Science at its best


Recommended Posts

petrossa

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.

All evidence sofar collected proves life existing in the most hostile environments. From the boiling acidpools in Yellowstone to the pitchdark oceanfloor. So intuitively i'd say the changes of life beyond earth are 100%.

But in all honesty, indeed why bother? Who gives a crap. What magic revelations you think that'll give. I really honestly don't understand why people are so het up about the subject. Whether it does or doesn't is immaterial and only good for hefty grants and research funding.

Keeps the scientists busy while other people work for a living.

PS

Talking of the devil:

New species 'live without oxygen'

The first animals that do not depend on oxygen to breathe and reproduce have been discovered by scientists on the bed of the Mediterranean Sea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7570677/New-species-lives-without-oxygen.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

See, what we're proving here is that these things are not as clear cut as you think, thus researching them is valid to help come down on one side of the other. To take that latest example: animals without oxygen? Hell no! Oh, wait, research found them?

You would never have thought up reasons why a man is more likely to be injured until you were told they were. In any case, you do not know these results are not applicable or useful, you only think they aren't.

People are annoyed by your continued misrepresentation of scientists and misunderstanding of science. Please stop with the anecdotes, it's half of what's wrong with your approach to science - while they may be interesting, individual events can only ever really disprove a hypothesis, and are unreliable and unconvincing to those not involved.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

See, what we're proving here is that these things are not as clear cut as you think, thus researching them is valid to help come down on one side of the other.

You would never have thought up reasons why a man is more likely to be injured until you were told they were. Please stop with the anecdotes, it's half of what's wrong with your approach to science.

Yeah! Again a point scored for saying nothing. You must be basking in the glow.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the drunk falling and not breaking stuff is the center of many a tale. Didn't have to think about it for a second. Anyone who didn't have other peoples? money to spend wouldn't use weeks of precious computing time to prove the well known, the obvious.

This is what you refuse to get your head around.?

I'm against useless research, not against research. I'm very happy with all the advances science brought to my life.

This kind stuff give science a very bad rep, and everytime yet another idiotic 'study' hits the newspapers science selfridicules it out even more. Recently the climate 'science', that caused those layman who weren't already blas? with all kinds of contradictory'studies' to really lose all faith.

So the OP was and is a critique on scientist to get their heads out of their asses, realize that it's mostly public funding that pays their salaries and that we don't expect 'studies' to prove the obvious in order to give the author 'street cred'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe

Ok, so science sucks when petrossa disagrees with it, but also when he agrees with it.

At least he's consistent in his hatred of science :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn
Sorry to disappoint you, but the drunk falling and not breaking stuff is the center of many a tale.

What do these data points tell you? That drunkenness protects you from injury after falling from heights? I'm sure you realise that's absurd, and certainly it's not intuitive. But this is what your anecdotes are (apparently) saying.

What it is certainly not saying, is that men are better protected from falling from heights than women (no comparison is made), or that it is applicable to car injuries (which are different things). To check those requires actual scientific research.

But! this is straying wildly from the original point ... you don't think the research is valid because it is:

  1. "obvious" - the specific results aren't, despite your protestations. Your protestations (as noted above) are barely on a related topic.
  2. "useless" - not something we can personally judge, but there isn't particular reason to suggest it isn't. If you really MUST have an example: it might affect future seatbelt design, perhaps with different settings for men and women.

It is difficult to make it clearer.

We've previously discussed the issue of the media's representation of science in other topics, but one cannot point to a single cause. Both the media and misguided scientists can sometimes build up a piece of research as more "important" than they should, but it doesn't mean the actual research wasn't valid. There's no evidence of any such issue with the example in this topic. Stopping research on particular topics because of the possible ramifications for misrepresentation is silly - the media does not get to decide what gets researched. That choice should be objective, not subjective.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

What do these data points tell you? That drunkenness protects you from injury after falling from heights? I'm sure you realise that's absurd, and certainly it's not intuitive. But this is what your anecdotes are (apparently) saying.

What it is certainly not saying, is that men are better protected from falling from heights than women (no comparison is made), or that it is applicable to car injuries (which are different things). To check those requires actual scientific research.

But! this is straying wildly from the original point ... you don't think the research is valid because it is:

  1. "obvious" - the specific results aren't, despite your protestations. Your protestations (as noted above) are barely on a related topic.-> personal opinion not in evidence
  2. "useless" - not something we can personally judge, but there isn't particular reason to suggest it isn't. If you really MUST have an example: it might affect future seatbelt design, perhaps with different settings for men and women.

Already in existence, so that's a nonstarter.

It is difficult to make it clearer.

Granted. It's nearly impossible to make it clear. Might, should, could, if x reaches y then z might happen. And that's science to you?

