"The Big Three"

[mjames]

No, not Bach Beethoven or Brahms (ha screw you Mozart!) but: Big Bang Theory, Theory of Evolution, and Climate Change/Global warming.

Why do I call these the big three? Because out of all the other scientific models these three are the center of attention for controversy among laymen (not the scientific community). Being a physics major I have discussed the big bang theory with "skeptics" and to my experience their reasons for dismissing it usually centers around how it defies human intuition or/and it conflicts with their ideology. Though I have very little experience and knowledge about climate change (the models are REALLY freaking complicated) and evolution I am still able to tell the reason behind someone's skepticism (hint hint, it's  not scientifically motivated). I want to understand why so many people have the arrogance to think that their minimal knowledge and training about these fields trumps (hue hue) over the numerous amount of scientists that have spent decades studying them.

Another thing I want to understand: what's so special about these three big models (ESPECIALLY climate change) that sparks so much controversy among the public? Also, does anyone else feel that there's a growing distrust/anti-science sentiment in first world countries? Wanna hear your thoughts.  

[briansaddleback]

Beethoven Chopin Debussy for me baby.

[mjames]

Beethoven Chopin Debussy for me baby.

Oh if we're doing this...

For me its Chopin, Sibelius, and Scriabin! Wait, Chopin, Scriabin, or Medtner! ...

I can't choose 

[georgey]

I agree that the big 3 are the three B’s.  I do love Mozart later quartets though (starting with the 6 Haydn quartets) and other works by Mozart.  I am a Democrat party supporter from USA and I believe in the 3 scientific models you mention.  I like science. It is possible that religious beliefs and wanting a smaller government (less government regulation) and short term economic motives may be reasons for some to reject these 3 models.  Non-believers may have more to say on this.

[outin]

Another thing I want to understand: what's so special about these three big models (ESPECIALLY climate change) that sparks so much controversy among the public? Also, does anyone else feel that there's a growing distrust/anti-science sentiment in first world countries? Wanna hear your thoughts.  

As you see people would much rather discuss the other big 3

There's no growing distrust in science visible in my country. There's also very little controversy around the big 3. Yet the general difficulty for people to make sense of the ever more complex world around them does create the need for more simplistic and more emotional and belief based explanations. That has created a market for alternative treatments, religious movements and other non-science based stuff. But that usually exists together with trusting the scientific explanations as well. I think as long as the whole population remains well educated, few will deny such things as evolution or other foundings made in natural sciences. But sadly, where you come from, the level of basic education for the average folks doesn't seem to be that high...

Climate change differs from the other 2 because it's a highly economic matter. To do something about it means some parties will gain less. So there's a lot of pressure to make it a political issue rather than a scientific one. It's also a very complex issue and even the scientific community cannot fully agree on all of it's implications and severity.

Of course if we dig deeper, the religious parties also have economic incentives to try to spread their word by trying to make people distrust the other 2...

[swagmaster420x]

stupid nerd, what is the point of science except to siphon funding from more worthwhile projects

[georgey]

stupid nerd, what is the point of science except to siphon funding from more worthwhile projects

I like science.  It's fun and you can learn a lot.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

As you see people would much rather discuss the other big 3

There's no growing distrust in science visible in my country. There's also very little controversy around

Your country?  Where the heck do you live?

[piulento]

