http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2011 9:30, Warp wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>
Why would this be the end of the world? The world exist even if we don't 
understand it completely.
Anyway, I was surprised that it got so much publicity. It is an 
unconfirmed experiment, and the main message to the physics community is 
to check the result. People tend to think that the report that they 
heard last is the final verdict. Probably quite a few people will take 
home the message that even Einstein was wrong. I don't know what the 
effect on society and science will be in the long run. It could mean 
that it will be used by the anti-science groups or that young bright 
students will be more motivated to finally understand it or both.

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

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 24-9-2011 9:30, Warp wrote:
> > http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
> >
> Why would this be the end of the world? The world exist even if we don't 
> understand it completely.

  It was a joke. Humor. A jest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24-9-2011 13:06, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 24-9-2011 9:30, Warp wrote:
>>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>>>
>> Why would this be the end of the world? The world exist even if we don't
>> understand it completely.
>
>    It was a joke. Humor. A jest.

Sure, but it perfectly reflects the overhyped media attention. So it was 
spot on.

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

Post a reply to this message

I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than 
they should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the 
"large magnitude of the effect"...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 9/24/2011 6:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than they
> should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the "large
> magnitude of the effect"...

Well, given that quantum physics has been verified to within one part in 
10^14 or so, saying "you're off by 20 parts per million" is a huge number. 
That would (for example) put your GPS off by hundreds of yards.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 9/24/2011 6:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than they
> should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the "large
> magnitude of the effect"...

For example:

http://neutrinoscience.blogspot.com/2011/09/arriving-fashionable-late-for-party.html

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

Post a reply to this message

On 24/09/2011 04:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 6:42, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I love how the particles travelled "20 parts per million" faster than
>> they
>> should have, and sciencists couldn't believe it was true due to the
>> "large
>> magnitude of the effect"...
>
> Well, given that quantum physics has been verified to within one part in
> 10^14 or so, saying "you're off by 20 parts per million" is a huge
> number. That would (for example) put your GPS off by hundreds of yards.

Doesn't the refractive index of air *already* put GPS off by several 
dozen *miles*? And they don't seem to have too much effect on GPS 
accuracy (i.e., they managed to compensate for it). Of course, you can't 
compensate for something that you didn't know existed, but it still 
doesn't seem to be affecting GPS.

It may be that light isn't the fastest thing in the universe. But so 
long as the speed of light is roughly correct, GPS should still work.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

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?  M-theory should
have prepared us for the experience of observing something that doesn’t model
neatly within our friendly familiar ol’ “3D+t universe”.  What are we up to now
.... eleven dimensions?

Personally, I’m hoping that the results DO turn out to be something more
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.   I know this is a REAL stretch, but /IF/ this is a first case of
being able to generate a trajectory from within 3D+t space that moves outside of
it*, the implications COULD be profound. The hypothesis... OK, conjecture ;-)...
 is that the particle didn’t travel faster than light, but found a shorter route
outside of “normal” spacetime.

The real explanation could, of course, be completely Pythonic (“... and now for
something completely different.”) That would be really neat too.  If there is
anything truly essential missing from modern inquiries into high energy physics,
it’s the opportunity to use phrases like “really neat” and get away with it.

As for the sort of folks who will respond to this type of event with, “See,
Science doesn’t really know anything – nya nya nya nya nyaaaaaaa nya - This
PROVES religious fundamentalism is true and science is just a bunch of bunk.” –
These folks will always find (or invent) SOMETHING they can latch onto for this
purpose.  There’s no real effort required to ignore a bazillion plus one bogus
arguments rather than the previous bazillion.

Best regards,
Mike C.

*Obviously, no set of vectors contained entirely within 3D+t space can
mathematically add up to a result ending outside of it. However, it might be
possible to generate a physical phenomenon which could INTERACT with an existing
extra-dimensional event or, perhaps, to produce an event whose nature defies
containment within physical 3D+t space, resulting in a ”breach”.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/09/2011 03:10 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:

> M-theory should
> have prepared us for the experience of observing something that doesn’t model
> neatly within our friendly familiar ol’ “3D+t universe”.  What are we up to now
> .... eleven dimensions?

Last time I checked, M-theory is an interesting hypothesis which as yet 
has no experimental support. (Mainly because it doesn't predict anything 
yet.)

> Personally, I’m hoping that the results DO turn out to be something more
> 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...

> As for the sort of folks who will respond to this type of event with, “See,
> Science doesn’t really know anything – nya nya nya nya nyaaaaaaa nya - This
> PROVES religious fundamentalism is true and science is just a bunch of bunk.”

