Need a Good Source for Basic General Science Information

[Wowbagger]

Right. So you want them to learn about the scientific method? You realise that they will just find out about Feyerabend and you will be back where you started?

If anyone brings up Feyerabend, I will just ask them: Okay, so how does Feyerabend's philosophy get us better working ideas, before bankrupting all research funds?

You are not doing a very good job at describeing what you what to do. You appear to want to teach them that science is objective and follows the model of falsificationism. Which sounds good but isn't actualy true

Interesting. Name some modern scientific ideas where this was not true.

(scientific methods tend towards "Complete, Consistent, Non-trivial. Choose two").

It may not be perfect, but I suspect science strives to get as close to all three, as possible. To say it "tends to" do otherwise is not really the point, because that situation is thought of as temporary - not the final product.

A fairly effective aproach is to find an area they are interested in and expand from that.

The problem is that these folks keep saying "Science is about finding TRUTH! Not building provisional models! How could provisional things be useful, anyway?! We must have TRUTH!!!!!!!"

Some sources presented, here, have been quite adequate. Though, none are absolutely ideal. Quite a few cover all the points, but are also very long. I wonder if one can develop a more concise source for this type of thing.

This is what I found while searching 'basic science lesson':

http://ezinearticles.com/?Basic-Science-Lesson&id=710095

Ha, ha. My response would be: So, if I wanted to invent more efficient solar power cells, I got to ask Jesus for help?

This site looks pretty good:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

Actually, that is quite good, if a bit long.

Check out the "Made Easy Series" by Potholer54 on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB&playnext=1

Very excellent! I was hoping not to have everyone "sit through" videos, but most of these might be worth while.

It has a mild anti-creationism slant

And this is a problem?

 

[Third Eye Open]

You could show them the Skeptoid movie, not exactly a science lesson, but good to get them interested in skeptical thinking in general. http://herebedragonsmovie.com/

 

[Ashles]

It's far from the worst popular science book around, but it had far too many little mistakes and inaccuracies for me to recommend it to anyone.

I've heard this said before.

Is there anywhere that details the main errors? I remember thinking he made the usual "glass is a liquid" mistake when I first read it (corrected I believe in later editions) but I don't know about any other errors.

 

[Cuddles]

I've heard this said before.

Is there anywhere that details the main errors? I remember thinking he made the usual "glass is a liquid" mistake when I first read it (corrected I believe in later editions) but I don't know about any other errors.

I don't know of anywhere that lists them, and it's been a while since I read it and I never finished the whole thing so I can't be too specific. If I remember rightly, it was mostly problems of over-simplification, and presenting simplifications as if they are actually reality. It's really a common problem with people trying to explain things that they don't really understand themselves. The layperson has a simplified version explained to them, often misunderstands that, but thinks that what they have is the real scientific description. They then go on to explain the misunderstood version to other people as if they now know what they are talking about.

Most of the time it's only really fairly small things. For example, presenting the Rutherford model of the atom as an accurate description. It can make it relatively easy for laypeople to grasp some of the general concepts, but it actually has nothing to do with real atoms. I don't know if Bryson makes this particular error, but the things I noticed were the same sort of thing.

The thing is, I don't have any problem with simplifications like this being presented, what I have a problem with is when people don't explain that they are just simplifications, or sometimes even explicitly state that they are correct. That's what I like about the Discworld books. They go out of their way to explain that most of what everyone says about science is actually simplifications, and try to point out where they do it themselves.

As Blackadder says, those books may not be appropriate for everyone, but other than Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene, I can't really think of any other books that admit that they're not telling you everything.

 

[geni]

If anyone brings up Feyerabend, I will just ask them: Okay, so how does Feyerabend's philosophy get us better working ideas, before bankrupting all research funds?

Well the approach has done fairly well so far. Which is the problem. Scientific anarchy does a great job of describeing the history of science. Not so useful on what to do next.

Interesting. Name some modern scientific ideas where this was not true.

String theory is the classic example.

99% of chemistry doesn't work like that.

It may not be perfect, but I suspect science strives to get as close to all three, as possible. To say it "tends to" do otherwise is not really the point, because that situation is thought of as temporary - not the final product.

falsificationism is Complete and Non-trivial

Scientific anarchy is Complete and Consistent

Experimentalism Non-trivial, mostly Consistent

Reasearch programs Complete Non-trivial

Paradigm shift Non-trivial

Any relationship with Gödel's incompleteness theorems is probably purely coincidental.

The problem is that these folks keep saying "Science is about finding TRUTH! Not building provisional models!

Arguably correct. Provisional models are at most a byproduct.

How could provisional things be useful, anyway?! We must have TRUTH!!!!!!!"

Easy to counter just explain all the things we can do with newtonian physics. Land on the moon for example.

 

[Cuddles]

String theory is the classic example.

No it isn't. String theory is perfectly testable. The problem is that string theory is not testable yet.

