What is Science?

[Loudmouth]

How many Peruvian-made smoke detectors have you tested using this method?


Peruvian houses don't have carpets.


Yeah, that's exactly my point. Making this point is not daft, thank you very much.


You sound British. Let me guess, you have professional fire departments that are staffed by paid professionals. Peruvian fire departments are staffed strictly with unpaid volunteers whose training is probably not up to UK standards. However, I completely disagree with your assertion. If you find that your smoke detector doesn't work, you should not replace it with one that does. You should add another one because even though the first one doesn't seem to work, it might work in case of a real fire. I don't see any point to removing the one that you think might not work. Just leave it there.

Zosimus is still afraid to light a match. How funny.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You sound British. Let me guess, you have professional fire departments that are staffed by paid professionals. Peruvian fire departments are staffed strictly with unpaid volunteers whose training is probably not up to UK standards. However, I completely disagree with your assertion. If you find that your smoke detector doesn't work, you should not replace it with one that does. You should add another one because even though the first one doesn't seem to work, it might work in case of a real fire. I don't see any point to removing the one that you think might not work. Just leave it there.

I'll have to say good deduction that I'm British. Obviously, yes, I do not know about the state of Peruvian fire departments.
But my assertion still stands: if you find that your initial smoke detector does not work, it its best to remove it and replace it with one that WILL work. Having the first one that doesn't work is unnecessary. Fire safety isn't something that should be done on 'mights'. Have something that WILL work.

 

[bhsmte]

Zosimus is still afraid to light a match. How funny.

This is comedy gold!!!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just as plenty of inventions have been made by non-scientists. Marion Donovan invented disposable diapers (nappies). She was a housewife.

People innovate all the time. Science has no monopoly on innovation.

Formal scientists don't do all the inventing, sure, but through the process of inventing, one is inevitably going to use the scientific method to some degree. I can even give you a line of reasoning:
1. Ask a question: How do I make cleaning the waste of babies easier?
2. Background research: As a housewife, she had to clean after babies using, more likely than not, cloth diapers that needed to be washed multiple times a day.
3. Construct a Hypothesis: example of a likely thought she had: "If I didn't have to wash these diapers, that would save a lot of time."
4. Test with an Experiment: Throw away diapers, see if it saves time. If it does, consider design and material choices that would best suit disposable diapers.
5. Analyze Data and Draw Conclusions: Not only does disposing of the diapers save time, but with diapers made of a certain material, it can be affordable as well.
6. Communicate Results: She patented the idea, if she was smart about it, and shared it with the world.

This is literally the scientific method, everyone uses it to some extent every day, even if they do not realize it. It's a thought process that scientists just standardized for more consistent and reliable use. True, I wouldn't call the average person that casually uses it a "scientist" by occupation, but to label them such isn't technically wrong. You use science, thus you are a scientist.

 

[Zosimus]

I'll have to say good deduction that I'm British. Obviously, yes, I do not know about the state of Peruvian fire departments.
But my assertion still stands: if you find that your initial smoke detector does not work, it its best to remove it and replace it with one that WILL work. Having the first one that doesn't work is unnecessary. Fire safety isn't something that should be done on 'mights'. Have something that WILL work.

What you are proposing is based on a series of assumptions. Your assumption is that if your smoke detector works today, then it will also work tomorrow. Is that necessarily true? Isn't it possible that the smoke detector might fail somehow -- a short circuit, dead (flat) battery, or something else? The answer is no; you cannot know that a smoke detector that worked fine yesterday will still work fine tomorrow.

Now some people on this forum will say, "Yes we can know that. We know that the past is a good guide to the future." Somehow the justification for the past as a good guide to the future always involves some past experience that they extend into the future. This, however, is begging the question. It's assuming what you set out to prove. It's invalid, and, by extension, all scientific inference is similarly invalid.

In short, no matter how you look at it, fire safety is a series of "mights" and your goal is to reduce the number of mights or to introduce double guards against each one.

P.S. It wasn't that hard to figure out that you were British. You use inverted commas, words such as "daft," and British-style spellings.

 

[Zosimus]

Formal scientists don't do all the inventing, sure, but through the process of inventing, one is inevitably going to use the scientific method to some degree. I can even give you a line of reasoning:
1. Ask a question: How do I make cleaning the waste of babies easier?
2. Background research: As a housewife, she had to clean after babies using, more likely than not, cloth diapers that needed to be washed multiple times a day.
3. Construct a Hypothesis: example of a likely thought she had: "If I didn't have to wash these diapers, that would save a lot of time."
4. Test with an Experiment: Throw away diapers, see if it saves time. If it does, consider design and material choices that would best suit disposable diapers.
5. Analyze Data and Draw Conclusions: Not only does disposing of the diapers save time, but with diapers made of a certain material, it can be affordable as well.
6. Communicate Results: She patented the idea, if she was smart about it, and shared it with the world.

