Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arriving-fashionable-late-for-party.html

Darn.  I was hoping that we were that much closer to warp drive.

Is Zefram Cochrane born yet?

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days when

> is it such a shock when we are reminded for the umpteenth time that the MODELS
> that we build in accordance with our various theories apply to a specific range
> of observed phenomena and that the greater universe as a whole is under no
> obligation to constrain its existence within those parameters?

Probably because most people don't understand what science is all about.

No small part of that may be that people who come from religious backgrounds and
are used to having The Truth handed to them don't realize that science doesn't
operate that way.  There is also the human craving for answers (which is a major
impetus for both religion and science), which leads to the media giving their
customers what they want (i.e., answers), even when the scientists haven't
published an answer.  This confirms people's mistaken impression that science
dispenses answers the way religious leaders do.

So when science learns something radical, it shakes up people's worlds.  For
people who never knowingly trusted science in the first place, it "confirms"
their belief that scientists are bumbling idiots.  (I say "knowingly" because
they certainly do trust their planes, trains, automobiles, bridges, computers,
electricity, inclined planes, GPS systems, modern medicine, radios, skyscrapers,
telephones, television sets, and smoke detectors--that last of which would not
work if radioactive decay rates were not constant.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 03:10 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:

> > interesting than an ordinary flaw in the experiment or the equipment.  It could
> > be a real opportunity to learn something very interesting about the structure of
> > spacetime.
>
> It's always nice to see experimental results lead to new scientific
> understanding of nature. Unfortunately, these days that almost always
> means new results with utterly defy comprehension. But we'll see...
>



>
> These people are idiots.
>
> If scientists already understood everything about the universe, there
> would be literally no need to continue studying science, now would there?
>
> Scientists *know* there are still questions to be answered. And they're
> trying to answer them, every single day. Religious fanatics, on the
> other hand, simply want everybody to agree with them, so that they can
> feel smugly superior. Infantile, really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSOD77clNZM

At 4:51 Dawkins explains why, if he were James Randi, he would be worried about
losing his million dollars.  Randi explains why he would be delighted.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:15:08 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Public and media reactions strike me as being reminiscent of the days
>> when so-called “conflicts” between Newtonian and Planck time 
were all
>> the rage.  Why is it such a shock when we are reminded for the
>> umpteenth time that the MODELS that we build in accordance with our
>> various theories apply to a specific range of observed phenomena and
>> that the greater universe as a whole is under no obligation to
>> constrain its existence within those parameters?
> 
> Probably because most people don't understand what science is all about.
> 
> No small part of that may be that people who come from religious
> backgrounds and are used to having The Truth handed to them don't
> realize that science doesn't operate that way.  There is also the human
> craving for answers (which is a major impetus for both religion and
> science), which leads to the media giving their customers what they want
> (i.e., answers), even when the scientists haven't published an answer. 
> This confirms people's mistaken impression that science dispenses
> answers the way religious leaders do.
> 
> So when science learns something radical, it shakes up people's worlds. 
> For people who never knowingly trusted science in the first place, it
> "confirms" their belief that scientists are bumbling idiots.  (I say
> "knowingly" because they certainly do trust their planes, trains,
> automobiles, bridges, computers, electricity, inclined planes, GPS
> systems, modern medicine, radios, skyscrapers, telephones, television
> sets, and smoke detectors--that last of which would not work if
> radioactive decay rates were not constant.)

I've been reading Michael Schumer's _The Believing Brain_, and one point 
that he makes is that conscious beings (be they human or not) are hard-
wired by evolution to believe stuff.

Another point he makes is that an individual's scientific knowledge in 
and of itself is not a predictor of whether or not they believe in a 
deity or some other supernatural force.

What's missing from most education these days is teaching of the 
scientific method.  Teaching students scientific facts just gives 
students something else to believe in.  Teaching how those facts were 
determined to be most likely true (and what process exists to allow that 
to change to "you know what, we were wrong about that") is more important 
than the facts themselves.

In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical 
thinking.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 29-9-2011 19:29, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>
http://neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arriving-fashionable-late-for-party.html
>
> Darn.  I was hoping that we were that much closer to warp drive.

Guess who started this thread?


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/29/2011 2:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> What's missing from most education these days is teaching of the
> scientific method.  Teaching students scientific facts just gives
> students something else to believe in.  Teaching how those facts were
> determined to be most likely true (and what process exists to allow that
> to change to "you know what, we were wrong about that") is more important
> than the facts themselves.
>

I thought they still pretty much do that. Granted real scientists don't 
follow the steps with absolute rigor. They may form an idea of what they 
think should happen, then test by experimentation, record their results, 
then try to repeat the results, then have peers repeat the results.

But I doubt they are as formal as:

     Define a question
     Gather information and resources (observe)
     Form an explanatory hypothesis
     Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data 
in a reproducible manner
     Analyze the data
     Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting 
point for new hypothesis
     Publish results
     Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Some, and maybe all of that is happening, but it isn't done by filling 
out scientific method worksheets like I had to do in school.

> In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical
> thinking.

Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>      Define a question
>      Gather information and resources (observe)
>      Form an explanatory hypothesis
>      Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data 
> in a reproducible manner
>      Analyze the data
>      Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting 
> point for new hypothesis
>      Publish results
>      Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

  That list prominently lacks the crucial concepts of control(led testing)
and peer reviewing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 30/09/2011 04:26 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Some, and maybe all of that is happening, but it isn't done by filling
> out scientific method worksheets like I had to do in school.

Those scientific method worksheets we had to do at school... I work in a 
company where people perform ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS, and let me 
tell you, it looks /nothing like/ anything you saw at school!

(On the other hand, there /is/ an absurd amount of paperwork involved...)

> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.

This.

I still think they should teach String Theory in schools - to 
demonstrate how even though something is widely respected, has brilliant 
people working on it, and involves amazingly complex mathematics, that 
doesn't make it science. Being testable makes it science.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/30/2011 8:32, Warp wrote:
>    That list prominently lacks the crucial concepts of control(led testing)
> and peer reviewing.

There's plenty of that. Co-students mocking you, and the teacher grading 
you. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 30/09/2011 05:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/30/2011 8:32, Warp wrote:
>> That list prominently lacks the crucial concepts of control(led testing)
>> and peer reviewing.
>
> There's plenty of that. Co-students mocking you, and the teacher grading
> you. ;-)

Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock you...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message