RE: stop standing in the way of science

RE: stop standing in the way of science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/28/2013 9:03:56 PM)
But the cold fusion experiment... never could be duplicated.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/28/2013 10:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 But the cold fusion experiment... never could be duplicated. That is one where the claimed result was so far outside what existing theory said was possible that lots of people tried it and it was very quickly shown to be total BS. Unfortunately that has not stopped the US government from funding a bunch of research on the idea. Thankfully at relatively low levels but still there is a lot of real research going wanting and the DoEnergy spends money on cold fusion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 3:09:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie 'Only 6 were proven to be valid' does not necessarily mean that the rest were proven to be fraudulent or unworkable. While this is absolutely true, it still isn't really smart to base research on science that hasn't been validated. Actually it is. Which makes more sense, exactly replicating an experiment or using the conclusion of that experiment to design another experiment? Either way validates or invalidates the original experiment but only one potentially adds anything to our knowledge. Keep in mind research budgets are incredibly tight. You can go at it that way, but, keep in mind that if you are basing further research on faulty research (which you won't know if it's faulty or not until it's validated), your research is likely to be faulty, too. With "incredibly tight" research budgets, might be better to make sure you aren't wasting that budget. If your results aren't replicable, then what do you think the results are likely to be?

EdBowie -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 4:37:32 AM)
Otherwise known as 'faith'. And yet no takers on my faith based airplane rides... Go figure. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie 'Only 6 were proven to be valid' does not necessarily mean that the rest were proven to be fraudulent or unworkable. While this is absolutely true, it still isn't really smart to base research on science that hasn't been validated.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 5:41:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie 'Only 6 were proven to be valid' does not necessarily mean that the rest were proven to be fraudulent or unworkable. While this is absolutely true, it still isn't really smart to base research on science that hasn't been validated. Actually it is. Which makes more sense, exactly replicating an experiment or using the conclusion of that experiment to design another experiment? Either way validates or invalidates the original experiment but only one potentially adds anything to our knowledge. Keep in mind research budgets are incredibly tight. You can go at it that way, but, keep in mind that if you are basing further research on faulty research (which you won't know if it's faulty or not until it's validated), your research is likely to be faulty, too. With "incredibly tight" research budgets, might be better to make sure you aren't wasting that budget. If your results aren't replicable, then what do you think the results are likely to be? The new research based on the faulty research will show the underlying research to be bad just as effectively as an exact replication but if the underlying research is not faulty will actually expand our knowledge as well. The other option would be to double the budget for basic research which I'm sure conservatives would hate since basic research is funded by the government and is a favorite thing to attack as "wasteful spending."

Rule -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:01:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The new research based on the faulty research will show the underlying research to be bad just as effectively as an exact replication There are plenty of examples that demonstrate that is not true. For example: the expanding universe hypothesis, the hundreds of extraterrestrial planets where there are none, the multiple stars where there is only one star. If the First Law of the universe is Murphy's Law, then the Second Law may very well be: Garbage in results in garbage out.

Yachtie -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:06:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The new research based on the faulty research will show the underlying research to be bad just as effectively as an exact replication but if the underlying research is not faulty will actually expand our knowledge as well. The other option would be to double the budget for basic research which I'm sure conservatives would hate since basic research is funded by the government and is a favorite thing to attack as "wasteful spending." "The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they're investigated further," says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The Economist recently estimated spending on biomedical R&D in industrialized countries at $59 billion a year. That's how much could be at risk from faulty fundamental research. "The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims," he says. "And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature — it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention." The problem, DK, is that science isn't necessarily about science anymore. Science is not immune to becoming corrupted. It's also not my purpose to slam science. Like politicians, banking, and corporatism, science is getting offtrack. The scientific method is becoming corrupted. Throwing money at any problem is no solution.

jlf1961 -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:11:44 AM)
I agree, genetic research needs more funding and less restriction, how else will we ever develop the giant long tailed hamster? I just realized that there may not be many who remember Bloom County.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:15:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie 'Only 6 were proven to be valid' does not necessarily mean that the rest were proven to be fraudulent or unworkable. While this is absolutely true, it still isn't really smart to base research on science that hasn't been validated. Actually it is. Which makes more sense, exactly replicating an experiment or using the conclusion of that experiment to design another experiment? Either way validates or invalidates the original experiment but only one potentially adds anything to our knowledge. Keep in mind research budgets are incredibly tight. You can go at it that way, but, keep in mind that if you are basing further research on faulty research (which you won't know if it's faulty or not until it's validated), your research is likely to be faulty, too. With "incredibly tight" research budgets, might be better to make sure you aren't wasting that budget. If your results aren't replicable, then what do you think the results are likely to be? The new research based on the faulty research will show the underlying research to be bad just as effectively as an exact replication but if the underlying research is not faulty will actually expand our knowledge as well. The other option would be to double the budget for basic research which I'm sure conservatives would hate since basic research is funded by the government and is a favorite thing to attack as "wasteful spending." If you take the previous research as a basis for a new hypothesis, it very well might cause the research to not support the hypothesis. But, it won't, necessarily, show that the problem variable is the previous research. You can cut the ideological jabs, too. That just means you don't want to discuss this; that you'd rather make this a right/left argument.

