PDA

View Full Version : General public skeptical of hard scientific evidence?



Okla-homey
8/6/2010, 08:54 AM
Looks like there may be some truth to the notion held by many trial lawyers that regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary. And also that the public is generally skeptical of scientific stuff.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/11/better-find-something-besides-dna-hard-science-to-persuade-the-jury/

:pop:

Half a Hundred
8/6/2010, 08:58 AM
Looks like there may be some truth to the notion held by many trial lawyers that regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary. And also that the public is generally skeptical of scientific stuff.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/11/better-find-something-besides-dna-hard-science-to-persuade-the-jury/

:pop:

Not surprising. The entire purpose of empiricism is to mitigate the effects of confirmation bias, and yet, we see how hard it is in experts, much less the lay public.

Mjcpr
8/6/2010, 09:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4IEqnM5GaI

OhU1
8/6/2010, 09:38 AM
regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/11/better-find-something-besides-dna-hard-science-to-persuade-the-jury/

:pop:

Yup. Evolution being the most obvious example. After all it is "only a theory".

JohnnyMack
8/6/2010, 09:40 AM
You don't say?

Sincerely,

Carl Sagan

OUMallen
8/6/2010, 09:43 AM
Yup. Evolution being the most obvious example. After all it is "only a theory".

LALALALALALALALALALALALA

http://www.talentedmonkey.co.uk/images/monkey.jpg

PDXsooner
8/6/2010, 10:37 AM
Kind of like the birthers. They demand a birth certificate, so Hawaii produces one that is confirmed by the governor. Yet...they still demand a birth certificate.

Sorry, not to make this political, but I just read an article about another birther.

Ike
8/6/2010, 10:40 AM
Not surprised at all. I have a few theories about that too. When it comes to forming beliefs, or explaining to ourselves a previously unseen phenomenon, we often seek out the simplest solution. But simple can have different meanings for different people (and even different meanings for the same person in different circumstances). Sometimes 'simple' can take on the meaning of "this explanation/belief allows me to not think about this anymore and get on with more important things", and at other times it can mean the more conventional "this doesn't require the world or people to have properties or abilities that have never been seen before." I think a lot of the determination of which definition we use depends on how much we care. I think in the case of something like ESP, people are willing to accept the idea that someone else has that ability because in some sense, it doesn't really matter to them. They know they don't have such an ability, and if they just accept that someone else does after a demonstration such as the one in the article, they can simply move on with their lives without ever thinking about it again. To say that it's not ESP requires thinking about how such a demonstration took place.

There's probably something in there too regarding our willingness to trust someone we can see, or who is right in front of us vs our willingness to trust a nebulous "them".

Okla-homey
8/6/2010, 11:01 AM
I freely admit, as a person of faith, there is a great deal of irony inherent in the fact my fellow beleivers tend to be the folks who are often quick to dismiss scientic theories supported by empirical evidence when they conflict with our world view.

Leroy Lizard
8/6/2010, 11:13 AM
Not surprised at all. I have a few theories about that too. When it comes to forming beliefs, or explaining to ourselves a previously unseen phenomenon, we often seek out the simplest solution. But simple can have different meanings for different people (and even different meanings for the same person in different circumstances). Sometimes 'simple' can take on the meaning of "this explanation/belief allows me to not think about this anymore and get on with more important things", and at other times it can mean the more conventional "this doesn't require the world or people to have properties or abilities that have never been seen before." I think a lot of the determination of which definition we use depends on how much we care. I think in the case of something like ESP, people are willing to accept the idea that someone else has that ability because in some sense, it doesn't really matter to them. They know they don't have such an ability, and if they just accept that someone else does after a demonstration such as the one in the article, they can simply move on with their lives without ever thinking about it again. To say that it's not ESP requires thinking about how such a demonstration took place.

There's probably something in there too regarding our willingness to trust someone we can see, or who is right in front of us vs our willingness to trust a nebulous "them".

The problem is that it does little good to disprove phenomenon like ESP when the believers can always pull meta-analysis studies out of their ***. So we get bombarded with weak case studies and meta-analyses that show what everyone wants to believe, yet no real scientific studies support.


I freely admit, as a person of faith, there is a great deal of irony inherent in the fact my fellow beleivers tend to be the folks who are often quick to dismiss scientic theories supported by empirical evidence when they conflict with our world view.

I think that's true of all of us, frankly. For example, no scientific study is going to get a nature lover into abandoning recycling or stop his harping on global warming. The same holds for his antagonists.

Ike
8/6/2010, 01:17 PM
I freely admit, as a person of faith, there is a great deal of irony inherent in the fact my fellow beleivers tend to be the folks who are often quick to dismiss scientic theories supported by empirical evidence when they conflict with our world view.

There may be a great deal of irony in that fact, but it shouldn't be too surprising. When a new way of thinking is proposed (about absolutely anything) that is in conflict with what is currently believed, or has implications that would be in conflict with some currently held belief, a person is confronted with a choice. Often that choice is between: a) thinking deeply about this new way of thinking and how to work that into the framework of beliefs they already hold. b) even deeper thinking about how that new way of thinking emerged, the evidence that supports it, and perhaps evidence that might be against it leading to a decision on whether or not to accept or reject the new way of thinking. or c) outright dismissal.

a) requires some work. b) requires even more work if you care about being 'right'. c) requires no work at all. There are probably things all in-between those choices too.

Eielson
8/6/2010, 01:34 PM
Pew Research has seen it, too—a 2009 poll found that 16% of Americans believe in the “evil eye” (the belief that certain people can cast curses or spells that cause bad things to happen).

That's my favorite part.

MR2-Sooner86
8/6/2010, 01:39 PM
That's my favorite part.

Hey I know several Indians who are hardcore into the ritual of smoking. My great grandfather was a Cherokee medicine man and I heard stories about him and his "magic" that he was suppose to have.

Chuck Bao
8/6/2010, 02:02 PM
Not surprised at all. I have a few theories about that too. When it comes to forming beliefs, or explaining to ourselves a previously unseen phenomenon, we often seek out the simplest solution. But simple can have different meanings for different people (and even different meanings for the same person in different circumstances). Sometimes 'simple' can take on the meaning of "this explanation/belief allows me to not think about this anymore and get on with more important things", and at other times it can mean the more conventional "this doesn't require the world or people to have properties or abilities that have never been seen before." I think a lot of the determination of which definition we use depends on how much we care. I think in the case of something like ESP, people are willing to accept the idea that someone else has that ability because in some sense, it doesn't really matter to them. They know they don't have such an ability, and if they just accept that someone else does after a demonstration such as the one in the article, they can simply move on with their lives without ever thinking about it again. To say that it's not ESP requires thinking about how such a demonstration took place.

There's probably something in there too regarding our willingness to trust someone we can see, or who is right in front of us vs our willingness to trust a nebulous "them".

I very much like the way you described it, Ike. I was in college when it finally dawned on me that I had kept two competing beliefs - evolution and a strict and literal Biblical creationalism. I had made no attempt to reconcile them, which I guess many Americans do these days. I was mentally lazy and it really was the "simplest" solution when I was really more concerned with getting a date or scoring some booze. I very much appreciate that the university experience challenged me and my beliefs.

But I was very much surprised by that article in the link by Okla-homey. I somehow thought that 50-60% of American kids went on to some higher level of education and that has been pretty constant over the last 30 years. Maybe our universities are not doing their job of provoking us to critical thinking or Americans are just getting fat between the ears.

Ike
8/6/2010, 02:25 PM
I very much like the way you described it, Ike. I was in college when it finally dawned on me that I had kept two competing beliefs - evolution and a strict and literal Biblical creationalism. I had made no attempt to reconcile them, which I guess many Americans do these days. I was mentally lazy and it really was the "simplest" solution when I was really more concerned with getting a date or scoring some booze. I very much appreciate that the university experience challenged me and my beliefs.

But I was very much surprised by that article in the link by Okla-homey. I somehow thought that 50-60% of American kids went on to some higher level of education and that has been pretty constant over the last 30 years. Maybe our universities are not doing their job of provoking us to critical thinking or Americans are just getting fat between the ears.