This is literally the scientific method, everyone uses it to some extent every day, even if they do not realize it. It's a thought process that scientists just standardized for more consistent and reliable use. True, I wouldn't call the average person that casually uses it a "scientist" by occupation, but to label them such isn't technically wrong. You use science, thus you are a scientist.

First of all, no -- everyone who uses a simple trial-and-error method is not doing science nor is he or she a scientist. I certainly realize that the pro-science crowd wants to classify all people who discover anything as scientists for its own self-serving purposes. I do not concede the point any more than you are likely to concede the point that all good things come from God and all bad things from the devil.

Astrologers, for example, use the scientific method. They make observations and hypotheses. They perform experiments. They publish results. None of this makes astrology science or scientific. The test that science traditionally uses is p<0.05 and so far astrologers don't seem to be hitting that benchmark.

However, a study (and even multiple studies) that hits the p<0.05 mark does not mean that the conclusions of the study are true. A p-value in that range can be hit by chance one time out of 20. Accordingly, if ten scientists are independently studying the same topic, there is a 40.13 percent chance that at least one of those scientists will come up with a positive result by chance alone. Because of the way science works, this positive result will be published whereas the negative results will not get published. This is independent of other concerns such as bad design, scientific bias, and significance seeking.

Science just flat out doesn't work, and the reasons it doesn't are known. No serious attempt is or has been made to address the logical and practical shortcoming of science. However, on fora such as this one, it's common to make stupid platitudes such as:

"If your SmartPhone works, then science is great."

Well, what if my SmartPhone doesn't work?

"Then science is still great."

Sorry, friends, but I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What you are proposing is based on a series of assumptions. Your assumption is that if your smoke detector works today, then it will also work tomorrow. Is that necessarily true? Isn't it possible that the smoke detector might fail somehow -- a short circuit, dead (flat) battery, or something else? The answer is no; you cannot know that a smoke detector that worked fine yesterday will still work fine tomorrow.

Now some people on this forum will say, "Yes we can know that. We know that the past is a good guide to the future." Somehow the justification for the past as a good guide to the future always involves some past experience that they extend into the future. This, however, is begging the question. It's assuming what you set out to prove. It's invalid, and, by extension, all scientific inference is similarly invalid.

In short, no matter how you look at it, fire safety is a series of "mights" and your goal is to reduce the number of mights or to introduce double guards against each one.

P.S. It wasn't that hard to figure out that you were British. You use inverted commas, words such as "daft," and British-style spellings.

Well, you are definitely a half-glass empty kind of guy, aren't you?

 

[Kylie]

Science is a process involving systematic investigation with methods in place to avoid bias and provided replicatable and testable results.

 

[justlookinla]

Science is a process involving systematic investigation with methods in place to avoid bias and provided replicatable and testable results.

Why is science wrong at times? If "replicatable and testable" results yield the same conclusion each and every time, wouldn't this mean that the scientists who are interpreting the results are either untruthful or incompetent.....or both?

 

[PsychoSarah]

First of all, no -- everyone who uses a simple trial-and-error method is not doing science nor is he or she a scientist. I certainly realize that the pro-science crowd wants to classify all people who discover anything as scientists for its own self-serving purposes. I do not concede the point any more than you are likely to concede the point that all good things come from God and all bad things from the devil.

Science is glorified trial and error sir, if you don't go into detail about it, that really is what it is. That, and educated questions and guesses. You make an educated guess, have a trial, and may err in your guess. It's just really, really accurate trial and error. While I certainly wouldn't consider all inventors scientists, that's just because I don't label those that use the scientific method alone scientists like a lot of people do. This is a conflict of definition, you just define scientist differently than those that disagree with you do. The hilarious thing about it is, neither group is actually wrong, as both likely use valid definitions.

Also, I'm an atheist, so obviously I don't attribute anything to supernatural beings, especially not deities.

Astrologers, for example, use the scientific method. They make observations and hypotheses. They perform experiments. They publish results. None of this makes astrology science or scientific. The test that science traditionally uses is p<0.05 and so far astrologers don't seem to be hitting that benchmark.

Yes, pseudoscience doesn't like to follow the rules, that's why it is pseudoscience. That's also why I agree with you that not everyone using the scientific method is a scientist, because personally, I think it has to be used with a certain degree of aptitude before "scientist" can be a fitting label. Most people use it to some degree on a daily basis though, just not particularly well.

However, a study (and even multiple studies) that hits the p<0.05 mark does not mean that the conclusions of the study are true. A p-value in that range can be hit by chance one time out of 20. Accordingly, if ten scientists are independently studying the same topic, there is a 40.13 percent chance that at least one of those scientists will come up with a positive result by chance alone. Because of the way science works, this positive result will be published whereas the negative results will not get published. This is independent of other concerns such as bad design, scientific bias, and significance seeking.

That's why studies are repeated over and over, usually hundreds of times, before we consider their results to be plausible. Anyone that doesn't do that is cheating. Do cheaters exist? Yes, but they always get caught, and the punishments for it are exceedingly severe. That's because dishonesty in science can put lives at risk, so violations cannot be allowed.

Besides, no one claims 100% accuracy for the scientific method. Personally though, once it gets to the 99% mark and better, I consider the results reliable enough to feel comfortable using them. Depending on the topic, that margin of error will be much smaller too.

Science just flat out doesn't work, and the reasons it doesn't are known. No serious attempt is or has been made to address the logical and practical shortcoming of science. However, on fora such as this one, it's common to make stupid platitudes such as:

"If your SmartPhone works, then science is great."

Well, what if my SmartPhone doesn't work?

"Then science is still great."

Sorry, friends, but I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aid.

SmartPhones are not pure products of science. In fact, a lot of companies take short-cuts on those to sell more of them faster, and the result is knowingly selling a less than fabulous product.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You seem to be at the point where you know God is Real, The Christian God is Real, in some way or another.

Oh, I am sure God is real, I am just not sure if I am real or not. For example, the last time I died. Did they really resuscitate me and bring me back to the same world or did I move on to a world that was just very much like the one I came from. Either way God must have a reason why He did what He did in my life. Like when I was in the Army in the 70's and the doctor walked in the room and said I should not be alive and then he turned around and walked out of the room. Was that really a part of this life that I am living now? Somehow it seems different. I guess it does not matter. Life is real enough. So there is no reason to have to deal with my long term memories.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Science is glorified trial and error

That is what they taught us in the teacher training class. What works one day may not work the next day. What has not worked in the past may work at some point in the future. You have to keep trying to come up with new ways to get the message across to people. Still Jesus is the greatest teacher that ever lived and we should try to follow His way of teaching. He came to live His life as an example for us to follow. I was happy to do construction work because Jesus was a carpenter and I was following His example.

 

[Bradly Capel]

That is what they taught us in the teacher training class. What works one day may not work the next day. What has not worked in the past may work at some point in the future. You have to keep trying to come up with new ways to get the message across to people. Still Jesus is the greatest teacher that ever lived and we should try to follow His way of teaching. He came to live His life as an example for us to follow. I was happy to do construction work because Jesus was a carpenter and I was following His example.

You sure put a lot on the shoulders of a man who may never have existed let alone been a God, BTW to be a God in those days it was taken for granted that the God could do magic, they all could, magic was everywhere and was part and parcel of everyday life, everyone had seen or heard of magic being done, they were so ill informed they had no way of knowing what was real and what was not real, if they were told a man was turned into a cat they believed it without a second thought.
You are believing the same things in the same way they believed.

Like today in any religious community the people who refused to believe the nonsense were seen as being dangerous and were shunned, people hate to be told they are wrong, only when they are in the minority will they even start to learn.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You sure put a lot on the shoulders of a man who may never have existed let alone been a God, BTW to be a God in those days it was taken for granted that the God could do magic, they all could, magic was everywhere and was part and parcel of everyday life, everyone had seen or heard of magic being done, they were so ill informed they had no way of knowing what was real and what was not real, if they were told a man was turned into a cat they believed it without a second thought.
You are believing the same things in the same way they believed.

Like today in any religious community the people who refused to believe the nonsense were seen as being dangerous and were shunned, people hate to be told they are wrong, only when they are in the minority will they even start to learn.

God is a God of absolute justice. Because of his sin man had to die. The only alternative is for God to die for us. In this case Jesus want to the cross to pay the price for the sin and transgression of Adam. Through one man: Adam, sin came into the world, and though one man: Christ, the price was paid for that sin. Now we can choose if we want to follow Adam in his transgression or if we follow Jesus and become born again and so we can live the life that He showed us how to live. As He set the example for us to follow.

