The Awesomesauce of Science

Topic: The Awesomesauce of Science (Read 52189 times)

Banned Member
- Hero Member
- Posts: 2,003
- Joined: Nov 21, 2013
- Logged
Banned

The Awesomesauce of Science

2014-04-08, 14:48:50

Quote from: ersi – on 2014-04-08, 03:48:03

You are totally not paying attention. Apollo 13 is an example that science is not all-good to absolute precision the way you said. Science can go wrong. Bad science exists and it's necessary to distinguish it from the good. This is a necessary distinction. Moreover, science itself cannot make this distinction. Philosophy can.

Maybe there's no bad science, but there are bad scientists?
And please let us tell between science and application, right?

Mod edit: fixed quote.

Last Edit: 2014-04-30, 18:12:27 by jax

THE OTHER smilies; the radio poll.
And

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #50 – 2015-02-22, 11:08:48

Quote from: rjhowie – on 2015-02-21, 20:51:58

Science may of course survive hover how it is used is another moral matter.

There is much truth in that. Nuclear weapons, germ warfare, intercontinental ballistic missiles, etc. are the toxic offspring of science.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #51 – 2015-02-22, 11:10:50

Quote from: Banned Member – on 2014-04-08, 14:48:50

Maybe there's no bad science, but there are bad scientists?
And please let us tell between science and application, right?

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #52 – 2015-02-22, 11:24:21

Application of science it's not science, it's (when it applies) ethics.
Someone "against" science would be equivalent to someone against reasoning.

Religion/Science opposition and "debate" it's proper of low educated people and geographically only remaining today in the prairies of the new world where it seems to be florescent. And Glasgow.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #53 – 2015-02-23, 11:12:36

Good or bad is Concepts that made by Human .

i assume ..
in the human Psyche structures , everything that give benefit is good .
and everything that do not give any benefit is bad .

But Nature is not Human .

i think... everything in Natural Realities manners nor Naturwissenschaften is Good .

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #54 – 2015-02-24, 04:32:23

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-21, 22:50:59

Malthusianism and Social Darwinism, leading back to eugenics…is what I expect. Nothing you've said leads me to think you'd be against such.
Does the Population Bomb still scare you? Do you watch the seconds tick, on the Doomsday Clock? Is the Climate Catastrophe something that gives you the willies?

Science is not "at risk". It will survive the puerile idolatry of your like.

Ok, so this is what Oakdale expects of high school science (✓)...next!!

Long range population and population growth predictions to 2050 are not as bad as you may think according to this 2014 U.N. report (see figure II, pg. 12 for quick ref). As education and socio-economic conditions improve worldwide, global fertility levels are expected to decline to replacement levels (1.99), by 2100. See 2012 U.N. chart here.

Global warming is more of a concern and life on Earth may significantly change. However, due to recent NIPCC reports, I have reason to be confident that humans will survive handily--though perhaps not entirely unscathed (the degree to which no one is certain). Our food supply is not in danger as is no form of life on earth seriously threatened, including aquatic life. The global warming doomsday scenarios for the past 30 years have simply not come true. Despite this fact, we can expect similar predictions from alarmists, such as yourself, to continue even though the present outlook is not nearly as bad as once expected.

In my estimation, and that of many dedicated scientific teams worldwide studying population and climate change, your doomsday predictions are unfounded, unhelpful, dispiriting and just plain tiresome. Get your placard if you must, stand on a corner dressed in white robe, (let 'ur beard grow for effect), and put on the same clown show pedestrians have been watching in the streets for centuries--whatever floats your boat. (Btw, I do hope that ticking in your head clears up).

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #55 – 2015-02-24, 05:12:02

James, you're just too much…

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #56 – 2015-02-25, 21:40:10

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #57 – 2015-02-25, 22:14:33

I especially liked this:

Quote

The global warming doomsday scenarios for the past 30 years have simply not come true. Despite this fact, we can expect similar predictions from alarmists, such as yourself, to continue even though the present outlook is not nearly as bad as once expected.

In case anyone else has forgot (or was unaware…) of my position re CAGW, let me be clear:
The models employed by the IPCC-surveyed agencies and institutions have made predictions that have, in fact, failed… This implies that those models are wrong.
It follows that basing policy decisions upon them is wrong-headed and anti-scientific.

Put another way: We do not have a hiatus; we have data. Preferring such models to the data is a symptom of — religious devotion…rather then scientific purity.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #58 – 2015-02-26, 04:31:42

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-25, 22:14:33

Put another way: We do not have a hiatus; we have data. Preferring such models to the data is a symptom of — religious devotion…rather then scientific purity.

Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades? And just how did you get to be such an expert on analyzing data and predicting climate change? Where did you study and what is your total number of years of experience as a professional in this field? Apparently, you think that the expert teams on this panel are all just being pigheaded (why?), when perhaps it's just the other way around--ever consider that?

Lots of scientific theories and models fail, but much is learned from failure--wouldn't you agree? Do you think the IPCC panel did not take failures into consideration in their final analysis? Climate change forecasting must surely be one of the most inexact sciences there is today and at least I won't pretend to be an expert on it or propose to know better. You are a victim of your own 'catastrophic thinking' Oakdale; you love to ruminate about irrational, or at least unlikely, worst-case outcomes. Do you ever even consider best-case possibilities or are those just too dull and unexciting for you? The sky is not falling my friend, much as you would like to say it is.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #59 – 2015-02-26, 08:22:54

Quote from: jseaton2311 – on 2015-02-25, 20:31:42

Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades? And just how did you get to be such an expert on analyzing data and predicting climate change? Where did you study and what is your total number of years of experience as a professional in this field? Apparently, you think that the expert teams on this panel are all just being pigheaded (why?), when perhaps it's just the other way around--ever consider that?

In other words: "If you're not a priest, what allows you to interpret scripture?"

When I was young a focus of mine was Philosophy of Science; now that I'm old, having tried to keep up, I find myself still interested.
You pack a lot of BS into your extended "refutation" of my view… (Which you seem not to understand?

How quaint!) Care to support the predictions of any AOGCMs? Or their ad hoc explanations for their failures?

I certainly want such modeling to continue, to get better and better. But a political determination of their efficacy is — shall we say, verboten? (At least, counter-productive; if science is the aim…)

When James Hansen thought he'd explained the current atmospheric conditions of Venus via a run-away greenhouse effect, he knew he had a winning career path! (Have you considered his hypothesized dynamic for Mars?) And he did what many pseudo-scientists do: He fudged and dissembled…
And extrapolated to Earth.
(If you don't know the story of his 1988 congressional testimony — you're too uninvolved to have an opinion, unless you can read and defend his published work; which I doubt sincerely!
If Gavin Schmidt can't convincingly do it, I doubt you will get beyond "em, er, ah"…)

Quote from: jseaton2311 – on 2015-02-25, 20:31:42

Lots of scientific theories and models fail, but much is learned from failure--wouldn't you agree?

Not so often; no.
Wrong-headed theories have to be dynamited from their porticoes… If the pillars cannot stand on their own, they cannot support the awning…

But you -as an adherent to the scientific method- would… What? Exempt technocratic presumption, for the Greater Good?
Spoken like a true Progressive!

I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) . (I do know that you have no expertise that goes beyond blind faith; else you would have mentioned it, supported it, and argued for it vociferously.) If I disagree with most scientists, that means I'm wrong?

How is that different from enforcing Dogma…?
(Isn't science "about" what can be proved…?)
There is an old-fashioned way of viewing science: Hypothesis -> Theory -> Prediction -> Data. These constrain the enterprise: If the data don't support the predictions, the theory is wrong; and the hypothesis is ill-posed.
(I know that's complicated. Get used to it!)

When Sociology replaces Philosophy of Science, you get — people like you.

Quote from: jseaton2311 – on 2015-02-25, 20:31:42

Oakdale; you love to ruminate about irrational, or at least unlikely, worst-case outcomes. Do you ever even consider best-case possibilities or are those just too dull and unexciting for you? The sky is not falling my friend, much as you would like to say it is.

The Best-Case Scenario is — that poseurs and grafters and grant-glommers will lose their sponsors.
I presume -until you tell me otherwise- that you're against that.

I won't hold my breath…

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #60 – 2015-02-26, 10:36:30

I can think of more than a few people who could benefit from this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #61 – 2015-02-26, 14:04:33

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530091.500-need-for-speed-why-computers-stopped-getting-faster.html

Quote

TEN years ago, computers stopped getting faster. Stroking your sleek smartphone or latest laptop, this may seem a rather implausible statement. Surely there's no contest between it and a decade-old desktop?

That's true – in a way. But even if computer chips weren't made of silicon, the comparison would be built on sand. Continually increasing computing power used to rest on a solid foundation of ever smaller, faster chips. In the past decade, though, it has become a case of using more chips, less efficiently. Chip speed stalled sometime around 2004.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #62 – 2015-02-26, 17:04:44

Quote from: New Scientist

TEN years ago, computers stopped getting faster. Stroking your sleek smartphone or latest laptop, this may seem a rather implausible statement. Surely there's no contest between it and a decade-old desktop?

€100 says my 2006 former desktop still blows the vast majority of stupid phones out of the water. A recent laptop should be faster, but not by terribly much unless it's a high-end model.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #63 – 2015-02-26, 19:43:07

Quote from: Frenzie – on 2015-02-26, 12:04:44

€100 says my 2006 former desktop still blows the vast majority of stupid phones out of the water. A recent laptop should be faster, but not by terribly much unless it's a high-end model.

