throwing some scientific theories in the bushes

Blackking

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,566
Reputation
2,471
Daps
26,226
Napoleon said:
I don't know why you seem to champion this
Click to expand...
Honesty in science , is better for all, dont you agree?..

Why would we need embarrassing shyt like how the entire peer review process has been found to be a scam....
So much so that there are actual record holders on who passed the most bullshyt through peerreview.

Or how many of our most important discoveries wouldn't have been discovered under the restricted modern scientific method.


If you're a world class scientist , speaking all around the world , smoking blunts with neil Tyson like you claim to be

You should be championing this as well.

Peace be upon you.:lolbron:
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
327,202
Reputation
-34,088
Daps
633,761
Reppin
The Deep State
Blackking said:
Honesty in science , is better for all, dont you agree?..

Why would we need embarrassing shyt like how the entire peer review process has been found to be a scam....
So much so that there are actual record holders on who passed the most bullshyt through peerreview.

Or how many of our most important discoveries wouldn't have been discovered under the restricted modern scientific method.


If you're a world class scientist , speaking all around the world , smoking blunts with neil Tyson like you claim to be

You should be championing this as well.

Peace be upon you.:lolbron:
Click to expand...
I guess you don't know that this is the result of peer review you fukking idiot
 
Liu Kang

Liu Kang

KING KILLAYAN MBRRRAPPÉ
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
13,989
Reputation
5,554
Daps
30,693
I don't understand... Here's the excerpt :
“Science advances by a series of funerals,” writes John Brockman, founder of the online discussion forum Edge.org. Sometimes, he says, old ideas have to be put to bed before new ones can flourish. With that in mind, he asked researchers, journalists and other science enthusiasts to weigh in on which established theories need to go. From the replies, Brockman compiled This Idea Must Die, a fascinating smorgasbord of 175 short essays about every field and facet of research.

Many of the responses offer tweaks to theories to better fit new discoveries. A psychologist points out that sadness and other “negative” emotions are not inherently bad, that they can help sharpen analytical thinking and enhance memory (SN: 11/2/13, p. 18). Other essays call for more radical changes. Laboratory mice make lousy stand-ins for people when developing new drugs, argues an oncologist. It’s time to stop using them as furry human surrogates, she says. And a number of physicists would be happy to toss out string theory for good. “What we’ve learned is that this is an empty idea,” one physicist writes. “It predicts nothing about anything.”

Some of the essays tackle broader subjects, suggesting ways scientists can improve how they design experiments, crunch numbers and publish papers (SN: 1/24/15, p. 20). Other writers lament poor communication between scientists and the general public, especially when misconceptions allow old theories to linger in the media long after they’ve been debunked. Take, for example, the notion of nature versus nurture — it still crops up in politics and the press, even though biologists have long known that genetics and environment are inextricably intertwined.

A few of the arguments are bound to be controversial. For example, a journalist asserts that the information gleaned from massive particle accelerators isn’t worth their equally massive price tags. And while Brockman’s question inspired some thought-provoking responses, the short essays can provide only a brief overview of complex problems. Readers will want to do some research of their own before deciding which, if any, of these ideas really requires a funeral.
Click to expand...
That is basically peer review. Where's the problem ?
 
tru_m.a.c

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Hall of Fame
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,489
Reputation
6,942
Daps
91,286
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Liu Kang said:
I don't understand... Here's the excerpt :

That is basically peer review. Where's the problem ?
Click to expand...

He saw a headline and latched on to it.

The moment I read, "A psychologist points out that sadness and other “negative” emotions are not inherently bad, that they can help sharpen analytical thinking and enhance memory," I knew OP had no idea what he was linking us to.
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
327,202
Reputation
-34,088
Daps
633,761
Reppin
The Deep State
tru_m.a.c said:
He saw a headline and latched on to it.

The moment I read, "A psychologist points out that sadness and other “negative” emotions are not inherently bad, that they can help sharpen analytical thinking and enhance memory," I knew OP had no idea what he was linking us to.
Click to expand...
@Blackking is such a fukking tool man.

He's on this anti-science kick without understanding that science works BY asking questions and getting things wrong.

You can never know anything if you get nothing wrong.
 
B

badhat

Pro
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
598
Reputation
238
Daps
1,877
Can you imagine having such an ideological opposition to science?

Not like, issues with how a particular experiment was done, or how one piece of technology will be implemented, but fundamentally opposed to this nebulous overarching conception of science, enough to go on your computer and send a message that will be transmitted into electric pulses that bounce off of satellites to be read over the world instantaneously?
 
B

badhat

Pro
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
598
Reputation
238
Daps
1,877
Also, maybe there's a case that being able to bounce messages off of satellites is a bad thing, I'd be willing to humor that argument, but you can't doubt that it fukking works.
 
Blackking

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,566
Reputation
2,471
Daps
26,226
tru_m.a.c said:
What? You have no idea what you're talking about right now. Are you talking about confidence intervals?
Click to expand...

I wrote what i read in a popular scientific magazine damn near exactly. :skip:

it's not like I'm making shyt up. Scientist discuss this all the time. You guys are the opposite of science... internet warriors with little knowledge of science.

In any regard discovery without the modern scientific method should be as encouraged as discovery with the strict rules of the SM. It's not like Neurophysciology wasn't discovered by chance observation. Much of what we know in astrology. Treatments for certain diseases, blah blah about a million other significant things...

But that's what scientist say.:yeshrug:

I'm more so into technology so I'd say it from a different angle... The more we learn of biology and Chemistry the further we get from a model that can explain it, therefore realizing what we realized prior to the scientific method when we were advancing into modern times ------------------ the shyt is unnecessary.

The scientific method is built around testable hypotheses. These models, for the most part, are systems visualized in the minds of scientists. The models are then tested, and experiments confirm or falsify theoretical models of how the world works. This is the way science has worked for hundreds of years.
Scientists are trained to recognize that correlation is not causation, that no conclusions should be drawn simply on the basis of correlation between X and Y (it could just be a coincidence). Instead, you must understand the underlying mechanisms that connect the two. Once you have a model, you can connect the data sets with confidence. Data without a model is just noise.

But faced with massive data, this approach to science — hypothesize, model, test — is becoming obsolete. Consider physics: Newtonian models were crude approximations of the truth (wrong at the atomic level, but still useful). A hundred years ago, statistically based quantum mechanics offered a better picture — but quantum mechanics is yet another model, and as such it, too, is flawed, no doubt a caricature of a more complex underlying reality. The reason physics has drifted into theoretical speculation about n-dimensional grand unified models over the past few decades (the "beautiful story" phase of a discipline starved of data) is that we don't know how to run the experiments that would falsify the hypotheses — the energies are too high, the accelerators too expensive, and so on.

Now biology is heading in the same direction. The models we were taught in school about "dominant" and "recessive" genes steering a strictly Mendelian process have turned out to be an even greater simplification of reality than Newton's laws. The discovery of gene-protein interactions and other aspects of epigenetics has challenged the view of DNA as destiny and even introduced evidence that environment can influence inheritable traits, something once considered a genetic impossibility.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top