BS: Scientific misconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:43 AM

""A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage, noticing a horseshoe hanging on the wall, teasing the eminent scientist about this ancient superstition. "Can it be true that you, of all people, believe it will bring you luck?'
'Of course not,' replied Bohr, 'but I understand it brings you luck whether you believe it or not.'" 
— Niels Bohr
As described in Clifton Fadiman (ed.), André Bernard (ed.), Bartlett's Book of Anecdotes

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:56 AM

""The existence of life must be considered as an elementary fact that can not be explained, but must be taken as a starting point in biology, in a similar way as the quantum of action, which appears as an irrational element from the point of view of classical mechanical physics, taken together with the existence of elementary particles, forms the foundation of atomic physics. The asserted impossibility of a physical or chemical explanation of the function peculiar to life would in this sense be analogous to the insufficiency of the mechanical analysis for the understanding of the stability of atoms. ""
— Niels Bohr
'Light and Life', Nature, 1933

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:23 PM

Stringsinger: "Neils Bohr said that those who think they understand quantum physics, don't understand quantum physics. The point of that statement is that whether you hold a PHD or not, it is important to truly assess the information that you are given and be open enough to decide that it was wrong if proved otherwise. To me that's the constructive use of science."

In other words...they're still guessing!

(BTW, Stringsinger, Hello!..Nice to see you posting...)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:36 PM

GfS has an odd definition of 'guess'. Not even like a dartboard- if one posits a dartboard as being a body of information, that makes the dart a guess. But no. He seems to believe that science consists of guesses being unrelated to any actual information whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:39 PM

""Truth is something that we can attempt to doubt, and then perhaps, after much exertion, discover that part of the doubt is not justified. ""
— Niels Bohr, Quoted in Bill Becker, 'Pioneer of the Atom', New York Times Sunday Magazine 

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 01:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: pdq - PM
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...


I don't understand the criticism. Ms Newitz is not a scientist. She's a journalist. It's not her job to be an expert, but to gather information from experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 01:09 PM

I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess", if

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Rumncoke
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 03:41 PM

I just wish that the idea that injecting or altering DNA will instantly alter the size, appearance and/or behaviour of an organism could be forbidden as a plot in books, films or whatever.

It just doesn't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 04:10 PM

Rumncoke: ".....idea that injecting or altering DNA will instantly alter the size, appearance and/or behaviour of an organism could be forbidden as a plot in books, films or whatever.
It just doesn't work like that."

It only works that way in politics!.....(Speaking of fiction...)



frogprince: "I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess", if"

I think it's perfectly logical...'educated', as if the homework has been done, enough to 'Guess'..as in 'try it out'.


Ebbie: "GfS has an odd definition of 'guess'. Not even like a dartboard- if one posits a dartboard as being a body of information, that makes the dart a guess. But no. He seems to believe that science consists of guesses being unrelated to any actual information whatever."

SEE ABOVE.


Ed T: "Truth is something that we can attempt to doubt, and then perhaps, after much exertion, discover that part of the doubt is not justified."

...considering we knew what the truth was all along....

and then there's this..

......considering we knew what the truth was all along....especially when what has been done to 'politics' and 'religion'....after all, they filter most the answers and concepts.....even steer you what questions to ask, while discouraging others...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 05:03 PM

You almost got what I suspect was the "truth" quote meaning, gfs.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:38 PM

Well, popular science can be a great communicator, but, in this case, the writer was talking utter bollocks. The person quoted in the piece must be squirming. And, Snailie, do try to not be overly-clever: if you're really going to use fancy words such as "erstwhile", then you really should know what they mean first. Or, be like me: let your speech be yea yea, nay nay...

And dearest Wacko, yet another post from you that meaneth nothing at all. Are you overdosing on tramadol, by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:09 PM

Almost????....I think I took it a step further...without over stepping...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:54 PM

Nuts; I posted at 1:09, had to depart immediately afterward, and just discovered that most of my post had evaporated; I suspect that I blew the code for ending the italics. I really don't have the heart to reconstruct it all, so make of things as you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 10:00 PM

I will say though, that I don't see any justification for referring to the scientific process as "the religion of" anything. That ain't confusing apples with oranges, that's confusing apples with penguins.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:01 AM

frogprince
Nuts; I posted at 1:09, had to depart immediately afterward, and just discovered that most of my post had evaporated; I suspect that I blew the code for ending the italics.

Yes you did but your message was hiding there in the page source -

I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess", if all parties involved realize that that is said within the context of the whole scientific process, the "guess" being stated in testable/disprovable terms and in fact subjected to experiment and review. But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:13 AM

Spooky. I mention the foreign one, and Snail says in answer to something else "I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess",

This is what I wrote back in the mists of time;

"Eine Hypothese ist eine fundierte Schätzung."

