"Scientists Say" blather

Topic: "Scientists Say" blather (Read 81480 times)

"Scientists Say" blather

2014-08-08, 07:11:21

Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?

What think you?

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #1 – 2014-08-08, 07:15:27

Stay away from the blather sections of internet news. Read actual science by scientists themselves, instead of indirect references and misrepresentations.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #2 – 2014-08-08, 07:24:46

Scientists say that medically proven award-winning natural improved bullshit has 20% more traditional value.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #3 – 2014-08-08, 15:40:43

Quote from: tt92 on 2014-08-08, 07:24:46

Scientists say that medically proven award-winning natural improved bullshit has 20% more traditional value.

Your response has all of the right tags..."medically proven," "award-winning," "natural improved," "traditional value".

Scientist would endorse all of that! At least that's what they say.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #4 – 2014-08-08, 19:03:21

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2014-08-08, 07:11:21

Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?

If they can't (be arsed to) name any of these scientists, there's probably a reason for that

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #5 – 2014-08-12, 23:23:36

Isn't this thread about a sloppy, sensationalist media?

Perhaps scientists and their paymasters should step up to the plate and take a swing or two… Were I pitching, I'd go for the head of more than a few batters!
Lewandowsky and Cook, practitioners in the field of snark called "Stop non-liberal original thought!" (SNOT! — the exclamation point is required…), are green boogers that -for some reason- are accepted as scientists, by universities and academic journals.
Whatever your views on CAGW, these quacks should be shunned, no?

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #6 – 2014-08-14, 02:00:43

…Can I presume, from the lack of replies, that most here would tend to agree with Lewandowsky and Cook and, so, won't consider their "sins"…?

(Not wanting to "cast the first stone" and all that!)

Science reporting is -I agree- abysmally bad, usually. But so is science education — even of specialists who might be expected to know something. (Oreskes comes to mind, immediately.) Should K-12 teachers be taught basic science?
Would someone take a poll: What, in the theory of evolution, implies progress?

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #7 – 2014-08-14, 02:58:59

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-14, 02:00:43

…Can I presume, from the lack of replies, that most here would tend to agree with Lewandowsky and Cook and, so, won't consider their "sins"…? (Not wanting to "cast the first stone" and all that!)

Science reporting is -I agree- abysmally bad, usually.

It's your reporting which is abysmally bad. Who are Lewandowsky and Cook and why should I care to consider their sins? I never knew because you failed to report. By the way, by posting incoherent vaguely accusatory babble about them twice, you already cast two stones, not just one. Let's see what the third one will be like.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #8 – 2014-08-14, 09:43:16

If so many people believes in horoscopes how wouldn't they believe what "scientist says"...

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #9 – 2014-08-14, 12:30:09

Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-14, 02:58:59

Let's see what the third one will be like.

More than likely, more of the same.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #10 – 2014-08-14, 13:38:21

Quote

Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?

What think you?

Quote

If so many people believes in horoscopes how wouldn't they believe what "scientist says"...

it seems , Not every people believe that kind of sciences (physics, biologists, cosmologies , etc)

seen , from Human mind are tend , trapped in the - makes sense or nonsense .
not in the - true or false .

IMHO , most people are liked /need something Absolute true , and something sure , probably for Peace in Mind purpose .

Science , in somepoint are full of unsureness due to the Sciences Process and progress .
something sure about Science perhaps is the Change

while Horoscopes or something like that, is something absolute true.
even that are absolutely true illogical .

General Sciences sometimes can not do , what horoscopes science can do .

The Future are terrifying , and Most People are Fear of future .

Horoscopes fill that holes in the Human mind .

in somepoint Horoscope Science , can tell or measure Characters , How their child , teen , mature until old situation and condition .
what is good to do nor how their life in future , who are their soul mates based on Month or something like that , what are the best jobs for them , etc.

it gives sensation of The absoluteness and boost the amount of expectations in certain times .

not to mention ,
that kind of methodology oftenly are just , observing , remembering , calculating and mutch, metch, mitch, motch , match

so , the most Sensefull explanation about why People are Believe Horoscopes , or another irrational knowledges is simply because it is makes sense .

since it is makes sense , they believe if that is true .

also ...
Allow me to shed some Premature Conclusion .

Peace in mind = Perception of (Absolutely Trueness x got the Power )

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #11 – 2014-08-14, 14:07:39

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-08-14, 13:38:21

Allow me to shed some Premature Conclusion .

Peace in mind = Perception of (Absolutely Trueness x got the Power )

Американская фирма Transceptor Technology приступила к производству компьютеров «Персональный спутник»
-- Snap, The Power

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz_HpjTIi8Y[/video]

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #12 – 2014-08-14, 19:25:22

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-08-14, 13:38:21

horoscopes science

Mother of all oxymorons.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #13 – 2014-08-14, 23:07:08

Since Macallan and ersi both claim ignorance of Lewandowski and Cook, I can reasonably maintain that they have no interest in the nexus between science, psychology and politics (policy)…
And yet they'd both lecture the rest of us, on topics as disparate as education and environmentalism.

I'm not surprised, though.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #14 – 2014-08-15, 00:18:12

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-14, 23:07:08

Since Macallan and ersi both claim ignorance of Lewandowski and Cook, I can reasonably maintain that they have no interest in the nexus between science, psychology and politics (policy)…

For the millionth time, nobody here has any interest in doing your homework for you.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #15 – 2014-08-15, 01:03:43

So, what do you think, Mac? Is this deluge of blather the result of the layman's (including journalists) ignorance? Or has the scientific establishment itself connived in lowering the bar?

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #16 – 2014-08-15, 04:06:00

Sir , it seems Science is not related with politics directly .

but without politicians that convince the Government in the congress to fund the Science Projects .
it is undeniable , if science Projects like NASA will never existed .
the vice versa , Science projects sometimes also used by some politicians for certain purposes.

while psyche sciences , are almost like General sciences Enemies .
since thingking the unknown , racing thoughts , etc .. sometimes is no good .

well,
at least Theory of everything can be the Bridge between Psyche sciences , social Sciences ( politics, etc ) , and science it self .

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #17 – 2014-08-16, 22:41:05

Who regulates scientific blather anyway? Who should regulate it and, actually, why? And finally, who regulates religious, supernatural and horoscope blather (they are all pretty much the same thing)?

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #18 – 2014-08-18, 10:07:03

Quote from: Macallan on 2014-08-15, 00:18:12

For the millionth time, nobody here has any interest in doing your homework for you.

He's just dropping names from some wanker's blog, without really knowing who they are. In fact, there are multiple famous and semi-famous Lewandowskis, not to mentions Cooks. I can guess who he means, but there's little point in discussing it since Oakdale himself knows nothing except about them except what he read in some slanted, information challenged blog.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #19 – 2014-08-18, 11:26:04

It's fascinating that the title of this thread is "Scientists Say" 'blather', and Oakdale chimes in with something you have to work at to halfway understand. Get him and RJH going on a conversation, then try to make heads or tails out what they're saying.

FWIW, I do know who the two "scientists" Oakdale mentions are, having read more than enough of them recently.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #20 – 2014-08-18, 19:36:41

Might I remind us all that it's not scientists who say "scientists say".

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #21 – 2014-08-18, 21:48:57

With folks like Sang, everything is political -- so, I'd thought he'd have noted and approved the media hype surrounding Cook's Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature and Lewandowsky's pair of papers, NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science and Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Consiracist Ideation ... But there's another factor involved: Un-interest!
That is, the habit of having once made up one's mind about a subject forever more forgoing thought about it. (That seems usually to be Mac's specialty -- which makes me wonder why he'd post in a thread such as this...)

Sang surely knows better, when he accuses me of not having read the papers I'd bring up for discussion.

And, of course, my expecting posters in a particular thread to be somewhat interested in its topic (and to have access to the Web...) is unreasonable, by some lights.

Oh, well.
————————————————————

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-08-18, 02:07:03

but there's little point in discussing it since Oakdale himself knows nothing except about them except what he read in some slanted, information challenged blog.

Translation: "OakdaleFTL didn't cite the Huffington Post, so he can't know what's what! Ipso facto… Ya know?"

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #22 – 2014-08-19, 03:35:57

Quote from: tt92 on 2014-08-18, 11:36:41

Might I remind us all that it's not scientists who say "scientists say".

Except when it is scientists who say it… Am I odd, for thinking they then are worse offenders?

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #23 – 2014-08-19, 05:19:49

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-18, 21:48:57

Translation: "OakdaleFTL didn't cite the Huffington Post, so he can't know what's what! Ipso facto… Ya know?"

Translation: I like to make up that Sanguinemoon cites the Huffington Post, but I were doing anything remotely resembling paying attention, I would know he hasn't done that in years. Meanwhile, I cite blather that's an embarrassment to real conservatives. Further, I lack reading comprehension when referencing anything close to scholarly.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-08-18, 21:48:57

so, I'd thought he'd have noted and approved the media hype surrounding Cook's

Nope, sure didn't. Why's that? Because I don't give a rat's ass about Cook. If you were as intelligent as you try to pass yourself off to be, you'd know that just about about any study in any field is likely to have flaws. However, those flaws don't necessarily make the outcomes untrue; although if there were too many they might. Just as true black and white are all but non-existent in nature, completely wrong or right is just as rare. You'd also know the reason anything gets hype is because it was well publicized. Hype does not equal quality.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #24 – 2014-08-19, 05:32:50

or simply that's what people used to call with " Perception"

isn't that something Normal ?

when Different People cognosco with Different Perception ?