"You know about slime mold? Well, slime molds are so close to being both plant and animal that it's like they can't make up their minds. Some think that maybe it's these indecisive organisms who have been running the earth all this time. There’s more slime mold than any other form of protoplasm on the planet. If they wanted to, if they finally decided to commit to being either plant or animal, they could take us over just like that. [Interviewer: You talk about slime molds like I should know what these are]. I mean, they're everywhere. If you walk in an alleyway and slip a bit, twisting your ankle, maybe it wasn’t an accident. Maybe it was a slime mold attack." - David St Hubbins in a deleted scene from Spinal Tap (1984)
It's not just fungi that are difficult to culture. The (vast?) majority of bacteria, virus, and archae species are undocumented because we don't know how to grow them in a laboratory or even stain them so that they're visible on a microscope slide. Except for the occasional glimpse on an electron microscope slide, most of them are completely invisible to science.
Wow...a very interesting read. It's always humbling when reminded of how many and how large are the pieces we are completely missing in the understanding of even the immediate world around us.
We mostly behave like we have our basic every-day experience pretty much covered - yet, there are such vast areas - across basically all of sciences - that we just utterly don't understand, and who knows how much more additionally that we don't even know is there.
Not to mention what is outside the domain of science. Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits so I expect it to remain as is in the short to medium term, perhaps forever.
Nothing is outside the domain of science. It's not about culture, but attitude - science makes everything its domain. Scientific method is generally applicable, it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify. Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random, but "completely random" is a pattern too, so it too lives in the domain of science.
Later qualified by: "that we can possibly identify". You seem to forget at least one basic circumstance here: that the scientific method is but one narrative. It may be universally applicable, but it is not the only interesting thing that can be said (and what it says is more often than not "we don't know"). The current cultural paradigm (in some quarters), which seem to think that only "scientific truth" is worthwhile, everything else is just random noise is likely precisely what the parent objected to, and that you stepped in to defend.
Incidentally, you seem to agree that there are indeed things outside the domain of science, those things that we can not possibly identify. This is also the reason I'm not as pessimistic as the parent when it comes to the longevity of the current, scientismically informed paradigm: The insight that the things we can possibly identify are but a fraction of the infinite will surely land sooner or later. It doesn't make the scientific method wrong by any stretch of the imagination, but it will always be just mapping local phenomena (that we can notice), not everything.
If you cannot observe it (directly or indirectly) it is outside the realm of science, likewise if it is not falsifiable (testable) it is not science. Observe, theorize, predict, test. Science 101.
No computational reason, literally zero reason at all. Fundamentally unfalsifiable beliefs are completely arbitrary, and those fundamentally unobservable subjects of those beliefs cannot affect reality in any way - if they could, then they would be observable in principle, and therefore the belief in them would be falsifiable too.
Having proof of nonexistence is completely different from having no reason to believe in existence. There is an infinite number of nonexistent things you might want to believe in. How do you choose which one you like? In my opinion the things where you have no proof of existence and which you define to be causally independent from the universe are the least interesting things to believe in. For example I believe extraterrestial intelligence exists even though I have to proof for it.
Demonstrating that "is" derives from Belief, not Truth. Which I'm ok with, if it is realized. Otherwise, I consider (and therefore believe, but do not know) the risk to be high enough that something should be done about it. Not so unlike how normal people are passionate about others getting their vaccinations.
> They are irrelevant for the question of this thread.
Then why did you mention it? And, you made a claim in response to my question...so what gives? This technique seems a bit unfair.
Regardless: is relevance objective? How is it measured?
Also: note that "are" is a conjugation of "is". This creates a bit of an epistemic problem does it not (considering your comment above)?
> No human can observe unobservable things by definition.
Religion is a classic counterpoint to this. Nonexistence is another. Relevance is another. Omniscience another. There are tons of examples, with new ones coming online every day!
Plus: does defining reality to be a certain way necessarily mean it takes on that form, or might it only cause it to appear to have taken on that form?
Does the word "observe" have any constraints? For example: claimed observations, but that lack a way of measuring scientifically. Could science study this phenomenon?
Nope. Science is a specific tool of thought with a definition that starts with observation. Science might help feed ideas for technological or other sorts of advancement that allows us to observer more than before, but just because it helps science doesn't make it science.
If you cannot observe it / falsify it in principle - not using currently economical approaches, but using any possible current or future tests - then it's not science. If you can prove it cannot possibly be observed or falsified, it's not science.
It also means it's nonsense and doesn't exist.
Science claims totality. Anything that affects reality in any way, is in domain of science.
Not quite science, but this quote from Conan the barbarian is, IMO, nonetheless relevant:
"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." ― Robert E. Howard, Queen of the Black Coast
I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and make a guess: you have no proof for this claim of fact?
I am endlessly fascinated how science is held up by its fan base as superior because it is evidenced based, yet when defending challenges to it, any "fact" can be deployed effortlessly, with no evidence required.
> It's not about culture
I strongly believe that thinking is downstream from culture.
> science makes everything its domain
It certainly rhetorically extends ownership to all of "reality" (identical to The Universe, dontcha know), but they certainly do not investigate all that can be.
Here's a nice discussion:
The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist
Note that the gloves remain on, as always. (Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with why humans are perpetually wandering around confused, without knowing it.)
It's a slick technique, especially if it is done intuitively:
Furthermore: do you consider scientists to be a part of science?
If so: how do you know if everything important is actively being worked on by at least one scientist (never mind a near optimal number)? (See also: [1])
If not: how does science accomplish anything? How can only ideas interact with the physical realm, if not through human bodies engaging in work?
> Scientific method is generally applicable
"generally", "applicable"
I am also fascinated at the loose language science fans use when describing their ideology, that is so great because it deals in precision.
> it's a universal tool for identifying any kind of pattern that we can possibly identify.
"identifying"
Here is a pattern, Humans.
Well done, Scientists!
Can you point me to science's study of war, and their strategies for ending it in the near future? It's a pretty important topic, they surely have thousands of the very best minds on it I would think, since it is their domain (in that it is a part of everything).
> Everything else is, in practice if not theory, completely random...
Present a proof.
Just because your ideology is sitting in the throne right now doesn't mean you get beliefs = facts freebies like this, especially when shit talking competing ideologies for that very same behavior is a core component of your marketing/indoctrination strategy.
These conversations remind me of one of my favorite sayings:
"People don't have ideas. Ideas have people."
- Carl Jung
I'd recommend him, but he is a peddler of "woo woo".
[1] From foolswison's link:
"Plenty of scientists are theists. But the ones that do good science leave their theism at the door and try to explain things in naturalistic terms (even if theism is the reason they entered that door in the first place)."
I don't keep detailed records, but I have had easily hundreds of science fans tell me with absolute sincerity and good faith that any scientists that don't behave the way they describe (say, if I was to link them to articles) don't count, because they aren't scientists. (Actual scientists only behave perfectly, of course.) I wonder if science not studying such things (ontology, etc) and thus not constantly tooting their horn about it in the media [2] might have something to do with why their fans have utterly no knowledge of it, and thus believe that it doesn't exist[3].
Maybe not over-reacted, but over-rehearsed. Your debate produces a clear winner, and may appeal to popular sentiment, but I'm not sure any scientist would associate themselves with either side of it.
Belief in science as an all-encompassing ideology is a minority view among scientists. Scientists are usually careful to stipulate that it's not. My parents were both scientists. They're the ones who took my brothers and me to art museums and concerts, exposed us to religions, literature, the love of the outdoors, and so forth.
Maybe 90% of the public have never met a scientist, making it easy to turn us into the bogeyman.
> Belief in science as an all-encompassing ideology is a minority view among scientists. Scientists are usually careful to stipulate that it's not.
I believe that if this was studied carefully (with temporal detail), the reality of the situation would be revealed to be much more interesting than your intuition indicates.
Even the best scientists still have heuristics based consciousness, layers of culture, etc. Consciousness is way more complicated than it reveals to itself (which is what people here are describing, technically / architecturally).
I describe it using Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote: "You go to battle with the army you have." We all wrestle with the limitations of our mental apparatus. Also, reality is always more complicated than any concise description of it. No experienced scientist would claim otherwise.
> I describe it using Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote: "You go to battle with the army you have."
It's a great meme, but all capabilities in existence have not been brought to bear, not even close.
> We all wrestle with the limitations of our mental apparatus.
Agreed, but to very different degrees, and in very different ways (as in positive wrestling vs negative).
> Also, reality is always more complicated than any concise description of it. No experienced scientist would claim otherwise.
a) You 2nd sentence is subject to your first.
b) You have no way to know this. I on the other hand do: I talk to scientists on the regular who make unsound claims. There is nothing about science that renders its practitioners immune to culture, propaganda, ideological blindness, heuristics, etc (despite it being an extremely popular, faith based belief).
My wisdom of commenting is people will always latch in to the worst parts, so you either have to commit to the worst things you write or write in a more bland way.
Regarding your comment I have the same issue with how badly engineers simplifies science, but they usually have a to noble view of themselves being ignorant of what they ignore. Having discussions which offends people needs to be done in a trustfull way even then it is hard, I usually sound like a dimwit or a twat.
>>> Sadly, this area is essentially culturally off limits
Not in my experience. I just got back from a week of playing music in the woods with a bunch of folk musicians. Sometimes we talked about science, but music is for all intents and purposes an orthogonal way of exploring reality. Likewise for many areas of art, literature, etc.
