How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7) (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 03:21 (4599 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.\"