• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Salvaging Science

TFian said:
No doubt some discoveries are still in the works, but I think you're overestimating the territory still open to science on the large scale.
Click to expand...
I think you're underestimating it.

Have you read David Lindley's The End of Physics, by any chance? Worth a look.
Click to expand...
Yes. I've also read a lot of physics authors who disagree with him.
 
TFian said:
By the nature of the thing, current statistics almost certainly underestimate the prevalence of scientific fraud -- these are only the ones who were clumsy enough to get caught, remember -- and it's also crucial not to underrate the importance of fraud, studies-for-hire, and the like, in driving the spreading backlash against science.
Click to expand...

Maybe there are cases of people who cleverly fake their data and are not caught because they guessed right. Later replications done by different labs replicated the result. I strongly suspect I know of one such case. And that's after practicing behavioral science for nearly 50 years (my first publication was in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1964).
I know of other effects that were in the literature, but were later to be shown to be artifacts or produced by uncontrolled confounding variables. But I think you grossly exaggerate the prevalence of scientific fraud. As others have said, until you produce some hard data, you are merely bloviating.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
Also, Greer has never said science has outlived his usefulness, quite the contrary in the very same post, praises the scientific method. He's suggesting the growth of scientific knowledge will end, since it's dependent on expensive technology that's only possible with abundant fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Greer may have said that, but that doesn't mean that it's in any way true.

For a start, fossil fuels are in no way necessary for energy generation. Scientific advancement may rely on energy, but in no way is it dependent on fossil fuels for that energy.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Originally Posted by TFian
By the nature of the thing, current statistics almost certainly underestimate the prevalence of scientific fraud -- these are only the ones who were clumsy enough to get caught, remember -- and it's also crucial not to underrate the importance of fraud, studies-for-hire, and the like, in driving the spreading backlash against science.
Click to expand...

I think a case can be made that scientific fraud is more prevalent in medical research than other fields. Furthermore, medical research can be generally regarded as mere technological development as opposed to basic research. Most cases of fraud seem to associated with whether some drug will be an effective antibiotic or lower cholesterol, etc. or concerning the effectiveness of some diagnostic procedure. Such fraud usually has a profit motive where, in comparison, discovering some nuance of QM or plate tectonics (for example) would not have.

*************
I think it is trivially obvious that as the human race lives on, we asymptotically approach the best understanding of the universe we can possibly achieve. However, we have no way of knowing where we are on that curve and we have no way of predicting where the next great revolution in science will occur (if there is one). As has already been mentioned many great questions about consciousness, genetics, cosmology, quantum theory, etc. remain open and are ripe for exploration.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
Have you read David Lindley's The End of Physics, by any chance? Worth a look.
Click to expand...

Have you? Apart from the fact it is over 15 years old, it's about what Lindley thought was the impending discovery of the Unified Field Theory, which he thought would answer the remaining big questions in physics in ways which were untestable. Guess what?

You should do more than simply look at the title of a book before citing it as support for crazy theories of Greer.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
Also, Greer has never said science has outlived his usefulness, quite the contrary in the very same post, praises the scientific method. He's suggesting the growth of scientific knowledge will end, since it's dependent on expensive technology that's only possible with abundant fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Considering that the vast majority of species of life on earth have not even been named, that's a very silly assertion. All you need to make a discovery in biology is one of the following:
- a microscope
- a pair of binoculars
- a decent pair of shoes
etc.
 
PixyMisa said:
What can be salvaged is the science.

What can't be salvaged is John Greer.
Click to expand...

Just as logic stayed in regular use long after the hope of using logical analysis to understand the whole universe failed, I expect the scientific method to find plenty of practical uses long after we get over the fantasy that everything can be explained by quantitative tests in which all other variables can be controlled.

For example, several branches of math will be hugely important, especially as computers sunset out. For example, you can't do hands-on radio technology -- and I'm guessing that that's one technology that will be saved no matter what, because of the massive political and military benefits of long-range communication -- without a good basic grasp of algebra and trigonometry. Another example? Double-entry bookkeeping. That's one I'd recommend to anyone who has a facility with math; again, as computers sunset out, there's going to be a huge need for people who can replace accounting programs, and teach others to do so.
 
TFian said:
Just as logic stayed in regular use long after the hope of using logical analysis to understand the whole universe failed, I expect the scientific method to find plenty of practical uses long after we get over the fantasy that everything can be explained by quantitative tests in which all other variables can be controlled.
Click to expand...

So, you are suggesting not that science will find all the answers, but that mysteries will remain which are forever unanswerable by science, correct?

(I'm just trying to clarify here)
 
Roboramma said:
So, you are suggesting not that science will find all the answers, but that mysteries will remain which are forever unanswerable by science, correct?

(I'm just trying to clarify here)
Click to expand...

Yes. Eventually we'll realize science has it's limits, and embark on another means, pilled onto of science and logic, to understand the universe around us.

What is that next step? -- we've got a dark age to get through first, and the long period of reassessment and recovery that such ages involve. After that, our descendants can worry about creating the next useful toolkit for human thought.
 
TFian said:
especially as computers sunset out.
Click to expand...

Wait, you still think that we'll stop making computers because we're running out of oil? :jaw-dropp

I am starting to wonder if you actually read the responses that people make to your posts.
 
TFian said:
Yes. Eventually we'll realize science has it's limits, and embark on another means, pilled onto of science and logic, to understand the universe around us.
Click to expand...

Do you have a suggestion as to what that other means might be? I can't think of anything that could possibly answer a question that's out of the reach of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom