 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Scientific misconceptions.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Troubadour. Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:57 PM "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" Easy enough to produce the best known names of scientists (all European). Do you feel as sanguine about the qualifications of a PhD from an unknown bogus university selling degrees and diplomas for cash, most of which with the odd exception of a BA(Calcutta) or two, come from degree mills in the USA? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Jun 14 - 06:15 PM Troubadour, to turn your logic around on you, may I point out that, for better or for worse, Steve Shaw is on Britain. That does not make every Brit Steve Shaw. UC Berkley is as good as any university in the world. There are degree mills in the U.S.A. But Berkley is not one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 19 Jun 14 - 06:46 PM "Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody." ― Mark Twain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: TheSnail Date: 19 Jun 14 - 06:47 PM Troubadour Do you feel as sanguine about the qualifications of a PhD from an unknown bogus university selling degrees and diplomas for cash, most of which with the odd exception of a BA(Calcutta) or two, come from degree mills in the USA? No but that isn't what Musket said. He said "foreign" without any qualification. It turns out he was being ironic to support Jack by taking the piss out of Steve so it doesn't really matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,# Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:00 PM "UC Berkley is as good as any university in the world." I agree, but I think you mean to write Berkeley. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Rob Naylor Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:03 PM Nigel Parsons: ....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. Grandmother to suck eggs! My first degree (since people are bandying qualifications about on this thread) is in Astrophysics to I'm perfectly aware of all that. In fact, the full comment at the end of "Eclipse" was: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun." But you can't hear the final sentence! It was one of the answers solicited by the band from people hanging around the studio who were given various questions on flash cards to which they were asked to give spontaneous answers. This one was from the Abbey Road Studios doorman Jerry O'Driscoll and IMO in its full version shows a very reasonable level of knowledge from a "lay" person giving an off-the-cuff answer to an unexpected question. Being VERY pedantic, the full comment would have been more accurate if it had been: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun, and a bit of reflected light from the earth, but since that originated as sunlight anyway, we can still accurately say that the only thing that makes it look light is the sun" But this really is stretching the original point . As someone above put it "artistic license is allowed" in these situations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Don Firth Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:07 PM Half of the moon is lit all the time, with the exception of a lunar eclipse when the moon passes through the earth's shadow. Reflcctive power is measured in "albedo" or brightness. An albedo of 100% would mean that the object in question reflects all of the light that hits it. Like, say, a mirror (although, strictly speaking, even a mirror doesn't reflect all of the light). The earth has an albedo of about 39%. The moon has an albedo of about 7%. But as one can see, even at a mere 7%, the moon appears to be pretty bright. A lot depends on the material that is doing the reflecting. For example, on earth, the oceans reflect less than 10% of the light that hits them, whereas snow reflects a good 90%. The darker areas of a planet also absorb more heat, hence the environmentalists' concern over loosing snow fields, glaciers, and such. With diminishing snow fields, the earth absorbs more of the sun's heat. Vicious circle. Don't buy waterfront property. When the polar caps melt, the map of the world (land areas) will change--diminish--radically. No matter what Rush Limbaugh says.... Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Rob Naylor Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:46 PM Pete from seven stars link: 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"? Here we go again, with Pete slyly implying the old creationist chestnut "Darwin was a racist". Was Darwin racist? Well, by 21st century standards, possibly yes. But by the standards of his own age, much less so than most, including the vast majority of devout christians. He was banned from Captain Fitzroy's Mess on the Beagle for arguing that slavery was racist and unjust. Fitzroy argued strongly that slavery and racism were both justified by the scriptures, and therefore "holy". Fitzroy's views were much more representative of the period than were Darwin's. The friend at college who taught Darwin taxidermy was black, and he also made great friends with the Fuegan on the beagle, Jeremy Button. He also points out that the rebelling slaves he encountered in Brazil were "mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of Roman generals". Darwin's family ( he was connected to the Wedgewoods and Wilberforces) put a great deal of money and effort into abolition of slavery, and his writings at the time show