Chemistry Folks ID this "Molecule"

If it is anything, may just be "art."

I took organic ~13 years ago, and haven't really needed that knowledge since.   Is that a benzene ring with something sticking off of it?

I'm thinking "art" but the closest match I've found so far is norepinephrine/noradrenaline

I think it's likely Dopamine

johndej said:

I think it's likely Dopamine

Winnar!

Also, I kinda hate stuff like that necklace. Science doesn't need your "belief," that's why it's science and not religion.

dculberson said:

Also, I kinda hate stuff like that necklace. Science doesn't need your "belief," that's why it's science and not religion.

Was about to mention a great quote by a famous scientist along these lines but then I thought that it seems tainted in light of recent news, and now I haz a sad

GameboyRMH said:

dculberson said:

Also, I kinda hate stuff like that necklace. Science doesn't need your "belief," that's why it's science and not religion.

Was about to mention a great quote by a famous scientist along these lines but then I thought that it seems tainted in light of recent news, and now I haz a sad

Oh yeah. Dang. :-(

dculberson said:

Also, I kinda hate stuff like that necklace. Science doesn't need your "belief," that's why it's science and not religion.

Well, I think we have had this discussion before but I strongly beg to differ. 

For any given individual, there is no truth except what they choose to believe. For science to be true to you, you must believe in it. As evidenced by all the folks who don't. 

Edit: in fact - phrases like the above are very dogmatic because they are clearly self-serving to the camp that created the statement. When large numbers of humans believe the same thing we can all work together better, that gives our race power. And there are always people vying for control of what that collective belief is, because that gives them power. 1000 years ago the catholic church didn't need any single person's belief either. 

No, because you can prove science. Belief is not necessary. Demonstratable truth does not care if you believe.

Choosing not to believe in science is like choosing not to believe in a train that's barreling down the track towards you. You may not believe in it, but it's going to happen anyhow.

Keith Tanner said:

No, because you can prove science. Belief is not necessary. Demonstratable truth does not care if you believe.

 

Choosing not to believe in science is like choosing not to believe in a train that's barreling down the track towards you. You may not believe in it, but it's going to happen anyhow.

Depends on the goal of the science. If the goal of the science is to merely log what happens in certain situations, yes, you can prove that. But you cannot if the goal of science is to answer 'why?'.

"Choosing not to believe in science is like standing in front of a train" = incredibly dogmatic statement. Just saying.  

Well, you're not asking why the train is on the track. It just is  Not believing in a train doesn't make it go away. Not believing in chemistry doesn't make chemistry not happen.

If you need a reason instead of an explanation, then that's where belief comes in to fill the holes. Science isn't there to give existential answers. It's there to explain how things work and how they came to be that way, and with a rigorously developed methodology to do so.  At the edges, there are still things that are being investigated and we may learn new information that will change theories. But that doesn't mean you get to pick and choose what you believe, unless your belief is based on an evaluation of the hard evidence available.

FSM.

Robbie said:

Keith Tanner said:

No, because you can prove science. Belief is not necessary. Demonstratable truth does not care if you believe.

 

Choosing not to believe in science is like choosing not to believe in a train that's barreling down the track towards you. You may not believe in it, but it's going to happen anyhow.

Depends on the goal of the science. If the goal of the science is to merely log what happens in certain situations, yes, you can prove that. But you cannot if the goal of science is to answer 'why?'.

"Choosing not to believe in science is like standing in front of a train" = incredibly dogmatic statement. Just saying.  

That's not an accurate quote. I can extend it a bit to make it more accurate if you'd like.

"Choosing not to believe in science is like standing in front of a train and believing it's not there". I'm not saying that science is a train or that you'll die if you don't believe or some tortured misread of my statement. I'm using the train as an example of a thing that will not go away no matter how much you wish it will. I will admit that my choice of a train did imply that choosing belief over demonstrable truth would have some bad consequences and this was not exactly accidental.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

fair enough - I never said not believing is science was a GOOD idea. 

I only point this stuff out because I find it hilarious how frequently dogmatic tactics are used by people to gain "power" simply by mentioning "science". If science is so good, why do we need the peer pressure to believe it?

I guess I can clarify my point by saying that if someone has to 'push' you into believing something by evoking 'science', then that cheapens the meaning of the whole thing. Scientific results should need no non-scientific defense. 

Edit: Which is the reason I tend to dislike things like this pendant. haha

Robbie said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

If science is so good, why do we need the peer pressure to believe it?

Because, unfortunately, there are some who choose to deny proven scientific information regardless of how much proof there is to the contrary. Things like this pendant are there to point out the absurdity of that. Plus is a good conversational opener when someone asks "what molecule is that, anyhow" ;)

'Scientific results should need no non-scientific defense." - agreed. The problem is those edges, where there may not be consensus yet. Those who don't want to believe can use those to invalidate all science in their mind.

Robbie said:

"Choosing not to believe in science is like standing in front of a train" = incredibly dogmatic statement. Just saying.  

Only if you think there's something dogmatic about trusting our best knowledge in conjunction with our senses - it may not be an inerrant absolute truth but it's the closest we have to it. If we can't trust those, then what?

You could even consider it literally - say there's someone sitting on the tracks in a blind corner and a train is on its way, scheduled to reach that point in a few hours and run the person over, but he says he's not moving because he doesn't believe that there's a real train on the tracks and he can't be moved unless someone convinces him otherwise. Someone trying to convince him to move with science (and a very quick vehicle) could take direct observations of the train, check for a relationship between the train's schedule and its travel history, test the makeup and mass of the approaching object on the track with magnetic sensors and load cells, maybe take video of the train reaching some large pumpkins placed on the track, have some experts peer-review it for errors, and present a case that according to their observations and humanity's best knowledge, all indications are that there is a train on the tracks and it will almost certainly run him over in a few hours resulting in his death (due to being impacted by and likely ground under a large object at high speed). Would that be a dogmatic statement? It's not just logging what happens, it's also answering why the man on the tracks will die if he doesn't move.

And...  Here we go!

Plenty of people believe in evolution.  It's arguably science, yet just a theory.  You can't prove evolution.

1988RedT2 said:

And...  Here we go!

Plenty of people believe in evolution.  It's arguably science, yet just a theory.  You can't prove evolution.

This comes too close to floundering this epistemological discussion, unfortunately I'll have to refrain from replying. Feel free to PM me on this.

“The Earth is flat”

- Class of 1491 

SVreX said:

“The Earth is flat”

- Class of 1491 

The Relativity of Wrong, by Isaac Asimov

(It was actually known much earlier that the earth was round, but that's beside the point)

SVreX said:

“The Earth is flat”

- Class of 1491 

Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but just in case it's a "consensus can be wrong" claim like I think, (a) that wasn't science - it was an evidence-free claim, and (b) the earth being flat was not consensus even in 1491, or even a widely held belief. By around 330 BC, Aristotle provided enough empirical evidence to know the earth was round. Certainly the average even lightly educated person knew the world was round by 1491.h

I believe in better threads than this one. 

T.J. said:

I believe in better threads than this one. 

Unfortunately, science would prove you wrong... 

Well, uhh...

So it's dopamine.  Thanks!