This is my take on the subject:
- Evolution is pretty intuitive IMO, but it sits completely in opposite to the biblical beliefs, so it's hard for people to believe in it (it's not fun being raised a certain way just to one day understand everything you were taught it wrong).
- The big bang theory is not only very counterintuitive, but both defies the bible AND requires a very big understanding in fields like astrophysics and relativity in order to grasp - so it's very reasonable for people to question it (most people would rather believe simple and comforting ideas rather than doing long research and realizing that the universe is much more complicated the we used to think.
- Global warming, like TBBT, is very difficult to wrap your head around. Not only that, but it makes people feel like they have to make significant changes in their lives in order to fight it - something most people despise. It's easier to believe things aren't as bad as the weird science dudes tell us. Also, there are plenty of big corporations that are afraid of losing money if people start changing their habits (mainly oil companies), so they do whatever they can to make people question global warming. But TBH, I think this is the least controversial one of the three, because it doesn't disagree with religion.
I guess the bottom line is people mostly believe things they like to hear - simple and intuitive truths that make them feel like they're the center of the universe and like everything's gonna be a-okay, no matter what they do. Smart people do that too - even Einstein didn't belive in quantum mechanics at first because it was just so counterintuitive.
And just to set things straight - I agree about Bach, Beethoven and Brahms 

[mjames]

Your country?  Where the heck do you live?

I think it would be a good experience for you to live in some western european country for awhile...you need an outside experience xD. The rest of the world aint like chicago!

Btw she lives in one of those paradise countris: Finland.

@BBT being counterintuitive, tell me about it. Its particularly the ONLY thing that made 11 year old me rage quit on astronomy and physics.

I think you touched upon it pretty well. I might understand why some politicians and companies are so against it but the common people? The fact that it implies that we might have to change our lifestyles severely is fairly off putting (it was to me) does a pretty good of explaining it!

[mjames]

As you see people would much rather discuss the other big 3

But sadly, where you come from, the level of basic education for the average folks doesn't seem to be that high...

You dont know how good you have it. You know how many times I had to explain how the validity of scientific models are measured to ADULTS?!! Omg i cry

[outin]

Your country?  Where the heck do you live?

Up North and far East from you...did I forget to give you the address to send the hands??

[outin]

Btw she lives in one of those paradise countris: Finland.

Paradise with a lot of depressed people and a nasty climate

[mjames]

Paradise with a lot of depressed people and a nasty climate

Relatively speaking of course. Rachlovers chicago has to deal with being one of the murder capitals of the country...
Rural people in some countries liketo mutilate albinos because they think itll give them magical powers...
Some states dont even have governments

you guys have it pretty good! XD

[outin]

Relatively speaking of course. Rachlovers chicago has to deal with being one of the murder capitals of the country...
Rural people in some countries liketo mutilate albinos because they think itll give them magical powers...
Some states dont even have governments

you guys have it pretty good! XD

Well, to be honest we are, according to statistics, among the most violent people in the Western Europe...But it's really not our fault, it's the booze...
We rarely kill each other when sober..

I do like to live in a place where reason is more common than superstition though...

[swagmaster420x]

I have this sinking suspicion that everyone who has posted in this thread except me is a huge idiot XD

[immortalbeloved]

The answer is very SIMPLE. All these three undermine people's religion. If evolution is true, then a lot of questions about God emerge: i.e. why does no mention of this vital fact emerge in this book or that . . . or the morality of God for creating such a cruel mechanism for the evolution of species.

Global warming same thing: if God exists, we don't have to fear this, because, he, it, whatever, will not let the destruction of the planet occur. By saying humans are causing it, you are implying that humans are agents able to change the earth.

And alas, the big bang. It does not need to make sense, but to argue it does not is easier. If the BB theory is true--who needs God to explain how everything came?

Evolution is true + Big Bang= no need for God.


 

[huaidongxi]

understood the obvious, how Brahms was one of the three B's (though I far prefer Bartok), but how did he qualify for one of the Big Three over at least three other candidates ?  is this something I missed by never formally studying music or musicology?

as for the big bang, climate change, selective adaptation and their unpopularity, it could be another instance of the attraction to William of Ockham's proposition.  those three models are all a bit more complicated than theistic or literalist biblical explanations.  not coincidentally, many of the wealthy and powerful who deny humanoid-induced climate change also think they've been anointed or favored by some deity or deities.

[georgey]

understood the obvious, how Brahms was one of the three B's (though I far prefer Bartok), but how did he qualify for one of the Big Three over at least three other candidates ?  is this something I missed by never formally studying music or musicology?