clearly that he agreed with this. The "quote-mining" that creationists use, such as his comment that "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." fail to see the full context of his point. Such quotes are produced as evidence of Darwin's *approval* of the situation, whereas he's actually just describing *objectively* what to him seems an inevitable outcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:03 PM Nothing passes me by, Wackers, never fear. Let's just say that she has to endure guilt by association, thanks to the cretin who wrote the piece. As for this survival of the fittest malarkey, Darwin, had he been alive today, would be turning in his grave. Natural selection has nothing to do with the survival of species or of individuals, nor of that vague category "the fittest", but everything to do with the non-random survival of heritable traits (as Darwin would have recognised it). It is all about differential survival of traits within species, not between species or between individuals. It's depressing (though, in a way, delicious, as ever) to see the likes of ignorami like Wacko and Keith pontificating about such things when, in fact, they haven't a clue what they'e on about. Howard's post is a star. It behoves scientists to find good ways of communicating with non-scientists, not, as in the case of the the pompous author of Wacko's silly piece, to diss the public for committing the grievous sin of not understanding jargon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:08 PM "they're" and not "the the" innit. Can't get the bloody staff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:30 PM ...may I point out that, for better or for worse, Steve Shaw is on Britain. That does not make every Brit Steve Shaw. Translator's note please... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 19 Jun 14 - 09:33 PM ""So two scientists walk into a bar. The first says"Can I get a H 2 O?", and drinks it down. The second says "Can I get a H 2 O too?", drinks it down, and dies"" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:33 PM Pshaw, How in the fuck would you know what it "behooves" a scientist? Did you see it over the "Berlin Wall in Newton's brain" you were hallucinating about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Musket Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:19 AM Yeah, I er..... what was it again snail? Just in case, bollocks to you anyway. Wonderful reference to BA Calcutta somewhere up in the posts. Just to be pedantic, the sleuth hound journalist was called BA Calcutta (failed) if I recall my Perishers correctly. Ironically, he was followed round by a bitch who's catchphrase was "Hello Sailor!" The inter connectivity of things proves that beer can often still be in your system the next morning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jun 14 - 05:02 AM Keith pontificating about such things I have not pontificated at all. I just suggested that the professor might know as much about her field of research as you do Steve. On what grounds do you judge her a "cretin" please? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: TheSnail Date: 20 Jun 14 - 06:17 AM If you don't understand what you are talking about, Musket, how do you expect anyone esle to? I see Steve Shaw still hasn't grasped that Survival of the Fittest was quoted to debunk it. If I were you Mrrzy, I wouldn't try to be too clever for my own good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Stu Date: 20 Jun 14 - 06:56 AM "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." Jesus H. Christ. "A pressed dinner jacket* ... * Never buy one with a stripe down the leg." Huh? I haven't worn dinner jacket for over thirty years. Not my sort of social; the sort of alpha males you get at those dos are so laughable and full of shite it makes me wince. "BMW fairy eventually granted me some wishes.." Ugh. Give me a Morris traveller or a camper van. Or a bus service at night and on Sundays. "Tell them you won the Tag Heuer Monaco in a game of cards" Is this something to do with horse racing? "It behoves scientists to find good ways of communicating with non-scientists..." Too true. This is a real issue and there is a problem with science communication, but it's worth understanding why this situation exists. For starters, funding has been cut too the quick and many researchers, especially PhD candidates and post docs have to fight hard to get funding for their work, let alone out reach. Secondly, dumbing down is not the answer for any number of reasons. Howard is correct that the general usage of a word like 'theory' is different to the more technical definition that a scientists has in mind when they use term; however the general usage is still wrong in many cases and this should be made clear. The press has a part in this, as Paxman demonstrated earlier in the week when Prof. Alice attempted to correct him on his misunderstanding of the term only for her to be interrupted by Paxo mid-sentence. I can't speak for other disciplines but in palaeontology there is a heck of a lot of outreach that goes on at a local level. This isn't the flash TV kind but showing the public and especially kids actual scientific research and answering the myriad of questions asked about our work and it's a vital part of getting folk engaged with what we do and why it is relevant to their everyday lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Musket Date: 20 Jun 14 - 07:31 AM Such dinners are where funding for post docs take place. I'd get mine pressed if you are that concerned Stu. My youngest is looking at post doc but at the same time, being lured towards interviews with companies carrying out the sharp end of what he has been researching for his PhD. The world has moved on and not in the best direction since I was involved. My chair (visiting, not staff) is in healthcare and even that is feeling the pinch. The discussions over dumbing down and getting messages across are poignant in this field. The evidence points to large regional centres of excellence for complicated medical work and the politics point to accessible care. Both aspirational, both with merit. Completely different structures needed to satisfy. Anybody wishing to say the evidence base must always trump ignorance needs to take my place addressing large public meetings with hostile press and genuinely frightened members of the public, and try saying the evidence trumps their wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 14 - 07:58 AM As Musket pointed out. There is some politics and propaganda involved in some of those misconceptions, but I think most stem from lazy reporting and fiction writing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 20 Jun 14 - 09:06 AM I worked with an organization with about 200 science Phds for many years. I respect all for their excellence in their individual field of study. An observation was that while most were intently focused on their research field, many (while not all) seemed to have deficiencies (possibly from a lack of interest) in knowledge on broader fields. Most notable areas tgat seemed to puzzle them were changing social and political issues and norms ( which often defy traditional logic). Taking this into consideration, I would not hire any of them to do concrete work in my home, choosing a professiinal in that field. Nor would I look to a vicar to explain any field of science. This is why it seems odd to me that many look to scientists (Phds) to provide a clear viewpoint (professional or otherwise) on a "religious belief". Why would one expect their viewpoint in this area to be superior týo many others in society? Given a choice, I would choose a philosopher to provide a more logical viewpoint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Stu Date: 20 Jun 14 - 09:34 AM "Such dinners are where funding for post docs take place. I'd get mine pressed if you are that concerned Stu." I'm not really too concerned. I'm a fat, middle-aged bloke whose been lucky to get as far as even starting my PhD; I can't see me going for tenure and I might give the post doc route a miss altogether. Lots to think about if I ever succeed. "Anybody wishing to say the evidence base must always trump ignorance needs to take my place addressing large public meetings with hostile press and genuinely frightened members of the public, and try saying the evidence trumps their wishes." Shine on - makes conference presentations look like a walk in the park. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Nigel Parsons Date: 20 Jun 14 - 11:14 AM Rob Naylor: Grandmother to suck eggs! My first degree (since people are bandying qualifications about on this thread) is in Astrophysics to I'm perfectly aware of all that. In fact, the full comment at the end of "Eclipse" was: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun." But you can't hear the final sentence! It was one of the answers solicited by the band from people hanging around the studio who were given various questions on flash cards to which they were asked to give spontaneous answers. This one was from the Abbey Road Studios doorman Jerry O'Driscoll and IMO in its full version shows a very reasonable level of knowledge from a "lay" person giving an off-the-cuff answer to an unexpected question. Being VERY pedantic, the full comment would have been more accurate if it had been: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun, and a bit of reflected light from the earth, but since that originated as sunlight anyway, we can still accurately say that the only thing that makes it look light is the sun" Thank you for that 'clarification', and i'm glad to see that you have an astrophysics degree to (although I can't see what the 'to' relates to). Unfortunately I didn't benefit from higher education, so my descriptions & understandings may seem simplistic. I take it from your description that (excluding a small amount of light pollution) the earth should also be considered as being 'dark'. I shall have to be careful not to trip over when walking about in daylight! Does 'dark' equate to non-luminescent in the lingo af astrophysicists? If so then presumably 'light' means illuminated other than by external sources. I think I need a new dictionary. But thanks for the 'illumination'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jeri Date: 20 Jun 14 - 11:26 AM "To" is a typo. "So" is what he meant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Jun 14 - 12:20 PM Science is the religion of guessing..and religion is the art of pretending. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Musket Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:00 PM And irrationality is the art of Goofus... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:01 PM I'll take that as a compliment..after all, you ARE the expert at irrationality! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: frogprince Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:28 PM "Science is the religion of guessing..." I challenge anyone to say more convoluted things, all of which are totally wrong, in as few words as that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:06 PM "As for this survival of the fittest malarkey, Darwin, had he been alive today, would be turning in his grave. Natural selection has nothing to do with the survival of species or of individuals, nor of that vague category "the fittest", but everything to do with the non-random survival of heritable traits (as Darwin would have recognised it). It is all about differential survival of traits within species, not between species or between individuals." Thank you, Steve, for the above. Though I suspect there will be issues with the terms random vs. non-random. How alleles sort out during meiosis is a far cry from how alleles sort out within a population. I still remember the epiphany when it finally dawned that mutation is within an individual and evolution within a population. Then came survival of the lucky... being the most fit only goes so far. Otherwise, there'd still be vegetation on Antarctica. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Musket Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:08 PM His brevity of words is applaudable. Not often you can weigh someone up as having the Goofus gene in so few words. Sadly for us, we have a few volumes of the bugger to go at. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:28 PM With, of course, the assertion of the possibility of there being a "Goofus gene being a scientific misconception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Donuel Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:47 PM Ed T your quandary regarding truth is a universal one. The word I have come to describe this and advance the multiplicities of truth is Perspectivism. By weighing the cause and history of one person's truth with everyone else within the hive mind focuses and enlarges ever more greater truth. It is a subject unto itself. Scientific misconceptions can be failed hypothesis, failed reasoning or simply forgetting to convert to metric. Being right is still not a final perfect conclusion since one may not see how it can still be wrong somewhere within a complex evolving system. I have many examples of this I will not include here. Being right for the wrong reasons is pretty damn good since none of us are omniscient. In my book a misconception might just be the best we can do. It seems to me that our known universe does not even reveal itself as a complete perfect conception. As products of our universe why should we be different. The best you can hope for are some humble cohesive grams of facts we can add to the weight atop the shoulders of all those who have come before us. What is genius? It is billions of things but sometimes it is just not ignoring the obvious. Einstein saw the obvious fact that light relative to its speed exists it a different time scale to those who stand next to a clock. I say there was a second big bang after the first in which all the opposite Energies, spins vectors and unknowns canceled each other out leaving behind our present light and dark matters which no longer interact beyond gravity. Its obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:51 PM rob.....you totally misread my posts. I thought I suggested reasonably clearly that I thought "races" had a much more general meaning in the title of darwins book. I was aware of some of your misapplied application but I think I learned a bit extra, thanks. but since you raised that quote.....who do you think the civilised are, and who the savage ?. I seem to recall mention of the caucasion and the negro ! I,m sure you have the full context and can tell me if I am mistaken. of course, if Darwin did regard the negro as less evolved, he was racist, though such a view might be consistent with his theory. is that what he "objectively" believed? I think it was gould who said that there had always been racism but with Darwin ,it increased by order of magnitude [not an exact quote] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:03 PM "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." Frank Herbert - Dune |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jun 14 - 08:01 PM As Musket pointed out. There is some politics and propaganda involved in some of those misconceptions, but I think most stem from lazy reporting and fiction writing. Unfortunately, Wackers dear fellow (or fellowess - who's to know?), once again, as we English northerners tend to put it, you have shat in your own bed. Lazy reporting and fiction-writing is the precise description of the commentator's arrogant and ignorant verbiage in your original link. It's really sad that you can't see it. Not surprising, you being you, but still really sad. As for your earlier "Pshaw" post, once again I should like to request a translator's note. Damned if I know what you're on about. Thank Christ you're not a scientist. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Jun 14 - 12:01 AM Froggy: "I challenge anyone to say more convoluted things, all of which are totally wrong, in as few words as that." I challenge you to think my statement through...and you will see that it is dead on! GfS P.S....Start with a hypothesis....an educated....ummm ..'guess'.....and test all the 'possibilities'...and maybe one comes out right...so you can eliminate 'guessing' in that area.....etc. etc. etc.... Just think it through...