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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 23:56 (4593 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.\"