Sure, statistics are difficult and can lead to incorrect conclusions, but that's why we make sure that a scientific claim is falsifiable. The fact that we can test the claims are where much of the power lies. Let's not forget that a few centuries of the scientific method have made human lives so much better than millennia of religion.
Scientific Regress
31–40 of 56 posts
Re: Scientific Regress
#32This article appears to be bent on buttressing an anti-scientific religious viewpoint rather than improving science. (Read the last few paragraphs.) The conclusion strikes the same themes that I've seen many times in the religious anti-science movement: science is a religion, a cult, etc. Sure, statistics are difficult and can lead to incorrect conclusions, but that's why we make sure that a scientific claim is falsi…
Re: Scientific Regress
#33"We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that..."
Re: Scientific Regress
#34My father spent every night of his 30 year career researching semiconductors with a deep belief he would be fired next week if he couldn't bring in enough grant money. He is an amazing scientist and you wouldn't be on the internet today without his spadework but he couldn't give a rat's ass about funding. One day a former grad student showed him some pictures. "That's my lab!" He said. "No, that's the replica I built…
What's the problem with the lab in China? I don't get it.
Re: Scientific Regress
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the problem with the lab in China? I don't get it.
The Chinese steal everything they can and reproduce it for cheap. No respect for intellectual property at all. We are being robbed.
Re: Scientific Regress
#36This article appears to be bent on buttressing an anti-scientific religious viewpoint rather than improving science. (Read the last few paragraphs.) The conclusion strikes the same themes that I've seen many times in the religious anti-science movement: science is a religion, a cult, etc. Sure, statistics are difficult and can lead to incorrect conclusions, but that's why we make sure that a scientific claim is falsi…
Re: Scientific Regress
#37>But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance. Its rhetorical tics include a forced enthusiasm (a search on Twitter for the hashtag “#sciencedancing” speaks volumes) and a penchant for profanity. Here in Silicon Valley, one can scarcely go a day without seeing a t-shirt reading “Science: It works, b—es!” The hero of the recent popular movie The Martian boasts that he will “scien…
I agree with most of your comment, but here are two nitpicks. >This is what makes the cult of science dangerous, not the word "bitches". Nobody said that, so there's no need to burn your strawman there. Science is all about the method and proper use of critical thinking, so you could assume it is a direct contradiction to have a vapid attitude of shitty reposts of forced-meme-tier macros that are often inaccurate, wi…
I don't think machine learning was a good place to pick an example from. A lot of so-called explanations of ML algorithms basically are Sokal hoaxes, and the fact is that the writer doesn't understand what the algorithm does and how.
Re: Scientific Regress
#38I am a post-doctoral research scientist that has wanted to be a scientist since early childhood (6-7 years old). The structure of how science is practiced seems to have changed substantially in that time frame, not for the better. Some of my childhood naivete plays a role in those perceptions, but many older scientists share that perspective. A lot of the problems in modern science revolve around the growing focus on…
The solution to science is actually very simple - move from a peer review ranked grant allocation system (which is totally gamed by those at the top) to a basic screen and lottery system. The idea is to do a basic screen on grant applications to make sure they are scientifically viable and not majorly flawed (at least 75% of grants should pass this test) and then put them all into a pool and draw winners from this pool until you have allocated all the money you have.
Lets stop using a system that can’t actually do the job (peer review can't separate the top 10% from the top 20%), and which is open to corruption and old boy networks, and move to one that is at least fair and better than all the alternatives.
Re: Scientific Regress
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the problem with the lab in China? I don't get it.
The Chinese steal everything they can and reproduce it for cheap. No respect for intellectual property at all. We are being robbed.
Re: Scientific Regress
#40Many years ago I started out as a Chem major. After 3 years and many hours I quit. My grades were swell, I still loved science - but I couldn't be honest with myself that I was going to be a real scientists in the end. So here's what typically goes wrong: You get a lab assignment. Somewhere along 4th hour or second week you screw up and grab the lab ass for help. He says "sorry - just keep going." You won't get a do-…
I studied Engineering rather than a 'hard science'. My experience was the complete opposite. A failed experiment was almost seen as a good thing. It certainly gave you more to write about on your Lab Report. This probably highlights a lot of the difference between engineering and science. We care about Methods just as much if not more than the result.
>Your lab time is limited and resources are scarce. If you want the grade you'd better "learn from your mistakes" and "be more careful next time."
We were always encouraged to learn from failure and see it as an opportunity. My undergrad thesis was focused on synthesizing material for LI-Ion batteries using a technique called Electrostatic Spray Reductive Precipitation (ESRP). A large chunk of my writeup ended up being about the difficulties I encountered with the technique and how I'd reconfigure the experiment rather than the results I obtained.
I work at an industrial plant now and while plant trials aren't exactly laboratory science there is similar requirements when it comes to experimental rigour. You can be damn sure people won't cut corners because there are going to be a hell of a lot of questions asked if something from the trial can't be replicated when put into production.