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

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, April 20, 2012, 14:45 (4598 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.