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...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/26 10:10, Mike the Elder a écrit :
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>> http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/23/switzerland.science/?hpt=ieu_c1
>>
>> --
>>                                                            - Warp
>
> 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?  M-theory should
> have prepared us for the experience of observing something that doesn’t model
> neatly within our friendly familiar ol’ “3D+t universe”.  What are we up to now
> .... eleven dimensions?
>
> Personally, I’m hoping that the results DO turn out to be something more
> 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.   I know this is a REAL stretch, but /IF/ this is a first case of
> being able to generate a trajectory from within 3D+t space that moves outside of
> it*, the implications COULD be profound. The hypothesis... OK, conjecture ;-)...
>   is that the particle didn’t travel faster than light, but found a shorter route
> outside of “normal” spacetime.
>
> The real explanation could, of course, be completely Pythonic (“... and now for
> something completely different.”) That would be really neat too.  If there is
> anything truly essential missing from modern inquiries into high energy physics,
> it’s the opportunity to use phrases like “really neat” and get away with it.
>
> As for the sort of folks who will respond to this type of event with, “See,
> Science doesn’t really know anything – nya nya nya nya nyaaaaaaa nya - This
> PROVES religious fundamentalism is true and science is just a bunch of bunk.” –
> These folks will always find (or invent) SOMETHING they can latch onto for this
> purpose.  There’s no real effort required to ignore a bazillion plus one bogus
> arguments rather than the previous bazillion.
>
> Best regards,
> Mike C.
>
> *Obviously, no set of vectors contained entirely within 3D+t space can
> mathematically add up to a result ending outside of it. However, it might be
> possible to generate a physical phenomenon which could INTERACT with an existing
> extra-dimensional event or, perhaps, to produce an event whose nature defies
> containment within physical 3D+t space, resulting in a ”breach”.
>

A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated 
by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of 
what can be known.

A religious zealot will tell you that a single book contains All and 
Everything that is True, as well as Ultimate Knowlege of the Universe.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:

> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
> what can be known.

I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like 
this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if 
there is one).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 3:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>> what can be known.
>
> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
> there is one).

If there isn't, there is no fraction.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:05:38 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 27-9-2011 3:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>> accumulated by humanity since the first humans only account for a
>>> small fraction of what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
> 
> If there isn't, there is no fraction.

Mathematically, that's certainly true. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>
>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>> what can be known.
>
> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
> there is one).
>
> Jim

OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>>> what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>>
>> Jim
>
> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

Why would that have been better?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:47:18 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>
>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>> accumulated by humanity since the first humans only account for a
>>> small fraction of what can be known.
>>
>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>> there is one).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/27 16:06, andrel a écrit :
> On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
>> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>>
>>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege accumulated
>>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small fraction of
>>>> what can be known.
>>>
>>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>>> there is one).
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
>
> Why would that have been better?
>

It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance 
of the part relative to the whole.

Post a reply to this message

On 27-9-2011 22:51, Alain wrote:
> Le 2011/09/27 16:06, andrel a écrit :
>> On 27-9-2011 21:47, Alain wrote:
>>> Le 2011/09/26 21:15, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:45:36 -0400, Alain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A scientist will tell you that the total amount of knowlege
>>>>> accumulated
>>>>> by humanity since the first humans only account for a small
>>>>> fraction of
>>>>> what can be known.
>>>>
>>>> I think a rational scientist would not be able to make a statement like
>>>> this, because it presumes that they have an idea what the limit is (if
>>>> there is one).
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> OK! I should have said "a tiny *part*"
>>
>> Why would that have been better?
>>
>
> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
> of the part relative to the whole.

Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by 
infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes 
me. But I am not a native speaker.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:11:53 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> It don't presume any definitive knowlege about the absolute importance
>> of the part relative to the whole.
> 
> Probably too subtle for me. IMO it does not solve the amount divided by
> infinity if that is what you are after. If not, the improvement escapes
> me. But I am not a native speaker.

That was how I read it - "part" doesn't necessarily imply a definitive 
whole, just "less than 100%".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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
> 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.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 03:10 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:
> > Personally, I’m hoping that the results DO turn out to be something more
> > 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...
>
> > As for the sort of folks who will respond to this type of event with, “See,
> > Science doesn’t really know anything – nya nya nya nya nyaaaaaaa nya - This
> > PROVES religious fundamentalism is true and science is just a bunch of bunk.”
>
> 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

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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...

  That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
Einstein".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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...
>
>    That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
> scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
> Einstein".)

What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously 
because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:26:45 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> 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.

That happens in some classrooms, but it's not as widespread as it should 
be.

And we wonder why US students "fail" at math & science in the real world.

> 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.

I'm sure it isn't.

>> In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical
>> thinking.
> 
> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.

Exactly, and primary school is supposed to (or should be) be about 
learning how to learn rather than how to memorize.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/30 11:26, Mike Raiford a écrit :
> 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.
>
>

The question is often in the form of:
I wonder what I could find if I watch this or that?
Is there anything hiding behind that?
What would appen if I do something <insert qualificatif>?
Is that wild legent, myth, urban legend, beleif,... actualy based on 
some fact?
What if that crack head could be onto something in his divagations?

