Need a Good Source for Basic General Science Information

[geni]

That is a nonsequitur.

Your claim was 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.

If the data is objective how can the experimenter have an systematic bias on the claimed yield?

The FDA will insist on double blind even when your measure is say blood sugar levels which should be as objective as anything in chemistry.

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: What is it about chemistry that is not objective,

Most of it. An objective chemistry exeriment would look something like the person carrying out the experiment reacting A+B (which they don't know the identity of) and recording the properties and amounts of the various products (Which they don't know the relative importance of). Idealy they would do this as part of a series which includes reactions that should produce null results.

Cost means that this is almost never done.

and who does not try to falsify results?

The level of attempted repition in chemistry is hardly impressive and even there people are rarely setting out to faliseify results.

 

[geni]

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").

Well you will be pleased to discover that Dr. Alan Chalmers has praticed physics. So you can't dissmiss his work on that front.

 

[JJM]

Well you will be pleased to discover that Dr. Alan Chalmers has praticed physics. So you can't dissmiss his work ...

Yes I can, so did John Hagelin, and what's-'is name Shockley. What matters is the work, not the name.

You wrote

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

We still need you to tell us: where is your support for those statements? Let me help you out; I have been a chemist for a very long time. You can just admit that you are an amateur with delusions of grandeur.

 

[JJM]

If the data is objective how can the experimenter have an systematic bias on the claimed yield?

The FDA will insist on double blind even when your measure is say blood sugar levels which should be as objective as anything in chemistry.

I am sorry; but, I find this incoherent.

Most of it. An objective chemistry exeriment would look something like the person carrying out the experiment reacting A+B (which they don't know the identity of) and recording the properties and amounts of the various products (Which they don't know the relative importance of). Idealy they would do this as part of a series which includes reactions that should produce null results.

Cost means that this is almost never done.

Clearly, you have no experience.

The level of attempted repition in chemistry is hardly impressive and even there people are rarely setting out to faliseify results.

Clearly, you have no experience or knowledge of the topic. Surprise me, cite some reliable documentation.

I repeat, you wrote

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

I still await your support for those claims.

 

[geni]

Yes I can, so did John Hagelin, and what's-'is name Shockley. What matters is the work, not the name.

Well I'm not aware of any significant critism of his work and the book is popular enough amoung people who do real science (my old phys chem lecture for example).

You wrote We still need you to tell us: where is your support for those statements? Let me help you out; I have been a chemist for a very long time.

Which bit of chemistry?

You can just admit that you are an amateur with delusions of grandeur.

I have no intention of lying.

 

[geni]

I am sorry; but, I find this incoherent.

Which suggests that you are not familiar with experimental design outside chemistry. Suffice to stay the standards of experimental design within chemistry are not as high as those for drug tests. This is a not unreasonable choice since the cost of doing chemistry at that standard would significantly reduce the amount of chemistry that could be done.

Clearly, you have no experience.

You have no idea.

Now you can come up with many reasons why such a standard is imposible.

To start with you have the problem that you would hit the problem that the person doing the experiment would likely have little difficultly in guess the desired outcome. Then you have the methods used to analysis the result. The selection of those is always going to add bias.

Still analytical chemistry has made moves in that direction with test samples where a third party knows the result that should be obtained but the person doing the test does not.

Such tests will often be run on new analytical methods so it's a start.

Clearly, you have no experience or knowledge of the topic. Surprise me, cite some reliable documentation.

Eh run searches on belstine or even web of knowledge for for some of less common organic derivatives (say some of the less sucessful biphenyl based liquid crystal candidates will do). Notice how much stuff appears once and once only.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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."

QUOTE]

Do you really believe GWB, who believes the earth is 6,000 years old, can be taught otherwise? Not a chance!

 

[Perpetual Student]

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."

GWB believes the earth is 6,000 years old. Do you really think you can convince him otherwise? Not a chance! You would have a better chance of teaching a radish to dance.

 

[Wowbagger]

I do not wish to get this thread bogged down into a discussion about the merits of the Scientific Method. This is supposed to be a thread for recommending books and web sites!

So, I would suggest any further discussion about the scientific method be placed in a new thread. If someone does not start one soon, I might start one, myself.

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

I have an idea: Let's do a Book Swap!

I will promise to read, and report on, that particular book (or, any other book, if you happen think of a different one). IF you promise to read, and report on, any book that I choose for you!

I do not know, yet, which book I will recommend. (the whole purpose of this thread was to accumulate ideas for such situations) But, it is something I will put some thought into.

Our reports need not be very long. Just a few paragraphs summarizing what you learned, liked, and/or didn't like, etc. is good enough.

What do you say, geni?

Any further suggestions from the other members, here?

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

I picked that example, because I thought you were a member of the Anti-Homeopathy Illuminati, and therefore would recognize the silliness of having insurance companies indirectly endorse a clearly quack product, then giving those quacks a nice profit, by allowing it to be covered in their policies.

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.

I was not aiming to dictate an entire history of every turn in the development of science. I was merely demonstrating that I am not naïve enough to assume there was "one method".

I shall address some more points about your comments in a new, more appropriate thread, if and when one is started.

But, as a quick and dirty summary, I offer this: Science is not just about its collected knowledge, it is also a discipline for obtaining new knowledge. I do not see how someone could honestly win a scientific debate, by seriously suggesting that the discipline of the scientific method be weakened, instead of strengthened.

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

First of all, I was talking about changes to the Method that are accepted after passing through the Method, successfully.

Second of all, Aether was a model quickly rejected, after testing for it failed, and a better model was demonstrated scientifically. You picked an example of science making progress in understanding, not anarchy.

GWB believes the earth is 6,000 years old. Do you really think you can convince him otherwise? Not a chance! You would have a better chance of teaching a radish to dance.

You miss the point. I do not care how likely or unlikely it is. The more pressure we place on our leaders, to have a better general understanding of science, the more and more likely we will have presidents that will follow through with good science policy (even if the current one will still not budge). Is that not important?

Look at physicist Alan Sokal's book on science philosophy ("Fashionable Nonsense").

That's a good idea! I have not read that book, myself, yet, but I did read Dawkins' review of Intellectual Impostures, which details the whole Sokal Hoax thing.

I might suggest that book to geni.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You miss the point. I do not care how likely or unlikely it is. The more pressure we place on our leaders, to have a better general understanding of science, the more and more likely we will have presidents that will follow through with good science policy (even if the current one will still not budge). Is that not important?---Wowbagger

The problem goes deeper than that. We live in a society that is heavily influenced by a serious undercurrent of anti-science and rampant anti-intellectualism. Our pop culture, burdened by Hollywood, TV, the religious right and sports cultism is the problem. There was a time when intellectual accomplishment was highly esteemed in America. Today, wealth, athletics and fashion dominate our pop culture. Science is seen as an activity for nerds and oddballs by mainstream society. Young people are encouraged to pursue socially acceptable and wealth producing activities. If it were not for foreign scientists coming to the US, where would we be? Our educational system is demonstrably inferior when compared to other developed countries. We elect leaders who must submerge their intellectual side (if they have one).
Sadly, I have witnessed much of this erosion in attitudes about science over the last six decades.
But you do make a good point: One would hope that people like you can make a difference and someday our society can right itself. Good luck!

 

[Wowbagger]

But you do make a good point: One would hope that people like you can make a difference and someday our society can right itself. Good luck!

We should try, because we do care.

But, it does take more than good intentions. It takes careful study of people, how humans are prone to think (the evolutionary heritage of the mind), etc.

It might have to start from the bottom-up. Get more of The Citizens to understand the basics of science, and perhaps the leaders will follow. At least in a Democracy. And, if the leaders show strength and success in their policies, using science, even more of the The Citizens will follow.

Perhaps the first step, of many, would be to start recommending those books!

 

[technoextreme]

We should try, because we do care.

But, it does take more than good intentions. It takes careful study of people, how humans are prone to think (the evolutionary heritage of the mind), etc.

It might have to start from the bottom-up. Get more of The Citizens to understand the basics of science, and perhaps the leaders will follow. At least in a Democracy. And, if the leaders show strength and success in their policies, using science, even more of the The Citizens will follow.

Perhaps the first step, of many, would be to start recommending those books!

There is as fellowship that involves this very issue. You get to work with the state department working on improving their science literacy. If Perpetual Motion was in any way shape or form correct then this would not exist. A lot of people are not like GWB. They are not stupid. They know that science helps dictate a lot of policies.

The problem goes deeper than that. We live in a society that is heavily influenced by a serious undercurrent of anti-science and rampant anti-intellectualism. Our pop culture, burdened by Hollywood, TV, the religious right and sports cultism is the problem. There was a time when intellectual accomplishment was highly esteemed in America. Today, wealth, athletics and fashion dominate our pop culture. Science is seen as an activity for nerds and oddballs by mainstream society. Young people are encouraged to pursue socially acceptable and wealth producing activities. If it were not for foreign scientists coming to the US, where would we be? Our educational system is demonstrably inferior when compared to other developed countries. We elect leaders who must submerge their intellectual side (if they have one).
Sadly, I have witnessed much of this erosion in attitudes about science over the last six decades.
But you do make a good point: One would hope that people like you can make a difference and someday our society can right itself. Good luck!

Would you please cut the chicken little crap and actually go outside and look around.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Would you please cut the chicken little crap and actually go outside and look around.

