Why do scientist "think" they know everything??

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

because we don't object that they think they invented the calculator when it was on our two hands.

This doesn’t seem like a very apt analogy to me. Even the most basic of calculators performs operations that are impossible (or at the very least extremely difficult) to do by counting fingers, since those operations cannot be reduced to steps that utilise only elementary (+,-,*,/) operations - and even those are hard to do with only your fingers, if the numbers are not just nice and clean naturals.

For example, have you lately tried to work out sines, cosines, tangents, exponentials, roots, or logarithms using only your fingers? You’d find that rather difficult. Most calculators do this using the CORDIC algorithm, which requires pre-compiled and hardwired lookup tables - which is something that can’t be replicated by counting fingers only. So clearly, a calculator is more than simply a replacement for finger counting.

[John Cuthber]

Google gives plenty of hits for ""let them think what they like"" and they didn't seem to be about thought control.

There are better things to pick up on than a dubious bit of English idiom.

It's Monday today.

If someone tells you that they think it's Tuesday and you do not correct them then you are letting them think it is Tuesday.

It's also fair to say that  the idea of a calculator is fundamentally the same whether you count fingers or shuffle electrons (or slide bits of wood against eachother).
The distinction you are making is more like the difference between a petrol, diesel or electric car. I could just about accept that the "invention" was to have some sort of temporary record  outside your brain to facilitate arithmetic. How you do that is a matter o technology.

 

I also suspect that you have massively over-analysed a throw-away comment.
 

Edited December 11, 2020 by John Cuthber

[Bartholomew Jones]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This doesn’t seem like a very apt analogy to me. Even the most basic of calculators performs operations that are impossible (or at the very least extremely difficult) to do by counting fingers, since those operations cannot be reduced to steps that utilise only elementary (+,-,*,/) operations - and even those are hard to do with only your fingers, if the numbers are not just nice and clean naturals.

For example, have you lately tried to work out sines, cosines, tangents, exponentials, roots, or logarithms using only your fingers? You’d find that rather difficult. Most calculators do this using the CORDIC algorithm, which requires pre-compiled and hardwired lookup tables - which is something that can’t be replicated by counting fingers only. So clearly, a calculator is more than simply a replacement for finger counting.

You're right.  I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary; I'd rather everyone stay close to home and get around on mules when they had to.  Yeah, pretty radical.  And I hated trig and calculus.  Barely passed.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[joigus]

8 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You're right.  I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary; I'd rather everyone stay close to home and get around on mules when they had to.  Yeah, pretty radical.  And I hated trig and calculus.  Barely passed.

Don't forget half your children dying of dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and a long etc., was part of the equation in that misleadingly pictured "paradise of yore."

It's a nice mental exercise to imagine your family living next to crystal-clear waters, teeming with fish, provided with timber for the winter, and the children rejoicing in the sunny Spring morning with flower garlands on their heads.

That's not what the past was like. Would you say "welcome back" to polio? And this is just an example off the top of my head.

[John Cuthber]

27 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary;

Then get off the internet.

And don't let me catch using other advanced technology; no fires, nor clothes for you. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

You're right.  I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary;

Here's the inherent problem with this outlook. Being capable of judging when something is complex enough requires that you understand it, and how can you understand it if you reject it right off? 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Tangent on food and plants has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123816-food-and-plants-split-from-why-do-scientist-think-they-know-everything/

 

 

[CuriosOne]

On 12/5/2020 at 11:05 PM, iNow said:

How does one “let” some other one think?

The profound arrogance embedded in and oozing out from this statement is staggering.

You cannot even control your own thoughts, Bart. It’s time for you to take a pause from suggesting that you ought to control the content of others thoughts and to instead amplify awareness of your own copious opportunities to minimize the heavy burden of ignorance. 

How does one let some other one think??

By "constant" persuassion many people can fall into belief systems of all sorts "including" political correctness, something scientist are famous for..

For example the base 10 and base 8 "comment" is a "great" example for the use of number theory when dealing with sequencing..

10^2 and 10^8 are so obvious a mixture of time and distance..

See how simple rules can be emerged?

However, the science community has proven number theory is not an acceptable contribution of science "Hence The OP."

 But we all know mathimatics is an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions, the physics of sound and music is one example, color and light is another, and abstract forms of forces"sculpting' is another...I even want to say 2 parents that give off their genetic traits to their off spring..

The OP obviously does not mean "every" scientist but it truly means "most" scientist "are closed minded" and in denial of where information originates from as our foundation of science is an ancient one..

 

 

On 12/6/2020 at 12:56 AM, Saiyan300Warrior said:

I think people in general at times think they know everything because to them they have a set of rules or ideas that they seem to think the world is governed by. For example if someone who identifies as a scientists thought they knew everything in some way it could be because they firmly believe in things that makes sense to them and is generally accepted by everyone because that is a part of scientific methods. I like to say this a lot but to me it is true, we know nothing other than our own existence. Everything at times can seem so fake yet so real. I think having a set of rules and ideas to live by is what makes people sane and grow in this structured world we created together but can also lead some people to think they "know everything".

Very well said, for "us" negative reputations members ..🤣😂🤣

On 12/7/2020 at 5:51 AM, Phi for All said:

Here's the inherent problem with this outlook. Being capable of judging when something is complex enough requires that you understand it, and how can you understand it if you reject it right off? 

I think that's the "point" of the OP🙂

Edited December 10, 2020 by CuriosOne

[Phi for All]

51 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I think that's the "point" of the OP🙂

In a roundabout way, it relates to what you claim in the OP. But rejecting the best accumulated human knowledge in favor of gut feelings and common sense is a far cry from telling someone who hasn't studied science that their idea is wrong, or whatever behavior makes them think the scientists are acting like know-it-alls. 

This really isn't about science anyway, it's about how YOU choose to perceive another's knowledge. I know a lot about photosynthesis, but I don't know much about actual trees, so when I talk to my arborist, I feel like a kid in school again. I enjoy it actually, but I could see where some people might resent someone else knowing more.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

How does one let some other one think??

By "constant" persuassion many people can fall into belief systems of all sorts "including" political correctness, something scientist are famous for..

Which scientists?

 

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

But we all know mathimatics is an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions, the physics of sound and music is one example, color and light is another, and abstract forms of forces"sculpting' is another...I even want to say 2 parents that give off their genetic traits to their off spring..

Who is “we”?

 

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

How does one let some other one think??

By "constant" persuassion many people can fall into belief systems of all sorts "including" political correctness, something scientist are famous for..

You've moved the goalposts, though. That is about influencing what people think, not about having a mechanism to allow or disallow said thoughts. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

"including" political correctness, something scientist are famous for..

...undeservedly, since often times scientific rigor is misunderstood as being hidebound, didactic, pompous, politically correct, over-zealous, and excessively meticulous, when in reality science is uber complex and words don't do the maths justice, so it's important to use the exact right ones. It has zero to do with politics, and EVERYTHING to do with being accurate.

[CuriosOne]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

...undeservedly, since often times scientific rigor is misunderstood as being hidebound, didactic, pompous, politically correct, over-zealous, and excessively meticulous, when in reality science is uber complex and words don't do the maths justice, so it's important to use the exact right ones. It has zero to do with politics, and EVERYTHING to do with being accurate.

Understood and very well said.

But ""nothing"" is "never" accurate nor absolute, I really hope we understand that math and a theoretically described "model" is "set up" to work within "instructions" and or guidlines from its discoverer, they are never random "unless" your using a calculator that exibits diverse precessions.

Something to truly think about when dealing with scientific assertion.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

You've moved the goalposts, though. That is about influencing what people think, not about having a mechanism to allow or disallow said thoughts. 

And what would that mechanism be??

I hope it's a theory and very fancy calculus to back it up, otherwise its gibberish------->right??

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Which scientists?

 

Who is “we”?

 

 

Which scientist?

those whom right off anything out of scientific evidence as gibberish nonsense that has no place in science..Mainly the closed minded ones..

 

Whos We???

Im "Very Glad You Asked"

As a drummer I've known that speed, tension and pressure are 3 major components used for great drum sound.

Ironically the same goes for piano, as I'm a jazz player...Ironically still the same applies for singing as im a singer as well..

All of these areas of discipline use "forces" but not everyone possesses these great skills.. 

 However in our standard model, "nature" does seem """unique""" as well.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by CuriosOne

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

 

Which scientist?

those whom right off anything out of scientific evidence as gibberish nonsense that has no place in science..Mainly the closed minded ones..

I was hoping for something specific. Otherwise this accusation is a slur on scientists in general, which is poor form.

 

34 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Whos We???

Im "Very Glad You Asked"

As a drummer I've known that speed, tension and pressure are 3 major components used for great drum sound.

Ironically the same goes for piano, as I'm a jazz player...Ironically still the same applies for singing as im a singer as well..

All of these areas of discipline use "forces" but not everyone possesses these great skills.. 

 However in our standard model, "nature" does seem """unique""" as well.

What does that have to do with math as “an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions” and you said “we” understood this. Who has this rather bizarre understanding? I ask that you clarify, and back up your claims.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

And what would that mechanism be??

That’s my exact question to you, the one you keep evading. 

[CuriosOne]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

I was hoping for something specific. Otherwise this accusation is a slur on scientists in general, which is poor form.

 

What does that have to do with math as “an "exotic" mixture of unknown dimensions” and you said “we” understood this. Who has this rather bizarre understanding? I ask that you clarify, and back up your claims.

I guess you never heard of electron configuration and color or temporary dipoles "rainbows" ""again scientist think they know everything""

You need to be an "artist" to understand, thats why i said "I'm Glad You Asked The Question"  nature is creative and secretive about it, discoveries proove this.

When I say higher dimensions, I mean just that, nothing needs to be backed up because it's only obvious nature is unique, just look at the stars, go to a sun set with friends, listen to music or enjoy art of coarse all of which use the "human senses." 

 

 

13 hours ago, iNow said:

That’s my exact question to you, the one you keep evading. 

The only mechanisms I have are the same promiscuous techniques often used in science, but I'm learning how to manipulate these to my personal likings and being very efficient at doing so..

Edited December 11, 2020 by CuriosOne

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

The only mechanisms I have are the same promiscuous techniques often used in science, but I'm learning how to manipulate these to my personal likings and being very efficient at doing so..

Trolling will get you banned...

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I guess you never heard of electron configuration and color or temporary dipoles "rainbows" ""again scientist think they know everything""

I’m not sure where this comes from, seeing as how none of these topics had been under discussion. And the topic was math, rather than applications of the math.

 

Quote

You need to be an "artist" to understand, thats why i said "I'm Glad You Asked The Question"  nature is creative and secretive about it, discoveries proove this.

Here would be where I disagree; despite the fact that do have some artistic accomplishments on my resumé, I don’t see how you “need” to be an artist for this.

 

Quote

When I say higher dimensions, I mean just that,

That doesn’t explain anything. You could replace it with “When I say floobengarb, I mean just that” 

It provides no illumination 

 

Quote

nothing needs to be backed up because it's only obvious nature is unique, just look at the stars, go to a sun set with friends, listen to music or enjoy art of coarse all of which use the "human senses." 

Again, that’s not math, as such, even though math is used in quantifying descriptions of these phenomena.

I will point out once more that you have failed to answer the question of who “we” refers to in your earlier comment. You said you were very glad I asked, but then you dodged the question. Again.

You have also failed to say which scientists are famous for their political correctness 

 

[John Cuthber]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

having a mechanism to allow or disallow said thoughts. 

That isn't what "letting someone think something" is about.

 

 

On 12/7/2020 at 8:42 AM, John Cuthber said:

Google gives plenty of hits for ""let them think what they like"" and they didn't seem to be about thought control.

There are better things to pick up on than a dubious bit of English idiom.

It's Monday today.

If someone tells you that they think it's Tuesday and you do not correct them then you are letting them think it is Tuesday.

It's also fair to say that  the idea of a calculator is fundamentally the same whether you count fingers or shuffle electrons (or slide bits of wood against eachother).
The distinction you are making is more like the difference between a petrol, diesel or electric car. I could just about accept that the "invention" was to have some sort of temporary record  outside your brain to facilitate arithmetic. How you do that is a matter o technology.

 

I also suspect that you have massively over-analysed a throw-away comment.
 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by John Cuthber

[CuriosOne]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Trolling will get you banned...

How can a user Troll on their own post??

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure where this comes from, seeing as how none of these topics had been under discussion. And the topic was math, rather than applications of the math.

 

Here would be where I disagree; despite the fact that do have some artistic accomplishments on my resumé, I don’t see how you “need” to be an artist for this.

 

That doesn’t explain anything. You could replace it with “When I say floobengarb, I mean just that” 

It provides no illumination 

 

Again, that’s not math, as such, even though math is used in quantifying descriptions of these phenomena.

I will point out once more that you have failed to answer the question of who “we” refers to in your earlier comment. You said you were very glad I asked, but then you dodged the question. Again.

You have also failed to say which scientists are famous for their political correctness 

 

What makes this post unique in it's own right, is not the flow of predictable outcomes ie a standard scientific conversion "on some 300 year old theory" but rather random contributions of scientific and artistic thinking, after all nature is synchronized rather we agree or disagree...

On a side note, their is no such thing as proving a theory or scientist from the past or present wrong or right because...Nobody was their to see the legitimacy of their work, the atom has never been seen and theories are "math instructions" of 0 and 1..

 

I do respect ""noble research"" however and it's a highly respected area...

Edited December 11, 2020 by CuriosOne

[swansont]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

How can a user Troll on their own post??

See below...

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

What makes this post unique in it's own right, is not the flow of predictable outcomes ie a standard scientific conversion "on some 300 year old theory" but rather random contributions of scientific and artistic thinking, after all nature is synchronized rather we agree or disagree...

On a side note, their is no such thing as proving a theory or scientist from the past or present wrong or right because...Nobody was their to see the legitimacy of their work, the atom has never been seen and theories are "math instructions" of 0 and 1..

 

I do respect ""noble research"" however and it's a highly respected area...

Non-sequiturs and once again avoiding answering the questions.  

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

As a speculation, this doesn't meet the criteria for the section. Misconceptions in the OP have been addressed, but no further support for the OP has been offered. Thread closed.