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

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 12:29 (4376 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.