Why do most people find science boring?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Magical Realist, Oct 19, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,266
    :shrug: I really couldn't care less.
    Except it is you doing the quibbling as others have noted.
    Let me state it again......
    GR is an all encompassing theory that is correct within its zones of applicability.:shrug: Quibble some more if you chose. I really couldn't care less.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What other conspiracies do you accept on flimsy narrow evidence? Bigfoot?? Moon landing hoax??9/11 conspiracy??
    I see the actual evidence showing that you are making excuses to support your agenda.
    The scientific method and peer review have also had bumps in the journey it undertakes, but overall it is indispensable and a proven system.
    Likewise there is certainly a non zero chance that your hypothesis is something extraordinary that mainstream just have not realised as yet.
    Non zero but very tiny.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Watching this thread is like watching a train wreck in slow motion... have we deviated from the op enough yet?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,269
    Think that happened on one of the first pages.
     
    krash661 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Incorrect question. Which other stupid questions have you asked today?

    BTW, regarding 9/11 I believe that there was some conspiracy. At least, among the many versions about 9/11 I have not yet seen a plausible one which explained it as a natural disaster or an accident. Not even the official one ;-)
    Given that you are a layman and have no insight which would allow you to evaluate the content, this is a quite reasoable expectation.

    But, its a good point to remember about the op. Some remarks in this direction:

    If the book which has been recommended to me would have been read by children, this would be relly helpful against finding science boring.

    But looking at what happens with education, the only place where I would hope to find children interested in reading such books would be homeschoolers. Simply because obligatory education does not work. One cannot force children to find something interesting. Obligatory schooling allows to force children certain basic things - but even this only with a sufficient background of force. It worked fine for states who needed soldiers educated enough to handle modern weapons, as long as it was based on flogging, continued to work some time even without this, but it does not work with children who start to understand that their teachers are more afraid of them then reverse, in a world there a simple unbased claim of type "this teacher has sexually touched me" allows them to get rid of every unwanted teacher. This is a fundamental dilemma: Or you allow teachers to use force, or you cannot reach anything reasonable with forced education. This does not mean one has to use floggins, a sufficiently authoritarian background would be sufficient (as during my childhood, there a functional analphabet after finishing school was unimaginable). But an obligatory school cannot be really free and reach good results.

    This is certainly not a general problem with children. Before school, they want to learn, as much as possible, and they do learn a lot - for example, to speak - without any obligatory school. It is a problem of the state school system. Every tribal society is rich enough to have one teacher (one parent) for five-six children, while state schools have classes with 20-30 children if not more, thus, no wonder that the results are horrible.

    And one of the most horrible results of such obligatory schools is that normal children - which are people who hate to do things they are forced to do - hate school. And, as a consequence, hate what is teached in school. Thus, they hate science.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,899
    I think this thread totally answers the question of the OP. People vaunt themselves up about knowing the fine details of science as if this is something to be proud of. All I see is some insecure nerds bolstering their own deflated egos with science. As if that is what science is for. It isn't. It's just a bunch of facts and theories about the universe. It's not wisdom or some sort of arcane truths necessary for life. Most people get along very well without knowing this stuff and aren't any less a person for it. Some might even say they are a better person for it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2015
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Yeah... this kin of thought actually explains a lot about you. That isn't what science is all about...

    At its core:
    sci·ence
    ˈsīəns/
    noun
    1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Or, if you prefer, as according to Berkeley (a more comprehensive explanation)
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01

    Science isn't just about what you know... it is a method of exploring and understanding and cataloging... well, everything. It's a means and method, not just a body of knowledge. The body of knowledge that science comprises is always changing, always growing, and always adapting. The problem is... you have taken that method, which has worked for centuries and passed generations of trials and testing, and are trying to say that it is flawed because it doesn't fit the outcome YOU desire.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,010
    I just ran across this little gem which seems entirely appropriate in this thread.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,266

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Bingo!! I rest my case.
    The rest of your preaching and diatribe has all been answered before.

