The Science thread - Page 9 - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 10:19 AM   #81
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
Absolutely; and while the point of this thread is not to digress into science that FeXL finds offensive, anyone who has any experience with the culture of science will know that consensus is extremely rare among scientists because we *like* arguing and we're trained to find fault with each other's interpretations as much as possible. When consensus emerges, it's because there is no alternative; scientists are almost allergic to agreeing with each other, and will only do so if they have no choice.

So consensus emerges very rarely in science, and when it does, it's because the data is overwhelming.
Yep they said the same thing when the prevailing scientific truth was that the sun and everything else revolved around the earth.
__________________
Ad links appearing in my posts were not placed there by me. I do not endorse any products which may be linked to my posts. Do not click on those links.

I retain all rights to photo-images I have posted on ehMac. They were posted that other members of the community could enjoy them. They may not be used or sold in any other way without my written consent.

Bill C-51 is an act of Terrorism! It cannot be fixed and should be immediately repealed!
eMacMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 10:34 AM   #82
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,487
All this talk about scientific concensus reminded me of a good laugh I had yesterday working with my son looking for advertisements from the 1930s.



Who could argue against a consensus of 20,769 Physicians? Now wheres my smoking jacket?
MacGuiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 10:36 AM   #83
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 41,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
Absolutely; and while the point of this thread is not to digress into science that FeXL finds offensive, anyone who has any experience with the culture of science will know that consensus is extremely rare among scientists because we *like* arguing and we're trained to find fault with each other's interpretations as much as possible. When consensus emerges, it's because there is no alternative; scientists are almost allergic to agreeing with each other, and will only do so if they have no choice.

So consensus emerges very rarely in science, and when it does, it's because the data is overwhelming.
I disagree, Most of today's scientists are products of left-leaning universities. They've been born and bred in a test tube of leftist activism that simply favours AGW because it fits neatly inside their worldview.
__________________
"My life is my own."

Mac Pro 5,1 3.2 GHZ Quad Core; MacBook Pro 1,1; iPhone 4
Macfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:02 AM   #84
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Interesting replies; this is a topic I think is worth discussing more seriously, as most people really have very limited contact with science, and this issue is obviously pertinent to scientific credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eMacMan View Post
Yep they said the same thing when the prevailing scientific truth was that the sun and everything else revolved around the earth.
Firstly, science does not deal with "truth," so there's no such thing as "prevailing scientific truth." Science is a process that allows us to distinguish hypotheses that make incorrect predictions from hypotheses who's predictions turn out to be correct (note: making correct predictions does not mean the hypothesis is true, it's just not obviously false).

The scientific method was not well established before the late 17th century, and the falsification of the geocentric universe was one of its earliest triumphs. So this is a particularly ironic example to use if one is trying to make the case that the scientific establishment preserves false paradigms. This is not to say that the scientific community is easily convinced of the flaws in established paradigms (see Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for lots of good discussion of this). But the nice thing about the scientific process, is that it dose not depend on the desires, beliefs, or expectations of the scientists doing it. Especially with the modern use of peer-review and independent validation, it's very rare indeed that any significant finding becomes established and turns out to be fundamentally false (although we often discover our interpretations of given findings are incorrect; that's the fun part).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuiver View Post
Who could argue against a consensus of 20,769 Physicians?
This is rather another problem with the credibility of science; lots of people who are not scientists are mistaken by society in general to be representatives of science. While I have the utmost respect for medical doctors and engineers, they are not scientists (or, to be more precise, most MDs and engineers are not scientists, but some have scientific training as well as their practical training in the use of established scientific knowledge to specific real-world problems... the point is that there's a big difference between an M.D. and a Ph.D., despite both earning the title "Doctor"). So using the fact that some doctors advocated smoking as evidence that scientists came to an incorrect consensus is wrong on two levels: Firstly, doctors aren't scientists, and secondly, the fact that some doctors agreed a given brand were less irritating is quite distinct from a consensus among physicians that smoking was good for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
Most of today's scientists are products of left-leaning universities. They've been born and bred in a test tube of leftist activism that simply favours AGW because it fits neatly inside their worldview.
Finally, this is absolutely absurd. Political leanings do not make predictions about the chemistry of the atmosphere. The whole point of science is that it is driven by observations of objective reality. Wether you're a communist, a socialist, or apolitical, the observations are the same, the math is the same, and the interpretations of the data are constrained by what we know about the physics.

