How Should Scientists Address Misconceptions About Science: Stick or Carrot?

Wow!

When the US was last run by an engineer, from 1977 - 1981, we had the worst economic chaos since the Great Depression. What we are in right now can't hold a candle to those times.

Not yet, anyhow.

Wasn't that crisis due to OPEC and various other external matters ? Carter was a Navy graduate, and inherited a lot of the problems that beset America.There may not be a dust-bowl (yet), but things could get a lot worse than the 70's. Oddly enough the other Navy guy, FDR, helped America dig itself out of the big one with the New Deal, Works Progress Administration etc. If the Global Warming deniers would allow it, perhaps Obama could channel funds to stuff like flood defences on the Gulf coast.

I've no idea why I'm spouting forth on American politics ! As the saying goes, "If only I had known, I would have become a peanut farmer" - it'd give me a chance to pay off the pen-pushers in the European Union.

This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. Strikingly, it's being organised by the university's Centre for Psycho-Social Studies. It will be a gathering of those from the top of society – 'psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists' – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope. The organisers say the conference will explore how 'denial' is a product of both 'addiction and consumption' and is the 'consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility' (1). It is a testament to the dumbed-down, debate-phobic nature of the modern academy that a conference is being held not to explore ideas – to interrogate, analyse and fight over them – but to tag them as perverse.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6320/

<<"For all the world's people to have an equal access to fossil fuels as energy or chemical raw materials, the USA's per capita consumption will have to be reduced to one tenth of what we now use." This is fairly unassailable data.>>

With all due respect, that is not data, never mind unassailable data. Quite apart from no actual measurements of the consumption of fossil fuels and chemicals (and recycling?), there is an implicit assumption that the supply of those is fixed. How about, "For all the world's people to have an equal access... production will have to increase by 1000%"?

Sir,

Thanks. My error was to describe this as data. Instead, it is a calculation or assessment based on what I believe to be sound data (the numbers of US people and world population, the amount of fossil fuels consumed in the US, and worldwide production in that year). This statement was from a UN report on the world economy in, I believe, 2004. Yes, a significant assumption in making that statement is: oil production levels are constant. It does not look at historical levels of production or known/proven reserves or likelihood of technological advances/changes, etc. As such, the statement can skew the reader into thinking of only one path to follow as a result. Unlike the concerns that fostered this thread, however, I believe my statement to be based on supportable and valid science.

I am reminded of a (perhaps apocryphal) story many years ago of a news report in Pravda, that stated: In a recent car race, the glorious Soviet car finished in second place while that from the capitalist enemy was only able to finish next to last. Hopefully my earlier post is more valid than this story's statement, because the story left out one key piece of data--there were only two cars in the race.

--JMM

GA, John. Your viewpoint is thoughtful and interesting.

"The cup of coffee; a dollar?"
"Yes"
"And should I offer the wisdom of 10 philosophers?"
"Still a dollar"

Roger -- Good try at defining truth. Even for me a keeper.

But "Truth" isn't easy to explain or define. I think there is something missing in your words. The reason why I say that is major religions state their "truths" all to often derived from myths, words of their prophets or acclimation of their membership. Put each one of your sentences in the context of a religious "truth" and it rings with validity.

A real and not just rhetorical question is how do we concisely separate religious truth from scientific truth without making "science" a part of the definition.

Case in point: A hypothetical survey shows that 90% of the respondents say "Yes, God is real and exists". The other 10% say "no". Does that mean God exists in fact? Is the only truth the reality of 9 "yes" answers and one "no" answer without regard to the substance of the question?

Are we always left to befuddlement over an analog to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle where we can never be 100% certain of any observation; only to the results of pure logical constructs? At what point can we say there have been enough successful repeated experiments to prove or failed experiments to disprove a stated "fact" for scientific truth to be upheld.

Perhaps all your words require is the addition of "Scientific" to the word "Truth". But the problem with that is that Science simply gets equated with all the other belief systems in the minds of the many. Thus we are left with forever arguing against the truths of someone else's belief system for each misconception of science.

Ed Weldon

Hi Ed Weldon,

Let me try to address your example regarding God. You wrote:

"Case in point: A hypothetical survey shows that 90% of the respondents say "Yes, God is real and exists". The other 10% say "no". Does that mean God exists in fact? Is the only truth the reality of 9 "yes" answers and one "no" answer without regard to the substance of the question?"

I think the problem with the above is that "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" are not truths, because you can't use science to determine one or the other. They are merely beliefs. unprovable one way or the other by definition.

Not that we should disregard beliefs. Just as truth empowers us, beliefs govern us. They are the restrictions that prevent us from destroying ourselves in an orgy of invention (think nukes). Not just religious beliefs, but morality and ethics however they are discussed, or are presented, help guide us as we advance. If truth is the engine of our progress, beliefs are our rudder.

The problem is that people confuse truth and belief, and not just the religious. Let's not forget that scientists rejected Einsteins relativity paper the first time he tried to publish it. Simply too weird. At the time I'm sure they thought they were rejecting it on scientific grounds, but the truth was they were rejecting it based on their beliefs. Or the few Scientists who aggressively push atheism for another example. There's nothing wrong with atheism, as long as you realize its a belief, not a truth. No, confusing belief and truth is a human fraility that is not confined to the ignorant, unfortunately.

I hope the clarifies where I'm coming from. I still believe that truth empowers us and the means to truth is through science. On top of that I believe that belief guides us in our decision making.

Roger

"All of it comes from science. Every last bit."

I think this is too broad and sweeping. and simply isn't true.

While much of our modern world is due to science, and the clarity brought to all other fields as a supporting method of teaching, and divining knowledge.. Science being the use of the scientific method has not be responsible for all innovations. Human Imagination holds a higher position, truth be told, for without that, there really would be nothing.

On another point, there is strong and significant evidence that speaks loudly that there existed in antiquity science, mathematics, and technology more advanced than what we have or know today. In all likelyhood it was confined to a few elite.

There is also, the Piri Reis map which shows the actual outline of Antartica (no ice), from a polar position, as though mapped from space, which Admiral Reis apparently copied from a much older source in 1500's. This, plus other sources, say that the antarctic continent was without ice in a time when someone had such mapmaking skills.. probably 13000 years ago. This is called OOP (Object Out of Place) as it cannot be explained by the 'caveman' approach to human development.

If GW, leading to an ice age, is caused by humans, or by massive volcanos, forest fires, and asteroid impacts, what is the difference? It is still an ice age. Does it mean that it will be a colder ice age? Do you think we can stop the ice age, or the 10,000 year ice cycle? do you think we should if we could?

Chris

Sir, you write very long posts.

I see,that your argument is that there is no evidence that increased levels of CO2 will lead to warming. The data in fact shows that it is warming that raises levels of CO2.

Ok. Lets try an experiment. In the summer, on a 95 degree day, I'll stand out in the open sun with no water and you sit in a car with the windows rolled up in the open sun with no water. Whoever passes out first loses (cars get hot in the summer due to the greenhouse effect of their windows).

Roger

(cars get hot in the summer due to the greenhouse effect of their windows).

I assert that cars with the windows rolled up in the sun get hot because they prevent convective cooling. It's the same with greenhouses. Glass and CO2 are very different. I'd be willing to bet that if you measure the radiated energy transmitted through the glass from the inside of the hot car, it would be more than through an open window on a cool car.

