How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)
TONY (under Proteins, Apes & Us): I remember debates about the missing link from my childhood. My take on it was not "What is the missing link?", but rather, "Is there a missing link at all?"-This is the problem I have with Evolutionary theory and fundamentalist creationist alike: If you are looking at the data with the intention of proving a theory, you will find the proof you are looking for, regardless of whether or not it proves anything or has any explanatory power.-Evolutionary biology looks at hominid and ape specimens, but recent and ancient, looking to prove evolution. So, that is the evidence that they find. Creationist look at those same specimens looking to prove creation, so that is what they find. My understanding of science was that the process was supposed to occur somewhat in reverse. You look at the data without blinkers and blinders, and build a hypothesis based on what you find. Then you try to DISPROVE that hypothesis, not prove it. Science today seems to work the other way around. They come up with a hypothesis, perhaps based on data, perhaps on someone elses interpretation of data, or perhaps based on a personal agenda, and then try to PROVE that hypothesis instead of disprove it.-Not for the first time, I find myself very much in sympathy with Tony's post, and it raises huge issues. Already people have talked about the pressure on scientists to produce results, which may well result in premature publication, misleading statistics, suppression of anti-Establishment views etc., but I'd like to go a little further. In our much lamented epistemological thread, most of us agreed to distinguish between absolute truth (unattainable), knowledge (general consensus), and belief (individual). The range of human activities is now so vast that we rely totally on so-called experts to provide us with information which we cannot possibly check for ourselves. But we know from almost every domain affecting our lives that there is not even a general consensus ... think of the conflicting views we get from politicians, economists, educationalists, sociologists, lawyers etc. Quite often, these people also create a language of their own, which ensures that the layman remains dependent (at least until the catastrophic results destroy his trust!).-Science is no different. In my view there's no doubt that science is best equipped to explain the material workings of the universe, but scientists inevitably bombard us with information which the layman cannot challenge. However, on how many theories is there a general consensus? Evolution, big bang, dark energy, multiverse, string theory....I do believe that evolution has happened, in the sense that all organisms have descended from other organisms. But I have not understood how the mechanisms work, and I remain sceptical about random mutations and gradualism. This is a branch of science which I can understand reasonably well, and so when an expert like Dawkins talks nonsense I feel able to challenge him (though I'm delighted when I get the support of professionals). But most of the time, I'm forced to take information on trust, and even the most recent history of science shows that this is unwise. -For instance, Tony raised the issue of dating techniques. (I googled this, and got some interesting information which I shan't show my wife!) How can we possibly be certain that Filler's Ugandan vertebrae are 21 million years old? The mind can barely encompass that sort of time scale ... let alone figures like 13.75 billion years (big bang), 5 billion years (Earth), 3.4 billion years (life on Earth). Google different websites and you will get different figures, but they are generally around the same, give or take a meagre (hundred) million years or so. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but is there ANY method of dating that does not rely on certain factors being constant? And how on Earth can we be sure that over all these thousands of millions of years, there have been any such constants? -You may argue that we must take what we can get, which of course most of us do, but Tony's scepticism seems to me to be a very apt warning. We shouldn't take information on trust, especially when it's used to promote agendas which cannot be verified. And that applies to science just as it applies to so-called sacred texts: in both cases, the information is all too often suspect, and so is the interpretation of the information. I'm sure Xenophanes would agree!
How reliable is science?
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 15:39 (4390 days ago) @ dhw
For instance, Tony raised the issue of dating techniques. (I googled this, and got some interesting information which I shan't show my wife!) How can we possibly be certain that Filler's Ugandan vertebrae are 21 million years old? The mind can barely encompass that sort of time scale ... let alone figures like 13.75 billion years (big bang), 5 billion years (Earth), 3.4 billion years (life on Earth). Google different websites and you will get different figures, but they are generally around the same, give or take a meagre (hundred) million years or so. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but is there ANY method of dating that does not rely on certain factors being constant? And how on Earth can we be sure that over all these thousands of millions of years, there have been any such constants? -The word used is 'proxies' in the climate debate papers. Tree rings, trapped CO2 in glacier ice, isotopes with known half-life, etc., etc. Everything is an approximation, but they all can be manipulated to create chaos. As in Mann's hockey stick which got rid of an actually measured Little Ice Age at its tail end in America. Too much grant money with too much political pressure behind it.-As for figures above, accepted corrections: Sun 5 billion, Earth 4.5 billion, life as early as 3.8 billion, but very debated, 3.6 much more likely, and 3.4 is a definite for the moment. All by proxy. Remember we don't even actually measure air temperature. At first we expanded mercury. We should be measuring the velocity of gas molecules in the air. Simply put, everything is a proxy. so what, we have to accept that to do science. It is the unscrupulous who get us into trouble. And peer review fascilitates by using group think pressure. Matt take note.
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 15:51 (4390 days ago) @ David Turell
> The word used is 'proxies' in the climate debate papers. -Another proxy for the universe expansion, quasar lensing:-http://phys.org/news/2012-04-cosmic-mirages-expansion.html
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 17:27 (4390 days ago) @ David Turell
The body of the article you linked stated:-" A caution is that this method using supernovae is built on several assumptions, and therefore independent checks of the result are important in order to draw any robust conclusion. "-yet the title claims: 'Cosmic mirages' confirm accelerated cosmic expansion-And this is in a major scientific journal. Imagine how headlines like this will become distorted as they trickle down to the masses. More to the point, what assumptions? Where is the list of assumed data that the layman, should he be so inquisitive and industrious, could look up so as to get a better understanding of what is being assumed. -To make issues worse, many, if not most, of the peer reviewed studies CHARGE for copies of their publications. Now, I do not have a particular issue with that in the sense that, hey, a scientist has to eat too, but what percentage of the population can AFFORD to purchase every scientific paper that catches their eye, or to keep a running tally of subscriptions to dozens of peer reviewed publications? And further, if those publications are being intellectually dishonest by excluding studies and research that don't fit into the common paradigm then how can the layman be sure that he is getting a fair and balanced view of the research instead of something slanted to one side or the other?-This is the issue with science as business.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 17:56 (4390 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The body of the article you linked stated: > > " A caution is that this method using supernovae is built on several assumptions, and therefore independent checks of the result are important in order to draw any robust conclusion. " > > yet the title claims: 'Cosmic mirages' confirm accelerated cosmic expansion-I don't disagree with your assessment of science as a business. but please read carefully when you snatch out a quote. I believe you have the wrong context:-"The accelerated cosmic expansion is one of the central problems in modern cosmology", Oguri says, "In 2011, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe using observations of distant supernovae. A caution is that this method using supernovae is built on several assumptions, and therefore independent checks of the result are important in order to draw any robust conclusion. Our new result using gravitational lensing not only provides additional strong evidence for the accelerated cosmic expansion, but also is useful for accurate measurements of the expansion speed, which is essential for investigating the nature of dark energy".-The article is about a confirmatory method for a method in bold which has the assumptions. The headline in what is lay reporting of the science has hype but isn't that awful.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 22:23 (4390 days ago) @ David Turell
For instance, Tony raised the issue of dating techniques. (I googled this, and got some interesting information which I shan't show my wife!) How can we possibly be certain that Filler's Ugandan vertebrae are 21 million years old? The mind can barely encompass that sort of time scale ... let alone figures like 13.75 billion years (big bang), 5 billion years (Earth), 3.4 billion years (life on Earth). Google different websites and you will get different figures, but they are generally around the same, give or take a meagre (hundred) million years or so. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but is there ANY method of dating that does not rely on certain factors being constant? And how on Earth can we be sure that over all these thousands of millions of years, there have been any such constants? > > The word used is 'proxies' in the climate debate papers. Tree rings, trapped CO2 in glacier ice, isotopes with known half-life, etc., etc. Everything is an approximation, but they all can be manipulated to create chaos. As in Mann's hockey stick which got rid of an actually measured Little Ice Age at its tail end in America. Too much grant money with too much political pressure behind it. > > As for figures above, accepted corrections: Sun 5 billion, Earth 4.5 billion, life as early as 3.8 billion, but very debated, 3.6 much more likely, and 3.4 is a definite for the moment. All by proxy. Remember we don't even actually measure air temperature. At first we expanded mercury. We should be measuring the velocity of gas molecules in the air. Simply put, everything is a proxy. so what, we have to accept that to do science. It is the unscrupulous who get us into trouble. And peer review fascilitates by using group think pressure. Matt take note.-It's as simple as this: I don't see it happening that way. My interface with all those things is in the computer architectures designed to run their simulations and compute their calculations. In my field, even cherished ideas such as the Turing Machine get regularly challenged. I don't buy that this doesn't happen everywhere. Only time will tell who's right David.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Thursday, April 12, 2012, 15:43 (4389 days ago) @ xeno6696
It is the unscrupulous who get us into trouble. And peer review fascilitates by using group think pressure. Matt take note. > > It's as simple as this: I don't see it happening that way. My interface with all those things is in the computer architectures designed to run their simulations and compute their calculations. In my field, even cherished ideas such as the Turing Machine get regularly challenged. I don't buy that this doesn't happen everywhere. Only time will tell who's right David.-Too much money is affecting basic cancer research:-http://news.yahoo.com/cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-174216262.html-Matt, you know the world is a dirty competitive place. Competition is fine, dishonesty, never. I'll bet it is in the computer world also. Turing is the computer god. What are the doubts?
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 12, 2012, 16:54 (4389 days ago) @ David Turell
"For one thing, basic science studies are rarely "blinded" the way clinical trials are. That is, researchers know which cell line or mouse got a treatment or had cancer. That can be a problem when data are subject to interpretation, as a researcher who is intellectually invested in a theory is more likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in its favor.The problem goes beyond cancer.-On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent."-This is precisely my point. As the article goes on to mention, it goes beyond the medical/biology field. For the layman, this translates into, "if I do not have the ability to verify their results, and I can not take them at their word, why should I believe anything that they say? More importantly, if I can't trust the people doing research, such as the medical and pharmaceutical companies, how can I trust my doctor?"-Keep in mind that lawmakers pass laws based on this as well. There was a woman recently that was charged with murder because she refused to give her son Chemotherapy. Given the state of cancer research, can we blame her?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 12, 2012, 21:52 (4389 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Case in point: Medical Misguidance-If the money had not been there from major pharma companies, do you think this would have taken so long to come to light?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Friday, April 13, 2012, 05:19 (4388 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Case in point: Medical Misguidance > > If the money had not been there from major pharma companies, do you think this would have taken so long to come to light?-Great discussion: this is why C-reactive protein is such a good marker for coronary disease and for inflammation level. Eat right, exercise and stay skinny.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 14, 2012, 14:52 (4387 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Case in point: Medical Misguidance > > If the money had not been there from major pharma companies, do you think this would have taken so long to come to light?-If the money had not been there from the major pharma companies, the majority of those papers wouldn't have been written in the first place.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2012, 15:23 (4387 days ago) @ xeno6696
Case in point: Medical Misguidance > > > > If the money had not been there from major pharma companies, do you think this would have taken so long to come to light? > > If the money had not been there from the major pharma companies, the majority of those papers wouldn't have been written in the first place.-Just as I pointed out. it is all about money
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 14, 2012, 16:19 (4387 days ago) @ David Turell
Case in point: Medical Misguidance > > > > > > If the money had not been there from major pharma companies, do you think this would have taken so long to come to light? > > > > If the money had not been there from the major pharma companies, the majority of those papers wouldn't have been written in the first place. > > Just as I pointed out. it is all about money-Like I said: The process caught the mistakes. Just like it should.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, April 14, 2012, 19:07 (4387 days ago) @ xeno6696
After two generations of misdiagnosis leading to premature death for millions without a shred of responsibility. Hitler does it and he is called a villain, science does it and its just part of the process.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 01:56 (4387 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 02:05
After two generations of misdiagnosis leading to premature death for millions without a shred of responsibility. Hitler does it and he is called a villain, science does it and its just part of the process.-Wow... you're one for melodrama aren't you?-Hitler deliberately did what he did. Hitler hated Jews, he deliberately marked them as separate from society, and slowly enacted a program of methodical extinction. -The doctors you cite all take the same Hippocratic oath. Some of them enacted (and developed, or helped develop) treatments that according to what they knew--worked. -We don't know, what we don't know.-The doctors opposing the hypothesis you discussed, did what they did believing that what they did was better for their patients. They weren't taking their patients, marking them off as [arbitrarily] inferior, and sending them to die in gas chambers.-Comparing Hitler's "final solution" to THAT is pure, [melodramatic] histrionics.-[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, April 16, 2012, 06:15 (4385 days ago) @ xeno6696
See Matt, this is where you are, IMHO wrong. Hitler also thought that he was doing what was in the best interest of his people. I wasn't being melodramatic, I was being serious. I know this is slightly off topic, but any number of atrocities have been committed throughout history by people who had the best intentions. That is why there is the old cliche "The road to hell is paved with good intent." -You have paced science on a pedestal. I see it in the way you talk about it, and the way you gloss over its short comings repeated, as if refusing to admit them even to yourself, regardless of how many times any of us point out the glaringly obvious failures. -Other doctors and medical researchers undoubtedly had the same information as the surgeon in the article. So tell me why the process failed. Why is it that with all the recorded operations, all of the records, videos, conferences, lectures, text books, journals, and databases not one single person saw that a tremendous majority of cardiology cases were caused by inflammation. Lethal drugs were being created and prescribed for patients to treat the symptom and not the disease? I just want to know why. Without all the evasions and excuse. If the system worked the way that you say it works it would not have happened. Over a million people die every year from heart disease. The doctor in the article had been practicing 25 years, long enough to treat at least two generations. (During which time somewhere close to 20 million people would have died in that time frame.) So, me saying millions of people over two generations is not melodrama, it is simple fact. Like it or not, that is the way it is. -From the CDC In 2008, over 616,000 people died of heart disease. Heart disease caused almost 25% of deaths—almost one in every four—in the United States.1 Heart disease is the leading cause of death for both men and women. More than half of the deaths due to heart disease in 2008 were in men.1 Coronary heart disease is the most common type of heart disease. In 2008, 405,309 people died from coronary heart disease.1 Every year about 785,000 Americans have a first coronary attack. Another 470,000 who have already had one or more coronary attacks have another attack.2 In 2010, coronary heart disease alone was projected to cost the United States $108.9 billion.3 This total includes the cost of health care services, medications, and lost productivity -That's a lot of money for drug companies and doctors, even if 1/3 of that was lost productivity, which I am quite certain it was not remotely close to that.-Many of the underlying causes of arterial disease have been identified in the scientific literature. Regrettably, cardiologists have only addressed a limited number of these factors, such as prescribing cholesterol-lowering drugs, controlling hypertension, etc. By ignoring the other proven causes for the epidemic of vascular-related diseases, a significant number of Americans are experiencing needless suffering and are dying prematurely.-So you still need more convincing, here you go:-In 1996 the Life Extension Foundation published an article showing that high levels of fibrinogen represented a significant risk factor for heart attack and ischemic stroke (Ridker et al. 2000). The article was based on studies dating back to the 1980s showing that people with elevated fibrinogen levels were more likely to die from a cardiovascular-related disease.-Despite numerous studies linking elevated fibrinogen to increased heart attack risk, few physicians bother to check their patient's blood levels of fibrinogen or other correctable risk factors such as homocysteine and C-reactive protein.-Many cardiologists are still demanding a higher standard of proof before they routinely test their patients' blood for what they consider to be "newly identified" cardiac risk factors. Even when a physician is aware of the importance of testing a patient's blood for the presence of inflammatory risk factors, a common problem is that managed care organizations (HMOs and PPOs) refuse to pay for them.-The sad fact is that the majority of practicing physicians are not yet aware of how to properly correct for elevated inflammatory risk factors (such as C-reactive protein and fibrinogen).-As a result of physician ignorance or insurance company stinginess, many Americans experience progressive debilitating congestive heart failure or cerebral circulatory impairment, when the underlying causes could have been corrected if the physician ordered and then properly interpreted these blood tests.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by BBella , Thursday, April 19, 2012, 05:22 (4382 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
The sad fact is that the majority of practicing physicians are not yet aware of how to properly correct for elevated inflammatory risk factors (such as C-reactive protein and fibrinogen). > > As a result of physician ignorance or insurance company stinginess, many Americans experience progressive debilitating congestive heart failure or cerebral circulatory impairment, when the underlying causes could have been corrected if the physician ordered and then properly interpreted these blood tests.[/i]-Tony, Did the article mention the corrective measures to take in such cases where the inflammatory risk factors were higher? Both my parents had heart attacks -late in life and are still alive - and I have a Congenital Bicuspid Aorta that I've been told at some point will have to be replaced, so was curious how to make sure the inflammation is kept down, and could relate the information to my parents as well if you can point me to it!-Thanks, bb
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 19, 2012, 13:10 (4382 days ago) @ BBella
Original Article-Basically he is talking about avoiding processed foods as much as possible and eating a balanced diet, particularly in regards to Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids. This is something I have been doing myself for the last couple of years. A lot of it is simply buying the food raw and cooking. That makes a tremendous impact on your health. Lot's of colorful vegetables are also recommended, raw preferably, or steamed/lightly cooked if you must cook them. Have a look at the article though :) Hope it helps.-Tony
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by BBella , Sunday, April 22, 2012, 05:49 (4379 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Original Article > > Basically he is talking about avoiding processed foods as much as possible and eating a balanced diet, particularly in regards to Omega3 and Omega6 fatty acids. This is something I have been doing myself for the last couple of years. A lot of it is simply buying the food raw and cooking. That makes a tremendous impact on your health. Lot's of colorful vegetables are also recommended, raw preferably, or steamed/lightly cooked if you must cook them. Have a look at the article though :) Hope it helps. > > Tony-Thanks for the article and info Tony, very insightful! I did recently find out I have a Congenital Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis that will probably have to be replaced at some point. Altho I already eat very healthy, and have for some years since being diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis, this recent wake up call has helped me to take measures and be even more cautious mentally and physically. -bb
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 14, 2012, 14:48 (4387 days ago) @ David Turell
It is the unscrupulous who get us into trouble. And peer review fascilitates by using group think pressure. Matt take note. > > > > It's as simple as this: I don't see it happening that way. My interface with all those things is in the computer architectures designed to run their simulations and compute their calculations. In my field, even cherished ideas such as the Turing Machine get regularly challenged. I don't buy that this doesn't happen everywhere. Only time will tell who's right David. > > Too much money is affecting basic cancer research: > > http://news.yahoo.com/cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-174216262.html ... -That article simply demonstrates (to the skeptically paranoid) that you can't trust science from *any* source--without replication of the results. The dishonesty will be uncovered in time. The key thing to remember is that dishonesty in science *will always be uncovered.* That is why I always say that the system isn't "broken." The system does what it was designed to do, you just don't like its speed, David! That article also informs me that while many people try to rush papers out the door to support the "publish or perish" culture, that the process of replication finds errors and discards theories, exactly as the system is supposed to work. -> Matt, you know the world is a dirty competitive place. Competition is fine, dishonesty, never. I'll bet it is in the computer world also. Turing is the computer god. What are the doubts?-In just the most recent "communications of the ACM," there are several debates highlighted that directly challenge the "Turing Machine," which for the uninitiated, is the basic theory underpinning how all computers work. Notions from biology and physics that view those systems as "computational machines" are chipping away at the Turing Machine, and while "displacement of the Turing Machine is likely a long way off," there is already an acceptance in the community that the theory probably has a shelf life. There are 3 paradigms outlined that can generate this challenge. The first is more or less "where we are now." -(The are enumerated as: 1. reductionists 2. impressionists 3. remodelers 4. incomputability theorists )-Of course, our community is intimately connected with engineering, and in general, engineers don't have that much difficulty with throwing away something when a more practical solution is available. -Again, the mere existence of these (often overlapping) areas that are predicted to challenge Turing's Universal Machine is a stark demonstration that scientific debate is alive and well, and is appears unhindered by most of what you seem to claim as "the drive for money."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2012, 15:22 (4387 days ago) @ xeno6696
In just the most recent "communications of the ACM," there are several debates highlighted that directly challenge the "Turing Machine," which for the uninitiated, is the basic theory underpinning how all computers work. Notions from biology and physics that view those systems as "computational machines" are chipping away at the Turing Machine, and while "displacement of the Turing Machine is likely a long way off," there is already an acceptance in the community that the theory probably has a shelf life. There are 3 paradigms outlined that can generate this challenge. The first is more or less "where we are now." > > (The are enumerated as: > 1. reductionists > 2. impressionists > 3. remodelers > 4. incomputability theorists > ) > > Of course, our community is intimately connected with engineering, and in general, engineers don't have that much difficulty with throwing away something when a more practical solution is available. > > Again, the mere existence of these (often overlapping) areas that are predicted to challenge Turing's Universal Machine is a stark demonstration that scientific debate is alive and well, and is appears unhindered by most of what you seem to claim as "the drive for money."-Thanks for the explanation. Glad you are back to bug us and inform us. In the cancer research there is cheating. But time to therapy is money and one needs to follow the money to understand the motivations to cheat. By the way, how is your wife doing?
