Jump to content

Science Thread


Nigel
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I took it more literal than that.

Why can only scientists disagree with scientists without being wrong?

Who decides what a scientist is and how can I become one so I can disagree and not be wrong?

Can a scientist with a different specialism disagree and not automatically be wrong, or can you disagree on any subject once you are a scientist in one area?

Why would I have less legitimacy than a biologist when suggesting a nuclear scientist was wrong?

 

I agree with your sentiments, for sure.

My psychiatrist openly undermined my stance once, I'd go as far to say he openly mocked me, albeit lighthearted, he did so because I had strung a chord in him though. The power imbalance and authority became highlighted in this interaction. He'd said that they had a particular diagnosis down to a concrete science, and I replied that our understanding of physics and what constitutes for reality is changing to considerable degrees within our lifetimes as we discover fresh insights, so I challenge his statement. He said, "Well, now A'Villan's an expert physicist". Thanks, Doc, way to win my esteem, not that it matters.

Edited by A'Villan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I think a lot of people are scientists at one stage or another in their life @fruitvilla, but at a guess, you mean to say that is your trade and you specialise in one of the 'natural' sciences? Or have I missed the mark?

Chemistry ... but since 1976, on the applied side of chemistry. Drifted in and out of management side of things but always one foot firmly in the technical. 

The quote is easy seen as over the top ...  what happens when two scientists disagree with one another? They are disagreeing on the science. Our two best and most accurate theories one is quantized and the other is continuous. Ultimately science can be seen as a process  that gives us very powerful predictive descriptions. Occasionally we scrap a description and start over. It's part of the process.

Science works. But I think people don't have a long term perspective of how it arrives at its descriptions of reality. 

Whether Covid came from bats or another animal, or perhaps via a laboratory while interesting for the long term safety point of view, does not really help with our community having an overflowing ICU at the moment.

Edited by fruitvilla
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, villakram said:

Education, observational evidence and a theoretical model based on known physics would be a good start. 

So, exactly what is your education?

Some observational evidence about informing control measures for Covid.

And the last bit, while it sounds grand it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 20/09/2021 at 22:08, villakram said:

One of the most poisonous ideas to come from the covid crisis. Trust the science, believe the science.... ye gods!

 

On 20/09/2021 at 22:22, mjmooney said:

What would you suggest as an alternative? 

 

6 hours ago, villakram said:

Education, observational evidence and a theoretical model based on known physics would be a good start. 

Those things are not alternatives to science, they are each part of a scientific process. Education - studying and learning about the virus is..So is studying evidence and so is modelling based on known physics part of a scientific process. Obviously looking at the results of the theoretical modelling and comparing them with real world data, revising the model and re-running it…publishing the results for peer review etc. 

so what you’re proposing as the alternative to science is actually “do some science” (but not enough science - though that may be down to you just typing a one line summary)

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
10 hours ago, villakram said:

Education, observational evidence and a theoretical model based on known physics would be a good start. 

So basically - be a scientist. Should be easy enough with a bit of Googling and YouTubing. This studying for years to PhD level is so overrated. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
Just now, mjmooney said:

So basically - be a scientist. Should be easy enough with a bit of Googling and YouTubing. This studying for years to PhD level is so overrated. 

Exactly  - Anyone can follow the scientific process, though the extent to which the have the necessary resources may be constrained, but the principle of science is totally available to everyone - observe, form a theory around your (or others) observations, for m a theory "why does this occur like this" experiment and test that theory, look at the results, refine the theory if not proven and verified by the results, or discount the theory if it's disproven. Publish the results for peer review, rinse and repeat.

What @villakram proposed was education on the virus (virology), evidence gathering, and modelling based on known physics (itself a science) - absolutely all of that (and a lot more) is and will have been done by the scientists looking into Covid and publishing the results of their work. If anyone looks at  their conclusions and spots a flaw or level of uncertainty in the results they can flag up those flaws or error margins or whatever and, if they're right the scientific conclusions will be modified accordingly.

It's actually heartening to see what VA wrote, because it re-inforces the reality and underlying principles of evidence based analysis.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread got me reading Carl Sagan - The Demon Haunted World again. I reckon the scientists on this thread will read the book or have already read it, the pseudo-scientists won't because more than likely it won't fit with their beliefs. I have nothing to base this view on other than assumption - maybe I should create an experiment to help answer this? is this the difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist; a scientist should always be ready to be *proved* wrong.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
13 minutes ago, bielesibub said:

This thread got me reading Carl Sagan - The Demon Haunted World again.

On a related note, there was a podcast I was put on to years ago called logically critical - they were (they're still available from that link, but there's no more new ones) amusing as well as informative and they brilliantly take the listener through the scientific/ crticial thinking route whilst looking at all kinds of stuff from workplace idiots to religion to Drug policy to the existence of ghosts and so on.

One on critical thinking is here (mp3)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, blandy said:

 

 

Those things are not alternatives to science, they are each part of a scientific process. Education - studying and learning about the virus is..So is studying evidence and so is modelling based on known physics part of a scientific process. Obviously looking at the results of the theoretical modelling and comparing them with real world data, revising the model and re-running it…publishing the results for peer review etc. 

so what you’re proposing as the alternative to science is actually “do some science” (but not enough science - though that may be down to you just typing a one line summary)

I was responding with dismay to posts mentioning trust and belief in science. Trust & belief have nothing to do with scientific investigation and are concepts more akin to those associated with various religious groups and political charlatans, hence, ye gods! The alternative to trust and belief (not science) is the actual scientific process. I am mystified as to how this can be so construed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, villakram said:

I was responding with dismay to posts mentioning trust and belief in science. Trust & belief have nothing to do with scientific investigation and are concepts more akin to those associated with various religious groups and political charlatans, hence, ye gods! The alternative to trust and belief (not science) is the actual scientific process. I am mystified as to how this can be so construed.

So we are left with the curious position ... trust in the scientific method or process, but not its fruit?

Interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've formed a hypothesis based on my yoghurt, porridge oats, honey and grapes breakfast.

There really is a time and place for both red AND green grapes, and to my surprise, the green grapes within my cereal bowl go much better than the red grapes. 

This is/was a strange phenomenon to me, as I usually mock green grapes and eat the superior red ones. 

Thank you for your time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
29 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I've formed a hypothesis based on my yoghurt, porridge oats, honey and grapes breakfast.

There really is a time and place for both red AND green grapes, and to my surprise, the green grapes within my cereal bowl go much better than the red grapes. 

This is/was a strange phenomenon to me, as I usually mock green grapes and eat the superior red ones. 

Thank you for your time. 

Red grapes should be stamped on, fermented and drunk in glasses. It's a pretentious clearing in the woods of a fruit in its original form.

Green grapes are sweet and ting, go well with all manner of things. 

You've done well here, lad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â