You Wrote: "I assert that cars with the windows rolled up in the sun get hot because they prevent convective cooling. It's the same with greenhouses."

As a Physicist, I assure you, that explanation is nonsense. It's the absorption spectrum of glass.

"Everybody is foolish sometimes." Someone on this thread said that, at least once.

Heat transfer is accomplished via a combination of three distinct phenomena: convection, conduction, and radiation. Not all come into play in every situation, but all three processes can play a role under the proper circumstances.

Mr. Pink's statement that in a car with sealed windows it is only the absorption spectrum of the glass accounting for the greenhouse effect amounts to saying that only radiation matters.

While the glass does indeed act as translucent to electromagnetic radiation on the way in, and acts to block the infrared wavelengths associated with the interior car heat, the much more important heat trapping property of the glass is to allow none of the heated air to escape: it foils convection.

Not only is radiation cooling not the only mechanism in operation here, it is not the most significant. Everyone knows that if you crack your windows just a little, the temperature will drop markedly; it allows the hot air to escape and cooler air to enter. The small gap has no effect on the overall radiation heat-trapping capability of the vehicle; it facilitates convective cooling.

Now while everyone makes a mistake now and then (the people working on my roof reminded me there was only one perfect carpenter), maybe Mr. Pink will rethink his absolute statement that he "knows" man-made global warming is real?

No - I didn't think so.

You Wrote:"Everyone knows that if you crack your windows just a little, the temperature will drop markedly;"

Here is some peer reviewed papers that directly contradict that statement.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/1/101

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/4/579

I wonder if I can look forward to a response emc_c

However, emc_c is right that I did overstate in my earlier response regarding the mechanism for greenhouses, and for that I'm sorry. Convection plays a very important role in greenhouses retaining the heat generated by the trapped IR. I was not clear on that in my response, I was too eager to dispell the notion that somehow the convection was generating the heat (which of course it is not, it merely can't dissapate it, the heat comes from the trapped IR). Too much arguing lately and not enough science talk has made me sloppy. The following link gives a fantastic explanation of greenhouses. If our goal here is truly the truth then I recommend reading the link.

http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Solar_greenhouse_(technical)

Roger

Granted that a little crack does not drop the temperature enough to make it safe. How's this for an experiment? Park two cars (same color) in the sun, one with lots of greenhouse glass, the other with the windows painted black. Clearly the car with black windows does not have a greenhouse effect, as the transmission of radiant energy, visible or IR, is the same each way, effectively zero. Measure the temperature in each car. Would your infant be safer in the no-greenhouse car?

It's been a good debate esbuck.

I'll see you around CR4.

A fine piece of work... except for your tonguelashing of Roger,

I'm printing it out. I wish you had provided a link or quote to the Nicene Creed.

Good Answer

Chris

C'mon, Chris. Just Google "Nicene Creed". Here's the second hit:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html

(editorial comment: Foundation for a very successful business model it is.)

BTW, emc c, GA for #255 in spite of your shots at our friend, Roger Pink. I'm gaining a sincere respect for your thinking; even if I still don't share your skepticism of GW.

Ed Weldon

I'm afraid it is not that simple or clear-cut case.

It's a bit deeper than that. Although I read emc c's essay with interest, I must admit that it gave me an uneasy feeling of oversimplification, as if convection is a solo main player eventually determining the planet's average temperature, today hyped as "Global Warming".

Convection is not an initiator of anything, and as such, it is not a determinator of whole systems.

In terms thermodynamic energy exchange, it is merely a mediator, a mechanism to allow for the flow of potential energy in it's thermal phase, via the expansion or contraction of media, such as heated or cooled gases of fluids.

Earth, as a "thermodynamic open-system" imports energy from the sun's fusion, and life on earth is four-billion-years-old energy investment system. The sun's energy is invested and "stored" as proteins, either used for replication or as food-source, and once over processed biochemically, it is deposited environmentally - only to become millennia later as hydrocarbons, ready for the next phase of energy exchange - all in accordance to symmetry and conservation laws - to obey the first second and third TD laws.

Earth is a giant entropy-lowering generator, by the merit of biochemistry. If the whole system is a hundred-story building, then thermal convection is merely one floor, and one at the very lowest order, because it gets to act upon ready made products. And expanding (or contracting) gas got to become such by a long chain of factors in it's chemical makeup, radiation index, thermal capacity, viscosity, elasticity, and other such factors to determine it's behaviour within an active convection system. The same is about expanding or contracting fluids in an active convector.

Looking at global warming is looking at the maintenance (or lack of) average temperature range on a global scale. Figuring it's clockwork as a "1-2-3 gizmo" is silly, given the myriad factors actively involved, and keeping in mind most if not all of those act on an "endless" (repetitive) feedback principle - influencing each other.

Such over simplification of calling man a solo player in global warming via convection of greenhouse gases, reminds me of someone trying to build a thought-reading machine, by tapping into neuro-graph in order to decipher the neuro pulses firing at some seemingly "random" order in the brain.

Ahhh… if it was only that simple, we would be able to conquer so much more - on earth - and beyond

There was no mention of convection as a force in GW. The argument was not about the merits of GW theory at the technical level. Mr. Pink's misstatement of what happens at the simple level of a parked car was contrasted with his absolute statement that he "knows" planet-wide GW is man-made.

The essay was one about the limits of human knowledge, and what happens when human arrogance ignores those limits.

BTW, the Socratic quotation is over twenty-three centuries old. Some things never change.

I personally cannot determine what governs global warming and I doubt any one can.

This is not to say that man is exempt from having an over-all responsibility to the poor environmental state of the planet, if only because of human hyper population.

Roger, you, myself, in fact, any of us seven billions, have their own point of view on how we got there, and what should be done.

But having a point of view is far from a sense of urgency, which is what I think I sense in Roger's sentiment, and what I must admit I sympathise with - deeply.

In that sense it's more of a passionate emotion of care for the fate of this planet, or in other words put bluntly: Life.

Life is such a rare cosmological occurrence - at least to our present awareness - that for any purpose or intent, it amounts to a miracle, even when taking into account "The Law Of Big Numbers" or what's called "Drake's principle".

As thankful as I am for being given this life, I am thankful for life in the cosmological sense, be it threatened by global warming or nuclear proliferation or bio engineering of eugenics - it doesn't matter - we care for the planet when we appreciate our lives - when we appreciate any life.

Science is supposed to be a sincere method for questioning nature how it works. Not over-projecting our concepts in order to engineer scientific theory. Used sincerely, it can be used to ask nature how can we weave out existence into it's old, balanced, finely-tuned systems, instead of the blunt bullying we used to enforced ourselves upon it, destroying almost anything and everything on our collective two-million years old path, as the most gifted species, calling itself "The Crown Of Creation".

We indeed became Alpha of Alphas, a pinnacle top-predator on this planet's food-chain. Now at seven billion strong, it's up to us to remain, not by an attempt to control global warming but by the attempt to use empirical knowledge to restrain our impact on the environment.

Ok, well that is an unbelievably long post and I have already spent way to much time on this thread already to try and respond to this. I'll see you around CR4.

Actually, both mechanisms operate.

The blocking of effective convection is quite an effective insulator and most lower temperature insulators rely on this mechanism.

At the same time, the re radiation of heat absorbed by the glass also heats the car considerably. This is why the glass gets hot.

If the mechanism was purely blocking of convection, heating of the glass would only be minor.

