Interesting article in Science

[Royd]

Quote:
I completely don't understand what you're talking about. The goal of science is to understand things, not make people do things.

Maybe in it's purist form, but the minute it is tied to government grants, it becomes agenda driven, and desired outcomes drive the thought patterns. I know it's probably hard for you to accept, but the whole global warming wasn't about finding the truth. It was about forcing every society, with any kind of industrial base, into a permanent hostage situation.

Instead of just presenting facts, which actually ran contrary to the desired result, and leaving it at that, numbers were fudged and true information pushed aside.
Why? Because there was a huge vested interest in reaching the desired end....Thank God for real scientists, who can read numbers and look at things, straight up, or every one of us, in this country would probably be paying $6 a gallon for gas, right now.

When the scientific community comes forward as a whole and condemns that world wide scam, then, I might put a little more stock in the words of scientists.

 

[AquaEyes]

I feel as though some of the angst against science as an approach to understanding comes from not having an image of how it approaches a problem. Perhaps this may help.

Imagine a problem as a graph with a linear curve following an unknown course within a boundary. When we don't know the solution to the problem, it's as though we don't know the exact shape of the curve.

What science does in its approach to figuring out what the curve looks like is to break it down into points -- we don't know the whole curve, but maybe we can find points through which the curve intersects. Each study and experiment seeks to determine if a hypothesized point actually exists along the graphed curve of the larger problem. Repeated tests and peer-review will confirm or deny if this hypothesized point is accurately placed on the curve, often with predictive-ability tests (i.e. "if this is/isn't true then we should/shouldn't find..."). Multiple points are researched independently, and as each is confirmed, you can imagine a dot being placed on a graph. If further research shows that a previously placed dot is not accurate, it may be removed.

Over time, the dots will accumulate, and the general shape of the curve will become clearer. Inferences may connect dots with a line, but not place new dots. In order to confirm inferences, more studies are needed to find out, and then dots between previous dots can be placed on the graph. If new research finds that a previously placed dot was not the most accurate placement on the graph, it will be removed and a new dot placed. In terms of the gradually emerging image of the curve, the significance of individual dots will become less important to the curve as a whole, because the lines connecting the dots become shorter in length.

As the number of dots increases, and the space between the dots decreases, we gain confidence that the process is accurately demonstrating the shape of the curve. To test if our basic image of the curve as a whole is becoming more accurate, we test the general predictive power of our hypothesized curve. If our model of the curve continues to accurately represent the curve as we find it in nature, we call our model of the curve a theory -- it is the culmination of lots of confirmed dots, and connecting the dots to form our model of the curve gives us a high degree of predictive accuracy. However, as there is an infinite number of points between two points, our model of the curve can't 100% copy the curve as it is found in nature -- but it can continue to get closer and closer to this unattainable goal, and as it does so, it increases in its reliability of predictive power. This is why a "theory" can't be proven, but can still be a reliable model for use in predicting outcomes and understanding processes.

This is in contrast to an "all or nothing" approach, whereby the shape of the curve is claimed to be known in its entirety by some other method. Following an "all or nothing" approach, all science would need to do to disprove this curve is to disprove one single point. In other words, if someone says "everything is known correctly" all I'd have to do is find one mistake to denounce the entire claim. That's a very fragile place on which to make a stand.

ETA -- I know I get wordy, so here's a simpler way of explaining it -- ever play Battleship? How do you figure out where your opponent has placed his ships? You make a guess, and that guess is confirmed to be accurate or inaccurate by your opponent's responses (i.e. "hit" or "miss"). You record the hits and misses on your side of the board, and this allows you to see more and more of your opponent's layout. Over time, you get better at predicting where the next "hit" will be. The difference from science solving problems in the natural world is that there are many many more points (technically, since a point is infinitely small, there are an infinite number of points) than there are on the Battleship board. So on the Battleship board that science plays, there are many more than 2-5 pegs per ship, and the grid on which they're placed is much bigger, so the entire process is much more involved.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
I completely don't understand what you're talking about. The goal of science is to understand things, not make people do things.

Maybe in it's purist form, but the minute it is tied to government grants, it becomes agenda driven, and desired outcomes drive the thought patterns. I know it's probably hard for you to accept, but the whole global warming wasn't about finding the truth. It was about forcing every society, with any kind of industrial base, into a permanent hostage situation.

Instead of just presenting facts, which actually ran contrary to the desired result, and leaving it at that, numbers were fudged and true information pushed aside.
Why? Because there was a huge vested interest in reaching the desired end....Thank God for real scientists, who can read numbers and look at things, straight up, or every one of us, in this country would probably be paying $6 a gallon for gas, right now.

