Big Science Is Broken

hoichi

hoichi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
7,558
Reaction score
340
here is a must read article regarding big science and why the author sees it as broken.
It's in first things, a well written magazine, though im not a catholic, it's articles are written by all.
This article is not a religious one, and thus does not infringe the rules.

It's very good food for thought.
Considering how much the onslaught of big science and ci has affected our culture and community for the worse.

Anyone who holds ideas of science answering it all should read this article,

There are some ominous finding in it...

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
 
There is a certain irony of a paper critizing scientific findings using .... science :)
This is an interesting read, I find the social sciences a a whole too fluid to be of use. There is very little that does not change...
The peer review aspect is a good one, and between them I can see support for your statement.
 
Jezie said:
There is a certain irony of a paper critizing scientific findings using .... science :)
This is an interesting read, I find the social sciences a a whole too fluid to be of use. There is very little that does not change...
The peer review aspect is a good one, and between them I can see support for your statement.
Click to expand...

It's not an irony at all.
It's using their own rules to demonstrate the flaws...
Not irony.

How I see it anyway
 
hoichi said:
It's not an irony at all.
It's using their own rules to demonstrate the flaws...
Not irony.

How I see it anyway
Click to expand...

It is important to stick within the rules and constraints of a given topic such as sicene. But within his findings and arguments is the author not admitting to the fact that the chances of his argument being wrong?

Social Science is not as solid as physical science. It is why I like chemistry so much.
Medicine had too much of a social aspect to it that it does bring CI into question. The part of the article about peer review does highlight what happens to anyone who says anything negative about the so called miraculous nature of a billion dollar industry that actually does not do all it promises... reminds me very much of the weatherman...
 
Jezie said:
It is important to stick within the rules and constraints of a given topic such as sicene. But within his findings and arguments is the author not admitting to the fact that the chances of his argument being wrong?

Social Science is not as solid as physical science. It is why I like chemistry so much.
Medicine had too much of a social aspect to it that it does bring CI into question. The part of the article about peer review does highlight what happens to anyone who says anything negative about the so called miraculous nature of a billion dollar industry that actually does not do all it promises... reminds me very much of the weatherman...
Click to expand...

Of course the author of the article, full well knows the chance his arguments are error or wrong.
I don't think that needs to be stated, it should be assumed by any intellectually honest person.
Regardless of the science or not

Actually hard science is found upon such a premise.
That its models what ever they may be are fluid and hanging with new discoveries which make the older models themselves either obsolete or in need of re modelling.

Chemistry is a good case in point here,
If you look at the ever changing models chemistry has held re its theories. It's clear enough to any that the science accepts it at this moment and probably never will ever reach the final statement.
It's very nature is to change with its added knowledge.
As is supposed to be the case with all sciences

The Palm arises when vested interests and ideology start warping th death to suit their own ends, what ever that maybe.

Chemistry has a really interesting. History, especially its relation to alchemy.

A good book on paradigm shifts in science and what they are and actually mean is the structure of scientific revolutions.

Social science actually is solid enough.
Particular the kinds that are used in manipulating other human beings and changing their behaviour. And or selling them products they don't want or need yet convincing them they do...

They are as much part of the system as chemistry is...
And shouldn't be dismissed too lightly.

Take a look at how the ci industry has spent millions and millions in formulating and hatching and manipulating others to accept its main premise.

"The deaf need to be cured"

Remember that wee baby in the national geographic issue of a few years ago? All smile sear to ear, two implants, alas this child's life has meaning.....

A picture is worth a million words or a million bucks

The. I industry knows full well how importNt the social sciences. Are to its agenda..
We should too
 
Needs to be stated or not, it is where I find it a bit ironic...
All science is sold enough to form ideas, but the article is about recreating results which is the foundation of science...
What you are talking about is mainly marketing... yes it has its fingers in social sciences. ... but it is the social views that will determine things... thing a fancy woman's pants ad would havery sold well in the 1500s using the same methods used today? But you get a chemical formula from the same era you can recreate an honest alchemist's work today.
CI industry goes so well not just through one aspect of this... but multiple. Granted I thing the audist through out history would be all to happy for the CI in the past, but socially would not have accepted it due to thinking it is witchcraft regardless that it would reach their aim... society changes its views is what I am getting at, thus social sciences are more fluid. Understand how a person and society think and react allows the masses to be controled... it has been done throughout history.
 