He is just my personal preference for #3.  Brahms probably makes the top 10 on many or most lists of greatest composers since around 1700. 

"Brahms is the giant among composers of chamber music in the 19th century, the  true successor of Beethoven in this field as well as the symphony" (reading from Grout).  I love all 4 of his symphonies and the 3 violin sonatas, the clarinet quintet and many other works are gems. 

As a off topic side note: It's very interesting to compare his op 8 piano trio original version with the 1889 revised version.  He said he did not give the work a hair cut, he just combed the hair and tidied it up a little (something like that if I remember, typical Brahms complete understatement).

[swagmaster420x]

God is a effing *************

[pencilart3]

Chopin Debussy Ravel

[Bob]

We must like to group things together into threes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three

[chopinlover01]

My thoughts (will expand on this later):
- The obvious clashing with religion; not all that surprising considering that most holy books were written thousands of years ago, and all of the three Abrahamic religions before the Enlightenment. This also leads to further questioning of the faith; IE "If the Bible is wrong about ___, how can we trust it about ___?"

[pencilart3]

Guys you are really egging me on please stop as it doesn't help anyone as you refuse to listen to anything I say.

[swagmaster420x]

Guys you are really egging me on please stop as it doesn't help anyone as you refuse to listen to anything I say.

I thought you must love to be egged on. Since you're a Christian and it's Easter xd

[pencilart3]

Eggs with Easter? oh, you're one of those people

[georgey]

.

[opus43]

stupid nerd, what is the point of science except to siphon funding from more worthwhile projects

Swagmaster,
    Funding for knowledge and discovery is much more useful than the government spending our money on bombs and the military, don't you think?

   "Quare fremuerunt gentes, et populi meditati sunt inania? Astiterunt reges terræ,
et principes convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum, et adversus christum ejus."

[chopinlover01]

Guys you are really egging me on please stop as it doesn't help anyone as you refuse to listen to anything I say.

Tell you what, Noah. Let's start a dialogue, with these rules:
1) No ad-hominem attacks
2) No arguments from faith (because it's not really an argument, by definition)
3) Actual verified science is needed when talking about scientific matters
4) When someone responds or makes points, you must respond to everything they say.

Deal?

[outin]

Let's start a dialogue, with these rules:
1) No ad-hominem attacks
2) No arguments from faith (because it's not really an argument, by definition)
3) Actual verified science is needed when talking about scientific matters
4) When someone responds or makes points, you must respond to everything they say.

Deal?

Are you brand new to internet?  

Will never happen...

[mjames]

Swagmaster,
    Funding for knowledge and discovery is much more useful than the government spending our money on bombs and the military, don't you think?

   "Quare fremuerunt gentes, et populi meditati sunt inania? Astiterunt reges terræ,
et principes convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum, et adversus christum ejus."

LOL

Swagmaster is pretty intelligent, unfortunately hes also a massive troll; so dont feed him. ;P

[pencilart3]

Chopinlover ok will do

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Paradise with a lot of depressed people and a nasty climate

Doesn't sound too bad to me

[chopinlover01]

Are you brand new to internet?  

Will never happen...

Having been on the Internet for a little while now, I'm confident that Noah can go with this

So, I shall ask, Noah- what is your basis for refuting Climate Change (assuming you do)?

[outin]

Having been on the Internet for a little while now, I'm confident that Noah can go with this

I actually don't doubt that, I thought you wanted to have these principles used more widely

[chopinlover01]

Tell you what, Noah. Let's start a dialogue, with these rules:

Was specifically talking to Noah~

Still, the Internet could benefit from them XD

[pencilart3]

Having been on the Internet for a little while now, I'm confident that Noah can go with this

So, I shall ask, Noah- what is your basis for refuting Climate Change (assuming you do)?

