*science

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by NetRunner.

Great to see a TV writer covering jokes about evolution and quantum physics, and the producers accepting the script!

Now if only they had access to Wikipedia!

Ross:
"The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single celled organisms is too easy?"

Wikip:
Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is clear that prokaryotes were the first organisms to inhabit Earth,[159] approximately 3–4 billion years ago.[160]

Go ross, boo phoebe.

Some of the arguments that phoebe makes are the same that you hear out of creationists and evolution-skeptics. Why did science change perspective on the flat-earth theory, the evidence. Why did science change perspective on sub-atomic particles, the evidence. Why is science not changing perspective on evolution, the fucking evidence.

As Ross admits in the end, there might be a possibility that some other thing happened: Space aliens may have planted the first seeds of life on Earth, but the argument falls flat because, how did the space aliens come to be? Evolution is beautiful because it does not need creators. It has nothing to do with open mindedness, and it is not an obsessive need to have people agree; it's an obsessive need to have people know what is right and what is wrong, for to better our existence.

I am glad to see this argued in a sit-com though, but I don't like they way it turned out, because it belittles evolutionary theory and makes the man who is RIGHT (in this case, Ross) out to be a fool. Even if learned viewers can see through it.

That guy sounds like a typical nerd/digger/elitist asshole.

gwiz665, you sound like one, too.

Even if you are right (yes, yes, we know it's truth), BUT...even if you are right, you don't need to try to force your ideas upon all others. If you do, you just look like a socially challanged queer. Yeah, you will have your truth, but what is the use, if you have no friends?

Yeah, I kinda do and kinda don't like this:

Like:
* Ross to begin with and all the way through to the end... evolution has PROVED itself to be TRUE, you can SEE it happening even in our short recorded history.

Dislike:
* The person couldn't work out how to get this up in any other way than taping their tv?
* That it makes it seem like he was wrong in the end... *sigh*... All creationists will use that EXACT argument even moreso after seeing this (ok, so its from AGES ago, but I'm sure it gave heaps of them ammo at the time)

Still, upvote for the discussion

I'm glad they put the nonsense argument in the mouth of the Idiot character.

>> ^Equilibrionist:
even if you are right, you don't need to try to force your ideas upon all others.

Science is not religion, it does not want belief, but those of us who understand science simply ask that those who ignorantly accept great benefit from it show some fucking respect. If you use electricity or electronics, if you take the drugs your doctor proscribes, or try to avoid contaminated food, then you accept science in practice, so don't be a prick about it when issues of "debate" are contrived as wedge issues.

The truth is valuable because it works, even for people without friends, whereas large groups of friends who believe they can fly will still fall to their deaths.

Those of us who like the truth also tend to get along rather well with each other.

Wow, this is some very interesting arguments here. If I follow gwiz's argument, it goes something like this: earth proven not flat by science, atom proven divisible by science, evolution proven true by science. I think you're missing the point that prior to those first two being proven, scientists of the day would have said science had proven the contrary argument.

I'm not going to start a creationist rant. All I'm suggesting is that we may all be better off if we keep in mind that there MAY ALWAYS BE a teeny, tiny possibility that we may be wrong about any given subject. Once you lose that, you become officially close-minded.

So, if you can say there is no possibility that a particular fact could be fiction after all, then you are close-minded to that thing.

But the question is... did SCIENTISTS ever say the earth was flat?

Did ANYONE using the scientific method actually come to that conclusion?

(I don't actually know, I'm asking, but I expect the answer to be no)

>> ^Aemaeth:
I think you're missing the point that prior to those first two being proven, scientists of the day would have said science had proven the contrary argument.

The "everyone thought the earth was flat" argument is specious, humans have known, almost as long as civilization has existed, that the earth may very well be non-flat, and is almost certainly curved, and possibly round. Nobody seems to ever have proposed a scientific experiment the results of which supported the flat earth hypothesis.

Atomic theory, you may realize, is not false, it's still useful, even though we have discovered that these things are made up of smaller bits. The basic premise, and the periodic table that followed from it, are still valid and very useful today.

