Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
are you talking about climate change zealots again?
are you talking about climate change zealots again?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
I had to stop myself from laughing out loud! So true!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Yeah, and those heliocentrism zealots are even funnier.
A scientific fact is different than an opinion. A claim to have the truth in the former is reasonable because it's testable. A claim to have the truth in the latter is silly because you know what they say about opinions and related body parts.
Or are you such a relativist that you don't believe there are any facts? That's actually a time-honored school of radical skepticism, but it's not who I thought you were.
Yeah, and those heliocentrism zealots are even funnier.
A scientific fact is different than an opinion. A claim to have the truth in the former is reasonable because it's testable. A claim to have the truth in the latter is silly because you know what they say about opinions and related body parts.
Or are you such a relativist that you don't believe there are any facts? That's actually a time-honored school of radical skepticism, but it's not who I thought you were.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
No, Kepler. It has become clear that no one understands the scientific method or how it works. In fact it's also clear that as a species we learned nothing from Galileo.
Yeah, and those heliocentrism zealots are even funnier.
A scientific fact is different than an opinion. A claim to have the truth in the former is reasonable because it's testable. A claim to have the truth in the latter is silly because you know what they say about opinions and related body parts.
Or are you such a relativist that you don't believe there are any facts? That's actually a time-honored school of radical skepticism, but it's not who I thought you were.
No, Kepler. It has become clear that no one understands the scientific method or how it works. In fact it's also clear that as a species we learned nothing from Galileo.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Funny how these scientific "facts" change pretty regularly. But, I'm sure they're all sure this time they've got it all right, for sure. Ha. Ha.Yeah, and those heliocentrism zealots are even funnier.
A scientific fact is different than an opinion. A claim to have the truth in the former is reasonable because it's testable. A claim to have the truth in the latter is silly because you know what they say about opinions and related body parts.
Or are you such a relativist that you don't believe there are any facts? That's actually a time-honored school of radical skepticism, but it's not who I thought you were.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
This is such a strawman Bob and you know it. I want you to show me the preponderance of scientists who claim to have "it right." Those that say they have the "Truth" with a capital T. Show me the scientists who claim that their understanding is not provisional or subject to revision. Read this. Seriously do it. Show me you are making even the minimum effort of learning. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
"My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.""
The fact that you really have shown no clue about how science works is fine. The willful ignorance you show when you argue against the strawman that has been burned down time and time again is really depressing.
This is such a strawman Bob and you know it. I want you to show me the preponderance of scientists who claim to have "it right." Those that say they have the "Truth" with a capital T. Show me the scientists who claim that their understanding is not provisional or subject to revision. Read this. Seriously do it. Show me you are making even the minimum effort of learning. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
"My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.""
The fact that you really have shown no clue about how science works is fine. The willful ignorance you show when you argue against the strawman that has been burned down time and time again is really depressing.
unofan
Well-known member
This is coming from the guy who just two threads down from this one is lamenting that no one can recognize facts as facts anymore.
I don't think the oceans are big enough to hold all the irony dripping from those statements.
Rimbaud
New member
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
A scientist's job is to try and disprove their ideas in as many ways as possible until they're left with only one option...they might be right.
Explaining that to lawyers during jury duty is the best way to get tossed from the perspective pool.
A scientist's job is to try and disprove their ideas in as many ways as possible until they're left with only one option...they might be right.
Explaining that to lawyers during jury duty is the best way to get tossed from the perspective pool.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
There is a very important distinction between a "fact" -- my shoes are black -- compared to a theory. Facts supposedly are testable, someone else does the same experiment you do and gets the same result. Theories ("in theory") are never frozen, they evolve over time as new evidence is amassed. Gravity used to be based on the mass of two objects divided by the square of the distance between them. Now, that theory is a good approximation for our daily lives, and on the galactic scale it has been modified to account for general relativity.
"Climate change" has been occurring in cycles for longer than humans have been on earth. The "zealots" insist that, despite many millennia of evidence to the contrary, that this particular bout of climate change must be primarily the result of human activity. Furthermore, they insist that there is one and only one allowable response: even though, if by their own rationale, it is the incremental accumulation of "excess" CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere, we are somehow "not allowed" to "solve the problem" by removing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere.