I will go with it, Harrison. Climate change? Ok, so first I find it a little bit interesting that you say "refute climate change" as though it is a fact - "proven" by science - and that I am challenging all we know by saying otherwise. But that is beside the point. Actually hang on I have to run right now but I will get back to you later today. OK? Thanks

[pencilart3]

Actually, since I must leave now anyway, I would like to ask you a few questions to clarify your position.

1) How many degrees has the world increased in the last 200 years? Or since we have had reliable data to track it?

2) How do you believe that climate change occurs? Is the greenhouse effect the primary cause of this? And if we cut down on fuel burning, would it decrease global warming?

3) Finally, could you please provide the study from which you draw the conclusion that global warming is indeed occurring?

[swagmaster420x]

You have to be a complete brainwashed numskull (this is not ad hominenm, it mertely serves as an objective comparison to the normal rational thinking being to hone in on the point) to honestly think that releasing billions of tons of pollutants into the air has completely no effect on climate (think back to times when billions of tons of pollutants wasn't in the air xD) (If I just replace this water i'm drinking with oil, chemically oil and water are exactly the same so it should have no effect on my body lol!!!!!!!!! )

 haha just kidding it's totally natural factories and industrial emissions are "nature's" "natural" way of "naturally" "regulating" the temperatrue so it doesn't rise or fall at all xDDD -imdelusional

Oh yes, please, where is this data, I need this data, to confirm something, because without the data, it is totally obvious that it is untrue, the only way it could be true, is the data, because I am unable to draw these extremely obvious unfounded conclusions by myself, yes

[pencilart3]

You have to be a complete brainwashed numskull (this is not ad hominenm) to honestly think that releasing billions of tons of pollutants into the air has completely no effect on climate

I have asked a few questions and this is what I get? Where did I say it has no effect on climate?

[swagmaster420x]

I have asked a few questions and this is what I get? Where did I say it has no effect on climate?

your stance on climate change was implied by the statement "Ok, so first I find it a little bit interesting that you say "refute climate change" as though it is a fact" and various others

I don't think it's possible to believe pollution has an effect on climate, and not think climate change is real. (If you don't think climate change is real, then you contradict having believed pollution is changing the climate.)

Also, there are benefits to disagreeing abrasively. You make it much more clear what side you stand on, abandon the pretense of "objective civility" and It's much more gratifying.

[chopinlover01]

Actually, since I must leave now anyway, I would like to ask you a few questions to clarify your position.

1) How many degrees has the world increased in the last 200 years? Or since we have had reliable data to track it?

It's not a linear increase, it's a general pattern whose average temperature is rising.

2) How do you believe that climate change occurs? Is the greenhouse effect the primary cause of this? And if we cut down on fuel burning, would it decrease global warming?

It's mainly caused by carbon emissions along with other greenhouse gases like methane, usually with little regulations. To your second question: the scientific community concurs: YES.

3) Finally, could you please provide the study from which you draw the conclusion that global warming is indeed occurring?

Here are a few. The first one is a collection of studies:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
https://www.wunderground.com/climate/evidence.asp
And good ol' Wikipedia!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Historical_and_archaeological_evidence

You have to be a complete brainwashed numskull (this is not ad hominenm, it mertely serves as an objective comparison to the normal rational thinking being to hone in on the point) to honestly think that releasing billions of tons of pollutants into the air has completely no effect on climate (think back to times when billions of tons of pollutants wasn't in the air xD) (If I just replace this water i'm drinking with oil, chemically oil and water are exactly the same so it should have no effect on my body lol!!!!!!!!! )

 haha just kidding it's totally natural factories and industrial emissions are "nature's" "natural" way of "naturally" "regulating" the temperatrue so it doesn't rise or fall at all xDDD -imdelusional

Oh yes, please, where is this data, I need this data, to confirm something, because without the data, it is totally obvious that it is untrue, the only way it could be true, is the data, because I am unable to draw these extremely obvious unfounded conclusions by myself, yes

Chill.

