Is science at odds with philosophy?

[2PhiloVoid]

Thats Academics for you, a bunch of big kids. Most of them need to grow up. The average question time at conferences is used for settling scores, I stopped going, I started buying conference proceedings instead.

That can be the case sometimes. But it can also be that academics are human beings, which is all well and good and because of that, I do my best to empathize with them even when they disagree with me.

But I've also found that for a few folks (e.g. those in Social Science departments as but one instance), the institutional gaining of knowledge is mainly for the purpose of augmenting their own political power (or their heretofore unachieved social empowerment, and feelings are accordingly exuded in all of that). So, with this being the case, like anything, the endeavor to be an academic can be socially messy.

 

[Opdrey]

Thats Academics for you, a bunch of big kids. Most of them need to grow up. Too much of the The average question time at conferences is used for settling scores, I stopped going, I started buying conference proceedings instead.

What were your "defenses" like?

 

[Mountainmike]

What were your "defenses" like?

I am not playing your juvenile games.
You work in one part of science. So what?
So did many of us.

Science happens in at least five places.
1/ private sector including pharma .
2/ defence including secret establishments
3/ forensic and accredited test labs.
4/ medical establishments
5/ academia.
The first four have to get it right or people die. Their systems, reviews , reporting and processes are far more rigorous than 5/ where they can afford to get it wrong. For one thing GMP is a serious straitjacket on progress. But without it you risk a eureka that turns out to be wishful thinking, and many large bio logic pharma are just like that.

Not surprising in 5/ they are paid for blue sky.
1-4 have to make it work, and rigorously exclude sources of failure.
Different emphasis.

Onl 4/ 5/ use peer reviewed journals, so what is available there is limited.
As I told you in defence we were well ahead of academia in some areas.

The peer review in parts of 1/ , 2/ , 3/ is far more serious than 5/
The input , output and process qualification 3/ far more serious than 5/.
What I disliked most about my involvement in and with academia is all the petty squabbles. Big kids some of them. Bad attitude many of them.

It is time you respected others.

 

[Opdrey]

I am not playing your juvenile games.

YOU expressed an opinion of academics interjecting yourself into a conversation I was having with SOMEONE ELSE.

But I get it, you are a little trepidatious of sharing your "experience" because, well, you and I both know why, don't we?

 

[Mountainmike]

You answered something I said. Ergo conversation with me.
Logic old boy logic!

It is fascinating how you judge from pure assumptions about other people and things. A scientists judges from facts and evidence.
Or was it “common sense” which is the “net sum of all prejudice “ Einstein rightly observed.

My categorisations were spot on. Eg The “ peer review “ in pharma is not only built into all stages of the process,( but hidden from public view) the peer review to regulatory standard ( which regulation is way over the top in my view) is done by FDA, EMA etc. It exists in a different form.

It exists in hidden form in defence. Just because there are no ( external published) papers does not mean there are no reviews.

I also managed along the way a couple of university based companies tightly coupled into the respective universities. That’s when you start to see just how bad some of it is. Not all of it, in all walks of life there are good, bad and indifferent. Sadly there is little mechanism for getting rid of deadwood in universities. There is too much.

YOU expressed an opinion of academics interjecting yourself into a conversation I was having with SOMEONE ELSE.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I get it, you are a little trepidatious ...

And you're a little cruciverbalist!

 

[Opdrey]

You answered something I said. Ergo conversation with me.
Logic old boy logic!

You interjected yourself into my conversation with Philo about thesis defenses. I thought maybe you might try taking the act on the road and giving us your experience.

It is fascinating how you judge from pure assumptions about other people and things.

I judge you on the basis of what you say, Mike. Plain and simple.

1. You can't tell anyone what your graduate degrees are, you say you did "post graduate work", then you claim to have defended not one but two theses. Strange that you can't tell us what degree that was for. Yet you LOUDLY proclaim your "4 sigma IQ score". (Pro-Tip: since you talked about theses and not a dissertation I will assume you understand that Theses are either for undergraduate senior work or masters' work. Try using that next time 'round.)

