Science at its best


Recommended Posts

Kudos

And as such a completely useless observation which didn't add to the discourse, nor did it demonstrate a particular bright insight. It was an attempt to denigrate and a definite personal attack.?

I left schoolyard a long long time ago, i don't see the point in entering one here.?

"Pointless arguing for arguments sake, who wants to disagree with me"

Sigh. I can't understand people getting so worked up about a non issue. Asinine remarks such as 'strawmen' are a pointless exercise in futility. They are void of information and add completely nothing to any discussion.

The study was done. Nobody asked for it because nobody needed it. Researching the obvious is a waste of money, but an all to current way of upping your publication record. This is my main point all along, scientists publishing useless studies in order to gain 'street cred'.

'calling out' haven't heard that since schoolyard. Weird to discuss a post and then turn it into some schoolyard brawl, scoring debating points with pointless remarks.

...

So not only is the 'stawmen' remark a pointless waste of space, it's even in the meaning you seem to want it to have misapplied.

Sure. You shouldn't have started in the first place since it has nothing to with science and everything with arguing for arguments sake.

To my mind all posts that contain dismissive adjectives are pointless. From strawmen to denier to alarmist. They don't add nothing, and if you have nothing to say don't say it.

So basically, I think what you're trying to say is that it's pointless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

So basically, I think what you're trying to say is that it's pointless.

You see, it's possible to understand me. I just have to repeat it often enough. :)

So any thoughts on the main point:

Too many scientists publish papers in order to gain 'street cred' resulting in mediocre, as often as not painfully stupid studies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kudos

Hia Tews, fine. Busy trying to discuss science but not getting very far.

Saying the same thing over and over again is not a discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Saying the same thing over and over again is not a discussion.

To be honest: I did say i didn't get very far

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kudos

To be honest: I did say i didn't get very far

I can't imagine you often do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

I can't imagine you often do.

You want to discuss science or just fill this thread with off topic observations? There are some rules for posting you know.

So any thoughts on the main point:

Too many scientists publish papers in order to gain 'street cred' resulting in mediocre, as often as not painfully stupid studies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor

...

You said a bigger bomb causes more damage than a smaller bomb. Please quantify "more". If you cannot, it is reasonable to say investigation may be required to get usable data. This data is part of the reason that such studies are done, even when the conclusions can easily be predicted.

For example, the bigger bomb may have a smaller energy release due to the construction or materials used as the explosives. While a smaller bomb may have a much higher energy release due to using higher efficiency explosives.

For example, 10 kilograms of C4 do less damage than a 10 kilogram nuclear bomb.

You wouldn't be able to find that out without testing though, just assuming that "more weight = bigger boom" is wrong.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

For example, the bigger bomb may have a smaller energy release due to the construction or materials used as the explosives. While a smaller bomb may have a much higher energy release due to using higher efficiency explosives.

For example, 10 kilograms of C4 do less damage than a 10 kilogram nuclear bomb.

You wouldn't be able to find that out without testing though, just assuming that "more weight = bigger boom" is wrong.

Holy sidetrack revival!

sarcastic remark != scientific observation

Please let it go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kudos

Holy sidetrack revival!

sarcastic remark != scientific observation

Please let it go.

We are proving the potential validity of these studies using your strawman (sarcastic remark, call it what you like) against you, that must cut deep.

Instead of asking us to let it go, discuss the matter. Like a man.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
e-berlin.org

So please 'scientists' stop researching if water consists of H²O.

Actually, it's H2O, H²O has nothing to do with water.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

We are proving the potential validity of these studies using your strawman (sarcastic remark, call it what you like) against you, that must cut deep.

Instead of asking us to let it go, discuss the matter. Like a man.

You know i suffer already from Grandiosity. You guys should stop confirming me in my illusions. Make some smarter remarks please.

So ok, someone went into the bigger bomb thing.

I'll explain in the simplest terms where his thinking went awry:

Big people suffer more trauma not because they are big, but because they accumulate a greater kinetic energy which upon impact translates in greater trauma.

In that context Bigger bomb doesn't mean bigger in size, but bigger in blasting capacity ?as in more kinetic energy in the above.

So the whole post was yet another futile attempt to derail the topic.

Actually, it's H2O, H?O has nothing to do with water.

You really caught me out there. Sorry for not having used the subscript. /S

Link to post
Share on other sites
vincent

Heads up Pettry,

Topics in the forum should have a clear scientific focus and a factual basis. This is not The It's a Conspiracy! forum.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Sure. You shouldn't have started in the first place since it has nothing to with science and everything with arguing for arguments sake.