[mjames]

Looks like swags got no swag

[georgey]

If you get around to discussing the big bang theory and/or the existence of god, please consider the following if you like.  This may complicate the discussion though, so you may want to skip this.

I saw a documentary on PBS a short while ago about the Higgs particle that was very recently discovered.  (Someone correct me if any of this is incorrect.  I may have this wrong.) BEFORE this particle was discovered, Physicists were predicting that the particle existed and the mass of this particle would be either 115 GeV/C^2 to support the idea of super symmetry (a nice happy result) or 140 GeV/C^2 to support the idea of a multi-verse (a very spooky concept of many or an infinite number of universes).  The particle was then discovered as predicted but the value came in somewhere between these 2, maybe 125 GeV/C^2.  Scientists are still working to resolve this, I think.

For those that question the existence of god: If scientists later conclude the spooky result that there are an infinite number of parallel universes to our universe, are you going to stick with science?  

(Edit:  I just found the Wikipedia article on this and I will read this now. It will take a while to get through this.  Details aside, question on sticking with science still stands.)

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Look man I'm not the type of dude to get in these kinds of things BUT...

There's something ALL of you seemed to have overlooked.  

YOU GUYS HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED A DEFINITION OF GOD!!!

Dude there's a bunch of different versions of God!

Are you talking about the creator of the universe, or the human race?  Is it conscious?  And which religion?

Now I'm not saying God does or doesn't exist.  I'm just saying before you start a debate the first thing you gotta do is figure out what you're talking about so you're all on the same page.

[swagmaster420x]

For those that question the existence of god: If scientists later conclude the spooky result that there are an infinite number of parallel universes to our universe, are you going to stick with science?  

It depends on how they conclude it (i.e. what level of 'conclusiveness')

One should believe (and by believe i mean factually think something is true, not have faith or anything like that) things based on how valid the proof of it is, not on what they think of the result (this is too spooky/challenging for me to believe based on my previous beliefs xD) right ... ? Or else you are simply a puppet to your biases xD

[georgey]

YOU GUYS HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED A DEFINITION OF GOD!!!

Now I'm not saying God does or doesn't exist.  I'm just saying before you start a debate the first thing you gotta do is figure out what you're talking about so you're all on the same page.

Good point!  I was going to look up "god" in Wikipedia since this is over my head.  Instead, I will let others answer this.

[mjames]

It depends on how they conclude it (i.e. what level of 'conclusiveness')

One should believe (and by believe i mean factually think something is true, not have faith or anything like that) things based on how valid the proof of it is, not on what they think of the result (this is too spooky/challenging for me to believe based on my previous beliefs xD) right ... ? Or else you are simply a puppet to your biases xD

My ***, when you want to come around you come around.

Pretty much what he said. If large amounts of evidence substantiate multiverse models then Ill be inclined to believe in them, because thats how it works. The validity of scientific models are based upon their ability to produce accurate predictions, not on whether or not they correspond to my views or any other kind of bias. It would be immensely hypocritical of me and intellectually dishonest if I were to 'pick and choose' what I want from science.

[georgey]

It depends on how they conclude it (i.e. what level of 'conclusiveness')

One should believe (and by believe i mean factually think something is true, not have faith or anything like that) things based on how valid the proof of it is, not on what they think of the result (this is too spooky/challenging for me to believe based on my previous beliefs xD) right ... ? Or else you are simply a puppet to your biases xD

I agree! The problem is how to prove things in physics.  Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity.  Luckily our moon and sun have the same visual size when viewed on earth so we can see how light bends during a total eclipse which supports Einstein's theory.  Proving things in physics can be a lot tougher than in math.  Mathematician Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's last theorem just recently after hundreds of years people trying.  Unfortunately to understand and therefore accept this proof would take a lifetime or longer for most of us.  I think the proof is 200 typed pages long. We will have to rely on experts.

[pencilart3]

All right, so how many degrees per year, or per century, or decade, etc... ?? and for how long has this been happening?