BS: Scientific misconceptions.

Subject: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 11:07 AM

It is called knowledge for a reason. You have to know.

It would be a better world if everyone was scientifically literate.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:33 PM

"I learned that effective communication starts with the understanding that there is MY point of view, (my truth), and someone else's point of view (his truth). Rarely is there one absolute truth, so people who believe that they speak THE truth are very silencing of others. When we realize and recognize that we can see things only from our own perspective, we can share our views in a nonthreatening way. Statements of opinion are always more constructive in the first person "I" form. The ability to listen is as important as the ability to speak. Miscommunication is always a two way street." 
― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and t

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:37 PM

Poor Sheryl!!..What's worse, is she learned how to type!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM

Scientists are also guilty of this misuse, of course. I got a bit irritated a day or two back by a radio program which is about statistics (Called "More or Less") referring to 'the birthday paradox' in which it only needs 23 people in a group for the chances of two sharing a birthday. NO! NOT A PARADOX! Unexpected, yes. Paradoxical, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

Typo! ... sharing a birthday to exceed 50%

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:50 PM

Could you have overlooked Shery's second last sentence, gfs:)

Here is another one for you:

We can't be lovers because we both have mustaches. But since you're a lady, and I'm a gentleman, I'll shave mine off."  Jarod Kintz, Love quotes for the ages. Specifically ages 18-81.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:08 PM

"Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that's where the light is. It has no other choice." ― Noam Chomsky

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 08:53 PM

A well-meaning link, but, like when you read something about yourself in the paper, total bollocks. The bit about survival of the fittest is a giveaway. The writer understands nothing about evolutionary theory. Enough to stop me reading all the rest of it. Cynical junk.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:52 AM

Ed T: "We can't be lovers because we both have mustaches. But since you're a lady, and I'm a gentleman, I'll shave mine off."

...and even agree to pretend to have PMS!!

Ed T.: (Sheryl's Second to the last sentence).."The ability to listen is as important as the ability to speak."

Sure she'd say that....Ask ANY woman!!!...as long as SOMEONE ELSE is doing the listening......"Hey Sheryl!!...I don't play with shit and rub it on my fingers...I don't sniff shit and stuff it in my nose...I don't eat shit...nor am I going to cram it in my ears!!!...in copious amounts, while you figure out, that while talking, you have to make sense!!"

Ed T.: ""Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that's where the light is. It has no other choice." ― Noam Chomsky

BRAVO!!!!

Then again if you believe in the light...the pseudo-science-political-activist wannabe buffs get all pissy!! ...Right, Steve????
What's worse, are the politico 'idiot-logic' patriotic revolutionaries who think the state is 'the light' the ONLY light, and the Almighty light!!!
Maybe if they pull their heads out of their asses, 'some' light will dawn on them!... But, alas and alack, they usually replace their heads, into it's parking slot...because they don't know how to make use of the light....TAX IT, LIE TO IT, and PRETEND THAT YOU'RE ON 'THEIR SIDE'!! .....then make a lot of dumb excuses.....and get indignant if someone doesn't take you seriously!!!!!

Grinning...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 03:27 AM

That's done it. goofus has the bit between his teeth now.

A little knowledge is dangerous, but when your knowledge is a misconception to begin with......

For me, the trick is never to put faith in your hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 07:21 AM

"The writer understands nothing about evolutionary theory."

Why do you say that? I don't know Jacqueline Gill personally, but I read her work and she is a massively capable and erudite scientist. I can't see anything wrong with the statement as it is written.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Fergie
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:35 AM

NOW I remember why I promised myself never to venture below the BS line.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 09:35 AM

"I will be back in five minutes, if I am not, read this message again."

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

"Biography:

Annalee Newitz...was the recipient of a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT, and has a Ph.D. in English and American Studies from UC Berkeley."


UC Berkeley grad, lives in San Fraancisco, has no background in science. Perfect NPR guest...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 12:37 PM

But musicians also misquote science. How about:

"The Dark side of the Moon"?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 12:38 PM

A well-meaning link, but, like when you read something about yourself in the paper, total bollocks. The bit about survival of the fittest is a giveaway. The writer understands nothing about evolutionary theory. Enough to stop me reading all the rest of it. Cynical junk

Perhaps it was just a bit above your head Steve.

Jacqueline Gill
In my work, I take an interdisciplinary approach that combines paleoenvironmental reconstructions, modern field experiments, biogeographic data analysis, and modeling of past landscapes. My goal is to help other ecologists, conservationists, and policy makers better understand how ecosystems have responded to past change, in order to make informed decisions about present and future landscapes.

