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

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 11:19:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. No. the point was to make the point that there is no feasible way to pay for all these replications. The research is not wasted. Quite often the research is not built on some single other paper but is built on many and even if one turns out to be incorrect, discovering that is useful in and of itself, the others aren't and progress is furthered in those other areas. I will remind you that science is progressing quite rapidly and effectively under the present system despite its flaws. Requiring every single experiment to have been exactly replicated before publication would halve, at least, the amount of work getting done and surely slow progress in every field by more than half.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 11:26:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. No. the point was to make the point that there is no feasible way to pay for all these replications. The research is not wasted. Quite often the research is not built on some single other paper but is built on many and even if one turns out to be incorrect, discovering that is useful in and of itself, the others aren't and progress is furthered in those other areas. I will remind you that science is progressing quite rapidly and effectively under the present system despite its flaws. Requiring every single experiment to have been exactly replicated before publication would halve, at least, the amount of work getting done and surely slow progress in every field by more than half. It's was only a point because, as you claim, Republicans are opposed to it (or like to cut funding for it). That's the only reason you included it. There was zero reason outside of that. You will remind me? LMMFAO!!! Go remind yourself about shit. When you bring in more variables (especially if you don't know they have been brought in), you decrease the relationship between the results and the tested variable. If you build predictive models on flawed data, you get flawed models. If you have a flawed model, that's indication that the data may be flawed. At that point, you have to go back to your original data to find out wtf. Right?

GotSteel -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 11:35:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So precisely how should science be done? Who will pay for independent replication of all results before publication? I'd rather discuss what The article is about than go off on your tangents That's very much on topic. Science is a slow and combersome process that's not news. Science is also by far and away the best process we have, it's constantly exponentually expanding our knowledge. So if you're going to talk about how bad science is I think that raises the question, it's so bad compaired to what?

Yachtie -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 11:44:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel So if you're going to talk about how bad science is I think that raises the question, it's so bad compaired to what? No comparison required to counter what the article states, just as no comparisons between Ds and Rs are required to discern as to how bad each is.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 5:00:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So precisely how should science be done? Who will pay for independent replication of all results before publication? I'd rather discuss what The article is about than go off on your tangents - "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 thing that always stuns me is, I actually know everything, I don't charge anywhere near as much as these (purported) "experts" do and....I'm listed in the book. But does anyone call? Nope.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 5:10:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's was only a point because, as you claim, Republicans are opposed to it (or like to cut funding for it). That's the only reason you included it. There was zero reason outside of that. It is a valid part of this discussion. Especially with cons attacking the way science is being done now and demanding that all research double in cost. quote: You will remind me? LMMFAO!!! Go remind yourself about shit. When you bring in more variables (especially if you don't know they have been brought in), you decrease the relationship between the results and the tested variable. If you build predictive models on flawed data, you get flawed models. If you have a flawed model, that's indication that the data may be flawed. At that point, you have to go back to your original data to find out wtf. Right? You really don't get how science is done. Let's take a pretty simple example I worked on in college, at what density of traffic does a highway's average speed start to slow down? The model for this is based on, IIRC, 35 previous pieces of research, everything from average adult reaction time to average automobile acceleration. Our first pass got a result that was ridiculous, traffic stopped with 1 car every 200 yards. So we took a look at what factor was causing that weird result. After some more runs of the model it became clear there was something up with driver caution. So we looked into the original paper and found it was based on data from the 30's, not flawed just simply out of date. So we searched around till we found a more recent study that tangentially dealt with how cautious drivers are. We messed with our model to use the new variable, adjustment was necessary because the two measures were not exactly the same units. The model then predicted very closely how interstate traffic flowed at the time and allowed us to model the effects of increasing lanes versus higher speed limits etc.. The not useful data did not set us back more than a couple of days and the fact that the old study was no longer valid appeared in the published article.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 8:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's was only a point because, as you claim, Republicans are opposed to it (or like to cut funding for it). That's the only reason you included it. There was zero reason outside of that. It is a valid part of this discussion. Especially with cons attacking the way science is being done now and demanding that all research double in cost. quote: You will remind me? LMMFAO!!! Go remind yourself about shit. When you bring in more variables (especially if you don't know they have been brought in), you decrease the relationship between the results and the tested variable. If you build predictive models on flawed data, you get flawed models. If you have a flawed model, that's indication that the data may be flawed. At that point, you have to go back to your original data to find out wtf. Right? You really don't get how science is done. Let's take a pretty simple example I worked on in college, at what density of traffic does a highway's average speed start to slow down? The model for this is based on, IIRC, 35 previous pieces of research, everything from average adult reaction time to average automobile acceleration. Our first pass got a result that was ridiculous, traffic stopped with 1 car every 200 yards. So we took a look at what factor was causing that weird result. After some more runs of the model it became clear there was something up with driver caution. So we looked into the original paper and found it was based on data from the 30's, not flawed just simply out of date. So we searched around till we found a more recent study that tangentially dealt with how cautious drivers are. We messed with our model to use the new variable, adjustment was necessary because the two measures were not exactly the same units. The model then predicted very closely how interstate traffic flowed at the time and allowed us to model the effects of increasing lanes versus higher speed limits etc.. The not useful data did not set us back more than a couple of days and the fact that the old study was no longer valid appeared in the published article. Odd that your background research didn't catch the out of date data, no?

