Science is not what it used to be

[petrossa]

I thought the last bastion of the cornered was ignoring what everybody else says and changing the subject.

Discussion just isn't what it used to be.

Yes pity. People get all personal, descend into a tirade of personal attacks, evade what is being discussed but just throw up irrelevant quotes etc etc.

The thread was: Science isn't what it used to be.

The thread wasn't: Let's all rain down on the poster with semi-scientific irrelevant material only tenuously tethered to the OP.?

So let me clarify:

Many people need to have publications on their name, it advances their status (all important, way more important than actually adding something useful)

so they put up some scientific sounding drivel were their 'findings' are mostly the words IF, MAY , COULD, POSSIBLY.

IQ being a nonvalue, it's a completely meaningless practice. The best one can say about it it measures IQ.?

Volumes have been written about it, how it's just a floating number at best showing one can do some tests well or not.

Than one takes a totally subjective entity, socio-economic status. Fully ethnocentric.?

Than one kicks in an imaginary open door and conclude that since health is related to money, and stupid people earn less money they are less healthy.

Duh.

The other one, the girl who 'discovered' eating whole wheat reduces chances of diabetes.

This is her explanation:

Previous studies of the eating habits of large numbers of people over a longer period of time revealed that those who ate a lot of whole grain products had a reduced chance of developing diabetes. However, the link could not be proved definitively Many of the existing research projects did not take exercise habits into account, for example ? and perhaps people who eat a lot of whole grain products take more exercise than those who don?t.

Healthier eating habits ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? |?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?|

Priebe found indications that short chain fatty acids could be responsible for the favourable effects of whole grain products. These substances are created in the large intestine when indigestible (wtf?) carbohydrates from unrefined grains are converted (How?). Priebe: ?It?s important that we now search for what exactly explains the favourable (but they are not proven to have that effect)effects of whole grain products. Once we know that, nutritional products without whole grains can be adapted to help prevent diabetes. And that could make an important contribution to stemming the tide of the disease.?

So according to this 'science' a unproven, undetermined byproduct could have a favourable effect on diabetes, but it might just as well be exercise.

Which kind of people eat whole wheat mostly? You guessed it, not people who usually eat fastfood.

A study of exercise on health was inconclusive: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/301/2/150?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Mitka%2C+Mike&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

So yet another castle of loose sand.

[petrossa]

what's really the point of my observations is that what used to be science has been devolved into a narration which consists of assumptions 'supported' by ethnocentric observations, where bias is an accepted value. This i see as the result of the ever dumbing down of standards to accomodate for the influx of mediocre 'talent'. This kind of 'studies' are the proof of failing higher education.

Looking back over the thread ad homini far outweigh factual retort, ending with the deadliest of non sequitor: you just don't understand. The last bastion of the cornered.

what's really the point of my observations is that what used to be science has been devolved into a narration which consists of assumptions 'supported' by ethnocentric observations, where bias is an accepted value. This i see as the result of the ever dumbing down of standards to accomodate for the influx of mediocre 'talent'. This kind of 'studies' are the proof of failing higher education.

Looking back over the thread ad homini far outweigh factual retort, ending with the deadliest of non sequitor: you just don't understand. The last bastion of the cornered.

[PreKe]

what's really the point of my observations is that what used to be science has been devolved into a narration which consists of assumptions 'supported' by ethnocentric observations, where bias is an accepted value.

You have failed to show this. What you have shown instead is that you don't understand science, and you keep misrepresenting it.

[TrueMonolith]

You have failed to show this. What you have shown instead is that you don't understand science, and you keep misrepresenting it.

pretty much this.

[petrossa]

pretty much this.

Sure, why not yet another ad hominem. Refuge of the hapless. Makes you feel good (superior) because you feel that you are in a position to pass judgment. As long as you have no real arguments it'll do for you i guess.

Haven't seen you pose 1 single counterargument you came up all by yourself.

Tsk, tsk. To use the oldest trick in the book: You don't understand. Very mature indeed.