Since science really took off, around the time of Newton, we see a process of hypothesis and refinement. Sure we live in a relativistic universe, but within constraints that we generally deal with Newtonian mechanics is as actuate a predictor of outcomes as a relativistic model, until things start going very fast, relativity is a refinement, one that would have never been considered if the Newtonian mechanics were not so accurate so much of the time that small variations caused people to wonder what was going on and refine the model.

Things like physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, after they get over their initial humps, settle into a pattern of refinement, the kind of turn of the tables thing you are talking about does not happen for the very reason that science works in the first place, we don't tend to give hypotheses theory status until they have proved themselves true in at least a significant relevant set of cases, these facts do not change, we simply refine them.

According to the Wikipedia article, educated people have known since the Greeks that the Earth wasn't flat, but it's not known if the general population knew it.

However, some prominent Christian scholars struggled with the implications.1 They believed it was "a perverse and sinful doctrine" to say that the antipodal (opposite) side of the Earth was inhabited, as these people wouldn't have been descended from Adam, and thus wouldn't be redeemable.

Anyway, the point is that a hypothesis certainly can always be wrong, but when you have as enormous an amount of evidence as you have for evolution, it can be assumed to be true in the same way we assume gravity is true, even though it's just a theory and could be disproven.

>> ^spoco2:
But the question is... did SCIENTISTS ever say the earth was flat?
Did ANYONE using the scientific method actually come to that conclusion?
(I don't actually know, I'm asking, but I expect the answer to be no)

Stuff like this post and comments is why I love the sift. I wouldn't have expected an edit of an old Friends episode would spark a high-minded discussion about evolution, science, and the odd conflict it has with some people's understanding of their faith.

To build on what dgandhi said, the right answer to Phoebe's "don't you have some doubt?" rant would be something along the lines of "I don't think we know everything about evolution, and there may be a lot more complexity to it than we know now, but what we've observed would make it unlikely that a wildly different theory could fit the facts."

As for why the show chose to make Russ ultimately wind up the loser, well, it was a comedy, and her victory was all the funnier for its unlikelihood.

I also think it's a sign of the difference between the 90's, and the 2000's. Back in the 90's, there weren't a lot of creationists pulling the strings in Washington.

Now those of us who like our science to be based on science, instead of religious dogma are a little more sensitive about the debate.

I know I sure am.

Elitism is not a bad thing. It's not ideas it's TRUTH!

Why can't I let 1+1 = 3? Because it diminishes the human understanding of reality.

I like that you associate knowledge with homosexuality, real classy. You must love Larry the Cable-Guy.

>> ^Equilibrionist:
That guy sounds like a typical nerd/digger/elitist asshole.
gwiz665, you sound like one, too.
Even if you are right (yes, yes, we know it's truth), BUT...even if you are right, you don't need to try to force your ideas upon all others. If you do, you just look like a socially challanged queer. Yeah, you will have your truth, but what is the use, if you have no friends?



Proof is not really existent in real science, only in logic and math. It is shown to be ("proven") by the evidence. Evidence shows that the earth in fact is not flat. All evidence so far shows that Evolution happens, and the prominent theory is that it happens by means of natural selection.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there has never ever been a scientific "proof", or scientific evidence, to suggest that the earth is flat. It's all hearsay and religion.
Science is all about disproving theories; if a theory is false, it cannot hold up to evidence. But as long as a theory can support the evidence, it's the closest thing to truth that we have.

>> ^Aemaeth:
Wow, this is some very interesting arguments here. If I follow gwiz's argument, it goes something like this: earth proven not flat by science, atom proven divisible by science, evolution proven true by science. I think you're missing the point that prior to those first two being proven, scientists of the day would have said science had proven the contrary argument.

Damn, some you are a bunch of arrogant fucks. "Ooooh, look at me I understand science, I am so much better than you!" You lack simple emphaty. I know that science is the truth. I once went to a Yoga seminar with my friend and his mother, where a guy was mumbling some batshit. She was then asking what did I learn from it, and I just told that some of my suspicions and speculations (read: that his ideas are false) were true. I didn't lie, but I didn't become an elitist nerd asshole and didn't start proving her why exactly is that guy wrong and why am I right. Then we changed the subject and talked about something else.