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 14, 2012, 16:17 (4387 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > Thanks for the explanation. Glad you are back to bug us and inform us. In the cancer research there is cheating. But time to therapy is money and one needs to follow the money to understand the motivations to cheat. By the way, how is your wife doing?-I do owe you guys an update! >_< -Cherri has a faulty MTHFR gene, meaning that she doesn't metabolize folic acid like most people, and she runs a higher risk than average for blood clots. Her dad's side of the family has a strong history of dying from blood clots--Great grandpa at 29, her grandparents at 79, 80, and her dad at 59. -Because of that she will be on a folic acid complex the rest of her life. -That caused a great fear of neural tube defects in the baby, and we saw the perinatalogist two wednesdays ago. The baby girl is just fine, 69%ile. -The specialist is exactly what I would want in a doctor: Confident and arrogant. And he took a shot at the OB, which I appreciate because I don't think she's handled this well. "An ultrasound is 97% effective at catching neural tube defects." The subtext was "I'm not sure why you're here." -He probed us about an amnio, and my response was "well, the OB said that there would be a 1:300 chance of problem" to which his response was immediately "Well, in my hands that would be more like 1:1600. I've done more than she has." But he advised against one because of the efficacy of the ultrasound. -Everything that *can* be medically handled is now handled. We should have a normal pregnancy, but we do have a higher risk of early delivery. I can live with that. -We go back in about 2 months.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2012, 17:43 (4387 days ago) @ xeno6696
> I do owe you guys an update! >_< > > Cherri has a faulty MTHFR gene, meaning that she doesn't metabolize folic acid like most people, and she runs a higher risk than average for blood clots. Her dad's side of the family has a strong history of dying from blood clots--Great grandpa at 29, her grandparents at 79, 80, and her dad at 59. > > Because of that she will be on a folic acid complex the rest of her life. > > That caused a great fear of neural tube defects in the baby, and we saw the perinatalogist two wednesdays ago. The baby girl is just fine, 69%ile. > > The specialist is exactly what I would want in a doctor: Confident and arrogant. And he took a shot at the OB, which I appreciate because I don't think she's handled this well. "An ultrasound is 97% effective at catching neural tube defects." The subtext was "I'm not sure why you're here." > > He probed us about an amnio, and my response was "well, the OB said that there would be a 1:300 chance of problem" to which his response was immediately "Well, in my hands that would be more like 1:1600. I've done more than she has." But he advised against one because of the efficacy of the ultrasound. > > Everything that *can* be medically handled is now handled. We should have a normal pregnancy, but we do have a higher risk of early delivery. I can live with that. > > We go back in about 2 months.-Fabulous story with great insight about doctors. Keep up the great consultations.Sounds like you will do fine, thank goodness.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 22:17 (4390 days ago) @ dhw
"And how on Earth can we be sure that over all these thousands of millions of years, there have been any such constants? "-This is really the only thing I can comment on. -The reasoning is akin to why we infer that the sun will rise tomorrow:-The rates of atomic decay can be predicted with what I would call a pretty extreme precision. While I wholeheartedly appreciate skepticism, (scepticism in your case 
) there is very little reason to infer that these constants are anything but. The speed of light being an important one. The team that thought they beat the speed of light last year has been slowly churning out where their statistical errors occurred, and the only real challenge to the constant in 100yrs is turning out, essentially, to be a mistake at best, hoax at worst. -So yes, I agree, we shouldn't lose the forest for the trees, we shouldn't forget that scientific models are models, but if we can exploit properties--like constants--with the level of precision that we have, there really is little question to be asked. -If you ask me how these things are exploited, I will point you to the computer you're using to read and respond to me. Constants are invoked *everywhere* in the design of computers. If the constants weren't "constant," your machine wouldn't work, its as simple as that. -As for evidence that constants miraculously "suspended" at points in our past, the only evidence we have for that would be tracing the big bang back to the singularity. -Black holes are one place where at least one constant can be "beaten"--but not fully. (Black holes still radiate.) -In terms of how reliable science is, in most cases--namely physics, just rerun the damn experiment. Everyone is free to come up with another explanation for how acceleration works, for example. But that explanation will have to answer everything the old one did as well as answer something new that the old one didn't cover. -Tony has at least one thing backwards however. If you read Darwin, he started from the evidence, and worked forward from there. He had no intention of eliminating God at all, and all evolutionary theory is ultimately expanded upon Darwin's base. It *IS* looking at the evidence, only from an extremely conservative empirical perspective. I've met Jewish and Muslim doctors and scientists that have no problem with evolution as it is taught today. And it isn't because they feel bullied. -Where Dawkins goes wrong, isn't in terms of science, its in terms of his normative stance that the scientific perspective alone takes precedence. That's something for an individual to decide, not Dawkins.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 12, 2012, 01:54 (4390 days ago) @ xeno6696
MATT: Tony has at least one thing backwards however. If you read Darwin, he started from the evidence, and worked forward from there. He had no intention of eliminating God at all, and all evolutionary theory is ultimately expanded upon Darwin's base. It *IS* looking at the evidence, only from an extremely conservative empirical perspective. I've met Jewish and Muslim doctors and scientists that have no problem with evolution as it is taught today. And it isn't because they feel bullied. > > Where Dawkins goes wrong, isn't in terms of science, its in terms of his normative stance that the scientific perspective alone takes precedence. That's something for an individual to decide, not Dawkins.-I wasn't referring to Darwin so much. Despite how it may seem, I have every reason to believe the Charles Darwin studied the evidence and formed a hypothesis that could be tested in good faith and in the standards of good science. But then, Darwin, like many scientist of his generation, was independently well-to-do, so he was not under the publish-or-parish system that lends itself so well to bad science. -That being said, consider that since there came to be a general acceptance of Darwin's Hypothesis, and it gained the status of Theory, that any dissenter from the ideology is figuratively burned at the stake as a heretic in the scientific community. With the current status of scientific research, this puts them in a completely untenable situation. They can not receive funding if they pursue any but the orthodox lines of research, they may expand upon it but funding would never be approved for someone trying to dislodge it. If they should manage to secure funding, their papers will not get published, or if they do they will be vilified by Dawkins and his ilk as disigenuous and dishonest 'religidiots' trying to prove some fundamentalist ideal of young earth creation. If they are accepted by some creationist branch who has a vested interest in trying to prove a creationist ideology, they are under pressure to produce results conforming to the desires of the person paying the bill. -So tell me, Matt, how can we trust the science under these conditions? Do we turn a blind eye to all the backbiting and backroom politics? Do we trust that scientist are less human than we are and all work on altruistic principals which holds monetary concerns as of no import? How can we trust the institution when they have repeatedly buried the work of scientists who do not conform to the orthodoxy? Some time back I linked an article regarding a female archaeologist who ran into this problem because her discovery called into question common historical orthodoxy. No one will publish her works despite the fact that all of her findings were independently verified. And soon after the incident, no one would fund her work further either. Is this the ideal of science that you hold so dear?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 14, 2012, 15:16 (4387 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
MATT: Tony has at least one thing backwards however. If you read Darwin, he started from the evidence, and worked forward from there. He had no intention of eliminating God at all, and all evolutionary theory is ultimately expanded upon Darwin's base. It *IS* looking at the evidence, only from an extremely conservative empirical perspective. I've met Jewish and Muslim doctors and scientists that have no problem with evolution as it is taught today. And it isn't because they feel bullied. > > > > Where Dawkins goes wrong, isn't in terms of science, its in terms of his normative stance that the scientific perspective alone takes precedence. That's something for an individual to decide, not Dawkins. > > I wasn't referring to Darwin so much. Despite how it may seem, I have every reason to believe the Charles Darwin studied the evidence and formed a hypothesis that could be tested in good faith and in the standards of good science. But then, Darwin, like many scientist of his generation, was independently well-to-do, so he was not under the publish-or-parish system that lends itself so well to bad science. > > That being said, consider that since there came to be a general acceptance of Darwin's Hypothesis, and it gained the status of Theory, that any dissenter from the ideology is figuratively burned at the stake as a heretic in the scientific community. With the current status of scientific -The problem is that the only dissenters are proponents of ID, which is a philosophical challenge only. There isn't a single testable claim made by ID, so in that light it is rightly castigated. Saying "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn't a scientifically testable statement. -The vitriol of the biological community is due to ID proponents attempting to launch their philosophical views into technical journals. I promise you, if they were submitting the papers into the philosophical journals where they belong, the fight wouldn't be so fierce. ID is not science. -> So tell me, Matt, how can we trust the science under these conditions? Do we turn a blind eye to all the backbiting and backroom politics? Do we trust that scientist are less human than we are and all work on altruistic principals which holds monetary concerns as of no import? How can we trust the institution when they have repeatedly buried the work of scientists who do not conform to the orthodoxy? Some time back I linked an article regarding a female archaeologist who ran into this problem because her discovery called into question common historical orthodoxy. No one will publish her works despite the fact that all of her findings were independently verified. And soon after the incident, no one would fund her work further either. Is this the ideal of science that you hold so dear?-Who's getting buried where? Relativity was accepted. Quantum entanglement was accepted. Ulcers as a bacterial infection was accepted. All of these faced vitriolic opposition, but as the results were compared with "the real world" and it was proven that these ideas *did* explain phenomena better, they were made "normal." That's what the process of replication is for. -Have you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" It focuses on Einstein as a case study. If there is a duplicity in science, it'll come out. The process hasn't failed us yet. It just doesn't work as quickly as you or David would like, because there's some idea that both of you like, that you think should be the paradigm, and it isn't. -Sit back, take a holistic view, and let the process do its job. -For your question marked in yellow: It's how I expect humans to operate. If her ideas stand on their own merits however, there is no choice but to accept those ideas. Like Mendel, it might not be until after she's dead, but *someone* will either come up with a similar idea or find hers and then cause a revolution. -You need to respect that in my mind you're asking humans to be "all rational, all the time." -Look at how plate tectonics was ridiculed. Hell, as a small child, I noticed that South America looks like it could nest into west africa, and that Greenland looks like it could have fit into hudson bay. (I was a kid.. I was only half right on that count!) But because the guy who proposed it was an astronomer, geologists everywhere dogpiled on him. -Guess what happened? -The bottom line is this: Even if it takes 100 years, science corrects its own mistakes. THAT is exactly what I would expect.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, April 14, 2012, 19:05 (4387 days ago) @ xeno6696
The problem is that the only dissenters are proponents of ID, which is a philosophical challenge only. There isn't a single testable claim made by ID, so in that light it is rightly castigated. Saying "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" isn't a scientifically testable statement. > -Not all opponents of evolution are basing their opposition on ID. Some simply see that there are fundamental flaws in evolution. -Also, there IS a testable claim made by ID, actually. Evolution is not sufficient to explain innovation(versus adaptation). That is testable. Ironically, that is the same way to falsify Evolution. It is falsifiable. All evolutionist would have to do is prove a single repeatable experiment that shows a completely new innovation as a natural process. That would be the end of the Evo/ID debate. Show a single-celled organism that spontaneously combined into a multi-cellular organism with a completely new function in an environment consistent with the natural habitat. (i.e. not a "designed" environment with carefully controlled conditions and mediums that could not exist in nature with scientist feeding them carefully controlled nutrients and/or chemicals.) Again, this would have to show a completely NEW function, not a new way of doing something that it was doing previously. When the question of a SINGLE example of this was posed to Dawkins, he couldn't answer it. - > Who's getting buried where? -A while back I posted a link to a South American Archaeologist.. I will see if I can find it again and re-link it. ->That's what the process of replication is for. -Which according to an article recently linked by David is something that has NOT been happening as often as it should. > > Have you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" It focuses on Einstein as a case study. If there is a duplicity in science, it'll come out. The process hasn't failed us yet. It just doesn't work as quickly as you or David would like, because there's some idea that both of you like, that you think should be the paradigm, and it isn't. > > Sit back, take a holistic view, and let the process do its job. > -This is where you and I differ. You are satisfied to sit back and watch the process unfold over centuries while countless peoples lives are detrimentally affected. I am not. I hold the people who make false claims, and those that cling to them doggedly in spite of contrary evidence responsible for the damage that they cause, and you do not. To you, it is all part of the process.--> For your question marked in yellow: It's how I expect humans to operate. If her ideas stand on their own merits however, there is no choice but to accept those ideas. Like Mendel, it might not be until after she's dead, but *someone* will either come up with a similar idea or find hers and then cause a revolution. > > You need to respect that in my mind you're asking humans to be "all rational, all the time." -Not all humans and not all the time. I expect those whose profession is built solidly upon the foundations of rational thought, reason, and evidence, to live up to the requirements of the task that they set for themselves. If they can not, then they shouldn't have taken the job. > > The bottom line is this: Even if it takes 100 years, science corrects its own mistakes. THAT is exactly what I would expect.-And in the meantime, entire generations of humanity are negatively impacted by a small group of peoples stubborn refusal to follow the ethics and methods set out for themselves and by their refusal to accept accountability for those effects. Science has long enjoyed a complete immunity for nearly everything that it does. That article I linked of the heart surgeon is a prime example. How many years did they have the evidence right in front of them? This doctor claims to have performed over 5000 operations and had seen this evidence every single time. Yet, the paradigm did not change. -In some scientific fields, such as cosmology, a wait of a century doesn't matter one iota. But science is not limited to those fields where the impact may not be seen for a century or an eon. More to the point, there is no longer any excuse. Information can be shared almost instantaneously. There are numerous resources for sorting and sifting and gleaning the nuances out of the massive amounts of data that could be accumulated. The science you speak of, that of rigid ideology and centuries long debate over which theory is the right one is no longer acceptable. The world is changing too fast for scientific dogma to have a place in it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 01:23 (4387 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 02:22
Not all opponents of evolution are basing their opposition on ID. Some simply see that there are fundamental flaws in evolution. > -Citations?-> Also, there IS a testable claim made by ID, actually. Evolution is not sufficient to explain innovation(versus adaptation). That is testable. Ironically, that is the same way to falsify Evolution. It is falsifiable. All evolutionist would have to do is prove a single repeatable experiment that shows a completely new innovation as a natural process. ... Again, this would have to show a completely NEW function, not a new way of doing something that it was doing previously. When the question of a SINGLE example of this was posed to Dawkins, he couldn't answer it. > >-What's the experiment that I can go run tomorrow, that will allow me to reject or accept the claim in red?-As for the "completely new" feature, I already posted one from a paper in 1982 in which a bacteria evolved a way to metabolize lactose after its capability to do so was deliberately destroyed. Every generation from the knockout was recorded and it was demonstrated that the new ability to metabolize lactose came from 1. Random frame shift mutations 2. A gene with a different structure than the original, knocked out version. -> > Who's getting buried where? > > A while back I posted a link to a South American Archaeologist.. I will see if I can find it again and re-link it. > -I think I answered this in a separate location. I'll be posting something soon about anthropology because it came up in Pinker's book. -> >That's what the process of replication is for. > > Which according to an article recently linked by David is something that has NOT been happening as often as it should. > -What is the basis for determining the "as often as it should" quip? In my mind, it is irrelevant if it takes 100 years. It's like math. It happens when it happens, there is no way to predict a "often" rate. -... > > This is where you and I differ. You are satisfied to sit back and watch the process unfold over centuries while countless peoples lives are detrimentally affected. I am not. I hold the people who make false claims, and those that cling to them doggedly in spite of contrary evidence responsible for the damage that they cause, and you do not. To you, it is all part of the process. > > -No. Where you and I differ, is that I recognize that humans will do things at a speed no faster than what humans will allow. Science isn't about individuals, its about the whole. It is inconsequential that some scientist gets their feelings and/or career hurt in their lifetime because their ideas were too early. It is inconsequential because you are trying to hold scientists to a standard of perfection higher than what is achievable by a human being. Humans WILL defend a paradigm they spent their whole lives building. Scientists are ultimately engineers, ultimately human. (If you read Kuhn, you'd understand where I'm coming from.) Science is about building models that are general, and span generations. You simply cannot take a view of these processes in the scope of single lifetimes. The story of physics, for example, starts with Aristotle, and is governed at present by thinkers such as Stephen Hawking. In that process, the blood of Copernicus was shed [and the] career of Galileo was terminated. -Even in my own science, Alan Turing committed suicide because of Gay persecution in the UK. In that case, it had nothing to do with his science.-> > > For your question marked in yellow: It's how I expect humans to operate. If her ideas stand on their own merits however, there is no choice but to accept those ideas. Like Mendel, it might not be until after she's dead, but *someone* will either come up with a similar idea or find hers and then cause a revolution. > > > > You need to respect that in my mind you're asking humans to be "all rational, all the time." > > Not all humans and not all the time. I expect those whose profession is built solidly upon the foundations of rational thought, reason, and evidence, to live up to the requirements of the task that they set for themselves. If they can not, then they shouldn't have taken the job. > -By that [logic], no scientist, doctor, computer programmer, or police officer should ever engage in their profession. Because of course, we're error prone, and because we might cause an error, we should never act.-[EDITED]-I understand that I think you want me to recognize that there is a human cost, and I fully recognize this. In a perfect world, no one should have to die because of the failings of someone else. -But I also fully recognize, that it isn't possible to expect a human being to act more than human. Because of that, a human cost will always be paid. Unless we find a way to make scientists act like Vulcans from Star Trek, but I sincerely do not see that as an option.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 20:29 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
Also, there IS a testable claim made by ID, actually. Evolution is not sufficient to explain innovation(versus adaptation). That is testable. Ironically, that is the same way to falsify Evolution. It is falsifiable. All evolutionist would have to do is prove a single repeatable experiment that shows a completely new innovation as a natural process. ... Again, this would have to show a completely NEW function, not a new way of doing something that it was doing previously. When the question of a SINGLE example of this was posed to Dawkins, he couldn't answer it. > > > > > > What's the experiment that I can go run tomorrow, that will allow me to reject or accept the claim in red? > > As for the "completely new" feature, I already posted one from a paper in 1982 in which a bacteria evolved a way to metabolize lactose after its capability to do so was deliberately destroyed. Every generation from the knockout was recorded and it was demonstrated that the new ability to metabolize lactose came from > 1. Random frame shift mutations > 2. A gene with a different structure than the original, knocked out version. > > -I gave the criteria, I am not a scientist and do not have the requisite background to design the experiment. However, I can tell you that the one you cited does not qualify because:-a) "its capability to do so was deliberately destroyed." This means it is not a NEW function, but rather one that it possessed at some point previously, albeit in another form. b) This experiment occurred before knowledge about the pre-/post- processing that DNA performs, so while they may have destroyed one element, they may not have destroyed all of the elements that comprise that function. c) See the part about non-interference. By necessity, it would have to be an unaltered specimen.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 00:48 (4386 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Also, there IS a testable claim made by ID, actually. Evolution is not sufficient to explain innovation(versus adaptation). That is testable. Ironically, that is the same way to falsify Evolution. It is falsifiable. All evolutionist would have to do is prove a single repeatable experiment that shows a completely new innovation as a natural process. ... Again, this would have to show a completely NEW function, not a new way of doing something that it was doing previously. When the question of a SINGLE example of this was posed to Dawkins, he couldn't answer it. > > > > > > > > > > What's the experiment that I can go run tomorrow, that will allow me to reject or accept the claim in red? > > > > As for the "completely new" feature, I already posted one from a paper in 1982 in which a bacteria evolved a way to metabolize lactose after its capability to do so was deliberately destroyed. Every generation from the knockout was recorded and it was demonstrated that the new ability to metabolize lactose came from > > 1. Random frame shift mutations > > 2. A gene with a different structure than the original, knocked out version. > > > > > > I gave the criteria, I am not a scientist and do not have the requisite background to design the experiment. However, I can tell you that the one you cited does not qualify because: > > a) "its capability to do so was deliberately destroyed." This means it is not a NEW function, but rather one that it possessed at some point previously, albeit in another form. -No. When you "knock out" a gene, that gene is GONE, as if it never existed. There isn't a case I'm aware of where an organism was able to magically replace a knockout gene. -> b) This experiment occurred before knowledge about the pre-/post- processing that DNA performs, so while they may have destroyed one element, they may not have destroyed all of the elements that comprise that function. -A valid criticism, but you miss that the majority of specimens continued along just fine, for several thousand bacterial generations, with no alteration whatsoever. If what you say here is true, then the de novo function should have appeared in generations that weren't undergoing the slow frame shifts that eventually led to a *new* function. *All* of the organisms should have eventually regained an ability to consume lactose. -What I'd like to see, now that we know E. coli forwards and backwards, is this experiment rerun. -The fact that a new and different gene appeared demonstrates that the DNA wasn't simply "restoring" an old function. Contrasting the novel cellular line with the billions of other cells without the function -> c) See the part about non-interference. By necessity, it would have to be an unaltered specimen.-Why? Though bacterial resistance to antibiotics provides that argument, my engineering mind calls BS on this one, for the simple reason that we use gene knockouts *all the time* and as I said previously, when we knock something out of a genome, it doesn't come back.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Monday, April 16, 2012, 15:37 (4385 days ago) @ xeno6696
