Mount St. Helens Eruption Baffles Scientists 381
jurt1235 writes "Mount St. Helens, which started erupting 15 months ago, is still erupting. The weird part is, by now every 3 seconds 10 cubic yards of lava is coming out of the volcano but scientists cannot determine from where it is coming anymore. From the article: 'The volume is greater than anything that could be standing in a narrow 3-mile pipe. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected.'"
The joys of the Northwest (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.pnsn.org/recenteqs/latest.htm [pnsn.org]
Toss in Mount Baker, Mout Rainier, Mount Adams, Mount Hood, and Mount Jefferson (all volcanoes in the NW), and I'm beginning to suspect we here could be accused of the same idiocy with which some people in the hurricane "belt" are blamed, but on a slightly more geologic scale.
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientific research MUST be publically funded, otherwise it wouldn't get funded at all. The government doesn't want it, the people force it. Your right about scientists being grant hunters, but they have to be. They have a theory they want to prove, they need money to do it. No company/corperation will fund it unless it directly interests them, which is rarely the case. Especially with medical reasearch, as drug companies are making a fortune off of drugs they give cancer patients, thus many drug companies are not funding research for it in large ammounts.
In my opinion, scientific research is greatly underfunded. I would gladly pay more taxes if it meant actually getting research done and saving more lives.
Excellent news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:3, Insightful)
As to your comment about paying for science "involuntarily" and "laws and restrictions", what do you propose? All science be private? Fine. Give back the Internet. As for basing regulations on uncertain science, what do you propose? Basing regulations on, say, the bible? O.o? Are you insane?
Consider the source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:2, Insightful)
Feel the heat... (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me. (Score:4, Insightful)
FTA:
Ah... so obviously it's *NOT* coming from greater depths? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. While it may be true, it artificially creates a mystery where none should be.When the observations don't fit the way things are understood, there are only two possibilities: either the measurements we made are wrong, or what we understood previously was wrong.
If it can be readily deduced that there is not enough volume in their original estimate of the conduit's size to accomodate the quantity of lava being produced, then either we are wrong about how much lava is coming up, the lava is coming from somewhere deeper, or the conduit's size was estimated incorrectly. Let's assume (probably safely) that the measurements they took on the amount of lava coming up were correct.
Considering how little we really know about what goes on beneath the surface of the Earth, I'd say that these last two options still have a whole lot of merit. It's not entirely inconceivable, after all, that whatever they think they should have already found if they existed have simply not yet been found due to the limitations of current technology.
Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries in a field where none belong.
Re:Consider the source (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:2, Insightful)
But we do seem to be stuck with being governed by human beings. Historically, human beings almost never seem to know what's going on. The best way to address your well-founded and insightful concern is to stay flexible and to avoid decisions that could cause irreversible damage.
Please give an example of just one permanent law (Score:3, Insightful)
The laws of gravity were refined a lot, but Newtons law still would help you find solutions to problems, and that is what science is good for, even if some of them are only intellectual problems.
I would not be surprised if the Apollo moon missions had been working with formulas based on Newton, you don't need Einstein to land on the moon AFAIK.
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:4, Insightful)
Available volume? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly the train of thought the scientists studying Mt. St. Helens are using to try and figure out this mystery, I'm sure. Don't assume incompetance on their part because of some AP writer didn't get that point across.
Re:Feel the heat... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true. Faith based reasoning is far more likely to lead us to correct results.
The REASON we find out that scientific reasearch frequently turns out to be "wrong" is because the whole process of science is meant to test whether what we think to be true, is. Unless you are an omniscient being, you can never know for sure what is going on outside of your direct sensory range - so to be useful, to make predictions beyond that, science HAS to speculate and come up with theories. After a theory is put out there, then it is tested and probed. As our measurements become more precise, or we develop new tools to see in ways we could not before, we find that the theories may no longer match our expanded horizons. So we go back and attempt to improve the theory, which leads some amateurs to say the previous theories were "wrong" - a useless, emotional characterization, since no theory can be ever be "right" - the best one can be is consistent with all presently known data. Newton's theory of gravitation is "wrong", but for a "wrong" theory, it sure is accurate. And the whole "spherical earth" theory may be wrong, but it's good to 1 part in 1,000. Even the flat-earth theory was good for its time; when you live 99% of your life in a small patch of it, the difference between 8 inches of curvature per mile and 0 inches of curvature per mile is pretty small.
"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work."
In that case, it sounds like you should admire the grant-hunters. They are getting the best income for their minimal scientific amounts of work, right?
"What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?"
All possible. But highly unlikely. At the temperatures and pressures found deeper in the earth, oil tends to break down and so we don't find large reserviors of it below a certain depth. But perhaps, through some mechanism (of which we have no clue nor any prima face evidence that it exists), there is oil being spontaneously generated deep in the earth. CO2? Possibly it is coming in significant quantites out of the crust. But atmospheric CO2 seems to correlate very closely with the industrial revolution and the first widespread use of heat-engines by humans. As for heat expelled from the crust, that's one of the more measurable variables, thanks to the infrared imaging capabilities of many geostationary wx satellites (funded publicly). The present amount of evidence indicates that it negligble, but it could be wrong. Of course, aliens could be deliberately screwing with our satellites and messing with the evidence....
Anything is possible. But when dollars for research, whether public or private, are limited, you have to make educated choices as for what is more likely and what is not, based on the best knowledge you presently have; and right now, those theories are pretty low down on the probability scale.
"I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:4, Insightful)
But very often it does end up directly interesting a private company or corporation.
Here's a thought, perhaps private companies/corporations don't fund research enough because the taxpayer is funding it for them.
Disclaimer: I do not oppose publicly-funded research. I am still thinking about it.
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as 'sports news' has become 'sports entertainment' so 'science news' becomes 'science entertainment'.
Just as the rugby sevens and the one day cricket have turned sporting events into fancy-dress clown parades, so will go the way of science conferences.
Mark my words; scientists turning up at conference dressed up as Elvis, schoolgirls or king kong hoping to improve their TV ratings.
It'll be the only way to get funding... whats next??
A reality-Science show, made for TV!!!
We'll be reminiscing about the good old days of the 'intelligent design vs evolution' debates!
Re:Be aware of the facts, always. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the problem that the original poster was trying to point out, is that a lot of people, especially here on slashdot, take the current mainstream scientific theories as gospel, when most of the time these theories are eventually proven wrong.
Global Warming Mayhem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Or ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well if science teaches us anything (Score:2, Insightful)
So do they--though, I suspect, not for the same reasons. For a scientist, there is nothing better than getting a result that isn't what you expected, since it's almost sure to lead you to a better understanding than you had before, which is the driving motive behind all science.
Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Sheep in England... (Score:4, Insightful)
An art major, an engineering major, and a math major are all in the same train car as it rides through England. They look out the window, and see a single black sheep in a field.
"All the sheep in England must be black!" exclaims the art major.
"No, at least one sheep in England is black," states the engineering major haughtily.
The math major snorts. "No, he says. The only thing that we know is that there is at least one sheep in England that is black... on at least one side!"
Re:See folks... (Score:1, Insightful)
Religion, Science, Philosophy, whatever: question it all and keep an open mind to differing viewpoints.
Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me. (Score:3, Insightful)
And we wonder why kids don't want to go into the sciences: there are not (or can be no) mysteries. Why go into a field where everything is already solved, packaged, and delivered? This is the biggest complaint I have about the way science is taught today. Science is shown to have solved all of the mysteries. Evolution is an indisputable fact, and it happened exactly such-and-such a way. There is no room for doubt (you can't disagree with the churc... I mean the scientists!). We have effectively removed the mystery of life, and leaving us to just eek out an existence.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of mysteries throughout the realm of science. In fact, one could say that science is the solving of mysteries. Personnally, I wouldn't want to live in a universe where every mystery has already been solved. Fortunately, that is certainly not the case. Science has made huge gains in the past 100 years, but we have much, much farther to go. Revel in this mystery, and watch with interest as the answers come forth.
Re:See folks... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm the original AC you're replying to, not that other guy who is being quite rude.
I think you really need to study the history of religions, before you make a comment like that(you and the moderator who modded you insightful, I would have modded it "ignorant of history" if that was available). What is called Christianity today, is vastly different than what the original "christians" practiced. Judaism has morphed over the years, as has Islam. Even Buddism. Then there's the "nature" religions, which are in a constant state of flux from group to group, even among individual practitioners.
Historically speaking, you are quite WRONG in your assertion. The whole protestant movement, for example, was born of people differing with the dogmas of the religion, changing them to match what they believed to be correct and the "facts", and moving on.
Further, in philosophy, you have many people who cling to their philosophies to the exclusion of facts. Even in science, you will find "scientific" people, clinging to old ideas and vehemently attacking new ones. It's pretty much the same human process among all three.
Without meaning to be rude, your comment betrays a substantial ignorance of religious history on your part. Whenever I see that level of ignorance combined with that much contempt for any given throughtform(whether it be science, philosophy, religion, etc...) it becomes pretty evident that there is an illogically closed mind jumping to conclusions based on what others have said, without doing any research or cultivating any type of understanding of their own. It might be bitter medicine to hear this, but if you want a free mind, you should seriously consider what I just said, and perhaps, pick up a book on the history of any given religion and note how they are quite able to change over time.
Or maybe just continue prejudging things you're not really qualified to judge and continue to get called on it going forward. It's all up to you.
Re:See folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:See folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was going to continue along these lines but was just checking the ten commandments on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments [wikipedia.org]) and noticed that #9 under "Jewish Understanding" is "eat a booger". This gave me enought of a laugh that I just don't feel like typing anymore. Hooray for wikipedia! I'm off to clean the kitchen.
Re:See folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Science is based on understanding of facts; science does not get "reworked" when new facts surface, it simply incorporates the new material and new conclusions are drawn which take into account the new information.
Religion requires strict adherence to the laws of said religion, because in a monotheistic religious atmosphere, almost always the god in question is perceived as wholly good and perfect, with no evil, and at the same time is the source of the religious laws. If there's a flaw in the doctrine of the religion, it would disprove or contradict god, and if that happens, then god is not perfect. It throws the entire system off. Religion cannot deal with change in human understanding of any subject where the church has previously stated something as fact - there's no mechanism to account for it.
Hence why I'm an athiest. Or, if you want to get philosophical about it, my god is the scietific method. I see no need to explain things via the supernatural; to me everything falls into "things we understand" and "things we don't understand yet". I do not believe that there is anything at all in the entire universe that science could not explain given all the facts.
Also, an interesting thought occured to me when I was studying for my Classics minor - we wouldn't have a lot of the modern religious hangups if we still had a polytheistic religious society, a. la. Ancient Greece. That type of system has gods who make mistakes, reneg on their word, and screw up all the time. If that were the case here, we wouldn't have all the hangups.
~Will
**note I'd capitalize Greece long before god. The world needs more athiests. Stand up and be counted.
Re:See folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
In reasonable religions, yes. Try telling that to a southern baptist fundamentalist sometime. Their claim (and that of most fundamentalist christians) is that the bible is the inspired, infallable word of god, and though it was written by a man, the man was guided by god. Specifically, KJVonlyism really gets to me.
Of course, then you point out the fact that it has changed languages several times, and that there were probably errors in translation, and that scripts from different locations say different things, and that the idea of virgin birth and the trinity both are only a thousand or 1500 years old...
It doesn't matter to these people. I have heard people say that the translators of the KJV were inspired by god and made no mistakes, and hence that version is perfect - that it's the word of god, literally, and any previous mistakes were corrected by god's influence in that translation. I then point out - does that mean, the only true version of the bible is in English? And one sunday school teacher told me "yes". Unbelievable, especially considering I studied Ancient and New Testament Greek in college, and I know that for starters, there are some concepts that can't be translated into English, and furthermore, some mistranslations.
~Will