Maybe there's a case for that... But also consider that the definition of "some higher level of education" also includes things like Vo-tech, business school, cullinary schools and all sorts of vocational schools (I'll bet there are some that would even include truck driving school in there too). Not to knock those settings, because many of them do a good job for what they are designed to do. But they are not designed to foster critical thinking. At least, not like the universtiy setting is. Their job is to get you out the door as a well-enough prepared xxxxxxx-person to go make a life for yourself. So while the hypothesis that higher education is failing may have some merit, also remember that an expanded definition of higher education will necessarily lower the average outcome of higher education.

Frozen Sooner
8/6/2010, 02:32 PM
Yup. Evolution being the most obvious example. After all it is "only a theory".

I've been doing a ton of research on so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" and school disclaimer policies for a note I'm writing. That code language comes up in court analyses pretty frequently.

landrun
8/6/2010, 02:35 PM
The reason for this is simple, if either the evidence or those presenting the evidence, aren't credible, it isn't evidence at all. From religion, to politics, to jurors sitting on a jury, to a debate about what football team is going to win this weekend etc... This always comes into play.

As an example, there is a lot of 'empirical evidence' provided by politicians on the left and right as to whether or not tax cuts or tax increases help the economy. But the evidence each of us believe comes down to how much confidence we have in the integrity and motives of those presenting that evidence.

This can be said of any dispute.

47straight
8/6/2010, 02:41 PM
Such skepticism of "hard scientific evidence" is good and well-founded, particularly for juries.

I need only remind everyone of the "arson experts" used to convict and execute a seemingly innocent father here in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7122381.html

Unless a jury member is an actual scientist and can rely on his or her own personal expertise, by definition what they are relying upon is NOT "hard scientific evidence," but instead upon faith in another person.

That other person indeed might be well-trained, honest, and sincere, but the jury is still putting your faith in the word of someone else. Not into reason or into the science, but into that other person.

And thank heaven that we still have juries and voters to be skeptics, maintain a line of morality or ethics, and don't let scientists run the world without question.

Too many scientists don't get this important but subtle distinction.

Oldnslo
8/6/2010, 02:53 PM
Often that choice is between: a) thinking deeply about this new way of thinking and how to work that into the framework of beliefs they already hold. b) even deeper thinking about how that new way of thinking emerged, the evidence that supports it, and perhaps evidence that might be against it leading to a decision on whether or not to accept or reject the new way of thinking. or c) outright dismissal.

a) requires some work. b) requires even more work if you care about being 'right'. c) requires no work at all. There are probably things all in-between those choices too.

Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.

--Bertrand Russell

OhU1
8/6/2010, 02:56 PM
I've been doing a ton of research on so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" and school disclaimer policies for a note I'm writing. That code language comes up in court analyses pretty frequently.

Froz that would be a note I would be interested in reading. I need to get around to reading the Kitzmiller case.

The dishonesty of the "intelligent design" proponents is appalling. ID is nothing but creationism in science clothing. But they know better than to get specific as to what they really believe and are tying to teach - a literal Genesis account of creation. Believe the Genesis account or don't believe it but don't claim your religious doctrine is science and should be taught in science class.

As you mention the new code word is "academic freedom". Academic freedom to do what? Teach pseudo science? Why don't we also teach alchemy in chemistry class too? Let the students decide?

Other signs of ID are disclaimers or warnings about the supposed controversy about the theory of evolution. There is no controversy among biological scientists - yet another ID deception.

GottaHavePride
8/6/2010, 02:57 PM
There's a lot of anti-intellectualism running through American society right now. It's not "cool" to understand science.

pilobolus
8/6/2010, 03:18 PM
There's a lot of anti-intellectualism running through American society right now. It's not "cool" to understand science.


Thank Rove, the Bushes, Cheney, etc.

Frozen Sooner
8/6/2010, 03:26 PM
Froz that would be a note I would be interested in reading. I need to get around to reading the Kitzmiller case.

The dishonesty of the "intelligent design" proponents is appalling. ID is nothing but creationism in science clothing. But they know better than to get specific as to what they really believe and are tying to teach - a literal Genesis account of creation. Believe the Genesis account or don't believe it but don't claim your religious doctrine is science and should be taught in science class.

As you mention the new code word is "academic freedom". Academic freedom to do what? Teach pseudo science? Why don't we also teach alchemy in chemistry class too? Let the students decide?