[Farstrider]

Just a few things to ponder on:

??a man cannot search either for what he knows or what he does not know. He cannot search for what he knows ? since he knows it, there is no need for search; nor for what he does not know, since he does not know what to look for. ? Socrates

In the philosophy of science, the concept of the paradigm has commonly been used when speaking about theoretical assumptions and structures of science and research. It has been used also in other fields like education, politics, culture, art, etc. describing the basic differences in thinking. The usage of the concept has changed its original meaning and now the concept of paradigm can refer to a variety of phenomena starting from a specific way of thinking in different situations to a worldview. Therefore it is essential for this analysis to first re-define the concept of paradigm in science, and after that define the approach, concepts and methods for the analysis of paradigms. This conceptualization will also shed light on the epistemological background of this research and will help in choosing the concrete methods for the research.

If we look back to the history of science and philosophy, we can discover that the problem of paradigm has been bothering philosophers since Socrates. The ?debater?s argument? Socrates presents in a dialogue with Meno, describes one fundamental epistemological and ontological problem which affects philosophers? and scientists? work. For Socrates, the answer was the immortality of the soul: because the soul is immortal and has been born often and has seen everything, there is nothing that it has not learned. So discovering new things is simply recollecting something it knew before. For contemporary science, the answer is no longer the same, but, as we can see, there is still the same question to be answered in contemporary science that Socrates was reasoning.

Implicitly, all research presupposes a world-view, a collection of fundamental objects, natural laws and above all definitions of what research is. This is like an immortal soul for Socrates: the framework of what science already knows. Where the natural sciences differ from less developed sciences such as economics or psychology is precisely the presence of strict such rules. These often appear obvious to us. Thomas Kuhn (1970) called these world-views "paradigms". Immature sciences and complex multidisciplinary research areas are characterized by not having established any paradigms yet. Therefore every researcher has to invent the foundation of his research on his own. Research becomes a random collection of observations that cannot be structured into a whole, since there is no framework to put them in.

When the paradigm has been established it is a matter of routine, Kuhn condescendingly calls it "puzzle solving", and Socrates ?recalling?. The greater part of research falls into this category and is not a creative occupation, but exact puzzles that can be solved by putting the right pieces in the right order.

[TrueMonolith]

Sure, why not yet another ad hominem. Refuge of the hapless. Makes you feel good (superior) because you feel that you are in a position to pass judgment. As long as you have no real arguments it'll do for you i guess.

Haven't seen you pose 1 single counterargument you came up all by yourself.

Tsk, tsk. To use the oldest trick in the book: You don't understand. Very mature indeed.

Petrossa, in this particular case, you're using ad hominem in the wrong way.

your message is that a scientific study was conducted in an unscientific way. Saying that you're misrepresenting and obfuscating how science actually works...is a legitimate criticism.

Infact...your claim goes further to attest that this is the norm.

I skimmed the abstract, and i dont see anything i would contend on (i havent read the paper yet though). Seems like its following the general principle. Just because it doesnt agree with your world view...doesnt mean it didnt follow the scientific method. Not to mention, if its a non-significant factor, it will be ruled out by further research.

[PreKe]

Sure, why not yet another ad hominem. Refuge of the hapless. Makes you feel good (superior) because you feel that you are in a position to pass judgment. As long as you have no real arguments it'll do for you i guess.

Excuse me? You are the one who keeps attacking scientists.

Haven't seen you pose 1 single counterargument you came up all by yourself.

What was that about attacks again? Hypocrisy, much?

Tsk, tsk. To use the oldest trick in the book: You don't understand. Very mature indeed.

So are you saying that you do understand, but that you are spreading misinformation on purpose?

Just a few things to ponder on:

What is your point?

[Farstrider]

What is your point?

Well, if you cannot see the correlation then I am not going to explain it!

It was more of an attempt to look at the "bigger picture!" This, in context with the original assumptions made by the OP regarding the article that so offended his sensibilities!

BTW, what's yours?

[guru]

Are you saying he's making valid points though?

