the value of science?

[iNow]

Listen, I know you're arguing on a principle here, and I happen to agree with that principle. You share your knowledge with those who seek it, you do not ridicule them for being "less" than you.

 

It's noble to instruct, and it's beneficial to our greater society. I think it's wrong of you, however, to suggest (as you have in these recent posts) that most regular contributors here do not already know and practice this.

 

Of course in any community there are going to be people on the margins who run counter to the greater social gestalt. Hell, even I'm a rabid banchee every so often. It's human nature. But, and this may be just a difference in perception between you and me, for the most part I define this as a community rooted in both education and knowledge sharing. I'd go so far as to say that more than 95% of all posts made are shining examples of the process of instruction and education, contrary to the dim light in which you are painting your verbal pictures.

 

You are choosing to focus on one small segment of all SFN posts made, particularly the ones where attempts to teach WERE made, but failed, and you're drawing concusions from that tiny subset alone.

 

Nearly every time someone presents an idea or asks a question, it is respected... clarifying questions are posed, alternative interpretations are offered, and guidance is provided. The hope is that the original questioner learns from this exhange, and/or they ask follow-up questions to fill in gaps of their knowledge.

 

That's good stuff. Yet, there are some who have such tunnel vision and blind acceptance of some theory or idea that they simply keep repeating themselves despite correction, in the face of counter-evidence, and they become indignant despite not having any solid foundation for their conjectures. There are also others who come in with ideas that have been shared countless times by countless others, ideas which have already been put through the proverbial wringer, such as creationism or global climate change denial, and most of us have dealt with it so many times that we have no patience for such things.

 

It's only after normal thread discourse (attempts to address questions and point out flaws) has failed that the tone of the threads change, and they get moved to P&S. It happens. Pobody's Nerfect. No matter how brightly you shine the light on a blind person, they still probobly won't see it.

 

Most all of us try to help as our first and almost instinctual response, but sometimes we vent, and sometimes we're less exemplary of the "greatness" you mentioned in the previous post. You sometimes may not like what you see, but you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

 

So, there's my rose colored glasses post. Sure, there are problems. Sure, people get mocked. Do you truly in your heart believe that's the primary type of contribution at this community? I struggle to think that's possible, and if it is, you may look inward to determine why you're so focussed on the negative. There's a great sea of positive contributions here for you to swim through. And, on that note, I'm going to grab a glass of wine. Enjoy your night.

[swansont]

Actual scientific discourse is quite a different thing from the disenfranchisement and lay-bashing that goes on on the speculations forum. I try to ask valid questions and tell people when they are obviously wrong but most people do it in a mean spirited way almost like getting on a forum and bashing people is their only form of entertainment.

 

If it doesn't look like scientific discourse, part of the reason is that there is often precious little science to begin with.

 

One different thing in "actual scientific discourse" is that the scientist with the fundamentally mistaken notion is more likely to recognize the flaw when it's pointed out, and the discussion simply ends at that point. And the topic will be better-situated within science to begin with.

 

The standard discussion here will go along the lines of

 

A: Blah, blah, blah

 

B: That's word salad (no scientific basis) — or — That violates relativity/conservation of energy/science principle of your choice

 

C: Picks apart some specific part of the post

 

A: Repeats claim

 

D: Repeating doesn't make it right; points out the lack of math and rigor

 

A: Repeats claim, with the addendum "I don't do math"

 

B: Without rigor it's not science

 

A: Think outside the box, man! It's a conspiracy of the high priests of science! Stop attacking me! Censorship!

 

 

Actual scientific discourse, on the other hand

 

A: blah, blah, blah

 

B: That doesn't work. The divergence of B is zero, so there has to be a return path for the flux line.

 

A: Ah, of course.

 

— End of conversation —

 

P.p.s I spent a month at Johns Hopkins University over the summer I spoke to professors who are likely smarter then any of you they were all willing to share their knowledge and that is the true mark of an intellectual; telling people that their wrong is easy, even I can do it, actually sharing your knowledge is the mark of greatness.

 

I think you may find, upon closer inspection, that there is a great willingness to share knowledge on the boards, as long as the poster is willing to put forth some effort to understand. The extrema in this case are the lazy poster who is essentially asking someone else to Google for them, because they want some easily-obtained bit of data ("what's the mass of the earth?). At the other end is the poster who comes here not seeking knowledge, e.g. "relativity is crap and you're all idiots for believing it." They set the confrontational tone themselves.

 

Within P & S you are far more likely to see the latter behavior, but overall it is at the far end of the distribution. The issue here is sampling.

[pioneer]

One major change in science over the past one hundred years, has been the movement away from pure logic toward increased use of probability and uncertainty. This change has increased the number of possible explanations since uncertainty gives everyone more flexibility. In medicine, what is good for you today, could end up bad for you tomorrow, with nobody certain if it will reverse again.

 

This approach also allows mutually exclusive alternatives to exist at the same time as long as they satisfy the requirements of science or math. There may be a time when there will be a shakedown and a lot of theory will be placed in the archives of "what were they thinking".

[swansont]

One major change in science over the past one hundred years, has been the movement away from pure logic toward increased use of probability and uncertainty. This change has increased the number of possible explanations since uncertainty gives everyone more flexibility. In medicine, what is good for you today, could end up bad for you tomorrow, with nobody certain if it will reverse again.

 

This approach also allows mutually exclusive alternatives to exist at the same time as long as they satisfy the requirements of science or math. There may be a time when there will be a shakedown and a lot of theory will be placed in the archives of "what were they thinking".

 

I don't think that's a valid critique. Science has never been about "pure logic" — that was part of the approach of the philosophers; science is empirical. Uncertainty has always been a part of science, due to its inductive nature. Medicine is a poor example to use, and what you've given here is not very specific. If mutually exclusive alternatives legitimately exist, then you don't have a theory. Did you have an example in mind for this?