Yachtie -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:21:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You can cut the ideological jabs, too. That just means you don't want to discuss this; that you'd rather make this a right/left argument. Goes to show, ideology is a corrupting influence. The scientific method is not ideologically based.

samboct -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:28:59 AM)
This argument is based on a common misperception about science- that a hypothesis has to be correct. It doesn't- you just need to have one. The Propperian method in science- 1) Construct a hypothesis. (What you think is going to happen.) 2) Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. 3) Do the experiment. 4) Answer the question- is the hypothesis correct? 5) If yes, move on to the next problem. If no, formulate new hypothesis and iterate. Note that these are essentially the same steps. Hence- it doesn't matter whether or not the hypothesis is correct- if done correctly- you'll still get a useful answer. Science is not the same as building a house- you don't need a strong foundation- what you need is an open mind. another aphorism in science- Research is what happens based on the rubble of failed experiments..... It's true- most real progress in science happens when the experiment doesn't come up with the expected result- whether it's Michaelson-Morley which disproved the concept of the aether, Rutherford showing that gold foil could deflect electrons, or that damn lying monk Mendel who since he couldn't explain mutations- just discarded some of his results....aka "fudged the data". A much larger problem in science today is the publication of too many crappy papers- which is a real problem. Consider that there really hasn't been much change in the total number of researchers in the US in the past several decades- wouldn't be surprised if there's been a decline. Yet the number of journals and consequent publications have gone up several fold. This has been driven by money- publishing houses like Elsevier have figured out how to make money in academic journals which used to be a sleepy backwater of publishing and which may have been a loss leader. Now subscriptions to arcane journals cost thousands of dollars per year and the publishers often charge authors a per page charge to be included! Plus, editing is considered an academic feather in the cap- so they don't have to pay editors either! The publishers don't really pay for much except sending a sales force out. Academic researchers are faced with the challenge of "publish or perish"- so they want to publish-gee what a surprise...And tenure committees have gotten used to CVs that have hundreds of papers on them. When I was doing my thesis work- the average number of papers per thesis was.....one (or less). This meant that many theses never got a publication out of the work- although some theses did get several papers. Postdocs did a bit better- but my rule of thumb was basically a paper required 1-2 years of research. Clearly now- some folks are in the mindset of 1-2 months- and time for a paper. Well, researchers haven't gotten wildly better since I was in school- which means that a lot of the stuff being published is junk. And even back in my day- probably 3/4ths or higher was crappy work that shouldn't have been published. So science is being hit with a double whammy- researchers are spending too much time writing up crap-and not doing useful experiments- and the rest of us have to plow through more of this crap to find the nuggets of gold. In short- the signal to noise level is science publications is going down- and this is not a good thing.... Yet another example of too much competition being a problem.... Sam