It would be different, of course, in a specific discussion, where this would be a topic, but I am talking about everyday chitchat.


"Elitism is not a bad thing. It's not ideas it's TRUTH!

Why can't I let 1+1 = 3? Because it diminishes the human understanding of reality."

Well...for lonely science nerds, who live in their surreal fantasy world and fail socially it isn't. It's ironic that when some understand all the principles of the life and existance, fail to undersand simple social dynamics. That's why Dawkins is such an asshole, and it doesn't look like he is a happy man, it doesn't look like he gets laid a lot (btw - I actually admire and respect this man).

Yeah, I can't let 1+1=3, but if there is this one crazy man, who just can't grasp, that 1+1=2 or let's say I go to some primitive tribe, where people don't know maths (now if you want to be real nerdy start telling me how even people in tribes can do simple calculations) and they fail to accept my idea (okay - truth), I won't try to force it one them. Why? Because maybe they have been living 2000 years not knowing it and now it wouldn't even be possible to make them grasp it. It's like Brian Cox would start explaining quanti-physics to a farmer, who has been living all his life believing in fairie tailes. It's his life, damn it, let him! I was arguining with my grandmother about this God topic and then I understood what a fool I was. This belief has positivly effected her life and even if I force her to convert at her age, it would yield absolutely nothing, only make her more depressed.

Science doesn't explain everything. Can Science explain compassion? or Love? or Hate?

Yes, it can.

Of course you can't take huge strides like farmer-->quantum mechanics just like that. If a theory is too hard to understand, most people will just shut off and fall back to whatever they thought before.

"Well...for lonely science nerds, who live in their surreal fantasy world and fail socially it isn't. " And you say I'm arrogant? If you want so sling mud, I'm game, but let's at least try not to.

Science is not about social life; science doesn't have to wallow in mediocrity, "move with the flow" and make sure we all get along and feel happy. It's about truth.

It's entirely another what is relevant for a person - quantum mechanics is very much not relevant in everyday life, and evolution is also not relevant in everyday life. There is no problem as such with you or a caveman going around believing that evolution is false, but the danger is that it may transfer from you to others such that the rest of us have to "suffer" because of it.

If a person is in a position of power and believes in falsehoods, is that not a problem? I would rather have an asshole the knew truths from falsehoods than a nice idiot for president, for instance.

Evolutionarily, emotions promote behaviors that help the individual or the social group (compassion) survive and reproduce. Love promotes "pair-bonding," encouraging the father to stick around and contribute more resources to their offspring.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Science doesn't explain everything. Can Science explain compassion? or Love? or Hate?

I like it how you automatically assume that everyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot. Maybe the person is very intelligent if you evaluate all the factors that have effected him in his life. It's all relative. You have to understand what society the person comes from. For example, let's say you are raised in a muslim family, all your life from early childhood you are forced to believe in Allah, now you have finished university with red diploma, you have become a very good doctor, you earn a lot of money, but...you still believe in Allah. Okay, that is just an example. I wouldn't automatically say that the person is an idiot. Maybe he didn't read "The God delusion"? Maybe he didn't even have a chance to question Allah in his teens? And now, when he is all grown up, these beliefs are hardwired in his brain. Even if a person believes in falsehood, but it in no way damages his life or lives around him, I don't see the problem.

I understand it's the truth and all, but if you really want to be a successful person, not just someone who lurks 24/7 on internet discussion boards, you must know when to use this truth and when not to. For example, I can not see how the girl in the video could make others "suffer" from her beliefs. She just said she doesn't believe it, she acknowledged that it is possible. If it goes only far as that, I don't see why the guy had to be such a nerd about it. Of course, it is different when we speak about politicians and people of power whose judgement could be affected by such beliefs. That is a different story, but I am talking about everyday life.

I don't see why berticus got the vote, because science still hasn't explained the meaning and origin of everything. It might explain it with the LHC in august, but it haven't done so yet. So you can't say it can explain everything until there is proof.

Idiot = stupid person (just so we're clear), and my point was that I would rather have a leader that didn't believe in blatant falsehoods, which can be, as close as possible, proved.

You have to think your examples through - if you are a doctor and still believe in allah/god whoever, then the person is kidding himself, because his (or her) work directly contradicts his beliefs. If religion was kept completely separate from questions of science and reason (such as medicine, education) then I would have no trouble with it - the bad thing about it is that religion always encroaches on these and other fields. This is why religion in general is bad for the general populous. If it were a completely personal thing, I would have no apparent problem with it, but it's usually not.

I'm not sure there is such a thing has hard-wired beliefs, because I think all beliefs can be challenged. But I understand what you're getting at with that.

"I understand it's the truth and all, but if you really want to be a successful person, not just someone who lurks 24/7 on internet discussion boards, you must know when to use this truth and when not to."
You keep coming back to this and it is really not important in this context and is a thinly veiled attack on me. We're not discussing the complexities of social interaction; I know that I shouldn't confront religious people carrying the God Delusion like some sort of Atheist preacher, because that would be foolish and accomplish nothing. Gradual steps is the way to go, and that's why someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Daniel Dennett take a more "political" way of introducing atheism to religious people.

Berticus got my vote, because he is right. chilaxe covers the evolutionary reasons for emotions and there are biological and chemical explanations too. Just because something is hard to explain, doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

For those who are fooled by the "scientist used to think the earth was flat"-argument, I kindly refer you to the video I posted on Eratosthenes, who , by employing the SCIENTIFIC method, calculated the earths circumference , 300 years before Christianity was born, and 800 years before that same death cult lead the human race into a 500-year sleep.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cosmos-Eratosthenes-calculates-Earths-circumference

"I don't see why berticus got the vote, because science still hasn't explained the meaning and origin of everything. It might explain it with the LHC in august, but it haven't done so yet. So you can't say it can explain everything until there is proof."

Thankyou for twisting my words? Science can explain compassion, love, and hate. I didn't say anything about the meaning or origin of everything.

I like it how you automatically assume that everyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an idiot.

I like how you automatically assume that everyone who accepts evolution as fact, and who cares about what is true to be elitist, arrogant, homosexual AND a socially retarded nerd, and that you use all these adjectives in ad-hominem attacks instead of coming up with actual arguments.

Everyone who doesnt believe in evolution are not necessarily an idiot, but they are certainly either ignorant, ill-informed, deluded OR an idiot. Ignorance is not a crime, nor is being a victim of lies and brainwashing, but willful ignorance, and deliberate deception of others, and the spreading of outright falsehoods aimed at undermining scientific fact is disgraceful.

And about your example of forcing quantum physics on a farmer, how about germ theory? is it ok to tell him about that? should his children be kept in blissful ignorance about washing they hands after shoveling shit? is it elitist arrogance to offer penicillin to his wife who will die from the flu? What if they have HIV, should we leave their fascinating supernatural creation story alone, because the treatment requires halting medication because the virus evolves drug-resistance, and knowledge of how evolution works is critical..

Great arguments guys. You are intelligent fellows. Hope this smart talk will get you laid with the hot chick.

Gathering from your comments most people are, my friend.
Better than you, that is.

>> ^Equilibrionist:
"Ooooh, look at me I understand science, I am so much better than you!"

Equilibrionist, based on what I see here I'd guess you might be projecting a bit. You can't manage to make a comment or a post without someone being lonely science nerds, a bunch of arrogant fucks, a nerd/digger/elitist asshole, and so on, and it's not even good enough for you to make generic comments about a type you don't like but you've got to name names as well. My guess would be that either outside of your own echo chamber acting like that doesn't make you a hell of a lot of friends or you're one of those who take the anonymity of the internet as license to act like an ass, treat people in a way you never would to their face. Either way you're out of line here.

All of your jive about elitists won't change some simple facts. Science has never claimed to have all of the answers, it claims to be in search of them. It's not about a final solution to anything so much as it's about the process of exploring and figuring out how things work. You think science denies God? Not really. It ignores God. Lots of scientists do deny him, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and so on but science itself doesn't really care. All it tries to answer is how things work and 'magic man did it' answers nothing, it's irrelevant. If you or anyone else want to claim outside of classrooms and on your own time that someone set the rules things work by in place I don't think science really cares. It's just about what we can show about the way the world works.