Other signs of ID are disclaimers or warnings about the supposed controversy about the theory of evolution. There is no controversy among biological scientists - yet another ID deception.

As you can imagine, the note relies pretty heavily on a comparison between Kitzmiller and Freiler-my focus is mainly on the disclaimers, particularly as they're still used in Alabama. A Florida (I think) DC found them unconstitutional, but the 11th (through a panel including one of my professors next semester-fun!) vacated and remanded for additional findings of fact and the parties settled.

Anyhow, 7,000 words and counting, with 120 FNs. Blech.

Frozen Sooner
8/6/2010, 03:26 PM
Such skepticism of "hard scientific evidence" is good and well-founded, particularly for juries.

I need only remind everyone of the "arson experts" used to convict and execute a seemingly innocent father here in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7122381.html

Unless a jury member is an actual scientist and can rely on his or her own personal expertise, by definition what they are relying upon is NOT "hard scientific evidence," but instead upon faith in another person.

That other person indeed might be well-trained, honest, and sincere, but the jury is still putting your faith in the word of someone else. Not into reason or into the science, but into that other person.

And thank heaven that we still have juries and voters to be skeptics, maintain a line of morality or ethics, and don't let scientists run the world without question.

Too many scientists don't get this important but subtle distinction.

You make an interesting point.

Chuck Bao
8/6/2010, 03:47 PM
Maybe there's a case for that... But also consider that the definition of "some higher level of education" also includes things like Vo-tech, business school, cullinary schools and all sorts of vocational schools (I'll bet there are some that would even include truck driving school in there too). Not to knock those settings, because many of them do a good job for what they are designed to do. But they are not designed to foster critical thinking. At least, not like the universtiy setting is. Their job is to get you out the door as a well-enough prepared xxxxxxx-person to go make a life for yourself. So while the hypothesis that higher education is failing may have some merit, also remember that an expanded definition of higher education will necessarily lower the average outcome of higher education.

Ding, ding and a big loud swinging dong,

My family is very educated, supposedly. My brother, sister, mother and I all have masters degrees. We can't talk politics because it gets just so ugly. We can't talk about religion. But, I have to say that my sister and I giggled ourselves silly when my mom was teaching her sunday school class of advanced age women about the book of relevations. That is really terrible thing to admit, I know, but we couldn't help ourselves.

GKeeper316
8/6/2010, 03:48 PM
The dishonesty of the "intelligent design" proponents is appalling. ID is nothing but creationism in science clothing. But they know better than to get specific as to what they really believe and are tying to teach - a literal Genesis account of creation. Believe the Genesis account or don't believe it but don't claim your religious doctrine is science and should be taught in science class.

As you mention the new code word is "academic freedom". Academic freedom to do what? Teach pseudo science? Why don't we also teach alchemy in chemistry class too? Let the students decide?

Other signs of ID are disclaimers or warnings about the supposed controversy about the theory of evolution. There is no controversy among biological scientists - yet another ID deception.

the entire arguement they make is easily discounted...

they try to use scientific terms and reasoning to arrive at the (in their minds) logical conclusion that an omnipotent being created everything, except that the entire ID theory is predicated upon "at this point a miracle happened" (miracle being the intervention of said omnipotent being) which is inherently illogical, since that intervention can be neither proved nor disproved.

Okla-homey
8/6/2010, 04:09 PM
Such skepticism of "hard scientific evidence" is good and well-founded, particularly for juries.

I need only remind everyone of the "arson experts" used to convict and execute a seemingly innocent father here in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7122381.html

Unless a jury member is an actual scientist and can rely on his or her own personal expertise, by definition what they are relying upon is NOT "hard scientific evidence," but instead upon faith in another person.

That other person indeed might be well-trained, honest, and sincere, but the jury is still putting your faith in the word of someone else. Not into reason or into the science, but into that other person.

And thank heaven that we still have juries and voters to be skeptics, maintain a line of morality or ethics, and don't let scientists run the world without question.

Too many scientists don't get this important but subtle distinction.