Marc2b -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:41:16 AM)
It is so amusing - and kind of depressing - when those who hate science (How dare you disprove my beliefs!) get all bent out of shape over science doing exactly what science is supposed to do.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 6:53:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct This argument is based on a common misperception about science- that a hypothesis has to be correct. It doesn't- you just need to have one. The Propperian method in science- 1) Construct a hypothesis. (What you think is going to happen.) 2) Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. 3) Do the experiment. 4) Answer the question- is the hypothesis correct? 5) If yes, move on to the next problem. If no, formulate new hypothesis and iterate. Note that these are essentially the same steps. Hence- it doesn't matter whether or not the hypothesis is correct- if done correctly- you'll still get a useful answer. Science is not the same as building a house- you don't need a strong foundation- what you need is an open mind. another aphorism in science- Research is what happens based on the rubble of failed experiments..... It's true- most real progress in science happens when the experiment doesn't come up with the expected result- whether it's Michaelson-Morley which disproved the concept of the aether, Rutherford showing that gold foil could deflect electrons, or that damn lying monk Mendel who since he couldn't explain mutations- just discarded some of his results....aka "fudged the data". A much larger problem in science today is the publication of too many crappy papers- which is a real problem. Consider that there really hasn't been much change in the total number of researchers in the US in the past several decades- wouldn't be surprised if there's been a decline. Yet the number of journals and consequent publications have gone up several fold. This has been driven by money- publishing houses like Elsevier have figured out how to make money in academic journals which used to be a sleepy backwater of publishing and which may have been a loss leader. Now subscriptions to arcane journals cost thousands of dollars per year and the publishers often charge authors a per page charge to be included! Plus, editing is considered an academic feather in the cap- so they don't have to pay editors either! The publishers don't really pay for much except sending a sales force out. Academic researchers are faced with the challenge of "publish or perish"- so they want to publish-gee what a surprise...And tenure committees have gotten used to CVs that have hundreds of papers on them. When I was doing my thesis work- the average number of papers per thesis was.....one (or less). This meant that many theses never got a publication out of the work- although some theses did get several papers. Postdocs did a bit better- but my rule of thumb was basically a paper required 1-2 years of research. Clearly now- some folks are in the mindset of 1-2 months- and time for a paper. Well, researchers haven't gotten wildly better since I was in school- which means that a lot of the stuff being published is junk. And even back in my day- probably 3/4ths or higher was crappy work that shouldn't have been published. So science is being hit with a double whammy- researchers are spending too much time writing up crap-and not doing useful experiments- and the rest of us have to plow through more of this crap to find the nuggets of gold. In short- the signal to noise level is science publications is going down- and this is not a good thing.... Yet another example of too much competition being a problem.... Sam Please note that I didn't state the research was a failure, but that it might not support the hypothesis because of the underlying research. Research only fails when a hypothesis isn't truly tested by the research done. If you are basing your hypothesis on results of research that aren't valid, the odds of your research accurately testing your hypothesis are lessened. I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. --- Thomas Edison The whole point of research, though, is that the results will either support or not support the hypothesis due to the experimental variable. If research fails because of underlying research, what did that research say about the experimental variable? It's not necessarily any sort of commentary on it. And, that's the problem.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 7:04:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you take the previous research as a basis for a new hypothesis, it very well might cause the research to not support the hypothesis. But, it won't, necessarily, show that the problem variable is the previous research. It depends but quite often it will. That's how we find out about most of this. This is particularly true for any research that suggests a major breakthrough since lots of people will start trying to build on it. All those researchers getting weird or bad results in a particularly way that implies there is a problem with the underlying theory makes it pretty obvious that a new look has to be taken at the previous research. quote: You can cut the ideological jabs, too. That just means you don't want to discuss this; that you'd rather make this a right/left argument. There was no jab just a statement of fact. If you want to require every published article to have been replicated first it will at least double the cost of doing basic research. That money has to come from somewhere and basic research is already one of the right wings favorite targets for cutting spending.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 7:12:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct A much larger problem in science today is the publication of too many crappy papers- which is a real problem. Consider that there really hasn't been much change in the total number of researchers in the US in the past several decades- wouldn't be surprised if there's been a decline. Yet the number of journals and consequent publications have gone up several fold. This has been driven by money- publishing houses like Elsevier have figured out how to make money in academic journals which used to be a sleepy backwater of publishing and which may have been a loss leader. Now subscriptions to arcane journals cost thousands of dollars per year and the publishers often charge authors a per page charge to be included! Plus, editing is considered an academic feather in the cap- so they don't have to pay editors either! The publishers don't really pay for much except sending a sales force out. I used to be able to keep up with all the major research in computer science, my field of expertise, by reading Communications of the ACM. In recent years the number of journals has exploded. Now if an interesting article comes out I often have to call around to university libraries till I find one carrying that particular journal.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 8:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you take the previous research as a basis for a new hypothesis, it very well might cause the research to not support the hypothesis. But, it won't, necessarily, show that the problem variable is the previous research. It depends but quite often it will. That's how we find out about most of this. This is particularly true for any research that suggests a major breakthrough since lots of people will start trying to build on it. All those researchers getting weird or bad results in a particularly way that implies there is a problem with the underlying theory makes it pretty obvious that a new look has to be taken at the previous research. quote: You can cut the ideological jabs, too. That just means you don't want to discuss this; that you'd rather make this a right/left argument. There was no jab just a statement of fact. If you want to require every published article to have been replicated first it will at least double the cost of doing basic research. That money has to come from somewhere and basic research is already one of the right wings favorite targets for cutting spending. It was a jab. There was zero reason for it's inclusion other than to make a political jab. Think of how much research is wasted when you find out the background research you're building on is flawed.

thompsonx -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 8:40:14 AM)
You can go at it that way, but, keep in mind that if you are basing further research on faulty research (which you won't know if it's faulty or not until it's validated), Just how does one do that without doing research?[8\|] With "incredibly tight" research budgets, If that were true then how did these "unvalidated" theories get funded? might be better to make sure you aren't wasting that budget. And we do that by doing research which cost money[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 8:43:04 AM)
You can cut the ideological jabs, too. That just means you don't want to discuss this; that you'd rather make this a right/left argument. [8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 8:47:28 AM)
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. --- Thomas Edison "I have not failed to pay you your $10,000 mr. tesla i have just found ten thousand things I would rather spend your money on. t.edison

thompsonx -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 8:51:07 AM)
The problem, DK, is that science isn't necessarily about science anymore. This would be unsubstantiated opinion. Science is not immune to becoming corrupted. Firm grasp of the obvious. It's also not my purpose to slam science. [8\|] Like politicians, banking, and corporatism, science is getting offtrack. So far there has been no specific cite validating this unsubstantiated opinion. The scientific method is becoming corrupted. Not possible Throwing money at any problem is no solution. It has always worked in the past.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875