One can reasonably say without argument that human activity affects climate change and alters the baseline of what otherwise might have occurred. Beyond that, we still lack reliable data to parse out the background baseline from the incremental effects, especially as the supposed "state of the art" models have not yet generated predictions that fit the actual fact pattern.
It is really kind of amazing how non-scientists elevate "science" to the same kind of unquestioning belief that they deride as "religion" in others. Every scientist I know prefaces a statement with something like "based on the data we have now, ...."
Some of the most important scientific discoveries in history came about when people did NOT find what they expected to find, and then had the moral courage and integrity to admit it. When people start with the conclusion they need in order to get a grant approved, and then back-solve for data to support a pre-determined outcome, the whole enterprise brings "science" into disrepute among the broader community.
There is a very important distinction between a "fact" -- my shoes are black -- compared to a theory. Facts supposedly are testable, someone else does the same experiment you do and gets the same result. Theories ("in theory") are never frozen, they evolve over time as new evidence is amassed. Gravity used to be based on the mass of two objects divided by the square of the distance between them. Now, that theory is a good approximation for our daily lives, and on the galactic scale it has been modified to account for general relativity.
"Climate change" has been occurring in cycles for longer than humans have been on earth. The "zealots" insist that, despite many millennia of evidence to the contrary, that this particular bout of climate change must be primarily the result of human activity. Furthermore, they insist that there is one and only one allowable response: even though, if by their own rationale, it is the incremental accumulation of "excess" CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere, we are somehow "not allowed" to "solve the problem" by removing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere.
One can reasonably say without argument that human activity affects climate change and alters the baseline of what otherwise might have occurred. Beyond that, we still lack reliable data to parse out the background baseline from the incremental effects, especially as the supposed "state of the art" models have not yet generated predictions that fit the actual fact pattern.
It is really kind of amazing how non-scientists elevate "science" to the same kind of unquestioning belief that they deride as "religion" in others. Every scientist I know prefaces a statement with something like "based on the data we have now, ...."
Some of the most important scientific discoveries in history came about when people did NOT find what they expected to find, and then had the moral courage and integrity to admit it. When people start with the conclusion they need in order to get a grant approved, and then back-solve for data to support a pre-determined outcome, the whole enterprise brings "science" into disrepute among the broader community.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Exactly. The null hypothesis should be at the significant advantage.*
Edit: And by significant advantage I really mean significant steps should be taken to eliminate any disadvantage.
Exactly. The null hypothesis should be at the significant advantage.*
Edit: And by significant advantage I really mean significant steps should be taken to eliminate any disadvantage.
Last edited:
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
An interesting example of non-scientists who use "science" as a justification for deriding others comes about in discussions of astrology. Lots of people deride belief in "astrology" as "unscientific." Sometimes I just get impatient with doctrinaire intolerance.
There are several common responses.
"Do you get hungry every day around 6 PM?"
-- yes
"Does the clock 'make you' hungry because it says 6 PM?"
-- of course not.
"Well, the same is true of astrology: the alignment of planets don't 'cause' anything to happen, it is merely a clock."
(this might well have a reasonable basis: during the earth's orbit, we might well pass through various electromagnetic fields over the course of a year that easily could affect the operation of our nervous system in ways in which we are not yet aware.).
"Does the alignment of the moon and the sun affect tides?"
-- well, duh, of course.
"Well, why wouldn't it affect how liquids circulate in our bodies then?
-- um...
(this is probably a straw man, I doubt that the minute effects would really matter, but who knows?)
"Are you aware of research that says that experiences in early childhood have an affect on personality development?"
-- yeah, I see how that makes sense
"Well, imagine an agrarian community in a temperate zone. For parts of the year, infants are outside in the fields; for other parts of the year, infants are mostly indoors. Their interactions with the people around them would be very different depending upon what time of year they are born, no?"
-- well, that might be plausible...
"So in those communities, there might be correlations between a person's personality and what time of year they were born, no?"
-- well, maybe for those communities....
(to me this seems quite plausible, that there really were correlations between the time of year in which infants were born and their early-childhood experiences that expressed themselves later in life. We do something quite similar today when we discuss, in all seriousness, how birth order affects personality, how the "only child" has one type, the "oldest child" another type, the "youngest child" another type, etc. Some people have become so adept at recognizing the correlations that they are surprisingly accurate about a person's birth order at the first meeting / conversation with them.)