If not, then it can make sense to put someone on ignore, if you have no interest debating them. If so, why?

no. because one paper with debatable correlation doesn't support the generalization that science is going down the drain.

anyway, my point is that people should be able to make claims whether you agree with it or not. putting them on ignore is your choice. you might only prefer to to read what you agree with *shrugs*

[Kirkburn]

I skimmed the abstract, and i dont see anything i would contend on (i havent read the paper yet though).

On that note, the paper is fairly short, if you want to take a look you can get the points from it fairly quickly.

[guru]

Science isnt a democracy...you realise that right?

Science is one of the last bastions of the meritocratic doctrine that fuelled the englightenment.

apples and oranges. although, they largely thrive on free thoughts. outlandish claims aren't new to science. some of them have been proved. some things quantum theory are downright bizarre. I dont agree science is the last bastion of meritocratic system. Music,arts,sports fall into that category as well. most things are based on meritocratic system.

Petrossa's point (If in got him right by reading some of his posts here.) is science become a claustrophobic old boys club following bureaucratic methods which suppress some ideas and forces scientists into selfcensorship, in some cases, rest they rock the boat. far from meritocratic system it is supposed to be

[TrueMonolith]

apples and oranges. although, they largely thrive on free thoughts. outlandish claims aren't new to science. some of them have been proved. some things quantum theory are downright bizarre. I dont agree science is the last bastion of meritocratic system. Music,arts,sports fall into that category as well. most things are based on meritocratic system.

Petrossa's point (If in got him right by reading some of his posts here.) is science become a claustrophobic old boys club following bureaucratic methods which suppress some ideas and forces scientists into selfcensorship, in some cases, rest they rock the boat. far from meritocratic system it is supposed to be

Actually...petrossa's point is that they NEED to execise self-censorship (and ignore correlations like what you call "outlandish claims").

And no, Music isnt meritocratic (especially thanks to auto-tuning and its links to arts), Arts isnt meritocratic either...infact Arts is the anthesis of Meritocracy. These two are based in democratic (populistic) ideals. Their entire purpose was to engage and involve everyone.

I'll give you Sports (seeing as ability in sport is equivalent to a standing in sports).

You might not agree with it, but Science is one of the last bastions of Meritocracy (although i dont think you completely understand what Meritocracy is) left from the englightenment.

[Kirkburn]

Guru, True Monolith - you're agreeing more than I think you realise.

Science is basically (suppose to be) a meritocracy. I suppose sport is as well, that's fair. Art and music have elements of it, but it's certainly much more "democratic" then science and sport.

There is an issue of old boys club in science, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as some think. Certainly I don't believe it's worse now than it's ever been before - in fact, it's almost certainly better in this regard. Imagine back 100 years, those "old boys clubs" were really obvious. Science journals are obsessed with new and interesting stuff - kinda difficult for the "old boys clubs" to keep them down.

The outlandish ideas in science: quantum theory is an interesting one, but it does have a lot of valid science behind it. The issue is, it's just so damn complex, that to most people it's an insane idea - so they basically 'fear' it because it's not something they'll ever get their head around. This translates into people thinking scientists themselves are starting to feel "above" everyone else, because they say they understand this stuff (but individually, each scientist knows a pretty narrow subset).

[TrueMonolith]

Guru, True Monolith - you're agreeing more than I think you realise.

Science is basically (suppose to be) a meritocracy. I suppose sport is as well, that's fair. Art and music have elements of it, but it's certainly much more "democratic" then science and sport.

There is an issue of old boys club in science, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as some think. Certainly I don't believe it's worse now than it's ever been before - in fact, it's almost certainly better in this regard. Imagine back 100 years, those "old boys clubs" were really obvious. Science journals are obsessed with new and interesting stuff - kinda difficult for the "old boys clubs" to keep them down.

The outlandish ideas in science: quantum theory is an interesting one, but it does have a lot of valid science behind it. The issue is, it's just so damn complex, that to most people it's an insane idea - so they basically 'fear' it because it's not something they'll ever get their head around. This translates into people thinking scientists themselves are starting to feel "above" everyone else, because they say they understand this stuff (but individually, each scientist knows a pretty narrow subset).