I have recently begun a position as Assistant Professor of Paleoecology and Plant Ecology at the University of Maine, held jointly with the School of Biology & Ecology and the Climate Change Institute. I'm thrilled to be joining a program with a long history of excellent research in ecology, climate change, and Quaternary studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 01:30 PM

Classic example of being impressed by shiny words, although evolutionary theory isn't amongst them. I too wasn't too impressed with the unfortunate phrase "survival of the fittest."

There again, being impressed by a cv rather than their actual work explains Keith's approach to many subjects on these threads. He'll be calling her eminent next....

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 01:31 PM

Keith A,

Just to prove your stuff and without Googling anything, please give us your own definitions of paleoecology and 'quarternary studies'.

If you can, I'll be pleased to admit that you do know what you're writing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:33 PM

"Classic example of being impressed by shiny words, although evolutionary theory isn't amongst them."

Are they shiny words? I see a working scientist describing her research. Her work requires a tad more than a passing knowledge of evolutionary theory, like so many others in the earth and biological sciences.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Ms. Gill knows more about the subject than Mr. Shaw. or Mr. pdq. When do you think was the last time either of them were written about by a writer with a Phd. from Berkley?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 03:34 PM

Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either.

They are very shiny words to Keith in the same way shiny baubles were to ignorant Pacific Islanders when James Cooke parked his boat.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 04:01 PM

One can quibble about her definitions, but they are pretty good. (Ph. D. in Earth Sciences from major American university).

Personally, I am a believer in the theory of multiple working prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:43 PM

"Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either."

Er, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:44 PM

Musket: "For me, the trick is never to put faith in your hypothesis."

That coming from YOU???

As long as we're there, how about not passing laws and making public policy, about ANYTHING, based on an unproven hypothesis??

Sound familiar??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 07:31 PM

The piece on evolutionary theory is just waffle. A typical piece of half-arsed popular science journalism. Yes, Darwin did not refer to "survival of the fittest" in Origin, in fact, he was extremely dubious about the expression being misused at all to describe his theory. Next, "survival of the fittest", as described by the ignorant writer of the piece, has nothing to do with individuals or species or whatever, but has everything to do with what Darwin might have called heritable traits, or what we might call genes. I'm a bit surprised you did't pick up on that, Stu, to be honest. Oh yes, Wacko. You can have "professors" of this, that or the other, with PhDs in the other, that, or this, and you can hang on their every word, etc. (as indeed you do, even though you don't understand any of their words), but do that at your peril. I know some blokes round my way who play guitars, mandos and fiddles who have never had a minute's training but who understand more about their art than many a professor of music. Lose the sycophancy for once and get real!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:16 PM

Nigel Parsons:But musicians also misquote science. How about:

"The Dark side of the Moon"?

....Ah, but at the end of "Eclipse" you do get the phrase: "there is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark".

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:27 PM

Well, David Bowie kinda stretched science a bit with "major tom and scary monsters". But, artists have a special social licence to do so.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:28 PM

GUST Musket
Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either.

Didn't realise you were just as much a Little Englander as Keith.

Einstein University of Zürich.
Bohr University of Copenhagen
Heisenberg University of Munich
Planck University of Munich

None of them a patch on Mr Steve Shaw (schoolmaster retd.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 12:14 AM

I think if you were to read a little more carefully Mr. Shaw you would find that she was referring to and describing the way law people think of "survival of the fittest" and not giving her own definition.

If you only had the same proficiency in reading the English language as you claim to have in science...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 01:57 AM

Not interested in Sheryl Sandberg...she may be rich and powerful, but her mentoring by Larry Summers, and close association with him puts her in the category of suspect of being as completely corrupt as he is!!...and as destructive as politically corrupt politicians can get!!
She served with him, under Bill Clinton, and Summers was a driving force behind repealing Glass-Steagall, which....wait....I'll pull this up for ya'......

"Lawrence Henry "Larry" Summers was a primary architect of the modern U.S. financial system, which collapsed in 2008 leaving some 8 million Americans unemployed and destroying some $13 trillion in wealth, according to the GAO. Summers served multiple roles in the U.S. Treasury in the 1990's under President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (previously of Goldman-Sachs). In those roles he supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which lead to the creation of "too big to fail" banks, and fought the regulation of derivatives which later played a key role in the financial crisis (see more below). Ultimately he became Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton 1999-2001. He also held the position as President of Harvard 2001-2006 during the administration of George W. Bush, a position he left after a no-confidence vote by the staff and after losing some $2 billion in Harvard endowment funds to a derivatives deal gone bad."

