Science
- Started
- Last post
- 1,014 Responses
- Morning_star0
^ There's a recent SGU (Skeptics Guide to the Universe) podcast that deals with the issue of the media and Science. It's enlightening - the SGU folk essentially offer the conclusion that most of 'science' reporting is bollocks.
Due to the way that mass media is consumed - in simple, bite-size, easy to understand packets - portraying a complex story about stem cell research, for instance, falls victim to the way it HAS to be written. Facts are left out, concepts are diluted and everyman language is used, none of which supports the nuances and subtleties that the original scientific paper.
I also think that the more challenging news regarding ESP, NDE, Non-locality research et.c falls foul of the same lowest common denominator treatment.- science consumption is a big issue i think, it borders on infotainment. Most people would not follow up or investigate. i thinkyurimon
- Tru. The problem is that the Science Media think they're owed the same authority as the Scientists themselves - even though they do more to confuse public opinion about science than anyone else.Morning_star
- confuse public opinion about science than anyone else.Morning_star
- Black Plagued Caused by Guinea Pigs not Rats. <--- latest incorrect headline that spread like wildfirewagshaft
- Agree with the first part of what you said, but the psychic/new age stuff is just the same kind of misreporting/sensati...ukit2
- But ultimately what do you expect...people click on sensationalist headlines and so news media caters to thatukit2
- ... been listening to SGU for years. good podcast. they are a bit too skeptic-militant - no ears for anything unchartedGnash
- It's tru that they are a little lazy or dogmatic when it comes to things more 'fringe' but their opponents fall foul of the same. I'm thinking of Skeptiko BTW.Morning_star
- Morning_star0
In light of the new LHC experiments, here's a future TV thing that will probably be very good
Dancing in the Dark - The End of Physics? is broadcast on BBC Two on Tuesday 17 March at 21:00.
"It's crunch time for super symmetry. If it shows itself in the LHC, then all will be well.
The dark matter problem would finally be solved, along with some other anomalies in the standard model of physics.
But if, like last time, super symmetry fails to turn up, physicists and astrophysicists will have to come up with some other ideas for what our Universe is made from.
"It might be," concedes Prof Ellis, "that we'll have to scratch our heads and start again."
- georgesIII3
ENOUGH WITH SCIENCE,
BRING THE DARK AGE BACK!!
- yurimon-5
- Science1
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.
- oh god we're going to have all sorts of shitty spoof accounts now aren't we********
- well considering it says "invited by ____" next to the new username, this will be short livedmoldero
- Touché QBNmoldero
- It would be weird if something was only true if you believed in it.qoob
- I suspect there're a few QBNers who live by that creed, qoob.detritus
- Thus why mostly everything in science is called a theory. say about 90-80%
dont forget its occult origins btw.yurimon - Also, what was scientifically true last week, may not be scientifically true this week.Morning_star
- there is true science and political motivated science which is design for outcome not truth like pr.yurimon
- ^^ that's the beauty of it. We're not sure of anything! If we're wrong, we'll adjust.ESKEMA
- But you really need to convince me your new theory is better, otherwise I'll stick to what I have now!ESKEMA
- Scientific theories are not to be confused with hypotheses, yurimon. They are far closer to "laws" than "theories."monospaced
- A theory is a hypothesis that goes through extremely rigorous testing, and becomes a solid theory to base future science on.monospaced
- Theory: a supposition intended to explain something
Supposition: a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.Morning_star - Religion: truth, like that flood story and 7k year old earth.moldero
- Nice try, Morning_star, but those definitions are in the wrong context entirely.monospaced
- A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.monospaced
- A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This is called falsifiability and testability, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.monospaced
- @Moldero - You're asserting that because 'Science' is under scrutiny, it follows that those scrutinising it promote 'Religion' is an alternative. I've seen no..Morning_star
- ...evidence of this here, ever.Morning_star
- @Monospaced - We seem to be debating semantics again. Which, as we've seen before, is largely fruitless. You got anything better ;)Morning_star
- lol, we are certainly not debating semantics, you are simply using incorrect definitions to make a feeble pointmonospaced
- you used the wrong version of the definitions of words to fuck up semantics, which is really a huge discredit to your arguing abilitiesmonospaced
- Dawkins version of evolution is obsolete. /end.
its ironic.. Dawkins believes in evolution n denied natural selection by that chic.yurimon - @mono - missing the point as usual.Morning_star
- No I'm not. We're right on point, and you made a weak argument with bad data and I'm sorry I had to point that out. Theories simply are closer to facts.monospaced
- No need to apologise. My point: regardless of the definition, theories are not facts. I'm still waiting for my one fact about DarkMatter.Morning_star
- Fact, Dark matter exists. Also, scientific theories are chalk full of facts.monospaced
- That is my point, and "the" point.monospaced
- Dark matter is without definition. We know nothing about its nature. It's nothing but a name. Fact.Morning_star
- Creationism anyone?utopian
- oh god we're going to have all sorts of shitty spoof accounts now aren't we
- wagshaft0
Regarding the definition of "Theory" and "Fact" in science:
One of the most misused words today is also one of the most important to science: theory.
Many incorrectly see theory as the opposite of fact. The National Academy of Sciences provides concise definitions of these critical words: A fact is a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it; a theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence generating testable and falsifiable predictions.
From the excellent article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/he…
- Morning_star0
Regarding: Theory and fact
The article in the previous post is an argument that shouldn't be necessary to make. Having to rationalise scientific methods as though there is some validity to the creationist argument is crazy. Creationists will not, even when face with scientific evidence, change their minds. For example >
However, the authority that scientific theory can have over Creationists, for instance, is not universal. There are arguably no 'facts' that can be woven into a theory when talking about Dark Matter/Energy or Gravity or Consciousness, to name just a few. In these situations, sciences best guesses are just that, guesses or predictions. That doesn't mean they have no scientific value but until the LHC or other experiments create the necessary particles there are no facts, even after the experiments the results are probabilities not facts.
- no facts? you've got to be fucking kidding me, there are entire fields dedicated to those areasmonospaced
- neurobiologists, neurosurgeons, astrophysicists, etcmonospaced
- Shes right that macro evolution is not an observed or proven, inter species evolution is not proven. micro evolution within species is more establishedyurimon
- However I forgot the term but there is dna contamination from other species. for example 90% of you is bacteria other organisms. dogs have human dna.yurimon
- dawkins could not get laid.yurimon
- Morning star talks sense.********
- @mono - could you show me one, that's ONE, measurable, repeatable, testable 'fact' (see definition in previous post) about the Dark Matter.Morning_star
- @yurimon - you're right that she does use some of the more wooly areas of evolutionary theory to undermine it. However, her arguments do not by any stretch ofMorning_star
- ...imagination, rock ts solid foundations.Morning_star
- wagshaft0
Regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy. How scientists know it's there:
- i'm really skeptical about dark matter and energy. more likely a problem with our understanding of gravity than that 96% of the universe is made of dark stuffsarahfailin
- Word, and do you believe that science is committed to understanding it through scientific methods?monospaced
- It's a totally made up thing so their calculations work and they don't have to admit they have no fucking clue what they're doing...********
- Made up, or based on measurements. They've calculated mass and observable mass and there's a huge diffmonospaced
- The term for the missing matter is "dark" but it does fit some theoretical models, hence the push to figure it out.monospaced
- Nope. Not one thing is known about Dark mater/energy. Science blokes are speculating that Supersymmetry, the bolt-on fix to the Standard Model, will generate aMorning_star
- ...WIMP (a ‘camp’ particle) that will shine a light on what DM is. The evidence for supersymmetry will be found, or not, in the next few weeks at CERN.Morning_star
- If supersymmetry isn’t proven then the current model we have for the universe is a load of old bollocks.Morning_star
- What is known is that it has mass. Are you saying that there's nothing to account for the mass we can't observe?monospaced
- Dark Matter is a placeholder name for the stuff which we can barely detect by its gravity, but does not interact with matter in any other way.Morning_star
- Yeah, the only thing we've directly observed is greater gravity than we can account for based on what matter is visible.sarahfailin
- http://i2.kym-cdn.co…********
- IRNlun60
Anglo-Saxon cow bile and garlic potion kills MRSA
- Morning_star0
Those CERN dudes.
- yurimon-4
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/…
Google 'makes people think they are smarter than they are'
Searching the internet for information gives people a ‘widely inaccurate’ view of their own intelligence, Yale psychologists believe
- utopian0
- dat retardmoldero
- Ken!. His argument basically boils down to "Were you there Mr Scientist?, then how can you know for certain". Gotta love the dedication to delusion.Morning_star
- Same argument many here use too. It's pathetic.monospaced
- Who?Morning_star
- yurimonmonospaced
- ^yupmoldero
- I don't think L Ron Hubbard truly believed his own BS because he wrote it, but this guy right here though, is dumb as fuck.moldero
- Ironic that he looks like the damn missing linkdigitdaily
- ********0
- yurimon-5
http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele…
Facebook use linked to depressive symptoms
- Ha. Just as accurately - "most non-productive internet use linked to depressive symptoms"detritus
