What an idiot I've been

[dimreepr]

Whilst watching a program by the bbc's panorama series called "finding the higgs". I realised just how arrogant I've been on this forum, but just how much is this due to our culture? My sister has a phd and I remember a conversation she had with a friend of mine, where she had to defend herself against his ridicule in terms of "peer reviewed work". At the time this meant little to me, as I was trying to have my say. Now though with my experience on this forum it strikes me that science itself is partly to blame in as much as the "language" science uses, which is open to specious ridicule and argument and therefore in day to day life is easily dismissed. Programs like this are essential Imo in educating the mass' and eliminate idiots like me postulating with little or no real knowledge. Does this however in a way create the confusion in a recent bbc program called "a night in with the stars" presented by Prof Brian Cox in which I thought he explained that Pauli's principle means that every atom in the universe has a different energy level or spin and that changing the state of one atom would change that of every atom in the universe. This wasn't the case so I imagine this is a case of making it understandable to as many as possible. In conclusion: I think, programs of this sort is needed for education and understanding but science needs a language closer to that of us idiots...

Edited January 11, 2012 by dimreepr

[Ophiolite]

With the hope that I do not sound patronising may I commend you on being astute enough to recognise a weakness and courageous enough to publicly declare it.

 

As to the topic I think there is a problem. If you wish to run a sub-10 second 100m you need the right genetics, the right attitude and years of training. The same is true of achieving a deep understanding of many aspects of science. Most people will fall short in one or other sphere. I agree with you that education of the lay public is hugely important, but I'm not sure what the best way is to achieve that.

[dimreepr]

With the hope that I do not sound patronising may I commend you on being astute enough to recognise a weakness and courageous enough to publicly declare it.

 

As to the topic I think there is a problem. If you wish to run a sub-10 second 100m you need the right genetics, the right attitude and years of training. The same is true of achieving a deep understanding of many aspects of science. Most people will fall short in one or other sphere. I agree with you that education of the lay public is hugely important, but I'm not sure what the best way is to achieve that.

 

Of cource your completly correct however science is seriously undervalued and is due in some way to this disconect. We need, I think, a Steven Fry like carracter who is capable of understanding the science but is magically able to use our language to create understanding. A rather large task I know but I think our society would benefit if science had a larger part to play.

[imatfaal]

Dimreepr - I have heard a very similar report of what Brian Cox was saying (I missed the lecture) - the report I heard was he was talking about how every atom in the universe was tied up with any atom in a stonking diamond he had on display. I am not able to explain what he exactly meant by this. i might get a transcript and post a question for one of the gurus to tease out the meaning.

 

Agree with Ophiolite in applauding self-recognition - let's face it even Socrates was at it. Your comments have shown you to be anything but an idiot, and from other comments your learning has taken place with a severe eyesight problem - that's a pretty olympian hurdle you have overcome already.

[ajb]

...but science needs a language closer to that of us idiots...

 

Science has a lot of words that have a very technical meaning and many of these have a wider meaning in English (or whatever language we are talking about). Another important point is that physics requires mathematics in order to truly describe nature. This means that people without some maths knowledge are going to get lost very quickly. Experts in one field will often miss the details of research in another field. Communicating with other scientists is difficult, communicating with the general public is extremely difficult.

[dimreepr]

Science has a lot of words that have a very technical meaning and many of these have a wider meaning in English (or whatever language we are talking about). Another important point is that physics requires mathematics in order to truly describe nature. This means that people without some maths knowledge are going to get lost very quickly. Experts in one field will often miss the details of research in another field. Communicating with other scientists is difficult, communicating with the general public is extremely difficult.

 

Yes I can see your point It's very difficult to describe in english what maths has to say as illustrated by an armstrong and miller skit in which a prof is trying to describe his theory to a layman.

 

(edit) sorry for the English reference here but I'm English what can I say??

Edited January 11, 2012 by dimreepr

[mississippichem]

Whilst watching a program by the bbc's panorama series called "finding the higgs". I realised just how arrogant I've been on this forum, but just how much is this due to our culture? My sister has a phd and I remember a conversation she had with a friend of mine, where she had to defend herself against his ridicule in terms of "peer reviewed work". At the time this meant little to me, as I was trying to have my say. Now though with my experience on this forum it strikes me that science itself is partly to blame in as much as the "language" science uses, which is open to specious ridicule and argument and therefore in day to day life is easily dismissed. Programs like this are essential Imo in educating the mass' and eliminate idiots like me postulating with little or no real knowledge. Does this however in a way create the confusion in a recent bbc program called "a night in with the stars" presented by Prof Brian Cox in which I thought he explained that Pauli's principle means that every atom in the universe has a different energy level or spin and that changing the state of one atom would change that of every atom in the universe. This wasn't the case so I imagine this is a case of making it understandable to as many as possible. In conclusion: I think, programs of this sort is needed for education and understanding but science needs a language closer to that of us idiots...