 

[Zosimus]

That's why studies are repeated over and over, usually hundreds of times, before we consider their results to be plausible. Anyone that doesn't do that is cheating. Do cheaters exist? Yes, but they always get caught, and the punishments for it are exceedingly severe. That's because dishonesty in science can put lives at risk, so violations cannot be allowed.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on your post because we basically agree. However, I do want to take one of your points to task. You claim that "[cheaters] always get caught, and the punishments...are exceedingly severe."

I refer you to http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 wherein we find that:

QUOTE:

A former researcher at Amgen Inc has found that many basic studies on cancer -- a high proportion of them from university labs -- are unreliable, with grim consequences for producing new medicines in the future.

During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.

Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

"It was shocking," said Begley, now senior vice president of privately held biotechnology company TetraLogic, which develops cancer drugs. "These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

...

Other scientists worry that something less innocuous explains the lack of reproducibility.

Part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.

"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."

Such selective publication is just one reason the scientific literature is peppered with incorrect results.

For one thing, basic science studies are rarely "blinded" the way clinical trials are. That is, researchers know which cell line or mouse got a treatment or had cancer. That can be a problem when data are subject to interpretation, as a researcher who is intellectually invested in a theory is more likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in its favor.

The problem goes beyond cancer.

On Tuesday, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony that the number of scientific papers that had to be retracted increased more than tenfold over the last decade; the number of journal articles published rose only 44 percent.

Ferric Fang of the University of Washington, speaking to the panel, said he blamed a hypercompetitive academic environment that fosters poor science and even fraud, as too many researchers compete for diminishing funding.

"The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high-profile journal," said Fang. "This is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior."

ENDQUOTE.

 

[Bradly Capel]

God is a God of absolute justice. Because of his sin man had to die. The only alternative is for God to die for us. In this case Jesus want to the cross to pay the price for the sin and transgression of Adam. Through one man: Adam, sin came into the world, and though one man: Christ, the price was paid for that sin. Now we can choose if we want to follow Adam in his transgression or if we follow Jesus and become born again and so we can live the life that He showed us how to live. As He set the example for us to follow.

Rhetoric and over used nonsense, why do you all just spout the same words time after time? you rarely answer questions you just keep repeating the same old mantra every time like parrots, it smacks of indoctrination when you all do it.

 

[Zosimus]

Rhetoric and over used nonsense, why do you all just spout the same words time after time? you rarely answer questions you just keep repeating the same old mantra every time like parrots, it smacks of indoctrination when you all do it.

What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing? What does it have to do with science? Nothing? Okay, then take it to a different forum.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Rhetoric and over used nonsense, why do you all just spout the same words time after time? you rarely answer questions you just keep repeating the same old mantra every time like parrots, it smacks of indoctrination when you all do it.

This looks like a flame and a violation so you need to be careful. I have my own beliefs that I got from my own journey through life. It has nothing to do with being indoctrinated. This is what you call a testimony and all Christians are to have their own individual testimony and we are to be ready to share with others what we believe and what is the reason for our faith. That is the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. We do our best to live the way the Bible says we are to live and to do what the Bible says we can do.

 

[Bradly Capel]

God is a God of absolute justice. Because of his sin man had to die. The only alternative is for God to die for us. In this case Jesus want to the cross to pay the price for the sin and transgression of Adam. Through one man: Adam, sin came into the world, and though one man: Christ, the price was paid for that sin. Now we can choose if we want to follow Adam in his transgression or if we follow Jesus and become born again and so we can live the life that He showed us how to live. As He set the example for us to follow.

What does this have to do with evolution? Nothing? What does it have to do with science? Nothing? Okay, then take it to a different forum.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Kylie]

Why is science wrong at times? If "replicatable and testable" results yield the same conclusion each and every time, wouldn't this mean that the scientists who are interpreting the results are either untruthful or incompetent.....or both?

Science can get wrong results due to mistakes in the experimentation process or data gathering process, unusual events distorting the results (if I make a study of average human height, my results will be skewed if I have several people from a pro-basketball team, as they tend to be rather taller than average and will thus increase the average height I get), improper calibration of scientific equipment, incorrect use of scientific equipment, contamination of samples, outside interference, inadequate isolation of variables.

But the cool thing about science is that it has mechanisms built in to get rid of these things. Scientists get others to go over their work, repeat their experiments and put their results to the test. If one scientist makes a mistake, or has the wrong equipment, or has a contaminated sample, chances are that most other scientists won't, so the error can be found.