    Yes we have.
    I suppose on the subject matter of the OP, one need to look no further then the poster who proposed such an unfounded conclusion.
    The same poster who once claimed that science has never benefitted mankind.
    And we need not raise all the other non scientific crap like Bigfoot.
    Science is a specialised discipline, that in that discipline has many specialised subjects/areas of Interest and investigation.
    People are interested in science.....the same as they are interested in the politics and economics and social fabric of their country and fellow human beings.
    People instinctively know that science is benefitting them all the time, every day they wake up, and as long as it keeps on that way, they remained satisfied, if somewhat distant.
    I don't need to study economics to show that I maintain that my country, and I, remain economically viable.
    Only a person with an agenda would say that "people" are not interested in science.
    Only a person with a "chip on their shoulder" would ever say that science benefits no one.
    Only a person with a political agenda or one that is extremely gullible would say that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,266
    Obviously though, it would be great if more people were more interested in the workings of science and why Global warming is occurring, or why cosmologists accept the BB as the evolution of the Universe, and why physicists are able to accept with confidence the existence of BHs, despite never ever directly seeing them.
    That would be nice, and is the reason why we have great science presenters such as Brian Cox, Neil De-Grasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Sean Carroll, Laurence Krauss and others. These scientists that some of our usual agenda pushing friends see fit to label derogatively as "pop science presenters" have done and are doing a great job.
    Without them there would be many more ignorant people out there, that may see BHs as figments of their imagination, or may not understand how global warming is taking hold.
    They are making more people aware of the fact that science is indispensable, and is primarily responsible for the technologically advanced society that most of us live in today.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Sorry, but what do you believe?

    Some accident, where two airplanes have lost their way and, unfortunately, hit some buildings?

    The official version is some conspiracy organized by Al Qaida, not? Given that you usually follow authorities, I have guessed that you would follow this official version, thus, believe in a conspiracy theory, with Al Qaida conspiring against the US. But, given your claim, this seems to be false. So, what do you believe?
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    String theory recovers GR in it's domain of applicability. Four dimensions. Recovers means the theoretical predictions have a 1/1 correlation. Another example would be interpretations of quantum mechanics. They must make the same predictions as the theory it portends to interpret. Spacetime is derived from Einstein's field equations. It has a specific geometry. The stuff your reading about is modeled with a different specific geometry. The geometry is what's important. Based on what you've said folks working with the CDT feel the CDT geometry has some correlation with fractals. Reading the literature is the best thing you can do to satisfy your query. Thanks for linking some interesting literature.
    Forgot an important aspect. GR is a classical theory and the CDT is a quantum gravity theory. The domain of applicability is different. The quantum theory of gravity is addressing the domain that GR can't. If you think in terms of the 'manifold' the analysis is being conducted on, the universe, the quantum domain is the Planck Era and r=0. It also stands to reason why the quantum theory must recover GR. if your interested in this don't let the purveyors of nonsense try to minimize the importance of quantum gravity just because we can't really test it. The physics is way over my head but fun to read about.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2015
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,266

    I believe what the bulk of evidence tells me, and I certainly do not believe in your manner of twisting and squirming to paint a different picture.
    Now if you want to discuss your conspiracy nonsense, start another thread in the conspiracy section. You are off topic.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    14,309
    Science and the teaching of science needs to be taught by those who enjoy the sciences , with an open mind.

    Being open minded to students allows students to develope their and explore their own ideas.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,266
    Sure. Just make sure the mind isn't so open that the brains fall out and as long as those ideas are true applications of science, not ghosts Bigfoot or goblins.
     
    brucep likes this.
  18. river

    Messages:
    14,309
    You are dictating the parameters of thought.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,266
    I see it as common sense.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    14,309
    So you dictate what common sense is.
     
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Not at all - science as a whole does. This is something only one with common sense can understand

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So sorry for you
     
    krash661 likes this.
  22. river

    Messages:
    14,309
    Sorry for who?
     
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Ladies and Gentlemen of the greater Sciforums Community - I rest my case

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page