[adekok]

> Physics used to be "hard science" -

Physics is still a hard science. However, the edges of physics are difficult to test.

> In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment

Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". It's a naive approach to science.

In both cases, you can use theories to make predictions about new things to look for. e.g. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

> Physics is funded because it produced the atomic bomb and semiconductors.

Physics is funded because it's cool. And it still gets less funding than major sports leagues. So by your definition, the NFL is funded because it's part of a national defence strategy?

[Avshalom]

>> In cosmology, you can only observe, not experiment

>Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day". It's a naive approach to science.

In general it's also true of almost all astronomical research, and large whacks of geology. Which is fine because experiments are just observations that scientists are the impetus for. Science works by gathering data, experiments just let us produce data to gather at our own speed instead of having to wait around for something to happen and hope we're looking in the right direction when it does. In the case of astronomy instead of relying on experiments to produce more data we mostly build better instruments.

[rsfern]

Actually, at least in the US, physics is funded because of things like the atomic bomb and the transistor, as GP points out. Observe the rhetoric of any congress member. They don't care if physics is "cool", any more than the general public probably does.

Football isn't funded by the federal government at all, so your point about national security is just silly.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

Maybe not by the feds, but they squeeze an incredible amount of money from state and local governments.

[vacri]

> Saying that is like saying "we don't know evolution is true, because we don't see new species evolve every day".

We do see new species evolve every day. We also see microevolution so commonly that it's a standard high-school biology task.

> Physics is funded because it's cool.

The point being made is that for a long time, it was common for physicists to look down their nose at other sciences "because what we do is real". Now they're finding themselves in the same boat.

[purpled_haze]

> We do see new species evolve every day. We also see microevolution so commonly that it's a standard high-school biology task.

Can you describe?

My memory of high school genetics involved experiments with Drosophila eye color, etc. which were really about the passing of genes and, sometimes, mutation. However these experiments didn't prove that natural selection or seemingly random mutation were necessarily what drove species to change over time to create new species based on their environment. I had to accept that. I also accept that people tell me human and chimp DNA is similar.

Theoretical physicists also attempt to explain things that they cannot see or experience, and if people believe it, they believe it.

Science, in part, requires faith.

Think of everything you think you understand about science and about our world. How much of it did you really prove with your hands, and how much instead did you just read or hear and understand to be true because others wrote or said it was true?

You can put your faith in theories, and that has proved practical for many physicists and biologists, just to name a few. A god or gods could also be driving those evolutionary processes in part, or could have set things in motion. Accepting religion and scientific facts both require faith, and that's ok.

[vacri]

> Science, in part, requires faith.

Only at the bleeding edge, which you don't need to use in your everyday life. Most science-related things at human scale can be done with your own two hands; you don't require billion-dollar tools to fiddle with materials science, for example. Youtube is filled with videos of people doing human-scale science.

The whole 'science requires faith' argument is largely thrown out to give credence to religion. The problem with that argument is that the fundamental building blocks of science do not require faith, and you build from those. The SI units are convention - you can make your own. What constitutes validity is convention - you can decide your own way. You don't require faith to start doing basic science.

On the other hand, religion's basic building blocks require faith from the outset. Person X is divine, 'trust us'. God Y likes or doesn't like that, 'trust us'. And from these basic religious building blocks, whole edifices are built. For example, most catholics are unaware of how the bible was pieced together by committee. That information doesn't affect their day-to-day lives, however the religious rules that do affect them are based on those fundamental building blocks that are unverifiable by anyone. Faith is required because the foundational blocks are not verifiable at all.

This does not happen in science - you can verify the foundational rules yourself, and build as far along the tree as your interest and tooling allow. Theoretical physics existing in the 'faith' world is largely a canard - most science is not like this, and theoretical physics is at the exploratory edge of science, not at the core foundational blocks. In short, the Planck Length is defined by the meter which we can see and confirm; the meter is not defined by the Planck Length which we theorise about.

Not to mention that in general, 'scientific facts' are constantly tested, and 'religious facts' are not. The engineering capabilities of steel are in constant use in almost every part of our lives; if science was wrong about them, the material would fail in unexpected ways. The divinity of the christ figure... well, it isn't even testable. Christ is only divine to christians, but a steel bridge needs to hold up regardless of the mental state of the humans using it.

[mahranch]

> Only at the bleeding edge, which you don't need to use in your everyday life.

He means how do you know the speed of light is 186,000 mi/sec? Did you test it yourself? Or are you taking someone's word for it? It's one or the other.

> On the other hand, religion's basic building blocks require faith from the outset.

I think you and the guy above you used the wrong word. Instead of faith, I would have used "trust". I trust that Einstein and his peers who studied his work are correct in their assessment of his theory of relativity. I don't need to test it myself, I take their word for it. I trust them.

On the other hand, people who compare something like string theory to philosophy really have it backwards. String theory might be untestable right this second due to technical limitations (string theory does make quite a few unique predictions) but that doesn't mean it will remain that way forever. Hell, it may not be that way tomorrow with as fast as science has been progressing... This is in contrast to proving the existence of a God or deity which has zero hope of ever being testable because it's "inherently" untestable.

As far as string theory goes, one of the most obvious predictions are strings themselves. We cannot build an accelerator large enough to smash particles together at the speeds required to look for strings but that doesn't mean such a thing is impossible; such an accelerator already exists - supermassive black holes. They accelerate particles at the required speeds to look for strings.

[vacri]

> He means how do you know the speed of light is 186,000 mi/sec? Did you test it yourself? Or are you taking someone's word for it? It's one or the other.

I take someone's word for it, but here's the kicker: I don't care. That particular measurement doesn't affect me one jot if it's a different speed. I don't play with optics; the measurement affects nothing I choose to do. However, if I did care, I could work from first principles and find out; it's really well documented, and I can also create my own methodology. This is not true of religious requirements. Throw money in the plate on Sunday because this guy two thousand years ago was divine? There is no way I can verify that.

> Instead of faith, I would have used "trust".

I did leave out a bit saying that the GP was using two different forms of 'faith' that were apples and oranges, but left it out as I was already waffling. :)

However, you will find that as you do your own science, it pretty much always conforms to the rules found by people who have come before you. It's really only as you near the expansion fringes of science that you start getting conflicts with mainstream thought.

Again, this does not happen with religion, where often the argument becomes "god moves in mysterious ways" or "who can know his plan, but he does have one". Core rules that don't make sense with the observed world are often distorted with these phrases. There are definitely grey areas and fuzziness in science - biology has a lot of fuzziness - but there are still common behaviours that work regardless of your cultural background. Born into an Egyptian Coptic family, Christ is divine. Born into the Muslim family next door, Christ is a prophet, but not divine. The fundamental essences of science just don't move with cultural background like that; the resistivity of copper doesn't care about your state of mind.

There is definitely trust involved in science, but trust is a thing that can be broken and reshaped and is allowed to be examined and verified, where faith is not. Besides, if trust is broken, that's considered a fault on the part of the person providing the information. However, if faith is broken, that's considered a fault on the part of the person receiving the information.

But word choice is important - by saying "science relies on faith", the underlying agenda is that other things that rely on faith should be given the same level of trust, even though they don't expose themselves to the same level of inspection.

[danieltillett]

There are two types of science that are fundamentally very different to each other; observation science and experimental science. The base thinking of the two types of science are very different and even the people drawn to each type are quite different.

Physics is interesting in that both types of science are successful, where in say molecular biology or geology only one type dominates.

[choosername]

of course the image that the nfl puts forth of strong men fighting battles with what might seem like intelligent strategies plays into the hands of military types. Players get points for shooting. Is this a trap question? Casting shows OTOH are all about mating and increasing the troop strength.

[gamesbrainiac]

The NFL is funded because it provides entertainment, and we all know how well that sells.

[malka]

and how well that prevents people from critical thinking.

[wolfgke]

The German word for entertaiment is "Unterhaltung", which is composed of "unten" and "halten" ("down" and "hold") - and that is what entertainment is: Holding the masses down (such that they don't ascend or revolt).

Guess who is thus interested in funding entertainment.

[chki]

I think that is not only incorrect considering the content but probably also the semantics involved. There are many German words that have "Unter" in them ("Unternehmen" --> Company; "Untersuchung" --> study) where it does not relate to the word "unten" in any way.

[kgwgk]

In fact it seems to be related to the "among" meaning of "unter". The etymology is similar for other languages:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=entertain

[justinsingh]

Because having freedom in how you spend your leisure time obviously means that taking away that optionality would lead to.. revolt!!! I just don't see your logic here. It seems outdated.