This has nothing to do with politics. Until recently, scientists were fairly evenly distributed across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the political right has abandoned it's grip on reality in the past couple of decades, and the completely irrational anti-science policies of the Republicans in the US and the Conservatives in Canada have all but eliminated support from scientists, and indeed educated people in general.

I expect to see this unfortunate trend reverse in the next decade, as the Republicans recognize that the religious zealots they've brought into their tent aren't going to get them elected, and the can't just deny reality any longer.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:17 AM   #85
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
This is rather another problem with the credibility of science; lots of people who are not scientists are mistaken by society in general to be representatives of science.
No mistake Bryan. I know full well a doctor is not a scientist but like a scientist who is regarded as the highest authority in matters of science, a doctor is held up as the authority in all matters medical.
MacGuiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:22 AM   #86
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 41,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
Finally, this is absolutely absurd. Political leanings do not make predictions about the chemistry of the atmosphere. The whole point of science is that it is driven by observations of objective reality. Wether you're a communist, a socialist, or apolitical, the observations are the same, the math is the same, and the interpretations of the data are constrained by what we know about the physics.
Cimate science, for example, is now heavily viewed through a leftist lens. Just as journalists choose which stories to report based on their political leanings, scientists are selective in what they will examine, publish and suppress, based on their politics. ClimateGate was an ugly expose of just this sort of thinking.
__________________
"My life is my own."

Mac Pro 5,1 3.2 GHZ Quad Core; MacBook Pro 1,1; iPhone 4
Macfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:30 AM   #87
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuiver View Post
I know full well a doctor is not a scientist but like a scientist who is regarded as the highest authority in matters of science, a doctor is held up as the authority in all matters medical.
Fair enough. But as far as I know, there never existed a consensus of medical doctors that smoking was good for one's health. The fact that P.J.Morris and other tobacco companies paid individual M.D.s to go on record saying that their particular brand was "less irritating" or "my personal favourite" or even that "the evidence that smoking causes cancer is not conclusive" is a far cry from a consensus among scientists that smoking is good for you.

This is the point I'm trying to get across: the modern scientific community is prone to controversy and is consensus-averse. When a consensus emerges in such a community despite all the systematic biases against it, you've got to admit it's surprising. Since climatology is not my feild, I can't personally analyze the data that has given rise to this consensus, but I can marvel at the existence of the consensus and conclude that, to experts in the field, this data must be pretty compelling.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:45 AM   #88
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 41,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
When a consensus emerges in such a community despite all the systematic biases against it, you've got to admit it's surprising. Since climatology is not my feild, I can't personally analyze the data that has given rise to this consensus, but I can marvel at the existence of the consensus and conclude that, to experts in the field, this data must be pretty compelling.
There is no consensus. Just that moldy cherry-poicked list you keep trotting out.
__________________
"My life is my own."

Mac Pro 5,1 3.2 GHZ Quad Core; MacBook Pro 1,1; iPhone 4
Macfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:48 AM   #89
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
Cimate science, for example, is now heavily viewed through a leftist lens.
I was composing a long reply about how wrong you are about this, but eventually came to the conclusion that you're either baiting me, or we're talking about different things. One of the primary strengths of the scientific method is that it reduces (but admittedly cannot eliminate) the biases of the observer, so the idea of ocean water pH, temperature readings, gas chromatography data from ice cores, flowering dates for given species of plants in given locations, migration patterns of birds, etc. being "viewed though a leftist lens" just baffled me - data is data; it doesn't have politics. However, if what you're objecting to is not the science but the proposed socioeconomic responses to it, then the problem of ideological bias is much more relevant and is certainly a reasonable topic for discussion.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21st, 2013, 11:50 AM   #90
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
There is no consensus.
See, no there you go being irrational again. If you were a climatologist, and went to international meetings of climatologists, or even worked with climatologists, you're opinion on this might be worth something. But you're just some guy on the internet with an opinion that isn't worth the electrons that were inconvenienced transmitting it.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The closing of the Canadian Election Thread by EhMax... screature Everything Else, eh! 148 May 2nd, 2011 09:27 PM
Canadians Don't Want Iggy: Poll SINC Everything Else, eh! 384 Mar 5th, 2011 06:06 PM
Mod Log Chealion Info Centre 7 May 25th, 2006 01:18 PM
Vexel's Intel iMac thread Vexel Anything Mac 54 Mar 30th, 2006 10:38 PM
P4 vs G5 vs G3 jfpoole Anything Mac 41 Jan 12th, 2006 03:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!