Agreed, he's just attributed meritocracy the wrong way around, i know what he is trying to say.

Art and music are supposed to be about rebelling against the establishment of professional or merit based systems and do this through the promotion of aesthetics, holism and abstraction. Art and music are democritising forces (which were utilised through the reneaissance and industrial revolution to convey the ideas they found fruitful from the meritorious to everyone basically, encouraging the free flow of information). Thats not to say Arts and Music are less important than the Sciences, but they are two distinctly different views of the world. Where science is a strict WYSIWYG approach to the universe, based on the collective knowledge of what we know, Arts and Music are about how wer percieve the universe based on the collective perception of society.

Just wanted to iron out why Science is Meritorius and Arts is Democratic.

As for the "old boys club" mentality, this is present in any profressional society, and exists not to protect science from radically new ideas...but to maintain the integreity of the ability of it to produce radically new ideas. Giving everyone and opinion leads to the group think mentality of chosing "morality" and determining what is and isn't categorically part of something (as it is with Music and Music genre's). Applying a meritocratic approach, it places the burden of challenge purely on the sugestee and ignores the personal beliefs of the majority and allows propogation of ideas through the merit of the idea and its ability to convince those who are the most categorically linked to it of its validity.

My main issue is with the non-sensical right wing ideologues like Petrossa that are keen to disrupt this balance and democritise Science and ruin any ability it has to maintain integrity in research...all for the sake of one's political ideology. This paper isnt really my area of expertise, but i would imagine, if it can be challenged, it will be by the peers of the Author (because thats how science works). The only "old boys mentality" in this case...is the people who dont have any knowledge in this field...trying to supress or change the paper for the sake of their personal bias.

[PreKe]

Petrossa's point (If in got him right by reading some of his posts here.) is science become a claustrophobic old boys club following bureaucratic methods which suppress some ideas and forces scientists into selfcensorship, in some cases, rest they rock the boat. far from meritocratic system it is supposed to be

petrossa wants them to censor themselves.

Yes, the scientific method is rigid indeed, and that is why it works.

And yes, the scientific method does "suppress" ideas, namely the ones that don't have any valid evidence to them. Science is supposed to reject ideas that don't hold water.

If you want your idea to be accepted, you'd better damn well do the work to get it accepted.

Old boys or not, the method works. It keeps those dangerous wackos away. Pseudoscience is harmful and evil.

[petrossa]

apples and oranges. although, they largely thrive on free thoughts. outlandish claims aren't new to science. some of them have been proved. some things quantum theory are downright bizarre. I dont agree science is the last bastion of meritocratic system. Music,arts,sports fall into that category as well. most things are based on meritocratic system.

Petrossa's point (If in got him right by reading some of his posts here.) is science become a claustrophobic old boys club following bureaucratic methods which suppress some ideas and forces scientists into selfcensorship, in some cases, rest they rock the boat. far from meritocratic system it is supposed to be

Sigh. Someone understands me. You want to marry me?

I've proven this point pretty much in view how almost the whole wrath of 'science' descends on me when i dare doubt some of the wobbly pillars correctness.

Come on. Please. Let your emotions for your wife and children and keep your reason here.

I quote a study that takes a quite obvious fact of life, poor people get shafted in all departments and for sure in medicine, so that study should be quite simple: less money, less chances of longterm survival.

This is not enough for Dr Batty. So he climbs on his high horse and immediately finds a culprit, they are stupid. And then goes on to prove how stupid they are. With an IQ test. About the most disqualified unscientific method in existence.

So now he has a reason why poor people get sick, it's not because they are poor no it's because they are stupid. And because they are stupid they can't attain the necessary height on the 'socio-economic' scale.

Socio-economic scale. How very scientific. Dr Batty, they are poor. They don't have the money for proper nourishment nor proper health care. Smart people can be poor too, mediocre are mostly just about borderline poor.

Dr Batty. Your study is hogwash.

