Potentially the longest thread in history...

[Fat.Clown]

Newegg is funny
they had lifetime warranty listed for about a quarter of Netgear's routers. which was not true, most Netgear routers carry 1 year warranty (except the WNR2000).

now they fixed the listing, but offers extended warranty for the WNR2000 (the one with lifetime warranty).

I chatted with the customer service agent first, she just flat out dismissed my suggestion of correcting the listing. (original warranty listing for WNDR3700 was 0 day parts, lifetime labor. which just made no sense) she said they got the description direct from the manufacture; and asked me to contact Netgear if I have further questions.

 

[Apokalipse]

True, you don't... but you can never say for absolute certain either way. You can find evidence that points to one conclusion or another, or enough to back your claim, but this all supposedly happened way before we came along. The best they can honestly do is give an educated guess.

This basically comes down to a very old argument; how does one know anything?

If you really get down to the basics, the only one thing you can know with absolute certainty is your own existence - "I think, therefore I am" (i.e. if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be able to think about the qestion of whether or not I exist)

So to learn anything else beyond that, we have to make some assumptions.
The assumptions I make are:
* the universe exists
* my senses are giving me enough data that I can use to learn things about it

Technically I can't know with absolute certainty if those assumptions are correct. But if I didn't make those assumptions, how would I live, or learn anything about what is?

Never surrender your own reason to those who claim to know better. Few of them are operating without their own agenda.

Most people believe that they are doing the right thing. Even Adolf Hitler did.

But that is a valid point, and that's pretty much why the scientific method is used;
The process of science is evidence-based. whoever comes up with an idea, or what agenda he may or may not have is irrelevant. What's important is that you have evidence that can be use to form a conclusion.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

^but you get what Trotter was trying to say right? The article is stating that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. E.g. they're saying it's a fact not a theory or opinion.

Trotter was just rightly pointing out that it was technically incorrect for them to write the article like that. For all we know it could've been a massive alien ship that blasted the earth with asteroid-like bullets. Can't say for sure, can't state it as a fact.

 

[Trotter]

Exactly, S0UL. It gripes me when anyone writes up an article stating that such-and-suck happened JUST LIKE THIS when there is no way anyone could really know that for sure. Odds are that someone will come out with something shortly that disproves or cast a serious shadow of doubt on the article's conclusion.

Anytime someone starts out with a conclusion they will always be able to find "facts" (real or partial) that will fit and support their preconceived conclusion. Basically, it is bad science in that, while you begin with a hypothesis, you go forward and let the facts speak for themselves. By starting with the answer you want, you just follow back using the steps that deliver that exact result.

 

[Apokalipse]

^but you get what Trotter was trying to say right? The article is stating that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. E.g. they're saying it's a fact not a theory or opinion.

in scientific terms, a theory is not simply a guess.
it is a model, built on evidence, detailing how a known fact or phenomena occurs.

For example, we know that two objects with mass will accelerate towards each other.
The theory of gravity is the model detailing how that works.

If you want to suggest that an idea is more along the lines of a 'guess', in scientific terms, the word hypothesis is used. A hypothesis is an attempt at forming a scientific theory, but which has not been tested.

Also, the problem with stories in the media is that they don't necessarily accurately represent exactly the context in which scientists have worked on an idea.

For example, do we know that the scientists talked about in this article were trying to disprove the idea of the meteor causing the dinosaurs to become extinct, and failing to do so? or were they only looking for evidence to confirm it? the article doesn't say.

So to look at it objectively, you have to try and filter out the media fluff, and get to the facts.

a 15-kilometre (9 miles) wide asteroid slamming into Earth at Chicxulub in what is now Mexico was the culprit.

This would seem to suggest that there definitely was a 15km wide asteroid and they know where it hit.

And so the question then becomes, was this asteroid the cause of the mass extinction?

Trotter was just rightly pointing out that it was technically incorrect for them to write the article like that. For all we know it could've been a massive alien ship that blasted the earth with asteroid-like bullets.

in that case, what is the distinction between asteroid, and asteroid-like?
And if it was intentionally directed towards Earth, that doesn't exactly change whether or not it was the cause of the extinction.

And this is also pretty much the point of my post above. How do we know anything beyond our own existence?
Technically we don't. For any event or phenomena, there are an infinite number of ideas which one cannot disprove.

What science is, is the process of gathering data, evidence, and finding what conclusions can be drawn from the data and evidence you have.
The most probable ideas are the ones which agree with the data and evidence that you have.

 

[wafflehammer]

trotter made an excellent point...you can't prove something without a bias if you already know the outcome...because then you're just looking for things to prove your assumption is right.

 

[SirCyber]

wow, I'm really sorry that I missed this conversation... seems from what I've read, dinosaurs, astroids, and the difference between fact, fiction, and reality lol

 

[S0ULphIRE]

in scientific terms, a theory is not simply a guess.
it is a model, built on evidence, detailing how a known fact or phenomena occurs.

my bad, I shouldn't have used the word 'theory'.

This would seem to suggest that there definitely was a 15km wide asteroid and they know where it hit.

That is exactly my point. They have data which seems to say that a 15km wide asteroid hit this exact spot exactly this long ago, but for all we know it could have still been something completely different. Humans are not infallible, and our knowledge of how the universe works (or worked) is far from complete. At one point according to us the world was flat and was the center of the universe.

in that case, what is the distinction between asteroid, and asteroid-like?
And if it was intentionally directed towards Earth, that doesn't exactly change whether or not it was the cause of the extinction.

The distinction is this: asteroid-like is not the same as 'an asteroid'. And the acticle STATED that it was 'an asteroid' that caused the extinction.
As to whether or not it was the cause of the extinction, I wouldn't know. I'm not debating whether or not that happened though, I'm questioning the correctness of the articles presentation of the given evidence.

And this is also pretty much the point of my post above. How do we know anything beyond our own existence?
Technically we don't. For any event or phenomena, there are an infinite number of ideas which one cannot disprove.

That's true. But I'd like to keep this debate out of the abstract 'does anything exist' realm if you please. If we went that route then there is no point to me even posting this, because I'd just be arguing with myself in a plane where nothing but me exists, right?

What science is, is the process of gathering data, evidence, and finding what conclusions can be drawn from the data and evidence you have.
The most probable ideas are the ones which agree with the data and evidence that you have.

Agreed. However until one can conclusively prove that something is indeed a fact, one should not be so pretentious as to parade around an idea as if it were.

 

[Apokalipse]

That is exactly my point. They have data which seems to say that a 15km wide asteroid hit this exact spot exactly this long ago, but for all we know it could have still been something completely different. Humans are not infallible, and our knowledge of how the universe works (or worked) is far from complete. At one point according to us the world was flat and was the center of the universe.

Based on the data that people had available, the assumption that the Earth was flat wasn't obviously wrong. - I mean, it was wrong, but not obviously so.
If you make the assumption that the Earth is flat, within the scales that people are used to every day, you can still get some accurate approximations. to a lot of basic tasks or experiments (reading a map of a town, or building a block of houses using square measurements)

It's a bit like newton's laws today.
Most people actually don't understand that newton's laws are actually based on a lot of assumptions which are fundamentally wrong.
People still use Newton's laws all the time, and they will give you very accurate approximations within the scales that people are used to dealing with every day.
x = ut + 12at² is wrong, but it will give you a very accurate answer in the small scales that we work with every day.

Some of the faulty assumptions that Newton's laws make are:
* time is constant
* gravity is a property of objects with mass
* speed will be measured the same by an observer of an object, as by the object itself
* time and space are separate

Einstein basically turned a lot of the assumptions of Newton's laws on their heads
Einstein's theories make these assumptions:
* time is not constant. it varies depending on velocity, and on the amount of gravitational force that is present.
* gravity is really an effect that objects with mass have on the space-time continuum, and in turn, the distortions of space-time continuum affects anything that exists within it.
* the speed of light is the only constant
* space and time are linked together

The distinction is this: asteroid-like is not the same as 'an asteroid'.

Elaborate.
It's hardly useful to define a term or word by what it's not.

It's a bit like the word 'atheist' (which literally just means "not theist"). - It doesn't say anything about what a person believes; only what a person does not believe.

In any case, it's just a label. What's important is whether or not there was a body (whether you call it an asteroid or not), approximately 15km wide, and whether it crashed into the Earth.

Once that has been established, we can then move on to whether or not it may have caused the extinction of dinosaurs.

And this is where the process of science, and the evidence come in.

As to whether or not it was the cause of the extinction, I wouldn't know. I'm not debating whether or not that happened though, I'm questioning the correctness of the articles presentation of the given evidence.

In that case, I agree with you. The article doesn't exactly give much in terms of the context of the data and evidence the scisntists were dealing with, or how their conclusion was made.

That's true. But I'd like to keep this debate out of the abstract 'does anything exist' realm if you please. If we went that route then there is no point to me even posting this, because I'd just be arguing with myself in a plane where nothing but me exists, right?

I brought it up because it seemed like a relevant point in the context of what is being discussed.

Agreed. However until one can conclusively prove that something is indeed a fact, one should not be so pretentious as to parade around an idea as if it were.

Whether or not the article is giving much in terms of data, evidence or study, I don't think the scientists would really qualify as being 'scientists' if they didn't gather data and evidence to form a conclusion.

So what we should really be discussing is how the scientists came to their conclusion and with what data.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Based on the data that people had available, the assumption that the Earth was flat wasn't obviously wrong. - I mean, it was wrong, but not obviously so.

exactly. Based on the data that we have now, it seems as if nothing but an asteroid could fit the bill for what happened. There might not be any obvious flaws, but that doesn't mean there are none at all.

And here's an interesting thought. EVEN IF there were no flaws in that theory, it doesn't mean it happened. There is usually more than one plausible solution to a problem, but only one right answer.

Elaborate.
It's hardly useful to define a term or word by what it's not.

In this case defining the term or word by what it was not was all that was needed. The article stated that an asteroid was the cause of dinosaur extinction.
My point was that they had incorrectly stated that it was an asteroid. According to them it could ONLY have been and in fact WAS specifically an asteroid that caused the extinction. Not a comet, not a giant elephant that'd eaten too much baked beans, not a bomb planted by a group of dinosaur-hating aliens. An asteroid.

So what we should really be discussing is how the scientists came to their conclusion and with what data.

yep. But again, as I said before, even if their data is completely accurate, it doesn't mean that that's what happened. A completely plausible solution can be found which matches all available data, but still be the wrong solution.