ExtraSense Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It is obvious, that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now. Look at NASA. It is pretending to do scientific research. How many people understand nowadays, that famous "rocket science" is nothing but engineering? Look at social sciences. They teach Marxism as science. How many people understand nowadays, that it is nothing but pile of hackery and nonsence? Look at "quantum computing" hoax, the entanglement and teleportation and phony algorithms. The "science" can not be trusted anymore. e s
Ophiolite Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It is obvious' date=' that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now. ........e s[/quote']Are we to assume from your enigmatic Smiley that your post is tongue in cheek? If it is not It is obvious' date=' that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now. [/quote']Obvious to whom? who is responsible for this perversion and hi-jacking? What is their purpose? Look at NASA. It is pretending to do scientific research. How many people understand nowadays' date=' that famous "rocket science" is nothing but engineering? [/quote']I can't think of anyone I know, who knows of NASA, who does not understand that 'rocket science' is a branch of engineering. What circles do you move in? Look at social sciences. They teach Marxism as science. How many people understand nowadays' date=' that it is nothing but pile of hackery and nonsence? [/quote']Hmm. 1. Are you working from a very old course syllabus, or do you live in Havana or Pyonyang? 2. You might find it difficult to get a majority of 'hard' scientists to admit social science is a science. 3. The general population probably have an even harsher view of 'social science' than the hard sceintists, so the answer to your question is 'a lot'. Look at "quantum computing" hoax' date=' the entanglement and teleportation and phony algorithms. The "science" can not be trusted anymore. [/quote']I am not aware of this example. If you are revealing that some scientists can not be trusted, that wont make the six o'clock news. Case dismissed.
Glider Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Social science is an extremely broad term, and inacurate; the term is 'social sciences' because it encompasses several disciplines, though admittedly, some are more disciplined that others. In any event, please be careful how you use it, and particularly, how disparaging you are towards it, particularly if you don't really understand it.
ExtraSense Posted December 5, 2004 Author Posted December 5, 2004 I am not aware of this example. If you are revealing that some scientists can not be trusted, that wont make the six o'clock news. Sure, the media is in unholy alliance with pseudoscience. To keep you not aware of anything. e s
ExtraSense Posted December 5, 2004 Author Posted December 5, 2004 Social science is an extremely broad term,.... you don't really understand it. That I believe to be correct. But a lot of social science is hijacked by pseudo, as I've pointed out. e s
Sayonara Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It is obvious, that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now. Amazingly, this simple premise makes it your best irony thread yet.
Ophiolite Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Social science is an extremely broad term' date=' and inacurate; the term is 'social scienc[u']es[/u]' because it encompasses several disciplines, though admittedly, some are more disciplined that others. In any event, please be careful how you use it, and particularly, how disparaging you are towards it, particularly if you don't really understand it. Glider, I am assuming the above was directed towards my remarks. I agree with you completely. If you re-read my post you will see that I am very careful to avoid expressing my own view on the social sciences. So I stand by the two statements describing my perception of the attitudes of 'hard' scientists and the general public towards the social sciences. If I read your post correctly I believe you are gently putting me in my place as regards my ignorance of the social sciences. This is doubtless valid. Reading Interpretation of Dreams when I was fifteen started me on a wide range of reading on sleep and parapsychology (I recall being fascinated by the work of Rhine), yet I never touched Jung. In the 70's and 80's I read extensively in areas related to management, so I could name drop Maslow and Hertzberg. My understanding of economics is similarily skewed to the business end of the spectrum. I dare say I know enough social science to be dangerous, but I think I recognise that - and a little danger is no bad thing.
ExtraSense Posted December 5, 2004 Author Posted December 5, 2004 Amazingly, this simple premise makes it your best irony thread yet. Yea, I AM trying my best es
Glider Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Social science is an extremely broad term' date='.... you don't really understand it.[/quote'] That I believe to be correct. But a lot of social science is hijacked by pseudo' date=' as I've pointed out. e s[/quote'] Do not mis-quote me. It's very annoying. Glider, I am assuming the above was directed towards my remarks. No, it was a general request to anybody wishing to express a view on the subject, not to use the social sciences as exemplars of 'non-sciences' or 'pseudosciences', without at least being specific as to which social science they are referring. As I said, the term 'social sciences' is an umbralla term encompassing many disciplines. To lump them all together in order to provide an example of 'non-science', or even of 'corrupted science' is inaccurate, misleading and fuels existing stereotypes. So I stand by the two statements describing my perception of the attitudes of 'hard' scientists and the general public towards the social sciences. Yet, so many 'hard' scientists are social scientists. As for the public, in general, they don't know the difference between a Psychological Scientist and a Psychotherapist and rely on stereotypes for their definitions of the social sciences; "Anything with Psych at the beginning must be all the same" (pretty much the same mentality that caused an anti paedophile mob to burn down the house of a paediatrician). I think it should be reasonable to expect people in this forum who are prepared to comment on the social sciences, or to wield them as examples of anything, to have a slightly deeper understanding of them than that.