2. You are a confirmation bias machine. You do a very good job of picking apart 14-C dates but you accept nearly without question non-standard dating techniques and the only difference is one confirms your bias.

3. You denigrate and insult that which you merely disagree with. You clearly never actually had to do graduate work. People you disagree with are corrupt liars or incompetents.

4. You make these weird big decrees on what kind of science happens in industry vs academia vs government. Clearly you don't know a THING you are talking about! It's hilarious and weird.

That's how I know, Mike.

I also managed along the way a couple of university based companies tightly coupled into the respective universities.

That is HIGHLY unlikely. Maybe you were a manager. I've seen non-scientists who manage things.

You are putting on an act and I'm not buying it, Mike.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thats Academics for you, a bunch of big kids. Most of them need to grow up.

Sounds like a fallacy of defective induction (hasty generalization), with a side order of confirmation bias...

 

[Mountainmike]

Why can’t you keep to a discussion of evidence? Instead of all the adhominems?

Goodness knows how you have ever held down a scientific job: your critical thinking is nowhere near good enough. You prefer your assumptions to what you can substantiate.

I don’t tell you what degrees I have partly because it is none of your business, but mainly because it is a yet another straw man on your part. You quote the dictionary of logical falasies!

Why?
- I quote the opinions of scientists and pathologists who studied topics think , so my opinion is irrelevant. Therefore your adhominems are an irrelevance.
- The wider point it does not matter who Says it: 2+2=4 is correct and 2+2=5 is false.

I ignore the shroud dating because endless papers have shown that the so called daters were incompetent.
Yet you will not read a single book on the actual chemistry of the shroud, or the history of the dating. You prefer your confirmation bias.
Even if you have a scientists plaque on the door. It does not make you a scientist, critical thinking does that. And you are certainly lacking it at times.

There was no dating of the shroud, only a mediaeval repair. If you ever studied anything before comment you would know that too. It was clearly also false because of other forensic correspondences. You would know that if you studied it.

The decay of lignin with age is established. As is reduction of strength, A controlled experiment hinted at first century but with wide bounds.

But I cannot say whether date is the only factor, sufficient to use as a date method, and neither can fanti. It’s a hard experiment to do. Eg does long term uv exposure or long term temperature matter as well? It might. Who knows?

But what I am certain of is that the linen of the repair was of different structure ( it’s like cane, it has nodes and a diameter) , so not only did it have more lignin, it wasn’t the same stuff. I now that because I read books on it.You would know that if you studied before comment.

Not that science matters to apriori sceptics who let their opinions trump the facts.

As for incompetents who ignored all protocols and liars who fiddled resulnature magazine: you should stand with me in expression of horror. There are few cheats in science but they all damage the reputation as those daters did.

Seriously @Opdrey : if you want to HAVE an opinion on shroud or Eucharistic miracles. Study them first. It’s what proper scientists do. Your apriori opinions are irrelevant and demonstrate woeful lack of critical thinking.

There are plenty of books as introduction. Then supplement them with latest papers. Till then stop clogging information threads with irrelevant ad hominems and unsupported prejudice.

You interjected yourself into my conversation with Philo about thesis defenses. I thought maybe you might try taking the act on the road and giving us your experience.



I judge you on the basis of what you say, Mike. Plain and simple.

1. You can't tell anyone what your graduate degrees are, you say you did "post graduate work", then you claim to have defended not one but two theses. Strange that you can't tell us what degree that was for. Yet you LOUDLY proclaim your "4 sigma IQ score". (Pro-Tip: since you talked about theses and not a dissertation I will assume you understand that Theses are either for undergraduate senior work or masters' work. Try using that next time 'round.)

2. You are a confirmation bias machine. You do a very good job of picking apart 14-C dates but you accept nearly without question non-standard dating techniques and the only difference is one confirms your bias.

3. You denigrate and insult that which you merely disagree with. You clearly never actually had to do graduate work. People you disagree with are corrupt liars or incompetents.

4. You make these weird big decrees on what kind of science happens in industry vs academia vs government. Clearly you don't know a THING you are talking about! It's hilarious and weird.

That's how I know, Mike.



That is HIGHLY unlikely. Maybe you were a manager. I've seen non-scientists who manage things.

You are putting on an act and I'm not buying it, Mike.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sounds like a fallacy of defective induction (hasty generalization), with a side order of confirmation bias...

And yet @Opdrey stated first hand what is all too frequently true, and to which I referred generally.

“I watched my then-girlfriend (now wife) get used as a pawn in a fight between her thesis advisor and another faculty member. The other faculty member cleverly insulted both my wife and her thesis advisor in one fell swoop. It was disgusting”

Situation normal. Don’t you believe @Opdrey?

I once had the unedifying problem of two professors from the local university associated with our company involved in the same project at the same time. In the words of “ pretty woman”, big mistake, huge! After a while egos surfaced, then clashed, then a stand up row, and then they refused to speak to one another.
I ended up as go between. Big kids. That would have been first written warnings in private sector.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet @Opdrey stated first hand what is all too frequently true, and to which I referred generally.

“I watched my then-girlfriend (now wife) get used as a pawn in a fight between her thesis advisor and another faculty member. The other faculty member cleverly insulted both my wife and her thesis advisor in one fell swoop. It was disgusting”
Situation normal. Don’t you believe @Opdrey?

I once had the unedifying problem of two professors from the local university associated with our company involved in the same project at the same time. In the words of “ pretty woman”, big mistake, huge! After a while egos surfaced, then clashed, then a stand up row, and then they refused to speak to one another.
I ended up as go between. Big kids. That would have been first written warnings in private sector.

There we go - two parochial examples to tar academics en-masse. Well done.

 

[Mountainmike]

There we go - two parochial examples to tar academics en-masse. Well done.

If you have been around academics for any length of time you have witnessed it, as indeed did opdrey.
It’s Too many planet sized egos in too small a space. For sure it’s a small proportion , but far too big.

If you are in U.K., you must be aware of the history of clashes between imperial and Oxford epidemiology. Few realise the antipathy goes back decades to Gupta and Anderson. Being big kids is bad enough. But in that case the rivalry hurt covid response.

Crick and Watson were barely on speaking terms. And Rosalind Franklyn had far too big a chip on her shoulder, so her relationship with Wilkins was appalling and dysfunctional . Big kids.

 

[Astrid]

Decomposition of lignin is exponential, and
dependent on temperature and humidity.
In case that is of interest

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you have been around academics for any length of time you have witnessed it, as indeed did opdrey.
It’s Too many planet sized egos in too small a space. For sure it’s a small proportion , but far too big.

If you are in U.K., you must be aware of the history of clashes between imperial and Oxford epidemiology. Few realise the antipathy goes back decades to Gupta and Anderson. Being big kids is bad enough. But in that case the rivalry hurt covid response.

Crick and Watson were barely on speaking terms. And Rosalind Franklyn had far too big a chip on her shoulder, so her relationship with Wilkins was appalling and dysfunctional . Big kids.

I've been around academia, in university, in medical research, in the financial information business, and in software development. In each case, I saw people behaving the way people tend to do, with minor biases according to the personality types attracted to each field.

My opinion of your characterisation is based on my personal academic experience - in the UK. I can't speak for anywhere else, but I doubt there are major differences between Western democracies in this respect, despite the folk stereotyping of countries.

No offence, but seems to me that your posts generally have a bloviated and overconfident exaggeration to them that diminishes your credibility.

 

[Astrid]

I've been around academia, in university, in medical research, in the financial information business, and in software development. In each case, I saw people behaving the way people tend to do, with minor biases according to the personality types attracted to each field.

My opinion of your characterisation is based on my academic experience - in the UK. I can't speak for anywhere else, but I doubt there are major differences between Western democracies in this respect, despite the folk stereotyping of countries.

No offence, but seems to me that your posts generally have a bloviated and overconfident exaggeration to them that diminishes your credibility.

Several of us here have graced the ivy halls with our presence
and our own experiences with the institutions, and characters
involved. Professors, grad students / teaching assistants,
undergrads, dropouts and failures.

Someone talking about how them professors are a bunch of
poopy- heads pretty much define what their standing in the
community was.

 

[Mountainmike]

With respect I have given examples.

The relationships of crick/Watson Wilkins/ Franklyn are well known
As was the dreadful relationship between the upstart Halls at Oxford and Harwell ( which had consequences for the shroud)- as did the disgraceful language used between the daters and other scientists , all documented in a book you won’t read it is there for all to see.

Other more recent examples - Th continuing personal spat between imperial and Oxford on epidemiology, something I know about because one of them was my first alma mater , my other half spent years in those departments, knows some involved.

These are a tip of much bigger iceberg. At the low end you saw @Opdrey referring to a spat between those involved in A viva ,
I left conferences because of the wave of unlpleasantness in some of those present, which continued over lunches and teas.
The profs who would not talk to each other caused me problems with a client.

Whilst some of it leaks into companies ( take the spats at British biotech), mostly private sector is far better behaved. People get sacked for attitude, the product of excessive egos in academia. They don’t get sacked in academia.

I take people as I find them.
I am just not “ wowed “ by academia , which has many faults.

All I point out to @Opdrey is much science happens in other places than academia , he does not have a monopoly on it.

I've been around academia, in university, in medical research, in the financial information business, and in software development. In each case, I saw people behaving the way people tend to do, with minor biases according to the personality types attracted to each field.

My opinion of your characterisation is based on my personal academic experience - in the UK. I can't speak for anywhere else, but I doubt there are major differences between Western democracies in this respect, despite the folk stereotyping of countries.

No offence, but seems to me that your posts generally have a bloviated and overconfident exaggeration to them that diminishes your credibility.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... @Mountainmike, @Estrid, @Opdrey, @FrumiousBandersnatch ... is all of the bickering that's going on in this thread at the current moment simply over a couple of Catholic relics?

Are these the locus of this squabble about who has the bigger academic chops?

I'm lost at the moment, trying to get a handle on this conversation.

 

[Astrid]

... @Mountainmike, @Estrid, @Opdrey, @FrumiousBandersnatch ... is all of the bickering that's going on in this thread at the current moment simply over a couple of Catholic relics?

Are these the locus of this squabble about who has the bigger academic chops?

I'm lost at the moment, trying to get a handle on this conversation.

Chops?
Fake creds to give credence to a fake relic.

Not worth the attn its gotten

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Chops?
Fake creds to give credence to a fake relic.

Not worth the attn its gotten

Yeah, I understand. The Shroud of Turin has never been of any interest to me. It's one of those passing subjects I might briefly watch on some episode of a "Strange Phenomena" type tv series, along with UFOs and Ghosts.

 

[Opdrey]

Th continuing personal spat between imperial and Oxford on epidemiology, something I know about because one of them was my first alma mater

I find this VERY interesting. VERY interesting indeed. It is curious how you wound up with a cartoon view of how science is done in academia vs industry vs government.

I left conferences because of the wave of unlpleasantness in some of those present, which continued over lunches and teas.

You seem to do quite well in the unpleasantness department. Perhaps just yelling at the other people to read your favorite book was insufficient to convince them of your erudition? Did you mention your "4 Sigma IQ" value?

Whilst some of it leaks into companies ( take the spats at British biotech), mostly private sector is far better behaved.

No one is arguing that university profs can be prima donnas. But industrial science isn't always a garden of eden in that area either. They just have management chains who get to play prima donna

People get sacked for attitude, the product of excessive egos in academia. They don’t get sacked in academia.

It really sounds like you haven't worked in industry either.

I take people as I find them.
I am just not “ wowed “ by academia , which has many faults.

I hear that a lot from folks who couldn't hack it to get full degrees.

All I point out to @Opdrey is much science happens in other places than academia , he does not have a monopoly on it.

@Opdrey actually works in industry for the last 20 years and worked in academia and US Government prior to that. So @Opdrey actually has some insight into how it all works across platforms.