Sir,

Sorry if length was a problem. The cited ice core study does not demonstrate the one-way relationship of rising CO₂ levels causing rising atmospheric air temperatures. Infrared spectral data identify CO₂ and CH₄ as both having the same potential effect in the atmosphere as a glass cover on a greenhouse--hence the popular description of them as "greenhouse gases". The problem is in quantifying this effect in terms of current observations. The recorded average temperatures are trending upwards in recent years. (EMC_C has doubts about the validity of these data as being representative of the earth as a whole.) Independent data generally support the upward trend. The recorded worldwide CO₂ concentrations are trending upwards, with a few years average lead over the temperatures. Computerized modeling of the atmosphere has trouble isolating the effect of CO₂ levels on global temperatures from other effects (such as I mentioned earlier). Is atmospheric CO₂ concentration the cause of our current warming trend? or a simultaneous result of some other event we have not noticed? or are they two independent things that happen to be occurring simultaneously? I'm not sure, but I feel we ought to act responsibly as if it were a probable cause (and I believe it is). I believe the heat of EMC_C's views is based on the rush to action and financial implications of such action, as well as his perception that global warming is being described as a scientific law. (He may be like Einstein who reportedly disliked general relativity although admitting its usefulness in practice....)

Thanks--JMM

The heat of my comments are simply a reflection of Mr. Pink's personality, or how he comes through in this thread.

My opposition is not that there isn't GW, but how well have they modeled it. I have done and seen plenty of modeling in my time, of much simpler systems than the global climate. There is always simplification in order to make problems tractable. A lot of times, the effect of the simplifications is not entirely taken into account. Especially in science. Engineers have to eventually get it right, or whatever they are working on won't work. Pure scientists can say, "It's so because I/we say it's so."

And my objection is also to what I perceive as a breathtaking degree of arrogance in people who use an unverified model to drive changes in the entire global economy, or at least those parts that bend to their will.

A corollary to that is the concept of the pure scientist without agenda, as pure as the wind-driven snow. Unless you show me a gentlemen scientist of independent means who is not scrounging for his next gov't grant, or convincing his employer of the potential profitability of his next research project, don't talk to me about how Scientists are above it all.

Wow! That is a GA - and so awarded.

But Mr. Pink's response to this post - although it pains me greatly to say this - is also partially correct.

Reality exists, independent of our perception of it. Or, per someone's tag line quoting John Galt (aka Ayn Rand recasting Aristotle) "A is A."

We cannot be so subjectivist that we don't recognize absolute reality. You step off the side of a sheer cliff, you die - the law of gravity is an absolute. If you choose to disbelieve in gravity, that will not change your acceleration downward at 9.8 meters per second per second, less a little for air resistance.

Newton told us everything we needed to know about gravity to send men to the moon and return them safely to earth, three hundred years before we needed the information. And it is further true that Newton didn't have the entire picture; Einstein gave us the rest of the story. Only maybe not all the rest - at this point General Relativity explains measured phenomena, but we can't say that it is a perfect description of reality, just as good a match as we need at the present time.

There is however a huge difference between an established and well-understood law (with no agenda behind it), and a government-run program which will seize power and wealth. I would have said whose sole purpose is to seize power and wealth, but I don't want Mr. Pink to have another conniption fit.

Let me give an example. We recently had a near collision with a sizable asteroid. Had that asteroid been discovered further out, calculations would have been made of its orbit, together with error bars, and a prediction would have been made of the probability of a hit. My guess is that with as close as it came, the prediction including tolerance or error bars would have given a high probability of a strike. Had we had ready a missile to destroy it or deflect it into a safer orbit, I don't think there would be much dissent or questioning of the science.

That is because even people who don't understand the science have seen it demonstrated. They don't understand it, but they understand it works.

Compare that to global warming (GW), which is based on computer models. On much simpler projects (a huge understatement) we don't like to use software whose predictions have not been verified. And yet with GW, we are asked to undergo huge economical dislocations, simply on the basis of "We're smarter than you are, you'll have to take our word for it." And if you don't, you get a hissy fit that would, or should embarrass the parent of a three year old.

So in closing, reality exists, independent of your own consciousness of it. Claiming that you have a better understanding of that reality than the next guy demands proof, not appeals to authority.

Emc_c,

You've chastised me for getting personal in my posts. Then in a post to someone else you include the following:

"But Mr. Pink's response to this post - although it pains me greatly to say this - is also partially correct."

" but I don't want Mr. Pink to have another conniption fit."

Now I don't mind, it wasn't my position that we have to be gentle with each other, quite the contrary. However, that was your opinion. You seem inconsistent. Perhaps you meant that people should be gentle with you, but you can act as you please? That would seem more consistent with your actions.

Also, if you believe my argument was that we should embarrass the parent of a three year old child, then you completely misunderstood my point. My point is that if you can't convince the parent of the science, what hope is there for convincing the child?

Dear Mr. Pink,

I am deeply surprised at your missing my point about the parent of the three year old, but I'll let it ride.

In the year or so I have surfed this forum, I have found a lot of good information, and more importantly, a lot of excellent sources of information - a lot of very good people. I haven't always agreed with all of them, and conversely, they don't all agree with me, but by and large, with the exception of the "over-unity" crowd, we can agree, or agree to disagree, and it is all polite and professional.

With the one stunning exception of you, sir. You may be intelligent in a measurable IQ sense, and you may know a lot about climatology, but your EQ is -∞. You are the worst possible ambassador for GW, or for any cause you wish to champion.

Hole-in-the-snow has already chastised me for my attitude on this thread, but as I told him, my posts are a model of decorum compared to the venom you spew forth when challenged.

I plead guilty to not being as polite as usual on this forum, but I plead extenuating circumstances.

That means you, sir.

Dear emc_c

You Wrote:"I plead guilty to not being as polite as usual on this forum, but I plead extenuating circumstances."

I'm glad we agree that rudeness is acceptable in certain situations. That has been my point this entire thread. It just happens that our circumstances are different.

You believe if someone is rude to you that you should not turn the other cheek, but rather attack them back. I bet if we went through this thread and tallied personal attacks, yours would outnumber mine(by a lot. go ahead, surprise yourself). Of course, mine was first, that's your justification, right? I think that's fair.

In my case, I believe that if someone is willfully ignorant regarding a subject and insists on having an opinion, you should confront them rather than their ridiculous made up facts.

Of course, you don't believe you are ignorant and your facts are made up. There's the rub, right? If some crazy guy came on this forum and kept on and on about a perpetual motion machine, I wonder how gently you would treat him? I wonder if you would exercise the same patience you expect me to show to you when you suggest that we can't trust the fact that every relevant scientific organization has a statement regarding man caused global warming because of "funding bias". Keep in mind, I'm not saying funding bias doesn't exist, it's just that the scale of bias you are suggesting would completely invalidate science completely. Seems a bit crazy from where I'm sitting. Just like the perpetual motion guy.

Roger

P.S.- I like how you guys call me sir with such venom. It's encapsulates so well the hypocrisy of your politeness argument.

Let's leave off with "who is ruder." I feel as if I was quite restrained under the circumstances; not to mention being provoked. But no one is interested in that, and I presume we are both (I certainly am) writing for the thread readers, not each other.

There is a huge logical fallacy in Mr. Pink's last post, and it has nothing to do with me, or anyone's manners, and in fact it is a sub-theme that runs through all his posts on this thread.

In the post to which this is a reply, he equates his personal disdain for me (and those who think like me) with my disdain for the perpetual motion proponents. Logically, this is an equation which sets global warming as established science alongside the conservation of energy.

Even if (and I say IF) man-made GW turns out to be correct, that equation is a logical fallacy. Conservation of energy, and the larger law of conservation of mass-energy, are fundamental principles underlying our understanding of how the universe works.

Man-made global warming is a computer model, and unverified at that. It might be true, but it isn't established science, and any attempt to call it such must be identified for what it is - false.

Well done emc_c,

You've illustrated your lack of understanding of Science much better than I ever could. I believe with your last post you made my argument. Just because of the confidence you spoke this utter nonsense:

You Wrote:"Man-made global warming is a computer model, and unverified at that. It might be true, but it isn't established science, and any attempt to call it such must be identified for what it is - false."

There are hundreds of different Scientific sources varying from seafloor deposition to ice core analysis, to satellite data, to man made climate measurements going back centuries, and so much more. Yet you're talking vaguely about computer models? You don't know what you're talking about.

If every major science organization says it's true, then it's established. If you wish to believe differently, go ahead, but don't expect to have your belief taken seriously. It's just too much to ask.

You still don't get it. I don't "believe" that Global Warming is caused by man. I "know" that Global Warming is caused by man. I know this because the scientific method has demonstrated this to be the case, so unequivocally, that every major science organization has issued a statement saying as much.

You see, Science allows one to seperate "beliefs" from "knowledge".

Politics is about beliefs, not knowledge. Politics has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I think politics and belief has everything to do with it. There has always been facts... But what mankind is going to do about them is the real question, and entirely in the realm of politics and belief. Politics are absolutely inseparable from any aspect of human endeavor, or issue.. and that means everything... anything else is just a fantasy.

Did you not enjoy Michael Crichton's State Of Fear? I personally am going with the conspiracy that the GW folks offed him for writing that!

Chris

Chris, I'll grant you that scientists are people, so they have personal beliefs. Heck, some of them even believe in God.

The point is not the involvement of "people-type" scientists in research, or in the production of viable, "refutable" knowledge, but instead, the empirical methodology of scientific research, which in turn should neutralise scientists from their own beliefs - and into the realm of empirical proof.

If you insist that "people-type" scientists bias their research results to serve their personal beliefs - I'll grant you that too - but I'll have to call it "Pseudo-Science" nevertheless.

It's not about the sincerity of people, but instead, it's about the integrity of millennia-tested and proven scientific methodology

I think that the fact that this thread has gone the way it has is proof that politics, communications, and beliefs are an inseparable part of the scientific discipline... or any other discipline

Even the fact the we spend time discussing science on an Engineering website shows how things get entangled in the cosmos of knowlege and ideas.

Chris

I somehow tend to suspect that behind all those endless debates interpreting and re-interpreting incoming ecological data, we all sense in the back of our heads that something went terribly wrong, and maybe we are all beyond the turning point on the road to doom, and it frightens us so deeply, that we ignore it by keeping this endless debate alive and kicking, as long as we don't have to mobilise and rush to save the planet immediately, by some extreme social and economical measures.

We are so smug, so complacent, that it is beyond any reason for cautionary and preventive global mobilisation.

Then again - maybe it's just me - being hysterical or paranoid

Data has been cited or explained and then cited. It is established science.

People got problems with stuff, don't kid yourself.

My crook is better than your crook.

"When you play in the mud, you get dirty."

Okay, So what?

I've been dirty plenty. I take a shower.

What do you expect, anybody that knows me knows I'm as much a politician as the next guy.

I really do mean it when I say I want to found a nation of airports and spaceports before I die.

(Since I don't want to start a war, I may well fail, since typically according to the rules, you have to have a war to get a country going.) The work demands of me that I become a politician.

-Rather be a Statesman, or a Diplomat, but I'm no saint, and if I have to pay somebody to get it done, I'd rather they took my dirty money, to do what we need, than take it from my enemies, to get what they want.

I've been marking everything on this thread now Off Topic, but won't do it for this post.

"How Should Scientist Address Misconceptions About Science?" I dunno, fight about it I guess.

A useful scientific hypothesis can be disproved.

Consider these hypotheses:

1. Light travels in straight lines in a vacuum (and space is Euclidian is implied)

2. Light sometimes does not travel in straight lines, as we see it (and space-time is non-Euclidian is implied)

In the 19th century, the consensus was that hypothesis #1 was correct and one who did not believe it might be derided as ignorant, if not a fool. Since then, experimental measurements of gravitational lensing have convinced almost all scientists that #1 is false and #2 is true. The skeptics weren't so foolish after all.

Another pair of hypotheses:

1. The average temperature of the surface of our globe is unchanging.

2. The average temperature of the surface of our globe changes with time.

Many, many observations disprove #1 and support #2. There may be arguments about intrument error, sampling error, etc., but the consensus is that "climate change" is real, an observable fact. The observations nearly all point to an irregular warming trend over the last 200 years or so.

Another pair of hypotheses:

1. Man is causing global warming, and, by changing his activities, man can slow or stop global warming.

2. God is causing global warming, and it is hubris for man to believe man is causing it, considering that God is omnipotent.

Now, learned people, please propose experiments or observations which will prove or disprove one or the other of the two hypothesis.

If you cannot disprove a person's hypothesis, it is it certain he is a fool? If you cannot even imagine an experiment which can disprove the hypothesis, but you are certain in your beliefs, anyway, what does that make you?

Esbuck,

Nice. One inconsistency in your three sets of hypotheses. The first two pairs each contain opposites. The third pair is, to me, two separate statements that are not the opposite of each other. Nevertheless, a good point.

--JMM

Damn that was fine. GA - as in Great Answer. The only thing wrong with it is I didn't write it.

Well if we were only going by temperature data, I'd agree with you.

"Politeness is the most acceptable hypocrisy" -Ambrose Bierce

but being a royal bastard doesn't help either

Science has putting themselves on a pedestal for a long time. Also the whole jargon is hard to follow for a layman. i guess the public sees them like some Freemason club, only for a select few (IMHO).

I think universities should introduce PR classes to scientist. Scientist think the truth is all that matters (like lawyers, right!) but in these media dense society, it has become more important how you present something instead of what you present.

I think there are enough PR people in the world already, don't you?

Uhm, no otherwise i would not have made the sugestion, where science fails is to get the people's approval, PR is important, look at politicians and companies.

Yes, but not everyone in a company is a PR rep. What you're suggesting is that every scientist be a PR rep.

I'd agree with you if you're suggesting the Scientific Organizations should have PR departments. That I think is totally true.

Yes Organizations sure.

But Engineers also getting education in how to present their ideas in an business environment. to management(that means simplifying it) and customers. i probably over generalized it. I did not meant that every scientist should be PR rep, but that they should be aware of the importance of it, i think it is one of the issues of the main topic, e.g. religion has a long history of PR

I agree with you Epke. It would be good if the TRUTH is what mainstream science wants. Maintaining funding and prestige seem to be more important than re-thinking failed theories. You have hit a very important nail on the head: for 300 years Freemasonry has influenced the Science 'club'.

With all the 'Royal' science Societies, masons were involved from the start. I think this has set an Agenda - which places a darker 'Purpose' before gathering Truth. Although this originates in Europe, I guess every country has an elite system to maintain the public perception of 'science'.