So she can take her 'relative truths' and shove them up hers.....crooks and cons LOVE the 'spinning room' with raps like hers! She lives at the heart of the political corruption of this country, and has damaged people globally!!
I'm not impressed.....but I am surprised (a little), that you keep pushing her....but then one man's truth is another man's 'talking point'...and she is part of the corruption machine!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 02:50 AM

There used to be a joke about people not understanding irony.

Ah well.

(I suppose, considering mine was joint awarded between a British and German university, who commissioned the research, I too have a foreign PhD.

You may wish to read it in context of Jack trying to impress Steve with her credentials for my throwaway comment.

A bit of a bugger when you have to explain how you take the piss.

Tsk

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 04:21 AM

Shiny words?
I read about a young highly qualified Professor actively engaged in cutting edge research that is pushing forward the frontiers of our knowledge in that field.

I think it highly unlikely that an ex-school teacher, like Steve or me, could possibly know more about it than her.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,The Worshipful Musket VD &bar
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:29 AM

Don't let your lack of self esteem have you thinking that all people in a profession are at a level.

There's a huge difference between the sports teacher we had who took an unhealthy interest in us when showering and the physics teacher who opened my young mind to the potential of knowledge and the power of applying it.

My credentials include hard sums and pocket calculators but be buggered if I am any good with the chalk at the dartboard. Likewise, the piece of paper says engineering physics but the chair is in service improvement.

Steve has every right to pick up on a debatable comment in his sphere of knowledge and dismiss anything emanating from it.

You just can't help yourself, sneering at anyone who questions your stance or approach.

Sorry nobody here is eminent. You can always drool at her potted cv and assume no bugger else has one. Even if the subject she was commenting on isn't in her credentials. TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:40 AM

But I did not sneer.
Sneering is what arrogant, egotists do.

Like Steve sneering at the knowledge of a mere professor engaged in original research at the highest level, and you sneering at me.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:04 AM

" I'm a bit surprised you did't pick up on that, Stu, to be honest."

But she is talking about genes, albeit the effects of mutation rather than mutation itself.

I'm guessing this is difficult to sum up in a couple of paragraphs for a general readership, but I still see nothing wrong with either. They're discussing the flow of information and the agents that affect that flow. Mutations resulting in different alleles (variations of a gene, eye colour for instance) are not adaptive, but might confer an advantage on an animal carrying that mutation; equally they might not make any difference or be a disadvantage. Of course they touch upon sexual selection as being another driver of evolution, and there are others of course but for a laypeople this might all get a bit confusing.

All they're saying is "survival of the fittest" is not how evolution works; it should be "survival of the best adapted".

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:37 AM

No.
Arrogant egotist describes a person who sneers at people they imagine themselves superior to.
Your suggestion is just random playground name-calling.
Forgettable.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:52 AM

I'm getting confused. Was the Worshipful Musket the real one or somebody taking the piss out of him?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:54 AM

Whilst she's correct on matters like the popular misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" I think she's wrong about words like "theory" or "proof" being scientific words which the public misuses. These are ordinary words with ordinary meanings in everyday speech, however scientists use them an a technical and more specific sense. The same applies to all activities, professional and otherwise, because specialists need more specific language and need to make finer distinctions than non-specialists.

For me, the words "file" or "saw" are sufficient, whereas they actually cover a range of tools. A plumber or a carpenter needs to distinguish between the different sorts and uses more precise language to describe them. To a plumber, the phrase "round bastard" means a file - to me it means a plumber :)

The problem she quotes about the public misunderstanding scientists' use of 'proof' is a classic example of the misuse of jargon. The onus should be on the specialist to present their ideas in non-specialist language, rather than on the public to learn the specialists' jargon (and it is when they attempt to do this that the other misunderstandings and misuses arise that she also complains about). The fault lies not with the public but with the scientists for failing to use non-technical language in a debate with non-specialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

The pieces on "proof" and "theory" were by male physicists.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 09:44 AM

Musket.

Steve's credentials are considerably less. Steve misread what she said and criticized her base on that and has Stu has pointed out. Steve was overreaching in the substance of his argument. Yet he sneers in spite of all that.

You, on the other hand, are simply stirring shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 10:53 AM

" Scientific misconceptions" pale next to many cultural misconceptions.

"There used to be a joke about people not understanding irony."

"A bit of a bugger when you have to explain how you take the piss."


I have commented before about various Brits inability to realize how their banter & 'irony' often fails to translate in print form in an international forum. Even the phrase "taking the piss" is only superficially understood by many. I NEVER heard it used until a few years into Mudcat. The same with "a bit of a bugger". (there seem to be infinite uses of bugger in English banter. One wonders...)
If you are not aware of how YOUR slang, cant and colloquialisms can obscure your point, you will often be misunderstood. If your reaction to being misunderstood is to characterize 'them' as slow, dull, humorless and generally lacking in comprehension, you will forever be frustrated in these discussions.
It is NOT a universal thing to punctuate all debates with cleverly phrased insults designed to show your wit & erudition.

