Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if material is immaterial?
#11
(08-08-2017, 08:17 PM)stanky Wrote:  Often fails.
Often corrupted.

What percentage of the time has peer-reviewed science been found to be wrong or corrupted?

I'm betting it's a really small number.

Obviously, there will be mistakes, and the fact that you can point to any failures or corruption shows that it works.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#12
TA, Shiner: Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

stanky: You've got a real bitch with science and the scientific method. Can't fathom why, but it's clearly there to everyone but you. At the risk of repeating myself, you confabulate the method of science with the fallible humans who use it.

The method itself isn't to blame. The humans who use it are. Perhaps someday, we'll arrive at the perfection you seek.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#13
I just lost a post. Simply wouldn't go.

Point was, if there was a flaw in the method, would we be so committed that we could miss it?

If so, I'd claim that would be analogous to a religious style conviction.

Do I think there could be a flaw in the method?
That it might need an up-date of some sort, to accommodate the implications of a vast new flow of information?

sure.

No problem.

Could peer review become corrupt in it's own way? Much like religion is capable of doing?

Fuck yeah.

The notion that we have come across an infallible method for deriving the truth is slightly closed minded.

The method , quite possibly, by design, has isolated itself from other useful dimensions.

At any rate, the age of science is wondrous.

And helpless.
Reply
#14
As I've said before, science only exists in the minds of the human species, just as religion does.
The universe doesn't follow scientific rules, it makes them.
One, the scientific  'mind construct' can be proven by methods also devised by the human mind, religion can't.

Both though inspire a kind of rigid faith,  and therein lies the problem as I see it.
 
Concluding that all has been answered precludes encouragement to look further into things that are already adequately explained to see if there may be further complexities within them that don't affect the overall truth of the equation, but that may lead to finding other fields of study not previously considered.  

While the notion that perhaps 'peer pressure' smothers dissent among scientists seems beyond acceptance to many, it sure isn't to me. They're human beings. It happens. Career scientists aren't going to risk getting that new tenure by bucking the system. Some heroes may, but I'll bet that human nature makes them rare.

Medical science is a good example, many breakthroughs were made by the mental connection that some ingredient in one potion may lead to tweaking another for different purpose.

Nutritional science is a good example of how that good old human fallibility manipulates science to it's own benefit.
They find new miracle foods, and make new discoveries of how what was good for us last week will kill us the next with alarming regularity.

Can't vouch for Nutritional Science but in 'genuine' scientific pursuits the hard proven facts are seldom at issue.  It is the interpretation of their best uses that is questionable.  

The radiation output from Sol is pretty well  calculated but that doesn't prevent "scientists" selling one particular brand of sun block cream over another .. 'cos ... "Scientifically proven improvements.."   The Sun's output doesn't change depending on the brand of lotion we use.

Do we instantly go buy that product 'cos science?  Do we go and buy Goji berries .. 'cos science?  Or a particular brand of toothpaste 'cos the TV dentist is better looking than the rival brands?   
We reserve a degree of cynicism about any science that is attached to selling things.  .. or totally reliant on vested interest funding.              
Don't we???
Reply
#15
The Universe doesn't make anything Di, it simply is. Stank: There is no flaw in the method. Only the people who use it.

People who buy shit because they get sucked in by the brand of 'science' are fools. They clearly haven't done their home work as stankster so often admonishes us to do.

Point is, there is no flaw in a self correcting method. (Keep in mind that religions are not self correcting) If you still think so stank, please be more specific.

Science being attached to selling things is nothing more than fucking advertising. Surprised you'd be confused by this fact Di.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#16
(08-08-2017, 09:15 PM)stanky Wrote:  Point was, if there was a flaw in the method, would we be so committed that we could miss it?

Can't happen, because the tests and results are there to be re-tested any time. Anyone can go and search papers and replicate the experiments.

There was a classic case a few years back of some quite young maths prodigy, who was believed to have solved some intractable algorithm. She had the glitterati of the maths world hailing her achievement, then a couple of years later, it was finally proved incorrect.

(08-08-2017, 09:15 PM)stanky Wrote:  Do I think there could be a flaw in the method?

Given the above, how can it have any?

