Science Under Fire?

Ha I was all set to wade in sarcastically about more stupid university research..but this is a good question.

I blame the Media who jump on anything to start (or maintain) a scare story.

This sort of headline ...

_{no truth in} POISON POTATO _{rumour .
A definitive test} KILLS _{yesterdays leaked
news report.} SCIENTIST _{happy that spuds are safe.}

Del

It's all about the headlines, and it doesn't have to include scare tactics.

"Great tits enjoying the warmer weather – so far"

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13857-great-tits-enjoying-the-warmer-weather--so-far.html

It isn't the media's fault that we misinterpret the headlines (or so they probably say).

Of course when you have a technical or important news piece that they get totally wrong, that doesn't help anyone (and annoys me to no end). I say, don't give me your opinion if you couldn't find your arse with both hands! Your a reporter, give me ALL the facts without your bias and/or cluelessness and I will make my OWN conclusions.

Interesting article "jack,"...........it may be the Oxford twits.....ooops sorry ........tits went to Oxford Univesity...........they probably heard, through an open window, that conditions were changing due to global warming and decided to do something about it.

Like oil and vinegar, science and politics don't mix well together.

Unlike oil and vinegar, mixing science and politics leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

So do "Tits". I prefer then fried and served with a touch of lemon butter!

Now!..............that is not nice. Can't you get chickens!!!!!!!

..............or is this a meal for those in the upper echelons????

Chickens are fine, but they don't have any "Tits".

I think someones been messing with the chickens..................if my aunt didn't have "tits".................... she might be my uncle?

Ooops!..............I think that I still have the problem with the chickens.

................No.......I have it..............I went to the supermarket yesterday and I bought 1 kilo of chicken breasts.............they do have "tits"'."

If thats the case then do "Tits"... have "Tits"? Well then, here is the paradoxical question of our life time, what came first the chicken or the "Tit".

I don't usually eat "tits"................errrr............well.............pass.

GOOD ONE................ super alloy

...........and so said Shackleton!!!!!!

Although I would agree with you on this point I would suggest that a worse mix is..............relgion and politics.

Greed!!! The desire of recognition and money from a choice few have under mined the scientific authority. Their venomous conclusions and half truths to the press has made society leery. Scientist are human too the have their own opinions and these may differ. How can you set better communication to the general public if the the scientist can't agree.

Generally, when "scientists" agree, we get something like the UN reports on global warming. Far better the disagreements be aired in public...

Too true.

I suppose it comes down to how you see the world.

Do you think the activity of science can "home in" on a set of repeatable, fixed descriptions of reality (laws,even if they're probabilistic) eg F=MA ? Or is science forever doomed, because various unknowable supernatural characters can dispense with these laws on a whim eg F=MA + effect of Angels ?

I'd guess that most who visit this site are lucky enough to understand a few of the laws (whether through experience or education) and so see the world as a fundamentally beautiful place, but there are many who through ignorance (or fear) view the world as a chaotic place inhabited and controlled by Gods/Demons.

It's the latter who are fighting a rearguard action to keep the science out of the corners where the supernatural still festers.

Sorry to ramble folks, but it's my favorite subject.

Where did "reality" come from? Why are there, or why do you believe there are, "repeatable, fixed descriptions of reality?" Why do you believe F=MA? Why do you believe what could be called the fundamental theorem of philosophy, or metaphysics, that knowledge can be gained from experience, i.e., through our senses or their extensions? If reality is fundamentally beautiful and orderly, does it not proclaim the glory of a Beautiful Orderer? Or is all this beauty and order just a delusional state shared by all humans? Just some chaotic wonderings on my part.

why do you believe there are, "repeatable, fixed descriptions of reality?"

Because careful experiment shows it to be true.

I am not sure what the point of all your questions are.

• Where did "reality" come from?

I don't know. The best empirical data we have starts shortly after the big bang. The rest is history.

• Why are there, or why do you believe there are, "repeatable, fixed descriptions of reality?"

Again, all I can do is point to empirical evidence. Every time I slam my finger in the door it hurts. Seems very repeatable for me.

• Why do you believe F=MA?

Because it has been exhaustively tested in every conceivable way and it has not been proven false (at least for non-relativistic scenarios).