To say nothing of the 1988 Pontotoc County conviction of Ron Williamson on a charge of capital murder. The poor man received a death sentence based on "expert" testimony regarding hair analysis in which the expert adamantly asserted hair found at the murder scene matched Williamson's...in an era before DNA matching. To be clear, the expert insisted the hairs appeared similar enough to be matches. But in this case, the jury bought it.

Fortunately for Ron, DNA analysis ultimately led to his release.

And don't forget the psychological-mumbo-jumbo that put those McMartin Pre-school folks in California through a decade of Hell.

Ike
8/6/2010, 04:22 PM
Such skepticism of "hard scientific evidence" is good and well-founded, particularly for juries.

I need only remind everyone of the "arson experts" used to convict and execute a seemingly innocent father here in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7122381.html

Unless a jury member is an actual scientist and can rely on his or her own personal expertise, by definition what they are relying upon is NOT "hard scientific evidence," but instead upon faith in another person.

That other person indeed might be well-trained, honest, and sincere, but the jury is still putting your faith in the word of someone else. Not into reason or into the science, but into that other person.

And thank heaven that we still have juries and voters to be skeptics, maintain a line of morality or ethics, and don't let scientists run the world without question.

Too many scientists don't get this important but subtle distinction.

As Froz said, this is an interesting, and very good point. When one is talking about the results of a specific study/investigation/paper, yes, you are putting your faith in one person or group of people. You are putting faith in the notion that they used the most up-to-date, widely accepted methodologies. You are putting faith in the notion that they accounted properly for all sources of systematic error and bias. And you are putting faith in the notion that they properly and honestly reported their findings. Science never claims to get everything right the first time. In fact, it rarely does. What science does claim (and does a pretty good job of), is that of providing a method for getting closer to the truth over time through the reproducibility of results.

The reproducibility of results is the important thing. It's a very important thing. One study showing a given result is one thing. 20 completely independent studies all showing the same result is a much better thing.

As it applies to the courts and the justice system, I'd love to see some sort of independent lab used by the courts whose sole job is to find the holes in all expert testimony, whether that be forensic science employed by investigators, labs hired by plaintiffs or defendants or whatever. Can they reproduce the results of those experts? I don't know if that would be feasable though. I highly doubt it.

Leroy Lizard
8/6/2010, 05:04 PM
the entire arguement they make is easily discounted...

they try to use scientific terms and reasoning to arrive at the (in their minds) logical conclusion that an omnipotent being created everything, except that the entire ID theory is predicated upon "at this point a miracle happened" (miracle being the intervention of said omnipotent being) which is inherently illogical, since that intervention can be neither proved nor disproved.

Because we have banned religious teaching in public schools, they are simply couching their beliefs in scientific language to get around the barrier. The problem is they are trying to use a tool (science) to derive Truth, but science was not meant for that purpose.

Man, haven't we been through this a million times already?

Leroy Lizard
8/6/2010, 05:05 PM
Thank Rove, the Bushes, Cheney, etc.

This problem predates them by a bunch.

GottaHavePride
8/6/2010, 05:08 PM
This problem predates them by a bunch.


Yeah, it's not an all-of-a-sudden sort of thing. We've been sliding that way for a while now.

Heck, a quick look at pop culture will point out it's been going on for decades.

Scott D
8/6/2010, 06:01 PM
Looks like there may be some truth to the notion held by many trial lawyers that regular folks are slow to dismiss commonly held beliefs despite scientific evidence to the contrary. And also that the public is generally skeptical of scientific stuff.

http://keenetrial.com/blog/2010/06/11/better-find-something-besides-dna-hard-science-to-persuade-the-jury/

:pop:

the General public also thinks that "American Idol", "Jerry Springer", and "Survivor" are "Quality Television Programming".

Chuck Bao
8/6/2010, 08:15 PM
the General public also thinks that "American Idol", "Jerry Springer", and "Survivor" are "Quality Television Programming".

I wouldn't completely agree with that. Yeah, we have "American Idol", "Jerry Springer" and "Survivor", but that is no where near the social engineering and positive TV **** that I had to watch growing up. With freedom of choices you get some crap stuff that you mentioned and it may be even very popular. But you also get some really great stuff.

Frankly, as an American living overseas since the mid-80s, I had to agree with the British that BBC programs were far superior to American TV programs.

