What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[sayak83]

Well, that is certainly a good question. They have been trained with facts from science, and the PhD engineers do use the scientific method, but the rank and file would not, for me, be scientists.



The ones I tend to classify as scientists: physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists. Psychology straddles the boundary--it's trying but hasn't quite reached it. Medical research also often straddles the boundary: if they would set their significant p values to something like .001 instead of .05, it would help immensely. Sociology is NOT science as it is currently done.

Engineers are mostly technicians. They usually don't use the scientific method, but instead memorize a bunch of received results and use them to design things. Very, very seldom do they actually use the scientific method.

Doctors are mostly technicians also. Most practicing doctors do not use the scientific method. They use logic and memorized material about how the body and medicines work, but your typical doctor isn't doing research.

There is a HUGE problem even getting good scientific information out to technologists. Part of the reason is that the relevant scientists aren't aware of what the technologists are actually using in practice. And part of the reason is that most technologists have only limited 'updates' to their stock of information as required in professional programs.

One quibble. The research faculty at the engineering departments of MIT or Stanford etc. fall under the scientist category. Probably a lot of bio-tech or robotics research in Silicon valley would qualify to. In general research engineers fall under the scientist category....so like those who are working in quantum computing, renewable energy development and battery technology etc.

 

[Polymath257]

One quibble. The research faculty at the engineering departments of MIT or Stanford etc. fall under the scientist category. Probably a lot of bio-tech or robotics research in Silicon valley would qualify to. In general research engineers fall under the scientist category....so like those who are working in quantum computing, renewable energy development and battery technology etc.

I'd agree.

 

[sayak83]

OK, so, acknowledging what you say, and since you mention that engineers generally 'find it hard to understand anything remotely refined' I begin to wonder why they are recognised generally as scientists?

And this wide group of 'engineers' produce a vast range of differing products and machines, from public highways, frames for buildings, aircraft, ships and more, on to jet rocket motors....... and their university academic degrees (here in the UK) are all BSc and Msc.

I begin to realise that some groups of scientists see only themselves as such, and would class other groups as 'quasi' or 'pseudo' scientists........ is this about right?

You need a PhD degree at a minimum to even be a scientist. Not all with PhD's will be scientists though. Bachelors and Masters degree give you training in applying science, but to become a scientist, you need to do original research...which they don't do.

 

[Polymath257]

You need a PhD degree at a minimum to even be a scientist. Not all with PhD's will be scientists though. Bachelors and Masters degree give you training in applying science, but to become a scientist, you need to do original research...which they don't do.

There is a valid, and problematic, point that the vast majority of society regards ALL engineers and doctors as scientists, not to mention psychologists and sociologists. And, truthfully, I think this is part of why there is so much skepticism about science.

When medical researchers use a p<.05 as significant, it means that a HUGE amount of the medical literature out there is flat out wrong. And, given how recommendations about any number of things from food to medicines have changed every decade or so, it is easy to see why the general public is distrustful. This is potentially the realm of science that will most affect their lives and the research is, frankly, poor way too often. And that also means that the *good* research is presented as equivalent to the bad when it gets down to the journalists.

 

[sayak83]

There is a valid, and problematic, point that the vast majority of society regards ALL engineers and doctors as scientists, not to mention psychologists and sociologists. And, truthfully, I think this is part of why there is so much skepticism about science.

When medical researchers use a p<.05 as significant, it means that a HUGE amount of the medical literature out there is flat out wrong. And, given how recommendations about any number of things from food to medicines have changed every decade or so, it is easy to see why the general public is distrustful. This is potentially the realm of science that will most affect their lives and the research is, frankly, poor way too often. And that also means that the *good* research is presented as equivalent to the bad when it gets down to the journalists.

I think we have much better medicines for ailments of mice than ailments of man.
But vaccines work. Antibiotics, if not overused, also work. HIV treatment has shown radical improvements in prolonging the quality of life. But food advice, lifestyle advice and vitamin pills are worthless. Most lotions and cosmetics are of dubious benefit and probably harmful.

 

[Audie]

In each case the alternative is far more complex than anything we understand.

-String theory is a perspective of reality generated by math.
-Evolution is a perspective of species change imparted by creatures who can only observe in the very short term and the here and now.
-"Global warming" is an example of hubris of people who think we are powerful enough to cause global destruction, smart enough to predict it, and wise enough to prevent it through politics driven not by reduction of waste or "greenhouse gasses" but by the funneling money and power to the well connected.

We live in a world built with an infinite number ramps where the omniscient are powerful, wise, and smart enough through survival of the fittest to stop its own self destruction by rewarding itself at the expense of those less fit and less suited to their environment.

Or maybe we don't live in a world that flies in the face of logic and common sense. Maybe we are all seeing what we believe instead of what's there.

No hubris invoved in saying we could ( since we are)
causing a mas extinction.
Creating a geological marker that will be
obvious and highly recognizable for hundreds
of millions of years.
Creating millions of sq. mi of desert.
All that w/ o meaning to.