I truly doubt that "astrology" has all the correlative powers that its practitioners claim for it; at the same time, I am not ready to dismiss it entirely out of hand. I have seen a few examples of correlations based on planetary alignments that have been very specific and have turned out to be accurate as well.
An interesting example of non-scientists who use "science" as a justification for deriding others comes about in discussions of astrology. Lots of people deride belief in "astrology" as "unscientific." Sometimes I just get impatient with doctrinaire intolerance.
There are several common responses.
"Do you get hungry every day around 6 PM?"
-- yes
"Does the clock 'make you' hungry because it says 6 PM?"
-- of course not.
"Well, the same is true of astrology: the alignment of planets don't 'cause' anything to happen, it is merely a clock."
(this might well have a reasonable basis: during the earth's orbit, we might well pass through various electromagnetic fields over the course of a year that easily could affect the operation of our nervous system in ways in which we are not yet aware.).
"Does the alignment of the moon and the sun affect tides?"
-- well, duh, of course.
"Well, why wouldn't it affect how liquids circulate in our bodies then?
-- um...
(this is probably a straw man, I doubt that the minute effects would really matter, but who knows?)
"Are you aware of research that says that experiences in early childhood have an affect on personality development?"
-- yeah, I see how that makes sense
"Well, imagine an agrarian community in a temperate zone. For parts of the year, infants are outside in the fields; for other parts of the year, infants are mostly indoors. Their interactions with the people around them would be very different depending upon what time of year they are born, no?"
-- well, that might be plausible...
"So in those communities, there might be correlations between a person's personality and what time of year they were born, no?"
-- well, maybe for those communities....
(to me this seems quite plausible, that there really were correlations between the time of year in which infants were born and their early-childhood experiences that expressed themselves later in life. We do something quite similar today when we discuss, in all seriousness, how birth order affects personality, how the "only child" has one type, the "oldest child" another type, the "youngest child" another type, etc. Some people have become so adept at recognizing the correlations that they are surprisingly accurate about a person's birth order at the first meeting / conversation with them.)
I truly doubt that "astrology" has all the correlative powers that its practitioners claim for it; at the same time, I am not ready to dismiss it entirely out of hand. I have seen a few examples of correlations based on planetary alignments that have been very specific and have turned out to be accurate as well.
Last edited:
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
People actually study this. The difference is they postulate hypotheses, test them, and refine. They follow the evidence. That cannot be even close to be said about astrology. That is why it is not a science.
I do not have a problem with illustrating that correlation does not imply causation to those that use it as evidence in an argument.
Astrology, as I understand it, has more to do with the other planets. Given knowledge about gravity, the other planets do not touch the effect of the moon and sun on earth.
People actually study this. The difference is they postulate hypotheses, test them, and refine. They follow the evidence. That cannot be even close to be said about astrology. That is why it is not a science.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
There is more than one kind of "astrology." There actually is a niche kind called "scientific astrology" that is just as dismissive of those newspaper horoscopes as you are. I had a good book on it once, and a friend who was a practitioner. Some of his analyses were far too specific, and testable as well, to be dismissed either as "mere chance" or as being so broadly phrased as to be substantively meaningless.
That did not make me a "believer" by any means, and it did cause me to have second thoughts about merely dismissing it out of hand in blanket fashion. Astrology was never predictive, it was always correlative, in the sense that clocks have diurnal rhythms just like our bodies have diurnal rhythms.
How high a correlation would you need to grudgingly admit that something is going on that cannot be explained as mere chance?
if "chance" has a 50% chance of being right, would consistent 80% accuracy indicate that there is something else going on?
There is more than one kind of "astrology." There actually is a niche kind called "scientific astrology" that is just as dismissive of those newspaper horoscopes as you are. I had a good book on it once, and a friend who was a practitioner. Some of his analyses were far too specific, and testable as well, to be dismissed either as "mere chance" or as being so broadly phrased as to be substantively meaningless.
That did not make me a "believer" by any means, and it did cause me to have second thoughts about merely dismissing it out of hand in blanket fashion. Astrology was never predictive, it was always correlative, in the sense that clocks have diurnal rhythms just like our bodies have diurnal rhythms.
How high a correlation would you need to grudgingly admit that something is going on that cannot be explained as mere chance?
if "chance" has a 50% chance of being right, would consistent 80% accuracy indicate that there is something else going on?
Last edited:
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Something tells me we have different definitions of testable or at least the application of the word. Also I never broadly phrased it as substantively meaningless. If I had to choose, I would say it is a pretty neat trick that requires a good knowledge of psychology to pull off.
Have you heard about "tooth fairy science?"
"You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists."
Good scientists are never "believers." Neither am I dismissing it out of hand. However, with what we currently understand, the claims are quite extraordinary. To quote Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Show me some extraordinary evidence and we can move forward. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Bill Nye--People confuse the word cynicism with the word skepticism. One is “you’re not gonna pay attention to anything, think everything’s screwed up, nothing’s ever gonna work out right”, that’s cynicism. But skepticism is, “you’re presented with evidence and you do your best to draw conclusions based on that”.
So, as the saying goes, Bill Nye, do you believe in ghosts?
Bill Nye--"No. However, I would love to see one. Bring it on. I’m open minded to the idea, but the more I look into it in a skeptical frame of thinking, the less likely it seems.”*
*Appreciate the quote in spite of the quibble about the definition of cynicism
Had to actually look this one up as that is a subset I have not heard of. If you happen to know the title of the book, that could probably help me better than google (I nearly had a new age seizure http://scientificastrology.com/).
Something tells me we have different definitions of testable or at least the application of the word. Also I never broadly phrased it as substantively meaningless. If I had to choose, I would say it is a pretty neat trick that requires a good knowledge of psychology to pull off.
Have you heard about "tooth fairy science?"
"You could measure how much money the Tooth Fairy leaves under the pillow, whether she leaves more cash for the first or last tooth, whether the payoff is greater if you leave the tooth in a plastic baggie versus wrapped in Kleenex. You can get all kinds of good data that is reproducible and statistically significant. Yes, you have learned something. But you haven’t learned what you think you’ve learned, because you haven’t bothered to establish whether the Tooth Fairy really exists."
Good scientists are never "believers." Neither am I dismissing it out of hand. However, with what we currently understand, the claims are quite extraordinary. To quote Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Show me some extraordinary evidence and we can move forward. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This is where you are really mistaken. It could be 100% correlation but that does not imply causation. Organic food consumption correlates really well with the increase in incidence in autism. There is no number I can give you. The claims of astrologists have been looked at scientifically and have failed.
Bill Nye--People confuse the word cynicism with the word skepticism. One is “you’re not gonna pay attention to anything, think everything’s screwed up, nothing’s ever gonna work out right”, that’s cynicism. But skepticism is, “you’re presented with evidence and you do your best to draw conclusions based on that”.
So, as the saying goes, Bill Nye, do you believe in ghosts?
Bill Nye--"No. However, I would love to see one. Bring it on. I’m open minded to the idea, but the more I look into it in a skeptical frame of thinking, the less likely it seems.”*
*Appreciate the quote in spite of the quibble about the definition of cynicism
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Next you're going to tell me all this data I've collected on what I leave Santa Claus for a snack vs what I get for Christmas is irrelevant...
Next you're going to tell me all this data I've collected on what I leave Santa Claus for a snack vs what I get for Christmas is irrelevant...
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Nah that **** is real. Go get 'em
I wanted to add this as well but could not think of it at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray
A real good historical example of a pathological science.
Nah that **** is real. Go get 'em
I wanted to add this as well but could not think of it at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray
A real good historical example of a pathological science.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Everything I don't like about the organic movement, summed up in one article. All these claims that everyday products are "toxic," yet no links or citing of sources to prove it.
I have a vinyl shower curtain, I use Clorox, I eat conventional produce (with pesticides), and I use non-stick cookware. If all these things are "toxic," then why are most of us not in the hospital or dead because of using these things?
Everything I don't like about the organic movement, summed up in one article. All these claims that everyday products are "toxic," yet no links or citing of sources to prove it.
I have a vinyl shower curtain, I use Clorox, I eat conventional produce (with pesticides), and I use non-stick cookware. If all these things are "toxic," then why are most of us not in the hospital or dead because of using these things?
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
Because cancer doesn't develop overnight. You aren't dead, but plenty are.
Because cancer doesn't develop overnight. You aren't dead, but plenty are.
Re: Dr. Clayton Forrester's Science Roundup
HAZ-MAT certified here. As long as you don't touch it, or inhale it in a closed quarters type of situation, you're fine.
HAZ-MAT certified here. As long as you don't touch it, or inhale it in a closed quarters type of situation, you're fine.
- Status