• Why do you believe what could be called the fundamental theorem of philosophy, or metaphysics, that knowledge can be gained from experience, i.e., through our senses or their extensions?

I can't find anything called "the Fundamental Theorem of Philosophy" nor "Metaphysics".

• If reality is fundamentally beautiful and orderly, does it not proclaim the glory of a Beautiful Orderer? Or is all this beauty and order just a delusional state shared by all humans? Just some chaotic wonderings on my part.

No, beauty and order neither proves nor implies a creator or even a higher level being. I think that different people will interpret that differently and I am perfectly okay with that, but no one has been able to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. God exists by Faith alone. I know that many people are busy trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Personally, I hope that they do not succeed. I like it the way it is.

If reality is fundamentally beautiful and orderly, does it not proclaim the glory of a Beautiful Orderer?

Not necessarily, and not anymore than it proclaims a Great Turtle, or an Ugly Orderer who finally got tired of ugliness this time around.

Or is all this beauty and order just a delusional state shared by all humans?

Why characterize it as delusion?

Our experiments show us that as humans we share much of our impressions of the world around us with others.

milo

Milo!! Are you a "TURTLE" do you know how you must answer to this question? Most forget.

TMF

What is truth? Lay people want "concrete answers," but scientists want...what? Why are some phenomena repeatable and effective, by independent observers? When scientists revise their answers, they revise in the direction of...what? Better "truth," better hypotheses, or falsehoods? I fear I may be "corrupting the youth of Athens" as Socrates did, by posing such (apparently) inflammatory questions. We all have our g-ds to worship, including "science."

Please read this. I was a contributor.

This is the short version.

What you refer to as "Scientists revise their answers" may be better understood as follows:

"Perhaps stated in slightly less eloquent terms, scientific

hypotheses are formulated from observations of natural

objects, phenomena, or processes that lead the observer

to question the observation and to attempt to formulate

a means to explain logically the observed objects,

phenomena, or processes, and provide a template by

which an independent observer can reproduce the explanation.

A scientific hypothesis is testable and expandable in

order to accommodate new data derived through

application of the scientific method. This accommodation

may reveal additional insight into the nature of the

objects, phenomena, or processes. Evaluating a scientific

hypothesis in light of the results of an experiment

yields four possible outcomes:

1. The experiment can show a scientific hypothesis to

be consistent with facts already established. In this

manner, the scientific hypothesis is proven valid because

it demonstrates consistency with things as they

are presently and experimentally documented.

(Consistent with known facts)

2. The objective data produced by alternative experiments

supports the prediction or expectations offered

by the scientific hypothesis. Repeated experimental

confirmation demonstrates the original scientific

hypothesis' strength as a satisfactory explanation for

an experiment's demonstrated results. (Supported

by new facts)

3. Repeated experiments that produce results consistent

with those expected for a scientific hypothesis

demonstrate it is a sufficient description of natural

objects, phenomena, or processes. (Sufficiency of

hypothesis)

4. Experimental results inconsistent with the expectations

of a scientific hypothesis identify areas for

further research and perhaps may indicate insufficiency

or inadequacy of the scientific hypothesis as

an accurate and complete reflection of the nature of

the phenomena or processes under investigation.

(Rejection of hypothesis)

The scientific community addresses any discrepancies

between a scientific hypothesis's expected results

and the actual results; this, in turn, drives further

experimentation, further scientific hypothesizing, and

leads to new areas of research. Inconsistencies are as

important as consistencies as they drive efforts to selfcorrect

or continuously improve the scientific hypotheses."

This passage was one of my contributions in the revised long version of this paper.

milo

WHY DON'T YOU FOLKS CUT THE CRAP AND STOP COMPLIMENTING YOUR SELVES! "yOU AND aCADEMIA" consider your selves to be brilliant individuals with framed 'tp' granted to you by some University having as a part of its subjects "The College of Science."

There are lots of folks in this world who are making "Scientific' discoveries every year WHO never could have afforded the costs of said higher education. They are "Scientist TOO," and they clean their butts with "TP" just like you. only it isn't framed ".

TMF

YOU SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE SCHOOL OF LAW, OR POLITICAL SCIENCE!

tmf

Why is Science under fire? It's not really a very difficult question?

