What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[exchemist]

As a sometimes-observer of science, not a participant, I get the
idea that most of what goes on is adding data, and the chance to
play hypothesis on any level higher than a "lets try it again at 1
higher temp. and see how it goes" sort of thing is pretty rare.

You have a point. However normally the activity goes on against an existing framework of theories and hypotheses. Natural history is interesting as is gets unusually close to an activity that does not have to have a theoretical framework. I suppose activities like making star catalogues are similar.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Actually I think you can do science without a hypothesis. Observing and classifying natural things is part of science, e.g. what used to be called natural history. But obviously the aim is to detect patterns that can yield hypotheses.

Scientists usually describe the collection of observations as "stamp collecting". It is extremely rare for a peer reviewed paper to not contain hypotheses. Nearly all peer reviewed papers discuss what the results could mean, and they do that through testable hypotheses.

 

[Audie]

You have a point. However normally the activity goes on against an existing framework of theories and hypotheses. Natural history is interesting as is gets unusually close to an activity that does not have to have a theoretical framework. I suppose activities like making star catalogues are similar.

Just for clarity here- new hypotheses come in all grades, from the lets-see-if-a pinch-of-sale-will-help sort up to some pretty grand ones.

The researcher who actually comes up with a theory
is a rarity. And most of those dont really amount to much.

Is that accurate?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Virtually everything that is called "science" today is in actuality technology, statistics, or advanced mathematics.

Could you give an example?

Statistics itself is a hypothesis driven methodology, so I fail to see how the application of statistics is not science. I also don't see how using technology to run experiments is not science, nor do I see how using advanced mathematics to make predictions about experimental results is not science.

Science has become the new religion whose practitioners are far holier than thou than has ever before been achieved. Anything put forth as an hypothesis becomes gospel until even after it has been shown to be wrong. We live among millions of modern days Gods who write a new reality every day and it's never noticed they are all nude.

That isn't the science I am familiar with. Hypotheses are hotly contested until there is enough evidence to support them.

 

[exchemist]

Scientists usually describe the collection of observations as "stamp collecting". It is extremely rare for a peer reviewed paper to not contain hypotheses. Nearly all peer reviewed papers discuss what the results could mean, and they do that through testable hypotheses.

Yes but science does not consist in peer reviewed papers alone. I think we sometimes forget the job of science is not to produce peer-reviewed papers but to learn about nature.

The "stamp-collecting" jibe was if I recall coined by Rutherford, who affected to write off all the sciences other than physics on that basis! But I think it was just a bit of New Zealander-style teasing.

 

[exchemist]

Just for clarity here- new hypotheses come in all grades, from the lets-see-if-a pinch-of-sale-will-help sort up to some pretty grand ones.

The researcher who actually comes up with a theory
is a rarity. And most of those dont really amount to much.

Is that accurate?

Yes. All are engaged in science, and science requires both observations and theories in order to hang together, but each individual generally contributes only a piece or two to the growing mosaic.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes but science does not consist in peer reviewed papers alone.

There is a saying amongst scientists that goes something like, "if it isn't published then it doesn't exist". You may not share their opinion, but that is certainly the attitude within the scientific community.

 

[exchemist]

There is a saying amongst scientists that goes something like, "if it isn't published then it doesn't exist". You may not share their opinion, but that is certainly the attitude within the scientific community.

There is obviously truth in that, since unless you put what you have found into the collective domain it is useless to anyone but you. However I do think far too many scientists are judged today on the quantity they publish rather than its quality and we get a lot of very poorly written papers as a result.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

However I do think far too many scientists are judged today on the quantity they publish rather than its quality and we get a lot of very poorly written papers as a result.

A discussion on that topic would call for its own thread and pages of material.

 

[exchemist]

A discussion on that topic would call for its own thread and pages of material.

Yeah I know.

Some of the worst papers are not even written by scientists. Shockingly, there seem to be swaths of utterly incomprehensible ones emanating from English faculties! So yes a huge (or do we say "yuge", nowadays?) subject.

 

[cladking]

Could you give an example?

Statistics itself is a hypothesis driven methodology, so I fail to see how the application of statistics is not science. I also don't see how using technology to run experiments is not science, nor do I see how using advanced mathematics to make predictions about experimental results is not science.

Almost all "science" now is an example. From evolution to global warming to cigarettes causing cancer are examples.

Mathematics doesn't work because humans invented something so remarkable.. It works because all of reality obeys simple logic and the rules of nature. It matters very much why it words because language obeys no laws at all. Even grammar evolves over time. If you say "smoking" causes "cancer" then it is necessary to define "smoking" and "cancer" and to find the mechanism by which it operates which is obviously different for each individual and each instance of "smoking".

All we can really say is that there is a significant correlation between smoking and cancer and individuals are exposing themselves to this correlation by smoking tobacco.

But applying them in some instances is far less meaningful because terms are more open to interpretation.

