What is Science?

[Zosimus]

Hi,

And you are not irrational here, how?

LOVE,

No, I defend rationalism and refute empiricism at every opportunity.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I defend rationalism and refute empiricism at every opportunity.

Now you are trying to blow my house down?

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Please get back on topic. This is a science discussion. What is Science is the topic. Science is the thing, to quote someone else that gives you this computer thingy to talk on. It gave you electricity before that. Practically everything you use to survive now, comes from science.

No, I defend rationalism and refute empiricism at every opportunity.

Hi,

Please get back on topic.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Now you are trying to blow my house down?

Hi,

Which one are you again? Are you the genetics guy, or the Physics guy? Which one are you? I think I remember your well reasoned and sound respones. I just don't remember your background, and I am dying to talk to a scientific type again.

By the way, Joshua 19, even though taking a little understanding as he also speaks esoterically, is actually surprisingly accurate on some things, if you dig a little deeper. Or, do you know that already.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

We have a covenant relationship with God. The Bible is filled with promises. If we do our part then we can be sure that God will do His part. Even there are books of scriptures of the promises of God. Here is an example of a promise from God:

But those who trust in the Lord will find new strength.
They will soar high on wings like eagles.
They will run and not grow weary.
They will walk and not faint.

Our part is to trust in God. So often they test for prayer but there is no promise for those who pray. The promise is for those who trust in God. Jesus did teach us how to pray: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done". So when we pray we simply ask God for what we know He wants to give us. These are the sort of things we need to know if we want to get results.

Hi and Dear Joshua 19,

This was said of me, and you are also like this I say:
From Susan G*******, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Her particular style of communication is somewhat different from many people. This is because she is a spiritual mystic and has conversations and insights that are especially understandable to other Christian mystics or highly spiritual individuals. I am familiar with many of the themes she discusses, and they reflect her values: to be loving, kind, generous to others, help them on their own spiritual journeys, and follow the spiritual guidance she gets through mystical experiences

*****(medical details for the MD.) It was a pleasure to meet her and help her on her journey. I have nothing, but positive things to say about this highly spiritual, intelligent, giving person!"

If I change she to he, I think this is also you. If I am right then you are infrequently understood except by people like me.

I totally understand you. I do.

For me it becomes very hard at times, as I switch between the way God talks and the way humans talk. God talks in visions with content, and feelings with content, and my word definitions, all simultaneously, and it is normally The Holy Spirit Who says and does everything, communication wise.

I think you also are communicated to by God the way I am.

LOVE,
... Mary., .... .

 

[Zosimus]

Hi,

Please get back on topic. This is a science discussion. What is Science is the topic. Science is the thing, to quote someone else that gives you this computer thingy to talk on. It gave you electricity before that. Practically everything you use to survive now, comes from science.


Hi,

Please get back on topic.

LOVE,

No, electricity comes from Thor, God of Lightning.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hi and Dear Joshua 19,

This was said of me, and you are also like this I say:
From Susan G*******, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Her particular style of communication is somewhat different from many people. This is because she is a spiritual mystic and has conversations and insights that are especially understandable to other Christian mystics or highly spiritual individuals. I am familiar with many of the themes she discusses, and they reflect her values: to be loving, kind, generous to others, help them on their own spiritual journeys, and follow the spiritual guidance she gets through mystical experiences

*****(medical details for the MD.) It was a pleasure to meet her and help her on her journey. I have nothing, but positive things to say about this highly spiritual, intelligent, giving person!"

If I change she to he, I think this is also you. If I am right then you are infrequently understood except by people like me.

I totally understand you. I do.

For me it becomes very hard at times, as I switch between the way God talks and the way humans talk. God talks in visions with content, and feelings with content, and my word definitions, all simultaneously, and it is normally The Holy Spirit Who says and does everything, communication wise.

I think you also are communicated to by God the way I am.

LOVE,
... Mary., .... .

This is interesting because I got a message today from my sister in law and she accused me of being shallow. So this does help me to get some perspective because I do not think what I said was shallow at all. Sometimes I am amazed when people talk about the Bible how little they know about the Bible. For me these are real people. I can understand how Paul got upset with Mark because Mark got homesick and left early from their mission trip to go home. Then Luke somehow managed to get them to straighten it all out again. Even later on Paul said that Mark was helpful in that he brought Paul some books. Then people come up with bizarre comments like Matthew copied from Mark and things like that. Mark was Mary's son, the Mary that owned the upper room that they stayed in when they were in Jerusalem. The same upper room where Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church. I feel like I know these people and I look forward to getting the chance to meet them in person someday. Yet people do not seem to know or understand them at all and even they say that they do not exist. That is difficult for me to understand sometimes how people can have the attitude that they have. The people that are into revisionism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, electricity comes from Thor, God of Lightning.