We've previously discussed the issue of the media's representation of science in other topics, but one cannot point to a single cause. Both the media and misguided scientists can sometimes build up a piece of research as more "important" than they should, but it doesn't mean the actual research wasn't valid. There's no evidence of any such issue with the example in this topic. Stopping research on particular topics because of the possible ramifications for misrepresentation is silly - the media does not get to decide what gets researched. That choice should be objective, not subjective.

Another point scored. Your audience is even more dense then i previously held possible.

An objective scientist. You're joking right? If anything we get swamped with proof they are just like all the rest of us, amazingly: studying doesn't make you superhuman.

The society decides what gets researched when they pay for it. If it's not public funding then it's the enterprise who pays who decides.

On what planet do you live? I live on a planet were i pay taxes for the greater good of society, not for the ego of a scientist.

Ofcourse we decide, and we get our info from the media. So yes, in a sense the media decides what gets researched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

I ... can't even answer those things in red text. They're just such bizarre comments. I'm not sure you understood what I said, again.

Another point scored. Your audience is even more dense then i previously held possible.

Man, will you please stop doing that? It's pretty annoying.

An objective scientist. You're joking right? If anything we get swamped with proof they are just like all the rest of us, amazingly: studying doesn't make you superhuman.

The society decides what gets researched when they pay for it. If it's not public funding then it's the enterprise who pays who decides.

On what planet do you live? I live on a planet were i pay taxes for the greater good of society, not for the ego of a scientist.

Ofcourse we decide, and we get our info from the media. So yes, in a sense the media decides what gets researched.

No, you don't get to directly decide what research is done. I don't, either. Elected officials and experts in the fields do. If they are unduly influenced by the media, this is a failure on their part.

I hope you realise I described the ideals. That reality does not match the ideals is why "should" comes into it. I really don't know what else you want us to say that is actually on topic and isn't a response to your repeating the same point again in every post.

Summary of the thread so far: the example you gave at the start of the thread does NOT support your assertions about the state of modern science.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred Derf

Another point scored. Your audience is even more dense then i previously held possible.

I'm may very well start repping people who disagree with you too. Perhaps people are voting for them because they make a lot more sense than what you write and there is no way to negatively rep what you write here.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

I'm may very well start repping people who disagree with you too. Perhaps people are voting for them because they make a lot more sense than what you write and there is no way to negatively rep what you write here.

Lol. Well if you want to add yourself to my loyal troop of anti-reppers.....Your welcome. But as i pointed out during beta testing this whole rep system is absurd. If any newcomer comes in he must believe that Kirkburn is the fount of wisdom.

I'd believed that staff would discourage this kind of behavior.

Anyroad if to you i don't seem to make sense opens several avenues:

a) i don't make sense

b) i make sense, but i express myself in a nonsensible way

c) i make sense, but the readers who don't think so are incapable to comprehend

d) i make sense, but readers refuse to accept it because its counterintutive

etc etc

The list goes on.

To me i make perfect sense:

Mediocre scientists scrape out a reason for existence by publishing papers , no matter their relevance, methodology or usefulness.

Which makes them very human, because no one is going to work himself out of a job.

And since being published is the holy grail of scientific endeavor i'm afraid 1000's of likewise irrelevant/useless/meaningless/contradictory papers will see the light of day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe
that caused those layman who weren't already blas? with all kinds of contradictory'studies' to really lose all faith

That's your problem right there. Science isn't about faith. You only have faith, and when science contradicts that faith, you reject it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mzta cody

That's your problem right there. Science isn't about faith. You only have faith, and when science contradicts that faith, you reject it.

I could say your problem is that you only have science, and when faith contradicts that science you reject it. If you had faith in anything other than man's abilities to begin with.

Glad to see enlightened and tolerant people being intolerant as usual. Ganging up on Petrossa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe
I could say your problem is that you only have science, and when faith contradicts that science you reject it.

Indeed. The problem for faith is of course is that there's no evidence for it, whereas science is all about evidence.

Glad to see enlightened and tolerant people being intolerant as usual. Ganging up on Petrossa.

No one is ganging up on anyone. As for being tolerant, nice double standards there buddy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

I see a bunch of severely ruffled feathers. Which makes my point for me. If i'd just posted nonsense no one would've bothered that much, just a few mocking posts on the nature of my ignorace and that's it.

But in view of the overwhelming response by proxy, if i counted well Kirkburn must had garnered more then 10 reps just for disagreeing with me, i touched on a very raw nerve.

And none of the posts actually addresses the gist of my OP:

Mediocre scientists.

I have a theory why we are inundated with such 'studies' the last decade.

In the good old days you only got to go to higher education based on your merits. But during the 80's a pervasive notion installed itself: all people are equal and should study.