Sorry, but I don't bet in €. I only use my iPhone as a computer in a pinch because it's simply annoying to use. Nothing I do these days requires computing power. I used to do spreadsheets back in the olden days on a desktop and also on an Apple 2E. Speed would have helped.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #64 – 2015-02-26, 19:51:54

Quote from: Jimbro3738 – on 2015-02-26, 10:36:30

I can think of more than a few people who could benefit from this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-transplant-could-happen-in-two-years.html#.VO72ilPF84Q

And the donors?

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #65 – 2015-02-26, 22:10:50

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-26, 08:22:54

In other words: "If you're not a priest, what allows you to interpret scripture?"

Using this 'patty cake' example put me off on the rest of what you had to say. "If you are not a brain surgeon, then don't try to do brain surgery", would have been more apropos.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-26, 08:22:54

Wrong-headed theories have to be dynamited from their porticoes… If the pillars cannot stand on their own, they cannot support the awning…

We can all thank our lucky stars that you don't oversee science. I would think that most theories have initial flaws to be worked out and they need to be revamped (perhaps many times), before they prove consistent enough to be completely relied upon as scientific fact. And I think you are forgetting that climate change modeling is not a method of research where one considers just a single hypothesis, but instead multiple hypotheses that might explain the phenomenon under study.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-26, 08:22:54

I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) .

Is this what you are talking about? Although a consensus may arise surrounding any specific scientific hypothesis or theory, the existence of a consensus is not itself the evidence.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #66 – 2015-02-27, 03:31:32

Quote from: jseaton2311 – on 2015-02-26, 14:10:50

Although a consensus may arise surrounding any specific scientific hypothesis or theory, the existence of a consensus is not itself the evidence.

I'm awfully glad to hear you say that! There's some hope for you…
To recap: You said "Why is your 'scientific purity' and expertise(?) in this matter better than that of the best scientific minds from around the globe who have been studying this for decades?"
One obvious answer is that the field of climatology is very insular, and quite small. The "best" (and, presumably, the brightest…) have been caught in deplorable shenanigans.
I am somewhat disinterested.
I don't read Watts very often. But I regularly check out McIntyre and Curry… The various advocates of this, that and the other don't much interest me.

My original interest in NASA's climatology efforts stemmed from their (reported) bizarre use of computer models… (Philosophy of Science, remember?) Between Hansen and Oreskes, it seemed that the models were to be excused from making predictions… Instead, they prompted "scenarios".
To my mind, that's akin to pitching a movie. That's not science, is it?

I'd call these Just So Stories. Wouldn't you?
————————————————————————————
Yes, I've posted about Cook's work, and that of his colleague Lewandowsky, before. I wouldn't call them scientists. Would you?

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #67 – 2015-02-27, 06:19:02

Quote from: jseaton2311 – on 2015-02-26, 22:10:50

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-26, 08:22:54
I don't know, James, what you really think about the 97%-consensus about CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) .

Is this what you are talking about?

From behind the link:

Quote

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

If this is so, what does "consensus" mean? Who is this Cook and is his refuters' math any better?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL – on 2015-02-27, 03:31:32

My original interest in NASA's climatology efforts stemmed from their (reported) bizarre use of computer models… (Philosophy of Science, remember?) Between Hansen and Oreskes, it seemed that the models were to be excused from making predictions… Instead, they prompted "scenarios".
To my mind, that's akin to pitching a movie. That's not science, is it?

Is economics a science or not? Does it make predictions or discuss scenarios? Climatologists seem to be learning from economists.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #68 – 2015-02-27, 07:00:47

Science is finished. What exists today are technicians with the mindset of little ants and a vision of the world no different from how the little ant regards the anthill.
Insects, a world of insects, where, here and there sparsely scattered, one can still see the old ruins of Man's statues and monuments. Silent voices from the past that people can't ear anymore, science being one of such voices.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #69 – 2015-02-27, 11:56:16

Don't ask me. Is this a product of science or religion?

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #70 – 2015-02-27, 23:56:35

Quote from: Jimbro3738 – on 2015-02-27, 11:56:16

Is this a product of science or religion?

Those who opposes science versus religion doesn't belong to none of the terms.
Zombies in between, nothing but that.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #71 – 2015-02-28, 00:00:49

It should be a mosque on the tank as being more practical.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #72 – 2015-02-28, 00:14:01

A picture with both coming at each other would be more realistic.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #73 – 2015-03-01, 01:21:57

Oh I don't know about that one as they picked up a lot from the Iraq Army after it broke the speed limit reversing.

Re: The Awesomesauce of Science

Reply #74 – 2015-03-01, 03:06:38

Haven't heard that one since the end of WW2 and the Italians.