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/29/2013 10:08:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's was only a point because, as you claim, Republicans are opposed to it (or like to cut funding for it). That's the only reason you included it. There was zero reason outside of that. It is a valid part of this discussion. Especially with cons attacking the way science is being done now and demanding that all research double in cost. quote: You will remind me? LMMFAO!!! Go remind yourself about shit. When you bring in more variables (especially if you don't know they have been brought in), you decrease the relationship between the results and the tested variable. If you build predictive models on flawed data, you get flawed models. If you have a flawed model, that's indication that the data may be flawed. At that point, you have to go back to your original data to find out wtf. Right? You really don't get how science is done. Let's take a pretty simple example I worked on in college, at what density of traffic does a highway's average speed start to slow down? The model for this is based on, IIRC, 35 previous pieces of research, everything from average adult reaction time to average automobile acceleration. Our first pass got a result that was ridiculous, traffic stopped with 1 car every 200 yards. So we took a look at what factor was causing that weird result. After some more runs of the model it became clear there was something up with driver caution. So we looked into the original paper and found it was based on data from the 30's, not flawed just simply out of date. So we searched around till we found a more recent study that tangentially dealt with how cautious drivers are. We messed with our model to use the new variable, adjustment was necessary because the two measures were not exactly the same units. The model then predicted very closely how interstate traffic flowed at the time and allowed us to model the effects of increasing lanes versus higher speed limits etc.. The not useful data did not set us back more than a couple of days and the fact that the old study was no longer valid appeared in the published article. Odd that your background research didn't catch the out of date data, no? The price you pay for assigning research to a freshman. The grad student who was in doing the project had a list of variables, based I believe on previous traffic flow pattern modeling in trains, and assigned it to some freshman who needed extra credit.

samboct -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 9:30:50 AM)
"Think of how much research is wasted when you find out the background research you're building on is flawed." Nooo....Essentially all research is based on overturning something that we thought we knew. My research involved showing that a line from Cotton and Wilkinson- Inorganic Chemistry- (a standard textbook)- where the authors state "Chromium(IV) complexes are neither numerous nor important." was flawed. Well, my thesis advisor thought that C+W was correct- and that my experimental data couldn't show that I had a somewhat long lived Cr(IV) complex. Took awhile to convince her.... Good scientists have to be flexible in thought- we KNOW that some of what we think is correct is going to be wrong.... Essentially- we know that some of our "background research" is wrong- we just don't know which parts of it are....Science does not require a solid foundation- it's not like building a house. Sam

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 10:48:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Think of how much research is wasted when you find out the background research you're building on is flawed." Nooo....Essentially all research is based on overturning something that we thought we knew. My research involved showing that a line from Cotton and Wilkinson- Inorganic Chemistry- (a standard textbook)- where the authors state "Chromium(IV) complexes are neither numerous nor important." was flawed. Well, my thesis advisor thought that C+W was correct- and that my experimental data couldn't show that I had a somewhat long lived Cr(IV) complex. Took awhile to convince her.... Good scientists have to be flexible in thought- we KNOW that some of what we think is correct is going to be wrong.... Essentially- we know that some of our "background research" is wrong- we just don't know which parts of it are....Science does not require a solid foundation- it's not like building a house. Sam Some science certainly does need a solid basis. When you're attempting to get to a specific end, you need to be able to rely on your science to get you there with understanding of how. Pure science, science done for the sake of knowledge, doesn't need a solid foundation, as you state. But, we're not talking about pure science. We're talking about cancer research. If you can't explain how you got to where you got, and why you got there, how can you use that information in the battle against cancer? The only thing it can do is hearten the researchers. That's it.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 10:54:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Think of how much research is wasted when you find out the background research you're building on is flawed." Nooo....Essentially all research is based on overturning something that we thought we knew. My research involved showing that a line from Cotton and Wilkinson- Inorganic Chemistry- (a standard textbook)- where the authors state "Chromium(IV) complexes are neither numerous nor important." was flawed. Well, my thesis advisor thought that C+W was correct- and that my experimental data couldn't show that I had a somewhat long lived Cr(IV) complex. Took awhile to convince her.... Good scientists have to be flexible in thought- we KNOW that some of what we think is correct is going to be wrong.... Essentially- we know that some of our "background research" is wrong- we just don't know which parts of it are....Science does not require a solid foundation- it's not like building a house. Sam Some science certainly does need a solid basis. When you're attempting to get to a specific end, you need to be able to rely on your science to get you there with understanding of how. Pure science, science done for the sake of knowledge, doesn't need a solid foundation, as you state. But, we're not talking about pure science. We're talking about cancer research. If you can't explain how you got to where you got, and why you got there, how can you use that information in the battle against cancer? The only thing it can do is hearten the researchers. That's it. Have you ever taken any antibiotic except sulfa drugs? Shouldn't you in the future refuse since all those drugs are based on a fundamental error in the experiment that led to those drugs?

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 12:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Have you ever taken any antibiotic except sulfa drugs? Shouldn't you in the future refuse since all those drugs are based on a fundamental error in the experiment that led to those drugs? That's a fucking stupid question, Ken.

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 12:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Have you ever taken any antibiotic except sulfa drugs? Shouldn't you in the future refuse since all those drugs are based on a fundamental error in the experiment that led to those drugs? That's a fucking stupid question, Ken. Every single antibiotic invented since penicillin is based on a faulty experiment that cannot be replicated. That's a fact. Now what should you do with that knowledge?

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 1:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Have you ever taken any antibiotic except sulfa drugs? Shouldn't you in the future refuse since all those drugs are based on a fundamental error in the experiment that led to those drugs? That's a fucking stupid question, Ken. Every single antibiotic invented since penicillin is based on a faulty experiment that cannot be replicated. That's a fact. Now what should you do with that knowledge? Have there been any studies replicated since then? If so, then... oh, yeah, stupid fucking question.

samboct -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 1:02:35 PM)
"Pure science, science done for the sake of knowledge, doesn't need a solid foundation, as you state. But, we're not talking about pure science. We're talking about cancer research. If you can't explain how you got to where you got, and why you got there, how can you use that information in the battle against cancer?" You've drawn a distinction that's lost me- I don't get this. To me- cancer research most certainly is science- as is developing a drug- i.e the R in R+D. Figuring out how to manufacture a drug in larger volume- that's development- the D in R+D. In terms of cancer research though- there's been a terrific amount of progress in the past 30 plus years. What's unfortunate is that this increase in knowledge hasn't translated to more successful therapies- but a lot of the reason that hasn't happened is political and legal- not lack of scientific understanding. Most cancer treatments today make scientists feel like Bones McCoy on Star Trek muttering, "Butchers, butchers...." Sam