Which is a lofty ideal, but as most ideals have no connection with reality. People aren't equal at all. People vary in talent, character, stamina, intelligence, common sense and social skills.

By trying to push everyone through the same measure, the measure needed to be adapted to accommodate for the high failure rate at the exams. So the standards got lowered steadfastly till an acceptable success rate was gained.

We are now at a point in education were anyone with a good memory and access to internet can get a higher education. Which results in a flood of mediocre graduates in each and every discipline.

In my good old days, even highschool was a 6 day 8 hour endeavor, and enough homework to last you what's left of your weekend. Nowadays, and i speak from direct observation, it's a rarity that students open a book. Why bother, you just copy it from the net, give it a quick glance and your done.

My stepson succesfully got a electrical enigneering diploma without EVER having opened a studybook. I have the proof here in a bunch of expensive studybooks without creased backs. Dozens of nearly empty writing pads. Still he got a above average grade.

And he ain't no einstein.

Having conversations with random people of the last generations opens a chasm of lack of formal education. History goes back to WW2, famous writers are an unknown, understanding of humankind and it's idiosyncracies is limited to: Gr8, c u l8tr.

At the same time you can't get a decent plumber, carpenter or what have you. They all have a higher education and are busy failing in life in a job they are not qualified for but got the papers to prove that they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

I see a bunch of severely ruffled feathers. Which makes my point for me. If i'd just posted nonsense no one would've bothered that much, just a few mocking posts on the nature of my ignorace and that's it.

But in view of the overwhelming response by proxy, if i counted well Kirkburn must had garnered more then 10 reps just for disagreeing with me, i touched on a very raw nerve.

And yet you still haven't worked out why. This is the science discussion forum. People are going to respond when you make unsubstantiated claims.

And none of the posts actually addresses the gist of my OP:

Mediocre scientists.

Really? None of them? That's surprising, because I know they did.

<snip>

Ah, another anecdote. Little point answering that.

I'm pretty sure this forum isn't for soapboxing, and you should be able to stick to your own topic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

And yet you still haven't worked out why. This is the science discussion forum. People are going to respond when you make unsubstantiated claims.

Really? None of them? That's surprising, because I know they did.

Ah, another anecdote. Little point answering that.

I'm pretty sure this forum isn't for soapboxing, and you should be able to stick to your own topic.

What is exactly the content of this post? All i see is a bit of grumbling. No answers, no rebuttals, no nothing. And yet another point gained for dissing me. If we keep this up i expect at least a thank you when you hit 100.

My points are clear and no one here has addressed a single one of them. There was some pompous reiteration of how the scientific process should work, a bit of posturing, a lot of blandly sidestepping the main point: mediocre scientists publishing idiotic papers.

All i've seen sofar is akin to someone reciting the traffic code to a cabdriver. Citing a set of rules and the obstinate reality of people not adhering to them.

What is clear that there is a huge chasm between what people want to believe and what actually happens. Scientist are people, with the same shortcomings as everyone else. They are not 'objective', they are not 'unbiased'.

This paper goes along way in explaining the problems with science, written by a scientist no less:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedic...al.pmed.0020124

It's a lot of letters without pictures so i hope the audience can make it till the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe
I see a bunch of severely ruffled feathers. Which makes my point for me. If i'd just posted nonsense no one would've bothered that much, just a few mocking posts on the nature of my ignorace and that's it.

Feathers are ruffled because you are constantly lying about science and spreading misinformation. If you just made some random post in some random thread you wouldn't have gotten all these responses. But you actually made a new thread just to lie about science. Of course people are going to respond and expose you.

But in view of the overwhelming response by proxy, if i counted well Kirkburn must had garnered more then 10 reps just for disagreeing with me, i touched on a very raw nerve.

No, people are just getting sick and tired of your anti-science FUD and propaganda.

And none of the posts actually addresses the gist of my OP:

Mediocre scientists.

You don't even know what science is, so who are you to say anything about that?

This paper goes along way in explaining the problems with science, written by a scientist no less:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

And as always, you fail miserably.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/09/the_cranks_pile_on_john_ioannidis_work_o.php

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

<snip>

I'll make this very simple for you.

Link your points to the original post in the thread, and show how it supports them. Stop soapboxing about very loosely related matters. Stop insulting and belittling your audience. Stop referring to their rep count.

This is the science discussion forum: none of the above actions are appropriate, and you will be (and are) called out on it.

I like discussing science. It's a fascinating, powerful subject. I know there are people out there who do not act in the way they should around the subject. But the example you based this thread on does not support your opinions. Throughout this thread, people have continuously tried to show you this - but your main response has been to soapbox about your opinions on the corruption of all science. That's not something we can realistically discuss, because it is your opinion. We can, however, discuss the basis (and evidence) for the opinion.