 

You've not been an idiot. You had a silly idea, I recommended you go read some. You graciously accepted. That is the attitude of someone who wants to learn and that puts you light years ahead of the average man in my book.

 

We've all had silly ideas. No reason for shame. You learned from it and that's what matters.

 

Happy studies to you sir

[Appolinaria]

If you feel like an idiot, just look at what I spew out on a daily basis. I never really view Brian Cox programs to learn anything, it's really just to admire how pretty he is. And his striped sweaters. I would think it's better to just get some good books on physics.

[Moontanman]

Whilst watching a program by the bbc's panorama series called "finding the higgs". I realised just how arrogant I've been on this forum, but just how much is this due to our culture? My sister has a phd and I remember a conversation she had with a friend of mine, where she had to defend herself against his ridicule in terms of "peer reviewed work". At the time this meant little to me, as I was trying to have my say. Now though with my experience on this forum it strikes me that science itself is partly to blame in as much as the "language" science uses, which is open to specious ridicule and argument and therefore in day to day life is easily dismissed. Programs like this are essential Imo in educating the mass' and eliminate idiots like me postulating with little or no real knowledge. Does this however in a way create the confusion in a recent bbc program called "a night in with the stars" presented by Prof Brian Cox in which I thought he explained that Pauli's principle means that every atom in the universe has a different energy level or spin and that changing the state of one atom would change that of every atom in the universe. This wasn't the case so I imagine this is a case of making it understandable to as many as possible. In conclusion: I think, programs of this sort is needed for education and understanding but science needs a language closer to that of us idiots...

 

 

You've not been an idiot, yes in these types of discussions it's important to be accurate to avoid misunderstanding, so i will endeavor to be accurate. What you've been is ignorant, the key here is that you know it and are doing something to correct it, being ignorant puts you in good company, well at least I consider myself to be good company, there are many things I am ignorant about, there is no shame in ignorance, we are all ignorant on some subjects, no one can know everything there is to know. The important thing is that you are learning, I can go back to my earliest posts on science forums and be embarrassed of the level of ignorance I was displaying for all to see.

 

The real shame is being willfully ignorant, (to me this is equal to being stupid), you show no signs of that, life should be a learning experience, if you get to the point that you think you know everything you will know your ignorance is on display for all to see. I see no reason for you or anyone who is genuinely trying to learn to feel shame because they do not know, just being honest enough to admit you don't know is refreshing, so many try to dazzle with bullshit when they don't have the knowledge they claim...

[iNow]

The important thing is that you are learning, I can go back to my earliest posts on science forums and be embarrassed of the level of ignorance I was displaying for all to see.

 

The real shame is being willfully ignorant

Boy, can I relate to that middle bit, and certainly QFT on the first and last parts of the comment.

Edited January 12, 2012 by iNow

[PeterJ]

The way we have to describe Nature is incomprehensible to us according to Richard Feynman, so don't be surprised if it is incomprehensible to you. I don't think the layman can be expected to understand what the specialists themselves do not understand.

 

Every particle in the universe is connected to every other in some magical way. This is easy to understand. It's a claim as old as the hills. Science must reduce the magic to science before it can hope to explain this phenomenon to anyone else. Don't mistake Cox's fluent exposition of this phenomenon for an understanding of it.

 

Now I'm going to go make tea and so disturb particles all over the universe.

Edited January 19, 2012 by PeterJ

[Tres Juicy]

Of cource your completly correct however science is seriously undervalued and is due in some way to this disconect. We need, I think, a Steven Fry like carracter who is capable of understanding the science but is magically able to use our language to create understanding. A rather large task I know but I think our society would benefit if science had a larger part to play.

 

 

Science needs better P.R

 

[dimreepr]

The way we have to describe Nature is incomprehensible to us according to Richard Feynman, so don't be surprised if it is incomprehensible to you. I don't think the layman can be expected to understand what the specialists themselves do not understand.

 

Every particle in the universe is connected to every other in some magical way. This is easy to understand. It's a claim as old as the hills. Science must reduce the magic to science before it can hope to explain this phenomenon to anyone else. Don't mistake Cox's fluent exposition of this phenomenon for an understanding of it.

 

Now I'm going to go make tea and so disturb particles all over the universe.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

We need, I think, a Steven Fry like carracter who is capable of understanding the science but is magically able to use our language to create understanding. A rather large task I know but I think our society would benefit if science had a larger part to play.