We do not know what Thor was into. They have found batteries that goes back 2500 years. It was believed they were used to electroplate Jewelry. So Thor could have been into electricity and nothing of what he was working with survived.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi,

Which one are you again? Are you the genetics guy, or the Physics guy? Which one are you? I think I remember your well reasoned and sound respones. I just don't remember your background, and I am dying to talk to a scientific type again.

By the way, Joshua 19, even though taking a little understanding as he also speaks esoterically, is actually surprisingly accurate on some things, if you dig a little deeper. Or, do you know that already.

LOVE,

Genetics.

What questions do you have? I would be happy to answer them.

 

[katerinah1947]

Genetics.

What questions do you have? I would be happy to answer them.

Hi,

Thanks. So, we all came from Africa?

For what you truly understand Biblically, in your field, and what you truly understand in your field, what is the most certain thing you have that would prove The Bible is wrong to yourself?

What parallels are there in genetics and say physics.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Genetics.

What questions do you have? I would be happy to answer them.

Hi,

With a EE background, convince me that I can handle genetics in a reasonable way, without four more years of study.

Please Please

LOVE,

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hi,

Thanks. So, we all came from Africa?

The current theory is that: "Neanderthals made beneficial contributions to the genomes of many modern humans."

 

[Loudmouth]

Hi,

Thanks. So, we all came from Africa?

For what you truly understand Biblically, in your field, and what you truly understand in your field, what is the most certain thing you have that would prove The Bible is wrong to yourself?

Since the Bible can be allegory, I don't see how it can be falsified. I only address topics where people assert that things like a young Earth or separate creation are supported by scientific evidence. However, most Christians do not consider Genesis to be a literal account.

What parallels are there in genetics and say physics.

LOVE,

All of biology and chemistry is an expression of the laws described in physics. Genetics doesn't exist in a realm parallel to physics, but as a direct product of physics. As you probably know, simple rules can produce very complex outcomes, and biology is one of those complex outcomes.

With your background in materials science you may be interested in some of the tools used in protein chemistry. In order to get a handle on the complexity of biological systems, one of the first steps is to look at the basic interactions of the simplest units in the system. One way of doing that is to look at the interaction of two proteins. How avidly do they bind to one another? How do things like salt concentration and pH affect protein binding? To answer this question, many scientists use plasmon resonance.

Reflection of the light at the sensor is affected by what is bound to that sensor. If you immobilize one protein to the sensor and then introduce it to a solution containing a second protein you can detect the interaction by measuring the change in light interference caused by the additional protein at the end of the sensor.

I don't know if this is what you were asking for, but this was the first thing that came to mind.

 

[katerinah1947]

The current theory is that: "Neanderthals made beneficial contributions to the genomes of many modern humans."

Hi,

I am aware of the Neanderthal connection. I was told there is also an Afican one also. Normally I get to talk to Ph.D.'s on this kind of thing. Out of my field that is my primary way of finding what I want to know, only I am now retired.

LOVE,

 

[Loudmouth]

The current theory is that: "Neanderthals made beneficial contributions to the genomes of many modern humans."

Africans made a much more important contribution, as in the vast majority of everyone's genome who is alive today.

 

[katerinah1947]

Since the Bible can be allegory, I don't see how it can be falsified. I only address topics where people assert that things like a young Earth or separate creation are supported by scientific evidence. However, most Christians do not consider Genesis to be a literal account.



All of biology and chemistry is an expression of the laws described in physics. Genetics doesn't exist in a realm parallel to physics, but as a direct product of physics. As you probably know, simple rules can produce very complex outcomes, and biology is one of those complex outcomes.

With your background in materials science you may be interested in some of the tools used in protein chemistry. In order to get a handle on the complexity of biological systems, one of the first steps is to look at the basic interactions of the simplest units in the system. One way of doing that is to look at the interaction of two proteins. How avidly do they bind to one another? How do things like salt concentration and pH affect protein binding? To answer this question, many scientists use plasmon resonance.

Reflection of the light at the sensor is affected by what is bound to that sensor. If you immobilize one protein to the sensor and then introduce it to a solution containing a second protein you can detect the interaction by measuring the change in light interference caused by the additional protein at the end of the sensor.

I don't know if this is what you were asking for, but this was the first thing that came to mind.

Hi,

Yes you did beautifully. That is close enough for me to know the field a little bit. I did not tell you, but you picked that up that material science, some of it, very much is part of EE.

I am always in longing for being in everyone's field, as unwise a thing as that is to say, as it is totally impossible to do.

Chemistry and things like two atoms or molecules pivoting about one another on a single shared bond is fascinating, but really too much for me to handle, still I like to at least understand that.

My Chemist friend handled my bonding questions years ago, as simply as unshielded protons in the nucleus.

My rocket scientist friend decided I could not work near and with him, without understanding that momentum is propulsion and some other rocket science stuff.

Geneticists, so far I have not had the pleasure of being around yet.

And, yes it is a requirement to share knowledge, with those who may have their science or even thinking wrong, in the areas you mentioned.

Did you know that Galileo should be called rightly a Doctor of The Roman Catholic Church?

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Loudmouth]

Geneticists, so far I have not had the pleasure of being around yet.

Most of genetics would be a bit dry for a physicist interested in just physics, especially population genetics. A poster here, sfs, has been in the world of physics and genetics so he could probably give a better account of how different or similar they are.

The physical rules on the genetics side of molecular biology are pretty simple. A binds to T, G to C, and so forth. Certain enzymes cut DNA strands at specific sequences, but you really don't need to understand the physics behind it. In the end, much of it is as simple as high school chemistry once you get your head around the basics. There are still scientists who delve into the physical interactions, but most geneticists deal with genetics on a much more macro-level.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hi,I am aware of the Neanderthal connection. I was told there is also an Afican one also. Normally I get to talk to Ph.D.'s on this kind of thing. Out of my field that is my primary way of finding what I want to know, only I am now retired.

If you go back around 40,000 years they find fishing hooks, fishing nets and sowing needles. This is when people traveled up out of African and into the Tigris - Euphrates river valley. They stayed close to the water and followed the rivers. You have another group in the Yellow river of China. They have a different bio diverse ecosystem in China based on rice and the sort of food you will find at a chinese food store.

I read the Bryan Sykes book: "The Seven Daughters of Eve". He believes there were seven women in Europe that everyone in Europe is descended from. Now they believe world wide there were about 18 "Eves". For example, 90% of China the Hans family all descended from one women. The "Out of Africa" theory is mostly based on the books written by: "Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza" and "Spencer Wells". They are convinced of their theory based on the current information. But they are not as convinced of it as everyone else seems to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you go back around 40,000 years they find fishing hooks, fishing nets and sowing needles. This is when people traveled up out of African and into the Tigris - Euphrates river valley. They stayed close to the water and followed the rivers. You have another group in the Yellow river of China. They have a different bio diverse ecosystem in China based on rice and the sort of food you will find at a chinese food store.

I read the Bryan Sykes book: "The Seven Daughters of Eve". He believes there were seven women in Europe that everyone in Europe is descended from. Now they believe world wide there were about 18 "Eves". For example, 90% of China the Hans family all descended from one women. The "Out of Africa" theory is mostly based on the books written by: "Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza" and "Spencer Wells". They are convinced of their theory based on the current information. But they are not as convinced of it as everyone else seems to be.

I often see this misinterpretation of the genetic data. This picture usually clears things up a bit.

These studies often focus on just the mitochondrial DNA. As you can see, out of all 4 great grandmothers you only inherited your mitochondrial DNA from one of them. Does this mean that you only carry DNA from one great grandmother? Does this mean you only have 1 great grandmother? The answer to both is no. Your genome is more than just your mitochondrial DNA. You inherited about equal portions of your genome from all your great grandmothers, even if you got your mitochondrial DNA from just one.

It is improper to use mitochondrial DNA to claim that a whole population came from a single women, or group of women, just as it is incorrect to say that you only had one great grandmother.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Eighty percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted.

-_- studies and experiments are not the same thing. Also, I am willing to bet the majority of studies that do fail, are based on our own species, in regards to behaviors and other such things. That, and the ones done by non-scientists that have no idea how to prevent errors.

You will find 13,700 hits for that at https://www.google.com.pe/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=80 percent of non-randomized studies later convincingly refuted

For google, that isn't very many. especially if you don't type it in so that all the words have to be present. Btw, you are relying on a study, to show other studies to be wrong http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/new-study-studies-wrong-article-1.2340301 which is hilarious.

The original source was an article on the Atlantic entitled "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science." This article is no longer available on its original website, but a Google search pulls up multiple PDF files, which may or may not contain the original article.

So your source "may or may not exist". That doesn't excuse you from finding a different one to show me.

Now, I am well aware that scientists claim that science is accurate because the p-value of 0.05 prevents 95 percent of false findings. This is completely false. To take a simple example, if we imagine that 20 teams are independently studying whether reading the Bible causes an increase in cancer risk, what is the likelihood that a positive correlation will be found?

I can guarantee you, not only will there not be a positive correlation, but if you look at an overall lifespan, being actively religious has a slight correlation with a longer life. Not being depressed about imminent doom probably helps.

35.8 percent all teams find no correlation.
37.7 percent chance one team finds a positive correlation.
18.9 percent chance two teams find a positive correlation.
6.0 percent chance three teams find a positive correlation.
1.3 percent chance four teams find a positive correlation.
and most of the remaining 0.3 percent chance will be consumed by five teams finding a positive correlation.

These numbers don't even include p-hacking.

Where are you getting these numbers? Because if you don't source them, they could be anything ranging from a well-respected university, to straight out of your behind.

You see, the basic problem is that you don't understand math. You think that if a specific study has a 95 percent confidence interval that there's only a 5 percent chance that the conclusion is wrong. In reality, that p-value tells you absolutely nothing. P-values are not as reliable as many people assume.

Excuse me? I don't understand math? I was top of my college class for both Calculus and Statistics. In fact, I was the only one to get an A in Calculus. How about you not insult me by assuming my disagreement stems from ignorance or incompetence? I never said 5% chance the conclusion is outright wrong either. The 5% is the chance your results were OUTLIERS, at worst. People do not get significantly different results when an actual correlation between things exists. If you repeat experiments and find that the dependent variables seem to be different each time to a statistically relevant extent, it means that there isn't a correlation between the independent and dependent variables to begin with.

How likely an experiment is to show accurate results will vary depending on the equipment available and the competence of the people running the experiment, no more, no less.

To determine whether you understand p-values, please answer the following questions true or false:

1. If p=0.05 then the null hypothesis has only a 5 percent chance of being true.
2. A non-significant difference (p>0.05) means that there is no difference between the groups.
3. A statistically significant finding is clinically important.
4. Studies with p-values on opposite sides of 0.05 are conflicting.
5. Studies with the same p-value provide the same evidence against the null hypothesis.
6. P=0.05 means that we have discovered evidence that would occur only 5 percent of the time under the null hypothesis.
7. P=0.05 and p less than or equal to 0.05 mean the same thing.
8. P-values are best written as inequalities (i.e., p<0.02 when p=0.015).
9. P=0.05 means that if you reject the null hypothesis, your probability of a type I error is only 5 percent.
10. With a p=0.05 threshold for significance, the chance of a type I error will be 5%
11. You should use a one-sided p-value when you don't care about a result in one direction or a difference in that direction is impossible.
12. A scientific conclusion or treatment policy should be based on whether the p-value is significant.

Check your answers by clicking here.

1. this is already incorrect. the 5% is not for you being wrong. In fact, there is no way of stating the chances of a hypothesis being wrong unless the experiment has already been done before hundreds of times. The first time, you will have no idea.
2. No, it means that the difference is negligible, not nonexistent
3. After just 1 experimental trial? No.
4. That .05 is always divided into .025 at the low end, and .025 at the high end. If results go beyond that by 2 times, then they go beyond coincidence and can put correlation into question.
5. how would this even make sense? Different studies could be measuring entirely different things.
11. then it would be .025, not .05
12. it has been statistically shown to be, but statistics alone do not make up science. In fact, plenty of statistical analysis based stuff isn't even done by professionals, so if you are looking at studies alone, you aren't showing the accuracy of science, but of statistics itself. Which science does not completely rely on.

Gosh, I wish I had encountered this last summer; I could have corrected you better while I was actually taking Calculus. lots of stats in that class, weirdly enough. How about you check your understanding of this math, take a class, rather than try to teach yourself how to do it?