I do not think science is moving to change its act. Glossy TV shows are used to vend the Standard Model, rarely admitting that it's only THEORIES!

Roger,

There may be an opportunity here. If you have the time and inclination, it might be interesting to contact some of the establishments listed here and see what they've done with the Atlas of Creation. My first thought would be to bin it, but perhaps (and I haven't read it) the book could be used as a classroom tool to demonstrate how science/fact is abused.

A teacher of mine once mused, "To tolerate the intolerant.... hmm". The paradox being, that in tolerating too much we may be overwhelmed, and in not tolerating we become intolerant. The likes of Oktar would probably use a scientific stick/carrot debate as a vehicle for igniting more fundamental matters. Troubling, but also political.

The BBC is currently running a very good mini-series on Darwin for those interested.

It's been an interest thread, but I think I'll exit now. It's become focused on GW, and I've yet to come across anyone who's changed their mind on the issue. I'll return to the issue when The Thames Barrier fails, or Venice is permanantly submerged. See you soon.

Cheers

Good point.

"..."To tolerate the intolerant.... hmm"...."

It's true, but check this ;

Steve Jones makes a very astute observation about someone I mentioned before. It's about half way down. WTF, I'll quote the passage ;

He is actually less angry, and less baffled, by the rise in creationism among his students, which he attributes with surprising certainty to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Most of these students are Muslim, he explains, and "it's an attempt to give themselves a stronger personal identity built around Islam". If that sounds odd, it's not half as odd as the multimillion-pound Islamic creationist campaign run by one Harun Yahya, whom Jones believes is behind the whole phenomenon. Yahya, based and formerly jailed in Turkey, is "a very sinister character" who has distributed tens of thousands of books on Islamic creationism at his own expense to spread the view that "if you believe in it you're Islamic and if you don't you're anti- Islamic". Which, Jones adds, "is completely potty because if you look at the Koran it says almost nothing about creation".

For further clarification, you can see here.

It's not the only reason why misconceptions exist, but it's damn scary all the same. Fanatics who purport to represent other religions are just as bad. A bigger factor is that society has developed such that 'reality' TV is the most popular.

My previous post explains why I'm outta this one - it's too big a debate for CR4, and I don't want to encourage the extremist nuts to visit this site. The entire discussion has borderline qualification for being here. Addressing a specific misunderstanding (for example, the designer babies blog series and what genetics can achieve) is fair enough, but wholesale problems of educational failing is too far. It's interesting, and should concern us all, but not on CR4.

I disagree, in that Roger's original post was in fact about the possible venues for scientific communities to relate to pseudo science, as it is witnessed by an audience having no intellectual means to see the difference between pseudo and genuine science.

Creationist do rely on the listener's relative ignorance as far as scientific methodologies or tested and proven theories are concerned, but so do others trying to "proliferate" new-age nonsense, or any other kind of "voodoo" crap.

The problem is that pseudo science is easier to digest because it does not require "fanatically" consistent integrity of thought. You just swallow what you are given, and trust the source, not unlike as you-know-what.

In proper scientific thought, you have to apply due criticism, and what you consider must be in accordance to anything else commonly known and agreed upon as tested and proven, and this might demand some intellectual investment and constant effort, which might be a little too much for some of us cheeky little monkeys...

A large chunk of the population want their pseudo-science. It's easy and comforting. Getting them to think is like asking them to watch the news or a documentary instead of Big Brother/I'm a Celebrity etc. If they lack the intellectual means, then that leaves the people who peddle scientific nonsense.

People sell such stuff in the same way other scams work. They won't back down simply because they are proven wrong. Visit a palm-reader and see if you can persuade them to pack it all in. Whether they believe in what they do or not, they won't stop.

Scientific institutions could do more to name and shame rogue practitioners, as could professional bodies. In some instance legal action is possible. None of those possibilities occur much, if at all, in many areas.

Fat people are rarely convinced to lose weight, and you can't shut every burger joint in town. Better to sell healthy food, and leave people to choose as they see others emerging from their chosen diner. It's a crude analogy, but hopefully you see what I mean.

Here's a good example

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/22670?frmtrk=cr4sd#newcomments

no matter how many times ken picks it apart, there's always a guest popping up to tout the virtues of on board hydrogen production. No amount of careful explanations of the scientific method will dissuade em.

It's like the old no win question: When did you stop beating your wife?

there is no accecptable answer

so you might as well have fun & come back with a rude reply...

The same time you stopped having sex with your..... [insert blood relative or farm animal of your choice]

I think that sums it up pretty good ! Perhaps I can get more people to check it out. You can have a GA for seeing it the same way as me.

It took me a while to digest, but I basically agree.

Most people will prefer the easy way, if only to avoid some mental clash between a given simplified world-picture and the complex way in which reality might present itself.

The latter may have to include moral dilemma or self-conflicts as far as personal choices have to be met.

We look at nature and we see no morals being applied there. Is it not Divine because morals play no part in it ? Is the moral part in us stickily human or is it a divine plan for all beings ?

These are tough questions for a simpleton to answer, so they take the easy way in the form of ready-made, good-for-all, "Hole-Fillers" and call it "God" or "Religion" or "Creation" - if only to be on the safe side.

How real is it?

Well, each to himself. I'm not here to judge, only to describe what I see.

Morality is a necessity when there are choices to be made. You have to have a standard by which to judge what is the best choice.

Thus, morality is required for beings with enough brain power to make choices.

Rocks don't need morality. Rocks don't live. Plants don't need morality, plants have no options.

Most animals run pretty much hard-wired right out of the egg, or womb.

Humans have the most need of a moral compass, because they are the least driven by instinct, and the most dependent on what they observe and learn.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people." Marx

Drop the religion and politics from that, so as to avoid too much napalm;

"Reality TV* is the Opium of the people".

*Insert mad belief of choice

Maybe in our frenetic modern world, where we are all interdependent, but detached from each other, peoples brains begin to liquefy. A bit like that AI machine trying to understand itself, the paradoxes and confusions are too much so it goes into a ga-ga babyish state. It desparately clings to whatever soothing comfort comes along, anything with the simple message, "Just put your faith in me and all will be fine. You don't have to think, my poor distreed little poppet. There, there, there....It'll all be fine......Rock-a-bye baby......."

The middle ages had it's share of mad people, but imagine how they'd have been with information overload and their lives determined by factors beyond their control. We have it all - mobile phones, a zillion TV channels, infromation on far away people we know little of, global banking systems, and not least of all the internet. A fabulous tool, but also the ultimate platform for every fruit-loop to shout from.

Small wonder that people can't see the wood for the trees. Unless they're nutured on human compassion, and schooled from an early age in how to interpret fact from folly, they are doomed to be zombies. Anyone reading CR4 has been lucky enough to escape such a fate. How and why I can't explain, it probably varies for all.

That's enough rambling for now, I have to answer the door.

So what have I learned after this unbelievably long thread?

I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in applied quantum chemistry, but I've been characterized as an obnoxious idiot. I asked for it, I know that, by forcing confrontation rather than just avoiding it. Still, I can't help but feel a bit queasy about this whole affair.

So in the end, to answer my own question, which do you use the Stick or Carrot? I guess my answer to myself is.....avoid them. Just avoid them. I have gained nothing in this 200+ response thread except a little heartburn.

GA chris!