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jun 14 - 01:11 AM To conduct scientific research: - Make observationsDon Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jun 14 - 01:18 AM A hypothesis is considerably more than an "educated guess." That might be the layman's approach, but to a scientist, one needs to have justifiable reasons for one's "educated guess" if it is to be taken seriously by other scientists. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:23 AM "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." ― Niels Bohr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:23 AM "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" ― Albert Einstein |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:26 AM "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny..." ― Isaac Asimov |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:39 AM More misconceptions- Blame the poets! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Troubadour. Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:51 AM "UC Berkley is as good as any university in the world. There are degree mills in the U.S.A. But Berkley is not one of them." I made no comment on the merit or otherwise of U.C. Berkeley, or on the various ladies whose names were mentioned. My post was in response to the comment I quoted (just so that anybody capable of reading would know what I was talking about), which you apparently didn't notice. My point was that, with certain notable exceptions, foreign qualifications are often suspect and occasionally bogus. It is quite often the case that people with high sounding letters after their names will pontificate upon subjects outwith their field, and outwith their knowledge. One doesn't have to be a "little Englander" to require more than letters after a name, before giving credence to apparently "expert" utterances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jun 14 - 12:22 PM Sorry Troubie, I thought that your post had some relation to the original topic. Please pardon me for not recognizing your aside. Pshaw, Because I am not a scientist, I don't claim to be a scientist or to represent science. Nor do I claim to be able to psychoanalyze the long dead. Between you and I that make one of us. Doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Don Firth Date: 21 Jun 14 - 12:48 PM The word "expert" comes from two Latin words. "Ex," meaning "has-been" and "spurt," meaning a little drip under pressure. --A Nonny Mouse. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Bill D Date: 21 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM Ed T. said "Given a choice, I would choose a philosopher to provide a more logical viewpoint." Always available.. seldom called. The trouble is, we don't provide short, pithy 'answers'. About 1/4 of the way thru the introductory paragraphs, folks eyes glaze over and they make some excuse to creep away. "I think my cat's on fire." has the ring..... But we DO have fairly short, pithy remarks on what is NOT a logical viewpoint.. ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 21 Jun 14 - 05:03 PM Slightly more than half the moon is illuminated as it has a diameter considerably smaller than the diameter of the sun's photosphere, but at considerable distance from it. Statistically will this tiny amount be equal to the shading caused by eclipses? Just wondered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:11 PM "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." " - Albert Einstein" "A hypothesis is considerably more than an "educated guess." ...and after researching a matter, if the hypothesis doesn't prove out correct....it's time to try another hypothesis....or ....'guess again'... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Ed T Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:33 PM An interesting perspective on Einstein, science and religion from the New Republic: On Einstein, Science and Religion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: TheSnail Date: 22 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM GUEST,Troubadour My point was that, with certain notable exceptions, foreign qualifications are often suspect and occasionally bogus. Possibly true, Troubadour, but irrelevant. What Musket said was "Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either.". Not U.S.A PhDs. Not "degree mills". No "notable exceptions". Foreign! All of them. It turns out he was being ironic in order to take the piss out of his erstwhile friend Steve Shaw. One doesn't have to be a "little Englander" to require more than letters after a name, before giving credence to apparently "expert" utterances. I quite agree. It is worth digging a little deeper. Annalee Newitz does, indeed have a PhD from University of California, Berkeley and has also worked as a research fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She appears to have a long and distinguished career as a journalist specialising in the cultural impact of science and technology. Steve Shaw thinks she is a cretin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions. From: Stringsinger Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM I thought that the article said some important things. Semantics play a role in science and definitions are important to convey empirical pursuits. Science is about discovery, not platitudes. The only scientific data that is credible has to be ascertained by scientific consensus, which is subject to change when later information is gained. That said, I have met some pretty ignorant PHD's in my time. Many from seminaries and religious institutions. 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. It's also easy to find junk science and some of it is manufactured by PHD's. |