This. Totally agree.

 

Scientists shouldn't be so arrogant to think that what they do is really complicated only because they are not able to explain it to someone else. I think it is quite common to be very good at science, and very bad at communicating. (I'm not saying it's a majority among scientists, but it's a significant group).

 

Getting to the point is something most people (including scientists) cannot do.

 

I know scientists who aren't able to tell a stranger the quickest way to the local shopping center. They know the way themselves, but will not be able to transfer that knowledge to a stranger in a limited amount of time.

[Jiggerj]

We need, I think, a Steven Fry like carracter who is capable of understanding the science but is magically able to use our language to create understanding. A rather large task I know but I think our society would benefit if science had a larger part to play.

 

Agree. I've been thinking about this since I started coming here. I'll ask a question with the expectation of getting down-to-earth answers, but instead I am overwhelmed by the sheer brilliance of some of the members here.

 

It has been said that people that go blind might obtain a better level of hearing to compensate. Those that go deaf might have an increased sense of smell. I find that this also works in reverse in some aspects of life. For instance, the more one mind absorbs vast amounts of knowledge, the more that mind loses the ability to communicate this knowledge to the masses. It's not a good or a bad thing; it just happens.

 

I am thankful for the few great minds that have not lost this ability. I can understand almost everything that Michio Kaku has to say, along with people like Brian Greene, Sagan, Clark, Sautoy, Tyson... Without people like these my love for scientific knowledge would quickly vanish.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Jiggerj

[DrRocket]

In conclusion: I think, programs of this sort is needed for education and understanding but science needs a language closer to that of us idiots...

 

You are basically asking that science transform itself into something that it isn't so that people who are not scientists can understand it completely as it is. That is pretty much a self-contradiction.

 

There is a reason for the language used in various branches of science, and that reason is precision. It is also the same reason that much of science cannot be fully understood without recourse to mathematics, which is, after all, the language of much of science.

 

So, you will either have to be satisfied with over-simplificataions and imperfect analogies or you will have to study the subjects that interest you intensely, and in the language in which they are properly expressed.

 

There is no royal road to understanding.

[dimreepr]

You are basically asking that science transform itself into something that it isn't so that people who are not scientists can understand it completely as it is. That is pretty much a self-contradiction.

 

There is a reason for the language used in various branches of science, and that reason is precision. It is also the same reason that much of science cannot be fully understood without recourse to mathematics, which is, after all, the language of much of science.

 

So, you will either have to be satisfied with over-simplificataions and imperfect analogies or you will have to study the subjects that interest you intensely, and in the language in which they are properly expressed.

 

There is no royal road to understanding.

 

In what way has this point not been addressed previously in this thread? Of course I don't expect to circumvent the years of knowledge and understanding you have attained through many years of dedication.

Edited February 17, 2012 by dimreepr

[JohnStu]

The names don't really matter, it is its definition. For example, a person could know the name of the three laws of Newton without knowing what they actually are about.

 

Far too often do we see people just remembering the names and think that is "understood". There is never a yes or no answer to understanding, but rather, not understand to different levels of understanding.

 

 

[Tres Juicy]

The names don't really matter, it is its definition. For example, a person could know the name of the three laws of Newton without knowing what they actually are about.

 

Far too often do we see people just remembering the names and think that is "understood". There is never a yes or no answer to understanding, but rather, not understand to different levels of understanding.

 

 

 

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman

 

From Dr Rockets sig

 

[imatfaal]

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... -- Richard P. Feynman

 

From Dr Rockets sig

 

 

I bet you could tell the difference between pictures of a bluejay and a cardinal bird from just the names with no other/prior knowledge of ornithology.

 

I use that example because the first time I saw I a cardinal bird (with no knowledge of it apart from its existence and name) my thoughts were 'that just has to be a cardinal bird'

[morgsboi]

Also you spelt embarrassed as "embarrised".

[dimreepr]

Also you spelt embarrassed as "embarrised".

 

 

Just one more thing for me to be embarrased about thanks for pointing it out.

[morgsboi]

Just one more thing for me to be embarrased about thanks for pointing it out.

 

No problem.

[questionposter]

There is no single person to actually blame for this, it is a collective of how society functions, because the journalists for things like BBC think it is ok to report on science in that specific manner, and then there's the scientists themselves who for them have no reason to not think that the confusing way they are describing it is in fact not the best way. Then there's places like fox and occasionally nbc who don't have a compelling enough of a reason to not lie. A lot of these problems are more about education/communication on large scales, I even know a guy who was super conservative before he got a degree in political science, then afterwords he landed right in the middle, even more on the liberal side, a drastic change.

Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter