Interesting article in Science

[Royd]

Quote:
You have an amazing fixation on agendas and bureaucracy. Perhaps you could take your political comments to your own thread and let those interested in discussing science and knowledge continue on this one?

What? Politcal science isn't science. Experiments fail there, too.

 

[AquaEyes]

Perhaps we should discontinue to reinforce the in(s)ane posts by no longer responding to them, and if they get REALLY bad, just report them. I think that's what I'm going to TRY to do from here on in.....we'll see how well that works.

 

[chickened]

If posts could be limited to facts or opinions there would be no need to report, it is when some do not get their spoiled selfish way and turn it into personal attacks or try to legislate rules like "take your opinion elsewhere" instead of saying "Oh that is interesting" or something neutral and moving on. We can accept other viewpoints can't we/ we are adults right?

 

[mom'sfolly]

Actually, political science doesn't fit into the definition of science as it is being discussed here. Political science is a social science, and it doesn't follow the "hypothesis, testing, conclusion" model of the scientific method that we are discussing.

Different animal entirely. Many people refer to the social sciences as "fuzzy science". While there is overlap in what is considered social science and experimental or physical science (psychology easily comes to mind), they are very different disciplines. Political science is the study of entire systems of government, and that makes testing hypotheses almost impossible. The systems are too complex to do an if/then type of model. The idea of welcoming masses for the war in Iraq being one example of how a hypothesis breaks down in a complex system.

 

[AquaEyes]

Quote:
Sure...as long as "other viewpoints" are posted as "opinion", and "facts" are supported by "evidence." It's when "opinions" are claimed to be "facts" (with no supporting evidence) that problems arise.

 

[chickened]

I really have not seen any scientist dicussing the merits of the study on here. Anyone other than a research geek would not care what the booby bird does and I highly doubt it is a form of child abuse or think that it could be useful in preventing child abuse. We already have a system in place to prevent child abuse but it is not enforced. Royd's opinions are just as valuable as yours by the way or anyone else' that joins in. This notion that we must post some cyber junk to relevate our opinions or facts is crap, I can find as much info contrary to what anyone posts about any subject at any time given the desire to do so. I simply choose not to cut and paste, this is entertainment for God's sake people.

The OP was not openly saying that human behavior was the real issue but to use a legal term it is "implied".

So far MoMsfolly has come about as close to what my point is except for the feeling part, my understanding of the world is past the feeiling part it is more based on observation and experience. Fuzzy science also bleeds over into real science when big dollars are at stake. And onother thing to remember is that individual researchers are usually pawns of wealthy corperations or are suck ups to government mandated funding requirements. So heck yes they probably enjoy thier job who wouldn't? I have been in this world a while and seen/experienced some behavior that taught me a thing or two. Textbook knowledge has its place but life experience brings the issue down to where the rubber meets the road.
Quote:
You have an amazing fixation on agendas and bureaucracy. Perhaps you could take your political comments to your own thread and let those interested in discussing science and knowledge continue on this one?

 

[chickened]

They are not a problem with me.

If all were to post facts from the web with enough truth to validate one little point, which is what happens in post wars then eventually you have blurred what is really the truth which if you really think about it is really very difficult to obtain. In courts it is decided by a third party.
Quote:
Sure...as long as "other viewpoints" are posted as "opinion", and "facts" are supported by "evidence." It's when "opinions" are claimed to be "facts" (with no supporting evidence) that problems arise.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I think you are setting up straw men arguments here

I believe I was responding to your offshoots of discussion, including the notion that all research is fear based.

the OP was directed at the correlation between animal behavior and its relation to human behavior which seems to have gone down a rabbit trail.

Aye, it would be nice to stay on topic, but expect people to jump in when others take it down unrelated avenues and list statements as fact without backing them up. However, as multiple people have now stated, the original post covered far more than animal behavior as relating to human behavior.

It may be true that you percieve researching stuff as fun or some other form of pleasure and researching nonsense things such as butterflies as critical and I feel you are not alone. Serious researchers though do research related to health and not dying prematurely, other technology based research is generally directed at making life easier, getting out from under the curse as it would seem.

Earlier you said that this was a case of 'enough is enough', so it is hard to discern what you view as being 'serious' research.

Bears are the least of your fears in the areas I described, your own mind would give you more trouble as if you took away all your modern gadgets and realized you were on your own, no rescue, no cell phone etc. I don't think you truly have been in the scenario I described and alone in that environment.

Out west, wilderness? I believe that is what you specifically mentioned. Bears are pretty common here. That said, many cultures, individuals, and explorers have faced the situations you describe. Fear is not the only emotion recorded in their histories or writing though. I'm still not sure what this has to do with research being fear based, especially within a culture that does not tend to meet the definition of fighting to survive every day.

Is not the fear of death a very good motivator? it is in every other aspect of life and you seem to think it is not when it comes to science or research, you cannot be that objective, you can project it but in reality when you come face to face with that fear all the science in the world will not save you, you will flee if you can.

Is it the only motivator? Again, I am addressing your statements that fear is the only motivator in research (or hey, life), not that it exists as a means of motivation or that it can be seen in research and culture.​

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I really have not seen any scientist dicussing the merits of the study on here.

PS, you can email them. Many scientists are happy to discuss their work when they have the time, and if you aren't pressing them for material that can potentially be 'stolen' before publishing. Zoologists especially may take a while to get back to you, as many are without communication devices during some studies. I had one help me through email about an epileptic dog we adopted, and another researcher (not a PI), helped me with a project where I needed to identify the difference between some similar looking slow loris subspecies.

Hoping other people will jump in and ask some genuine questions or offer more input about actual science. There's a lot of information out there to share and expand upon, and it is terribly interesting stuff.

 

[Royd]

mom'sfolly :

Actually, political science doesn't fit into the definition of science as it is being discussed here. Political science is a social science, and it doesn't follow the "hypothesis, testing, conclusion" model of the scientific method that we are discussing.

Different animal entirely. Many people refer to the social sciences as "fuzzy science". While there is overlap in what is considered social science and experimental or physical science (psychology easily comes to mind), they are very different disciplines. Political science is the study of entire systems of government, and that makes testing hypotheses almost impossible. The systems are too complex to do an if/then type of model. The idea of welcoming masses for the war in Iraq being one example of how a hypothesis breaks down in a complex system.

Very interesting....Trying to attach human actions to birds, or trying to draw conclusions of human actions from the actions of birds, sounds like mixing up the two disciplines.

Government seems to be tied to the social end of things, far more than plain old physical knowledge. In the Global Warming scam and scandal, they have tried to use information acquired from physical science to force the hand of social science.

What is even worse, is the fact that the physical science gladly jumped into bed with the social science, all of it funded by the government.....No conflicts of interest there.​