Interesting times at Ridgemont High.
Here’s my decidedly unschooled personal thoughts - would love to hear from someone who’s actually studied this sort of thing.
It seems to me serious science rests on some fundamentals.
For the scientists one of the most important requirements is to be extremely self-critical, self-skeptical if you will.
When it all falls together nice and easy, one must ask what might I be missing here?
Because you know others will find it.
The community of scientists is filled with informed critical thinkers, looking for mistakes.
Another key point is that Science is a constructive process reaching for the physical truth of the matter.
In serious science, when confronting other scientists with new and provocative ideas, conjectures,
serious scientists begin with reviewing the established scientific evidence first and explains what’s missing.
Then it’s time to launch into presenting their ideas.
Likewise in a serious debate, we represent our opponents position honestly, because reinforcing one’s personal notions IS NOT THE GOAL.
The goal is finding the respective strengths and weaknesses in each others understanding/arguments -
mistakes are learning tools to further this process.
Because in the end it is not about stroking ego’s, the scientific exercise is about striving to achieve the most accurate answer possible.
Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.
Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.Great. Now can we translate that into the real world? twenty some views, not many. But than Inquiry ain't what it used to be. It's scary like everyone has checked out. All talked out or something. Happy simply to go through our daily routines until the end comes. Honestly isn't worth fighting or arguing about anymore. Empathy, fuk u - got my own problems. We have more information at our fingertips than ever and hell we have more ease and time than ever, yet most don't seem to have an inkling what to do with it. OH yeah, figure out how to make more profits, who cares who that hurts down the line. Our American passion, forever more, ever faster has created this self-cannibalizing monster we're all lost within. We seem reduced to little more than widgets being moved along. What's wild is how many are okay with that. Then, of course, the cascading consequences, such as a general perception that physical reality is simply one among many alternative stories our minds can make up. So a pissed off 'genius' puts up a shingle with a fancy name and we are told it deserves the same deference as organization that have spent decades doing real work. Christ if global warming, dying ocean, depleted lands were not happening, bet we'd still manage to exterminate ourselves before this century is out the way we behave and think these days. Thank God I'm a country boy. :kiss:
Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00 :lol: Of course if most people believe it then it cannot be pseudoscience. psik
Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00 :lol: Of course if most people believe it then it cannot be pseudoscience. psik Oh lordie, what the fuk was that snow job all about? Providing me with an example of pseudoscience in action, thanks I need that like a hole in my head, but here you go - the response:
citizenschallengeYT Jan 8, 2018 2:30 of course Feynman's unspoken requirement is that the "experiment" needs to be done correctly or all bets are off! 3:15 interest the guy points out that we use computer models to build complex jet airplanes, and you come with an analogy that computer models can make pigs fly, CON-JOB. 4:20 - you're model is a phony, that those hinges are NOT analogous to the structural components of the towers! 6:15 - phony experiment, your weight didn't grow as it fell. Also your single boards are not at all analogous to beam (shit that should have been TRUSS), pan, concrete floor structures. NOT AT ALL REALISTIC. The upper lighter structure - above the impact zone. Where the hell do you get off implying that was light weight unit. What about gravity and inertia? 7:59 in NO WAY does your structure simulate the actually structural complexity and the many connections that the real towers consisted of! TOTALLY UNREALISTIC. 8:15 of course it didn't simulate the actually collapse, it is in NO way similar - apple and peanuts buddy, don't pass the stink test. 8:45 - Why not point out the difference in scale and what a difference that makes to a collapsing object? 9:12 Another model that in no way is analogous to the tower's structures. 9:25 - Well yes, once you calculate the actual loads the way the serious experts did. 9:42 Your models keep getting further and further from the reality of the towers. 10:03 of course you didn't see what happened to the towers, you we're foolish to expect that your model with paper which when properly configured can be strong as hell, think corrugated card board. Your ring of paper, why not do some modeling math scale it up to WTC sized and see how much stronger the WTC would be than actually decided. Of course, then look at weights and sizes and not window and ponder the silliness of that analogy. 10:09 What "out motion" ??? 10:30 here it really goes off the deep end. You also need evidence of explosives - make-believe doesn't accomplish that in the real physical world. 11:08 WOW, models with lots of fireworks, now can we look at that video of the collapse, . . . hmmm what's missing? 11:23 NO you weren't, not even. 13:30 Must have used powerful explosives, WHY??? Weight, gravity, inertia, structural complexities and weakness accelerate to tremendous forces. 13:45 What a sick joke. Don't speak for nature when you IGNORE so many PHYSICAL REALITIES. Show less REPLY citizenschallengeYT 1 second ago psikeyhackr, very disappointed. When are you going to share something serious and substantive. Oh yeah, I know, 9/11 Hoaxers don't have anything serious or internally consistent. Maybe next COLE PE will explain to us how manmade global warming is also a media hoax. : - (
excuse the various typos
Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.Great. Now can we translate that into the real world? You have to start to explain how scientific method works. Testing phenomenons in controlled laboratory environments, repeatably and to prove those phenomenons are repeatable. One of the most funny examples can be demonstrating a gravity. One christian blogger stated "Scientists do believe in gravity". Thats not correct. Scientist do KNOW about gravity. You can always demonstrate how gravity works by simply let something fall. The thing is, gravity works always, regardless if we believe in it or not. This is a good to put into contract with statement "without god there are no morals" which is usually used to believe, and stay away from the sin. Christians do here two major claims: 1. If you stop to believe of god, your morals will disappear. Contrary to that, gravity will not. 2. What slightly undermines its force is that, morals dont vanish regardles you believe in the one true god, or the one true Morty. Therefore claims made by scientists should be based on demonstrable experiments. However there is an counterargument you cannot demostrate love to your wife, that its a belief and therefore beliefs are important - particually the most favourite in One True God. Its a fallacy, but i forgot why. Point of this counterargument is that beliefs do not need any proofing. Boiling it down... Science produces repeatable results in testing. Pseudoscience requires belief (usually into exxagerated interpretation).