(08-08-2017, 09:15 PM)stanky Wrote:  That it might need an up-date of some sort, to accommodate the implications of a vast new flow of information?

Without explanation of what this "vast new flow of information" is, and where it suddenly appeared from, that's just word salad.

(08-08-2017, 09:15 PM)stanky Wrote:  Could peer review become corrupt in it's own way? Much like religion is capable of doing?

Fuck yeah.

Fuck no.

People can be corrupt - the method cannot.

Take Pythagoras. Science & maths are so timid of making concrete statements that it's only a theory. It's not the Rule of Pythagoras. At any time, any part of science is there to be refined, restructured, or disproved entirely. You can't be more honest than that.

(08-08-2017, 09:15 PM)stanky Wrote:  The notion that we have come across an infallible  method for deriving the truth is slightly closed minded.

We must keep an open mind, but not so open our brains fall out.

Sagan

There is a limit to "what if".

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  As I've said before, science only exists in the minds of the human species, just as religion does.
The universe doesn't follow scientific rules, it makes them.

Nope, the universe doesn't make anything. It conforms to a set of laws that we have discovered. Whether or not we know about them, the universe will continue to act the same way. Helium won't naturally bind with other atoms, and it will always have more mass than hydrogen.

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Concluding that all has been answered ...

I can't recall anyone ever having said that.

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  While the notion that perhaps 'peer pressure' smothers dissent among scientists seems beyond acceptance to many, it sure isn't to me.  They're human beings.  It happens.  Career scientists aren't going to risk getting that new tenure by bucking the system.  Some heroes may, but I'll bet that human nature makes them rare.  

Except that's not how it works. When scientist A discovers something new, scientists all over the world, completely unconnected to the original, will replicate it. This is why scientific fraud always gets caught. It may take a while, but fakes are always exposed.

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Medical science is a good example, many breakthroughs were made by the mental connection that some ingredient in one potion may lead to tweaking another for different purpose.

I'm not sure reality conforms to that. Most medical breakthroughs have been completely accidental, or the result of trying millions of different answers in the hope one works. Penicillin? Accidental. Viagra? There's a cancer treatment I can't relocate which was discovered when a number of patients were treated for some different disease and the cancer reduced in size. May have been Keytruda. I'd have to check, but the annals of medical science are littered with crazy coincidences and accidental findings.

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Nutritional science is a good example of how that good old human fallibility manipulates science to it's own benefit.

Now you're back on marketing and not science. Nutritional science is a piece of cake - we know what nutrients are required & where they come from. We know that calories in less calories out leads to weight loss or gain - there are no secrets.

That people make money off fat fucks by selling them bullshit isn't science's responsibility.

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  They find new miracle foods, and make new discoveries of how what was good for us last week will kill us the next with alarming regularity.

Media, not science. Media report dodgy, unconfirmed science, and there was a classic the other day - predictably from the Fail. It made some claim about certain proteins stopping obesity.

Truth was, it had given results in mice, but alas, thousands of things that work on meeces don't work at all - or are dangerous - to humans.

You going to blame the scientists for that?

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  The radiation output from Sol is pretty well  calculated but that doesn't prevent "scientists" selling one particular brand of sun block cream over another .. 'cos ... "Scientifically proven improvements.."   The Sun's output doesn't change depending on the brand of lotion we use.

Marketing, not science.

(08-08-2017, 10:49 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  We reserve a degree of cynicism about any science that is attached to selling things.  .. or totally reliant on vested interest funding.              
Don't we???

I sure am, but not of the science, only the claims made in its name.

It's actually ridiculously easy to check, but hardly anyone does.

(08-08-2017, 11:29 PM)sparks Wrote:  The Universe doesn't make anything Di, it simply is.  Stank:  There is no flaw in the method.  Only the people who use it.

People who buy shit because they get sucked in by the brand of 'science' are fools.  They clearly haven't done their home work as stankster so often admonishes us to do.

Point is, there is no flaw in a self correcting method. (Keep in mind that religions are not self correcting) If you still think so stank, please be more specific.

Science being attached to selling things is nothing more than fucking advertising.  Surprised you'd be confused by this fact Di.

Looks like we're pretty in tune here!