And the final word is? Yup, more words........Ed Weldon

Chris's position is essentially the same as mine.

I feel bad about saying Roger was getting on my nerves too, and I'm in near total agreement with his assessments of the Science facts, as concerns Global Warming.

Why Global Warming hijacked the discussion is understandable since it is one where you have all these facts pointing to the reality of the event, and the causes for the even.

If we had focused instead on how should we Address Misconceptions about Evolution, I have real doubt that the debate about what to do about it would have gotten anywhere near as hotly debated, here on CR4.

Things really are not as bad as they could be. As far as equivalent to PR, we have now, and have had examples of Scientists who are successful at influencing respect and interest in the Sciences.

Crighton is mentioned, I think of Stephen Hawkings, the late Carl Sagan, Jerad Diamond is on my list. (Certainly Henry Petroski, is fine reading for Engineers, for he does understand and factor into his essays, The Human Factor. This is particularly evident in his essay about the Texas A&M bonfire collapse that killed 18. That essay is found in Pushing the Limits.)

You know Misconceptions about Science come from fear of Science, which actually varies from Country to Country, and Culture to Culture more than we have actually really gotten around to addressing in the Thread.

The Japanese for example love robots, whereas Americans fear them. (This is not a completely true fact, it is only reported sociologically by degree. American Culture is often Schizoid. In American Media and Art, you do have both R2D2, and Destroyer Robots like Terminator, or RoboWars at another level. Along with what'shisname on Lost In Space? I hate these cars that talk to you. I don't want my car to talk to me.)

See how easy it is to go Schizoid?

"He was too young to be trusted with the knowledge that the facts are not necessarily the truth." - William Faulkner. A Fable, won Nobel Prize.

Absolam, Absolam is the greatest poem I've ever read. What it meant to me was that the greatest tragedy is to live according to incorrect ideals.

Much of US history over the past 35 or more years has been a story of Failed Morality, and Wasted Courage.

The tools and fuels for Energy Production recommended to at least slow down Global Warming satisfy two imperatives for the US economy and security. One is an industry of Transformational Products, and the other is to reduce motivations for Oil Supply Security Wars.

Even if you can't get with Global Warming, you actually might be a fool to not head towards where the work for engineers is legitimate, ethical, and will be profitable regardless of climate one way or another.

If I cannot appeal to your emotions, I'll appeal to your bank account, on this issue of Global Warming. (sorry forgot what I was talking about)

-About that PR suggestion from Epke, look at it this way: Your adversaries have lobbyist, Ad Agencies, Attorneys, and PR professionals working for their interests and points of view. If someone is beating you, you might be wise to note what weapons they are using that are better than yours, and get on the task of using what is succeeding for them, plus go one better.

There are times when it is wise to withdraw, and go on the defense.

The US does need Energy Independence, and it is low on oil.

Again: Therefore we are right to employ energy generation technologies that may accidentally positively affect Global Weather Systems.

P.S. I wonder who among Engineers and Scientists on CR4, is most commonly known as a hero leader? I ask this because there is great power in some individuals since the Greyface of Institutions is wise to distrust. Why was Charlton Heston hired by the NRA to be their spokesman, for instance? Thanks for Reading

-About that PR suggestion from Epke, look at it this way: Your adversaries have lobbyist, Ad Agencies, Attorneys, and PR professionals working for their interests and points of view. If someone is beating you, you might be wise to note what weapons they are using that are better than yours, and get on the task of using what is succeeding for them, plus go one better.

It all comes back to funding... Apparently funding=truth.

Truth is Beauty. That is the better.

If the other guy has a lawyer, then you need one too.

Sent my webmaster a little money.

This year when I give my annual speech I'm going to get around to asking for money.

Plus over the year I intend to get some pretty paper money to sell along with the Transcendian Passport.

Include paypal account number.

You don't get wise because you got gold, you get gold because you were wise.

Ed Weldon

"...get on the task of using what is succeeding for them, plus go one better."

You mean tell more and bigger lies than they do?

I do not mean at all tell more and bigger lies, and am extremely insulted that you feel you can say such a thing about me.

I want a public apology from you for your insult.

Go one better was about going with truth and beauty, and pragmatic solutions to difficult problems.

Plus I have said, and will say, do what works.

Dear Esbuck, you really have made me very angry since one of my flaws is a love of honesty and truth, over all.

Apologize for your insult.

I took your written sentence, "You mean tell more and bigger lies than they do?" ,as sarcastic and insulting to me personally, and will not let you go unchallenged.

Feel free to share my Private Message. I'll stand by it for I feel it was appropriate as sent.

Except ESBUCK was replying to my post where I quoted you?

I guess that would be an insult once removed

I asked for opinions but never gave one

You can't always just ignore bad or badly presented information...

It is all about the context

Diversion is good, which is a common technique of the ill-informed, change the focus of the conversation to suit your point no matter the truth...Just be engaging & entertaining while you twist the truth

<<I took your written sentence, "You mean tell more and bigger lies than they do?" ,as sarcastic and insulting to me personally, and will not let you go unchallenged.>>

Name your seconds. Swords or pistols? (It's a joke!!)

I certainly did not intend to insult Transcendian or to imply he would tell lies. Perhaps, in my urge to be concise, I failed to communicate. I'll try to explain.

>>-About that PR suggestion from Epke, look at it this way: Your adversaries have lobbyist, Ad Agencies, Attorneys, and PR professionals working for their interests and points of view. If someone is beating you, you might be wise to note what weapons they are using that are better than yours, and get on the task of using what is succeeding for them, plus go one better.<<

The common view of lobbyists, Ad Agencies, Attorneys, and PR professionals is that they are, shall we say, careless with the truth, or play games with words so as to decieve. Certainly, they lack scientific objectivity. In "noting what weapons they are using...get on the task of using what is succeeding for them, plus go one better," I interpreted that the weapons they were using (weapons suggests aggression, not cooperative intellectual discourse) were, to use a short word, lies. Thus, "using what is succeeding for them" would involve telling lies, and going one better would suggest more and bigger lies. I used a question mark to suggest that I was uncertain if that was the intent of the recommendation, inviting further explanation.

It may be that PR agencies and attorneys never tell lies, that tobacco truly is good for your T-zone, but I think not. Perhaps I am prejudiced. Perhaps my aversion to using ad agencies and attorneys to address misconceptions about science (Sue Al Gore?) is based on mere prejudice against wordsmiths, and that led me to misconstrue the message I replied to. At any rate, the implication of dishonesty was directed at the professional wordbenders, not at Transcendian, and I apologise for the confusion I have caused.

In response to the original question, I have an idea. Please forgive me as I struggle to explain what is a simple concept in my mind, and the initial ramifications that I can get my head around.

I am not a scientist, but I do create and organize technical documentation for a living, as well as quality procedures, and I'm a programmer, drafter, and interested in many things, so this idea is a consolidation of many many factors.

The way I see it is that Science suffers from a lack of consistency largely in its output. It is corruptible, and it needs to be incorruptible. Science is something that holds the potential to be pure, and generic, but this is lost once it enters the human and political arena. it gets messy. What this whole thread has been about is the 'cost of quality' of the distortion of scientific data.

It also loses accuracy in the translation to untrained, or popular media, and is dumbed down to the level of the audience. (ie public school)

I have one solution that, however difficult, could address this pair of issues, on an international scale. It has been oft repeated that Math is the universal language, or at least one of them, and subsequently the following idea ought to be nearly as universal.