Now, there’s a well developed argument!
Are you saying that our educational system is not producing inferior results when compared to other developed nations? Are you saying that science literacy is not low in the US? Are you saying that our culture does not hold actors, athletes, lawyers, businesses men, politicians in higher esteem than scientists? Are you saying that there has not been an erosion of attitudes about science in the US? Are you saying that you think the earth is 6,000 years old like good old GWB? What are you saying?

 

[Cuddles]

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

So you think changing a theory in response to observations is a problem? Wowbagger is right, you really don't understand science.

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

Already covered by others, but this is complete and utter bollocks.

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.

Further evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. As I already explained, the things that you claim are different approaches to science are all intergral parts of science that depend on each other. Are you seriously claiming that people in a "reseach program" (inverted commas because what you seem to be refering to bears no resemblance to actual research programs) don't do any experiments? Even if what you claim here were true, rather than just another load of bollocks, how do you think they would go about "modifying the protective belt of auxilry assumptions". By doing experiments. Which you have claimed is an entirely different approach.

Einsteinian cosmology is a sucessful reasearch program.

No it isn't. There have been research programs based on Einstein's theories, but to claim that anything based on them comes under a single research program is just nonsense. I suppose you could claim that it is a paradigm, and the fact that you didn't suggests you don't even understand what you think happens, let alone what actually does.

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

Falsification requires no such thing. Observations showed that either theory or measurements were wrong. If the theories were not falsifiable, it would not have been possible to show anything wrong. That's what "falisfiable" means.

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.

There is no such thing as "auxiliry assumptions". You don't have to change every single part of a theory in order to have changed the theory. Theory was shown to be wrong, it was changed, now it works much better. This happened because of experiments done as part of research programs conceived within the current paradigms.

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.

Which is, again, a complete load of bollocks. The theories are modified every time we find something they don't explain. That's the whole point.

And could you please stop using the term "research program"? It has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Not really. There are always experiments falsifying the existing paradigm.

Utter crap. If a thing is falsified, then it is wrong. Unless you are actually claiming that scientists always know that everything they say is wrong, this claim is meaningless. And if that is what you're claiming, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.

The point of paradigm shifts is that there comes a time when scientists as a group suddenly decide there is a problem.

No it isn't.

You can. Karl Popper for example would have rejected both the paradigm shifts and reseach programs approaches as complete rubbish.

I don't bother with pointless philosophers, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, since no-one has ever used "research program" in the same way as you.

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.

What you think and reality appear to have very little in common.

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.

All I can do is repeate what Wowbagger said. You don't understand the scientific method in the slightest, and you really should read the kind of books that are being suggested before trying to discuss it, since at the moment nothing you say makes the slightest bit of sense, even when you are using terms to mean the same thing as others, which isn't very often.

 

[technoextreme]

Now, there’s a well developed argument!
Are you saying that our educational system is not producing inferior results when compared to other developed nations? Are you saying that science literacy is not low in the US? Are you saying that our culture does not hold actors, athletes, lawyers, businesses men, politicians in higher esteem than scientists? Are you saying that there has not been an erosion of attitudes about science in the US? Are you saying that you think the earth is 6,000 years old like good old GWB? What are you saying?

Ehhhh... It's just as well developed as yours is though I could elaborate better. In short I've seen way too many things going that proves to me that we are not as dumb as you think we are.

 

[JJM]

I do not wish to get this thread bogged down into a discussion about the merits of the Scientific Method. This is supposed to be a thread for recommending books and web sites! {snip}

There is a book "Big Bang" by Simon Singh that introduces the topic in a refreshing way. Instead of starting with modern cosmology, he begins with the ancient scientists and explains how proto-scientists made observations and simple measurements that allowed them to conclude the earth is a sphere, and even make a pretty good estimate of its circumference. The book does not specifically discuss science philosophy; rather, it shows how it developed in a practical fashion.

In a similar fashion, the (USA) Public Broadcasting System produced a Nova program (first aired in October, 2001) titled "Evolution," that illustrates the observations that compelled C. Darwin to develop his theory. The first two hours has actors re-enacting his thought processes. The subsequent hours mostly show how modern science advances the theory.

Neither source is a formal description of scientific process, they show practical development of scientific thought.

 

[geni]

So you think changing a theory in response to observations is a problem? Wowbagger is right, you really don't understand science.

It's more the way it can be modified in this case. One of ideas behind falsificationism is that a theory that can be falsified in lots of ways is more valuable than one that cannot.

This is something of a simplification but it is the concept behind rejecting "god did it" as a scientific theory.

Already covered by others, but this is complete and utter bollocks.

Really? Describe a truly objective chemistry experiment.

Further evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. As I already explained, the things that you claim are different approaches to science are all intergral parts of science that depend on each other. Are you seriously claiming that people in a "reseach program" (inverted commas because what you seem to be refering to bears no resemblance to actual research programs) don't do any experiments? Even if what you claim here were true, rather than just another load of bollocks, how do you think they would go about "modifying the protective belt of auxilry assumptions". By doing experiments. Which you have claimed is an entirely different approach.

Lakatos's research programmes and experimentalism are very different (and new experimentalism is something else again).

No it isn't. There have been research programs based on Einstein's theories, but to claim that anything based on them comes under a single research program is just nonsense. I suppose you could claim that it is a paradigm, and the fact that you didn't suggests you don't even understand what you think happens, let alone what actually does.

Einstein's theories would probably not qualify as one of Lakatos's research programs however Einsteinian cosmology probably would (although you could argue that should be sub divided into big bang and steady state cosmology)

Falsification requires no such thing. Observations showed that either theory or measurements were wrong. If the theories were not falsifiable, it would not have been possible to show anything wrong. That's what "falisfiable" means.

So you rejected Einstein's theories as soon as you heard about the pioneer anomaly? Of course you didn't.

Instead like most people (there are some exceptions) you decided that there were factors we had missed (heat flow for example although that appears to only account for half the observed effect).

Falsificationism doesn't allow for such behaviour. Lakatos Research programmes does but falls apart when trying to decide when to give up on a "hard core". Lakatos tried to get around this by argueing that as long as a programme program is progressive then auxiliary assumptions could legitimately be modified. Unfortunetly there isn't really an objective way to decide if a research program is progressive or not.

There is no such thing as "auxiliry assumptions".

Of course there are. Suppose back when such things were debated you decide to test geocentricism vs heliocentricism by seeing if Venus shows phases. Your auxiliary assumption is that Venus is opaque. There are also various assumptions about the behaviour of telescopes.

You don't have to change every single part of a theory in order to have changed the theory. Theory was shown to be wrong, it was changed, now it works much better. This happened because of experiments done as part of research programs conceived within the current paradigms.

You now appear to be drifting towards Lakatos's work. I've already covered why while it is attractive it doesn't actualy work.

Which is, again, a complete load of bollocks. The theories are modified every time we find something they don't explain. That's the whole point.

Nope. For example when the Einstein-De Sitter model produced a universe with an age of 1.2 billion years. You would suggest science would respond by modifying the theory. In practice science respond with rather differently theories such as steady state and tired starlight.

We now know that the problem was in the value of the hubble constant they were useing.

And could you please stop using the term "research program"? It has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

It is a well accepted term within disscussion of the scientific method. There isn't really a replacement.

Utter crap. If a thing is falsified, then it is wrong. Unless you are actually claiming that scientists always know that everything they say is wrong, this claim is meaningless. And if that is what you're claiming, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.

For given values of wrong scientists know that almost every one of our existing models is wrong. That however is a side issues.

If we are to accept that everything inconsistent with a core theory falsifies it then quantum theory and Einsteinian physics kinda go out the window. You lose most of chemistry we can't solve the schrodinger equations for (basicaly any system with more than one electron in) and well biology is full of anomalies. This is of course absurd which is why Naïve falsificationism is rejected by Popper.

No it isn't.

Okey you try to describe kuhns work in 2 sentences.

I don't bother with pointless philosophers, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, since no-one has ever used "research program" in the same way as you.

Trying to debate the scientific method while rejecting the contribution of philosophers out of hand is not a very effective aproach.

What you think and reality appear to have very little in common.

Are you confusing experimentalism with the new experimentalism?

All I can do is repeate what Wowbagger said. You don't understand the scientific method in the slightest, and you really should read the kind of books that are being suggested before trying to discuss it, since at the moment nothing you say makes the slightest bit of sense, even when you are using terms to mean the same thing as others, which isn't very often.

Or perhaps you should consider the posibility that there is more to the subject of the scientific method than you think.

 

[69dodge]

And could you please stop using the term "research program"? [...] no-one has ever used "research program" in the same way as you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3IZqACcSH4C&pg=PA104

 

[Wowbagger]

geni, and everyone else: If you would be so kind as to start a new thread, explaining your thoughts on the Scientific Method, so everyone can discuss that, there, instead of here, that would be nice. I am NOT trying to shut you up. You have every right to express yourself. I just think it would be better if you expressed yourself in a more appropriate thread.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, I will be away for much of this weekend. And might not be able to contribute much, myself, until Tuesday. But, I am sure you will find there is no shortage of science enthusiasts around here.

 

[Cuddles]

geni, and everyone else: If you would be so kind as to start a new thread, explaining your thoughts on the Scientific Method, so everyone can discuss that, there, instead of here, that would be nice. I am NOT trying to shut you up. You have every right to express yourself. I just think it would be better if you expressed yourself in a more appropriate thread.

Preferably in the Philosophy section. Pointless crap like this from people who don't actually understand science has no place being discussed here.