No one can make a comparison these days. Okay, the Discovery Channel is half British and I will give them that. But really, the script writing for US comedy is just spectacular and smart and very funny. We left the British with a stiff upper lip, in my opinion.

TV shows that test boundaries and pique my curiousity for what happens next would include True Blood and that new Spartacus series. Okay, I am ghey so sue me. I guess I also should include the Sopranos as must see TV that didn't insult or talk down to its audience.

Sooner_Havok
8/6/2010, 09:43 PM
There's a lot of anti-intellectualism running through American society right now. It's not "cool" to understand science.

heh


Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

ndpruitt03
8/6/2010, 10:12 PM
It's a lot easier for people to believe in things instead of people be explained about things it's really that simple. And there's also things in science that are also really hard to grasp like how small we really are. I don't think anyone can truly comprehend that now. We are a little speck of dust circling a little bigger speck of dust but that doesn't even really explain it well, because we are smaller than that. And really explaining how the earth has been around for a few trillion years. We only live about 80 years if we are lucky. Humans have only been around about a couple hundred thousand years. Trillions of years is really hard for anyone as short lived as we are to grasp.

SCOUT
8/6/2010, 10:44 PM
It's a lot easier for people to believe in things instead of people be explained about things it's really that simple. And there's also things in science that are also really hard to grasp like how small we really are. I don't think anyone can truly comprehend that now. We are a little speck of dust circling a little bigger speck of dust but that doesn't even really explain it well, because we are smaller than that. And really explaining how the earth has been around for a few trillion years. We only live about 80 years if we are lucky. Humans have only been around about a couple hundred thousand years. Trillions of years is really hard for anyone as short lived as we are to grasp.

I would like to see your timeline.

GKeeper316
8/6/2010, 11:02 PM
the earth is around 400 billion years old... which is about halfway through its life. in another 400 billion or so years our sun will go nova. mercury, venus, mars and earth will be almost instantaniously vaporized by it.

ndpruitt03
8/6/2010, 11:12 PM
I meant billions not trillions. But the rest of my post is accurate. It's really hard to comprehend those things. Or that we all came from Africa somewhere around a hundred to two hundred thousand years ago or so. And if the scientists are right that we evolved to humans something like 400k years ago we were stuck in Africa for the first half of our existence.

Ike
8/6/2010, 11:17 PM
the earth is around 400 billion years old... which is about halfway through its life. in another 400 billion or so years our sun will go nova. mercury, venus, mars and earth will be almost instantaniously vaporized by it.

ummmmm....you are maybe a few orders of magnitude off...

The sun is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth is younger than the sun.

The sun won't go nova. A nova is an event specific to binary stars, where one star is a white dwarf. The white dwarf sucks matter from it's larger cousin star, and as it accretes around the dwarf, the transferring matter gets caught up in a runaway fusion reaction. There isn't a white dwarf near our sun. So that won't be our fate.

You might be confusing a nova with a supernova, which is the explosion of a star. That won't happen to the sun either though. Or maybe you thought of a luminous red nova, which is thought to be the collision of 2 stars. As far as I know, that won't happen either.

What will happen though is that our sun will eventually turn into a red-giant type star. It's size will expand to encompass the orbit of the earth.

ndpruitt03
8/6/2010, 11:23 PM
Supposedly what the scientists are saying is that the earth's atmosphere is going to be burned off in about 1 billion years. We'll be long gone by then anyway. The planet won't be destroyed for another few billion years later but it'll be uninhabitable for a long time. Like the last poster just posted our sun isn't big enough to go nova.

Ike
8/6/2010, 11:25 PM
Supposedly what the scientists are saying is that the earth's atmosphere is going to be burned off in about 1 billion years. We'll be long gone by then anyway. Like the last poster just posted our sun isn't big enough to go supernova.

fixed

and
grrrrrrrrrr....those two are very different things.

Frozen Sooner
8/6/2010, 11:58 PM
BRING THE PAIN, IKE!! BRING THE PAIN!

Crucifax Autumn
8/7/2010, 12:25 AM
Dumb people are fun.

Frozen Sooner
8/7/2010, 12:25 AM
Thanks! I try.

Crucifax Autumn
8/7/2010, 12:36 AM
Heh.

soonerhubs
8/7/2010, 12:45 AM
Ahem... It's "Champagne Super Nova".

Or is it a Chevy Nova...?

I guess I'll have to watch NOVA this weekend to see if they discuss it.

Leroy Lizard
8/7/2010, 12:57 AM
ummmmm....you are maybe a few orders of magnitude off...

The sun is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth is younger than the sun.

The sun won't go nova. A nova is an event specific to binary stars, where one star is a white dwarf. The white dwarf sucks matter from it's larger cousin star, and as it accretes around the dwarf, the transferring matter gets caught up in a runaway fusion reaction. There isn't a white dwarf near our sun. So that won't be our fate.

You might be confusing a nova with a supernova, which is the explosion of a star. That won't happen to the sun either though. Or maybe you thought of a luminous red nova, which is thought to be the collision of 2 stars. As far as I know, that won't happen either.

What will happen though is that our sun will eventually turn into a red-giant type star. It's size will expand to encompass the orbit of the earth.

If it happens, like, more than 200 years from now I really don't care.

The Rapture will occur by then anyway, so it will work out swell in the end. Oh, wait.

Pricetag
8/7/2010, 01:07 AM
What are the chances of the sun going Aldo Nova?

Frozen Sooner
8/7/2010, 01:13 AM
Personally, I blame it on the Bossa Nova.

Leroy Lizard
8/7/2010, 01:16 AM
I want attention.

Frozen Sooner
8/7/2010, 01:19 AM
We're aware, Leroy.

Leroy Lizard
8/7/2010, 01:28 AM
Well, that helped... a little.

KC//CRIMSON
8/7/2010, 04:21 AM
Personally, I blame it on the Bossa Nova.

Not the best album by The Pixies, but it's still pretty damn solid.

GKeeper316
8/7/2010, 05:01 AM
ummmmm....you are maybe a few orders of magnitude off...

The sun is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth is younger than the sun.

The sun won't go nova. A nova is an event specific to binary stars, where one star is a white dwarf. The white dwarf sucks matter from it's larger cousin star, and as it accretes around the dwarf, the transferring matter gets caught up in a runaway fusion reaction. There isn't a white dwarf near our sun. So that won't be our fate.

You might be confusing a nova with a supernova, which is the explosion of a star. That won't happen to the sun either though. Or maybe you thought of a luminous red nova, which is thought to be the collision of 2 stars. As far as I know, that won't happen either.

What will happen though is that our sun will eventually turn into a red-giant type star. It's size will expand to encompass the orbit of the earth.

ya ok lose the 2 0s on the 400 and the red giant thing sounds right too. i just remember seeing it on a sciency show a few years ago. ive gotten really high a lot of times since then.

Mjcpr
8/7/2010, 10:02 AM
ummmmm....you are maybe a few orders of magnitude off...

The sun is about 4.5 billion years old. The earth is younger than the sun.

The sun won't go nova. A nova is an event specific to binary stars, where one star is a white dwarf. The white dwarf sucks matter from it's larger cousin star, and as it accretes around the dwarf, the transferring matter gets caught up in a runaway fusion reaction. There isn't a white dwarf near our sun. So that won't be our fate.

You might be confusing a nova with a supernova, which is the explosion of a star. That won't happen to the sun either though. Or maybe you thought of a luminous red nova, which is thought to be the collision of 2 stars. As far as I know, that won't happen either.

What will happen though is that our sun will eventually turn into a red-giant type star. It's size will expand to encompass the orbit of the earth.

How do you idiots not know all this already? I have said this like, 1,000 times.

Scott D
8/7/2010, 02:59 PM
you should have said it 1002 times, or gone in front of Simon Cowell to sing it to us.

47straight
8/8/2010, 05:03 PM
As it applies to the courts and the justice system, I'd love to see some sort of independent lab used by the courts whose sole job is to find the holes in all expert testimony, whether that be forensic science employed by investigators, labs hired by plaintiffs or defendants or whatever. Can they reproduce the results of those experts? I don't know if that would be feasable though. I highly doubt it.

Very roughly speaking, this happens in Europe, at least in patent litigation.