...but, I forget... "Bill doesn't get the point"

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:19 AM

"A bit of a bugger when you have to explain how you take the piss."

I would suggest a smidgeon more sophistication (or lack of, whatever) in thee's piss-taking. You tories can never carry it of with any degree of panaché or utter lack of class; must come of being so aspirational or something.


"I have commented before about various Brits inability to realize how their banter & 'irony' often fails to translate in print form in an international forum."

Various? That'll be all of us kind sir! If thou can't speak the lingo or understand owt then best leave alone me old mucker. This is not that American English but yer actual English wot is spoke reet proper by us over here. Bostin!


"It is NOT a universal thing to punctuate all debates with cleverly phrased insults designed to show your wit & erudition."

Bollocks to that!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:29 AM

I understand that survival of the fittest means those organisms which inherit adaptions that facilitate their continuence. this may amount to an increase in size and strength etc, or a loss of function, eg a blind fish in a cave may do better that a sighted fish in that environment. does the phrase not equate to "...preservation of favoured races"?
when " survival of the fittest" was first expressed [post Darwin?] was that the meaning then.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 12:02 PM

Stu, just because you are a Tory, don't assume we socialists are...

Jack. Stop being perceptive, it doesn't become you.

Moderators, stop deleting my posts please. At the very least, show me where I am wrong in my appraisal of Keith. You can't can you? At the very least, keep the other bits in.

pete. "Favoured" infers a God concept to do the favouring. Now you are being silly....

Who's next?

Ah yes. Snail. I answered your question in the latest post to get deleted. If you must have an answer, take it up with the censors.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 12:09 PM

"Stu, just because you are a Tory, don't assume we socialists are..."

My toryism fling was over 30 years ago. I'm scarred for life. Jesus. The thought of it brings me out in a hot itchy rash.


"does the phrase not equate to "...preservation of favoured races"?"

No it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 01:02 PM

Ooh.. Bloody hell..   You and Richard Bridge......

My conscience is clear, never voted Tory in my life. Mind you, I do consider myself a floating voter. Nice to be one of the few percent with actual power, even if it is just to keep the bastards on their toes.

I have never aspired to anything. My Mum wanted a girl, my Dad if truth be known, wanted a new wheelbarrow. I tried a different track. Got my head down, worked my balls off and the BMW fairy eventually granted me some wishes. Panache and class I leave to those who try too hard. A pressed dinner jacket* and a smile, that's all you need.

Survival of the drinkiest.

* Never buy one with a stripe down the leg. You will be confused with those bores who tell you they used to be in the paras. No class whatsoever and if you want to get on, avoid the buggers like the plague. Tell them you won the Tag Heuer Monaco in a game of cards, I guarantee they will be impressed. Then move on, they won't be offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 01:57 PM

Let's see if I've got this right. If Musket was being ironic, then that means he does rate foreign PhDs so he was supporting Jack and taking the piss out of Steve. Unexpected but encouraging.

If the Worshiful Musket is, in fact, he then "You just can't help yourself, sneering at anyone who questions your stance or approach." has an irony that even Bill should be able to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:00 PM

(And, if everyone knew when to use Were after If... we'd have fewer Pedant Alerts.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:07 PM

ah, but is bill being American ironic !
musket," preservation of favoured races " is I seem to remember the end of the title of darwins "...origin...."
I suppose he may have been referring to God. he did apparently include a reference to a creator in one run of origins...... and later wrote that he regretted doing so.
thankyou stu, for your helpful answer [that might be irony!]
why I thought there might be equation is that races [organisms?] favoured by being fitted best for their continuence onward, would therefore survive by being better able/less hindered to perpetuate progeny.
yes, I know i'm saying the same thing in two different ways, but that is the point I am suggesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:40 PM

From: Rob Naylor - PM
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:16 PM
Nigel Parsons:But musicians also misquote science. How about:

"The Dark side of the Moon"?

....Ah, but at the end of "Eclipse" you do get the phrase: "there is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark".
So they compound their error. "It's all dark"?
Surely, being roughly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it should get the same (or more) sunlight per square meter as the Earth. (I say more because it doesn't have much atmosphere to reflect the sunlight).
Also, being smaller that the earth, the amount of reflected "Earthlight" it receives should be greater than the equivalent amount of Moonlight received by the Earth.
Of course, the 'side' of the Moon farthest from the Sun will appear dark as it is illuminated only by starlight (and occasionally Earthlight). But as the Moon also revolves (except relative to the Earth) the side facing the Sun changes.