Bolding mine - how can there be?
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#17
Infallibility.
Reply
#18
Okay, brick wall defense.  What part of .. "it's not about the science it's about the USE of it" isn't getting across??

Of course "it's marketing not science" etc TA!  that IS the bloody point.   People's total faith, almost 'religious' faith in anything proffered as being 'scientifically proven' is where the problem lies.

You and Sparks are sounding a little like the gun lobby. paraphrasing may help  " It's not science who kills people, it's people using science to kill people and defending their right to do so."

Saw a chilling example last night.  http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/ai-race/
Interviews with robotics scientists.  One in particular was derogatory of those old Asimov 'Laws of Robotics' ..he scoffed that they are only a literary tool to pad out a good story.   .. True.  But they made sense and gave comfort to those who still value ethics, and survival.  

He was contemptuous of robotic ethics, while in the same interview expressed concern that too much of AI robotics research is focused on military applications.

What's wrong with that picture??  

It seems the 3 'laws' must be discarded because that would prevent building AI robots to kill people. 
Not said in those words, but in that vein.
This man is a scientist and no I can't recall his name.  He at least looked a little uncomfortable, and was speaking honestly, and I think that was the most chilling thing about it.   He seemed totally disconnected from the reality of building intelligent killing machines able to work independently from human control, and human ethics, if any exist in the military.

Christ didn't he ever see the Terminator movies??

Why are scientists still building and researching these kind of AI robots while they scratch their heads over the ethics of doing it?   Why don't they all just clear their desks and stop all progress until there are set guidelines  ... and peer review... in place??

Another quasi guru on another panel show expressed the view ..paraphrased.  "I don't think anyone would object to robots who could kill all ISIS fighters without the level of collateral damage we see now."   ... seriously??

How much more intelligent than the average human grunt would it have to be to be to be capable of identifying someone fighting for ISIS over someone fighting for e.g. the Kurds?   They all look the bloody same!

You cite 'marketing' 'media hype' etc as having no bearing on science.  Well a rock is still a rock until someone smashes into someone else's head.  A gun is just a lump of metal until someone fires it.  Science is just an explanation of how the universe works until someone NOT a scientist decides that nuclear fission has more uses than to polish the ego of the scientist who 'discovered' it.

You can't conveniently separate the method that ensures the integrity of the rock from the uses the rock is put to!  That ain't 'skepticism and critical thinking' that is naive faith that assaying the 'rock' is all there is to it.

When I say that science exists only in the minds of humans I mean that the  understanding of the laws of physics exists only in human minds.  No other species gives a shit about it.
 No species needs to know the distance to Alpha Proxima to exist.

 It's entirely a mental exercise that humanity indulges in.  Science isn't sacred, it's just a map of what makes things tick. 
It follows that humans, being as they are, will be drawn to the application of it in military pursuits, and in monetary pursuits.   It's what we are, and what we do. 
Science can't be disconnected from the minds and foibles of those who study, and use it.  It doesn't exist anywhere else.    ..  the laws of physics exist, but the understanding of them doesn't.


But never mind, if you crusty ole skeptics refuse to look at more than the shape of the 'rock' and totally ignore the uses it's put to, and by whom, then that won't make me stop eating chocolate.   Knock yourselves out.

Just a suggestion.  I keep getting told to read this or that to educate myself.  I suggest that we all read  "I have no mouth and I must scream" again before we defend AI robotics just 'cos .. science.
Harlan Ellison was one of the great arseholes of the sci-fi literary community but I think he nailed it with that one!
With a lot of his stuff really.  He had/has, (I think he's still kicking,) a dark, dark mind and saw an equally dark future.

You two are quick to quote Orwells stuff relating to social injustices etc, I tend to see things more from Ellison's view of the future.   It ain't even as pretty as Orwell's.

But this is off at a tangent.  The argument is about you having the notion that I'm questioning the facts and figures of science ... not so. 
The parts of the puzzle it has solved is perfectly okay with me.  It's the missing bits I 'whimsy' about that's all.  What is said about the missing bits has no impact whatever on the pieces already found.

.... sigh.
Reply
#19
Marketing is an extracting science.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#20
(08-09-2017, 06:21 PM)Shiner Wrote:  Marketing is an extracting science.

Nailed. [Image: happy0009.gif]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)