Then there is what we could do with a few thousand
hydrogen bombs.


As for believing and seeing what and only what one
wishes that is what religion really encourages, isnt it?

 

[oldbadger]

Well, that is certainly a good question. They have been trained with facts from science, and the PhD engineers do use the scientific method, but the rank and file would not, for me, be scientists.

The ones I tend to classify as scientists: physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists. Psychology straddles the boundary--it's trying but hasn't quite reached it. Medical research also often straddles the boundary: if they would set their significant p values to something like .001 instead of .05, it would help immensely. Sociology is NOT science as it is currently done.

Engineers are mostly technicians. They usually don't use the scientific method, but instead memorize a bunch of received results and use them to design things. Very, very seldom do they actually use the scientific method.

Doctors are mostly technicians also. Most practicing doctors do not use the scientific method. They use logic and memorized material about how the body and medicines work, but your typical doctor isn't doing research.

There is a HUGE problem even getting good scientific information out to technologists. Part of the reason is that the relevant scientists aren't aware of what the technologists are actually using in practice. And part of the reason is that most technologists have only limited 'updates' to their stock of information as required in professional programs.

That more or less has nailed my earliest studies to some 'learn-it-repeat-it' badge, rather than the science that it was claimed to be. 53 years ago I worked in the Timber Trade, and the company's personnel manager was teacher-qualified to deliver training in a subject called 'Timber Technology'. We learned about the identification, properties, characteristics and uses of timbers from all over the World, at least the ones that the Trade had or was importing. And when we passed the final examinations after two years of day-release studies we could join the Institute of Wood Science as certificated members. I went on to more advanced courses, but all the way through I much preferred the 'Timber Technology' title. I certainly never felt like any kind of scientist!

But the title 'Science' sells products and services much more efficiently than most others, and as already discussed it works brilliantly as a truth-pill for surveys, advertisements, news reports etc......... so it must irritate you somewhat to be surrounded by the pseudos, quasi-s and quacks!

This is one of the reasons that I 'bit' onto this thread, I'm not anti-science, I'm simply anti-imposters, quacks, quasi-s and pseudos.

 

[Polymath257]

That more or less has nailed my earliest studies to some 'learn-it-repeat-it' badge, rather than the science that it was claimed to be. 53 years ago I worked in the Timber Trade, and the company's personnel manager was teacher-qualified to deliver training in a subject called 'Timber Technology'. We learned about the identification, properties, characteristics and uses of timbers from all over the World, at least the ones that the Trade had or was importing. And when we passed the final examinations after two years of day-release studies we could join the Institute of Wood Science as certificated members. I went on to more advanced courses, but all the way through I much preferred the 'Timber Technology' title. I certainly never felt like any kind of scientist!

But the title 'Science' sells products and services much more efficiently than most others, and as already discussed it works brilliantly as a truth-pill for surveys, advertisements, news reports etc......... so it must irritate you somewhat to be surrounded by the pseudos, quasi-s and quacks!

This is one of the reasons that I 'bit' onto this thread, I'm not anti-science, I'm simply anti-imposters, quacks, quasi-s and pseudos.

Yes, but it also irritates me when valid science is ignored because it is lumped in with the quasi-s. This happens mostly with science relevant to politics: creationism and climate science deniers. But you see it in many conspiracy theories also.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Could Erik von Daniken be right?
The more life supporting planets we find, so the more interesting his theories could become.

I once read one of his books about this ... can't remember the name. Anyway, his "evidence" was that there was no evidence, since the aliens would have taken it all with them to hide it from us. Which of course made me laugh out loud, put the book down and walk away from it.

 

[sayak83]

That more or less has nailed my earliest studies to some 'learn-it-repeat-it' badge, rather than the science that it was claimed to be. 53 years ago I worked in the Timber Trade, and the company's personnel manager was teacher-qualified to deliver training in a subject called 'Timber Technology'. We learned about the identification, properties, characteristics and uses of timbers from all over the World, at least the ones that the Trade had or was importing. And when we passed the final examinations after two years of day-release studies we could join the Institute of Wood Science as certificated members. I went on to more advanced courses, but all the way through I much preferred the 'Timber Technology' title. I certainly never felt like any kind of scientist!

But the title 'Science' sells products and services much more efficiently than most others, and as already discussed it works brilliantly as a truth-pill for surveys, advertisements, news reports etc......... so it must irritate you somewhat to be surrounded by the pseudos, quasi-s and quacks!

This is one of the reasons that I 'bit' onto this thread, I'm not anti-science, I'm simply anti-imposters, quacks, quasi-s and pseudos.

Termites have got the wood science nailed.

 

[cladking]

No hubris invoved in saying we could ( since we are)
causing a mas extinction.
Creating a geological marker that will be
obvious and highly recognizable for hundreds
of millions of years.
Creating millions of sq. mi of desert.
All that w/ o meaning to.

