pffft 
you don't need to be a scientist to question everything, how do you think Socrates got killed?
you don't need to be a scientist to question everything, how do you think Socrates got killed?He got involved in politics.
Topic: Public Perception of Science - page 3. (Read 4067 times)
He got involved in politics.
pffft you don't need to be a scientist to question everything, how do you think Socrates got killed?
you don't need to be a scientist to question everything, how do you think Socrates got killed? Oh christ.
An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.
An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.
You actually set me on this path by getting me into R. I started running simulations on t-tests and ended up concluding that all the anti-NHST literature was actually underestimating the extent of the problem.
I've learned to question everything I have been taught, especially what I take for granted because I was told it before my brain was fully developed.
That is a fine stance for a scientist, actually.
I agree. I hope to continue being one, but that is actually more difficult than you'd think.
Oh christ.
An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.
An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.
LOL... well, it might indeed range far afield, but these sorts of "arguments" tend to be quite boring... unless you're interested or knowledgeable in the subject matter.
I've learned to question everything I have been taught, especially what I take for granted because I was told it before my brain was fully developed.
That is a fine stance for a scientist, actually.
Oh christ.
An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.
An argument between two forum members who have no holy cows and who question everything. This is going to go off topic like a conspiracy theorist at a conformist convention. Not that I mind, though.
I'm no expert on this, but I am almost sure that there are hidden assumptions that are often not considered. Link me.
...Are you seriously asking me to link you the proof of evolution? Please tell me that I'm missing something here. At ny rate, this should be more than enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#References
Since Darwin's day, we've been watching the Galapagos islands, and many other isolated populations, we've found clear morphological links, and now genetic (one species of...lemur I think it was, was only identified by genetics, gods only know how they tell themselves apart) links have shown the same things... those neat little tree diagrams with species branching off at certain points are right.
As to climatology, when the weatherman can accurately tell me what the weather will be like in two weeks, I'll believe they can forecast 10, 20, or 50 years out. Too many variables.
I've learned to question everything I have been taught, especially what I take for granted because I was told it before my brain was fully developed.
I'm no expert on this, but I am almost sure that there are hidden assumptions that are often not considered. Link me.
...Are you seriously asking me to link you the proof of evolution? Please tell me that I'm missing something here. At ny rate, this should be more than enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#References
Since Darwin's day, we've been watching the Galapagos islands, and many other isolated populations, we've found clear morphological links, and now genetic (one species of...lemur I think it was, was only identified by genetics, gods only know how they tell themselves apart) links have shown the same things... those neat little tree diagrams with species branching off at certain points are right.
As to climatology, when the weatherman can accurately tell me what the weather will be like in two weeks, I'll believe they can forecast 10, 20, or 50 years out. Too many variables.
How do you determine what to believe (or not) regarding these theories?
"believe" is a weak term for me... I believe most of my beliefs could be changed pretty easily... I previously believed people would make something happen on dec 21st, I was let down...
That said, I look for something that both answers the question and cannot be explained by "He had to say that specific answer to (continue to) get paid"
What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?
Evidence that the people presenting it have nothing to gain by it being believed, that either way they are getting their next grant(or whatever) to continue to find new evidence
Evidence that better answers the question
Evidence backed up by reproducible experiments with the same or close results across the board
Evidence that can be confirmed by average joe
Evidence that the person presenting it did not want to find
Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?
I try not to trust too much, I prefer an answer I don't need to trust for it to ring true
Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?
infinite... that's a fun word...
Evolution: I would build a series of enclosed ecosystems full of fast breeding organisms that previously have never interacted, each ecosystem would be slightly different from the last - Try and force evolution
Climate change: Fill [Mars/The Moon/A planet we built to have the opposite orbit to earth] with the gasses that are responsible for climate change and see what happens.
Both would take up time that would mean the person starting the experiment would not be the one that finishes it
---
Of course, I'm internet educated... so if I ever go out and get a formal education my ideas will probably change a fair bit...
"believe" is a weak term for me... I believe most of my beliefs could be changed pretty easily... I previously believed people would make something happen on dec 21st, I was let down...
That said, I look for something that both answers the question and cannot be explained by "He had to say that specific answer to (continue to) get paid"
What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind?
Evidence that the people presenting it have nothing to gain by it being believed, that either way they are getting their next grant(or whatever) to continue to find new evidence
Evidence that better answers the question
Evidence backed up by reproducible experiments with the same or close results across the board
Evidence that can be confirmed by average joe
Evidence that the person presenting it did not want to find
Why do you place trust (or not) in the consensus of the experts in these fields?
I try not to trust too much, I prefer an answer I don't need to trust for it to ring true
Given infinite resources, how would you determine the "truth"?
infinite... that's a fun word...
Evolution: I would build a series of enclosed ecosystems full of fast breeding organisms that previously have never interacted, each ecosystem would be slightly different from the last - Try and force evolution
Climate change: Fill [Mars/The Moon/A planet we built to have the opposite orbit to earth] with the gasses that are responsible for climate change and see what happens.