It doesn't claim to be perfect, to be final, to be anything more than a process of searching for answers, a method. If someone claims it does provide anything final rather than "as far as we know" that's their problem. If something happens a million times in a row there's always that small chance that the million and first will be the exception and science accounts for that. When a result happens that contradicts prior info we've got to account for it and we do. If it isn't contradicted after much exploration it's considered solid to varying degrees depending on the situation unless or until it is contradicted.

"you're one of those who take the anonymity of the internet as license to act like an ass, treat people in a way you never would to their face."
Yup. I'm one of those.

The horrible thing about this is- Although Phoebe is the air-headed, stupid character, you have no idea how many airheads I've met personally who make the same exact arguments, using the same exact word choice and attitude. When watching this, I wasn't thinking 'Wow, what an idiot!', I was reflecting "This all sounds so familiar". Too scary.

And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

I'm currently re-watching the entire Friends seasons, and when I've watched this episode (season 2, The one with Heckell's death - or something like that), I've immediatly though about the "creationism" buzz you got in the US (not much here, in France).

I think that Phoebe, here, is making fun about Ross more than questioning the "truthiness" of the Evolution. She's weird, that's a fact, but not that idiot nor ignorant (that's what I feel about this character). At that time, in the 90's, nobody cares about creationism. In fact, she never mentions creationism ! I think that this kind of scene should be hard to be set up in a contemporary sitcom.

BTW, one of my favourite moment here is when she's saying :
"Ok, don't get me started on gravity ! It's not that I don't believe in gravity, but those days, i've got the feeling that i'm not so pulled down than i am pushed."

Evolution doesn't scare me, what does it when it's presented in a way that makes 'scientific minds' hold on to this, 'your stupid if you don't believe this' attitude. Please keep in mind ignorance is not the same as stupidity.

If someone doesn't understand Evolution, explain why. There's far to many 'evolutionists' who say, "why don't you believe this are you stupid?" When what they should be saying is "What part of evolution doesn't make sense to you?"

When I was in High School our science teacher spent just shy of one day on evolution. And to explore the theory of evolution takes more time then that. That's not enough time for me to see how evolution fits into my religeous beliefs or personal feelings.

Simply because someone does not know enough about evolution to make a clear analysis of it doesn't mean they are stupid. More often then not 'stupidity' is simply ignorance, and lets face it we're all ignorant about a great many things.

Totally agree with you gorgonheap on your whole comment. And I'm seriously considering to edit a tee with "Ignorance != Stupidity" printed on it, since i've been repeating that fact for years now.
Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
Stupidity is lack of common sense.

BTW, i'm constantly questioning myself about a connection between those two, which leads me to assume that they're not directly binded.

(sorry about my poor english ...)

I completely agree, gorgonheap, ignorance is not stupidity. And most people are ignorant about evolution, partly because the whole idea is partially skipped in school for fear of causing controversy, even in non-religious countries like mine. This is why it is important to insist on teaching kids about the true nature of life, and stop those who wants it replaced with mythical nonsense. Understanding evolution is a beautiful experience, and for me personally, after reading "The Selfish Gene" and later "The Ancestor's Tale" gave me a new outlook on nature. Watching animals behave and function just isnt the same anymore.

I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day
- Douglas Adams

>> ^gwiz665:
Just because something is hard to explain, doesn't mean that it can't be explained.


Additionally, just because science hasn't explained something doesn't mean it can't. Given enough time and proper circumstances, the scientific method can explain anything and everything. It won't, because the unexplained is near infinite, but it potentially could.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, friends, phoebe, not creationism' to 'evolution, friends, phoebe, not creationism, Friends' - edited by MarineGunrock

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, friends, phoebe, not creationism, Friends' to 'evolution, friends, phoebe, not creationism, Redacted because Im an idiot' - edited by MarineGunrock

Well done, MG.

What ? What is that tag ? Now, everybody thinks that I am an idiot !

That's so sweet MG. I'm off for a week, and you stab me in the back.

grrrr !