99% of chemistry doesn't work like that.

You're claiming that 99% of chemistry is not objective or falsifiable?

falsificationism is Complete and Non-trivial

Scientific anarchy is Complete and Consistent

Experimentalism Non-trivial, mostly Consistent

Reasearch programs Complete Non-trivial

Paradigm shift Non-trivial

I've never heard of scientific anarchy, but other than that this list is nonsense. Research programs are based on experiments, and the experiments are based on falsifiable theories. Paradigm shifts happen as a result of experiments falsifying a previous paradigm. You can't separate them all out and claim they are different approaches to science, they are all interelated parts of science. And none of them are complete, consistent or non-trivial, and never will be until we know absolutely everything there is to know, which most people, including me, probably think is not possible.

 

[Wowbagger]

geni,
You seem to be exactly the kind of person who could use the material I am trying to find, in this thread!!

You seem to be a relatively bright fellow, but for some reason you just don't get the scientific method. It might not be your fault. Perhaps you've had bad teachers with distorted views, or something.

I suggest you start reading some of the suggested books and sites people have contributed, here. I might start with those "Made Easy" videos on YouTube.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...not for myself, but...

I have run into a few folks, every now and then, who were simply never taught very much about science in general. They don't even know the steps in the basic scientific method, what constitutes good quality experimentation and evidence, the scientific definitions of "theory" and "law", etc.

I try to tell them that science is abou building models, not finding The Truth. And, they either say "well, that's just your opinion" or "what good is that?!".

And, these are adults.

So, I need a good source to refer them to: Either a book or a web site, that can summarize, for them, all of this information about general science. And, I don't want to insult them, by giving them a children's book.

Not all of them are religious nuts. Some of them are not even very religious, they just don't know anything about this stuff. And, it is often not their fault. They may have simply had bad teachers, or something.

Where can they go?

Thanks!

We all have family members or friends and neighbors in the same boat. It's sad to say -- but if they are adults -- it’s too late! My experience is that it's hopeless. In many cases their lack of understanding leads to confusion and finally a defensive distain of science, which compounds the problem. You may be acquainted with an exception or two, but I have never had that luck.
They are better off reading a newspaper.

 

[Wowbagger]

My experience is that it's hopeless.

Perhaps we should study their mentality a bit more, before giving up.

What if some of these folks are in positions of responsibility, where knowledge of science could be essential to success, but they don't realize it, yet.

Healthcare workers, lawyers, politicians and other policy makers, etc. Especially the leaders and managers in these fields, could benefit from general science knowledge.

For an extreme example:
Are you going to say "Well, we might as well just let the President of the United States read newspapers, instead of telling him how his science is wrong."

And, even if the person is not in such a position, I suspect an increase in general knowledge of science could have benefits through-out all of society. We should pursue this for our future!

You may be acquainted with an exception or two, but I have never had that luck.

I don't think of it as an "exception". I think of it as getting to know the person, and developing a strategy that works for their particular mentality.

 

[geni]

No it isn't. String theory is perfectly testable. The problem is that string theory is not testable yet.

The problem is that most of the ways it shoulod be testable it can be modified to avoid.

You're claiming that 99% of chemistry is not objective or falsifiable?

Well 99% of it isn't objective. Technicaly most of it is falsifiable but for the most part no one ever tries.

I've never heard of scientific anarchy, but other than that this list is nonsense. Research programs are based on experiments, and the experiments are based on falsifiable theories.

Not so. Thee whole point of the research program aproach to the philosophy of science is that rather than modifing the core theory you modify the protective belt of auxilry assumptions.

Still lets take an example.

Einsteinian cosmology is a sucessful reasearch program. However we did at one stage run into the problem that there were some stars that appeared to be older than the universe. In this case rather than modifiying the core theory as falisificationism requires we modified the protective belt of our auxiliry assumptions (in this case the value hubble constant and our method of calculateing the age of stars). Letter evidence suggests this was the correct aproach.

In effect reseach programs allow us to contine to work with our core theories rather than modifiying them every time an anomoly comes along. The reason the theory is not complete philosophy of science it is rather falls apart when trying to tell you when it is time to abandon the reasearch program.

Paradigm shifts happen as a result of experiments falsifying a previous paradigm.

Not really. There are always experiments falsifying the existing paradigm. The point of paradigm shifts is that there comes a time when scientists as a group suddenly decide there is a problem.

You can't separate them all out and claim they are different approaches to science, they are all interelated parts of science.

You can. Karl Popper for example would have rejected both the paradigm shifts and reseach programs approaches as complete rubbish. Exeperimentalists would have viewed the whole topic as largely meaningless (if experiments are the center of science then models cannot be viewed as the driveing force) but I think they have largely died out.

And none of them are complete, consistent or non-trivial, and never will be until we know absolutely everything there is to know, which most people, including me, probably think is not possible.