Jezie said:
Needs to be stated or not, it is where I find it a bit ironic...
All science is sold enough to form ideas, but the article is about recreating results which is the foundation of science...
What you are talking about is mainly marketing... yes it has its fingers in social sciences. ... but it is the social views that will determine things... thing a fancy woman's pants ad would havery sold well in the 1500s using the same methods used today? But you get a chemical formula from the same era you can recreate an honest alchemist's work today.
CI industry goes so well not just through one aspect of this... but multiple. Granted I thing the audist through out history would be all to happy for the CI in the past, but socially would not have accepted it due to thinking it is witchcraft regardless that it would reach their aim... society changes its views is what I am getting at, thus social sciences are more fluid. Understand how a person and society think and react allows the masses to be controled... it has been done throughout history.
Click to expand...


Well I can imagine every single science lecture in academia or lab starting out with the prof stating
"All these theories could one day very well be wrong and proven as such"

I'd find that rather a dull start to an assumed reality..

It's the very nature of the field.

Ideas are formed in any field, science included...the terms soft or hard are misleading here, and ideologically driven. especially when one knows the structure of scientific revolutions, the fields themselves are not that much separate.

The hard sciences affect the soft and vice versa..
In a number of ways..

Take a look at the very nature of the debate over capernicun revolution.
What that actually meant and why

Now it is taken for granted of course that not only is the earth a sphere (imperfect one at that) but it isn't the Center of the universe and that it revolves around the sun along with the other planets, and the sun which itself is not fixed.

Even though allot of this was already accepted and even known...
Long before..

Any ancient sailor would of told you, after all the Greeks had spheres and globes, and even spheres of th ewe havens one of their great creative achievements..the ancients even knew roughly and not too far off the earths circumference, a clever Greek figured it out by using sundials at a known position with the shadow of the sunfromegyptioan obelisks at another...
Those clever Greeks...
As for the spherical heavens..
Thats just a cultural idea With no basis at all in reality..it's a handy tool to visualize the heavens as a sphere and its constellations...but we know that of course they are not.


But we also know the model I clumsily stated above re what goes round what, earths and suns...only Is a model that works generally if your on earth...

Sure it makes sense for us to know the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way...
But once your in orbit, once your in a place like space where their is no up down or whatever, depending on your arbitrary starting position, anything can be and will be given the right amount time revolving around anything else.

It's after all relative.

We can call this hard science....
It's all relative of course

It's also called cosmology and an ideology..

When it comes down to chemistry what actually are you referring?
The chemicals very well maybe the same but our ideas about them are very different. And of course our models of them, you know those neat wee atom diagrams or those neat molecule blocks that were fun to play with, rather then do homework...


We even know less about pharmacology yet
Yet
We pump pills into people by the trillions...
Ever actually ask a doctor how they actually work, I mean really how they actually do what they do...
Expect a strange response..
Hard science?
Maybe
Maybe not...

Hard science by its own admission is always and will always be changing....
Perhaps a better term to use rather then hard is something mmmmi dunno

Foggy...

After all do hard things always and always constantly change...

Not in the real world.....

As for the soft science,
I was talking about a few things. Not just marketing though marketing was one of them,

Foggy sciences have been just as fluid actually then soft sciences if you care to look closely even more fluid then social sciences in their constantly changing models...

And far more rapidly.
Even if you take just a look since relativity was published but even before of course...

It's after all a foundation to its entire idea...
Models open to and models constantly changing....
 
Hmm... okay, you know this but... :D all science and even some maths admit and proclaim that the subject may one day be proven wrong by calling it a theory :D yes, as you say, it is the very nature of the field. ..
Sorry had to :)
Anyways, pharmacology and other medical practices (which brings us back to your point) are labeled as practices the field admits right out that they are not experts, even though they try to think and act like they are. Yet, they do know more about the human body then most. The problem arises that medical aspects are extremely profitable, and those profits are what push funding, advertising, research, and the like. I believe it was you who states something to the effect that statistics are like people, torture them enough and they will tell you what you want... that is also what this paper is stating. But it also gives the twist and allowance that it is not always intended. Yet, when you get to wanting to sell something, all the report and studies that state something against their end goal and product will be dismissed completely or riticuked.

What I was meaning by chemistry... I am not talking about atoms or the like... we are always learning more... and in more details... heck we are even finding new elements... however if you take old leblanc's soda ask and mixed it with his sour wine you would have the same reaction as mixing baking soda and vinager.... the names changed but the chemical composition. .. not so much... they may not have known why it reacted how it did.... but the results were rather constant.
 
