respect; you have to earn it."  A well-learned and remembered lesson from a man who was a plumber by trade.  As for support, I think they are referring to the need for funding from, they wish, the government.  They say - as do a lot of us - that talking to Congress is like talking to empty space.  But I wonder.  Do they realize how many of those Congressmen know no more about science than do I and I promise that is not much.  So, how do you talk to them?  Do you say "Look to us; we are the experts"?  Or do you hit them where they understand - the pocket book?  How much does a wind farm or the solar panels save the company?  How will our work keep the power grid in operation?   How much will keeping people healthy save you in long term care later?  Put what you want in  terms of how it will affect the person(s) that you are approaching and they might listen. 

 

That and other ideas are not mine.  Someone wrote an editorial about how to get what you want by way of support. I thought it was in October Scientific American but a rushed search does not turn it up.  At the same time, in the same publication, a scientist was asking Congressmen to let scientists be part of their committees.  A reasonable request but I doubt it impressed many Congress-persons who already deal with too many committee-persons.

 

Too much chatter above.  Now you know why I avoid philosophy threads. too much verbiage and too much didacticism.    I think (hope) you see what I am trying to say.  Before i quit I want to tell you a true story that very well illustrates my whole point.  I should probably erase all the above and tell you this.  Patience, please. Here it is.

 

Several years ago, I stumbled upon and learned a bit about black holes.  Maybe my mind went scifi  but I had a "great" idea about how black holes could form new stars.  About the same time, two writers had articles in Scientific American about what black holes might do.  Since I had my own theory, I dared to write to one of those men about my "bright idea".  What I did not know until later was that the gentleman to whom I wrote was right at the critical moment of doing his orals for his PhD in cosmology. 

 

Despite that fact, this gentleman sat down and typed a two-page letter in simple English - significant since he is German, lives in Germany and speaks English as a second ( or, who knows, maybe third or fourth) language - explaining to me why my idea would not work.  I just took another look at that letter.  He uses not one technical term anywhere.  I suspect astronomers and cosmologists can do that more easily than physicists can but nevertheless, he talked to me on my level as an interested novice.  He never once told me my idea was "crack-pot" or that I should go away and do a lot of reading before asking.  He simply explained what was wrong with my idea.   He ended the letter with this:

 

"Keep up the imagination though, since as Einstein said 'Imagination is more important than knowledge since knowledge is limited but imagination is limitless."   

 

I have never forgotten that and I never shall.  Have you ever experienced asking someone for an explanation and had them look you up and down and say "You wouldn't understand"?  I have.   But here was a man busy with his finals and readying himself for his career willing to take time out for my wild idea.  Bless him.  I wish him an early Noble prize is Nobel prizes are valued by him.

 

I'd better go before I get run off.  Next:  "pseudoscience, I hope".  No promises.

I've opened a new thread to reply to this, here: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30508-communication-vs-oversimplification/#entry351813 

Edited September 25, 2017 by exchemist

[hazelm]

This "news" story appeared in my Inbox this morning but I have read it before.  Not the same story by the same writer, just the same thoughts about very early life with findings in Canada.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/scientists-discover-some-of-the-oldest-signs-of-life-on-earth/541251/

[hazelm]

A bit more for the files.  The first aspect of life started with RNA, not DNA which is too complex to have been first.  So say scientists from McMaster University.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171002161248.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29