JUST WHICH CHICKEN LITTLE SCARE SHALL WE (the public) BELIEVE IS TRUE TO DAY.

TMF

Now, now, don't attack religion, which has nothing to do with this. The media [most hate religion too] loves the sensational absolutes too, just as Leftist politicians do and facts may have nothing to do with it.

The fact that some very qualified scientists can disagree is confusing, until you realize that they too are humans with their own motives for wanting to prove their side right even if they have to cheat a little. This leads to distrust of science by the public and they try to apply common sense instead.

Some things that lead to this attitude: Margarine is better than butter. Margarine is worse than butter. Special, high-priced margarines without trans-fatty acids are better than butter or margarine.

Swetia is a leaf that is 300 times sweeter than sugar and is totally safe to use in food. But if you say on the label that it is a sweetener, then the food is adulterated and unsafe for consumption and will be seized and destroyed. Courtesy of the Sugar Lobby.

Clones are evil and unnatural. Every apple tree variety is a clone of the original hybrid or mutation. Where is the logic?

Genetic engineering is evil. Ever hear of Pluots and some other plant crosses? That is a form of genetic engineering, but no one sees it as evil. It is the method that they see as evil. Logic out the window

Then too, scientists do seem to avoid definitive statements. Media and politicians love definitive statements, even when wrong, then blithely ignore their wrong statements and go on to the next statement of absolute fact.

Okay. But even leaving the religious way of knowing out of it , both of us agree that the basic problem (I wanted to say fundamental, but caught myself) Is the delta between wanting absolute certainty and the ever revisable never absolute answers provided by the science practitioners. Add to that our hiding behind statistics, which always seem to leave that tiniest room for doubt, and there is no common understanding.

Once a year our CEO would come to our plant for the day and have dinner with us. He always sat next to the shop superintendent, Who played the "I'm just a dumb Hillbilly" role real well, but he was really the sharpest guy in the place. Plant superintendent only saw things in black and white. NO GRAy (GREY). CEO saw 256 shades of Gray,No Black, No white. Those two would get started and it was more entertaining then television.

I love your examples.

milo

Media sensationalism has a part to play, but the real problem is that the public has lost faith in scientists and -- more importantly -- in science itself.

It is easy to see that science has been co-opted by vested interests from both the private and the public sector. Pharmaceutical companies are quick to discontinue funding researchers whose studies fail to prove their drugs safe and effective. Government grants go preferentially to scientists whose findings support the political agenda. And so on.

Big government and big business have become so wealthy that their influence is corrupting everything, and those who refuse to go along with it just don't get funded and hence become marginalized and irrelevant.

For a scientist, it's a difficult position to be in: when you take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding... but when the public sees you doing that, your credibility goes to zero -- along with that of all your colleagues.

Not only that, but then you have popularizers of quantum mechanics who obfuscate the role of the observer to make it sound like modern physics has validated magic, and you have string theorists who aggrandize themselves by touting empty tautology under fancy names like "the anthropic principle," and you have post-modernist philosophers who claim that there is no such thing as objective truth, and argue that science is therefore nothing more than a set of social conventions... and that plays right into the hands of the creationists who then claim that their "theories" are just as valid as the best science has to offer.

Add to all that the fact that basic reasoning skills, like logic and rhetoric, are no longer taught in schools.

Is it any wonder the public no longer knows who or what to believe?

WOW! THAT RESONING QUICKLY. BECAME SO CONVALUTED IT BEGAN TO SOUND CORRIGATED I'll betcha cant cay that three times fast with out studdering.

Have a nice holiday.

TMF

Science seems to be driven by the technological imperative with no regard for the consequences to the rest of the world.

I grew up with the arms race which has been driven by science with no regard for the consequences. We see scientific interest in solving a particular problem with no regard for other problems that may be caused. Your genetically engineered corn may resist fungus but it may cause some undefined harmful health effects. The public knows that these effects may not become apparent for a long time or the news may be squelched to ensure the product gets to market.

Science also seems to be competing with the religionists of the world who make a very handsome living off their followers.

But science also competes with people in the world who are stupid to begin with or remain wilfully stupid. I often hear comments like, "I don't know much about science but I am a people person and that is what matters." And I hear this from people who somehow are always the worst manipulators.

Our popular culture also favours being one of the "in crowd" to being competent and independent enough to avoid following the crowd. Our culture has been homogenized by the mass media who are also often failures at life. The value of a journalism degree is a joke as far as accomplishment is concerned - but journalists manage the news and our opinions of the world.

So science is being opposed from all sides, in some cases justifiably.

Reply to Guest 2 by Guest 1:

1. There is no "technological imperative." Technology is, always has been, and always will be, a means to an end. And the end, unfortunately, is usually determined by greed and fear. On the other hand, science seeks only to understand.

2. The arms race is driven by politics and economics, not science. This is a perfect example of what I meant in my previous post about the wealth of big government and big business having a powerful corrupting influence on scientists.

3. A true scientist neither has nor wants "followers." A true scientist presents his findings and invites rational discourse with the aim of advancing science by refining the understanding of all concerned. Anyone who claims to be a scientist, yet is clearly trying to accumulate followers, is a liar... or worse.

4. If you wish to be independent of the crowd, you must embrace the scientific method in order to find out what is true. Without science, you have no rational basis upon which to make your own choices, so you are left with no choice but to follow the crowd. And this is the true motive of those who attack science in the public arena: to deprive people of the skills they need to survive without following the crowd.

Dear guest(s)

Please register, your well thought out contributions are welcome here.

milo

Hi, Guest. Yes, please register and join.

I have some questions/observations.

Point 1. I think you are a little pragmatic. I feel a lot of technology is driven by people wanting to be in a better place than they are now. You may argue about higher level motives, but I think that on a fundamental level, improving one's current state of being is pretty much it.

Point 2. Yes, science doesn't drive the arms race, but is an instrument for that race. People will sign up for that job if they feel it serves their country or people's will to be in a better place. A few may have other motives, but most of us believe in the vision, right or wrong.

Point 3. Everyone wants to be accepted by others and particularly, our peers. We may argue and disagree, but are content when we are respected for our work and views.

Point 4. I think there is truth in your statement. However, there are many, many examples of people who stood out in a crowd and considered great leaders in their time that did not have the tools of the scientific method at their disposal. Gandhi did not use the scientific method, but he did understand people and their aspirations to be free and respected. He also understood the power of civil disobedience and how to lead people to a better place than they were then.

Just my thoughts...

please register and join

Couldn't agree more...................all guests..........or, names /location

people wanting to be in a better place than they are now.

Hey Anonymous hero, there is not much wrong with beautiful place in which we live, ITS SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN IT THAT STUFF IT UP, as I think you have alluded to.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that you are confusing "science" with politics here. Science deals with what is, politics deals with what you (or someone) wants. If science tells you what you want to hear, you accept it. If it doesn't, you turn to the politicians (or preachers) to tell you what you want to hear. A lot of garbage is passed off as "science" these days. Is this because people wish things were different than they really are? I don't know. I do know that, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it hurts, no matter what the politicians or the preachers have to say about it.

It seems to me that I remember Political Science as a Major! Maybe we must change the name of that subject to Political Garbage and thus preserve the College of Science by incorporating it in with the School of Law as with the laws of Thermodynamics, laws of gravity, etc. & ET.Al.. Everyone knows that Lawyers always get paid. They take your case and work out a solution. The solution usually means retaining a third Lawyer to mediate a settlement. What this means is both parties of said parts get parted from their money by three lawyers. Hell of a deal! Even Scientist know this!

TMF

milo

Who developed the atomic bomb?

Politicians?

Who develops other weapons of mass destruction whether they be conventional, nuclear, biological, etc?

Politicians?

Whilst politicians use these things they were certainly not designed by them.

Don't get me wrong science, has come up with many wonderful inventions that have been very beneficial for mankind but on the other hand..................has also been responsible for millions being killed in politicians "war games."

Also has not science been responsible for killing millions more in natural disasters e.g. earthquakes, floods. etc...............of course this will be vehemently denied by scientific academia...............but...........to my small mind one cannot remove billions/millions of tons of product from the earths crust and apply they huge masses in other parts of the earths crust, building huge dams or whatever, without putting huge forces on the earths crust.

As I said, I am no scientist, my mind is small..............to me...........just simple physics...............then they want carbon sequestration...................and they want to keep drilling millions of holes, miles deep, into the earths crust in man's insatiable search for oil and gas (in particular) and minerals............you can only drill a certain number of holes into a steel plate before you weaken it:-

Our (man-made) "little" mud volcano in Indonesia.

I read today in the New York Times on line edition, that the State of Minnisota hired a prestigious law firm to determine why the I35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. I do believe that this qualifies as "Science Under Fire". I also find it extremely difficult to believe a prestigious law firm, no matter how prestigious, is going to be able to figure out why a bridge collapsed...

I am a retired building contractor. I designed a method of making major repairs on the Ben Franklin Brdg. between Camden and Philly. I do have a clue as to why the bridge failed. Some body got working with a pencil that was just a little too darn sharp. They designed the bridge for a certain life span and based on just so much traffic per day over the live span of the bridge at a weight that was for average traffic of the day with a safety factor that was appropriate for the time period.

The bridge failed because the materials used in the construction, the joining plates between the girts had been stressed beyond their reasonable life span. The inspectors should have first inspected the prints and engineering for the most likely weakest part of the construction, and then the state should have replaced these parts. The total loads exceeded the likely estimated life span of those parts. Concrete works the same way. Highways are designed for a given amount of traffic at a given # of passings per day for average traffic weight. When that gets exceeded, pot holes and excessive cracking occurs. The responsibility may lay in the engineers hands , or the steel providers feet. But likely the ultimate responsibility is on of the state highway dept. They clearly didn't do a good enough job, and people died!

TMF

You are obviously not a lawyer. You have a good comprehension of why the bridge most likely failed. The question is, do they teach this sort of analysis in Law School? Why would one hire a lawyer (no matter how prestigious) to determine why a bridge (or any other structure, for that matter) failed? It seems one should investigate the cause, before trying to determine the causee...

Why it's the first, second and third rule of thermodynamics! Hire a Lawyer to cover your ass before disclosing your opinion Especially if you expect to have to take the HEAT. Actually I have been a star witness in several law suits. Lawyers are paid to impress Judges and find a way to spread the responsibility around to all sides. That way all of their lawyer friends get paid, and everybody else gets SCREWED.

Thermodynamics. ROTFL.

milo

The reason why I35 collapsed is known. Instead of 1" plate holding the beams together, I forget the proper name for those plates, it was built with 1/2" plate. I believe there was an error in specification on the prints.

What they probably mean is they want to know who was responsible for that error.

j.

It is interesting to note that those who appear to closely associate themselves with science in this blog are the most affronted by society and the media having little or no respect for it! That asides, science has played a part in evry persons life on this planet, be it from the design of the pyramids to the tracking of the stars to the manufacture of the motor car or to the internet itself. People cannot get away from science, and as has been pointed out the media seem to be on a science bashing round at the moment.

The comments by Harry Collins are just some more arguments to add to the growing furore about life as we know it, I believe that science has a key role to play in the future of this planet and that saving this planet will be done by scientists and not tree huggers. The media almost seems to want to blame science for not consulting a hi tech crystal ball to forsee the problems that the technological advances over the years have now brought us, the point needs to be made that technology has been adopted by the masses and that the political rule of capitalism means that everyone wants the latest technology for less cost than the previous technology. In Europe it seems that everyone wants to end global warming but at the same time wants a holiday in sunny foreign parts for a relatively low price, divergent policies I think!

To stop my ranting before I really get started, public perception of scientists is still of little men in white coats in labs surrounded by glass beakers filled with odd looking liquids, in reality this is a very small part of the science that is conducted today with most labs being light, airy and full of proffessional people who discuss at length a project before undertaking any work to try to rationalise the approach being taken.

Reply to Guest, or is that Quest, I don't know.

But here I am!

I don't mind sharing info with folks who don't put a hostile personally before their request for information that I may have to share. I am aware of such laws as the Laws of Thermodynamics. I am also aware that newly discovered procedures, materials and inventions can cause these laws to not necessarily apply. Ex. Carnot Law. the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Electrochemical Heat-to-electricity defies Carnot's Law. Open Yale courses are very interesting!