It's not just science admits one day it may be wrong, the entire basis of its system is founded on that very idea.
It's not a minor thing. It's a corner stone to its edifice.
Math is just an agreed upon symbol set...a symbolic representation of other symbolic ideas...it's a great tool but I to no way infallible or even as strict as some of its closed systems proclaim which then I turn with some clever guy someplace get taken apart...and on and I it goes...

Pharmacology is more the a practice I guess at the counter level it sure is, but at other levels or details lie, psychopharmacology it's very very much theoretical...

Sure I grant and never claimed otherwise that some things occurs that a not always intended.
Systems once they get going take on a life of their own, I ideology and in reason .

As for chemistry it's much more then recipes...
Leblancs soda or what ever..sure recipes are a part of it...but what happens when you have the same chemical compound its constituents identical downtown o every measure yet clearly when analyses they ar not the same chemical compound?
The recipe is the same.
A little of that, allot of this, a dash of that,store, heat mix what ever...

This of course is a very real phenol omen in chemistry where the constituents of a chemical compound are identical but clearly something is Amis...as an example your expecting to have a green liquid and it's all exact and it comes out red..but your measurement states it should be exactly the same..
What gives?
So we need to look further then the recipe as chemist did, and they found, that indeed a the constituents are exactly the same but it just so happens the structure is different.
The recipe is th esame but it's the structure of the molecule that's different.
And when your looking at things on that level you need to take atoms and everything else into account..
and this of course matters because it's by a chemicals structure morthenNythignelse that it affects the human brain or central nervous system

So indeed old school recipes are LwYs fun
But that's not really what chemistry is...

Chemistry is one of the foggy sciences that has changed the most....
Given what it has discovered and why
 
Wish I could argue the math part... but you say it well with an agreed upon symbol set. Some of it is not, but.. yeah then I would be nitpicking and I am not thinking that is what this is about.
Your view on pharmacology is interesting... how do you see the difference?
Ahh you wound me kind sir :) Chemistry is more than little recipes I will grant you that... and yes the chemical structures are important. However, when attempting to recreate research results, you are less apt to get your mixture turning red in chemistry then many of the issues you find in social sciences. As we learn more about why the mixture turned red we also learn more... think of how beer is said to be discovered or even breads that rise, they had no clue about yest but they could recreate the beer and bread to varying levels of sucess... it was not until we discovered yeast that we could refine the process and then build on it. Leblanc's mixture would have been weaker than ours today because of the purity of the ingredients.... but we can still recreate his my making his soda ash and his sour wine. Some may turn red... but most would not.
 
But turning the mixture consistently green rests upon a human observer.
And that means
A human being, which has grown dived and has been structured in ideas and Hughes by his. Or her society...thus social sciences come in, on multiple levels
But what actually I sturningred?
It's certainly not the chemical compound.
Color is not intrinsic in the object. Change the colour of the light and that green chemical will change its colour, yet the chemical itself is exactly the same.
Nothing has changed.
Using colour for your argument I think is not working...

But what is your argument exactly?

That chemistry makes more sense then social sciences...? Or it's based on. More solid foundation?
Maybe
But the issue is social sciences deal with humans.
Chemistry deals with non living chemicals...organic chemistry those compounds from carbon so on.
So yes considering their is no other mind at play it tends to be easier on a leval and makes more sense..
But really that's not what th sop was even about
 
If you go back to the first post you will see I really do not have an argument, I found it a bit ironic that the author was bashing science using science. Yes, it was sticking to the rules of his argument, but still a bit ironic.
Chemistry came in because I stated I find it a more soild science the social sciences.
Chemistry does have some aspect of the human factor in the observation yet social sciences are almost completely human dealt... chemistry... to put it in perspective of the article does not have a wall paper effect.
As for color, without having an experiment to go with it is all fictional anyways so it not working or does, really is not a big deal for me.
 
Well as long as your aware colour is not intrinsic in the object
But has to do with an outside factor
Light
And humans perception of it
Change the light the colour changes
The object remains the same
 
hoichi said:
Well as long as your aware colour is not intrinsic in the object
But has to do with an outside factor
Light
And humans perception of it
Change the light the colour changes
The object remains the same
Click to expand...
And some are color blind, but as always, it is fun tangling with you :)
 
Back
Top