Scientific Anarchy is both complete and consistent. It is also tivial and largely useless. The reaseach programs aproach is consistent and non-trivial but it's inability to tell you when to abandon a program means it is not complete.

 

[geni]

geni,
You seem to be exactly the kind of person who could use the material I am trying to find, in this thread!!

You seem to be a relatively bright fellow, but for some reason you just don't get the scientific method. It might not be your fault. Perhaps you've had bad teachers with distorted views, or something.

That would be Dr. Alan Chalmers. His book is fairly widely respected.

The problem you have is that you belive that there is a true ^tm scientific method. There isn't.

You seem to think that it is pretty close to falisifcationism with perhaps elements of Lakatos's research programss. Both have problems.

 

[geni]

Perhaps we should study their mentality a bit more, before giving up.

What if some of these folks are in positions of responsibility, where knowledge of science could be essential to success, but they don't realize it, yet.

From what we've seen in the past it doesn't make a massive difference.

Healthcare workers,

When we finish getting evidence based medicine adopted maybe.

lawyers,

Generaly not. Lawyers are meant to understand the law. Advisors and expert witnesses are meant to do the science bit.

politicians and other policy makers, etc.

We've had trained scientists as poltical leaders. It doesn't appear to make much of a difference.

Especially the leaders and managers in these fields, could benefit from general science knowledge.

Depends what they are manageing.

 

[Wowbagger]

That would be Dr. Alan Chalmers. His book is fairly widely respected.

That's it! You've been hanging around philosophers too long!

The problem you have is that you belive that there is a true ^tm scientific method. There isn't.

Don't assume what I believe. I believe the scientific method, itself, is subject to the scientific method. There is no "one true" method, because it gets refined, over time, for the sciences it applies to.

But, ONLY changes that improve the ability to develop models that work, and can be demonstrated to work reliably are accepted.

There are sciences, such as anthropology, where comprimises have to be made in some controls, because it would be unethical to force tribe members into a laboratory facility to undergo "experimentation". But, within those limits, athropologists still aim to build as accurate a model as they can, of the societies they study.

 

[JJM]

Well 99% of [chemistry] isn't objective. Technicaly most of it is falsifiable but for the most part no one ever tries.

Say what?? What are your bases for these claims?

 

[Wowbagger]

From what we've seen in the past it doesn't make a massive difference.

Tell that to the insurance policy makers who cover homeopathy.

And then tell that to the folks undergoing Abstinence Only education.

 

[geni]

Say what?? What are your bases for these claims?

Try matching the claimed yieds in organic chemistry papers. Very little chemistry is done in a even single blind manner (which the exception of some analytical stuff). The upshot is that there is a tendancy to report results as more posertive than they actualy are.

 

[JJM]

That's it! You've been hanging around philosophers too long!

Yeah, there's an old saying "If you don't play the game, you don't make the rules." Philosophers don't practice science, they just gab about it. Look at physicist Alan Sokal's book on science philosophy ("Fashionable Nonsense").

 

[geni]

Tell that to the insurance policy makers who cover homeopathy.

Why should they care if homeopathy works? Only interest is cost of payouts vs extra customers.

And then tell that to the folks undergoing Abstinence Only education.

That isn't a matter of science. The question is not "does it work" but "do your constituients find it acceptable".

 

[JJM]

Try matching the claimed yieds in organic chemistry papers. Very little chemistry is done in a even single blind manner (which the exception of some analytical stuff). The upshot is that there is a tendancy to report results as more posertive than they actualy are.

That is a nonsequitur.

Your claim was

Well 99% of [chemistry] isn't objective. Technicaly most of it is falsifiable but for the most part no one ever tries.

Again, where are the bases for such claims?

To your attempted answer:
A) The topic of reliable, as opposed to claimed, yields is well known. If you have discovered that some people are more reliable than others, good for you. I got that t-shirt decades ago.

B) Blinding is rarely necessary in the physical sciences because the data are usually objective measurements. The interpretation of those measurements may be incorrect; but, given the public disclosure of the data, re-interpretation is facile.

C) As for over-enthusiastic conclusions- we know how to deal with that.

Do not allow me to distract you with the practical facts. Where is the support for your statements:

"99% of [chemistry] isn't objective. Technicaly most of it is falsifiable but for the most part no one ever tries.

What is it about chemistry that is not objective, and who does not try to falsify results?

 

[geni]

That's it! You've been hanging around philosophers too long!

Never met the guy but his "What Is This Thing Called Science?" is a worthwhile read.

Don't assume what I believe. I believe the scientific method, itself, is subject to the scientific method. There is no "one true" method, because it gets refined, over time, for the sciences it applies to.

Nice try but doesn't even come close to provideing an accurate history of various attempts at a scientific method. If it was Falsificationism would have died out the instant anyone accepted it. This appears not to be the case.

But, ONLY changes that improve the ability to develop models that work, and can be demonstrated to work reliably are accepted.

Not at all. Aether was technicaly a step backwards but it had a fair degree of acceptance.