To recall another previous thread, you often refer to how science was better "before". When was this so-called golden age? What made it so? In all honesty, your assertions on this feel rather like nostalgia, as if Newton's age was a golden age of science (even though it was pretty much before the scientific method had been established).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

I'll make this very simple for you.

Link your points to the original post in the thread, and show how it supports them. Stop soapboxing about very loosely related matters. Stop insulting and belittling your audience. Stop referring to their rep count.

This is the science discussion forum: none of the above actions are appropriate, and you will be (and are) called out on it.

I like discussing science. It's a fascinating, powerful subject. I know there are people out there who do not act in the way they should around the subject. But the example you based this thread on does not support your opinions. Throughout this thread, people have continuously tried to show you this - but your main response has been to soapbox about your opinions on the corruption of all science. That's not something we can realistically discuss, because it is your opinion. We can, however, discuss the basis (and evidence) for the opinion.

To recall another previous thread, you often refer to how science was better "before". When was this so-called golden age? What made it so? In all honesty, your assertions on this feel rather like nostalgia, as if Newton's age was a golden age of science (even though it was pretty much before the scientific method had been established).

First, i don't need instruction on how to write my posts thank you very much. I'm quite capable of handling that myself. And yes i am belittling your audience for abusing the rep system just to express emotions. How silly can you be to rep a post without content other then it disagrees with me? That's an insult to anyone's intelligence. What is this? A kindergarten?

Again you just completely ignore the content of the post and put forward your POV. Which is your right, but don't make it seem as if your post has any relation to mine. That's disingenuous to say the least.

I posted a valid scientific paper illustrating the valid point i make, mediocre scientists publish rubbish papers. You completely ignore it, whilst it is a robust confirmation of my observation, as in: not an opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PreKe

Stop whining about rep, and answer his questions.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

For the record, I did not respond to the "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" for good reason. But since you ask:

  • PreKe already did so
  • It's not really related to the point of the thread we're in
  • It actually undermines your own arguments:

Are you suggesting the original research paper you posted is wrong? No, you're not: you've been extremely vehement that the results were 'really obvious'.

In any case, you posted a peer-reviewed research paper (which you like) from the same source you found the peer-reviewed research paper at the start of the thread (which you dislike), in order to say that bad research is getting through peer-review publishing. Maybe it's me, but that's pretty confusing.

You're selecting stuff you do like and discarding that which you don't, based on your own opinions rather than the science itself. Even ignoring that PreKe's link about how the paper that you do like is being misused, it's pretty hard to see how you're making any decisions that aren't just based on what fits in with your own worldview.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

For the record, I did not respond to the "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" for good reason. But since you ask:

  • PreKe already did so
  • It's not really related to the point of the thread we're in
  • It actually undermines your own arguments:

Are you suggesting the original research paper you posted is wrong? No, you're not: you've been extremely vehement that the results were 'really obvious'.

In any case, you posted a peer-reviewed research paper (which you like) from the same source you found the peer-reviewed research paper at the start of the thread (which you dislike), in order to say that bad research is getting through peer-review publishing. Maybe it's me, but that's pretty confusing.

You're selecting stuff you do like and discarding that which you don't, based on your own opinions rather than the science itself. Even ignoring that PreKe's link about how the paper that you do like is being misused, it's pretty hard to see how you're making any decisions that aren't just based on what fits in with your own worldview.

Preke is on my ignore list, so i wouldn't know what he said.

It's totally related to the thread we are in:

Mediocre scientists publishing rubbish papers.

The paper is linked to, and if you'd read it you'd know, goes into fine detail exactly explaining why and how research papers are more often then not not worth the paper they're written on.

As such it completely supports my POV.

Its really that simple. You keep introducing sidetracks, i just ignore them because sidetracks can only result in a thread that goes miles off topic were we end up squibbing over if the word 'mediocre' is negative or positive word.

So keep on track:

Mediocre scientist posts idiotic paper based on a computer simulation showing that the laws of nature apply even to overweight people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kirkburn

The paper you posted is called "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", not "Why Most Published Research Papers Are Idiotic".

Link to post
Share on other sites
petrossa

The paper you posted is called "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", not "Why Most Published Research Papers Are Idiotic".

Read it and find out he also addresses the idiotic part.

I guess we're done here, i'll let you have the last say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TrueMonolith

These threads are getting ridiculous.

Petrossa, when somany people are coming up with the same assessment of your postings (i.e telling you that you're strawmanning to obfuscate for your political ideology), maybe you need to consider that you're analysis of research is just plain biased.

  • Like 3
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.