Basically the same.

(I am not fluent in German, especially not grammatically and had assistance writing the German script.)

But as Snail says, I don't have faith in foreign PhDs.....

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:22 AM

Just looked up "erstwhile". yes, that's what I meant.

it has been a while since your comment was clarified so time to take it out of context again.

Don't tell me, tell Troubador. He was the one who dragged it up again. I know it was clarified. You were taking the piss out of Steve.

I even have a foreign PhD......

Don't tell Troubador. He thinks they're rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:44 AM

Musket
Spooky. I mention the foreign one, and Snail says in answer to something else "I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess",

No I didn't. Read frogprince's posts of 22 Jun 14 - 01:09 PM and 22 Jun 14 - 09:54 PM then re-read mine of 23 Jun 14 - 06:01 AM.

Pay attention at the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:27 PM

I am not aware than any recent correspondent has been "taking the piss" out of me. I think most people around here know that that is a less than sensible ploy. And you clearly do not know what "erstwhile" means. It's a lovely word, but what a travesty it is when a tit such as yourself misuses it. Get a better dictionary, or, better, become better read. Better better better! Remember that from one of Paul's songs on Sgt Pepper?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:46 PM

Snail: "But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Actually, you're wrong...(just think, Mudcat history..I'm coming to Muskrat's and Froggie's defense....'Religion' technically means 'Way of life'...and therefore "Science is 'the way of life' (or 'Religion'), is quite accurate.....I think we covered the 'guessing' part....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 07:16 PM

Steve Shaw
I am not aware than any recent correspondent has been "taking the piss" out of me.

There are probably quite a lot of things you aren't aware of.

GfS
Snail: "But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Not me who said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 07:41 PM

Easy to say, Gastropodus insensibilitissimus, but not quite so easy to back up. Tell me: why ARE you so bitter and so prone to stalking?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 09:41 PM

Too alkaline.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 01:49 AM

Sprinkling them with salt usually helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 02:25 AM

Snail:
"GfS
Snail: "But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Not me who said that.""

Huh?

From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:01 AM

" .....But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".


See what happens when you try to mix political stances to accommodate one's politics....??...or is it:

Roses are red
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic
..and so am I.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 02:31 AM

Your own memory doesn't serve you well either Goofus. Remember? It goes...

Roses are red
I am just larking
About on my keyboard
And Goofus is barking

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 05:58 AM

Good Grief! Am I really responding to Goofus?

I've already had to explain this to Musket. Read my post to him at 23 Jun 14 - 06:44 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 06:03 AM

Steve Shaw
why ARE you so bitter and so prone to stalking?

Bitter? Not at all. Stalking? Well, maybe. Perhaps it's because you're such an easy target.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 05:21 PM

Hey, Guest from Non-Coherency; when that appeared in the Gastropod's post, he made it quite plain that he was quoting me.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 07:38 PM

Heheh. Hands up all those who think that Snailie ever scores on this oh-so-easy target. Shut up, Wacko. I wasn't asking you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 07:58 PM

You asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 08:03 PM

Jesus, you found Snailie's Facebook fan club page. B*ast*ard! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 08:24 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 04:51 AM

Roses are redish,
Violets are blueish
If it wasn't for Christmas
We'd all be jewish :)


Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Some poems rhyme,
Others don't

Rose's are red
Violet's are blue.
Sue doesn't wear them,
That's why I'm with Sue.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 01:17 PM

Steve Shaw
I am not aware than any recent correspondent has been "taking the piss" out of me.

There are probably quite a lot of things you aren't aware of.


Such as the definition "erstwhile" and how to read anything more complicated than a MacDonalds menu.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 08:07 PM

"Don't tell Troubador. He thinks they're rubbish."

Would you kindly refrain from attributing to me, words that I didn't say?

I made it very clear that the mere possession of a degree doesn't of itself suffice to prove expertise in any subject other than that to which the degree relates.

And your spelling could improve also.

My moniker is quite clearly displayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 09:12 PM

Well, do give us your own definition of "erstwhile", Wacko. And do try to do something about your apostrophes while you're at it. I've told you before not to try to pick me up on my use of English, Wackers. For your own good, do be told, darling.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:18 AM

Oh No!..The 'scientific ones have taken over the thread....and even consistent with the topic...'Scientific misconceptions.'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:27 AM

Snail: "Good Grief! Am I really responding to Goofus?"

"No Doc, there's no physical signs of life.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 05:01 PM

Troubadour
I made it very clear that the mere possession of a degree doesn't of itself suffice to prove expertise in any subject other than that to which the degree relates.

Previously from Troubadour
My point was that, with certain notable exceptions, foreign qualifications are often suspect and occasionally bogus.

I wish you'd make up your mind.