A closed mind can open NO new doors. Closed minds lead to personally created functional limitations. For those who continue to accept the Scientific Law as insurmountable, unchangeable and AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND THEREFORE ALWAYS WILL BE,

I regret to inform you that you have included yourselves willingly in a closed society. As the meek shall inherit the earth so shall the tinker,er create the exceptions to accepted scientific law.

And there you are!

TMF

"I don't mind sharing info with folks who don't put a hostile personally before their request for information that I may have to share." [sic]

Unless they have a degree in a field of science and have learned what actually works, that is. You bash degrees as "TP". "A closed mind can open NO new doors. Closed minds lead to personally created functional limitations." That describes your mind too, since your pet project has closed your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong and that the professional scientists may actually know more than the "tinker,er" [sic].

"Electrochemical Heat-to-electricity defies Carnot's Law." If this refers to your HHO, water to fuel tinkering, then do as so many have asked and prove it. Show that it works and give the numbers and the scientific explanation as to why and how it works. I am sure we are all tired of your sniping at everyone and sounding like an angry schoolboy whose pet science project didn't win a prize. It almost seems there are 2 of you, one who can give good and reasonable answers and one who wears a tinfoil hat. Please remove the hat.

Taganan [rustalkingmeagain]{are "you" the University Night Stalker}. It seems to me that while reviewing one of your posts a little while back, I read a statement that would lead me to believe that you are not a Scientist yet! Just an Undergraduate some where! My first guess would be U.C. Berkley. I am certain that the description doesn't apply to all Berkley students and Graduates, but as a group, (if I just had to select a single group) those I have met from Berkley were across the board, The rudest and least educated of all of the degreed folks I have met in my ancient age.

Now back to Science Under Fire! Regarding the typo-- (personally) rather than personality, as the I and the L are diagonally next to each other, I believe that it was an excusable error. I got the point across. Only You have complained. If others find this mistake to be troubling, please respond, so I will understand that this was a great event in your lives.

I openly respond to folks whose comments I find to be condesending in nature. You have displayed that attitude several times toward me. Clearly you lack the manners of a true professional. If you are a typical example of students that are graduating from High Schools, Junior Colleges and Universities today,( Your Mama spent too much time reading the works of Dr. Spock) ( her time would have been better spent teaching you some courtesy and moral comprehension.) Therefore: I believe that for at least some DEGREED FOLKS, TP was an appropriate description for your certificate. After all It is Scientifically Proven to be just a little more comfortable to use than the slick pages from an old catalogue. WE can apply a little science to even this subject though. We found that by carefully and rapidly rubbing two pages against each other they would become softer and not so unpleasant to use. And being softer rather than being slick and hard surfaced it worked better for the purpose intended.

I will honestly admit right on this forum that I was the first person to realize that I was not making an earth shaking original quote, when I stated that "Closed minds open no new doors, and closed minds lead to personally created functional limitations. My third grade teacher drilled those two thoughts into my head way back in 1949. However they seem to be suitably applied when some Scientist's except the status Quo as limiting.

FACT: Electrochemical, Heat-to-Electricity, "defies Carnot's Law"

This statement went right over your head. It is simply a proven example that Scientific Laws have to adjust for modern technological advances. It has nothing to do with ongoing research regarding single duct oxy-hydrogen being possibly used as a fuel gas, nor my personal research. Do your own work. You remind me of a classmate, a real jerk, that was always trying to copy my answers to class room tests. Eventually he was caught, and was remanded to sitting alone in the back of the class room on test day. So why don't you do like the folks from Tenn. and go vol. to take a flying leap at the hole in a moving pastry.

Then you really display your lack of maturity and get personal with your attack. To that I simply suggest that you Go Scratch Your Ass, School Boy, something really seems to be bothering you!

TMF

Hey Toomuchfun,

You wrote

"I read a statement that would lead me to believe that you are not a Scientist yet! Just an Undergraduate some where!"

Now I don't have a degree from anywhere. Does that mean I can't be a scientist?

I would insist that is a really narrow point of view typical of a closed mind, and in this case one who doesn't apparently know what science is and why anybody can be a scientist.

Carnot's law does not seem to deny conservation of matter nor energy. You seem to think it does.