"Technology" used for experimentation is only natural. I'm merely saying that a new rocket with new improvements is not science. More accurate measurement is not science. New things to measure is not science (in every instance).

We want to see improvements in the economy and technology as "science" but the reality is cosmology is struck in the 1920's and the other sciences are either based on assumption or taxonomies that haven't withstood knowledge shown by technological advances in most cases. We have a science that is more and more becoming bogged down in semantics, beliefs, and 19th century assumptions.

Here we are and we simply ignore age old beliefs that are falling by the wayside and underlie almost all of science.

That isn't the science I am familiar with. Hypotheses are hotly contested until there is enough evidence to support them.

Real theory is based on experiment. But we are still using outmoded and obsolete perspectives to build models and extrapolate new "knowledge".

 

[ecco]

Science has become the new religion whose practitioners are far holier than thou than has ever before been achieved. Anything put forth as an hypothesis becomes gospel until even after it has been shown to be wrong.

I asked for an example to support your opinion and you gave more opinion.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Almost all "science" now is an example. From evolution to global warming to cigarettes causing cancer are examples.

How are these not science?

If you say "smoking" causes "cancer" then it is necessary to define "smoking" and "cancer" and to find the mechanism by which it operates which is obviously different for each individual and each instance of "smoking".

If I say that smokers get lung cancer at a statistically significant higher frequency than non-smokers, then that is support for the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer. That's science.

We want to see improvements in the economy and technology as "science" but the reality is cosmology is struck in the 1920's and the other sciences are either based on assumption or taxonomies that haven't withstood knowledge shown by technological advances in most cases. We have a science that is more and more becoming bogged down in semantics, beliefs, and 19th century assumptions.

Have you heard of the WMAP and COBE satellites that measured the CMB? What about the multiple surveys of type Ia supernovae over the last decade that were used to measure the expansion of space? These aren't assumptions. These are theories backed by real measurements and real observations.

Real theory is based on experiment. But we are still using outmoded and obsolete perspectives to build models and extrapolate new "knowledge".

How are global warming, evolution, and causes of cancers not experiment based theories within science?

 

[Audie]

Yeah I know.

Some of the worst papers are not even written by scientists. Shockingly, there seem to be swaths of utterly incomprehensible ones emanating from English faculties! So yes a huge (or do we say "yuge", nowadays?) subject.

English dept, they are amateurs. Check out what linguists write.

 

[Audie]

Yes. All are engaged in science, and science requires both observations and theories in order to hang together, but each individual generally contributes only a piece or two to the growing mosaic.

Just a little piece or two?

Rats. And I was so sure that the real science is done
lone wolf / young rebel scientists working secretly and
alone in their labs.

I heard about that, or maybe there was some movie.

 

[oldbadger]

Evade what is asked of you, and come
up with something new to demand of others.
Your games clearly do amuse you.

"Off thro' the treetops", in this case.
Very undignified.

Nope........
You told me that science was not just 'fact'.
I asked for any examples........... you never could answer.

All the evasion was yours.


Bye, Audie........

 

[oldbadger]

Science has become the new religion whose practitioners are far holier than thou than has ever before been achieved. Anything put forth as an hypothesis becomes gospel until even after it has been shown to be wrong. We live among millions of modern days Gods who write a new reality every day and it's never noticed they are all nude.

Yep........
The King is in the altogether, the altogether...........

We used to play 'Simon says', where every command by Simon had to be obeyed, but today the call is 'Science Says!....!!!'

Even the good old BBC feels the need to use this facilitator whereby any News report about Surveys, researches, ideas, etc starts with ... 'Scientists have.....'

The words Science, Scientist, Scientific are the modern Truth Pills. If you want a high % of listeners, readers and watchers to be impressed or believe in what you tell them, you need a good TRUTH PILL, and this word, 'Science' works wonderfully as a truth pill.

 

[oldbadger]

You speak like someone who takes the breathless reports in the newspapers a bit too literally. Dietary fads and so on.

The above was sent to another........... but you could have written that to me.

But that's the idea of such reports, to gain attention, to fill the paper with something to read, and above all, where possible, to trigger the 'Wow!' factor through the use of truth-pills..

'Wow factors' and 'truth pills' don't just sell newspapers, they give credence to what is reported, and cause readers to speak about the article which usually involves making mention of the medium, eg:- 'Did you read the Daily Dimwit today? It says that....'

Years ago I researched 'Truth Pills', their use and identification in 'question-answer' conversations, and they were very interesting for me in my work. And when I see their clumsy use in the media I still laugh out loud. So I'm not just a skeptic, but a facetious one.

 

[Audie]

Nope........
You told me that science was not just 'fact'.
I asked for any examples........... you never could answer.

All the evasion was yours.


Bye, Audie........

You convince nobody but yourself- always the
easiest to fool.

 

[oldbadger]

You convince nobody but yourself- always the
easiest to fool.

Still no examples of how Science is nothing to do with 'fact'.