LHC puts supersymmetry theory on the spot

[renormalised (Carl)]

A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street.

And that's the paradox....how many people really understand anything you tell them

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

And that's the paradox....how many people really understand anything you tell them

… and why should they believe anything you tell them ?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

… and why should they believe anything you tell them ?

That being the case, why should they listen to anyone, let alone scientists. And then you'd have them all going off and reading tealeaves and consulting their horoscopes before they all go and top themselves before 2012. Or, maybe, all politicians are honest and never lie....and the media always gets things right when it comes to telling the news truthfully.

That's the problem...most people aren't in a position to know enough to be able to listen to what a scientist says and make an informed decision about what's being said. If you're going to believe in what someone tells you, you'd better be informed enough to be able to figure out where the "news" is coming from. Or, at least have access to the knowledge from credible sources...certainly not your local TV news reporter or the "science" section of some scandal rag.

Which is where most public "science" is being conducted from, if they ever take science seriously enough in the first place.

[CraigS]

Glad you didn't take my comment personally, Carl … that was definitely not intended .. and I realise how easily my comment can be misinterpreted.

And .. yep .. I agree.

To be free enough to not have to believe what someone else says, one has to develop sufficient base skills to research the topic for themselves, and develop one's own understanding .. and this is what education at school should be drumming into kids …

… the skills of skepticism ... which are the only way to access the priviledge of freedom of considered thought.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

It's not the skills of skepticism....skepticism can be highly counterproductive, because it usually leads to arrogance, pettiness, egotism and self righteousness. It's the skills of critical thinking which need to be developed. If they're honed sufficiently well then there is no need to be skeptical about anything because you know how to think through a subject and evaluate it on its own merits. Not on the merits of subjective opinion.

You'll usually find that 90% of skeptics don't know what they're talking about because they have little or no knowledge in that which they're debunking....either through ignorance or just sheer pettiness about the subject in question. The other 10% who may have some background in a field possibly related in some manner usually try to debunk a subject simply because it doesn't fit in with their world view/knowledge paradigm and they don't want to upset the apple cart by considering the possibilities. Most usually have careers and reputations to protect.

Just because someone has a string of letters after their name and a prestigious position/notable personality etc, doesn't mean they're correct every time they open their mouths to pontificate upon the state of play, or even know what they're talking about in some cases. Scientists like to think they're right at their top of the game and know all there is to know, however I can tell you from 1st hand experience that this is not the case. This sort of behaviour only holds science back.

[mishku]

Well said, Carl

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's not the skills of skepticism....skepticism can be highly counterproductive, because it usually leads to arrogance, pettiness, egotism and self righteousness. It's the skills of critical thinking which need to be developed. If they're honed sufficiently well then there is no need to be skeptical about anything because you know how to think through a subject and evaluate it on its own merits. Not on the merits of subjective opinion.

You'll usually find that 90% of skeptics don't know what they're talking about because they have little or no knowledge in that which they're debunking....either through ignorance or just sheer pettiness about the subject in question. The other 10% who may have some background in a field possibly related in some manner usually try to debunk a subject simply because it doesn't fit in with their world view/knowledge paradigm and they don't want to upset the apple cart by considering the possibilities. Most usually have careers and reputations to protect.

Just because someone has a string of letters after their name and a prestigious position/notable personality etc, doesn't mean they're correct every time they open their mouths to pontificate upon the state of play, or even know what they're talking about in some cases. Scientists like to think they're right at their top of the game and know all there is to know, however I can tell you from 1st hand experience that this is not the case. This sort of behaviour only holds science back.