There are few difficulties in making this distinction. I’ll cover a couple of them.
A conjecture, made by an expert, is pseudo-science. There was debate about Einstein and Hawking’s early theories, when they first presented them. No one else had worked out the math, so they couldn’t say. So, according to the definition of a rigorous theory, it wasn’t science yet. Today, we could say it WAS science all along, just not confirmed, but not at the time. That’s one of the things that pisses people off, an expert, a respected scholar, can do that, and on rare occasions, an amateur does and is right, but usually, they aren’t. So, no one bothers even trying to confirm it.
Another, and I thought Offler was going to say this, we don’t know what gravity is. We can predict it, simulate it, simulate not having it, measure it, but we can’t put it in a bottle or create an anti-gravity device. Same with germ theory. At first, we didn’t know what germs were, but one guy figured out you should wash your hands before doing surgery. Essentially, he was theorizing some invisible force. Someone who doesn’t understand science can’t understand how this is different from saying a universe exists therefore SOMEONE must have created it.
People figure out what a reasonable argument looks like, and they make one that looks reasonable to them. But then someone comes along and points out a flaw, or challenges a premise or their methods, or lack of data. They discover that science is actually hard work, so they try to discredit the entire concept.
I’m influenced by Massimo Pigliucci’s definition of pseudoscience. There are many good approaches, but I find Massimo’s the most satisfying.
From the interesting post:
Philosophy of Pseudoscience
“A ballpark demarcation of pseudoscience—with a lot of blanks to be filled in—is not difficult to come up with: if a theory strays from the epistemic desiderata of science by a sufficiently wide margin while being touted as scientific by its advocates, it is justifiably branded as pseudoscience.”
seen at YouTube
Rimbawan G. 4 months ago Scientists try to make things clearer and easier to digest. Pseudo-scientists make things more convoluted.
Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00 :lol: Of course if most people believe it then it cannot be pseudoscience. psik That’s the most ridiculous statement I have heard.
There are few difficulties in making this distinction. I’ll cover a couple of them. A conjecture, made by an expert, is pseudo-science. There was debate about Einstein and Hawking’s early theories, when they first presented them. No one else had worked out the math, so they couldn’t say. So, according to the definition of a rigorous theory, it wasn’t science yet. Today, we could say it WAS science all along, just not confirmed, but not at the time. That’s one of the things that pisses people off, an expert, a respected scholar, can do that, and on rare occasions, an amateur does and is right, but usually, they aren’t. So, no one bothers even trying to confirm it. Another, and I thought Offler was going to say this, we don’t know what gravity is. We can predict it, simulate it, simulate not having it, measure it, but we can’t put it in a bottle or create an anti-gravity device. Same with germ theory. At first, we didn’t know what germs were, but one guy figured out you should wash your hands before doing surgery. Essentially, he was theorizing some invisible force. Someone who doesn’t understand science can’t understand how this is different from saying a universe exists therefore SOMEONE must have created it. People figure out what a reasonable argument looks like, and they make one that looks reasonable to them. But then someone comes along and points out a flaw, or challenges a premise or their methods, or lack of data. They discover that science is actually hard work, so they try to discredit the entire concept.Interesting. I think that along these lines, when it comes to pseudoscience versus science, I don't really have a problem with this blurred boundary specifically. It's when people maliciously promote falsehoods that is the colloquial, negative aspect of pseudoscience that we don't like.
