Just thought of something else …
I'm reading up on String Theory at the moment. I found this:
Two Complementary Questions:
Experimental Physics: How does the world work ?
- observe the universe;
- careful measurements
- is it reproducible ?
Theoretical Physics: Why does it work that way ?
- look for patterns
- mathematical models
- unified descriptions.
Food for thought. Whilst both questions are complementary, we should keep them separated in our minds as a way of recognising where particular scientific statements are coming from. "Truth" is not found in any of this.
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice posing as science, but which does not constitute or adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1]
Pseudoscience has been characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it is used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[2] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[2]
By one account, being able to tell science apart from "pseudo-science, such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition"[3][4] is part of gaining scientific literacy. There is, however, disagreement among philosophers of science and commentators in the scientific community as to whether there is a reliable way of distinguishing pseudoscience from non-mainstream science.[5][6
The bold type probably catches me
alex
You must've missed out on our thread about "Fraud in Science".
Here's another one from that thread (we're all gulity of this one .. me included):
Quote:
Another part of the fascination is that the typical scientist, when confronted with clear fraud, often remains in denial. As scientists, we train ourselves to detect what Irving Langmuir called “pathological science”, in which practitioners park their scientific method outside their laboratories and replace it with wishful thinking. We have learned to review articles and listen to presentations while carefully considering any possible over-interpretations, including those that stem from ignoring data points that do not fit the theory the author or speaker “believes” to be correct. Being human, we have all been guilty of pathological science to some degree; being scientists, we rely on colleagues to guide our way to new knowledge and understanding through discussions, reviews and reproducibility.
Thanks for that.
I have so many questions is my only problem and starting out with a belief that all answers were available if one looked and I find that is not the way it is...
I think I got off side with string theory via the Elegant Universe which was my introduction...I know it was to appeal to the general public etc but it just upset me with so many of the unsupported proposals they presented.
But its all good now.
That's your belief Alex not science. This is circular logic also employed by the other Alex who suggests that mainstream science operates like a belief base system through mathematics, but then we spend billions of dollars on experiment and observation. By doing that we are actually questioning the theory, so it cannot by definition be based on belief in the first place.
What's this about reviewing experiment/observation daily? If you don't like the answer then let's just continue the experiment/observation in the hope it's wrong and it comes up with an answer that supports our own beliefs.
It appears you are projecting your own prejudices on science.
Regards
Steven
Although I do not agree with Alex’s Push gravity or other Alex’s Electric Universe I think that Alex makes very valid point about faith and science. It is not “circular logic” but rather holistic point of view based on life long observations of human society. Over and over in those discussions emerges the point of view that separates scientists from reset of the humanity. They do not have normal human failings. They are incorruptible, without self-interest and so on, with only the truth and nothing else then truth in they minds. Something like the politicians do like to present themselves. Well, regardless what path in our life we follow; we are only humans with all the faults (to large or lesser extend) that being human implies.
It got to the point when any other scientific discipline other then physics and mathematics is looked upon as if it was lesser science. History, Psychology and the Philosophy is just kind of pseudo science nonsense. Although they don’t say that, they imply it in their conclusions. And yet to understand the Universe we have to first understand ourselves. I would like to see the comment by Steven and Craig when they are in their sixties and seventies.
Equivalent of billions of dollars were spend many hundreds years ago by Crusaders to annex Holy land and to find Holy Grail. Probably even large amount of money has been spend to maintain believe that the Earth is the centre of the Universe.
The theoretical scientists are themselves to blame for ever-rising dissident against their theories and conclusions. If they communicated their theories in the form – according to our current level of technology and our understandings the Universe seems to work like this – it would be more acceptable then saying – we measured light curve of A1 supernova and there for GR and BB are correct (I do realise it is not as simple as this).
Few hundreds or thousands years from now most of conclusions of today’s Cosmology will be just as laughable as the concept of the Earth being centre of the Universe is today.
The problem, Karl, is that many of us do communicate the science we study in just that way, but the public at large (no thanks to the media) still get the bull by the tail...most of the time. For the most part, the science has to be watered down, otherwise no one would understand it. But trying to couch it in terms that most people can understand is not an easy task...most scientists aren't equipped with the language skills or the right personalities to be able to do this effectively. Those that can are few and far between. Many are adequate enough to be able to manage, but for the most part to be really effective you have to have a rare combination of talent....Carl Sagan and David Suzuki come to mind as just such scientists. Brian Greene is another. Neil deGrasse Tyson is another as well.
The problem, Karl, is that many of us do communicate the science we study in just that way, but the public at large (no thanks to the media) still get the bull by the tail...most of the time. For the most part, the science has to be watered down, otherwise no one would understand it. But trying to couch it in terms that most people can understand is not an easy task...most scientists aren't equipped with the language skills or the right personalities to be able to do this effectively. Those that can are few and far between. Many are adequate enough to be able to manage, but for the most part to be really effective you have to have a rare combination of talent....Carl Sagan and David Suzuki come to mind as just such scientists. Brian Greene is another. Neil deGrasse Tyson is another as well.