Sometimes, it goes straight to perform some experiment, do some 
observations.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/09/30 11:32, Warp a écrit :
> 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.
>

Look at the 4th and last points...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:49:31 -0400, Alain wrote:

>>> In short, a skill that isn't taught often enough is that of critical
>>> thinking.
>>
>> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.
>>
>>
>>
> The question is often in the form of: I wonder what I could find if I
> watch this or that? Is there anything hiding behind that? What would
> appen if I do something <insert qualificatif>? Is that wild legent,
> myth, urban legend, beleif,... actualy based on some fact? What if that
> crack head could be onto something in his divagations?

That's one of the things I really like about Mythbusters.  They may not 
get the 'science' right all the time, but they are teaching important 
skills in problem decomposition and building a test.  If they ever 
changed the program so as to lose the elements of "developing their 
tests", the show would lose a lot of its appeal.

> Sometimes, it goes straight to perform some experiment, do some
> observations.

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:56:56 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> Sometimes, it goes straight to perform some experiment, do some
>> observations.
> 
> Yep.

I meant to add - but unfortunately, a poorly planned experiment generally 
won't yield meaningful (or useful) results.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> 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...
> >
> >    That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
> > scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
> > Einstein".)

> What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously 
> because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...

  Then the detractors would have to point out the flaws.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> Le 2011/09/30 11:32, Warp a écrit :
> > 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.
> >

> Look at the 4th and last points...

  Which say nothing about controls nor peer reviewing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock you...
>>>
>>>     That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
>>> scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors against
>>> Einstein".)
>
>> What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously
>> because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...
>
>    Then the detractors would have to point out the flaws.

That's what's /supposed/ to happen, yes.

It becomes worrying when people point out "flaws" such as "this theory 
is /obviously/ wrong. Everybody can see that."

I don't know if this actually happens in modern day science. I hope not...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 1-10-2011 10:18, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> Whereas in *real* scientice, it's other eminent scientists who mock
>>>>> you...
>>>>
>>>> That's the whole point. If your results stand up to that kind of
>>>> scrutiny, you're a winner. (See eg. the paper named "100 authors
>>>> against
>>>> Einstein".)
>>
>>> What worries me is the possibility of a theory not being taken seriously
>>> because nobody likes it, rather than because the theory doesn't work...
>>
>> Then the detractors would have to point out the flaws.
>
> That's what's /supposed/ to happen, yes.
>
> It becomes worrying when people point out "flaws" such as "this theory
> is /obviously/ wrong. Everybody can see that."
>
> I don't know if this actually happens in modern day science. I hope not...

I am afraid it does.


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

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 1-10-2011 10:18, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > It becomes worrying when people point out "flaws" such as "this theory
> > is /obviously/ wrong. Everybody can see that."
> >
> > I don't know if this actually happens in modern day science. I hope not...

> I am afraid it does.

  Care to give an example?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9/30/2011 23:21, Warp wrote:
>    Then the detractors would have to point out the flaws.

The problem is that for every idea whose flaws you ought to point out, there 
are 10,000 ideas from people who have no idea what they're talking about. 
It's like if you're debugging code, and some marketing guy comes up behind 
you and says "you should put a colon there. Plus, you spelled creat() wrong. 
And get rid of those empty parentheses." Would you actually want to spend 
the time telling him why he's wrong? Or would you just say "go learn 
something about what people already know about programming computers first"?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 1-10-2011 13:46, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 1-10-2011 10:18, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> It becomes worrying when people point out "flaws" such as "this theory
>>> is /obviously/ wrong. Everybody can see that."
>>>
>>> I don't know if this actually happens in modern day science. I hope not...
>
>> I am afraid it does.
>
>    Care to give an example?

In general this is hard as I am part of the reviewing process myself and 
we don't talk about what happens to anyone other than the author. I 
don't think it is a law, but it is not done.

I know numerous examples of it that have resulted in a paper not being 
published in some journal. Though in practice almost all work will be 
published somewhere someday. Perhaps in a low ranking journal a few 
years later. But people can loose their job in the mean time. Especially 
if it happens in a peer review for a grant in stead of for an article in 
a journal.

One example that I was not involved in was in a reviewing process where 
the (well known) reviewer returned nothing more than 'I don't belief 
this'. This had no impact at all, because the editor rejected the review 
report and asked someone else for a report.

BTW there is a lot wrong with the peer review process that I don't want 
to go into detail about, as it might give the impression that any 
research is unreliable. In general it works and people are more honest 
than you might expect. Problems mainly arise when science is mixed with 
management and politics.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/1/2011 4:46, Warp wrote:
>    Care to give an example?