> The fact that a new and different gene appeared demonstrates that the DNA wasn't simply "restoring" an old function. Contrasting the novel cellular line with the billions of other cells without the function > > > c) See the part about non-interference. By necessity, it would have to be an unaltered specimen. > > Why? Though bacterial resistance to antibiotics provides that argument, my engineering mind calls BS on this one, for the simple reason that we use gene knockouts *all the time* and as I said previously, when we knock something out of a genome, it doesn't come back.-But! antibiotic resistance is an old ability. I just presented an article here.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 01:23 (4387 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > The bottom line is this: Even if it takes 100 years, science corrects its own mistakes. THAT is exactly what I would expect. > > And in the meantime, entire generations of humanity are negatively impacted by a small group of peoples stubborn refusal to follow the ethics and methods set out for themselves and by their refusal to accept accountability for those effects. Science has long enjoyed a complete immunity for nearly everything that it does. That article I linked of the heart surgeon is a prime example. How many years did they have the evidence right in front of them? This doctor claims to have performed over 5000 operations and had seen this evidence every single time. Yet, the paradigm did not change. > -Why does it matter? By your own words, the process obviously corrected itself. Things won't move any faster than what *humanity* will allow. -> In some scientific fields, such as cosmology, a wait of a century doesn't matter one iota. But science is not limited to those fields where the impact may not be seen for a century or an eon. More to the point, there is no longer any excuse. Information can be shared almost instantaneously. There are numerous resources for sorting and sifting and gleaning the nuances out of the massive amounts of data that could be accumulated. The science you speak of, that of rigid ideology and centuries long debate over which theory is the right one is no longer acceptable. The world is changing too fast for scientific dogma to have a place in it.-It is an intrinsic part of human nature to defend what you spent your career building. It's a *very* human trait. I don't expect that *any* human of any profession is capable of guarding against this at all times. -I agree that I would *like* it to move at the speed of light. *MY* field certainly does. But we're also a *pure logic* field. Medicine, archaeology, and anthropology are all sciences that are based on "inexactitudes" and interpretations. Because of this, we should expect exactly the kind of behaviour that you're describing, and (in my heart) I really do wish that we could all be "perfect, all the time." -But I know better. -Do I make any sense here?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 16:29 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
I am going to respond to both your posts in one shot here.-I do not expect scientist to be more than human. I don't expect them to be perfect. I don't even expect them to give up on an idea without a fight. However, if a policeman(to use one of your examples) fires his weapon and kills a person mistakenly, he is held accountable for that action, so there is a very strong incentive for him to be certain of his actions. If the mistake was made in good faith, his career will continue unabated, otherwise, he is punished. Science, conversely, has no real accountability for its mistakes. A scientist that makes a mistake in good faith, should be able to continue his career unabated with a clean conscience. However, under the current system, as noted in the article that David linked, the scientist were not making mistakes in good faith. They were being sloppy and dishonest, and that dishonesty cost lives. Yet, no one will ever know who made the mistakes, and they will never be held accountable, even by their own community. -Secondly, there is a difference between my professional expectations of them and my personal expectations. In their personal lives, I do not care at all what they believe or what they think of any given theory or idea. However, scientist are quick to tout, just as you have done, how they follow the evidence and revise their theories and, yes, I absolutely expect them to live up to that in their professional lives. That is not demanding that they are more than human. That is recognizing that there job has a far reaching impact and that the fulfill the obligation that the job THEY CHOSE places on them. Nearly all other members of the community who impact the lives of the general populace are held accountable to some degree. How am I being untoward to expect that the same standard be applied to them? How much more so should I demand it when they actively and purposefully pursue political financial agendas? (Such as removing all but the theory of evolution from schools, or Dawkins own reason rallies and call to persecute anyone that shows any degree of faith that disagrees with his own.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 01:05 (4386 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am going to respond to both your posts in one shot here. > > I do not expect scientist to be more than human. I don't expect them to be perfect. I don't even expect them to give up on an idea without a fight. However, if a policeman(to use one of your examples) fires his weapon and kills a person mistakenly, he is held accountable for that action, so there is a very strong incentive for him to be certain of his actions. If the mistake was made in good faith, his career will continue unabated, otherwise, he is punished. Science, conversely, has no real accountability for its mistakes. A scientist that makes a mistake in good faith, should be able to continue his career unabated with a clean conscience. However, under the current system, as noted in the article that David linked, the scientist were not making mistakes in good faith. They were being sloppy and dishonest, and that dishonesty cost lives. Yet, no one will ever know who made the mistakes, and they will never be held accountable, even by their own community. > -This happens all the time in non-scientific areas. Did the fat cats in Wall Street all get hurt by the economic downturn? How about Blackwater? -In every field there will be immoral things done that slip through the cracks. Scientists who lied and will never work again:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk-^^^Just one famous example. -There is also a strong ethic in science TO take down someone else's ideas: The easiest way to get famous is to overturn an old theory. (Einstein & Newton.)-The instance of the Doctor's you're talking about here, says more about an overlooked area in regards to hospital ethics boards than anything else. Contrary to what you seem to think here, there ARE systems in place to handle these kinds of scenarios. Just like how sometimes we need to write a new law to handle a new crime, something similar will need to be done to handle other cases. A good malpractice lawyer should be able to tackle something. -> Secondly, there is a difference between my professional expectations of them and my personal expectations. In their personal lives, I do not care at all what they believe or what they think of any given theory or idea. However, scientist are quick to tout, just as you have done, how they follow the evidence and revise their theories and, yes, I absolutely expect them to live up to that in their professional lives. That is not demanding that they are more than human. That is recognizing that there job has a far reaching impact and that the fulfill the obligation that the job THEY CHOSE places on them. Nearly all other members of the community who impact the lives of the general populace are held accountable to some degree. How am I being untoward to expect that the same standard be applied to them? How much more so should I demand it when they actively and purposefully pursue political financial agendas? (Such as removing all but the theory of evolution from schools, or Dawkins own reason rallies and call to persecute anyone that shows any degree of faith that disagrees with his own.)-You seem to think that most scientists are intrinsically immoral... I just don't buy that. Yes, we should expect them to live up to what they were trained to do, but I'm not going to fault them for it when they fail. We're allowed to make mistakes, as you say, in good faith. -But how many cases of malfeasance actually exist?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
Sorry for my silence over the last few days, but my wife had to be rushed to hospital and the last few days have been rather stressful. Hopefully things are now under control. With BBella's nasty shock and the medical concerns over Matt's wife (delighted to hear that things are going well), this website may be presenting us with an example of "convergence"!-Matt, I owe you a reply, and although the debate has moved on, the point I wish to make has not lost its relevance. In questioning the reliability of science, I wasn't thinking of technology, which of course has its own built-in criterion for "truth": either it works or it doesn't! My focus is on those branches relevant to our discussion on design versus chance, i.e. is there or isn't there an intelligence running the universe? I chose dating as an illustration because Tony had raised the subject, and it's an important factor in the debate. The design lobby argues that there hasn't been enough time for evolution to reach its present state, and the chance lobby says there has. The shorter the time, the greater the odds against chance, and vice versa. My argument about "constants" was only meant to refer to dating. After reading your post, Matt, I decided to investigate further, and came across this website:-http://www.buzzardhut.net/Crunch/Dating.htm-This is Chapter 6 of a book called The Evolution Cruncher, which I suspect has a Creationist agenda. It's enormously long, and far too technical for me, but it's a scientific critique of current dating methods and it has truly devastating implications. Of course I'm in no position to judge its accuracy, but that is very much the point both Tony and I have been making: the layman has no way of judging the reliability of science. I agree that we have no choice, and in relation to the discussion you're now having with Tony, it's all too obvious that science like most human activities is double-sided, full of goods and bads. That is how God or Nature has made us. However, your defence that eventually science corrects itself doesn't help us a great deal, since at no given time can we ever be sure that the information we're being given (including the corrections) is accurate. We therefore need to regard its findings and above all its speculative conclusions with the Agrippan scepticism admired so much by our very own Xeno!
How reliable is science?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 13:52 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
Sorry for my silence over the last few days, but my wife had to be rushed to hospital and the last few days have been rather stressful. Hopefully things are now under control. With BBella's nasty shock and the medical concerns over Matt's wife (delighted to hear that things are going well), this website may be presenting us with an example of "convergence"! > > Matt, I owe you a reply, and although the debate has moved on, the point I wish to make has not lost its relevance. In questioning the reliability of science, I wasn't thinking of technology, which of course has its own built-in criterion for "truth": either it works or it doesn't! My focus is on those branches relevant to our discussion on design versus chance, i.e. is there or isn't there an intelligence running the universe? I chose dating as an illustration because Tony had raised the subject, and it's an important factor in the debate. The design lobby argues that there hasn't been enough time for evolution to reach its present state, and the chance lobby says there has. The shorter the time, the greater the odds against chance, and vice versa. My argument about "constants" was only meant to refer to dating. After reading your post, Matt, I decided to investigate further, and came across this website: > > http://www.buzzardhut.net/Crunch/Dating.htm > -First off, I hope everything is fine! I understand how stressful that can be. I order plenty of rest for both of you!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 1/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 14:17 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
Assumption 1:-Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!-But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.-Agreed, a reading can be "thrown off" from a "perfect" date, but how "far off" are we really talking? I've read that Carbon 14 dating is typically accurate (in the real world) to about +/- 40K years. -This is no secret! It does mean however that there needs to be normalization techniques that we can use to help refine information. -The last piece here belies the author's ignorance: Radiation from outer-space will not have a measurable effect on a rock. Most interstellar radiation passes completely through the earth. -The author's overall argument though, is that a rock, say in a sedimentary layer, isn't a closed system because it has a rock layer above it and a rock layer below it. As if, we can't correct for that. You can determine a substances purity, and then mathematically normalize the dating by dating the above layer, middle layer, and lower layer, and removing the influence of the other two layers. This correction is part of the normal process for dating, and while the author is correct in that it won't give us an exact date... in most cases an 80k year range is pretty good precision when you're dealing with time scales across 4.5Bn years.-[EDIT]-Which is a computed error of 80K/4.5Bn = 0.00001778 years
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 15:11 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.-But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!-Generally we start with an assertion of a "pure" substance, because especially in the case of Uranium, it does have a final end-product in Lead. (Through I think, 3 decay pathways.) The author of the objection here though is making a tricky statement to apply for *all* dating however and this is fallacious reasoning. -Why is it fallacious? The author is attempting to argue that say, before you die, you pick up a lead rock that still contains uranium in it. So its pretty close to its end in terms of its lifecycle. Then say, you fall in a tar pit and are uncovered 10k years later. The author is saying that the date of the lead rock would "date you older" than it should. Therein lies the problem. We know what the rate of decay is for uranium. In fact, every piece of uranium ore has a very specific signature of composition, so much so that if there ever is a nuclear explosion, our scientists will be able to figure out *exactly* which mine provided the fuel. So if scientists ever found someone buried with uranium as in this example, the first thing they would do is go see what region the ore came from. They would also look at the surrounding rock (which would have different dates) and likely do a C14 dating test. (More on that in a second.) The C14 test would give credence to the idea that our poor sap just picked up a lead rock from somewhere. Not that he was as old as the lead rock.-They could also pick rocks in completely different locations but have the *same* age to determine a "normal" range for how much radioactive materials is typically found in those minerals. [There's many ways to skin this cat...]-The author's statement is also fallacious, because it attempts to mix Uranium dating, with C14 dating. C14 we *know* we start with a pure substance, because we ingest it daily. The only way for the author's objection to C14 dating to apply, is if the deceased organic matter we're studying, never absorbed any carbon during its life. That's a contradiction.-The only OTHER way for the objection to assumption #2 is invalid would be if radioactive materials did not decay at regular rates. -That said, it IS the idea of daughter products that forces a dating scientist to go through all the trouble I just mentioned in order to come up with a reliable date estimate. [And in scientific circles they ALL know they're dealing with estimates.] But most importantly, in the scientific literature, they *always* give what the +/- date range is, because the first check another scientist is going to do, is "how much error was in that measurement?"
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 16:45 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
> That said, it IS the idea of daughter products that forces a dating scientist to go through all the trouble I just mentioned in order to come up with a reliable date estimate. [And in scientific circles they ALL know they're dealing with estimates.] But most importantly, in the scientific literature, they *always* give what the +/- date range is, because the first check another scientist is going to do, is "how much error was in that measurement?"- But they don't generally post it in the layman's literature, do they?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:22 (4382 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > That said, it IS the idea of daughter products that forces a dating scientist to go through all the trouble I just mentioned in order to come up with a reliable date estimate. [And in scientific circles they ALL know they're dealing with estimates.] But most importantly, in the scientific literature, they *always* give what the +/- date range is, because the first check another scientist is going to do, is "how much error was in that measurement?" > > > But they don't generally post it in the layman's literature, do they?-No, but MOST scientists don't give "two shits" about the layman. -I don't have a problem with this. Scientific fields to me are for the elite only: if you're not willing to learn, you don't deserve to know.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 20, 2012, 01:24 (4382 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Friday, April 20, 2012, 02:22
> > > That said, it IS the idea of daughter products that forces a dating scientist to go through all the trouble I just mentioned in order to come up with a reliable date estimate. [And in scientific circles they ALL know they're dealing with estimates.] But most importantly, in the scientific literature, they *always* give what the +/- date range is, because the first check another scientist is going to do, is "how much error was in that measurement?" > > > > > > But they don't generally post it in the layman's literature, do they? > > MATT: No, but MOST scientists don't give "two shits" about the layman. > > I don't have a problem with this. Scientific fields to me are for the elite only: if you're not willing to learn, you don't deserve to know.-And here is my problem with that statement. I KNOW there is an error value, but without access to each and every paper I have no clue what the error value IS for that particular bit of research. So where does that put me? Knowledgeable enough to know that their figures are screwed up but not wealthy enough to find out how screwed up they are because I can't afford to buy their research papers. That is precisely the position a lot of people are in. You can't assume that just because someone isn't a 'scientist' that they are an idiot, even if the world IS full of them.-If scientist in general are as elitist as you present them to be, then I would also recommend that society jerk the bug out of their collective rear ends and remind them who pays the bills. Your colleges, universities, institutions, pell grants, research grants, and a whole host of other non-trivial things are paid for by John Q. Layman Taxpayer. Scientist have a RESPONSIBILITY to give two shits about the layman, and they would do well to remember that.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 03:21 (4381 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Friday, April 20, 2012, 03:47
> > > > That said, it IS the idea of daughter products that forces a dating scientist to go through all the trouble I just mentioned in order to come up with a reliable date estimate. [And in scientific circles they ALL know they're dealing with estimates.] But most importantly, in the scientific literature, they *always* give what the +/- date range is, because the first check another scientist is going to do, is "how much error was in that measurement?" > > > > > > > > > But they don't generally post it in the layman's literature, do they? > > > > MATT: No, but MOST scientists don't give "two shits" about the layman. > > > > I don't have a problem with this. Scientific fields to me are for the elite only: if you're not willing to learn, you don't deserve to know. > > And here is my problem with that statement. I KNOW there is an error value, but without access to each and every paper I have no clue what the error value IS for that particular bit of research. So where does that put me? Knowledgeable enough to know that their figures are screwed up but not wealthy enough to find out how screwed up they are because I can't afford to buy their research papers. That is precisely the position a lot of people are in. You can't assume that just because someone isn't a 'scientist' that they are an idiot, even if the world IS full of them. > -My goal isn't to call anyone an idiot, but if you look at my recent response to dhw (including snazzy video) you gain an appreciation for exactly HOW fast things are moving in the world of technology and science. -The world can't wait anymore for people to remain ignorant about things such as scientific error: there's no excuse to be a layman anymore. Everything I learned about scientific error in regards to measurements/etc I learned in 1997 while in public high school. And I wasn't even a spectacular student--I was pretty lousy actually. As a computer scientist, I don't feel any particular sympathy for people who can't even type on a keyboard... nor should I.-> If scientist in general are as elitist as you present them to be, then I would also recommend that society jerk the bug out of their collective rear ends and remind them who pays the bills. Your colleges, universities, institutions, pell grants, research grants, and a whole host of other non-trivial things are paid for by John Q. Layman Taxpayer. Scientist have a RESPONSIBILITY to give two shits about the layman, and they would do well to remember that.-And the scientists can blithely remind the public that every single advance they enjoy comes from the hard work and snobbish elitism of working scientists. Steve Jobs was an asshole, yet everyone wants to be him and reveres him...-[EDIT]-The Steve Jobs corollary is that the public will pay anything to never have to think about their technology.-Extending this out a bit, I think its important to note that the two most common personality types for scientists tends to be INTJ/INTP, neither of which have a natural tendency to nurture or to want to teach... most professors who have impressive research programs spend 80% of their time doing research and writing grant proposals, and only 20% of their time teaching. This is purely because their primary focus IS NOT on educating the public. That, quite frankly, is someone else's job. -To be truthful, if the public took measures as you suggest and try to crack down on the typical elitist scientist, these guys have very little problem packing up shop and moving business elsewhere. China and India would BOTH love to snatch up our scientists, trust me. -If you want innovation, let them do what they do best (which is research) and learn to appreciate that Joe Schmoe isn't going to understand what they do...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 20, 2012, 14:45 (4381 days ago) @ xeno6696
And here is my problem with that statement. I KNOW there is an error value, but without access to each and every paper I have no clue what the error value IS for that particular bit of research. So where does that put me? Knowledgeable enough to know that their figures are screwed up but not wealthy enough to find out how screwed up they are because I can't afford to buy their research papers. That is precisely the position a lot of people are in. You can't assume that just because someone isn't a 'scientist' that they are an idiot, even if the world IS full of them. > > > > My goal isn't to call anyone an idiot, but if you look at my recent response to dhw (including snazzy video) you gain an appreciation for exactly HOW fast things are moving in the world of technology and science. > -All the more reason that science be transparent, highly accurate, reliable, and that it clearly presents its error data. There is no TIME for the process to keep its secretes behind closed doors anymore. There is no TIME for them to take 20 years ferreting out who fudged data where and when and how.- > The world can't wait anymore for people to remain ignorant about things such as scientific error: there's no excuse to be a layman anymore. Everything I learned about scientific error in regards to measurements/etc I learned in 1997 while in public high school. And I wasn't even a spectacular student--I was pretty lousy actually. As a computer scientist, I don't feel any particular sympathy for people who can't even type on a keyboard... nor should I. > -You are missing the point. The layman KNOWS that there is error. What we don't generally know is the error ellipse. And it is not that we don't know because we don't look. It is that we don't know because the information is not freely available. You generally have to PAY to get access to that information. Information that we PAID for to begin with by funding their research. -> > And the scientists can blithely remind the public that every single advance they enjoy comes from the hard work and snobbish elitism of working scientists. Steve Jobs was an asshole, yet everyone wants to be him and reveres him...-No, not everyone, though you are correct that he was an asshole. Steve Jobs stole much of his work from Wozniak. You should read up on that. Neither of them were scientist, by the way. MOST of the innovations actually come from engineers working to find solutions to problems they have encountered based on scientific discoveries, trial and error, or pure dumb luck. -> > [EDIT] > > The Steve Jobs corollary is that the public will pay anything to never have to think about their technology. > -Your video and countless websites devoted to people spending a lot of time analyzing technology dispute that statement.-> Extending this out a bit, I think its important to note that the two most common personality types for scientists tends to be INTJ/INTP, neither of which have a natural tendency to nurture or to want to teach... most professors who have impressive research programs spend 80% of their time doing research and writing grant proposals, and only 20% of their time teaching. This is purely because their primary focus IS NOT on educating the public. That, quite frankly, is someone else's job. > -First, I am an INTJ. I am intimately familiar with the traits of INTJs. You are incorrect in your assessment though. The label applied to INTJ's is mentor or councilor specifically BECAUSE they have an innate tendency to nurture and teach. We are simply to introverted to do it in large scale environments like classrooms. Being around lots of people is... stressful. Regardless, I have not said that it is the scientists job to educate people. I have repeatedly said that they need to be transparent in their work. They need to be honest in their findings and they need to present their error margins to the public. Papers that you have to purchase are not up to the task because of the sheer volume of papers that you would have to purchase. Most people do not have that kind of money. And, more to the point, if they paid for the research then they are entitled to the results. Period. By that, we could say that any research that received state/federal funding, or any other form of public funding, should be published in a freely available and easily accessible journal that is held to higher standards than any other scientific journal. - > If you want innovation, let them do what they do best (which is research) and learn to appreciate that Joe Schmoe isn't going to understand what they do...-You underestimate Joe Schmoe. The world has become a scientifically and technologically savvy place. 30 years ago, there were very few industries in which knowledge of vectors, matrices, indices, AI, game theory, and other such esoteric tidbits were needed. Just yesterday I saw a book on applied game theory in business. Everyday I read books on all of the topics mentioned above. As quantum computing becomes a reality, the layman will learn quantum physics in order to keep up, and they will teach it to their children and it will become common knowledge. There is no room for elitism.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 20, 2012, 18:41 (4381 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Small edit here, I misread the original message on one part, and unthinkingly continued the mistake in my own reply. I am an INFJ, not INTJ, and INFJs are councilors. So, you might in fact be correct in that they are just completely uninterested.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by DragonsHeart , Saturday, April 21, 2012, 20:32 (4380 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I'm going to interject a small bit here and agree that INTJs just don't care about the layman, which is completely true. If an INTJ, of any age, is talking about something of their interest, they really don't care one bit about whether or not the layman can understand what they are saying. I see this EXACT pattern with my son, who is very much an INTJ. His big thing for a few years were Bakugan, of which his father and I really know nothing, but our son just talked on and on about them, not giving "two shits" if we understood him or not. Granted, my son is young, almost 9, but he is already leaning towards the science and math fields. He is very interested in them.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 00:00 (4376 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
I'm going to interject a small bit here and agree that INTJs just don't care about the layman, which is completely true. If an INTJ, of any age, is talking about something of their interest, they really don't care one bit about whether or not the layman can understand what they are saying. I see this EXACT pattern with my son, who is very much an INTJ. His big thing for a few years were Bakugan, of which his father and I really know nothing, but our son just talked on and on about them, not giving "two shits" if we understood him or not. Granted, my son is young, almost 9, but he is already leaning towards the science and math fields. He is very interested in them.-To get him past the INTJ "Communication hurdle" I would suggest a strategy of the logical basis for teams and the importance of clear, concise communication. -It's a TON of effort to talk on someone else's level, but when you realize that you NEED these people to understand you in order for you to accomplish, in my case, project goals--it's a skill you just gotta have. -(I'm an INTJ myself.) -But remember... we think about emotions as if they were logical playthings... That kind of thing is really, really difficult for any xxFx to understand.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 00:10 (4376 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Small edit here, I misread the original message on one part, and unthinkingly continued the mistake in my own reply. I am an INFJ, not INTJ, and INFJs are councilors. So, you might in fact be correct in that they are just completely uninterested.-Well... I caught the error... you can ignore that part. -INTP's want to build large theoretical frameworks. -INTJ's want frameworks "that work." -Neither of these types has much patience for people who have free access to the same pieces of knowledge, and don't pursue it. I'm pretty open about it: I get pretty frustrated with people. -My favorite professor in college? The one where when someone asked a question that they should have known the answer to 2 classes ago, and he said "That's a fucking stupid question. That's a 101 topic. Why are you here?" -By the end of that class, 6 students dropped, and every question asked moved the class forward. That prof was intimidating as hell, but I learned more about programming in his class than in any other, precisely because we got rid of the dead weight. (I was the one who asked the question.) -His comment on his own teaching style: "Never underestimate humiliation as an effective teaching tool."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 00:59 (4376 days ago) @ xeno6696
Humiliation can definitely be an effective teaching tool. I am too introverted to be a good teacher for a classroom sized group, for smaller groups of 5 -10 I do really well. I don't have the patience for dealing with the gaps in basic knowledge anymore than you do, and routinely find myself frustrated with these situations at work. The frustrating thing for me is not so much that I want a framework that WORKS(though that is true to an extent), it is that I wan't a framework that doesn't exclude things which it is dependent on. To me that is like building a house with a foundation and no plumbing, just because you are not a plumber, and expecting whomever resides there to never use the restroom, take a shower, or wash their hands. So, my disagreement with you is not so much about the scientific method, which I have great respect for, but rather with the way the people who create that frame work cut out the things that they are logically dependent upon. -(And I work with gps systems a lot where our confidence is generally measured as an error ellipse defined by the semi-major/semi-minor axis. I like it because it it measures our errors in multiple directions, instead of issuing a blanket 95% confidence measurement.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 01:12 (4376 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Humiliation can definitely be an effective teaching tool. I am too introverted to be a good teacher for a classroom sized group, for smaller groups of 5 -10 I do really well. I don't have the patience for dealing with the gaps in basic knowledge anymore than you do, and routinely find myself frustrated with these situations at work. The frustrating thing for me is not so much that I want a framework that WORKS(though that is true to an extent), it is that I wan't a framework that doesn't exclude things which it is dependent on. To me that is like building a house with a foundation and no plumbing, just because you are not a plumber, and expecting whomever resides there to never use the restroom, take a shower, or wash their hands. So, my disagreement with you is not so much about the scientific method, which I have great respect for, but rather with the way the people who create that frame work cut out the things that they are logically dependent upon. > -At what point are you willing to accept basic assumptions though? Are you arguing that every paper should include a statement saying that for its findings to hold, the assumption of "methodological materialism" must hold? I'm a philosopher by hobby, but seriously, I'm not going to write every single assumption from genesis to the present just in case some poor sap might not get all my assumptions! That's the job for science journalists and - ...professional philosophers!!!! ...educated laypeople!!!! (Such as ourselves.) -But journalists and philosophers are the ones who need to translate the papers into lay terms. If there's a fault in regards to the layman, it's in translation. And a lack of diligence. -I'm never going to argue that science is perfect, especially in reference to response time, but it works. -> (And I work with gps systems a lot where our confidence is generally measured as an error ellipse defined by the semi-major/semi-minor axis. I like it because it it measures our errors in multiple directions, instead of issuing a blanket 95% confidence measurement.)-Ah. In my work, errors are usually measured in "who made the last commit" and putting a tally mark next to the guys name. -First one to reach two has to buy everyone coffee.-[EDIT]-Obviously joking, but as an engineer: use the error mechanism that makes the most sense.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 01:23 (4376 days ago) @ xeno6696
> At what point are you willing to accept basic assumptions though? Are you arguing that every paper should include a statement saying that for its findings to hold, the assumption of "methodological materialism" must hold? I'm a philosopher by hobby, but seriously, I'm not going to write every single assumption from genesis to the present just in case some poor sap might not get all my assumptions! That's the job for science journalists and > > - We have databases for less important things, why not a database that covers scientific assumptions and or dependencies. Heck, I could even see there being some interesting research coming out of that as causal and even casual relationships that were previously unidentified come to light, particularly if the database was cross-discipline. Bonus points if it could build a graphical web of the connections. Double bonus points if you were able to link reference numbers to journals/papers that discussed the relationship/assumptions being made. That would be a truly powerful tool and would probably go very far in helping people become 'educated laypersons'.- > ...professional philosophers!!!! > ...educated laypeople!!!! (Such as ourselves.) > > But journalists and philosophers are the ones who need to translate the papers into lay terms. If there's a fault in regards to the layman, it's in translation. And a lack of diligence. > -No disagreement there, really, but it is a knife that cuts both ways. A scientist should, if relying on someone else to be their mouthpiece, speak out loudly when they are being misrepresented.--> Ah. In my work, errors are usually measured in "who made the last commit" and putting a tally mark next to the guys name. > -Some form of SVN programming?- > Obviously joking, but as an engineer: use the error mechanism that makes the most sense.-Just make sure that the mechanism and the error is well known. -In reference to your earlier mention of public libraries and what not, sadly, not all libraries are as well equipped as the one you are using. It was not until I attended university the first time outside of my home state that I had access to a DECENT library, and it wasn't until my current University that I had access to book-loan programs.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 05:13 (4375 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > At what point are you willing to accept basic assumptions though? Are you arguing that every paper should include a statement saying that for its findings to hold, the assumption of "methodological materialism" must hold? I'm a philosopher by hobby, but seriously, I'm not going to write every single assumption from genesis to the present just in case some poor sap might not get all my assumptions! That's the job for science journalists and > > > > > > > We have databases for less important things, why not a database that covers scientific assumptions and or dependencies. Heck, I could even see there being some interesting research coming out of that as causal and even casual relationships that were previously unidentified come to light, particularly if the database was cross-discipline. Bonus points if it could build a graphical web of the connections. Double bonus points if you were able to link reference numbers to journals/papers that discussed the relationship/assumptions being made. That would be a truly powerful tool and would probably go very far in helping people become 'educated laypersons'. > -Shouldn't surprise you, but at least in my discipline it's not uncommon at all for papers to essentially be released in draft form online, attacked and hacked by the "public" (meaning other scientists) and refined before its official publishing, typically at a conference. We WANT our papers to weather some storms. -Traditional science seems to work in the opposite manner. Craft your paper, publish it, then watch it get tanked as experts shred it. Could be our idea of "engineering" is a way to build a better paper the first time. There would be awesome benefits from just such a system... but no legislator will allocate money for something like that for quite some time. -> > > ...professional philosophers!!!! > > ...educated laypeople!!!! (Such as ourselves.) > > > > But journalists and philosophers are the ones who need to translate the papers into lay terms. If there's a fault in regards to the layman, it's in translation. And a lack of diligence. > > > > No disagreement there, really, but it is a knife that cuts both ways. A scientist should, if relying on someone else to be their mouthpiece, speak out loudly when they are being misrepresented. > -Yeah... assuming they even pay attention to what happens after something gets released. When I was still a biochem major, I spent a summer with a prof that would often forget small things, like combing his hair, or keeping his mouth closed long enough not to let some spittle get crusty. Sounds gross, but he knew his shit... and I got the impression that he didn't track *anything* that wasn't immediately going on in his lab. -You want an interesting specimen, watch a biochemist in his natural habitat...-> > > > Ah. In my work, errors are usually measured in "who made the last commit" and putting a tally mark next to the guys name. > > > > Some form of SVN programming?-I was trying for something more cartoonish, but yeah, essentially. Commits are always logged. -> > > > Obviously joking, but as an engineer: use the error mechanism that makes the most sense. > > Just make sure that the mechanism and the error is well known. -Having worked on the techie side, it only matters that my team knows. The people on the other side of the curtain don't want to know *anything* other than "is it working?"-> > In reference to your earlier mention of public libraries and what not, sadly, not all libraries are as well equipped as the one you are using. It was not until I attended university the first time outside of my home state that I had access to a DECENT library, and it wasn't until my current University that I had access to book-loan programs.-I continuously get shocked that a city as small as mine (Omaha NE) that also happens to be pretty conservative with its public services, does things better than what I assume to be a larger town. -Still, communities are only going to provide what they can afford. And yeah, you're right, scientists do often get public grant money, your average PHD doesn't pull in huge sums and has to fight in order to keep his research program alive. Publish or perish needs to go, but reforming a system that large requires a cultural shift at the top of the scholastic world, who despite my appreciate for them--live in their own universe.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 12:29 (4375 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > > > We have databases for less important things, why not a database that covers scientific assumptions and or dependencies. Heck, I could even see there being some interesting research coming out of that as causal and even casual relationships that were previously unidentified come to light, particularly if the database was cross-discipline. Bonus points if it could build a graphical web of the connections. Double bonus points if you were able to link reference numbers to journals/papers that discussed the relationship/assumptions being made. That would be a truly powerful tool and would probably go very far in helping people become 'educated laypersons'. > > > > Shouldn't surprise you, but at least in my discipline it's not uncommon at all for papers to essentially be released in draft form online, attacked and hacked by the "public" (meaning other scientists) and refined before its official publishing, typically at a conference. We WANT our papers to weather some storms. > -See, if the vetting were done BEFORE the paper went mainstream, I don't think there would be half the problems there are with the way the data is presented, so I definitely think the way you guys are vetting your papers are better than the method of traditional science. - > > Yeah... assuming they even pay attention to what happens after something gets released. When I was still a biochem major, I spent a summer with a prof that would often forget small things, like combing his hair, or keeping his mouth closed long enough not to let some spittle get crusty. Sounds gross, but he knew his shit... and I got the impression that he didn't track *anything* that wasn't immediately going on in his lab. > > You want an interesting specimen, watch a biochemist in his natural habitat... > > > -I've known several people like that. In a lot of ways I am the same way. Just ask Casey(Dragonsheart). I would forget my head if it wasn't attached. However, you have actually presented a sort of paradox. The scientist must publish papers of work in his to get funding for his lab. The scientist doesn't pay attention to anything outside of his lab. The scientist doesn't pay attention to the presentation of his work to the world. If all of that is true, then the scientist would not get funding and peer review is at best a poor joke.(If the scientist is not paying attention to his own publications, why would he pay attention to others?)--> > > > Just make sure that the mechanism and the error is well known. > > Having worked on the techie side, it only matters that my team knows. The people on the other side of the curtain don't want to know *anything* other than "is it working?" > -To a limited extent you are correct in that, depending on the person, they might not want to peek behind the curtain. However, for ever segment there are enough people who DO look behind the curtain, either professionally or for enjoyment, that they need to be able to find something more than a blank wall on the other side of it. I am not much of a programmer, but I have had to learn enough of it to track errors back to their source so that I can report them to the programmers. I am not a mathematician, but I have to know and understand enough to spot errors in some fairly complex equations. I am not a graphics designer, but I have to know enough to do basic 2D/3D work and be able to communicate with 3D designers. There are such a broad range of things that the lay person has to be familiar with, so much information that has to be absorbed, that the methods of presentation are becoming increasingly more important. That is my big contention. If I can't read a paper and be confident that the A) I know what the guy is talking about, and B) that I can be confident in his/her research and accuracy, then I am up the creek without a paddle. I don't have the time nor resources to verify their work, even if I did have the expertise to do so. - > Still, communities are only going to provide what they can afford. And yeah, you're right, scientists do often get public grant money, your average PHD doesn't pull in huge sums and has to fight in order to keep his research program alive. Publish or perish needs to go, but reforming a system that large requires a cultural shift at the top of the scholastic world, who despite my appreciate for them--live in their own universe.- You are absolutely right. My personality doesn't really allow me to make exceptions for stubbornness though :P Just because they are not aware that they need to change, don't want to change, or are too elitest to desire a change even if they do notice does not mean that I don't hold them accountable for it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? Status quo
by David Turell , Thursday, May 10, 2012, 17:10 (4361 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Look at this condemnation of university status quo. Smells like an effect of peer review-http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/09/opinion-academia-suppresses-creativity/
How reliable is science? Bias
by David Turell , Friday, May 11, 2012, 15:08 (4360 days ago) @ David Turell
This article says science is NOT self-correcting for bias:- http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600
How reliable is science? Bias
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, May 12, 2012, 01:57 (4360 days ago) @ David Turell
This article says science is NOT self-correcting for bias: > > > http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600-The one line that stuck out to me more than any, as applied to this particular conversation is, "Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves."-Science set its own standards, but now they are not meeting their own criteria. This is the essence of my argument on the reliability and responsibility of science and those that practice it professionally.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? Status quo
by David Turell , Saturday, May 19, 2012, 16:08 (4352 days ago) @ David Turell
Look at this condemnation of university status quo. Smells like an effect of peer review > > http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/09/opinion-academia-suppresses-creativity/-And this article from Nature: replications not published. As a result negative results stay hidden. Something in rotten in science to paraphrase the Bard:-http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634-"Positive results in psychology can behave like rumours: easy to release but hard to dispel. They dominate most journals, which strive to present new, exciting research. Meanwhile, attempts to replicate those studies, especially when the findings are negative, go unpublished, languishing in personal file drawers or circulating in conversations around the water cooler. "There are some experiments that everyone knows don't replicate, but this knowledge doesn't get into the literature," says Wagenmakers. The publication barrier can be chilling, he adds. "I've seen students spending their entire PhD period trying to replicate a phenomenon, failing, and quitting academia because they had nothing to show for their time."--"These problems occur throughout the sciences, but psychology has a number of deeply entrenched cultural norms that exacerbate them"
How reliable is science? Status quo
by David Turell , Sunday, May 20, 2012, 15:05 (4351 days ago) @ David Turell
Look at this condemnation of university status quo. Smells like an effect of peer review > > > > http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/09/opinion-academia-suppresses-creativity/- &a... and rationality also need intuition for a complete mental capacity:-http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Faith+logic+exist+study+contends/6649861/story.html
How reliable is science? Plagiarism, etc.
by David Turell , Monday, May 21, 2012, 18:00 (4350 days ago) @ David Turell
The surveys are frightening. Are career scientists like career politicians?- http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/21/misconduct-on-the-rise/
How reliable is science? Hire by fad
by David Turell , Thursday, May 24, 2012, 15:33 (4347 days ago) @ David Turell
This is really frightening. Not hiring string theorists at university levels, reasonable. Hiring by fad shows how sick science is today.-http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4701
How reliable is science? Admitting fraud
by David Turell , Friday, May 25, 2012, 15:05 (4346 days ago) @ David Turell
Another frightening report in the area of psychology:- http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/questionable-research-practices-surprisingly-common.html
How reliable is science? Admitting fraud
by David Turell , Saturday, May 26, 2012, 22:54 (4345 days ago) @ David Turell
Another frightening report in the area of psychology: > > > http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/questionable-research-pract... is a social science, and their studies are notoriously imprecise, for good reason. Humans are very complex folks.-http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/
How reliable is science? Admitting fraud
by David Turell , Friday, June 01, 2012, 18:28 (4339 days ago) @ David Turell
More fraud:-http://www.genomeweb.com//node/1082831?hq_e=el&hq_m=1285115&hq_l=1&hq_v=917fb9b80b
How reliable is science? Peer review
by David Turell , Sunday, June 24, 2012, 22:32 (4316 days ago) @ David Turell
A complaint about peer review that implies the control of group think, but is really after more open access to publication with discussion sections after the article:-http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworld/2012/06/time-to-review-peer-review.html
How reliable is science? Data hidden
by David Turell , Thursday, January 07, 2016, 15:03 (3024 days ago) @ David Turell
How can one really judge a paper's conclusion if not all of the data and methodology are revealed?-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44939/title/Study--Transparency-Lacking-in-Biomedical-Literature/-"Despite a push for transparency in science, full data disclosure may be close to non-existent among published studies. Of 441 randomly selected biomedical research papers analyzed in a new study, none provided access to all the authors' data. And only one of these papers shared a complete protocol. The results of this analysis, which could shed light on science's reproducibility problem, were published today (January 4) in PLOS Biology.-“'What was most surprising to me was the complete lack of data-sharing and protocol availability,” said study coauthor John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and health research and policy at the Stanford University School of Medicine. “That was worse than I would have predicted.”-“'This study confirms what most of us already know—that the current clinical research enterprise is set up in a way that researchers consider data their own assets,” said cardiologist Harlan Krumholz, leader of the Yale University Open Data Access Project, who was not involved in the work. “There is little investment, effort, or tools to support data-sharing broadly,” he said. “The advantage of this study is that it brings this issue into public view.'”-Comment: Not necessary. Speaks for itself.