When George Boole proposed a system of logic symbols for binary operations, he was proposing a symbolic language that could be universally applied. It is evaluated with Truth Tables. When Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, he created a language that was globally applicable. It is a system of referencing that could be interpreted by a simple function oriented utility called a browser.

George Boole said: Boole said,

• "... no general method for the solution of questions in the theory of probabilities can be established which does not explicitly recognise ... those universal laws of thought which are the basis of all reasoning"

What I propose is a Language of Science, like a Programming Language/Operating System, that is globally developed, and agreed on. Part Math/Boolean, part syntactic structure, but main point is that a system of consistent best practices is encoded for science methodologies and publication, which ensures globally, that a given method/procedure will absolutely produce a given output.

First and foremost is the encoding of the classification system for all sciences, just to get in the game. Then there is the Universal Materials classification system, and then the Scientific Method encoded into the universal language. Then there would be common functions for peer review, testing, evaluation, and especially, publication.

Science is based on Experiment, and there is no reason that the methods applied to have an experiment produce a result cannot be codified, and subsequently universally applied. The point is, that all the factors involved in science, which are reproducible, are resolved into a language, just as much as mathematics has been, or boolean logic, or programming languages.

In this way, 95% of the chaos, misinterpretation, poor or wrong publicity, vested interested, etc, can be eliminated. Science can return to be the pure, elevated, dispassionate, reproducible, generic discipline it SHOULD be. I'm too well schooled in ISO, and the reality that perfection is impossible, and that continuous improvement is the only way. This is a good starting point.

I am a bit unsure how this would all work with private science, but I think to start, that this should focus on experiments that are public domain. What a great gift to the future, to be able to hand on an orderly system of science, that is above and beyond distortion... for all time.

Then, assuming that a particular experiment has been encoded, so that its results are agreed upon, and tested by many others (not only peer reviewed, but peer tested and 'proven') then and only then, should the standardized experiment be moved to the publication function. Each experiment then is unitized and can be universally referenced, without the long winded bibliographic reference, but instead, just gets a number like a function. This makes the referencing universal. The method of credit handling is available as additional info, but isn't necessary in the basic referencing. What programming language refers to operating system api functions by the name and date of the original author?

The benefit of this generic approach to science, is that a growing body of science is irrefutable in a way that it will NEVER have to be argued about like it has been on this site, and in educational terms, the lessons can simply be refenced, much as we show links to wikipedia. The value of this when it comes

to translating science to the public, is that it will be distorted much much less. This approach and system addresses the translation issues better because as much as possible, the procedures are or can be represented symbolically, like boolean.

The intent is to create reproducible functions, and I think that if enough focus is put on this, we will see much that which is common from experiment to experiment, regardless of discipline. This is what can be symbolically encoded. What remains is what needs to be expressed in a syntactic language, or object oriented language, or even procedural language. What is important is to have a common system of expression, that is beyond just mathematics, and is available to all.

Also, it will completely integrate mathematics theory, which is so closely allied to science as to be inseparable, and so it is only right that the programming concept functions to include both. BTW...wikipedia is close to this ideal in educational context terms, but still falls short on the methodology, peer review, and universal language aspects.

So, in summary, I propose a universal programming language and library of references for science, whose methodologies and syntax translates well, and commonly to even public school level students, but in which, the details are encoded, so that a top level researcher can find the data, methods, or formulas they need. This system, whose main systems are well planned, will remove the bottlenecks and roadblocks

from science, and ensure that every scientific fact is as accepted as a proven mathematical theorem, and beyond dispute, regardless of region, language, heritage, or political persuasion of the audience/student. All this to say, in most cases, there is nothing wrong with the science that has been done, but once that information begins to migrate to the public domain, it becomes distorted and colored by the millions of presenters. I propose a system to put an end to that, so that like math, it is beyond coloring and distortion, for as anyone can learn and use math, everyone could learn the system of science, test any experiment for themselves, should they follow the steps/method exactly, and produce exactly the same results. It needs to be beyond even the level of windows, and into the purer realms, and will take people much smarter than me to implement it.

As this relates to Engineering and Quality, which are also closely related to Science and Math, I think that Engineering and Quality Standards can reference the system of scientific publication, and would happily do so, and even participate in the development of common information. This is where it gets fuzzier, for to integrate Science with the dissemination of knowledge, in standards and in education, relies on the nature of the new science algorithm to accomplish its goal.

To the degree that Science itself must be rewritten in the new language, so must science and engineering standards, encyclopedias, in print or new media, and all other publications that reference scientific data. This is difficult, expensive, but worthwhile. The cost of quality of scientific distortion will pay for this now, and continue to pay for it in the future, as it not only clarifies what is know, but accelerates the rate at which new knowledge and experiments are developed, much like boolean language has enabled the development of computer hardware and flowcharts/pseudocode have supported computer software development, and common systems of mathematics has permitted the development of ... well, civilization.

The bible, as a historical story, tells us that prior to the creation of the tower of Babylon by Men, that all spoke one language, and it was the language of the gods. It may have contained within its structure a combination of syntax, math, procedure and object oriented systems. Can we yet create the same, and focus it on experiments, and the transmission of knowledge universally.

What remains is to design it. Something incorruptible, yet translatable. This could become a new thread if anyone thinks its reasonable.

Some references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_programming_languages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_Logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart

Chris

Chris -- Sounds like an interesting idea worthy of some thought by the scientific community. I am a respecter of them, but not a member. I have no experience in the world of research, papers and peer review. I do have confidence in the process of the scientific method.

That said allow me to put on a layman's hat and pass back some impressions of the route you suggest. First I think most of us including reporters have a hard enough time translating the findings of science into words we understand. But at least the reporters will try the best they can to get the story. If the findings are more remote then they will simply lose more in the inevitable translations. And the translations are inevitable.

Second, the structure you suggest looks like a new religion complete with mysterious writings in a strange language, high priests and rules that are slow to change due to the need to gain approval of some large priestly community.

Third, if you want people to believe the science it must be more understandable, not less. As long as people vote in modern democracies they must be able to understand issues including scientific ones. Absent scientific truth and people will substitute their own myths and beliefs or ones sold to them by others in making their life's decisions.

OK, guys. Does that stir the pot a bit all over again? Or is everyone too tired at this point?

Ed Weldon

I'm sure tired at this point, but i will make a short input, in the sincere hope we don't get a major flare-up...

You are never going to get the layperson up to speed on all the various scientific specializations. Just isn't going to happen. If a layperson could learn enough about every type of science now being funded by the federal gov't to make informed decisions about them, he wouldn't be a layperson anymore. He would be a genius, but he wouldn't have time to make a living.

In fact, thirty plus years ago when I was in school I recall hearing that if a chemist spent all his time reading journals, trying to keep up, he couldn't. And of course, he wouldn't be doing anything except reading, and falling behind at that.

So the answer isn't to try to educate the layman. The answer is to take the layman out of the picture. You do that by changing the funding mechanism - you quit asking the layman to fund things he doesn't and can't understand. Except for defense. He can understand that.

You let the private sector pursue whatever research they deem of interest. Just like in the days of Alexander Graham Bell, Marconi, Edison, Ford, the Wright Brothers...

It's as simple as that.

And as difficult.