When the scientific community comes forward as a whole and condemns that world wide scam, then, I might put a little more stock in the words of scientists.

Find and share evidence if you wish to be taken seriously when making such claims.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
I completely don't understand what you're talking about. The goal of science is to understand things, not make people do things.

Maybe in it's purist form, but the minute it is tied to government grants, it becomes agenda driven, and desired outcomes drive the thought patterns. I know it's probably hard for you to accept, but the whole global warming wasn't about finding the truth. It was about forcing every society, with any kind of industrial base, into a permanent hostage situation.

Instead of just presenting facts, which actually ran contrary to the desired result, and leaving it at that, numbers were fudged and true information pushed aside.
Why? Because there was a huge vested interest in reaching the desired end....Thank God for real scientists, who can read numbers and look at things, straight up, or every one of us, in this country would probably be paying $6 a gallon for gas, right now.

When the scientific community comes forward as a whole and condemns that world wide scam, then, I might put a little more stock in the words of scientists.

Grants are given based on the opinions of other scientists, not government officials. There are no "desired outcomes" other than those stated in the grant, and deemed worth studying by other scientists. What agenda are you talking about?

And what true information being pushed aside are you talking about?

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Maybe in it's purist form, but the minute it is tied to government grants, it becomes agenda driven, and desired outcomes drive the thought patterns. I know it's probably hard for you to accept, but the whole global warming wasn't about finding the truth. It was about forcing every society, with any kind of industrial base, into a permanent hostage situation.

Instead of just presenting facts, which actually ran contrary to the desired result, and leaving it at that, numbers were fudged and true information pushed aside.
Why? Because there was a huge vested interest in reaching the desired end....Thank God for real scientists, who can read numbers and look at things, straight up, or every one of us, in this country would probably be paying $6 a gallon for gas, right now.

When the scientific community comes forward as a whole and condemns that world wide scam, then, I might put a little more stock in the words of scientists.

Grants are given based on the opinions of other scientists, not government officials. There are no "desired outcomes" other than those stated in the grant, and deemed worth studying by other scientists. What agenda are you talking about?

And what true information being pushed aside are you talking about?

Amazing. Where do you do your reading? East Anglica University, NASA and NOAA all presented skewed information, to push the global warming/ cap and trade agenda. Sorry you missed it, but the whole thing has quietly been swept under the rug, because it has become a huge embarrassment to the "scientific community". We were constantly hammered with "Global Warming". When that didn't fly, it became "Climate Change." Now, it has siliently faded into the background, except for the diehard radicals, who just can't take no for an answer.

Oh, yeah. Now, we are finding out the the sun is the major cause of global warming....Duh!

 

[welsummerchicks]

Global warming isn't really fading away except for radicals. Actually rather the opposite is happening.

As far as if you live long enough you'll get cancer, I didn't say that, but for various reasons various kinds of cancer are more common in older people.

It has to be remembered that 'cancer' basically means 'a group of diseases that feature some sort of abnormality of cell growth'. It is a very diverse group of diseases.

 

[chickened]

The quest for knowledge by mankind is to better themselves and society from the ilks of the world we live in like disease, sustenance, shelter etc. There are two ways to basically get these needs one is to have it provided for you and the other is to be self sustaining or independant of assitance. Now out of fear of starving we as humans look for better ways to feed ourselves through science, for shelter from the elements we look to science to create a better living environment and with regards to disease or the fear of dying at an early age we look to cures and schemes that profess to make us live longer. Now those of us that live in fear of these things tend to buy into the idea that if we keep doing everything the scientist say is right or contributes to say good health then we are reacting to that fear or living in that fear. The media is very good at portraying this scheme in the news shows and advertising. Another way to understand this is to ask yourself "when is enough enough, when am I satisfied or when do I have no more struggle or am at rest? and be honest with yourself. There are people on this forum that know exactly what I am saying and mean.
Quote:
True, "stress" can't be measured. What is your point?

Quote:
What are you saying? Really. I have no idea what you're trying to say. "logic dictates from fear"? What does this mean? Who depends on a higher being? Everyone? Some people that you are using for examples? How do you teach a "state of mind", and what state of mind do you mean? What is "perfect love"? If it's in conjunction with your higher being, then no one would experience fear, and no one would have your dependence on a higher being.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

The quest for knowledge by mankind is to better themselves and society from the ilks of the world we live in like disease, sustenance, shelter etc. There are two ways to basically get these needs one is to have it provided for you and the other is to be self sustaining or independant of assitance. Now out of fear of starving we as humans look for better ways to feed ourselves through science, for shelter from the elements we look to science to create a better living environment and with regards to disease or the fear of dying at an early age we look to cures and schemes that profess to make us live longer. Now those of us that live in fear of these things tend to buy into the idea that if we keep doing everything the scientist say is right or contributes to say good health then we are reacting to that fear or living in that fear. The media is very good at portraying this scheme in the news shows and advertising. Another way to understand this is to ask yourself "when is enough enough, when am I satisfied or when do I have no more struggle or am at rest? and be honest with yourself. There are people on this forum that know exactly what I am saying and mean.