There are few difficulties in making this distinction. I’ll cover a couple of them. A conjecture, made by an expert, is pseudo-science. There was debate about Einstein and Hawking’s early theories, when they first presented them. No one else had worked out the math, so they couldn’t say. So, according to the definition of a rigorous theory, it wasn’t science yet. Today, we could say it WAS science all along, just not confirmed, but not at the time. That’s one of the things that pisses people off, an expert, a respected scholar, can do that, and on rare occasions, an amateur does and is right, but usually, they aren’t. So, no one bothers even trying to confirm it. Another, and I thought Offler was going to say this, we don’t know what gravity is. We can predict it, simulate it, simulate not having it, measure it, but we can’t put it in a bottle or create an anti-gravity device. Same with germ theory. At first, we didn’t know what germs were, but one guy figured out you should wash your hands before doing surgery. Essentially, he was theorizing some invisible force. Someone who doesn’t understand science can’t understand how this is different from saying a universe exists therefore SOMEONE must have created it. People figure out what a reasonable argument looks like, and they make one that looks reasonable to them. But then someone comes along and points out a flaw, or challenges a premise or their methods, or lack of data. They discover that science is actually hard work, so they try to discredit the entire concept.Interesting. I think that along these lines, when it comes to pseudoscience versus science, I don't really have a problem with this blurred boundary specifically. It's when people maliciously promote falsehoods that is the colloquial, negative aspect of pseudoscience that we don't like.Good point. Reminds me of my climate science debates, the challenges and doubts themselves aren't so bad at all - it's the refusal to listen to how those challenges and doubts have been resolved that creates the monstrosities.
I was reading an interesting Skeptical Science post, with an even more interesting, at times weirder discussion following.
“Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution”
Posted on 27 December 2017 by dana1981
Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution
But there were some nuggets worth bringing over here:
Aaron D. at 01:45 AM on 29 December, 2017 CBD@6 The idea that we should let states do what they want is not new. We kept Slave/State Free States for far to long. It was the call for States Rights that the Southern States fought the Civil War About. The fear is that States with high tax and regulations would lose their wealthiest citizens while bringing jobs to low tax low regulation States. I am particularly interested in the topic of inoculation and vitamins. In both the Engineering and Geology Classes teach as an Adjunct at the Community College I ask the students to write 10-15 true/false and multiple choice questions on the reading before class. I then use the questions in the lectures and the quizzes. My thinking is that this will help them formulate challenges in their minds to get them to think critically about the claim. I also impress on them the 12 tests they can apply from Attacking Faulty Reasoning] to help them with the exercise. These 12 tests fall into 3 categories: Table manners, fallacies, and resolution.Table manners 1) Fallibility - no one is always right. 2) Truth Seeking – we must agree to seek the truth 3) Burden of proof – the guy with the claim has the burden 4) Charity – put the other guys argument in the best possible light 5) Clarity – be as clear with your position as possible. Fallacies 1) Acceptable – another researcher must have an opportunity to reproduce to replicate the results 2) Relevant – the premises must be appropriate to the argument 3) Sufficient – there must be sufficient evidence on one side or the other 4) Rebut all challenges – explain contradictory evidence Resolution 1) Resolve without full agreement - When all the above are satisfied but time is of the essence it’s okay to resolve without full agreement. 2) Suspend judgement– While there is time, and not all agree, it’s okay to wait for new information. 3) Re-evaluate – When new acceptable, relevant and sufficient, fully vetted evidence comes in it’s okay to proceed in a different direction.
Here’s another one I thought worth chewing on.
Mal A. at 09:24 AM on 2 January, 2018 I'm baffled by the confidence displayed by both deniers of anthropogenic global warming and conspiracists. What follows may be sloganeering, but I'm taking the chance on fooling myself that it isn't ;^). As the son of a science professor, educated in the public schools of a university town, I came early to regard science first and foremost as a way of trying not to be fooled ("The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." -R Feynman). Half a lifetime later, it's still all too easy to fool me, but AFAICT AGW deniers aren't even trying. They make no serious effort to distinguish real from fake news, because they fail to acknowledge how easy it is to fool them. Conspiracist AGW-deniers, especially, seem uncomfortable with ambiguity, and readily succumb to the appeal of certainty. They may be wrong, but at least they're sure, and they don't 'do' nuance! Genuine skeptics, OTOH, learn to quantify ambiguity, and give up on absolute certainty. They are willing to consider action based on what's most likely, despite known unknowns, and with awareness of the potential role for self-aggrandizement. Non-specialists may lack effective skills to evaluate genuine expertise; but why would a soi-disant 'global warming skeptic' be suspicious of working climate scientists, and not at least as suspicious of anyone else? IOW: yes, it's remotely possible AGW is a 190-year-old hoax, but it's more likely the conspiracists are fooling themselves.