How reliable is science? Zombie papers
by David Turell , Monday, May 02, 2016, 14:25 (2908 days ago) @ David Turell
Apparently there are fraudulent research papers, but there are also papers with 'honest' mistakes, unnoticed errors that persist until there is a review of the methods. Peer reviewers can easily miss them and the papers with their errors stay in the literature and many are cited over and over. What to do is a current problem:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/45868/title/The-Zombie-Literature/&utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=29139068&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-95VtFmITjbpVp6az3PTsMq53bwpVy3UaEZuHWmg_1DXrSX63bTJupIMVmHqFSN4PekOmgNcT1ot3SneqOnyD7u661ZfA&_hsmi=29139068/-"But while cases of misconduct and subsequent retractions headline a growing reproducibility problem in the sciences, they actually represent a relatively small number of the flawed studies out there. The vast majority of publications that reported inaccurate results, used impure cell cultures, relied on faulty antibodies, or analyzed contaminated DNA are not the result of wrongdoing, but of honest mistakes, and many such papers persist in the scientific literature uncorrected.-***-"Are these “zombie papers” (to repurpose a term coined by academic publishing watchdog Leonid Schneider) benign—relics of antiquated methodologies or poor reagents that serve as a historical record for the field of inquiry? Or are they worrisome enough to be hunted down and excised from the body of the scientific literature altogether, in the same way that intentionally falsified reports are?-"Many researchers argue for the latter. Flawed papers, especially those that become highly cited, run the danger of perpetuating faulty methods or conclusions, sending funding and effort in fruitless directions, and building layers of theory upon shaky conceptual foundations. In this way, zombie papers can spawn more zombie publications, and the damage can be amplified and spread in an infectious pattern.-“'It is a big problem, and it is a pervasive problem,” says Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist and cofounder/executive director of the Center for Open Science. Just how big remains unclear, but Gelman estimates that flawed publications may outnumber the good ones.- ***-"And the zombie horde will only continue to grow as ever more journals churn out reams of scientific papers at an increasing rate. Nosek and Gelman are critical of traditional scientific publishing, which has remained essentially unchanged for centuries. They and others say it's time to modernize the process. Over the past couple of years, researchers have begun to implement new mechanisms and avenues to review, flag, correct, and annotate the scientific literature. In the future, some hope, the way that researchers and publishers interact with each other and the body of work they generate could be radically transformed.-“'There is certainly evolution in how people are thinking about these issues,” Nosek says, “and what role publishers then would play if there was more responsivity to evidence as it accumulates rather than just the static record of what was thought at that particular time.”-***-"Allison says, the scientific community would need to overhaul its whole concept of who actually owns data and research findings. “You're in charge of it for a while, but it's really the public's data,” he says. “And this [change] won't happen overnight.”-"So while zombie papers, such as Pääbo's mummy DNA study, the arsenic-life paper, and many others too numerous to mention here, will likely live on in the scientific literature, there is a glimmer of hope that, as science adopts a more modern model for publishing and revising results, making papers more dynamic and less static, we may see a downtick in recruitment to the zombie hordes."-Comment: At least the problem is recognized and solutions are sought, just as peer review is being strongly questioned.
How reliable is science? Publish or perish
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 18:42 (2899 days ago) @ David Turell
tis article takes the pint of view that over-publishing is a real problem, and produces junk, which is recognized but isn't stopped so far:-http://www.nature.com/news/the-pressure-to-publish-pushes-down-quality-1.19887?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20160512&spMailingID=51353744&spUserID=MjA1NjE2NDU5MwS2&spJobID=921389953&spReportId=OTIxMzg5OTUzS0-But what if more is bad? In 1963, the physicist and historian of science Derek de Solla Price looked at growth trends in the research enterprise and saw the threat of“scientific doomsday”. The number of scientists and publications had been growing exponentially for 250 years, and Price realized that the trend was unsustainable. Within a couple of generations, he said, it would lead to a world in which “we should have two scientists for every man, woman, child, and dog in the population”. -***-The quality problem has reared its head in ways that Price could not have anticipated. Mainstream scientific leaders increasingly accept that large bodies of published research are unreliable. But what seems to have escaped general notice is a destructive feedback between the production of poor-quality science, the responsibility to cite previous work and the compulsion to publish.-The quality problem has been widely recognized in cancer science, in which many cell lines used for research turn out to be contaminated. For example, a breast-cancer cell line used in more than 1,000 published studies actually turned out to have been a melanoma cell line. The average biomedical research paper gets cited between 10 and 20 times in 5 years, and as many as one-third of all cell lines used in research are thought to be contaminated, so the arithmetic is easy enough to do: by one estimate, 10,000 published papers a year cite work based on contaminated cancer cell lines. Metastasis has spread to the cancer literature.-Similar negative feedbacks occur in other areas of research. Pervasive quality problems have been exposed for rodent studies of neurological diseases, biomarkers for cancer and other diseases, and experimental psychology, amid the publication of thousands of papers.-So yes, the web makes it much more efficient to identify relevant published studies, but it also makes it that much easier to troll for supporting papers, whether or not they are any good. No wonder citation rates are going up.-***-That problem is likely to be worse in policy-relevant fields such as nutrition, education, epidemiology and economics, in which the science is often uncertain and the societal stakes can be high. The never-ending debates about the health effects of dietary salt, or how to structure foreign aid, or measure ecosystem services, are typical of areas in which copious peer-reviewed support can be found for whatever position one wants to take — a condition that then justifies calls for still more research.-More than 50 years ago, Price predicted that the scientific enterprise would soon have to go through a transition from exponential growth to “something radically different”, unknown and potentially threatening. Today, the interrelated problems of scientific quantity and quality are a frightening manifestation of what he foresaw. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that these problems will be resolved through the home remedies of better statistics and lab practice, as important as they may be. Rather, they would seem — and this is what Price believed — to announce that the enterprise of science is evolving towards something different and as yet only dimly seen.-Current trajectories threaten science with drowning in the noise of its own rising productivity, a future that Price described as “senility”. Avoiding this destiny will, in part, require much more selective publication. Rising quality can thus emerge from declining scientific efficiency and productivity. We can start by publishing less, and less often, whatever the promotional e-mails promise us.-Comment: So the problem is more than just poor peer review. Remember governments supply the money, scientists need income and chasing money breeds all sorts of deviant behavior. And our debate is based on science findings.
How reliable is science? Peer review doesn't help
by David Turell , Monday, October 31, 2016, 14:59 (2726 days ago) @ David Turell
This review article covers the problem of science in global warming. Peer review proves nothing. Only replication of results does.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf
"Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, Peter Doherty, winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine, defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) from its critics. The IPCC involves hundreds of scientists and ‘draws its evidence exclusively from peer-reviewed, published scientific literature’, he wrote. Around the same time, the IPCC chairman was asked if an Indian environment ministry report might alter the IPCC’s pessimistic view of Himalayan glaciers. The ‘IPCC studies only peer-review science’, Rajendra Pachauri replied dismissively. Until the report’s data appears in ‘a decent credible publication’, he said, ‘we can just throw it into the dustbin’.2 Peer-reviewed research is reliable, so the reasoning goes. Non-peer-reviewed research is not. The IPCC makes exclusive use of the former, therefore its conclusions can be trusted. This argument has long been used to deflect criticism and to repel contrary climate perspectives. But behind it lies a dubious assumption: that academic publications are a sound foundation on which to base real-world decisions. In fact, science is currently in the grip of a ’reproducibility crisis’ so severe that the editor of a prominent journal has declared that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’. Media coverage declaring that’ science is broken’ has become commonplace.
"Part 1 of this report demonstrates that a journal’s decision to publish a paper provides no assurance that its conclusions are sound. Large swathes of peer-reviewed work contain errors. Fraudulent research makes it past gatekeepers at even the most prestigious journals. And while science is supposed to be self-correcting, the process by which this occurs is haphazard and byzantine. A policy cannot be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which it depends was never independently verified. Peer review does not perform that function.
"News from the worlds of astrobiology, ecology, economics, chemistry, computer science, management studies, medicine, neuroscience, psychology,and physics all tell the same tale: ’peer-reviewed’ does not equal ’policy-ready.’ Part 2 of this report invites us to re-examine what we think we know about the climate. While good scientists have always understood that peer review doesn’t certify accuracy, IPCC officials–supported by politicians, activists, and journalists–think global climate decision-making should rest on this shaky foundation. If half of all peer-reviewed research ‘may simply be untrue’, half of all climate research may also be untrue. The policy implications of this idea are immense."
Comment: This large report gives many examples. One should be aware that 'under the table arrangements' result in friendly uncritical reviews. There are many examples in many of my previous postings.
How reliable is science? Publisher pulls papers
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 02, 2016, 13:39 (2724 days ago) @ David Turell
At least the reliable house are alert:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47408/title/Publisher-Retracts-Do...
"Springer and BioMed Central today (November 1) announced the retraction of 58 articles across seven journals, affecting more than 200 authors. Springer Nature, the company behind both subsidiary publishers, issued the mass retraction notice upon discovering that some of the now-pulled papers’ authors had manipulated the peer review process, and that some of the reports contained plagiarism.
“'We take every allegation seriously, and investigate every allegation of plagiarism,” a Springer Nature spokesperson told Retraction Watch. “In this case we identified irregularities which led us to suspect a broader pattern of manipulation.”
"While most retractions are quiet, single-study affairs, in recent years publishers have issued an increasing number of mass retractions. In 2014, for instance, Springer and IEEE pulled more than 120 papers that had been produced by SciGen, a random study generator.
"But the most recent cases of misconduct reported by Springer Nature were more difficult to detect. “A much more complex manipulation has taken place from a different group of authors,” the publisher’s spokesperson told Retraction Watch. “It involves complex manipulation of our submission and peer reviews systems.”
"Tumor Biology and Diagnostic Pathology pulled 25 and 23 manipulated papers, respectively. Many of the studies in question cited coauthors Aram Mokarizadeh of the University of Tehran and Emad Yahaghi of the Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, also in Iran, who are both named on the paper that launched Springer’s initial investigation, Retraction Watch reported. Seventy percent of the Springer retractions and 93 percent of the BioMed Central retractions showed evidence of plagiarism, the publisher noted—the rest showed evidence of authorship or peer review manipulation.
"Retraction Watch has published a list of the retracted papers. According to Springer Nature, individual notices will be posted throughout the week, explaining why each of the 58 papers was pulled."
Comment: Whew!
How reliable is science? Political views influence it
by David Turell , Friday, June 02, 2017, 15:29 (2512 days ago) @ David Turell
A scientist confesses he doesn't trust his political views an his results:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-much-does-evolution-depend-on-chance?utm_source=Aeon+Newslet...
"Here I was, a left-wing scientist, with a scientific narrative that mirrored my political views. Had I, somehow, skewed my interpretation of pipit variation to fit my prejudices? Worse, had I subconsciously skewed the results? I checked and double-checked, and found the same thing. I tried finding new ways of looking at my data, but still I came to the same conclusion. The founder effects looked real. If I had done something wrong, I couldn’t figure out what it was.
"Political beliefs affect science at many levels, from decisions on what research is funded, to the subconscious biases of individual scientists. And for my part, I am sure that my political views have influenced my scientific research, and all along I haven’t had a clue. We constantly make subjective decisions as scientists: which questions get us fired up, which do we ignore, when do we consider a result significant enough to publish, how do we approach an analysis, and how do we interpret our findings. We strive for objectivity, but we can never truly achieve it. Instead we can but hope that the self-correcting process of science weeds out the rubbish, and that truth emerges over time.
"So maybe radical scientists are not such a bad thing after all. Perhaps the likes of Gould and Lewontin, who are able to take a step back and look critically at their whole field, play an essential role in keeping science in check, and therefore in moving it forward. They might have overstepped the mark at times, but their critique of adaptationism was one that needed to be made, and is one that has improved the scientific rigour of evolutionary biology overall. Biologists are now much more careful of inventing adaptive explanations for everything they see, and are more amenable to non-adaptive explanations."
Comment: Global warming is primarily a political left/right issue. The overall climate cooled in the mid 20th century. Then it warmed and then it plateaued until the last strong el Nino. Now it is plateaued again.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 23:56 (4376 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
... > > All the more reason that science be transparent, highly accurate, reliable, and that it clearly presents its error data. There is no TIME for the process to keep its secretes behind closed doors anymore. There is no TIME for them to take 20 years ferreting out who fudged data where and when and how. > ... > > You are missing the point. The layman KNOWS that there is error. What we don't generally know is the error ellipse. And it is not that we don't know because we don't look. It is that we don't know because the information is not freely available. You generally have to PAY to get access to that information. Information that we PAID for to begin with by funding their research. > -Then go to a library. Every decent library has free access to such research information from Nature, Science, any of the journals except for the ones created by private research companies. At my library, I have access to even most private journals, by a simple inter-library loan request. My university library also allows the general public to come in and use these tools for free, provided they don't take anything out of the building. -The public has access to the "error ellipse", (nice term!) they're just lazy, stupid, and expect everything to be spoon-fed in sound bytes. Garbage in, garbage out. -... > No, not everyone, though you are correct that he was an asshole. Steve Jobs stole much of his work from Wozniak. You should read up on that. Neither of them were scientist, by the way. MOST of the innovations actually come from engineers working to find solutions to problems they have encountered based on scientific discoveries, trial and error, or pure dumb luck. > -Technologists (engineers) are all applied scientists. The difference is that we're interested in building things based on the theories someone else created. Idea theft is rampant in tech, this is true, and even Wozniak stole the windowed OS design from XEROX-Parq, so don't feel too terrible for him either. -As for the public revering Jobs...-Remember that he's the one credited for Apple's comeback. -> > > > [EDIT] > > > > The Steve Jobs corollary is that the public will pay anything to never have to think about their technology. > > > > Your video and countless websites devoted to people spending a lot of time analyzing technology dispute that statement.-Your average smartphone user can't tell you anything about how it works. The law of averages doesn't apply to the elite. -... > > First, I am an INTJ. I am intimately familiar with the traits of INTJs. You are incorrect in your assessment though. The label applied to INTJ's is mentor or councilor specifically BECAUSE they have an innate tendency to nurture and ...hey paid for the research then they are entitled to the results. Period. By that, we could say that any research that received state/federal funding, or any other form of public funding, should be published in a freely available and easily accessible journal that is held to higher standards than any other scientific journal. > -That's not an INTJ. Nurturing? Emotions. Yuck! I remember reading once that personal relationships tend to be an achilles heel for my type. If I didn't have an understanding wife, my ass would have been out the door a long time ago.-I remember you posted your MBTI when you first joined, and it was INFJ. Unless you recently tested differently, which I highly doubt as I find your arguments tend to stay on the emotional side of most debates. -"Nurturing" only applies to an INTJ if they judge the mentee as competent. The same goes for respect of authority or leadership. And there is no such thing as a "sacred" idea.-My leadership style? -"To be a leader, you don't need to step forward, everyone else just has to take one step back." -... > You underestimate Joe Schmoe. The world has become a scientifically and technologically savvy place. 30 years ago, there were very few industries in which knowledge of vectors, matrices, indices, AI, game theory, and other such esoteric tidbits were needed. Just yesterday I saw a book on applied game theory in business. Everyday I read books on all of the topics mentioned above. As quantum computing becomes a reality, the layman will learn quantum physics in order to keep up, and they will teach it to their children and it will become common knowledge. There is no room for elitism.-And I disagree. -They're not tech savvy. They're tech-dependent. (Dorsey is a brilliant speaker, btw.) [Start at 50 seconds.]-Most people in Gen Y can't tell you how their cell phone works, but they sure do need them. -Learning quantum mechanics? Not gonna happen. It wouldn't be necessary to run the machine.-Elitism will continue to exist because Joe Schmoe will continue to step back.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 15:30 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 15:41
(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.-Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.-Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.-The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.-There's so much bullshit in this objection that I almost feel insulted reading it. -The first one is pure fallacy, its seductive to a skeptic's mind, but as dhw always points out, at some point, common sense must enter the discussion. -I'm going to save the big gun for last on this one. First, generally the assumption that decay rates hold is based on the same logic as the inference "the sun will rise tomorrow." Now. I did some research (since the author was a jackass) and found this:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates-Now, the atoms that they discuss in this section are telling. Do you notice which ones aren't in the list? -Carbon. Uranium. (Interesting)-Also notice that for these few elements that *can* be influenced by environmental factors, the amount of shift involved is 1%. So it would decay 1% faster for these elements than for others. If something was dated to be made 1500 years ago, that means that the range would be between 362, and 662. Which on the grand scheme of accuracy is extremely good. To put that in perspective, if we dated something using one of these minerals to be 65,000,000 years old, we would incorrectly date it to be 64,350,000 old. Not statistically significant. -I found this in my search: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0305/Cook-0305.html-Note the table here, partway down, that looks at carbon used in dating iron objects. Notice how some of the results weren't "easily explainable" by the people requesting the dating. That kind of thing exists everywhere.-[edit]-And by "exists everywhere" I mean the authors of papers based on these artifacts are *forced* to try and explain why the dates don't match. In nearly all cases... the arguments are dropped, because you can't argue with radiation.-In conclusion on this objection, the author wants us to discard radio-dating because somewhere, inexplicably, the laws of physics suspended themselves, and all the Uranium and Carbon in the universe magically increased their decay rates at a rate higher than anything we've ever observed. Make your own decisions, but I'm going to call BS.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 16:54 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
I am not saying you are incorrect in any of your arguments, but aren't scientist guilty of using the same assumptions? They ASSUME that the rate is constant. They assume that they know all of the factors that could influence decay rates. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:26 (4382 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am not saying you are incorrect in any of your arguments, but aren't scientist guilty of using the same assumptions? They ASSUME that the rate is constant. They assume that they know all of the factors that could influence decay rates. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.-I don't know what you do for a living, but as an application developer I'm forced to make assumptions all the time. -You know what I use as a corrective mechanism?-The instances where my assumptions proved wrong. -IN all of the assumptions I discussed here (albeit, from last weekend a little rusty) these are assumptions that have never faced a challenge of this sort. -As a scientist myself, I have no issue with asserting a truth and having it proved wrong.-It's all part of the process...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 17:07 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
Your article on dating iron based artifacts admits its flaws, though it breezes through them as if they don't exist.->Thus, over the years, the sample-size requirement has been greatly reduced and the carbon-extraction procedure has been simplified. However, as has been mentioned, for a radiocarbon date on iron to be meaningful, the carbon extracted from the iron-based material must be from biomass contemporaneous with original manufacture. In addition to fossil fuels such as coal and coke, other carbon sources such as geological carbonates (e.g., limestone and siderite), shell, or old wood (which are all depleted in 14C) will cause artifacts to appear to be older than they are. Complications arising from the recycling of artifacts must also be considered. These limitations of the dating technique have been well summarized by van der Merwe3 and Cresswell.5- When you forge iron, you let it bake in a bed of hot coals in order to not only heat the iron, but also to get the iron to absorb the carbon. This poses a problem because you have at least two different sets of carbon to date. There is the carbon that was naturally present during the formation of the iron ore, and the carbon present in the coal. Additionally, there is no guarantee that all of the coal came from the same source. The old method of creating coke, rarified coal, normally was a two or three step process, depending on what you started with. If you started with wood, the wood was burned to create coal, and then burned again while being wetted to produce coke, and then burned again during the forging of the tool. There is also the chance that coal came from different batches. (Different sources would have different ages, all of which would have been absorbed by the iron. So, when dating an iron objects, you have the potential to have numerous sources of carbon, all of which are older than the object being dated.- Additionally, when you are talking about errors in the range of thousands of years, you are talking about an error that could eclipse all of recorded human history!! That is no trivial thing to be shrugged off by simply saying "We no there is a possible error."
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:33 (4382 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Your article on dating iron based artifacts admits its flaws, though it breezes through them as if they don't exist. > > >Thus, over the years, the sample-size requirement has been greatly reduced and the carbon-extraction procedure has been simplified. However, as has been mentioned, for a radiocarbon date on iron to be meaningful, the carbon extracted from the iron-based material must be from biomass contemporaneous with original manufacture. In addition to fossil fuels such as coal and coke, other carbon sources such as geological carbonates (e.g., limestone and siderite), shell, or old wood (which are all depleted in 14C) will cause artifacts to appear to be older than they are. Complications arising from the recycling of artifacts must also be considered. These limitations of the dating technique have been well summarized by van der Merwe3 and Cresswell.5 > > > When you forge iron, you let it bake in a bed of hot coals in order to not only heat the iron, but also to get the iron to absorb the carbon. This poses a problem because you have at least two different sets of carbon to date. There is the carbon that was naturally present during the formation of the iron ore, and the carbon present in the coal. Additionally, there is no guarantee that all of the coal came from the same source. The old method of creating coke, rarified coal, normally was a two or three step process, depending on what you started with. If you started with wood, the wood was burned to create coal, and then burned again while being wetted to produce coke, and then burned again during the forging of the tool. There is also the chance that coal came from different batches. (Different sources would have different ages, all of which would have been absorbed by the iron. So, when dating an iron objects, you have the potential to have numerous sources of carbon, all of which are older than the object being dated. > -Looking at that paper talking about iron-->that's all built into the math. And when the people who wrote papers were challenged, they had to write whether or not there was a valid explanation for the discrepancy. -I spent a year and a half in chemistry: You can correct for carbon issues like what you discuss here, if you're aware of all sorts of minutiae: Again, built into the error tables. -> > Additionally, when you are talking about errors in the range of thousands of years, you are talking about an error that could eclipse all of recorded human history!! That is no trivial thing to be shrugged off by simply saying "We no there is a possible error."-In terms of carbon dating, I'm understanding that my inherited "40k year" rule applies to *reaaaaaaaly* old things. Carbon dating is MUCH better for "younger" things. (Where "young" is limited to the geological perspective.)-I understand that you're aiming for "it's not perfect" but if a scientist has to publish the degree of error in his/her results--as in the case of the Iron paper I submitted, don't you agree that the lack of perfection is acknowledged?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, April 15, 2012, 17:39 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
[edit] > > And by "exists everywhere" I mean the authors of papers based on these artifacts are *forced* to try and explain why the dates don't match. In nearly all cases... the arguments are dropped, because you can't argue with radiation. > From your article:->Radioactive carbon, that is 14C, occurs naturally and is formed continuously in the atmosphere. As cosmic radiation from space enters the earth's atmosphere, neutrons are created that slow down as they collide with nitrogen atoms. These collisions result in a 14C atom and a proton. The 14C combines with oxygen to form CO and CO2 that then mix with the bulk of the atmosphere containing the other stable isotopes of carbon (e.g., 12C and 13C). These latter isotopes are present in the atmosphere in amounts of 98.9% of 12C and 1.1% of 13C. The 14C exists in a known ratio with these two other forms of carbon such that the dynamic equilibrium concentration ratio, between 14C and 12C + 13C, is about one in 1012.-So, am I to understand that you are saying that an isotope that was FORMED by cosmic radiation can no longer be affected by it, and that cosmic radiation can have no effect because the elements are embedded in sedimentary layers even though you yourself point out that cosmic radiation passes through the whole of the earth? ->In principle, then, there is not a period in Iron-Age history that cannot be investigated using radiocarbon dating. As long as assumptions hold (the iron-based material is manufactured using only contemporaneous charcoal—no old wood, no reworking, no coal, no limestone flux), the radiocarbon dating of iron-based materials has been shown to be very reliable.-Those are pretty major assumptions. Also, as I mentioned in my other post, other fuel sources used come from organic materials, like trees, that can live for hundreds if not thousands of years and that draw the carbon molecules that make up their structure from all around them. I.E. A tree with a deeper root system could be drawing carbon from different sedimentary layers, causing further error. This same is true for all organic life, as what we consume becomes part of us, such that any particular carbon element could have come from one of a wide variety of sources. They assume that all sources are contemporary, that is an invalid assumption. The circle of life makes certain of that. -For example, if a tree was felled and hauled from its original location, and for whatever reason was left in a different location where it rotted and became part of a sedimentary layer over time, you have introduced something that we can not account for nor would we likely even notice.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:40 (4382 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
[edit] > > > > And by "exists everywhere" I mean the authors of papers based on these artifacts are *forced* to try and explain why the dates don't match. In nearly all cases... the arguments are dropped, because you can't argue with radiation. > > > From your article: > > >Radioactive carbon, that is 14C, occurs naturally and is formed continuously in the atmosphere. As cosmic radiation from space enters the earth's atmosphere, neutrons are created that slow down as they collide with nitrogen atoms. These collisions result in a 14C atom and a proton. The 14C combines with oxygen to form CO and CO2 that then mix with the bulk of the atmosphere containing the other stable isotopes of carbon (e.g., 12C and 13C). These latter isotopes are present in the atmosphere in amounts of 98.9% of 12C and 1.1% of 13C. The 14C exists in a known ratio with these two other forms of carbon such that the dynamic equilibrium concentration ratio, between 14C and 12C + 13C, is about one in 1012. > > So, am I to understand that you are saying that an isotope that was FORMED by cosmic radiation can no longer be affected by it, and that cosmic radiation can have no effect because the elements are embedded in sedimentary layers even though you yourself point out that cosmic radiation passes through the whole of the earth? > -We're dangerously at my limit for correct information, but the rarity of a cosmic ray hitting an atom (and it NEEDS to be a direct hit) means that the isotope you discuss here is necessarily a single atom. -> >In principle, then, there is not a period in Iron-Age history that cannot be investigated using radiocarbon dating. As long as assumptions hold (the iron-based material is manufactured using only contemporaneous charcoal—no old wood, no reworking, no coal, no limestone flux), the radiocarbon dating of iron-based materials has been shown to be very reliable. > > Those are pretty major assumptions. Also, as I mentioned in my other post, other fuel sources used come from organic materials, like trees, that can live for hundreds if not thousands of years and that draw the carbon molecules that make up their structure from all around them. I.E. A tree with a deeper root system could be drawing carbon from different sedimentary layers, causing further error. This same is true for all organic life, as what we consume becomes part of us, such that any particular carbon element could have come from one of a wide variety of sources. They assume that all sources are contemporary, that is an invalid assumption. The circle of life makes certain of that. > -Those assumptions are major, until you consider that all the artifacts under consideration are weapons of varying degrees of manufacture. -Many things can go into making a weapon of that nature, but if you have historical records of processes... and especially in the case of Spain, China, and Japan we DO have those kinds of records... the assumptions aren't superfluous. -Again... the error is built into the date range. -> For example, if a tree was felled and hauled from its original location, and for whatever reason was left in a different location where it rotted and became part of a sedimentary layer over time, you have introduced something that we can not account for nor would we likely even notice.-We can though, because a dead tree isn't going to absorb much C-14.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 22, 2015, 19:49 (3193 days ago) @ xeno6696
the ratios of C14 and C12 are changed by atom bomb explosions and by C12 deposition as civilization burns more carbon. How to overcome the problem:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-burning-obscures-radiocarbon-dates/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20150722-A T-shirt made in 2050 could look exactly like one worn by William the Conqueror a thousand years earlier to someone using radiocarbon dating if emissions continue under a business-as-usual scenario. By 2100, a dead plant could be almost identical to the Dead Sea scrolls, which are more than 2,000 years old.-These well-known “aging” properties of atmospheric carbon were pinpointed for different emissions scenarios in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yesterday. It describes how fossil fuel emissions will make radiocarbon dating, used to identify archaeological finds, poached ivory or even human corpses, less reliable.-As scrolls, plant-based paints or cotton shirts age over thousands of years, the radioactive carbon-14 that naturally appears in organic objects gradually decays. The amount of carbon-14 decreases relative to the amount of normal carbon. Radiocarbon dating seizes on that fraction, which decreases over time, to estimate age. A lower fraction indicates an older object.-The problem is that the fraction can decrease not only as carbon-14 decays but also as normal carbon increases. That is what is happening with the burning of fossil fuels, which are so old they do not contain any carbon-14. Nonradioactive carbon is now flooding the atmosphere, which creates a dilution effect.-Though this dilution effect is well-known, its precise scale under different emissions scenarios was not, until now. Heather Graven, the atmospheric scientist at the Imperial College London who wrote the paper, was surprised at how much emissions could “age” the atmosphere if pollution continues at its current rate.-***-Physicists and bioengineers seized on this opportunity to study cell regeneration in plants and humans. A cell born after nuclear weapons testing would have a different, higher fraction of carbon-14 to normal carbon than one born several decades earlier. This indicator allows biologists to see which cells turn over and which cells remain the same.-For example, in 2009 scientists revealed in Science that about 0.3 to 1 percent of human cardiac muscle cells regenerated each year. They attributed the discovery to the carbon-14 produced during the Cold War.-Now, however, carbon emissions have risen to the point where they've countered the initial effect of nuclear weapons testing. Graven shows the present-day levels are close to preindustrial.-If the ratio were to remain constant, like in a low-emissions scenario, scientists wouldn't be able to use it to measure the lives of individual cells, a technique that requires a rapidly changing indicator. And a decreasing fraction could start affecting radiocarbon dating by 2020, Graven added.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 24, 2015, 22:34 (3191 days ago) @ David Turell
So, without knowing precisely what the carbon ratio was in the atmosphere at every single stage of Earth's history, then we can not know how reliable the dates are for any given find because the atmospheric carbon would contaminate the result. - Gee... I seem to recall that I've been bagging on carbon dating for years now because the results are inconsistent and questionable.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Saturday, July 25, 2015, 02:14 (3191 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Gee... I seem to recall that I've been bagging on carbon dating for years now because the results are inconsistent and questionable.-But there are at least five other methods and carbon is only for recent events.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 26, 2015, 00:04 (3190 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: Gee... I seem to recall that I've been bagging on carbon dating for years now because the results are inconsistent and questionable. > > But there are at least five other methods and carbon is only for recent events.-But the same underlying problem exists for all of them. They all labor under the major assumption that we KNOW what the starting ratio of parent:daughter elements were, and we don't.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Sunday, July 26, 2015, 01:37 (3190 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: But the same underlying problem exists for all of them. They all labor under the major assumption that we KNOW what the starting ratio of parent:daughter elements were, and we don't.-Granting that point, how far off do you think the guesses are?
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 26, 2015, 09:45 (3189 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Tony: But the same underlying problem exists for all of them. They all labor under the major assumption that we KNOW what the starting ratio of parent:daughter elements were, and we don't. > >David: Granting that point, how far off do you think the guesses are?-There is literally know way of knowing. To give one simple example, even with sealed, non-porous, non-contaminated rocks(which really don't exist), the radio-metric dating would only tell you when that rock was formed, not how old the materials that made it are. In the case of igneous rock, that would be when it solidified, and studies on those types if rocks have been off by hundreds of millions of years. In the case of sedimentary rocks, they are all subject to heavy contamination based on their composition and the state of the world at the time that the layers were deposited, and even more so by the fact that until they are exposed to sufficient time and pressure, they are constantly contaminated by water penetration transporting minerals in and out of them.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Sunday, July 26, 2015, 16:11 (3189 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> >David: Granting that point, how far off do you think the guesses are? > > Tony: There is literally know way of knowing. To give one simple example, even with sealed, non-porous, non-contaminated rocks(which really don't exist), the radio-metric dating would only tell you when that rock was formed, not how old the materials that made it are. In the case of igneous rock, that would be when it solidified, and studies on those types if rocks have been off by hundreds of millions of years. In the case of sedimentary rocks, they are all subject to heavy contamination based on their composition and the state of the world at the time that the layers were deposited, and even more so by the fact that until they are exposed to sufficient time and pressure, they are constantly contaminated by water penetration transporting minerals in and out of them.-I've always accepted a range of 10-20% off in the aging estimates, which is quoted. If the universe is 13.78 byo and the sun about 5 byo, the earth 4.5 byo and the Cambrian explosion about 510 myo, does this really matter, from your point of view?
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 04:12 (3188 days ago) @ David Turell
> > >David: Granting that point, how far off do you think the guesses are? > > > > Tony: There is literally know way of knowing. To give one simple example, even with sealed, non-porous, non-contaminated rocks(which really don't exist), the radio-metric dating would only tell you when that rock was formed, not how old the materials that made it are. In the case of igneous rock, that would be when it solidified, and studies on those types if rocks have been off by hundreds of millions of years. In the case of sedimentary rocks, they are all subject to heavy contamination based on their composition and the state of the world at the time that the layers were deposited, and even more so by the fact that until they are exposed to sufficient time and pressure, they are constantly contaminated by water penetration transporting minerals in and out of them. > > I've always accepted a range of 10-20% off in the aging estimates, which is quoted. If the universe is 13.78 byo and the sun about 5 byo, the earth 4.5 byo and the Cambrian explosion about 510 myo, does this really matter, from your point of view?--For some things, it does not matter at all. For example, it would not phase me at all if the universe were 13.78byo, the Sun 5 byo, or the Earth 4.5 byo. Even the pre-human epochs of life would not really phase me that much. The things that irritate me are when there is circular logic (i.e. the rock strata is dated based on the organisms it contains and the organisms are dated based on the rock strata), when the visible evidence contrdicts the hypothesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html), or when they start trying use these speculative hypotheses to prop up other speculative hypotheses, like evolution.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Monday, July 27, 2015, 14:56 (3188 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: The things that irritate me are when there is circular logic (i.e. the rock strata is dated based on the organisms it contains and the organisms are dated based on the rock strata), when the visible evidence contrdicts the hypothesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html), or when they start trying use these speculative hypotheses to prop up other speculative hypotheses, like evolution.-How do you explain The rock strata I've seen and touched in the Grand Canyon. Are they all the same age? Or the Great Unconformity in which missing layers are found only elsewhere in the world? Doesn't the evidence show the Earth adds layers as it ages?
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 27, 2015, 22:51 (3188 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: The things that irritate me are when there is circular logic (i.e. the rock strata is dated based on the organisms it contains and the organisms are dated based on the rock strata), when the visible evidence contrdicts the hypothesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html), or when they start trying use these speculative hypotheses to prop up other speculative hypotheses, like evolution. > >David: How do you explain The rock strata I've seen and touched in the Grand Canyon. Are they all the same age? Or the Great Unconformity in which missing layers are found only elsewhere in the world? Doesn't the evidence show the Earth adds layers as it ages?-No one ever claimed that the earth does not add layers as it ages, but there are limitations to that. That being said, here are some counter questions:-Is age the ONLY way that layers are formed in the earth? How is that soil being tranferred into these layers? How is it being accumulated? Are layers uniform enough to be a reliable indicator of age? (like counting tree rings) How do you explain horizontal layers around vertical objects?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 00:36 (3188 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: No one ever claimed that the earth does not add layers as it ages, but there are limitations to that. That being said, here are some counter questions: > > 1)Is age the ONLY way that layers are formed in the earth? > 2)How is that soil being tranferred into these layers? How is it being accumulated? > #Are layers uniform enough to be a reliable indicator of age? (like counting tree rings) > 4) How do you explain horizontal layers around vertical objects?-I'm no expert but did have a 10 days course on the Grand Canyon by as geology department head professor, who had about 40 papers on the Canyon. The lowest visible layer I saw and touched was the Vishnu Shist, 2.2 billion years old.-1) No, there are sudden lava flows, erosion (see below). Continental subduction can disrupt the layers. I've seen this on another river.-2) Erosion by wind, water; earthquakes, ocean silting and volcanic ash eruptions are some of the things I can think of.-3) The layers are uniform enough to use as aging once ages are established at different levels. The Great Unconformity (750 million years not in the canyon) are elsewhere on the Earth, so the Earth in like an onion. The loss of the GU is thought to be due to erosion.-4) The layers I've seen are much thicker than the height of a tree, and some layers have sub-layers. Certainly a tree could be fossilized in upright state. I looked at the website you referred to, and I know there are refuting articles, but I'm not educated enough to fully comment. -I think it is hard to suggest the Earth in not 4.5 billion years old. And there is good evidence of biologic activity at 3.5 billion years and before with fossils in many layers all the way down.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 05:19 (3187 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony > > 1)Is age the ONLY way that layers are formed in the earth? > > 2)How is that soil being tranferred into these layers? How is it being accumulated? > > #Are layers uniform enough to be a reliable indicator of age? (like counting tree rings) > > 4) How do you explain horizontal layers around vertical objects? > >David: I'm no expert but did have a 10 days course on the Grand Canyon by as geology department head professor, who had about 40 papers on the Canyon. The lowest visible layer I saw and touched was the Vishnu Shist, 2.2 billion years old.-I bet that was fun! > > 1) No, there are sudden lava flows, erosion (see below). Continental subduction can disrupt the layers. I've seen this on another river.-Subduction disrupts layers, and actually makes them rather unsuitable for calculating ages. I.e. What happens if a 1byo layer is subducted under 2byo? If we went according to radio metric dating, the layers would be younger the deaper you went. Similiarly, erosion removes layers as well as depositing them. Using the analogy of counting rings on a tree, it is like someone removed a couple of outer rings from one tree and wrapped them around another.-> > 2) Erosion by wind, water; earthquakes, ocean silting and volcanic ash eruptions are some of the things I can think of. > -Flooding and silting are major ones because of the interesting things that happen when sediments are suspended in a liquid. For solids suspended in a liquid, they are sorted by boyancy/mass not by age, which further muddies the chronological record. Not only that, water in particular is horrible for radiometric dating because as it filters through a strata it both removes and deposits elements into the strata, making any assumption about the initial ratios a blind man's guess.-> 3) The layers are uniform enough to use as aging once ages are established at different levels. The Great Unconformity (750 million years not in the canyon) are elsewhere on the Earth, so the Earth in like an onion. The loss of the GU is thought to be due to erosion. > > 4) The layers I've seen are much thicker than the height of a tree, and some layers have sub-layers. Certainly a tree could be fossilized in upright state. I looked at the website you referred to, and I know there are refuting articles, but I'm not educated enough to fully comment. -The layers may be thick enough, but like much of long time-line evolutionary theory (and yes, this portion of geology has deep ties with evolutionary theory), the problem is not the observation, but how the observation is incongruent with other observations. -Strata and Time: Probing the Gaps in Our Understanding edited by D.G. Smith, R.J. Bailey, P.M. Burgess, A.J. Fraser pg.23-The problem is that it might take a couple of million years worth of sediment to bury a 12m tree, but the decay rate on said tree is likely no more than a few decades at maximum. Since fossilization requires rapid burial to prevent decomposition, unless there was some form of cataclysm that rapidly buried the tree, the tree would have decomposed long before it could ever have been fossilized. -This is also true of virtually ever fossil ever found. One probing question that no one bothers to ask:-How did this animal/plant/organism get burried rapidly enough for it to be fossilized?- > David:I think it is hard to suggest the Earth in not 4.5 billion years old. And there is good evidence of biologic activity at 3.5 billion years and before with fossils in many layers all the way down.- I am not suggesting any age for the Earth at all. As I said before, the age of the Earth is actually irrelevant to me. Whether it is 6000 or 4byo, it matters not. -Let me make something more clear for both you and DHW. I am not a young earth creationist. I don't particularly care if God created the Earth six thousand or four billion years ago. Which ever way he did it, I am sure he had good reason and I would love to understand what that reason is. What bothers me is that scientist ignore their own rules, logic, and discoveries in order to avoid painful, uncomfortable, or embarassing truths. -Organisms must be burried prior to decaying in order to be preserved. The fact that you have hundreds, or even thousands of fossils all in the same area, at the same geological strata indicates that they all died at the same time, and were buried in the same event. If they were not, then there is almost no chance at all that they would have ever became fossils. -When we look at the events that can move a volume of earth sufficiently large enough to bury trees and dinosaurs and the like, there aren't many.-A) Floods B) Mudslides C) Cave ins D) Third party burials.-That's pretty much it. Nothing else moves enough earth rapidly enough to completely bury an organism without first destorying it. (Lava flows might bury an organism, but the chances are very high that the organism would be completely incenerated instead of being fossilized.)
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 05:24 (3187 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
http://www.britannica.com/science/stratification-geology-No direct relationship exists between the thickness and extent of strata and the rate of deposition or the time represented; for example, a stratum of limestone 2.5 cm (1 inch) thick may take longer to form than a stratum of sandstone 3 m (10 feet) in thickness. The most common cause of stratification is variation in the transporting ability of the depositing agent. Water and wind sort sediments according to size, weight, and shape of particles, and these sediments settle in layers of relative homogeneity. Differences in sediment composition resulting from different sources, and variation in sediment brought about by change in agents of deposition, also lead to stratification.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 16:32 (3187 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: http://www.britannica.com/science/stratification-geology > > No direct relationship exists between the thickness and extent of strata and the rate of deposition or the time represented; for example, a stratum of limestone 2.5 cm (1 inch) thick may take longer to form than a stratum of sandstone 3 m (10 feet) in thickness. The most common cause of stratification is variation in the transporting ability of the depositing agent. Water and wind sort sediments according to size, weight, and shape of particles, and these sediments settle in layers of relative homogeneity. Differences in sediment composition resulting from different sources, and variation in sediment brought about by change in agents of deposition, also lead to stratification.-Good reference. The strata do vary in thickness and compositions depending on their history of development.
How reliable is science? new carbon dating problems
by David Turell , Tuesday, July 28, 2015, 16:30 (3187 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: One probing question that no one bothers to ask: > > How did this animal/plant/organism get burried rapidly enough for it to be fossilized?-I'm not sure the fossilization process is fully understood. However the fossils exist and tell a story that looks like an evolutionary process. > > Tony: Let me make something more clear for both you and DHW. I am not a young earth creationist. I don't particularly care if God created the Earth six thousand or four billion years ago. Which ever way he did it, I am sure he had good reason and I would love to understand what that reason is.-I didn't think you were a YEC. You are attempting to fit everything into the Bible. Well, I'll stick to four billion, but like you I'm sure God did it for His own reasons, just as I think He set up an evolutionary process for life under His guidance. -> Tony: What bothers me is that scientist ignore their own rules, logic, and discoveries in order to avoid painful, uncomfortable, or embarassing truths. > > When we look at the events that can move a volume of earth sufficiently large enough to bury trees and dinosaurs and the like, there aren't many. > > A) Floods > B) Mudslides > C) Cave ins > D) Third party burials. > > That's pretty much it. Nothing else moves enough earth rapidly enough to completely bury an organism without first destorying it. -Like I said, fossilization is not completely understood, but fossils exist to tell a story. We've all seen them. On the Grand Canyon at Deer Falls, 200 feet above the river, there is a large rock, estimated at 200 million years old with obvious fossilized worm borings.-If God controlled all of creation He arranged for fossils in all forms and deposits as they are found by fossil hunters.- Our difference is one of perspective: I'll accept the scientific aging approaches. I know God did it. Like dhw I recognize the Bible is based on human authors and human thought. I don't think humans can read the mind of God.
How reliable is science? radioactive dating
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 14, 2021, 01:14 (1101 days ago) @ David Turell
Amazing ranges with different isotopes:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/earth-sciences/what-is-radiometric-dating/?utm_source=...
"Radiometric dating is a method of establishing how old something is – perhaps a wooden artefact, a rock, or a fossil – based on the presence of a radioactive isotope within it.
"The basic logic behind radiometric dating is that if you compare the presence of a radioactive isotope within a sample to its known abundance on Earth, and its known half-life (its rate of decay), you can calculate the age of the sample.
***
"Radiocarbon dating is not suitable for dating anything older than around 50,000 years, because 14C decays quickly (its half-life is 5,730 years) and so will not be present in significant enough amounts in older objects to be measurable.
"Potassium-argon dating is a method that allows us to calculate the age of a rock, or how long ago it was formed, by measuring the ratio of radioactive argon to radioactive potassium within it.
***
"Potassium-argon dating is a method that allows us to calculate the age of a rock, or how long ago it was formed, by measuring the ratio of radioactive argon to radioactive potassium within it.
"Argon-argon dating is an updated method, based on the original K-Ar dating technique, that uses neutron irradiation from a nuclear reactor to convert a stable form of potassium into the argon isotope 39Ar, and then measures the ratio of 40Ar to 39Ar.
"Argon-argon dating was used to determine that the Australopithecus Lucy, who rewrote our understanding of early hominin evolution, lived around 3.18 million years ago.
"Uranium-lead dating
This technique involves measuring the ratio of uranium isotopes (238U or 235U) to stable lead isotopes 206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb. It can be used to determine ages from 4.5 billion years old to 1 million years old. This method is thought to be particularly accurate, with an error-margin that can be less than two million years – not bad in a time span of billions.
"U-Pb dating can be used to date very old rocks, and has its own in-built cross-checking system, since the ratio of 235U to 207Pb and 238U to 206Pb can be compared using a “concordia diagram”, in which samples are plotted along a straight line that intersects the curve at the age of the sample.
***
"Fission-track dating
This method involves examining the polished surface of a slice of rock, and calculating the density of markings – or “tracks” – left in it by the spontaneous fission of 238U impurities.
"The uranium content of the sample must be known
"Fission-track dating identified that the Brahin Pallasite, a meteorite found in the 19th century in Belarus – slabs of which have become a collectors item – underwent its last intensive thermal event 4.26–4.2 billion years ago.
"Chlorine-36 dating
This method involves calculating the prevalence of the very rare isotope chlorine-36 (36Cl), which can be produced in the atmosphere through cosmic rays bombarding argon atoms. It’s used to date very old groundwater, from between around 100,000 and 1 million years old.
***
"Luminescence dating methods are not technically radiometric, since they don’t involve calculating ratios of radioactive isotopes. However, they do use radioactive material.
"This method can date archaeological materials, such as ceramics, and minerals, like lava flows and limestones. It has a normal range of a few decades to 100,000 years old, but some studies have used it to identify much older things."
Comment: Our big brains are plenty smart.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 4/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 01:08 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
I know Tony is poking at me on these, but I want to finish my first pass before I spend time responding.-Assumption 4:-(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!- "His [Joly's] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107. -This isn't really an assumption. But, I already posted a link from a 2001 paper that discussed modern techniques and accuracy rates of C-14 dating, It will supercede the bulletin dated June 1931.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 5/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 01:20 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.-Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.-This one is pretty idiotic. The author is attempting to argue that air laden with water would somehow be able to absorb radiation as if it were lead. -First off, 2009 was a record year for cosmic rays.-And... even under current conditions... most cosmic rays disintegrate in the atmosphere. Making the air "heavier" would result in more disintegration, meaning specimens on the planet would be insulated from the effects of cosmic rays... not the other way around. -Finally... most cosmic rays fly right on through the planet, back into space. -Though the big red flag here is the implicit argument that "more water" would somehow give credence to a world flood... I already demolished a world flood argument about 2 years ago and don't really care to tread those waters again.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 6/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 01:23 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.-Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.-This one is interesting, but I simply point out that the author hasn't provided us with more information than his own authority here. No citations. No discussions about how variations in the van allen belt would affect radioactive isotopes below, and really just tries to undermine the assumption that "the van allen belt has remained the same throughout time." -It's great that he wants to be skeptical, but I'd like more than a simple statement. "The sun will not rise tomorrow."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 01:27 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."-This one revisits a prior section. -Modern cosmology has discussed and completely explained both the Big Bang and observations about the makeup of radioactive isotopes throughout the cosmos have remained consistent with what was predicted using the big bang model. -This final "assumption" the author objects to more or less states this:-"Our lord and savior, Jumpin Jehosephat, in his divine excellency decided to make the world appear much older than it really is, for reasons he hasn't revealed to us."-I'm done for today. This site really... really taxed me.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
As an illustration of the layman's impossible position when it comes to judging the accuracy of science, I referred to a website that challenges current methods of dating. With the dedication and thoroughness of a true scientist, Matt has investigated and in most cases challenged the challenges.-MATT: I'm done for today. This site really....really taxed me.-Matt, I am now filled with admiration and riddled with guilt. Firstly, heartfelt thanks for all the trouble you've taken over this. I really appreciate it ... and I also appreciate Tony's comments. These posts are all an education in themselves. However, I hadn't meant to tax you in this way, so please accept my apologies. My point was that the more you delve, the more confusing it all becomes, especially to a layman who HAS to rely on the experts. If they don't agree, then all their statements become suspect. You will see from the discussion on David's "upright before savannah" theory under Proteins, Apes & Us, that there is no consensus among the experts, and I'm afraid that in none of the fields relating to chance v. design is it all as simple as "the sun will (not) rise tomorrow". Towards the end of my last post to you, I made what I thought to be an important epistemological point, to justify my scepticism. I'll repeat it, because for me it sums up the situation we laymen are in:-"However, your defence that eventually science corrects itself doesn't help us a great deal, since at no given time can we ever be sure that the information we're being given (including the corrections) is accurate."-Bearing in mind your own epistemological background, I suspect that you will go along with this, despite your faith that eventually science will come up with the "truth", at least in some fields. -Thank you again, though, for the lessons on the less romantic forms of dating.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by David Turell , Monday, April 16, 2012, 18:28 (4385 days ago) @ dhw
> "However, your defence that eventually science corrects itself doesn't help us a great deal, since at no given time can we ever be sure that the information we're being given (including the corrections) is accurate." > > Bearing in mind your own epistemological background, I suspect that you will go along with this, despite your faith that eventually science will come up with the "truth", at least in some fields. - Another cheating academic scientist. Just to get grant money!!!-http://the-scientist.com/2012/04/16/stem-cell-researcher-fabricates-data/
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 03:13 (4381 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-As has been made apparent to me from Tony and yourself in your response here...-I'm missing the point of your criticism. Technically, I'm college-educated and am equipped with the skills to be able to carefully weigh a "scientific" argument vs. one made from thin air, yet still logical. -I have no response for this, because as I alluded to previously... we're reaching an age soon enough were scientists are going to be interpreting evaluations from computers, studying relationships that are so complex that it would take a lifetime for a single person to understand. In computing circles, we already see this: An entire science is building up around the concept of data visualization, that unites psychology, mathematics, and data analytics... -The disconnect between the ivory tower and "the common man" is going to grow exponentially, and not even because of a deliberate effort. Statistically speaking, a human being absorbs more information in a year than a person in the 18th century would have access to in their lifetime. -http://www.teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=3051-^^^This cute little video should impart exactly HOW fast things are changing... (Some of the stats are hopelessly outdated only after 5 years.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
MATT: As has been made apparent to me from Tony and yourself in your response here... I'm missing the point of your criticism. Technically, I'm college-educated and am equipped with the skills to be able to carefully weigh a "scientific" argument vs. one made from thin air, yet still logical. -The discussion has branched out from my starting-point. Tony and David have launched a concerted attack on the corruption now rife in the scientific world, as it is in so many of our human institutions. My approach is an epistemological one, based on the fact that for whatever reasons, we cannot trust the accuracy of the scientific information underlying our quest for the truth about our origins. Earlier you thought I was dismissing technology, whereas I was trying to make it clear that technology is different because its accuracy can be verified by its practical results. Theories relating to our origins cannot be verified, and scientific pronouncements must remain suspect. Tomorrow may reverse the findings of today, and tomorrows will continue from day to day "to the last syllable of recorded time". MATT: The disconnect between the ivory tower and "the common man" is going to grow exponentially, and not even because of a deliberate effort. Statistically speaking, a human being absorbs more information in a year than a person in the 18th century would have access to in their lifetime.-I'm sure you're right. But in the context of our discussions, the layman needs to be aware of the gap ... sometimes huge ... between the information (in itself suspect) and the conclusions drawn from it. If a renowned scientist claims that "natural selection explains the whole of life", you and I know enough to dismiss the claim as arrant and arrogant nonsense, but kids in the classroom probably won't, and his devout followers probably won't either. Some scientists have assumed an authority they do not have, and the view that science alone can provide us with "truth" ... again, I'm talking about particular areas of our existence ... is one that I find increasingly irksome and unscientifically subjective. For all its truly astonishing achievements, science does not support materialism; materialism is the basis of science.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 23, 2012, 23:38 (4378 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: As has been made apparent to me from Tony and yourself in your response here... > I'm missing the point of your criticism. Technically, I'm college-educated and am equipped with the skills to be able to carefully weigh a "scientific" argument vs. one made from thin air, yet still logical. > > The discussion has branched out from my starting-point. Tony and David have launched a concerted attack on the corruption now rife in the scientific world, as it is in so many of our human institutions. My approach is an epistemological one, based on the fact that for whatever reasons, we cannot trust the accuracy of the scientific information underlying our quest for the truth about our origins. Earlier you thought I was dismissing technology, whereas I was trying to make it clear that technology is different because its accuracy can be verified by its practical results. Theories relating to our origins cannot be verified, and scientific pronouncements must remain suspect. Tomorrow may reverse the findings of today, and tomorrows will continue from day to day "to the last syllable of recorded time". > -I think we've switched chairs!-Ultimately where I wanted to move in the original epistemology thread, was into A direction of "common sense," just not quite the level you were looking for. -It's a given: we don't know, what we don't know. But science itself gives us a way out of that trap: the very fact that you note science's changing nature is *exactly* why it should dominate as the primary means of investigating our universe. Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down. He didn't want to engage anymore. In fact, he deliberately asked I stop talking about it. (And if you read this David, again, panentheism is false by definition. You're a pantheist.) -There can be no movement or advancement when such things arise in discussions! At the end of the day, you need to be able to decide which explanation is better than another, and the only way to do that is to make assertions and test to see if your conclusions are correct.-From reading this, I sense you've hit upon Nietzsche's idea of "nihilism" and don't like the abyss you see. No, we don't technically know if science is "right" but it sure is "right enough." -When it comes to discussions like origins, science doesn't lie: It says we don't know. Truth-preservation is its ultimate goal, even though we do not claim science IS truth. Science gives us the BEST explanation that we can find reliable. In Giorbran's book, he's finally starting to advance his argument, and he discusses the Copenhagen version of Quantum physics. He states (paraph) "The copenhagen interpretation is extremely bare bones... barely even an interpretation. Only just enough to make it work, and to allow us to use it."-I peeked at the table of contents, and it actually looks like Giorbran is going to make a theistic argument down the road, but I care not about that. - > MATT: The disconnect between the ivory tower and "the common man" is going to grow exponentially, and not even because of a deliberate effort. Statistically speaking, a human being absorbs more information in a year than a person in the 18th century would have access to in their lifetime. > > I'm sure you're right. But in the context of our discussions, the layman needs to be aware of the gap ... sometimes huge ... between the information (in itself suspect) and the conclusions drawn from it. If a renowned scientist claims that "natural selection explains the whole of life", you and I know enough to dismiss the claim as arrant and arrogant nonsense, but kids in the classroom probably won't, and his devout followers probably won't either. Some scientists have assumed an authority they do not have, and the view that science alone can provide us with "truth" ... again, I'm talking about particular areas of our existence ... is one that I find increasingly irksome and unscientifically subjective. For all its truly astonishing achievements, science does not support materialism; materialism is the basis of science.-I don't know how they do things in Europe, but here in the states, I learned about this gap in high school. Mainly through reading books about philosophy. If nothing else, we can blame this problem you see not on science, but on the lack of basic philosophic training... but of course, philosophy doesn't pay, right? (And what else do we go to school for?)-The issue is that by nature we like fast explanations, even when we claim to be scientific. -I might poke you and say that "Natural Selection explains the whole of life, as far as we can tell." -Because generally speaking, it fits extremely well with economics.-There's holes, but we might never fill those holes.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 00:04 (4378 days ago) @ xeno6696
> It's a given: we don't know, what we don't know. But science itself gives us a way out of that trap: the very fact that you note science's changing nature is *exactly* why it should dominate as the primary means of investigating our universe. Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down. He didn't want to engage anymore. In fact, he deliberately asked I stop talking about it. (And if you read this David, again, panentheism is false by definition. You're a pantheist.) -I'm not a sure of anything by the way you define. My concept of me by the definitions I've read is I am a panentheist. Maybe the dictionaries are wrong. An issue of no importance. Still has to be a first cause. God made the universe from His mind and He is within and without the universe. We are contained by him.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 03:40 (4377 days ago) @ David Turell
> > It's a given: we don't know, what we don't know. But science itself gives us a way out of that trap: the very fact that you note science's changing nature is *exactly* why it should dominate as the primary means of investigating our universe. Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down. He didn't want to engage anymore. In fact, he deliberately asked I stop talking about it. (And if you read this David, again, panentheism is false by definition. You're a pantheist.) > > I'm not a sure of anything by the way you define. My concept of me by the definitions I've read is I am a panentheist. Maybe the dictionaries are wrong. An issue of no importance. Still has to be a first cause. God made the universe from His mind and He is within and without the universe. We are contained by him.-The logical contradiction lies purely upon the notion that the universe can be separate from God. Panentheism DOES try and make this distinction, but this is patently not possible. -I know what the dictionary definitions say, but due to that brief discussion about "nothing," the "universe," and "God," there is absolutely NO logical basis for panentheism. It's an artificial distinction, like the difference between a Latino and myself. (superficial.) -I'm a logician at root, if nothing else, trust me. Is Pantheism that bad?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 05:08 (4377 days ago) @ xeno6696
I'm a logician at root, if nothing else, trust me. Is Pantheism that bad?-Of course not. I still think God is both within and without the universe He created.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 04:30 (4376 days ago) @ xeno6696
I was married to a Latino... I can promise that the distinction is not superficial :P
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 27, 2012, 03:00 (4374 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I was married to a Latino... I can promise that the distinction is not superficial :P-I never caught this when you first mentioned it...-but I think you meant "Latina..."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 27, 2012, 12:47 (4374 days ago) @ xeno6696
HAHAHA Yeah, married to her for 5 years and barely learned anything. You are of course correct, Latina, but I always forget that Spanish has masculine/feminine articles.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 01:39 (4378 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt consistently says that science DOESN'T tell us what is true(one of the things I agree with him about). I think you better tell that to Mr. Dawkins, though. His new book is geared at telling children that Science does just that. Not only does he unequivocally state that science tells us what is true, he also tells that science is the ONLY way to know what is really real. -If I could ask him three questions, they would be: -Mr. Dawkins, do you love your wife? How much do you love your wife? Could you please tell me what study you used to measure it, how it is quantified, and what the standard unit of measurement for love is?- Science oversteps its bounds, as DHW pointed out, and speaks with authority about things it has no authority to speak on. Science DOES NOT tell us what is real, it tells us what is measurable. It DOES NOT tell us what is true, it gives us a statistical guess based on measurements. -But, since Mr. Dawkins IS such a well respected member of the scientific community(regardless of whether or not it is SCIENTIST that respect him), to the layman, he is the public relations man for science at the moment. His books make little to no mention of just how sure science is about things, or rather, how unsure. He rarely even mentions that the measure of unsureness that science presents is ONLY in relation to the available data. I.E. If even one single piece of new data arrives it can completely sink a theory that was an absolutely certainty yesterday. Science dances on moonbeams and claims to be performing a stately march on solid ground.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
MATT: Ultimately where I wanted to move in the original epistemology thread, was into a direction of "common sense", just not quite the level you were looking for. [...] I sense you've hit upon Nietzsche's idea of "nihilism" and don't like the abyss you see.-Nietzsche's idea of nihilism was not, as far as I'm aware, an abyss. I always had the impression that his form of scepticism allowed for humanistic values but was directed against the barrenness of existing codes and especially those of religion. His appreciation of the arts was certainly not evidence of what most people understand by nihilism, i.e. a total negation of all values. However, you are the Nietzsche expert, and far more relevant to our epistemological discussion is the comment I have made repeatedly: on a purely philosophical level, there is no such thing as 'reality', and we can only have any sort of exchange if we accept a commonsense level. My understanding of that is a level at which we agree to accept the realities of the world as we know it: e.g. that you and I and the universe exist, that there is such a thing as a sequence of past/present/future, cause and effect, that people can love one another. What level are you referring to if it's not the same as mine?-MATT: It's a given: we don't know, what we don't know. But science itself gives us a way out of that trap. [...] When it comes to discussions like origins, science doesn't lie: It says we don't know. [...] Science gives us the BEST explanation that we can find reliable.-Sorry to cherry-pick these quotes, but by putting them together, I'm trying to emphasize the distinction that I feel you are still not making. It's discussions "like origins" that I'm focusing on ... and they include the nature of consciousness, of love, of aesthetics, and of all those phenomena that seem to defy material explanations. This is the "trap" and science does NOT give us a way out, and it does not give us an explanation, let alone the BEST explanation. But what some scientists do (nicely illustrated by Tony's attack on Dawkins in his post of 24 April at 01.39) is pretend that science CAN give us explanations. Once again, they do so by imposing their materialist philosophy onto science, which is only equipped to deal with the material world ... hence anything non-materialistic is non-scientific and so cannot be true! It's a blatant distortion of language, philosophy and science, but all too often they get away with it.-I drew attention to the gap between science's (suspect) findings and the conclusions some scientists draw from them. You say you learned about this gap at high school, mainly by reading philosophy. Yours must have been a pretty enlightened school, or you were a pretty advanced student ... which I can well believe! "We can blame this problem you see not on science, but on the lack of basic philosophical training..." I blame the problem on some scientists, not on science, but the complaint some of us are making is that even highly intelligent people seem to have been persuaded that science offers us the BEST explanation of mysteries which science is no more qualified to solve than theology or philosophy. Yes, science offers us the BEST chance of explaining discoverable material realities. That's all.-MATT: I might poke you and say that "Natural Selection explains the whole of life, as far as we can tell."-And I will poke you back. I quoted it as an instance of a famous scientist trying to hoodwink the public, and I thought you had seen the light! Oh misery! Natural Selection explains why some things survive and others don't. It does not explain how those things got here in the first place.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 22:12 (4377 days ago) @ dhw
> MATT: I might poke you and say that "Natural Selection explains the whole of life, as far as we can tell." > > And I will poke you back. I quoted it as an instance of a famous scientist trying to hoodwink the public, and I thought you had seen the light! Oh misery! Natural Selection explains why some things survive and others don't. It does not explain how those things got here in the first place.-I thought we settled all of this. NS is a final arbiter. it creates nothing.
