Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Real Science

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by TRA, Sep 2, 2011.

  1.  Top
  2. Agreed - bashing stuff together and then measuring and recording the results, regardless of what those results suggest.
    Now that's science...
     
     Top
  3. hells yeah, old school science for life yo
     
     Top
  4. "faux science" :rofl:
     
     Top
  5. While I disagree with your comparison, I do agree that the LHC is ****ing cool.
     
     Top
  6. Funny how everyone is a scientist when it comes to climate science...
     
     Top
  7. Me thinks this has something to do with it: Dunning–Kruger effect
     
     Top
  8. It is funny how everyone accepts science accept if it climate science. Is it because all the climate scientists from the last 30 years, from every continent and of every political persuasion is in some kind of greenie conspiracy?

    Or is it just these people world view that they can't accept that our actions cause damage to the environment?

    I do find it amazing how everyone is an armchair expert on climate science. It's as ludicrous as everyone on the internet knowing more than neuroscientists about the how the brain works.
     
     Top
  9.  Top
  10. cant see, cant touch, cant recreate, but still believe in.
     
     Top
  11. TRA, how much does that lie in your area? Is there any reason that these supersymetry things should be observable by known means?
     
     Top
  12. As george carlin says so well, the planet isn't going anywhere, we are!! The planet is fine, the people are fucked!

    I know nothing about it, not the least. I just like the fact that they are smashing things together and making repeatable obvservations. I also put the link up here cause I know there is quite a few science nuts here that would also appreciate the fact that they are disproving some theories of theoretical physicists, yet proving others. Its great stuff. Its what science is all about.
     
     Top
  13. When the only people who can fund their research are either large corporations or politicians, why is it a stretch to think this doesn't happen.

    Have a look at this...



    I don't blindly believe mass media because they are no longer independent, they don't question they blindly accept. They may flog Julia Gillard or whoever over policy but they don't question whether the science is real. Watch this video, it's good to add some balance to the hysteria.

    Some more info

    http://sciencespeak.com
     
     Top
  14. If you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion then every bit of science is bullshit because it is paid for by large corporations and/or government.

    Given that most governments haven't put any price on carbon it's hard to see what their motivation would be. The price on Carbon will very likely cause this government to fall.

    Given the fossil fuel industry has extremely deep pockets, why haven't they funded peer-reviewed studies to get the outcome they want? They certainly fund dozens and dozens of denier sites.

    Joanne Nova who runs sciencespeak is a molecular biologist. She is not a climate scientist. If you actually do a bit of research on her, her claims have been debunked.

    link
     
     Top
  15. Yes, the planet will be fine but you and I won't be, along with the majority of higher animals.
     
     Top
  16. Nice rant, old mate is way of the mark on some respects. I am an instrument fitter by trade (folled up by an elec eng degree) and I used to manufacture and repair a lot of the instrumentation used by BOM. Betcha he has snapshots of some of the stuff we used to supply to orgs for monitoring conditions around plants. Not the same gear used by BOM and the like, I can assure you.

    Old mate should investigate stevenson screens, instrumentation 101.
     
     Top
  17. Welcome to evolution! We will adapt or become extinct. I am hedging my bets on the latter, we got some pretty good evidence of that already.
     
     Top
  18. I have just breifly looked over that site, and downloaded the PDF that has the shit about the thermometers. This knob has just about as much credability as the climate change knobheads. Dont beleive all you read. As stated earlier, I used to work on the BOM gear and its not all biased. Of course they have weather stations near airports and cities, thats how they determine heat trends in populated areas. But they also have gear in places that are not near civilisation, trust me, I used to have to get to these spots in 4wd's and boats and helicopters.
     
     Top
  19. The thread connecting each of these statements, and which ensures their mutual consistency, is an adherence to a narrow sort of positivism, which is a tendency to deny the value of activities that don't adhere to some (contingently asserted) criterion of scientific rigour. You start with an implicit distinction between the 'hard sciences' (banging atoms together) and the 'soft sciences' (such as climate change), and then suggest that because the former tend to pay greater dividends in terms of falsifying competing theories, they must somehow be more rigorous, when actually this perceived difference in rigour is an "illusion" produced by the greater ease with which confounding variables can be experimentally or statistically controlled. 'Soft sciences' are, in fact, nothing of the sort; rather, they are forced to find ways of dealing with the irreducible complexity of the objects they study. The interpretation of the results may therefore be open to a greater degree of contention, however, from the perspective of methodology, the actual practice of those sciences is no less rigorous, and no less 'scientific', for that.

    The problem with positivism is that those who adopt it tend to assert the value of science (as a method of discovering truth) over and above, and ultimately to the exclusion of, other sources of value - even those that science is supposed to serve. By exalting science as the grand arbiter of truth, positivism risks mistaking it as a source of truth. Hence anything that can't be determined in and through science risks being discounted as, at best, false, and at worst, meaningless.

    The problem is that this is a reductive conception of truth, and as such is not fully rational. By asserting the value of science, positivism tends to view science as a source of value. Hence that which does not accede to the status of a positive science is denigrated as being without value. Yet, at the end of the day this is a false position, because the real value of science cannot be found in science - the value of science cannot be conceived of in science's own terms. Rather, the value of science resides in the service it provides for life. If science does not hold the possibility of improving our lives such that they are experienced as maximally fulfilling, it holds no real value.

    Your failure to see this is the reason you find the George Carlin statement to be profound as well as funny, and it is the reason you can view man-made climate change, and the mass wave of extinctions it heralds, with disinterested composure. Viewed from the perspective of evolution, it is just another event, no more significant than any other. It's just nature taking its course. The world will go on, just as it does now, only without us. Certainly this is objective, but it is also radically anti-humanist, and anti-rational to the extent that it denies the efficacy of human reason. In its fatalism, it's just as pernicious as Robert Michel's "Iron Law of Oligarchy", which is the necessary conclusion positivism has when applied to the sociological and political sciences: it results in a denial of alternatives.

    Positivism, to the degree that it stands as an application of human reason to the exclusion of human ends, is, at the end of the day, irrational. Positivistic science, however logical its processes, suffers from this loss of perspective. To view a catastrophic loss of equilibrium in the world's climate with equanimity is the product of an unbalanced mind, however rational it may think itself.
     
     Top
  20. Go the atom smashers!

    What's going to be interesting is if they continue to NOT find the Higgs. What's going to happen then? Big re-think.

    You can't accept some science because you think it's cool and reject other parts because the media, paid by an american oil billionaire, told you it was going to cost you thousands of dollars a year. Truth is truth. Doesn't matter whether you're on the train or the platform, truth endures.
     
     Top