Please note that this approach is antithetical to the thread started by the originator of this thread, about whether science is being funded at the proper level. There is an inherent assumption there that only gov't funding of science counts; that research done by for profit firms doesn't count.

I don't know why that is, but I disagree with it fundamentally and would say that all the best inventions have come from the private sector. "Best" implies a standard of value. That standard of value is improving the quality of life for people.

Does that mean no improvements have come from gov't funded research? No. But dollar for dollar, I expect that private funding is more efficient.

quote emc c: "But dollar for dollar, I expect that private funding is more efficient."

Sure, because private funding favors applied research to provide early returns. One of the complaints about private efforts are that they shy away from basic research. Hard for public corporations to justify to a securities market that looks for quarterly results. Now if there were some way to finesse that constraint.....

As an aside here how do we measure the efficiency of research funding? Really. How can we measure improvements in the quality of life and isolate the factors down to individual scientific discoveries? How can we separate out the inventions, technological achievements and product successes from true scientific discoveries? What portion of the profits of industry are attributable to the discovery of the transistor versus other factors?

Or do we measure by the number of patents, papers, peer reviews? By the profits of the patent holders? The ink the discoveries get in the media? Or just Nature and similar journals? Should we separate the research done by private universities, foundations, charity supported organizations and such from corporate research?

By the way, I'm inclined to agree with you that private research funding is more efficient. But government funding is additive to private funding. We wouldn't even need government funding if we could figure out another way to pry the extra research money out of the pockets of people than via taxes.

Ed Weldon

But dollar for dollar, I expect that private funding is more efficient.

Here we have to understand the meaning of efficiency.

The discoveries are those that change the course and not modify the course. The private fundings are on the second category, only because it is $s spend and hence $s are to be recovered.

Again when the course is known, the discovery modifications are much more easier.

Grownig stem cells from hair cells or from other are not to be belittled, But the important change of course came when somebody discovered that the stem cells are the one.

Human DNA mapping is not one that changes the course but the discovery that the information is there in the DNA and each DNA is as unique as the creatures themselves. Once you know that portion, then the mutation, mapping etc are all the progress but not the brak through.

The nature is basically haystack with a a few pins. The important part is finding these pins and the chances of success are really slim here. Nobody expects thet the private funded research to try to search these. The research of these (private funded ) are with a clear aim, and as I entioned in an earlier post are on the applied science area and not pure science.

I will like to see Ciba-Geigy opening a chair in an university for nuclear physics or quantum mechanics.

Each type of research has its own place and hence we can not compare those, If you don't find the pin itself the growth is stopped. Even if you find it and not sharpen, the pin is useless.

BTW: a list of the 100 greatest discoveries -

http://science.discovery.com/convergence/100discoveries/big100/big100.html

(You can count the number of them from private funded institutions)

The point here is both of them are critical in the developement of science (my personal preference is for the first one though i am married per se to the second, being an engineer) but the second - teh applied discoveries or modifications get all the media and all the kudos and the common man do not come to know about the first or the significance of the first (most of the time the scientists themselves too- they feel happ, ego satisfied of finding something significant and unknown and find a couple of paper, but ask them and ask what it will do to mankind - you may get maths but no practical use. Only when their students.collaborator develop these in second or third gen they start looking at the significance and marketability- and get a nobel)

Give credit and due place to the scientists (they do not and likely may never have the publicists, and it may be better that way too)

Public vs private funding

Public

Basically research which has no short to medium term payback

Universities tend to do this sort of research. It has often been characterised as research purely for the sake of knowledge.

This should be public funded as few commercial operations can satisfactorily do it.

Fusion research is currently an example of this type but is working towards being a proposition for private research as we better evaluate the fundamental principles governing the reactions. Before long, private research will probably enter the arena as the payback of a successful system is potentially huge.

In addition, governments should fund enough of defense research to enable coordination of research efforts. Most defense contractors will be only too happy to fund defense research if there is a mechanism for good ideas to be adopted and bear commercial fruit. Of course, if they can get the govt to pay for it with no risk to themselves, so much the better! This happens all too frequently these days.

Private

All other research is better done privately. Here we enter the domain of "applied research". This is research with a probable short or medium term payback.

The private sector is not good at researching fundamental principles, but once these have been reasonably mapped out, it is very good at applying them.

I think a lot of the trouble with funding comes from a confusion of these two roles.

Chrisg288,

Your argument is eloquent, but it worries me for a number of reasons.

• You say: Science can return to be the pure, elevated, dispassionate, reproducible, generic discipline it SHOULD be. Because its practitioners are all human, none of those terms are uniformly applicable, regardless of whether they could or should.
• The very size of the field we call science as well as the detail in which portions are frequently pursued create entire dictionaries of words, terms, and concepts that boggle attempts to organize them into a set form.
• Because science is a method of trying to learn about the unknown world/universe around us, there will always be errors in procedure and result. Example--C¹⁴ dating when compared with Bristlecone Pine tree ring counts for the last 8,000± years.
• Changes in the meanings of words, or rules for their application. Example--Elizabethan usage of "fear" as in "fear God" generally meant to give great respect or reverent respect instead of to "be afraid".
• The variability within a population being studied.
• The presence of the previously inconceivable (such as bacteria within "solid" rock).

I don't think the problem is so much in "science" as you or I probably understand it. Instead it is in the expectations we place on "science" and how we use information resulting from it. A good example of this latter is the frequent changes in nutritional information or advertising, all citing something they call science or research. Another example is extrapolation of data to some distant horizon.

Incidentally, "pure" science has been generally understood to be study or research without an application in mind for the results. "Applied" science similarly is the study or research to find specific information or for a specific goal (such as locating the gene responsible for resistance to a toxin).

--JMM

If I may paraphrase what crisg288 proposed, it seems to me that he wanted quality control for science, enforced with a special language and methods of assuring accuracy. In the abstract, it sounds attractive. In practice, it sounds impossible.

First of all, the "soft" sciences, psychiatry, sociology, economics, "education", ecology, animal behavior, etc. etc. all disappear. Secondly, when you lock in language and procedures, you exclude the rest. Albert Einstein would never have been published, too far "outside the box."

I used to be a Scientific Manager. It wasn't that I managed scientifically: I managed scientists. I was highly frustrated when, for instance, a company proposed a $23 Million "research" project with no control group and no plan for statistical analysis. They couldn't even spell variance. They got the contract, anyway, and I spent two weeks trying to rewrite their plan. It was not clear to me that the taxpayers or the general scientific world learned anything from the effort, but... Politics reigns supreme. It might have been nice to have ISO standards and disqualify those PhDs on grounds of not playing by the rules. But then, Einstein didn't play by the rules, either, or Tesla, or lots of other original thinkers.

You are right about the Quality Assurance...exactly. and you are right about some of the rest.. but that is the point. Some of this isn't science! If it doesn't use the scientific method, it isn't science, its pseudo science, or statistical evaluation. The point is to nail down those things that are ultra reliable and Repeatable by experiment. That is science. That is what I'm after. I personally am sick of seeing 'science' on tv, or elsewhere, that really isn't. like that woman that used a group of 10 families to show that wind turbines are causing health issues. It is drivel. don't even get me going on psychology or pharmaceuticals or health. Its self-serving co-opting of the respectability earned by science, without the integrity. Just because someone puts on a white coat, doesn't make them a scientist. It also clarifies for the public, what is engineering vs science. most of what tesla did was engineering. It is possible.

Chris