I do understand and accept what you are saying. I used to write user manuals (with my poor English) for the product we made. Simply, because no one else want to do it. It takes lot of though and effort to write manual that most of users can understand for something as simple as multifunctional timer. So I do understand the difficulty to explain very complex ideas behind today’s physics and cosmology. However, those researches are mostly funded by general public in one form or other. It is extremely important that the conclusions of such a research is presented to the public as “ current understanding” and not as final and absolute truth.
I would like to see the comment by Steven and Craig when they are in their sixties and seventies.
Karl;
I find a have a much more humanistic approach to most issues arising in this forum, compared with others, and I frequently express this.
I'm feelin' ya, man !!
But at times the application of logic leads to clarity.
Peer review, in Science, keeps most authors honest.
I agree that clear communication requires a deep familiarity with the games we humans play as a good self-check. Sometimes self-checks are not enough when it comes to Science.
Cheers
PS: Age has little to do with it. Wisdom does. Cheers.
Nothing we presently know is final or absolute, just as it was 100 years ago and so it will be in a 100 years time. For anything to be final and absolute requires that science, or the people undertaking it, be omniscient. However, all we have to go on is observation, experimentation and theory and none of those would allow for any omniscience. If you were, you wouldn't need them.
It is interesting how we can happily entertain star trek .... and curious that many of the things they speculated upon are now realities (inventions not life forms)
alex
It is interesting how we can happily entertain star trek .... and curious that many of the things they speculated upon are now realities (inventions not life forms)
alex
Man … Star Trek is 'The Source' …. !!
Get with the flow, man !!
Nothing we presently know is final or absolute, just as it was 100 years ago and so it will be in a 100 years time. For anything to be final and absolute requires that science, or the people undertaking it, be omniscient. However, all we have to go on is observation, experimentation and theory and none of those would allow for any omniscience. If you were, you wouldn't need them.
To be omniscient is to be a God. Lot of humanity strives for it and it is not bad goal as long one realises that there is very very long way to go to achieve this. If ever. But it keeps the humanity going forward.
Craig, to be wise at age twenty is as just as unlikely as being good driver at age 6. You need accumulation of good and bad experiences, disappointments and downright betrayal. Lots of time to observe and to understand yourself, the world and the society around you.
Since age of about 5 I was atheist. My granny’s readings from the Bible seems to me to have something unreal in it. So I reject it.
My parents used to scare me that if I don’t behave, when the Saint Nicolas comes (on 6 December - you don’t observe this in Australia) the devil will smack me with his broom. Right, I thought to myself. I got one of the kitchen knives and stuck it underneath of kitchen table. When St Nicolas and the devil came to our place I dived under the table, got the knife and went for devil (my aunt in devils costume). Lucky they disarmed me before I could do some real damage.
Until about ten years ago I was describing myself as an atheist. Then I had good look on my believes. And I come to conclusion that I’m a hypocrite. I did vehemently deny existence of any god without any proof of it. So I had to modify my worldview and describe myself as Agnostic. I still don’t believe in existence of superior being – but it is just my believe, not the knowledge.
When you are four years old you would not think twice to step on the road in front of 20 tons truck doing 80km/h. As you grow older you will learn what is possible and probable and what is not. Most of it without using any mathematic. It is called common sense. And with ever decreasing exposure to adverse conditions most of today’s society seems to sadly lack of it. As the years go by and our experiences and education accumulate, some of us will develop holistic point of view on the world around us. I do not claim that this point of view is going to be free of bias resulting from our experiences. But worldview of seventy years old person will reflect more accurately workings of world that surround us then point of view of someone who is twenty years old.
I must add that when I was twenty I would vehemently disagree with mayself.
Although I do not agree with Alex’s Push gravity or other Alex’s Electric Universe I think that Alex makes very valid point about faith and science. It is not “circular logic” but rather holistic point of view based on life long observations of human society. Over and over in those discussions emerges the point of view that separates scientists from reset of the humanity. They do not have normal human failings. They are incorruptible, without self-interest and so on, with only the truth and nothing else then truth in they minds. Something like the politicians do like to present themselves. Well, regardless what path in our life we follow; we are only humans with all the faults (to large or lesser extend) that being human implies.
Let me read in between the lines.
Since human nature has crept into this thread, let's throw in the Tall Poppy Syndrome for good measure. Scientists make easy targets for individuals who resent the fact that they (the scientists) may excel in areas that are beyond others.
It's interesting that you should equate scientists with politicians given that it is human nature to resent individuals that are in positions of power irrespective of how good or bad the individual may be.
Quote:
It got to the point when any other scientific discipline other then physics and mathematics is looked upon as if it was lesser science. History, Psychology and the Philosophy is just kind of pseudo science nonsense. Although they don’t say that, they imply it in their conclusions.
They don't say it but they imply it..... Who are "they" exactly and why should this be the case.
For your information Philosophy makes up a large percentage of Mathematics.
Inflation theory wasn't developed by a cosmologist or a mathematician but by a particle physicist. The mechanism behind co-valent chemical bonding wasn't done chemists but by physicists and mathematicians. The synthesis of increasing heavier elements in nucleur physics is a task performed by both physicists and chemists. There are stacks of other examples. One of the strengths of science is the co-operation between different disciplines.