You didn't object to Jack the Sailor calling you Troubie.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 05:07 PM

I know I should leave this alone but it's like itching a scratch or picking a scab. Somehow you just can't stop.

Steve, I owe you an apology. I had assumed from your first post to this thread that you had hit the "Survival of the Fittest" line and read no further, basing your "bollocks" and "cretin" on what you assumed was said rather than what was actually said. I didn't bother to study your subsequent posts thoroughly. I was wrong. I have rediscovered your second post of 18 Jun 14 - 07:31 PM.

The piece on evolutionary theory is just waffle. A typical piece of half-arsed popular science journalism.

A good Shavian start.

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.

That's pretty much what the article said so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

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.

WHAAAT???!!!

There is so much wrong with that sentence that it is difficult to know were to start.

I'll start at the end. No, heritable traits are not the same thing as genes. I suggest you go and read up on the difference between phenotype and genotype.

Back to the beginning. Since you have (quite rightly, in my opinion and that of the writer of the article) brushed aside "survival of the fittest" as fairly meaningless why do you go on to discuss what it "has nothing to do with"?

In the middle. If what you are actually talking about is natural selection, then, yes, it has absolutely everything to do with individuals and species. It is driven by the reproductive success, relative to other members of its species, of an individual organism. If its physical characteristics, derived from its genome, lead to it producing more offspring than its rivals, then its genetic inheritance becomes more widespread in the population.

It is alarming that someone as steeped in Darwin and Dawkins as you has totally failed to grasp this.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 08:08 PM

Dear chap, get your self up to date. There is nothing wrong with that sentence. Natural selection does not operate at species nor even at individual level, but on characteristics which can be selected for (surprise, surprise). You appear, sadly, to be sharing the delusions of the petes and the fascists of this world who seek to usurp Darwin's notions for their own causes. Your supposed point about phenotype and genotype is so removed from what we're talking about here as to make one suspect (along with all the other evidence) that you simply like to bandy words and haven't really got a clue as to what you're talking about.

As for this piece of almost impenetrable prose:

If what you are actually talking about is natural selection, then, yes, it has absolutely everything to do with individuals and species. It is driven by the reproductive success, relative to other members of its species, of an individual organism. If its physical characteristics, derived from its genome, lead to it producing more offspring than its rivals, then its genetic inheritance becomes more widespread in the population.

Natural selection operates on heritable traits, not individuals or species, whether you like it or not. Darwin was at pains to point this out. Yes, differential "reproductive success" [sic] is worth discussing, but your last statement is meaningless gibberish. Do look things up before you post. You're not Wacko, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 08:10 PM

yourself innit

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 05:39 AM

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Penguin Classics, p115

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:20 AM

Steve,

It seems that whenever you read something you don't understand, you say it it "bollocks" and accuse the writer of ignorance. I am going to assume that you have the ability to look up "erstwhile" yourself and take your blathering as proof of your belligerent benightedness.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:31 AM

B. Aliteracy there...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:33 AM

I thought I had posted some time earlier... but it seems to have gone into the ether...

Darwin's work was done in the first part of the 19th century... the work of Watson & Crick came 100 years later... Darwin understood that heredity was the crux of the matter, but also knew that the mechanism was still unknown as to how traits were passed down through generations.

I still remember the epiphany when it finally dawned that evolution occurs within populations, and survival of the fittest can actually mean survival of the lucky. Otherwise, Antarctica would still be vegetated... except for that pesky continental drift.

A species can be wonderfully adapted to its environment, only to have the environment change... without inheritable traits that can adapt to the changed environment or the ability to leave, that formerly well adapted (ie. fittest) species is in trouble.

The geologic record shows periods of mass extinction... indicating changes so vast that very few organisms could cope and leave descendents.

The value of Darwin's work is that additional information from a variety of disparate fields supports his premise and helps refine the theory... which he fully hoped would happen - more information and understanding would improve upon his early work.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 11:00 AM

The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 11:31 AM

"The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?"

consider the ginko tree... the last representative species still extant, found in a remote location and then transplanted around the world.

I prefer to think of evolution as the history of populations... it's really the study of what has happened in the past, because the present is still murky and the future has yet to unfold. History could not predict events like the rise of fascism or communism... but you can look through the historic record and trace the events that did result in those events. Just as life is what happens while you're making other plans... so is history and evolution.

We understand the basics of plate tectonics, but still can't pinpoint an eruption. Or predict which orbiting body will intersect our orbit until it actually happens and someone discovers it. When you deal with endangered species, it becomes very clear that extinction isn't all that hard to achieve... it's reversing the trend that's difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:10 PM

Speaking of plate tectonics, late this morning I was subjected to wildly extreme ultra low frequency booms that lasted about five or six seconds. It was related to but was different than thunder. I have never experienced anything like it before. It was intense.