Adults are distracted by more life experience meaning a mature mind leaves the room due to a memory of something, while children can focus on something if its interested as there’s less in their mind going on.
This is partly why women have monopause and human lifespan exceed the reproductive lifespan so older people can balance out younger period, blending the high plasticity of the young brain with the experience of the older brain.
If I were to ask for our species to do more of is being skeptical, to challenge, not assume something is true, or assume it is false - cognitive bias - but doubt and experiment and test and verify. Children are born with curiosity but also gullibility. The curiosity is easily suppressed “because I said so” and gullibility as shown by Santa Claus. If we could do more of “how do you know?” “prove it” , “where is your evidence”. Because the correct person has the answers and so transports knowledge not opinion and the false person is shut up faster.
Science is when you use observations and theories and predictions. As you get new observations they form better theories and better predictions. Suppose you only saw Red apples, and so said “all apples are red”, and then you saw a green apple, then you disproved the theory.
A confident gullibility is weaker than a humble ignorance because knowing the weakness in your data is your doubt and how you seek the next level of truth, but to think you’re right using a subset of reality is failure.
Currently none have disproved GR but it is being constantly tested. Eventually probable a better theory of GR will arise - would you say therefore GR is wrong and not use it? GR is what is accurately being used to make your phone GPS work, but if GR was found flawed would you then throw away your GPS? No. Newton’s theory of Gravity accurately calculated many things, the planets and moon motions, but there was a precession of the planet Mercury which was not explained, and GR helped form a better theory of Gravity. Even though GR shows Newton wrong, we still use Newton “classical mechanics” as its simpler and good enough away from high relativistic velocities and strong gravity. GR does not include quantum mechanics so we know GR is incomplete.
Not hypothesis then theory then law. Law is a summary, theory is an explanation. Newton had Laws, but not explanations. Einstein had some explanations but not a complete one (the key one is how exactly does energy bend space-time, we can observe it does but not how it does it, the graviton in a field theory is hypothesized but there’s no experimental data).
The plural of anecdotes is not a hypothesis as it has to be tested, independently verified. So in the case of “children these days” you cannot use personal evidence, all it would give you a personal interest to explore your hypothesis.
There is scant scientific evidence the young are getting worse at concentration. That does not mean it isn’t happening, just one needs to gather one’s evidence. Burden of proof on the person making the claim.
That is still personal experience. That is not peer reviewed. The issue with personal experience is humans individually are flawed, primarily cognitive bias, we tend to accept evidence which aligns with our personal pet hypothesis and tend to not accept to the contrary. That is not saying you are wrong, but there is doubt in your evidence. One must always doubt oneself in science. Place equal effort to disprove oneself.
The scientific method is to get someone else to repeat your observations.
The fact you said you have multiple personal anecdotes means you know science is the flaw in your argument.
SpaceX is innovating. So is NASA. However, NASA is not for profit. So if you fund SpaceX you will be at some point funding equity to someone else. Now your “support” (as in… how exactly do you support each?) is going to be relative support of each, SpaceX vs NASA, as NASA supports many things, like Mars unmanned missions. You can certainly support a particular part of science but to say NASA is not innovative is a very broad statement. NASA put successful probes on Mars, SpaceX has not, NASA is studying the Earth’s climate, SpaceX isn’t. They do different things, and I for one would not feel qualified in a public forum to compare them. They seem both very innovative to me. Either defend it or retract it, or admit you are not using a scientific argument.
Also not true.
Objects move relative to us. So say an object is moving towards us, light left it 55 million years ago, it is now less than 55 million light years away. Or it is moving away from us, so light left it 55 million years ago, it is now more than 55 million light years away. Time is time, light years is distance, “is” is not “now” not “then”.
So the observable universe is bigger than we can observe because the light we see came from an object further away, as apart from our local group (gravitationally bound) in the main everything is going away. Hubble expansion.
Science is the current best information and thinking, and as we know more we get better. Is that “wrong”? Yes, by definition it is always wrong as it will be replaced by better in the future. Does that mean you can reject it? No, not unless you have new evidence of equal or better quality. The scientific method is to reject oneself as the cause of error (independent tests, peer review), and often scientists love to disprove something, particularly Einstein as he is a big hero.
In summary
Well you cannot do that in a public forum. You can make bad claims and if you do not delete them someone else can come along and make the same errors have you just did. Hence, either I have to back down as science, facts, are not important to me, or you must correct and retract.
Opt-in is great, ignore something is fine.
Well in the context you wrote those words, everything is history.
the light from our galactic core left it about 100,000 years ago, and as we are gravitionally bound, is a distance of 100,000 light years ago.
that light then entered multiple telescopes a couple of years ago, but had to be collected, processed
then that image enters your eye, your brain processes and eventually you saw it.
In the case of the Messier 87 black hole, it is further away, but it is a much bigger black hole, and we are not viewing it edge-on through the dense dust of our galaxy. It is in our local group, we are gravitionally bound to it, so we’ll be seeing it for a while, but most of the universe is expanding away from us and future generations will not be able to see them.
Whoaoowwww ! @professor you blew me off, but I read word to word and was interesting as I read it.
Lot of it makes sense…[quote=“professor, post:41, topic:68054”]
Science is the current best information and thinking, and as we know more we get better. Is that “wrong”? Yes, by definition it is always wrong as it will be replaced by better in the future. Does that mean you can reject it? No, not unless you have new evidence of equal or better quality.
[/quote]
I call it as Continuous Improvement
thanks for today’s class, will come back tomorrow definitely.
you blew me off, but I read word to word and was interesting as I read it.
thanks for today’s class, will come back tomorrow definitely.