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 1:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Pure science, science done for the sake of knowledge, doesn't need a solid foundation, as you state. But, we're not talking about pure science. We're talking about cancer research. If you can't explain how you got to where you got, and why you got there, how can you use that information in the battle against cancer?" You've drawn a distinction that's lost me- I don't get this. To me- cancer research most certainly is science- as is developing a drug- i.e the R in R+D. Figuring out how to manufacture a drug in larger volume- that's development- the D in R+D. In terms of cancer research though- there's been a terrific amount of progress in the past 30 plus years. What's unfortunate is that this increase in knowledge hasn't translated to more successful therapies- but a lot of the reason that hasn't happened is political and legal- not lack of scientific understanding. Most cancer treatments today make scientists feel like Bones McCoy on Star Trek muttering, "Butchers, butchers...." Sam Pure science is science for no reason other than knowledge. There is no reason behind the aim of the research other than, to know. Cancer Research aims to find a way to combat cancer. There is a goal other than "knowledge." That is, there is already a planned use for the knowledge. Pure science seeks solely to expand what we know, with the only planned use being "to know more." Pure science isn't as organized and focused as specific research.

samboct -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 3:01:52 PM)
"ure science isn't as organized and focused as specific research. " Umm- no. If you walk into a lab with nothing in mind- you won't accomplish a damn thing. All science is organized to prove or disprove a hypothesis. What you call "pure science" may have a more nebulous hypothesis- i.e. if we point a telescope in this section of the galaxy- what are we going to see? But really- there's a hypothesis there. Doesn't matter whether the hypothesis is that there's a pink elephant galaxy- and somebody else says, "no, there isn't." there's still a hypothesis to prove or disprove. Cancer research boils down to a similar challenge...is this gene important to whether or not a particular drug will have a desired result? The hypothesis may be more detailed- but it's the same process as what you termed "pure research"- no difference. And in practical terms- unless you're an eccentric billionaire- scientists have to apply for grants- and those people reviewing grants want to see hypotheses. In practice- what's happened is that scientists have had to lie to get funding. The granting agency will read the proposal and say that this hypothesis is bogus- the experiment will never work. At which point, the researcher starts providing data as to why he/she thinks there's more than a snowball's chance in hell that the experiment will work. By the time all the "preliminary" data has been presented- it's clear that the experiment has already been done-and that the requested funding is going to be diverted to something else. I don't think this is a good trend- scientists should not lie. Since money is so tight- granting agencies are loathe to fund long shots- but it's those long shots where real progress is made. It's why we're not getting as much bang for our science buck as we should be....too much competition. Sam

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 3:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Have you ever taken any antibiotic except sulfa drugs? Shouldn't you in the future refuse since all those drugs are based on a fundamental error in the experiment that led to those drugs? That's a fucking stupid question, Ken. Every single antibiotic invented since penicillin is based on a faulty experiment that cannot be replicated. That's a fact. Now what should you do with that knowledge? Have there been any studies replicated since then? If so, then... oh, yeah, stupid fucking question. The initial experiment if done properly will not produce any antibiotic. So no amount of replication of that experiment will do any good.

DesideriScuri -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 6:08:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The initial experiment if done properly will not produce any antibiotic. So no amount of replication of that experiment will do any good. You're right. How do we know if it was done properly? Oh, that's right: replication. Neat how that science shit works, innit?

DomKen -> RE: stop standing in the way of science (10/30/2013 8:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The initial experiment if done properly will not produce any antibiotic. So no amount of replication of that experiment will do any good. You're right. How do we know if it was done properly? Oh, that's right: replication. Neat how that science shit works, innit? No. We know because one of the petri dishes was contaminated by a mold that killed the bacteria culturing in the dish. That's how we discovered penicillin and therefore all subsequent antibiotics. Do the original experiment correctly and no antibiotics.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375