Another sample of idiocy masked as science

Psychosocial Stress and 13-year BMI Change Among Blacks: The Pitt County Study

Adverse psychosocial exposures may partially drive the high rates of obesity among blacks. The objective of this study was to prospectively examine the relationship between perceived psychosocial stress and percent change in BMI among adult black men and women. We used data from 756 women and 416 men who were participants in the Pitt County Study, a community-based, prospective cohort study of blacks in eastern North Carolina. Participants were aged 25?50 years of age on entry into the study in 1988 and follow-up was obtained in 2001. Using multivariable linear regression, we calculated the adjusted mean percentage change in BMI over the follow-up period for each tertile of baseline measures of the Perceived Stress Scale (low, medium, and high), adjusted for potential confounders. For black women, higher levels of psychosocial stress at baseline predicted higher adjusted percentage increase in BMI over the 13-year follow-up: low stress 12.0% (95% CI 9.6?14.4), medium stress 16.3% (95% CI 13.7?18.9), and high stress 15.5% (95% CI 13.1?17.8). For black men, perceived stress was not associated with percent BMI change. These data suggest that interventions targeting obesity in black women should consider the potential impact of emotional stress on weight change.

First: BMI doesn't mean anything. It's completely disqualified as a measurement. Secondly: In their culture being fat is a sign of wealth. Poor people are skinny, rich people are fat. Just as with the Arab ethnic group, the Asian ethnic group.

In fact the only ethnic group which is obsessed by weight are the western ones. So they blandly take their groups average? weight as the correct one and than proceed to judge everyone else by it. So they come up with absurd papers such as above. Correlating shoesize to beer consumption and hey presto we have the answer why they are fat.

This is NOT science. This is applying scientific methods to prove that our culture is correct and theirs is wrong.

And this lady http://www.rug.nl/Corporate/nieuws/archief/archief2009/persberichten/192_09 get a PhD because she: shows how 'perhaps' 'maybe' the undigested fibers in 'someway' are being absorbed in the colon and that 'something' in there helps fight diabetes 2.

Maybe i haven't been at school the day they talked about undigestable fibres actually being digestable, else for me undigestable means you crap it out as it came in.

[petrossa]

Agreed, he's just attributed meritocracy the wrong way around, i know what he is trying to say.

Art and music are supposed to be about rebelling against the establishment of professional or merit based systems and do this through the promotion of aesthetics, holism and abstraction.??Art and music are democritising forces (which were utilised through the reneaissance and industrial revolution to convey the ideas they found fruitful from the meritorious to everyone basically, encouraging the free flow of information).??Thats not to say Arts and Music are less important than the Sciences, but they are two distinctly different views of the world.??Where science is a strict WYSIWYG approach to the universe, based on the collective knowledge of what we know, Arts and Music are about how wer percieve the universe based on the collective perception of society.

Just wanted to iron out why Science is Meritorius and Arts is Democratic.

As for the "old boys club" mentality, this is present in any profressional society, and exists not to protect science from radically new ideas...but to maintain the integreity of the ability of it to produce radically new ideas.??Giving everyone and opinion leads to the group think mentality of chosing "morality" and determining what is and isn't categorically part of something (as it is with Music and Music genre's).??Applying a meritocratic approach, it places the burden of challenge purely on the sugestee and ignores the personal beliefs of the majority and allows propogation of ideas through the merit of the idea and its ability to convince those who are the most categorically linked to it of its validity.

My main issue is with the non-sensical right wing ideologues like Petrossa that are keen to disrupt this balance and democritise Science and ruin any ability it has to maintain integrity in research...all for the sake of one's political ideology.??This paper isnt really my area of expertise, but i would imagine, if it can be challenged, it will be by the peers of the Author (because thats how science works).??The only "old boys mentality" in this case...is the people who dont have any knowledge in this field...trying to supress or change the paper for the sake of their personal bias.

I'll refrain from the personal attacks, wish you'd do the same.?

In my mind science means using scientific methods to prove a VALID assumption.

Science isn't trying to prove the earth is flat. Science isn't trying to prove that disenfranchised must be stupid else they wouldnt' be disenfranchised. Science isn't assuming that your worldview is the only correct one and than proving how all others are inferior because they don't behave lie you do (the black being fat) Science isn't assuming that fibrous food is good for your health and than 'proving' it by how 'perhaps' 'maybe' the undigested fibers in 'someway' are being absorbed in the colon and that 'something' in there helps fight diabetes 2.

[lamminium]

In my mind science means using scientific methods to prove a VALID assumption.

Define "Valid assumption".

[TrueMonolith]

In my mind science means using scientific methods to prove a VALID assumption.

Ladies and gentleman...i present my case.

And no...thats not at all science.

Science is applying the scientific method to determine if your assumption IS valid.

[petrossa]

Ladies and gentleman...i present my case.

And no...thats not at all science.

Science is applying the scientific method to determine if your assumption IS valid.

Ladies and gentleman i present my case:

Truemonolith hasn't got a clue what science is.

Science is applying scientific methods to PROVE a valid assumption.

You can't prove an invalid assumption. The assumption has to have merit to begin with

If we are going to run around trying to prove invalid assumptions we'd get nowhere fast and waste huge amounts of money.

You pose a theory, with merit, like the earth is round not flat. Based on this valid assumption you go and try to prove the assumption to be not an assumption but a fact.

[petrossa]

Define "Valid assumption".

1+1=2, valid assumption.

1+1=3, invalid assumption.

If the sky falls we all have blue hat, invalid assumption.

A circle is square, invalid assumption.

Inertia increases each time a counter force is exerted on it. invalid assumption

Inertia decreases?each time a counter force is exerted on it. valid assumption

E=mc? valid assumption.

word games word games word games.

Are you sure you've ever followed classes in science?

[lamminium]

1+1=2, valid assumption.

1+1=3, invalid assumption.

If the sky falls we all have blue hat, invalid assumption.

A circle is square, invalid assumption.

Inertia increases each time a counter force is exerted on it. invalid assumption

Inertia decreases each time a counter force is exerted on it. valid assumption

E=mc? valid assumption.

word games word games word games.

Are you sure you've ever followed classes in science?

How do you know 1 + 1 = 2 is valid?

[TrueMonolith]

Ladies and gentleman i present my case:

Truemonolith hasn't got a clue what science is.

Science is applying scientific methods to PROVE a valid assumption.

You can't prove an invalid assumption. The assumption has to have merit to begin with

If we are going to run around trying to prove invalid assumptions we'd get nowhere fast and waste huge amounts of money.

You pose a theory, with merit, like the earth is round not flat. Based on this valid assumption you go and try to prove the assumption to be not an assumption but a fact.

How do you know an assumption is invalid?

Given this response:

1+1=2, valid assumption.

1+1=3, invalid assumption.

If the sky falls we all have blue hat, invalid assumption.

A circle is square, invalid assumption.

Inertia increases each time a counter force is exerted on it. invalid assumption

Inertia decreases each time a counter force is exerted on it. valid assumption

E=mc² valid assumption.

word games word games word games.

Are you sure you've ever followed classes in science?

Seems that you assert assumptions have validity based on conclusions. This should immediately set off warning lights about "Foundational Bias".

So no, i think you're obfuscating your lack of understanding of how the method actually works, and attributing the tagline "test VALID claims". All those claims you mentioned...were assumptions that were tested (however rudimentary the test was) to determine their validity and rejected by the thinking process of the mind. Its been a while since i last published anything (namely my masters thesis), but im 100% sure i have it right, and judging by a lot of people's responses here, i would appear to be in the majority. Is it possible...that science has evolved beyond the need for Foundational Bias?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

So no, i think you're obfuscating your lack of understanding of how the method actually works, and attributing the tagline "test VALID claims". All those claims you mentioned...were assumptions that were tested (however rudimentary the test was) to determine their validity and rejected by the thinking process of the mind. Its been a while since i last published anything (namely my masters thesis), but im 100% sure i have it right, and judging by a lot of people's responses here, i would appear to be in the majority. Is it possible...that science has evolved beyond the need for Foundational Bias?

You're one of them?