Potentially the longest thread in history...

[Apokalipse]

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.

Which brings me to the point I said in conjunction to this.
There are an infinite number of ideas one cannot disprove.
So how do we decide what to believe, if anything?

we collect data and use evidence.
I can't be absolutely 100% certain that you exist.
But given the evidence, while the probability may not be exactly 100%, it will be so close to 100% (99.9999999999999999....) that it's simply not worth considering that you don't exist.

If the evidence for an idea is more than sufficient, then while technically you might not be able to prove the idea with 100% certainty, you can be extremely sure.

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.

But what is it about an asteroid-like object that makes it like an asteroid but not actually an asteroid?

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.

I wouldn't say those things are asteroid-like though.

And besides, isn't the idea more important than the label? We can be sure an object with a 15km width hit the Earth and where it hit.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Which brings me to the point I said in conjunction to this.
There are an infinite number of ideas one cannot disprove.
So how do we decide what to believe, if anything?

we collect data and use evidence.
I can't be absolutely 100% certain that you exist.
But given the evidence, while the probability may not be exactly 100%, it will be so close to 100% (99.9999999999999999....) that it's simply not worth considering that you don't exist.

If the evidence for an idea is more than sufficient, then while technically you might not be able to prove the idea with 100% certainty, you can be extremely sure.

I understand what you're getting at. So in this case, what we need to decide is exactly how sure we are. ARE we 99.999% sure? Or just 95%? maybe even 85% sure? As you said we can never be 100% sure, but at this point I wouldn't say we are at that 99.999% level.

But what is it about an asteroid-like object that makes it like an asteroid but not actually an asteroid?

I just used 'asteroid-like' as an example of something that wasn't an asteroid but could be confused with one. E.g. like a robot could be described as human-like, so some other object could be described as 'asteroid-like'. See?

I wouldn't say those things are asteroid-like though.

Again, I was just using 'asteroid-like' as an example. The same way I used 'a bomb' as an example. They weren't meant to be examples of things that are 'asteroid-like'.

And besides, isn't the idea more important than the label?

Yes, I would agree that it is. However, it was still scientifically incorrect for the article to be written the way it was.

We can be sure an object with a 15km width hit the Earth and where it hit.

According to our current analysis of the available data, you are right. But given that our ability to successfully analyse past events is still not even close to perfect, especially when said past events happened millions of years ago, my level of confidence in any 'absolutes' or 'breakthroughs' scientists make about the past is extremely low.

 

[Apokalipse]

I understand what you're getting at. So in this case, what we need to decide is exactly how sure we are. ARE we 99.999% sure? Or just 95%? maybe even 85% sure? As you said we can never be 100% sure, but at this point I wouldn't say we are at that 99.999% level.

I just used 'asteroid-like' as an example of something that wasn't an asteroid but could be confused with one. E.g. like a robot could be described as human-like, so some other object could be described as 'asteroid-like'. See?

Again, I was just using 'asteroid-like' as an example. The same way I used 'a bomb' as an example. They weren't meant to be examples of things that are 'asteroid-like'.

And I was saying that an object of 15km width most probably did crash into Earth, irrespective of whether you call it an asteroid or not.

We know that there is a giant hole in the ground in Mexico that's consistant with a giant object crashing there.
We also know that there are objects in space, and we know that sometimes objects do crash into other objects (does a bear defacate in a tree-rich environment?).
So really, it isn't unlikely at all that it was a naturally occurring object, like say, a meteor.

Yes, I would agree that it is. However, it was still scientifically incorrect for the article to be written the way it was.

the article just doesn't have much in the way of facts or evidence used.
That's a general problem with the media though. It doesn't operate scientifically.

According to our current analysis of the available data, you are right. But given that our ability to successfully analyse past events is still not even close to perfect, especially when said past events happened millions of years ago, my level of confidence in any 'absolutes' or 'breakthroughs' scientists make about the past is extremely low.

again, the 'absolute knowledge' argument...

Also, this is exactly what the scientific process is about. collecting data and using evidence.

 

[Hefemeister]

And now for something completely different:

Me drilling a hole through 1 meter of ice on lake Vänern the 3rd largest lake in Europe.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

me next to my first snowman! or more accurately, snowgirl

 

[Hefemeister]

 

[yzmxer608]

All of our snow melted, almost all of it anyway.

 

[Yami]

Gah, put a clean install of W7 on my friend's comp, then his cousin came round, made himself an admin account (my friend was still logged in), and installed a LOT of virus-ey junk. So guess who had to clean that up -_-

 

[yzmxer608]

Bigfoot?

 

[Kharn]

Hefe you must have had fun ice fishing.