To my mind all posts that contain dismissive adjectives are pointless. From strawmen to denier to alarmist. They don't add nothing, and if you have nothing to say don't say it.

If I were you, I'd take my own advice. This whole thread's premise is about arguing for argument's sake.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

Petrossa, hi. Me again.

You still don't seem to get that science isn't dictated by your opinions. It is interested in everything. Regarding this specific example you give, the interesting parts are about: whether it is a significant (i.e. real) amount, the accuracy of the computer simulation, the amount of difference it makes, and the exact factors involved. All quite reasonable things to know. Besides, I'd rather governments (and others) made decisions based on hard fact rather than intuition.

I was going to pop into this discussion with more, but the others seem to have it well in hand.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Petrossa, hi. Me again.

You still don't seem to get that science isn't dictated by your opinions. It is interested in everything. Regarding this specific example you give, the interesting parts are about: whether it is a significant (i.e. real) amount, the accuracy of the computer simulation, the amount of difference it makes, and the exact factors involved. All quite reasonable things to know. Besides, I'd rather governments (and others) made decisions based on hard fact rather than intuition.

I was going to pop into this discussion with more, but the others seem to have it well in hand.

For sure it was a nice study. We all know how reliable computer models are. (do i need put a /s here?)

To me it is a prime example of publishing papers to get a publication record. The study is useless, pointless and furthermore nobody cares.

That large masses release more kinetic energy is a given, you don't need a study for that. That's not intuition, that's a logical consequence of the laws of nature.

You don't need to study that putting more gunpowder in a gun is going the give the bullet more kinetic energy. You just add up the numbers.

The idea that this study is in any way, shape or from going to be translated in something relevant is preposterous. What do you want car manufacturers to? Put a warning sticker in the car: Overweight may increase the risk of trauma in case of an accident? Or maybe sell cars with double strength airbags for the overweight?

This is not science, this is fooling around with precious financial resources in order to get your name up there under the guise of science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

Do you ever bother reading the posts you respond to? It looks like I'll just repeat myself:

Regarding this specific example you give, the interesting parts are about: whether it is a significant (i.e. real) amount, the accuracy of the computer simulation, the amount of difference it makes, and the exact factors involved.

Amazingly, you managed to not address a single one of those, but just did one of your rants. In fact, you even made an attempted joke whether computer simulations are accurate, as if I hadn't just mentioned it. Do you even know how it was funded, or how long it took, since you rant about those too.

I'll take a specific example from the page, "Methods and Findings" section:

In the high-BMI range, men were more likely to be seriously injured than were women for all body regions except the extremities and abdominal region (all p<0.05 for interaction between BMI and sex). The findings from the computer simulation were generally consistent with the real-world results in the present study.

Men being more likely to be injured? Not intuitive. Computer simulation found to be generally consistent? Not intuitive (by your own admission).

Hell, just read the "Why Was This Study Done?" section.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Do you ever bother reading the posts you respond to? It looks like I'll just repeat myself:

Amazingly, you managed to not address a single one of those, but just did one of your rants. In fact, you even made an attempted joke whether computer simulations are accurate, as if I hadn't just mentioned it. Do you even know how it was funded, or how long it took, since you rant about those too.

I'll take a specific example from the page, "Methods and Findings" section:

Men being more likely to be injured? Not intuitive. Computer simulation found to be generally consistent? Not intuitive (by your own admission).

Hell, just read the "Why Was This Study Done?" section.

Wow holy rant! And 3 points extra. Disagreeing with me is good for anyone's rep. If negative rep existed i'd be in the minus 10.000. Shows how many people out there blandly follow the mob without even considering the points raised.

So to return to the starting position:

The study is a useless piece of pseudoscience, whose results serve no one except the author. Studying how more kinetic energy results in more trauma is a complete waste of time and resources. It doesn't add anything usefull to the world, except the proof that heavy objects accumulate more energy which upon release causes more damage.

Which in turn end in the final observation:

Mediocre scientists publish paper son whatever so to be able to have a nice CV full of published papers. Which is great for their career prospects, but total waste for the community at large.

Instead of smartalecking, you'd be better to really discuss that, because that's the OP's tenure.

If not, well be my guest keep scoring points i'm sure my fanclub will be happy to oblige.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

Wow holy rant! And 3 points extra. Disagreeing with me is good for anyone's rep. If negative rep existed i'd be in the minus 10.000. Shows how many people out there blandly follow the mob without even considering the points raised.

Or that you're just not very good at holding discussions or making clear, rational points.