Again, you seem to be projecting this onto others and onto science. For instance, searching to understand and categorize various ant species and how they relate to each other is not something that smacks me in the face as being motivated by fear. Sorry that it is so frightening to you. I personally literally jump around for joy and excitedly grab another curious/interested/excited individual when I find out a species or study previously unknown to me. Heck, our lunch breaks at work consist of a 'good ol' boy' who enjoys huntin', fishin', muddin', and more subsistence based living, acting like a kid on Christmas as he reads to us about different discoveries, especially relating to animals. I hope you too one day understand how other emotions and motives can relate to areas of study such as science.

Mm, yes, the media is very good at promising greater security, as is our culture. Often times through corporate products. However, trying to suggest that scientific discovery and curiosity should end (interestingly) at the time you happen to be living in seems to be quite fearful in itself. As is saying it should only explore topics deemed comfortable to you.

...better themselves and society from the ilks of the world we live in like disease

Just a bit ago, you had said that you were fine with science finding cures for 'this or that'. Now you're not fine with it? It is honestly very hard to follow your line of thought as you seem to jump from statement to statement in an inconsistent way to make them fit your ultimate conclusions.

Mmm, when is enough enough? Thankfully, we can choose that for ourselves many times. You don't have to live in a house, no one is forcing you to eat veggies, and you do not need to accept medical treatment. You are welcome to decide this for yourself, but forcing your (unclear) definition of 'enough' on others would show a startling need for control/security. I definitely question disregarding an entire, diverse area of study because you have deemed it less than worthy based upon faulty and broad statements.​

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
Grants are given based on the opinions of other scientists, not government officials. There are no "desired outcomes" other than those stated in the grant, and deemed worth studying by other scientists. What agenda are you talking about?

And what true information being pushed aside are you talking about?

Amazing. Where do you do your reading? East Anglica University, NASA and NOAA all presented skewed information, to push the global warming/ cap and trade agenda. Sorry you missed it, but the whole thing has quietly been swept under the rug, because it has become a huge embarrassment to the "scientific community". We were constantly hammered with "Global Warming". When that didn't fly, it became "Climate Change." Now, it has siliently faded into the background, except for the diehard radicals, who just can't take no for an answer.

Oh, yeah. Now, we are finding out the the sun is the major cause of global warming....Duh!

Just give me some links. Credible links.

 

[chickened]

I think you may need to go a little deeper in your thought process to grip what I am actually referring to here you obviously are thinking of the phsyical.
Quote:
Again, you seem to be projecting this onto others and onto science. For instance, searching to understand and categorize various ant species and how they relate to each other is not something that smacks me in the face as being motivated by fear. Sorry that it is so frightening to you. I personally literally jump around for joy and excitedly grab another curious/interested/excited individual when I find out a species or study previously unknown to me. Heck, our lunch breaks at work consist of a 'good ol' boy' who enjoys huntin', fishin', muddin', and more subsistence based living, acting like a kid on Christmas as he reads to us about different discoveries, especially relating to animals. I hope you too one day understand how other emotions and motives can relate to areas of study such as science.

Mm, yes, the media is very good at promising greater security, as is our culture. Often times through corporate products. However, trying to suggest that scientific discovery and curiosity should end (interestingly) at the time you happen to be living in seems to be quite fearful in itself. As is saying it should only explore topics deemed comfortable to you.

...better themselves and society from the ilks of the world we live in like disease

Just a bit ago, you had said that you were fine with science finding cures for 'this or that'. Now you're not fine with it? It is honestly very hard to follow your line of thought as you seem to jump from statement to statement in an inconsistent way to make them fit your ultimate conclusions.

Mmm, when is enough enough? Thankfully, we can choose that for ourselves many times. You don't have to live in a house, no one is forcing you to eat veggies, and you do not need to accept medical treatment. You are welcome to decide this for yourself, but forcing your (unclear) definition of 'enough' on others would show a startling need for control/security. I definitely question disregarding an entire, diverse area of study because you have deemed it less than worthy based upon faulty and broad statements.​