How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 23:12 (4376 days ago) @ dhw
I'm going to deal with the rest of your post in a new thread, because I think we're at the point where we can begin to discuss "The order of Rank."->Once again, they do so by imposing their materialist philosophy onto science, which is only equipped to deal with the material world ... hence anything non-materialistic is non-scientific and so cannot be true! It's a blatant distortion of language, philosophy and science, but all too often they get away with it.<-dhw, -The problem I have with your objection here can be illustrated by asking one question:-If science can only study materialistic things, then how can applying a materialistic philosophy to science be anything other than consistent and logical?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 19, 2012, 19:58 (4382 days ago) @ xeno6696
Scientific Malpractice-I thought this was a pretty good article on the subject.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 03:26 (4386 days ago) @ dhw
In Pinker's book, "The Better Angels of our Nature," he discusses a spat between anthropoligists. In chastizing "anthropologists of peace," a category of anthropologists influenced by Rousseau and the concept of the "noble savage," Pinker writes:-"Margaret Mead, for example, described the Chambri of New Guinea as a sex-reversed culture because the men were adorned with makeup and curls, omitting the fact that they had to earn the right to these supposedly effeminate decorations by killing a member of an enemy tribe. Anthropologists who did not get with the program found themselves barred from the territories in which they had worked, denounced in manifestos by their professional societies, slapped with libel lawsuits, and even accused of genocide."-I'm probably not equipped to have a serious discussion with anyone who is an anthropologist, but I think its key to remember, that anthropology shares much more in common with Psychology than it does with other social sciences. I've often joked, that 5000 years from now, someone will come across a cache of abandoned Compact Discs, and surmise that our economic system comprised of "trading large, plastic silver discs." -Anthropology, sociology, and psychology are all areas that like to call themselves "science," but when so often what they study are the truly "human" and changeable properties--culture, language, and thought patterns...-I have a hard time taking them too seriously. -One learns more about human nature from a study of economics than from a class on psychology.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2012, 05:25 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Anthropology, sociology, and psychology are all areas that like to call themselves "science," but when so often what they study are the truly "human" and changeable properties--culture, language, and thought patterns... > > I have a hard time taking them too seriously. > > One learns more about human nature from a study of economics than from a class on psychology.-I keep saying follow the money. From the old song: money makes he world go 'round. It is all part of my peer review complaint.
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 13:22 (4386 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Anthropology, sociology, and psychology are all areas that like to call themselves "science," but when so often what they study are the truly "human" and changeable properties--culture, language, and thought patterns... > > > > I have a hard time taking them too seriously. > > > > One learns more about human nature from a study of economics than from a class on psychology. > > I keep saying follow the money. From the old song: money makes he world go 'round. It is all part of my peer review complaint.-Well, I honestly think in most of these cases it has MUCH more to do with pride than money. -By the time you reach the level of PHD in any field, you're usually dealing with really smart people who have a pretty healthy ego. And in the PHD world, the PHD means that you're literally the world-reknowed expert on what ever tiny little sliver of your subject you're studying. When you also couple that with the fact that there is NO training for team-driven collaboration, you get a ton of little silos (each person with a PHD) of egoists that feel compelled to combat each other. -You spend 20 years building your research programme and suddenly, some upstart 28 year old kid who has barely finished his PHD is challenging your body of work that you've built... what the hell does he know? -I'm not trying to overly downplay money--it's always a powerful driver, but watching the people that are in grad school with me... they're not money grubbing assholes. -I'm also not trying to write off what "bad" scientists are doing, but I totally understand why things like this happen.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2012, 15:42 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
Well, I honestly think in most of these cases it has MUCH more to do with pride than money. > > I'm not trying to overly downplay money--it's always a powerful driver, but watching the people that are in grad school with me... they're not money grubbing assholes. > > I'm also not trying to write off what "bad" scientists are doing, but I totally understand why things like this happen.-I'll grant you the pride/ego part in ivory towers but we are talking about business-driven cancer research. These folks with Ph.D.s are on hire to produce money-making drugs. And they are paid well. Money will always beat pride as a force.
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 18:40 (4386 days ago) @ David Turell
Well, I honestly think in most of these cases it has MUCH more to do with pride than money. > > > > I'm not trying to overly downplay money--it's always a powerful driver, but watching the people that are in grad school with me... they're not money grubbing assholes. > > > > I'm also not trying to write off what "bad" scientists are doing, but I totally understand why things like this happen. > > I'll grant you the pride/ego part in ivory towers but we are talking about business-driven cancer research. These folks with Ph.D.s are on hire to produce money-making drugs. And they are paid well. Money will always beat pride as a force.-Really?-http://russianow.washingtonpost.com/2010/07/the-man-who-refused-a-million-dollars.php
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2012, 19:27 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > I'll grant you the pride/ego part in ivory towers but we are talking about business-driven cancer research. These folks with Ph.D.s are on hire to produce money-making drugs. And they are paid well. Money will always beat pride as a force. > > Really? > > http://russianow.washingtonpost.com/2010/07/the-man-who-refused-a-million-dollars.php-I know the Perelman story. One snowflake does not make a snow storm. Most people are as I have described. Why do religions accept as a fact that we are all sinners who have to admit it and have to be changed?
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 00:35 (4386 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > I'll grant you the pride/ego part in ivory towers but we are talking about business-driven cancer research. These folks with Ph.D.s are on hire to produce money-making drugs. And they are paid well. Money will always beat pride as a force. > > > > Really? > > > > http://russianow.washingtonpost.com/2010/07/the-man-who-refused-a-million-dollars.php&a... > I know the Perelman story. One snowflake does not make a snow storm. Most people are as I have described. Why do religions accept as a fact that we are all sinners who have to admit it and have to be changed?-Buddhism doesn't admit anything of the sort. Neither does Taoism or Hinduism. It's something unique to the Abrahamic faiths, and Zoroastrianism. In these religions there is a general consensus that man is fundamentally evil. This is false: Humanity is neither good nor evil. We have the capacity to serve ourselves or to serve others. "Good" and "evil" are arbitrary judgments. -We DO however have an obvious tendency to be self-absorbed. This is intensely reinforced in all material cultures, as we place a great focus on the acquisition of wealth. Insomuch as there is a common thread among religions, there will be an agreement that we need to work to think more of others. Empathy is the key skill that needs to be fostered. All religions (save for the LHP religions I mentioned previously) do promote an altruism of some sort as an ideal state. -My point bringing up Perelman had more to do with trying to point out the long chain of mathematicians going back to pythagoras that eschewed wealth for knowledge. -I'm fully aware that most people would see no harm in taking the money, but in math, we are a very prideful lot. -My goal is to keep you from trying to paint everything with the same brush. In mathematics, a single contra case disproves a general claim. -Still, you haven't demonstrated any real opposition to the idea that when the cards are all on the table, that the truth has always prevailed, money or not.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by David Turell , Monday, April 16, 2012, 15:33 (4385 days ago) @ xeno6696
"Good" and "evil" are arbitrary judgments. > > We DO however have an obvious tendency to be self-absorbed. This is intensely reinforced in all material cultures, as we place a great focus on the acquisition of wealth. -Is grad school for pleasure only or do you look forward to more money?-I must keep in mind your Eastern thought background. > Still, you haven't demonstrated any real opposition to the idea that when the cards are all on the table, that the truth has always prevailed, money or not.-Granted.
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:16 (4382 days ago) @ David Turell
"Good" and "evil" are arbitrary judgments. > > > > We DO however have an obvious tendency to be self-absorbed. This is intensely reinforced in all material cultures, as we place a great focus on the acquisition of wealth. > > Is grad school for pleasure only or do you look forward to more money? > -It's funny you ask this, because since being "diagnosed" as a father, I've been giving intense scrutiny to this. -The answer is: No. -One of my best friends has one semester of college education, and he leads a programming team making > $90k/yr. -Another of my friends has only 5yrs experience and just got a position making $87k/yr.-If cash is my motive, no, I don't need a master's. Technical expertise earns as much as low-executive management. -The Master's is purely for me. It will broaden my possibilities for sure, but in the tech industry, a Master's means a broader array of options than it does for $. The tiebreaker in all computing fields is experience. (Meritocracy.) -> I must keep in mind your Eastern thought background. > -Heh. You forgot about that. Eastern thought moralizes less and concentrates more on knowledge: We do bad things because we don't know better, rather than having a nature predisposed to "evil." It's a much more humanistic approach. -> > Still, you haven't demonstrated any real opposition to the idea that when the cards are all on the table, that the truth has always prevailed, money or not. > > Granted.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 15, 2012, 19:15 (4386 days ago) @ David Turell
Well, I honestly think in most of these cases it has MUCH more to do with pride than money. > > > > I'm not trying to overly downplay money--it's always a powerful driver, but watching the people that are in grad school with me... they're not money grubbing assholes. > > > > I'm also not trying to write off what "bad" scientists are doing, but I totally understand why things like this happen. > > I'll grant you the pride/ego part in ivory towers but we are talking about business-driven cancer research. These folks with Ph.D.s are on hire to produce money-making drugs. And they are paid well. Money will always beat pride as a force.-Another:-http://www.nndb.com/people/593/000203981/-{There's a long history of mathematicians eschewing prizes, back to antiquity. However the russian dude is preventing me from finding the historical list.}
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2012, 19:30 (4386 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Another: > > http://www.nndb.com/people/593/000203981/ > > {There's a long history of mathematicians eschewing prizes, back to antiquity. However the russian dude is preventing me from finding the historical list.}-All you are proving is that some ivory tower math geniuses are moral. And I know you are moral. Take off the rose colored glasses.
How reliable is science? --Anthropology
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, April 16, 2012, 00:36 (4386 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Another: > > > > http://www.nndb.com/people/593/000203981/ > > > > {There's a long history of mathematicians eschewing prizes, back to antiquity. However the russian dude is preventing me from finding the historical list.} > > All you are proving is that some ivory tower math geniuses are moral. And I know you are moral. Take off the rose colored glasses.-David, I go to school with these same people that you're essentially blanketing with the label "money-grubbing liars."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How reliable is science?
An article tucked away in today's Guardian:-"A new finding has cast doubt on the theory that ancestors of modern humans interbred with Neanderthals over thousands of years. Scientists have redated fossil bones from two sites in southern Spain and discovered they are much older than previously thought. According to the new evidence, it is unlikely Neanderthals and modern humans ever lived together in the region. Researchers now think the Neanderthals had long gone before the arrival of homo sapiens. Since the 1990s experts have believed the last Neanderthals sought refuge in the Spanish peninsula and died out around 30,000 years ago. That would have provided easily enough time for the Neanderthals to have mixed their DNA with that of modern humans, who are believed to have colonized Spain more than 10,000 years earlier. But research from Oxford University reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using an improved dating method, indicates that the Neanderthal occupation of Spain only lasted until around 45,000 to 50,000 years ago, That traces of Neanderthal DNA can be found in people today may be due to them having a common ancestor."-Science of course is an ongoing process of discovery, revision, correction, and today's sensational revelation will become tomorrow's oops. So how much of today's science should we believe? When scientists announce that the Big Bang happened about 13.77 bya, Earth is about 4.55 billion years old, life began about 3.8 bya, homo sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years, why the heck should we believe a word of it? (These figures have changed anyway since I opened this thread!) If improved dating methods show a mistake of 15-20,000 years within a comparatively recent period, maybe improved dating methods 10, 100, 1000 years from now will show that all the current dates (not to mention some of the current theories) are way off target. We laymen have no way of knowing how trustworthy the so-called experts are, past or present, but in matters relating to the history of the universe and of life on Earth, a healthy dose of scepticism might not come amiss.
How reliable is science?
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 05, 2013, 15:50 (4090 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Tuesday, February 05, 2013, 16:00
dhw: An article tucked away in today's Guardian: > That traces of Neanderthal DNA can be found in people today may be due to them having a common ancestor[/i]."-That sentence in the Guardian is also pure supposition. Spain is not the only place the sapiens and the Neanders co-existed. Thre are lots of DNA admixtures in studies done elsewhere in the world, and although I am not an expert, the DNA experts never hark back to 'it is all due to a common ancester'.-Source article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130204153714.htm-> > dhw:Science of course is an ongoing process of discovery, revision, correction, and today's sensational revelation will become tomorrow's oops. So how much of today's science should we believe? We laymen have no way of knowing how trustworthy the so-called experts are, past or present, but in matters relating to the history of the universe and of life on Earth, a healthy dose of scepticism might not come amiss.-Well stated. Those dates are theoretical history, never exact, but useful approximations. They tell us that life arrived rather quickly. That is a key finding, not that there is a plus or minus to the time interval.
How reliable is science? Perhaps not very
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 19, 2015, 04:56 (3165 days ago) @ David Turell
When studies are carefully monitored positive results tend to vanish:-http://www.nature.com/news/registered-clinical-trials-make-positive-findings-vanish-1.18181-"The launch of the clinicaltrials.gov registry in 2000 seems to have had a striking impact on reported trial results, according to a PLoS ONE study1 that many researchers have been talking about online in the past week.-"A 1997 US law mandated the registry's creation, requiring researchers from 2000 to record their trial methods and outcome measures before collecting data. The study found that in a sample of 55 large trials testing heart-disease treatments, 57% of those published before 2000 reported positive effects from the treatments. But that figure plunged to just 8% in studies that were conducted after 2000. Study author Veronica Irvin, a health scientist at Oregon State University in Corvallis, says this suggests that registering clinical studies is leading to more rigorous research. Writing on his NeuroLogica Blog, neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, called the study “encouraging” but also “a bit frightening” because it casts doubt on previous positive results.-***-"Many online observers applauded the evident power of registration and transparency, including Novella, who wrote on his blog that all research involving humans should be registered before any data are collected. However, he says, this means that at least half of older, published clinical trials could be false positives. “Loose scientific methods are leading to a massive false positive bias in the literature,” he writes.-***-"Still, of all the factors they studied, Irvin and Kaplan say that registration had strongest effect, even though it cannot erase all bias — even registered clinical studies showing positive results should be viewed with “healthy scepticism”, Irvin says. “Too often, the audience only reads the headline and the abstract.” It is only when you take a close look at the study details — such as effect sizes and response rates — that you can judge whether a result is likely to be clinically meaningful, she says."
Radiometric Dating
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 12:28 (3467 days ago) @ dhw
I follow this guys news letters every month, and for an engineer, he makes some very well reasoned arguments. -http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i1f.htm
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Radiometric Dating
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 15:51 (3467 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I follow this guys news letters every month, and for an engineer, he makes some very well reasoned arguments. > > http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i1f.htm-Interesting article. I've seen many times the statement that the various dating methods agreed within 20%. The CMB studies' conclusion that the universe is 13.78 billion years old seems to give us 'old-age' creation. Your version of 'God creating' appears to me to make you an 'old-Earth' creationist. Would you describe yourself that way in your thinking? Do you doubt the CMB conclusion?
Radiometric Dating
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 21:24 (3467 days ago) @ David Turell
I follow this guys news letters every month, and for an engineer, he makes some very well reasoned arguments. > > > > http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i1f.htm > > Interesting article. I've seen many times the statement that the various dating methods agreed within 20%. The CMB studies' conclusion that the universe is 13.78 billion years old seems to give us 'old-age' creation. Your version of 'God creating' appears to me to make you an 'old-Earth' creationist. Would you describe yourself that way in your thinking? Do you doubt the CMB conclusion?-There is a reason they match like that. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html- "Juggling" is also performed by geochronologists in this K-Ar system. Here the actual observed branching ratio is not used, but rather a small ratio is arbitrarily chosen in an effort to match dates obtained method with U-Th-Pb dates.-I doubt a lot of science. I honestly don't know enough about CMB detection and the errors involved to make an educated argument against it though. I will say this. I have long held that our theories regarding space and the nature of creation in general were mistaken in major ways, particularly with the issues surrounding baic assumptions such as gravity. Because gravity would affect the red shift that they use to 'measure' the age of the CMB, it does bring it into question.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Radiometric Dating
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 22:52 (3467 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I follow this guys news letters every month, and for an engineer, he makes some very well reasoned arguments. > > > > > > http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i1f.htm > > > > Interesting article. I've seen many times the statement that the various dating methods agreed within 20%. The CMB studies' conclusion that the universe is 13.78 billion years old seems to give us 'old-age' creation. Your version of 'God creating' appears to me to make you an 'old-Earth' creationist. Would you describe yourself that way in your thinking? Do you doubt the CMB conclusion? > > There is a reason they match like that. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html- > Tony: I will say this. I have long held that our theories regarding space and the nature of creation in general were mistaken in major ways, particularly with the issues surrounding basic assumptions such as gravity. Because gravity would affect the red shift that they use to 'measure' the age of the CMB, it does bring it into question.-Interesting point about gravity and the CMB. Surely they took that into account. So how old do you think the universe is, close to their estimate or not? Thanks for another interesting website.
Radiometric Dating
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 23:45 (3467 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: I will say this. I have long held that our theories regarding space and the nature of creation in general were mistaken in major ways, particularly with the issues surrounding basic assumptions such as gravity. Because gravity would affect the red shift that they use to 'measure' the age of the CMB, it does bring it into question. > >David: Interesting point about gravity and the CMB. Surely they took that into account. So how old do you think the universe is, close to their estimate or not? Thanks for another interesting website.-Honestly, I have know idea. While it's age is, to me at least, not a settled issue, it really doesn't change anything for me. I just don't know how accurate they are. It does have some fairly major implications for other calculations though, such as the age of the Earth and the timeline of everything, but in the grand scheme of things, these issues have kind of taken a back burner for me. Their estimates could be spot on, for all I know. The problem with trying to take gravity into account is that they can't explain it, so they can't really account for its effects. They just make an assumption and roll with it.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Radiometric Dating
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 01:06 (3467 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony:The problem with trying to take gravity into account is that they can't explain it, so they can't really account for its effects. They just make an assumption and roll with it.-I thought that gavity had been measured as a force, even if they can't fit it into the equations, as shown in this website, and I could have used any one of many:-http://www.focus.org.uk/gravity.php-"The electrostatic force is a billion billion billion billion times stronger than the force of gravity (1036 times stronger). It you are a chemist and you are interested in how atoms react with each other, you do not need to worry about gravity. It is too weak to make any difference."
Radiometric Dating
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 01:45 (3467 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony:The problem with trying to take gravity into account is that they can't explain it, so they can't really account for its effects. They just make an assumption and roll with it. > > I thought that gavity had been measured as a force, even if they can't fit it into the equations, as shown in this website, and I could have used any one of many: > > http://www.focus.org.uk/gravity.php > > "The electrostatic force is a billion billion billion billion times stronger than the force of gravity (1036 times stronger). It you are a chemist and you are interested in how atoms react with each other, you do not need to worry about gravity. It is too weak to make any difference."-No, it has not been measured as 'a force'. The have a number that they use for it that seems to work, but they don't understand how or why it works.- "Verlinde posits that gravity results from objects that had been stretched apart from one another and are just relaxing back into more "comfortable" positions. In this view, "Newton's law of gravity emerges in a surprisingly simple fashion."1 He told The New York Times, "We've known for a long time gravity doesn't exist. It's time to yell it."-http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/ http://www.icr.org/article/physicist-questions-gravitys-existence/
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Radiometric Dating
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 02:06 (3467 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> tony: No, it has not been measured as 'a force'. They have a number that they use for it that seems to work, but they don't understand how or why it works. > > > "Verlinde posits that gravity results from objects that had been stretched apart from one another and are just relaxing back into more "comfortable" positions. In this view, "Newton's law of gravity emerges in a surprisingly simple fashion."1 He told The New York Times, "We've known for a long time gravity doesn't exist. It's time to yell it." > > http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity > http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/ > http://www.icr.org/article/physicist-questions-gravitys-existence/-Verlinde's theory is very interesting and possibly true, but there are critics of course:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Criticism_and_experimental_tests-I won't be here in the next 25 years to find out. I hope it is a way out of string theory, a 40 year dead end.