I actually had a review rejected because my review was "5 of 5. Nothing to 
say except perfect."  Now, it wasn't a science article but a computer 
science article that was about the formal math rather than science, but 
people didn't believe I had read the article when really it was "this is 
perfect. what more can I say?"

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

Post a reply to this message

On 1-10-2011 23:21, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/1/2011 4:46, Warp wrote:
>> Care to give an example?
>
> I actually had a review rejected because my review was "5 of 5. Nothing
> to say except perfect." Now, it wasn't a science article but a computer
> science article that was about the formal math rather than science, but
> people didn't believe I had read the article when really it was "this is
> perfect. what more can I say?"

You might give some remarks on why it is important and hint at places 
where having read this article earlier might have saved you some 
trouble. Perhaps even point to a field the authors did not mention and 
might have overlooked, while including it would make the paper stronger.

If I have a good paper under review I sometimes do things like that. 
Reviewing is more than pointing at the errors, you try to improve the 
article in any way you can. The highest honour you can get as a reviewer 
is 'we thank an anonymous reviewer' in the acknowledgements. I have not 
achieved that yet. :(

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.
>
> That happens in some classrooms, but it's not as widespread as it should
> be.
>
> And we wonder why US students "fail" at math&  science in the real world.

To be fair, while the US is legendary for stupidity, there are plenty of 
stupid people in other countries too. Visit any shop while the computers 
are down and watch the poor checkout girl struggle to compute £2.99 + 
£4.85. Watch, and sigh.

>> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.
>
> Exactly, and primary school is supposed to (or should be) be about
> learning how to learn rather than how to memorize.

But testing whether you've memorised specific facts is way easier than 
testing whether you're actually stupid or not.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:07:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.
>>
>> Exactly, and primary school is supposed to (or should be) be about
>> learning how to learn rather than how to memorize.
> 
> But testing whether you've memorised specific facts is way easier than
> testing whether you're actually stupid or not.

Well, that's true, but if we're talking about measuring IQ, that's one 
thing.  Testing whether you can do stuff is actually not that difficult 
to do or evaluate.  You have someone do the job (or tasks of the job) and 
evaluate their performance.

It's time consuming, but it's not actually that difficult to do, 
especially if you're focused on the end results rather than how they got 
there (as long as it's within a certain period of time).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Definitely. Rote memorization teaches nothing, except how to memorize.
>>>
>>> Exactly, and primary school is supposed to (or should be) be about
>>> learning how to learn rather than how to memorize.
>>
>> But testing whether you've memorised specific facts is way easier than
>> testing whether you're actually stupid or not.
>
> Well, that's true, but if we're talking about measuring IQ, that's one
> thing.  Testing whether you can do stuff is actually not that difficult
> to do or evaluate.  You have someone do the job (or tasks of the job) and
> evaluate their performance.
>
> It's time consuming, but it's not actually that difficult to do,
> especially if you're focused on the end results rather than how they got
> there (as long as it's within a certain period of time).

I don't know about other countries, but here the entire educational 
system seems to be focused on meeting targets and out-competing other 
schools. Measuring whether the pupils at your school understand the 
scientific method is hard; measuring whether they know Snell's Law is easy.

(Yet another example of how competition is always a bad thing.)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:02:50 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> I don't know about other countries, but here the entire educational
> system seems to be focused on meeting targets and out-competing other
> schools. Measuring whether the pupils at your school understand the
> scientific method is hard; measuring whether they know Snell's Law is
> easy.

No.  Measuring whether your pupils understand the scientific method is 
time consuming, not hard.

Memorizing a formula is not difficult for most people.  Being able to 
apply that formula in a real world situation (knowing that it applies, 
and which formula applies) is harder because it requires cognitive 
abilities and reasoning.

I remember arguing with my physics professor about this when I was at 
university.  I was taking engineering physics as a computer science 
student (and so was in a programme that represented < 10% of the students 
in the class) and we were required to memorise formulas for the exams.

I maintained that it was more important for me to know how to use the 
formula, as in a situation where I would be developing a simulation used 
to train pilots (as a concrete example), I'd be verifying the formula to 
use before coding it using a reference, just to be sure it was right 
because it is a high stakes situation that requires the formula be 
correct.

But my use case, had I continued down that career path, would be to need 
formulas infrequently, since once it was in code, it could be part of a 
reusable library so I wouldn't *have* to remember it.

Of course, in the prof's mind, this was wrong, and as a result, I didn't 
recall the formula when it came time to take the exams, and I failed the 
course.

But to this day, I know I was correct in my use case analysis and what 
was important for me as a CS student was knowing *when* to use the 
formula, not *what* the formula was.

> (Yet another example of how competition is always a bad thing.)

When one deals in absolutes, one is usually wrong or being hyperbolic.

Jim

Post a reply to this message