So to return to the starting position:

The study is a useless piece of pseudoscience, whose results serve no one except the author. Studying how more kinetic energy results in more trauma is a complete waste of time and resources. It doesn't add anything usefull to the world, except the proof that heavy objects accumulate more energy which upon release causes more damage.

What makes it pseudoscience, exactly? That term is generally reserved for things that aren't actually scientific, not stuff that you think was "obvious". You've not actually made a complaint about their methodology, only that it was done in the first place.

Authors - plural by the way. You're just making it more and more obvious how you should never be in charge of a science project: we would have never worked out that g=9.8m/s^2 with you in charge. We'd just say that gravity is ooh, about this strong on Earth, and a bit less on Mars. More on Jupiter. I mean, it's obviously true, so why bother doing any research?

Which in turn end in the final observation:

Mediocre scientists publish paper son whatever so to be able to have a nice CV full of published papers. Which is great for their career prospects, but total waste for the community at large.

Instead of smartalecking, you'd be better to really discuss that, because that's the OP's tenure.

If not, well be my guest keep scoring points i'm sure my fanclub will be happy to oblige.

What we would love is if we could discuss the topic at hand, the one you originally brought up and is the basis of your complaint, not your continued wild opining about people's motives and how science should or shouldn't work.

The only way we can refute your points about the "uselessness" of the research, is by pointing to its validity. If you continue to ignore those points when given to you, what's the point of this topic? It just becomes you soapboxing and sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "la la la, can't hear you!". You're not going to convince anyone that way.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Or that you're just not very good at holding discussions or making clear, rational points.

What makes it pseudoscience, exactly? That term is generally reserved for things that aren't actually scientific, not stuff that you think was "obvious". You've not actually made a complaint about their methodology, only that it was done in the first place.

What we would love is if we could discuss the topic at hand, the one you originally brought up and is the basis of your complaint, not your continued wild opining about people's motives and how science should or shouldn't work.

The only way we can refute your points about the "uselessness" of the research, is by pointing to it's validity. If you continue to ignore those points when given to you, what's the point of this topic? It just becomes you soapboxing and sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "la la la, can't hear you!". You're not going to convince anyone that way.

You see, keep it up and you'll score point after point. I love my fanclub.

Sorry that argument goes both ways. You seem to do lalala as well.

Sofar you haven't addressed any point i made, but just held a monologue on in your view this study is a shining example of useful science, and trying to sidetrack the OP into a diverse debating points.

So to repeat:

The 'study' shows that objects with a greater mass accumulate more energy, resulting in more trauma.

Who'd have guessed.

To me that's a useless study, since the results can't possibly be applied in any foreseeable way. What do you envisage, i asked before. A manufacturer puts up a warning sign: Overweight increases your changes of trauma in case of instant deconstruction of the vehicle at speed?

Or maybe install a new gadget that measures corpulence by laserscanning your body and reduce maximum speed to the same level were at higher speed a less weightier person would suffer trauma? Or maybe let all passengers type in their BMI and sex so the car can adjust it's chassis to accommodate for that?

So i pose myself the question why would anyone publish useless studies?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

Science does not have to have a strict purpose. It is about curiosity, and investigating things for the sake of investigating them.

Resources of course do limit this, but the choices made in what to research are beholden to higher powers than yourself. Not all studies are funded with taxpayer money, nor does it mean that when they are the choices should be democratically made. Decisions based on that are unlikely to please you anyway. You may not personally see the point of this piece of research, but you are one person with a very limited point of view - individually, we all are.

However, I am not sure how I can make it clearer that the study turned up non-intuitive results, which is seemingly the only way to satisfy you. You are, pretty bizarrely, ignoring the actual content of the results.

On the applicability of the results: not all science needs an immediate application. You can't seriously believe that because you can't see a way it can be applied in the real world, that such a thing is impossible? We're not going to be able to give you a nice neat list because: 1). we're not car designers, 2). we didn't perform the research, 3). we don't work on health and safety guidelines for cars, 4). we can't see into the future.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U

Wow holy rant! And 3 points extra. Disagreeing with me is good for anyone's rep. If negative rep existed i'd be in the minus 10.000. Shows how many people out there blandly follow the mob without even considering the points raised.

I follow no mob, blindly or otherwise. I disagree with you because I think what you are saying is wrong, rep or no rep. This study had and has a point whether you like it or not.

At the risk of you accusing me of another personal attack, take your persecution complex elsewhere. The Science Discussion & News subforum is not the place for it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

Science does not have to have a strict purpose. It is about curiosity, and investigating things for the sake of investigating them.

Resources of course do limit this, but the choices made in what to research are beholden to higher powers than yourself. Not all studies are funded with taxpayer money, nor does it mean that when they are the choices should be democratically made. Decisions based on that are unlikely to please you anyway. You may not personally see the point of this piece of research, but you are one person with a very limited point of view - individually, we all are.

However, I am not sure how I can make it clearer that the study turned up non-intuitive results, which is seemingly the only way to satisfy you. You are, pretty bizarrely, ignoring the actual content of the results.

On the applicability of the results: not all science needs an immediate application. You can't seriously believe that because you can't see a way it can be applied in the real world, that such a thing is impossible? We're not going to be able to give you a nice neat list because: 1). we're not car designers, 2). we didn't perform the research, 3). we don't work on health and safety guidelines for cars, 4). we can't see into the future.

3 points more. Goes well. Proves my point when i betatested the new board. I observed that it served no purpose other then fanboys adolescenting about. I was told that the rep system would aid newcomers to decide if someone had sound advice.

Sofar it only aids people in seeing how the average age of the readers is on a downward trend.

Oh well.?

On topic:

You still stubbornly refuse to enter into the main gist of the OP:

Its a useless study proving that the laws of nature hold firm with no practical realm of application of any 'results' which are entirely virtual since they are as good as the software used.?

If the results show 'counter' intuitive results to you that can mean many things:

a) you intuition is not that hot

b) the results are wrong

c) a+b

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn
3 points more. Goes well. Proves my point when i betatested the new board. I observed that it served no purpose other then fanboys adolescenting about. I was told that the rep system would aid newcomers to decide if someone had sound advice.

Oddly enough, I think the rest of us think it works fine. Can you possible think why? In any case, I am not out to get rep - and to be honest, I didn't even notice until you brought it up.

(I don't know why age matters to you so much, but I am 25, and a university engineering graduate. Not exactly your typical adolescent fanboy, and I would prefer you lay off the implied personal attacks.)

Its a useless study proving that the laws of nature hold firm with no practical realm of application of any 'results' which are entirely virtual since they are as good as the software used.

You missed this important part of the report: "using both real-world data and computer crash simulation". It wasn't just "virtual" data.

Its a useless study proving that the laws of nature hold firm with no practical realm of application of any 'results' which are entirely virtual since they are as good as the software used.

If the results show 'counter' intuitive results to you that can mean many things:

a) you intuition is not that hot

b) the results are wrong

c) a+b

Yes, those are possible. So what? Apply them in some way relevant to this thread. For example, try applying it to...

men were more likely to be seriously injured than were women for all body regions except the extremities and abdominal region (all p<0.05 for interaction between BMI and sex).

What's your response to that? a), b) or c)?

In reality, neither of us are really capable of saying, because we're not researchers in the field.

Edited by Kirkburn
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

What's your response to that? a), b) or c)?

In reality, neither of us are really capable of saying, because we're not researchers in the field.

In reality it's quite easy. Just look up falling babies, and why they survive high falls from windows.

Then think how men on average have a higher muscular density making them more rigid, wereas women tend to be more limp.

Very intuitive to me, but then again i once fell out of a second floor window (wasted) and walked (it was a sobering experience) away without a scratch.

Was a funny anecdote. I came back this bass quitarist, she admonsihed me to be very quiet because her father would be mad. So i entered her bedroom tripped over something and went straight through the window. As i was lying there dazed, the girl hissed from the broken window: Quick go away, my father woke up. Which i did.

Oddly enough, I think the rest of us think it works fine. Can you possible think why? In any case, I am not out to get rep - and to be honest, I didn't even notice until you brought it up.

(I don't know why age matters to you so much, but I am 25, and a university engineering graduate. Not exactly your typical adolescent fanboy, and I would prefer you lay off the implied personal attacks.)

They were not directed at you but at MY fanclub. I have this loyal following of adolescents who rep anyone for disagreeing with me. REally. Once i was in discussion with someone, and the guy merely said he didn't agree with me to a long post of mine. Got him a rep. Broke me up laughing

Since them i'm mocking people repping others for nothing more then making in principle meaningless statements (meaningless in the sense of what the rep system was meant for)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stetson

We have lots of evidence of places in this universe where we have seen no signs of life. In fact, we have found absolutely no evidence of any type of life outside of this planet yet. It seems intuitive to me that the chances of us ever finding life outside of our planet is basically nonexistent. Therefore, we shouldn't bother to look. Ever.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.