ExtraSense Posted December 5, 2004 Author Posted December 5, 2004 ...not to use the social sciences as exemplars of 'non-sciences' or 'pseudosciences', without at least being specific as to which social science they are referring.. Even if some of them are? Is not it a way to do not mend their vicked ways? es
Radical Edward Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It is obvious' date=' that science has been perverted and hijacked. It is nothing but pseudoscience now. Look at NASA. It is pretending to do scientific research. How many people understand nowadays, that famous "rocket science" is nothing but engineering? Look at social sciences. They teach Marxism as science. How many people understand nowadays, that it is nothing but pile of hackery and nonsence? Look at "quantum computing" hoax, the entanglement and teleportation and phony algorithms. The "science" can not be trusted anymore. e s[/quote'] this was a crap thread on internet infidels, and it is a crap thread here. why do you spam the entire internet with your drivel?
Perennial Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It looks pretty crappy to me ... however I'm inclined to say that science is more than ever filled with "pseudo" elements which make basic research ever more difficult. Not just those mentioned here so far (perhaps could give a slight nod on the NASA aspect though).
Ophiolite Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Perennial, you are, I think, one of the few posters to this forum who is a working scientist. Can you give an example or two of the pseudo elements you refer to, perhaps from your own field. Thanks.
Perennial Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Perennial, you are, I think, one of the few posters to this forum who is a working scientist. Can you give an example or two of the pseudo elements you refer to, perhaps from your own field. Thanks. Let's see ... first and foremost pseudo element (I'm essentially a material physicist nowadays) : the year is ending, I have my head filled with ideas (probably lousy ones but that ain't really new) for next year .... I'm likely to spend like 1.5 months of next 12 in trying to sell my ideas to a bunch of sponsors (who actually work in the very same institute) who have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about ... but it's still a necessity so that an archive gets filled with memos, plans, visions, strategies, roadmaps, technology implementation plans etc. which have absolute nothing to do with the actual science (it's this time of the year so this usually comes first). Second, and actually a greater problem, the possibilities of doing "honest" research (i.e. research which is focused on phenomenon, what most reasonable people pursue as research) is getting ever more difficult. I have been around from the turn of the millennium, but previously, people were to great extent researching real physics issues ... today, most real research needs to be hidden in the realm of applied science ( = to great extent, engineering). Everything needs to create profit, industrial applications etc. and preferably quarterly. To overemphasize a bit ... I for one am trying to direct my work in trying to built multiscale models from quantum mechanics to our macroscopic world ... and I'm expected to report progress quarterly, because that is the "business scale". Sure, give me a year and I'll built you a working theory of everything ... yeah, like I'm able to produce a quantum mechanical breakthrough once in 4 months ... we get some serious laughs when we draft progress reports ... "4 months ago this was almost in very draft stages, in another 4 months if you support us for that long, we'll produce you a nearly draft document" or something ... I think you'll catch my drift. The first problem of this is that sure that we hate it, the major problem is that if everyone works with applications the big problems don't get solved and everything stagnates over time. I'm getting depressed to wake up for work tomorrow morning so I'll better leave it at this for now ... ... but I suppose having the time and facilities is not as given as it ought to be, there are all sorts of outside pressures with agendas trying to influence science making -> turn it to something which could be called as "pseudo", the science itself is an obstacle enough (as it's supposed to) but people who have no idea of it have too much control over it. It's like no one who is a real scientist wants to be a manager or work for marketing, but in the world of today, those are the people who in many respects decide what is worth pursuing scientifically. I still wouldn't do anything else, but wouldn't mind doing it as effectively as possible without the added residue.
Glider Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Even if some of them are?Which ones? Is not it a way to do not mend their vicked ways? es What the hell are you on about?
Artorius Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 this was a crap thread on internet infidels, and it is a crap thread here. why do you spam the entire internet with your drivel?agreed
ExtraSense Posted December 6, 2004 Author Posted December 6, 2004 What the hell are you on about? Here is an example of what goes for philosophy and is just pseudo. And it is embedded in your signature quote of Nietzsche! "The strongest knowledge (that of the total unfreedom of the human will)... " (Nietzsche, 1879). That knowlege is unfreedom, is a misunderstanding, common to Nietzsche and Marx. It is still repeated and taught more than hundred years later. And you call it "science". e s
Glider Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 And you call it "science". e s I do? Are you sure?
Recommended Posts