Then there is what we could do with a few thousand
hydrogen bombs.


As for believing and seeing what and only what one
wishes that is what religion really encourages, isnt it?

What does a culture do to a petrie dish?

It exterminates or prevents other cultures from growing.

All life should be thought of as an infestation; a living and often beneficial infestation but an infestation nonetheless.

 

[Audie]

What does a culture do to a petrie dish?

It exterminates or prevents other cultures from growing.

All life should be thought of as an infestation; a living and often beneficial infestation but an infestation nonetheless.

"Should"?

In the event, life exists far more by mutual interdependence than your bleak
"exterminates" thing, which is true with
penicillin mold but is not generally so.

 

[cladking]

If they didn't evolve naturally, then cladking, what could the alternative be?

Species didn't "evolve" because none of the mechanisms proposed by biologists are sufficient to drive the change in species that is observed and the "theory" fails to support observation as well. Most change occurs at population bottlenecks which select for BEHAVIOR and not fitness.

Most change in species represented on earth occurred before there was life on earth. Earth was like a giant petrie dish that got seeded from the outside naturally. True terrestrial life exists only in the deep oceans at the expanding plate boundaries. All other life on earth originated elsewhere from a single source.

 

[cladking]

"Should"?

In the event, life exists far more by mutual interdependence than your bleak
"exterminates" thing, which is true with
penicillin mold but is not generally so.

A species grows to occupy its entire niche. It grows so long as there is food and proper conditions for each individual. Eventually it exceeds its niche and dies back.

Humans are continually expanding their niche because language allows the accumulation of knowledge generationally. Obviously as humans expand species which are marginal or occupy land needed by humans are prone to become extinct.

We could always start killing off humans to save spotted owls and fancy islands for the rich.

 

[Polymath257]

Species didn't "evolve" because none of the mechanisms proposed by biologists are sufficient to drive the change in species that is observed and the "theory" fails to support observation as well. Most change occurs at population bottlenecks which select for BEHAVIOR and not fitness.

I suspect you have *evidence* for these claims?

Most change in species represented on earth occurred before there was life on earth. Earth was like a giant petrie dish that got seeded from the outside naturally. True terrestrial life exists only in the deep oceans at the expanding plate boundaries. All other life on earth originated elsewhere from a single source.

I suppose you have *evidence* for these claims?

 

[Audie]

Species didn't "evolve" because none of the mechanisms proposed by biologists are sufficient to drive the change in species that is observed and the "theory" fails to support observation as well. Most change occurs at population bottlenecks which select for BEHAVIOR and not fitness.

Most change in species represented on earth occurred before there was life on earth. Earth was like a giant petrie dish that got seeded from the outside naturally. True terrestrial life exists only in the deep oceans at the expanding plate boundaries. All other life on earth originated elsewhere from a single source.

You are just making assertions here.

You wont get anywhere with them, not with people
who have spent many hours of their lives in lecture,
lab, field, library and thought in an actual effort to learn biology / geology / evolution.

IF you can take any one of your many assertions
and defend it with data, great!

Otherwise, are going to sound, and be, like me
trying to do the after game show for a football game.
The wrap up.

See if you can guess how long the audience
would put up with me when I see in a fame is
that the guys line up, throw a ball, knock eachother
down, and the a whistle blows, the clock stops,
and the line up again.

I-kinda-? think you knowledge of biology would
be like my knowledge of football.

But please show us I am wrong.

 

[Audie]

A species grows to occupy its entire niche. It grows so long as there is food and proper conditions for each individual. Eventually it exceeds its niche and dies back.

.

No.

That is a rare situation, usually only made possible
through human intervention.

 

[Audie]

I suspect you have *evidence* for these claims?



I suppose you have *evidence* for these claims?

One at a time will do.

Evidence for just one will be far more than enough.

 

[cladking]

I suspect you have *evidence* for these claims?



I suppose you have *evidence* for these claims?

Everything known is evidence. Everything observed is evidence. No matter how many times I present the evidence it is dismissed as an irrelevancy. Change in species is driven by individual consciousness and behavior not suitability, adaptability, or fitness. Just look around. Look at what has actually happened.

You can't show evidence (EXPERIMENT) that contradicts this observation. Everything you think contradicts it is interpretation and not evidence itself.

Across the board there are broad based (language based) errors in all the soft sciences and now days even cosmology has many aspects of soft science. Don't look at me to tell you what the reality is because I don't know. I just know where to look and how to find it.

I have a dinosaur computer and can't surf this site. Ads jump right into the dialog box and take over. I'll be back when I have a new computer.

 

[Sunstone]

You can't show evidence (EXPERIMENT) that contradicts this observation. Everything you think contradicts it is interpretation and not evidence itself.
.

In other words, your notions are non-falsifiable, and therefore, logically incapable of being put to any serious test. Much like the ideas that all women suffer from penis envy or that all men wish to marry their mothers.