In fact my read of it is that it confirms the issue in denying the possibility, in a back-handed way, of a perfect engine.

As to the issue of closed minds. I doubt anybody ever told you, and if they did they were grievously wrong, that you need to keep a mind open to anything, anything although it may have been done or observed or stated, and as many times found wrong.

In fact keeping that open a mind would deny the value of science.

Scientists minds are closed in a very special way. They are closed to notions pulled out of thin air; god for instance. They are closed to claims of being able to levitate without physical aids of one sort or another. They are especially closed to folks who make all sorts of assertions, with no visible evidence or data to support them.

Therefore, those "closed minds" are able to be productively open to hypotheses based on data resulting in forward motion of our knowledge.

Asserting, without conditions, that one should keep an open mind to anything is just stupid.

Sorry! I don't mean to offend anybody you reverence. Nonetheless, truth must be told. A mind open to anything, to any claim, is the mind of a fool.

j.

Thank you, Jack Jersawitz! I thought I was the only one TMF irked with his sniping and poor attitude. He admitted he was just a retired building contractor.

Sorry J. if I have offended you. But I darned sure got your attention, and thats exactly what I intended to do! I don't defend obvious stupidity. However; stupid folks generally don't realize that they are are who they are and are simply folks with out the knowledge, that some of the rest of us have been blessed with.

As for Carnot's law, and the example I quoted, I am not attempting to prove anything. I am not a degreed scientist either. I don't attempt to convince any one that I am. The example is just that! An example! It seems that for weeks that so called professionals have been upset that common folk can rattle their established positions. I clearly have accomplished that.

Welcome to the: Prove that just because you think you have all the answers club, WE CHALLENGE YOUR SUPERIOR THINKING.

Maybe one day you and others will understand that there will always be competing opinions. I certainly do believe in the Scientific Laws, but I recognize that much of what we accept as the eternal law did not have the benefit of being challenged by modern technology.

If you have been offended, there vests available that can stop everything but smell.

TMF

Toomuchfun,

The more you write the more you show your you know what.

"I certainly do believe in the Scientific Laws."

Science is not a set of laws to be believed in. Religions are believed in.

Science is a methodology that enables us to understand the material universe in which we live. Science sets out by a process of discovery, scientific discovery as opposed to the methods of discovery of the alchemists for instance (And to give them their due some indeed made some valuable discoveries in spite of their lack of scientific method), the parameters of the constant motion, development, and change of all things in nature including thee and me.

Good scientists, from whom you would do well to learn, pay careful attention to their thought process in order to see how it may be affecting the way they view the data and elements of what they are researching.

There are, as I am sure you know, sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

There is another science that is more often not mentioned. It is the science of knowledge or epistemology. That is a science that tries to glean from the process of all our sciences, the best path for deriving from the universe the next stage of understanding for, not being closed minded, we understand that all of our knowledge is conditional, determined by time and place.

If all you wanted to do was get our attention. Consider! In getting our attention you have demonstrated your ignorance and the fact that you had nothing to offer of value and you have exposed for all to see that you are an asshole.

We know this because there is nothing new in your remonstrations. We have heard it all before. It has a certain niche in our social science data base.

Take that as my conclusion that you are completely incapable of doing what scientists do, draw from specific data the general "laws" that are never immutable but serve as the base for the next stage of "laws."

That incidentally is why anyone can be a scientist insofar as anyone who wishes and understands scientific process can apply that understanding to any real phenomena and for that matter some unreal ones like yourself.

j.

Sorry j. I've been around a long time. I have worked with and for some very brilliant people. What would you have me say to you?

LAST YEAR I COULDN'T SPELL SCIENTIST NOW I ARE ONE. FAILURES EXIST IN ALL PROFESSIONS. Having a degree, or being employed as a scientist doesn't equate with success.

History is over run with examples of scientific success, when no one even had a clue as how to accomplish a solution to a problem. Ex. a hollow pipe shaped similar to a screw that is used to move water up hill. Various war machines and lifting devices. The list is endless. And scientists of the day said, impossible, but the open minded individuals refused to accept no for an answer.

Science is under fire because they can't agree even amongst themselves. I am not a scientist, but if I tell you that CHICKEN LITTLE IS GOING TO PULL THE TRAIN, I SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T GET IN CHICKEN LITTLES WAY.

If you are offended by that statement, you will be just as offended when I produce proof in the pudding, when scientists, many of them but not all of them, have stated " the laws state that there is no possible way for ????????.

You scientists screw up your own across the board reputations. You find it too easy to avoid discovery by quoting existing scientific law. BUT if some layperson finds a solution to a problem that scientists have said all along had no such solution, you all look like a bunch of bozos with a mouth full of marbles. I'm certain that you are by now quite offended. You have no right to be. The public looks to your profession for guidance you offer confusion.

TMF

Gentlemen,

This is a community forum.

Offending is not./ should not be any participant's objective here.

To do that, please email each other directly and enjoy your beatings.

I would like to point out that back in post 6 i mentioned that the critical issue between Science and Lay people is :

"Lay people want "concrete answers"

Science always hedges their conclusions with "The data support" or "We have a strong correlation"

So the scientific vocabulary immediately plants seeds of doubt in lay minds conditioned to receive the "immutable engraved in stone tablet truth." Science can merely demonstrate that their current understanding is repeatable and effective, but the revision that science is always subject to invalidates it as a way of Knowing by the Absolutists."

However, that statement described ways of knowing, not ways of discovering.

Discovery is not limited to those with "official certified scientific training," and the practical hands and the tinkerers have been responsible for many developments. But as technology advances, there is much less space between the things we think we know and the things that are yet to be known. This reduces the opportunity to create the disruptive breakthroughs by lay people and tinkerers. but the budgets needed for the official channels becomes prohibitively costly.

Here is a great article that discusses this : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01nasa-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Excerpts:

When Peter K. Homer, an out-of-work director of a local community center in Maine, first heard that NASA was turning to America's backyard inventors to brainstorm new technologies for a possible return to the moon, he had an idea. With NASA sponsoring seven design contests for everything from a new lunar lander to a new space glove, anybody with a home-brewed invention could enter. Homer's previous jobs included some gigs in the aerospace industry as well as work sewing boat sails. So, Homer told me not long ago, he ruled out building a flying spacecraft but decided that "the glove contest represented something of the scale I could achieve working out of my home by myself." He'd always been a garage tinkerer, he said, and being unemployed, he also wanted to prove to his 14-year-old son "that you can do anything if you put your mind to it." Oh, he added offhandedly, "the money is a motivator, too." At stake was a prize — presented with one of those giant cardboard checks — for $200,000.

(break)

Much of mechanical innovation boils down to finding just the right compromises to such puzzles. Many of us think of invention or innovation as a wholly conceived, brand-new, big-leap-forward creation unlike anything that has preceded it. But much of mechanical success involves fiddling with the inherent conflicts within a device until you find a tiny interstice among the countervailing forces, that sweet spot, where the device suddenly does what you want it to do. In the case of the glove, the sweet spot is the precise tradeoff of restraint and flexibility that will allow for maximum dexterity.

There is plenty of room under the tent for educated and lay to tackle problems.

As long as we all stay focused on the problems and creating solutions- not the personalities.

milo

Thank you for a respectable post. I haven't seen many of them lately. I'll skip the details. Most folks have already read them.

However I have found that there seems to be a certain level of space guarding by some. They know who they are. Several issues have been proposed for blog discussion that were never remotely discussed. The certain few who seem to always be disturbers immediately attack the blog suggester and avoid entirely the subject of the blog. I don't care how old the individual is, that is immature conduct.

I have decided that my time will be better spent if I with with draw from the forum and continue work that might improve our society.

TMF

We'll be here should you have an issue needing "groupthink."

Good luck on your project.

milo

Hi Taganan,

Don't have time to say much at this point in time........I'm off to the sunshine for a month (Queensland)................but...............boy, have you rattled someones chain!

MOBI- Just tired of someone's attitude and called him on it. Then he showed himself even more.

Enjoy the warm weather there, mate.

Enjoy the warm weather there, mate.

Shall do Chief...........keep up the good work............."see" you at the end of the month.

........in this blog are the most affronted by society .......

Have you been affronted bysociet or someone.............OR................afraid of being affronted by society or someone...............it would be interesting if you identified yourself.................it would be nice to know to whom we may be "conversing" with.