More

In February 2015, the cartoonist Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) published a blog post titled “Science’s Biggest Fail.” In it, Adams complains that “It is hard to trust science” because “science” has made so many false claims over the years. “If you kick me in the balls for 20 years,” he writes, “how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?”

Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

Scientists themselves? Science teachers? Pop-science journalists? He downplays the roles of all these parties in his article, yet his focus returns again and again to “science” as the villain that’s wronged him by feeding him misleading claims.

Around the middle of the article, Adams finally asks a question that shows where his problem really originates. It’s a problem many of us share: “How is a common citizen supposed to know when science is ‘done’ and when it is halfway to done — which is the same as being wrong?”

JudgeMental said:

More

In February 2015, the cartoonist Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) published a blog post titled “Science’s Biggest Fail.” In it, Adams complains that “It is hard to trust science” because “science” has made so many false claims over the years. “If you kick me in the balls for 20 years,” he writes, “how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?”

Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

Scientists themselves? Science teachers? Pop-science journalists? He downplays the roles of all these parties in his article, yet his focus returns again and again to “science” as the villain that’s wronged him by feeding him misleading claims.

Around the middle of the article, Adams finally asks a question that shows where his problem really originates. It’s a problem many of us share: “How is a common citizen supposed to know when science is ‘done’ and when it is halfway to done — which is the same as being wrong?”

People seem to love to bring science down though, as they equate it with wasting money, giving us weapons that kill each other, or giving us the means to wreck our planet, those people are STUPID. Plus media love overhyping discoveries/research to make them out to be something a lot more than they are

Plus media love overhyping discoveries/research to make them out to be something a lot more than they are

this will change the way we think about….
this will revolutionise….
scientists will have to rewrite the text books…

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

More

In February 2015, the cartoonist Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) published a blog post titled “Science’s Biggest Fail.” In it, Adams complains that “It is hard to trust science” because “science” has made so many false claims over the years. “If you kick me in the balls for 20 years,” he writes, “how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?”

Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

Scientists themselves? Science teachers? Pop-science journalists? He downplays the roles of all these parties in his article, yet his focus returns again and again to “science” as the villain that’s wronged him by feeding him misleading claims.

Around the middle of the article, Adams finally asks a question that shows where his problem really originates. It’s a problem many of us share: “How is a common citizen supposed to know when science is ‘done’ and when it is halfway to done — which is the same as being wrong?”

People seem to love to bring science down though, as they equate it with wasting money, giving us weapons that kill each other, or giving us the means to wreck our planet, those people are STUPID. Plus media love overhyping discoveries/research to make them out to be something a lot more than they are

What bothers me apart from the stupidity is the generalisation and presumption, which ignores all the good things science has done

and if all the good things were listed, would fill many books

• Plus media love overhyping discoveries/research to make them out to be something a lot more than they are

And they like giving equal air time to dissenters, at least in the early stages of a conversation…

Climate Changing: No it isn’t!
LHC: Black hole on earth, we’re all doomed!

this kinds of people are not very good researchers and very bad observers

furious said:

• Plus media love overhyping discoveries/research to make them out to be something a lot more than they are

And they like giving equal air time to dissenters, at least in the early stages of a conversation…

Climate Changing: No it isn’t!
LHC: Black hole on earth, we’re all doomed!

like Tony Abbotts advisers

It’s a bit hard to trust science when scientists can’t agree.

some of the distortion perhaps comes about from the way science is entitized.

JudgeMental said:

Plus media love overhyping discoveries/research to make them out to be something a lot more than they are

this will change the way we think about….
this will revolutionise….
scientists will have to rewrite the text books…

I also wonder if some scientists suffer from internet fame envy and rush out incomplete flawed studies to either get/maintain funding or become famous

Then of course you’ve got the ones that slip through the cracks, like the quack who got his vaccines-cause-autism paper published.

Divine Angel said:

It’s a bit hard to trust science when scientists can’t agree.

that’s where validation comes in

Scientists are only human, and prone to error.

He does raise a valid point though, how do you know if scientists are correct if you’re just a layperson? Nobody can be an expert on every field, that’s why we leave it to the experts.

Take nuclear power for example. Previously I wasn’t against it, but since Fukushima my opinion has changed. Mostly because they designed the safety features well short of what was actually required. I’m sure when it was approved everyone was assured it was going to be safe and that all possible steps to ensure safety had been considered. Except that they weren’t adequate.

Never underestimate the power of negative consequences to shape attitudes.

Divine Angel said:

Then of course you’ve got the ones that slip through the cracks, like the quack who got his vaccines-cause-autism paper published.

not everyone is honest

but most scientists are

because of validation, this is where experiments get duplicated and repeated in the lab to come up with similar if not the same results

party_pants said:

Scientists are only human, and prone to error.

He does raise a valid point though, how do you know if scientists are correct if you’re just a layperson? Nobody can be an expert on every field, that’s why we leave it to the experts.

Take nuclear power for example. Previously I wasn’t against it, but since Fukushima my opinion has changed. Mostly because they designed the safety features well short of what was actually required. I’m sure when it was approved everyone was assured it was going to be safe and that all possible steps to ensure safety had been considered. Except that they weren’t adequate.

Never underestimate the power of negative consequences to shape attitudes.

It’s the errors that force the evolution of science.

Divine Angel said:

It’s a bit hard to trust science when scientists can’t agree.

the problem with using the word trust is that it implies that there has to be some sort of underlying belief in the outcome.

the point is science, or indeed scientists, don’t require trust because they only deal in facts, not opinions.

I also imagine that people somehow feel science spoils the wonder of the universe because it tries to explain it instead of it being down to god. Its strange because I think it makes things even more cool when we know (or have best fit observation/theories) why it happens

like this cymek?

“I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.”

R Feynman

the thing is as the article stated most of what you read isn’t written by the scientists but by journalists. of course the actually scientist might be excited by their research findings and put words to “dreams” of where it could lead. that is understandable to me. science is hard and scientists are just like you and me. we too “gild the lily” when we have success.

Cymek said:

I also imagine that people somehow feel science spoils the wonder of the universe because it tries to explain it instead of it being down to god. Its strange because I think it makes things even more cool when we know (or have best fit observation/theories) why it happens

Religion has a poor ability to study things when most people go to church and pray and dont do any actual research, observation and work in the lab

yes a lot of scientists are religious

but they are a small number comparing to religious people who are not scientists

its difficult to validate an invisible God

its easy to validate gravity

ChrispenEvan said:

like this cymek?

“I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.”

R Feynman

Yes

JudgeMental said:

“How is a common citizen supposed to know when science is ‘done’ and when it is halfway to done — which is the same as being wrong?”

The idea that science is ever ‘done’, and when it isn’t done it’s the same is being wrong, is of course quire wrong.

But scientists are at least partly to blame for this, by expressing more certainty about theories than they really deserve, or not talking about the fact that many theories are greatly over-simplified, and what we don’t know is just as important as what we do know.

On the other hand I agree that the idea that science somehow destroys beauty is just wrong,

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

“How is a common citizen supposed to know when science is ‘done’ and when it is halfway to done — which is the same as being wrong?”

The idea that science is ever ‘done’, and when it isn’t done it’s the same is being wrong, is of course quire wrong.

But scientists are at least partly to blame for this, by expressing more certainty about theories than they really deserve, or not talking about the fact that many theories are greatly over-simplified, and what we don’t know is just as important as what we do know.

On the other hand I agree that the idea that science somehow destroys beauty is just wrong,

A lot of the science stories in the media are about the phds that people are doing, I mean a lot particularly on the ABC and BBC.

>its easy to validate gravity

little ol’ is not sure it be needin’ validation
but do sure lets you know up, down’n sideways’n all
quite a handy friend, this thing gravitation
not solid material be invisible physical force you feel
be magic’n certainty like god a sensation
keepin’ those feet firmly on the ground’n you vertical

> Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

People announcing a potential cure for cancer.

> Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

People claiming limitless energy from nuclear fusion.

Those are two good examples of science hype and quite irresponsible to announce them, you’ve got nowhere to go but backwards when they don’t materialize

>But scientists are at least partly to blame for this, by expressing more certainty about theories than they really deserve, or not talking about the fact that many theories are greatly over-simplified, and what we don’t know is just as important as what we do know.

Not sure about the value of describing whoever as a whatever, as in scientist, a young mind say age 5YO maybe worth consulting regards that, as that’s probably about the age some notion takes hold. Also, somewhat later in life the confusion sets in regards things themselves and descriptions of things, as in ‘cultural efforts’ or influences – the forces of – the constructions conform to and contribute to an ideological view. ‘Science’, whatever that is, and ‘scientist’, again whatever that is, certainly are not immune, because just from the scale of human activities being internalized in some way as being themselves ‘a force of nature’, this alone has potentially distorting influences.

It’s a swift and slick world you know, that some reality might reside in unconclusion or the some-part-unconclusionary hardly fits well with being slick and swift.

The ‘we types’ for example don’t enjoy things clunky, and for the most part most individuals don’t because that apparatus housed in the cranium feels right when it’s all gliding along nicely.

So, back to the 5YO, note their improvizations and bridging word-concepts, in and of that there’s probably some and something of reality. Later along the way the growups help the little ones grow up, and slick and swift do as slick and swift do.

dafaq

was thinking the same thing witty. onty being trying to be “deep”. again. and failing. again.

JudgeMental said:

was thinking the same thing witty. onty being trying to be “deep”. again. and failing. again.

acceptance of failure is a virtue.

as long as it’s the failure who accepts it and i don’t have to.

Ask a five year old what they think science or a scientist is, or think back to when very young

why? why not any other age group? what demographic is this kid from?

JudgeMental said:

as long as it’s the failure who accepts it and i don’t have to.

If is not your failure there is no need.

transition said:

Ask a five year old what they think science or a scientist is, or think back to when very young

I was with a three year old today who accepted facts easily.

>why not any other age group? what demographic is this kid from?

Kids I think are doing protoscience before the formalisms.

transition said:

>why not any other age group? what demographic is this kid from?

Kids I think are doing protoscience before the formalisms.

always.

However, they are assailed by formalism from about the same time they start protoscience.

mollwollfumble said:

> Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

People claiming limitless energy from nuclear fusion.

define this limitless thing?

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?
People claiming limitless energy from nuclear fusion.

define this limitless thing?

If you insist.

Limitless resource: definition.
Any resource that can last at current usage rates until the Earth is sterilized by the Sun going red giant.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?
People claiming limitless energy from nuclear fusion.

define this limitless thing?

If you insist.

Limitless resource: definition.
Any resource that can last at current usage rates until the Earth is sterilized by the Sun going red giant.

That puts some perspective on it. ;)

but they have to know what science is before they can describe what they are doing as science. defeats the purpose i would say.

limitless in the sense that fusion would fulfil our power needs for centuries.

JudgeMental said:

but they have to know what science is before they can describe what they are doing as science. defeats the purpose i would say.

Think it might help if the parents are scientists.

>but they have to know what science is before they can describe what they are doing as science. defeats the purpose i would say.

dunno, mate, but do remember putting to you that you might think back to what you conceived of such a thing when very young, before you became ‘adult’, saves going to the detached and perhaps elevated ‘they’ thing.

didn’t think of science as such at all when very young.

mollwollfumble said:

> Who, exactly, does Adams think has been kicking him in the balls for 20 years?

People claiming limitless energy from nuclear fusion.

A lot of this stems from people applying a scientific approach to engineering problems.

The same applies to climate change.

lookin’ at, watching, goes observing
and what goes to that studying
deducing there is’n are it something
and distinguishin’, differentiatin’
commonalities, cause, ‘m wonderin’
observe observin’, what it bring
start with ‘something’ do that thinkin’
helped along, lessons evolution
head start did readied that organism