What is your opinion based on?
Quote:
The theoretical scientists are themselves to blame for ever-rising dissident against their theories and conclusions. If they communicated their theories in the form – according to our current level of technology and our understandings the Universe seems to work like this – it would be more acceptable then saying – we measured light curve of A1 supernova and there for GR and BB are correct (I do realise it is not as simple as this).
The appeal to the common man is one of the mantras of pseudoscience.
Science doesn't have to convince Mr Average or engage in popularity contests. If 99% of the population doesn't understand GR it doesn't make GR wrong. Ninety nine percent of the population doesn't understand brain surgery either, yet the vast majority will put their lives in the hands of a skilled surgeon if necessary.
Quote:
Few hundreds or thousands years from now most of conclusions of today’s Cosmology will be just as laughable as the concept of the Earth being centre of the Universe is today.
And you know this? The ancient Greeks to their credit at least attempted to rationalize the Universe unlike those who know nothing at all or left it to the supernatural.
Newton's theories have been around for 300 years, no one is laughing yet.
To be omniscient is to be a God. Lot of humanity strives for it and it is not bad goal as long one realises that there is very very long way to go to achieve this. If ever. But it keeps the humanity going forward.
Craig, to be wise at age twenty is as just as unlikely as being good driver at age 6. You need accumulation of good and bad experiences, disappointments and downright betrayal. Lots of time to observe and to understand yourself, the world and the society around you.
Since age of about 5 I was atheist. My granny’s readings from the Bible seems to me to have something unreal in it. So I reject it.
My parents used to scare me that if I don’t behave, when the Saint Nicolas comes (on 6 December - you don’t observe this in Australia) the devil will smack me with his broom. Right, I thought to myself. I got one of the kitchen knives and stuck it underneath of kitchen table. When St Nicolas and the devil came to our place I dived under the table, got the knife and went for devil (my aunt in devils costume). Lucky they disarmed me before I could do some real damage.
Until about ten years ago I was describing myself as an atheist. Then I had good look on my believes. And I come to conclusion that I’m a hypocrite. I did vehemently deny existence of any god without any proof of it. So I had to modify my worldview and describe myself as Agnostic. I still don’t believe in existence of superior being – but it is just my believe, not the knowledge.
When you are four years old you would not think twice to step on the road in front of 20 tons truck doing 80km/h. As you grow older you will learn what is possible and probable and what is not. Most of it without using any mathematic. It is called common sense. And with ever decreasing exposure to adverse conditions most of today’s society seems to sadly lack of it. As the years go by and our experiences and education accumulate, some of us will develop holistic point of view on the world around us. I do not claim that this point of view is going to be free of bias resulting from our experiences. But worldview of seventy years old person will reflect more accurately workings of world that surround us then point of view of someone who is twenty years old.
I must add that when I was twenty I would vehemently disagree with mayself.
So Karl;
You are saying that a youth is incapable of exhibiting wisdom ?
I say wisdom is a perspective able to be acquired .. just like science or mathematics.
It also involves awareness and perceptiveness. Perhaps evolution has bestowed these upon us.
I have met wise twenty year olds. How can that be ?
To say otherwise is denying youth its ability to self-guide, develop and interpret the world around it.
Steven, I do appreciate that we always had different point of view on almost anything. You may be under false impression that I do resent your talent and knowledge of mathematics. Far from it I do admire your talent and ability. But not everyone can be good musician, singer, mathematician, writer or any other of human endeavour in which some excel and some do not. Beside of hard work it takes talent to be good on something.
You don’t need to read between the lines – I do not refer to “ Tall poppy syndrome” I was simply saying that Alex makes very valid observation about science and faith. I do also believe that Alex got Degree in Law and dismissing his observation about human nature of scientist and faith is just as bad as him dismissing the nature of gravity.
Unless you disagree ( peer reviewed paper required) scientists are humans. Therefore any observations of human behaviour is just as valid for scientist as it is for politicians, cleaners, bus drivers, police officers or people in any profession you can think of.
If you consider yourself different – I got no problem with that, as I don’t know you personally. But for the rest of the scientific community – they exhibit same good and bad traits as rest of the humanity. Science doesn't have to convince Mr Average or engage in popularity contests.
Yes it does. If it is funded by public money. Try to make living working in any company that derive their income from the public and use your Mr Average philosophy. I wonder how long you are going to last in your position.
If the project it is funded by private funds the scientists working on it got right to be as arrogant and dismissive of the Mr Average as they wants to be.
Craig – generally speaking – yes. And as I have say previously some forty years ago I would vehemently disagree with what I’m saying now. But it is not that simple.
You are well read guy and most likely in your tweenies. Your interests encompass astronomy and physics. You know more then I can ever hope to know about those subjects. Does it make you “wise”? No – as I see it. But because of not being “wise” you may purse idea that “wise” man would consider hopeless. You may succeed or you may fail, but you have taken path that wise man would not. In that endeavour you may contribute to the cumulative human knowledge and taken further to being “wise”
. Who are "they" exactly and why should this be the case. 