The land, water and air around us are chock-full of DNA fragments from fungi that mycologists can’t link to known organisms. These slippery beings are so widespread scientists are calling them “dark fungi.” It’s a comparison to the equally elusive dark matter and dark energy that permeates the universe. Like those invisible entities, dark fungi are hidden movers and shakers, prime examples of what E. O. Wilson called “the little things that run the world.”
Slightly off-topic, but not really - cultivating mushrooms is really fascinating. And those that hold magic offer an additional element of very special satisfaction. If you're looking for a new hobby, give it a try! It's easy to start with a colonized growth kit - you can buy those online.
If you like it, the next level is growing your own mycelium in liquid culture (basically in honey water).
If that works out will, use it to colonize your own substrate.
Then, you can produce your own (storable) spore prints from harvested mushrooms. Which you can use to create new mycelium liquid cultures. And the cycle can be repeated indefinitely, with tons of harvest!
I often see amateur mycologists that are very excited about their hobby. This kind of enthusiasm is exactly what I would expect from a fungus or at least someone who is under fungal control.
A flow hood or air box helps but you can do it without. I'd recommend using mycellium to make a liquid culture vs. a spore solution, though. Less chance of contamination and faster colonization of your grain spawn.
""
It’s a comparison to the equally elusive dark matter and dark energy that make up 95 percent of our universe and exert tremendous influence on, well, everything.
""
Then in my ignorance I googled it, and it appears to be true.
How in the world can the dominant theory for the universe be based on
it being 95% filled with mystical shit that we cant prove, but makes
our math happy.
That sounds insane, like religion.
Clearly examining models of the universe that dont depend upon 95% mystical stuff
may be an avenue worth exploring.
It's not just the math. Observations of galaxy rotations point to something that acts like dark matter exerting a gravitational pull. There are other theories that are being explored (Like MOND) but they don't match the actual universe as well as theories that include dark matter. Scientists would love to find a theory that works better or observations that point in a different direction, but so far, no luck. If you've got a better theory, please speak up.
You’ve completed a cursory google search and don’t understand why our leading explanations for the observations cosmologists have made say what they say — OK. Sometimes when our opinions counter the narratives of whole scientific fields, it can be helpful to first convince yourself you actually understand what they claim: what is the evidence, and what are the required inferences to arrive at the modern cosmologist view of what the universe is made of.
Nothing we see here on earth seems to be dark matter. When we look at far away galaxies, they rotate like they were about 20 times bigger than we can see. One hypothesis to explain this is that there actually is 19x more stuff that we can't see. Another hypothesis is that our theories of how galaxies should rotate are wrong.
I think this article presents dark matter as much more of a resolved question than it actually is. It's an unconfirmed hypothesis to explain observed reality. That's not mysticism, it's science in progress.
Perhaps one day a physical experiment will support or invalidate the hypothesis, or a competing one. Until then, we simply don't know the answer, so we think about it. If you don't like that, I guess you should stop thinking about it?
> Clearly examining models of the universe that dont depend upon 95% mystical stuff may be an avenue worth exploring.
You're far from the first person to suggest such an idea. And far from it being a new idea. There have been a whole lot of people who have tried to come up with an alternative solution, and the problem is, they're all universally significantly worse.
I don't mean to disparage you, but this is pretty much universally the reaction people have when they first learn about the scale of dark matter, and that has resulted in significant research efforts to put forward a different solution... but dark matter is still a superior answer to the question.
One thing that isn't immediately obvious is that we have a wide variety of ways to estimate the mass of things. Just for galaxies, we can look at their radial velocities, x-ray spectrum and flux, and gravitational lensing. These approach the measurement from very different methods, yet all of them strongly align with dark matter. Modifying our theory of gravity to alternative explanations has yet to be able to account for just these three methods, and they're just a subset of the observations we have that support dark matter's existence.
> How in the world can the dominant theory for the universe be based on it being 95% filled with mystical shit that we cant prove, but makes our math happy.
We could write a library's worth of books about things that math has predicted before we could experimentally prove it or otherwise observe it. Dark matter makes a whole bunch of math in a whole bunch of places work, including in areas where MOND and its derivatives and other alternative solutions fall down. LIGO and gravitational waves have also blown big holes in alternative theories like TeVeS.
Basically, the more data we get, the more it supports dark matter. Providing a viable alternative explanation that can answer the same questions and would match our observations would instantly shortlist you for the nobel prize in physics. A whole lot of incredibly intelligent people have tried and failed. And it's not like physicists "like" dark matter - no one is more frustrated by the fact that something so hugely important to the makeup of the universe is damn near invisible to us than the physicists who work in these areas.
Why do the scientists velieve that using a "quick test" that checks only part of DNA is good?
Wouldnt it be better to do full sequencing, instead of this ITS test? Especially if that part is mutating quickly.
If they want to move forward shouldnt thry do boring full sequencing? Then they can make real comparisons, not estimates?