Both would take up time that would mean the person starting the experiment would not be the one that finishes it
---
Of course, I'm internet educated... so if I ever go out and get a formal education my ideas will probably change a fair bit...
I'm no expert on this, but I am almost sure that there are hidden assumptions that are often not considered. Link me.
I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.
I pretty much agree completely with Lethn, let me explain my reasoning.
Evolution is proven. There's over a hundred years of experimental and observational data on it. Moths have evolved to cope with pollution, and then evolved back once it was cleaned up. That pretty much put the lock on it for me.
Climate science is another beast entirely. That the climate is changing is not really in doubt. Which way, of course, has been a matter of some debate. Back in the 70's for instance, the big worry was global cooling, and a new ice age. Now it's global warming... and a new ice age. (The science behind how that would happen is weird, but believable.) But what has not even come close to being proven is that it is in any way anthropogenic. The earth's temperature has tracked solar output for 5000 years, and I see no reason for it to stop now.
That is still not "speciation you can see with your eyes". I don't see why we should think that speciation should occur on the timescales of human memory as it has been in the past (at most a couple generations before rhetorical noise obscures the reality). The truth is we are only now at the stage where we can verify this (in my opinion very good) theory directly.
A clear genetic link is good enough for me, or extended observation of divergent populations, both of which have been done.
I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.
I pretty much agree completely with Lethn, let me explain my reasoning.
Evolution is proven. There's over a hundred years of experimental and observational data on it. Moths have evolved to cope with pollution, and then evolved back once it was cleaned up. That pretty much put the lock on it for me.
Climate science is another beast entirely. That the climate is changing is not really in doubt. Which way, of course, has been a matter of some debate. Back in the 70's for instance, the big worry was global cooling, and a new ice age. Now it's global warming... and a new ice age. (The science behind how that would happen is weird, but believable.) But what has not even come close to being proven is that it is in any way anthropogenic. The earth's temperature has tracked solar output for 5000 years, and I see no reason for it to stop now.
That is still not "speciation you can see with your eyes". I don't see why we should think that speciation should occur on the timescales of human memory as it has been in the past (at most a couple generations before rhetorical noise obscures the reality). The truth is we are only now at the stage where we can verify this (in my opinion very good) theory directly.
I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.
I pretty much agree completely with Lethn, let me explain my reasoning.
Evolution is proven. There's over a hundred years of experimental and observational data on it. Moths have evolved to cope with pollution, and then evolved back once it was cleaned up. That pretty much put the lock on it for me.
Climate science is another beast entirely. That the climate is changing is not really in doubt. Which way, of course, has been a matter of some debate. Back in the 70's for instance, the big worry was global cooling, and a new ice age. Now it's global warming... and a new ice age. (The science behind how that would happen is weird, but believable.) But what has not even come close to being proven is that it is in any way anthropogenic. The earth's temperature has tracked solar output for 5000 years, and I see no reason for it to stop now.
This experiment would take a long time...
I'd point out that time is a "resource."
Given infinite resources it's simple to determine the truth. In the first case, duplicate the earth at the point just before human industry began. Then let the two histories proceed - one without human industry and one with. Then measure outcomes.
In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.
With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.
A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.
In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.
With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.
A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.
This experiment would take a long time...
Not with infinite resources. "HG, hand me that time travel doohickey you've been writing about"
The point is that infinite resources are not required. Just science. But I'm preaching to the choir and will shut up now.
...Ok, I mean in the end using neyman-pearson strategy the correct answer to everything will be found as long as there is no competition for resources or you can do it faster than everyone else. This is robot science though.
The first thing I noticed is that both of those topics have to do with gradual change over time. Maybe it's a hard wired brain thing, and no amount of evidence can convince them? (same as with birthers, truthers, and religious nuts)
Who is them? Why can't "them" be those who believe the scientists rather than the religious. Once things are complicated enough noone but the experts will have the time to examine the evidence for themselves, and so will have to rely on expert opinion or various heuristics regarding what science has done for them lately.
Quote
I agree with most of what you have put forward but don't understand why you are so convinced of evolution but not climate science.
To put it simply, we know fuck all about space and other planets besides are own so how can we claim to know anything about our own planet?
Edit: I suppose you could say the same for evolution actually, if we saw the same behaviour from organic beings from other planets as well, then that would make evolution even more solid, but with evolution there is a lot more evidence to support it than there is with climate science, which I don't really believe is science, not just yet anyway.
Given infinite resources it's simple to determine the truth. In the first case, duplicate the earth at the point just before human industry began. Then let the two histories proceed - one without human industry and one with. Then measure outcomes.
In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.
With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.
A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.
In the second, follow return to a time before any animals existed. Then follow the history of the body plan and DNA of every single lifeform. Note species that evolved from other species.
With infinite resources, anything that is in concept provable is provable.
A large majority of scientists who specialise in that field disagreeing with climate change or evolution would be sufficient to make me doubt them.
This experiment would take a long time...
Not with infinite resources. "HG, hand me that time travel doohickey you've been writing about"
The point is that infinite resources are not required. Just science. But I'm preaching to the choir and will shut up now.
This experiment would take a long time...
I'd point out that time is a "resource."
Jump to: