Scientists and Virtue

[Pete]

Then how does a discovery takes place?

"Has scientific merit" doesn't mean "is established science."

An idea that is consistent with observations without excessive complexity or real contradictions can be of scientific merit without being established science, and without necessarily being true.

Ideas of scientific merit only stay being of scientific merit if they are thoroughly tested, if they are actively attacked in a serious attempt to demolish them. This is science. Science submits ideas to vigorous trial by fire, so that ideas that survive can be trusted.

Pseudoscience is taking an idea, declaring it to be a good one, then proceeding to prop it by any possible means and denying any flaws that others might find.

 

[theobserver]

"Has scientific merit" doesn't mean "is established science."

An idea that is consistent with observations without excessive complexity or real contradictions can be of scientific merit without being established science, and without necessarily being true.

Ideas of scientific merit only stay being of scientific merit if they are thoroughly tested, if they are actively attacked in a serious attempt to demolish them. This is science. Science submits ideas to vigorous trial by fire, so that ideas that survive can be trusted.

Pseudoscience is taking an idea, declaring it to be a good one, then proceeding to prop it by any possible means and denying any flaws that others might find.

I agree with that. Now how can a scientist know if a particular field of pseudo science can carry these merits if they themselves dont care to study and cross check and keep depending on the information's present to them in a very non scientific pattern by the followers of any of these pseudo scientific fields?

I once learned that there is a difference between the information obtained by experimenting on your own and by listening to someone else who did an experiment. The way anyone acquire the information plays a vital role in determining anything related to thoughts and character.

Also if i take the example of astrology for instance, the observation of a scientist who belong to a certain zodiac conducting an experiment with few many subjects from another but same zodiac would be different from the same zodiac group observed and recorded by another scientist who was born on another zodiac. Say an aries born scientist and a taurus born scientist are both trying to interview a group of libra born common people and record each of their observations, its going to be totally different and even contradictory at times.

 

[Read-Only]

I agree with that. Now how can a scientist know if a particular field of pseudo science can carry these merits if they themselves dont care to study and cross check and keep depending on the information's present to them in a very non scientific pattern by the followers of any of these pseudo scientific fields?

I once learned that there is a difference between the information obtained by experimenting on your own and by listening to someone else who did an experiment. The way anyone acquire the information plays a vital role in determining anything related to thoughts and character.

Also if i take the example of astrology for instance, the observation of a scientist who belong to a certain zodiac conducting an experiment with few many subjects from another but same zodiac would be different from the same zodiac group observed and recorded by another scientist who was born on another zodiac. Say an aries born scientist and a taurus born scientist are both trying to interview a group of libra born common people and record each of their observations, its going to be totally different and even contradictory at times.

I can see why you are having a great deal of difficulty understanding the facts that are being presented to you. Anyone who uses "scientist" and "zodiac" in the same sentence doesn't have a clue as to what REAL science is. Sorry, but that's the honest, solid truth.

 

[theobserver]

I can see why you are having a great deal of difficulty understanding the facts that are being presented to you. Anyone who uses "scientist" and "zodiac" in the same sentence doesn't have a clue as to what REAL science is. Sorry, but that's the honest, solid truth.

Tell me how you measure your happiness or any of your emotions. Enlighten me Mr. Read Only. If you can do that successfully in scientific manner(whichever way you may please except for explanations using any language), I can give it to you that you are smart.

 

[Read-Only]

Tell me how you measure your happiness or any of your emotions. Enlighten me Mr. Read Only. If you can do that successfully in scientific manner(whichever way you may please except for explanations using any language), I can give it to you that you are smart.

That's a totally silly question! There's no scale or means by which to measure ANY emotion! Emotions are strictly subjective (do you even understand what that word means?).

And that has absolutely nothing to do with my previous response to you about scientists and zodiacs. If you actually believe what you said, you've got a LONG way to go to understand what science is.

 

[theobserver]

That's a totally silly question! There's no scale or means by which to measure ANY emotion! Emotions are strictly subjective (do you even understand what that word means?).

And that has absolutely nothing to do with my previous response to you about scientists and zodiacs. If you actually believe what you said, you've got a LONG way to go to understand what science is.

hehhehee... sure it has. bcoz a major part of astrology deals with human nature and its dynamics between each other zodiac. So now since you have agreed that there is no way it can be measured and its purely subjective, you might as well consider the possibility on how it can be proved or observed with accuracy. One persons observation about a particular human trait cannot be verified by another person because of the limitations in language and its meaning. Forget abt the stars and prediction part in zodiac and just focus on human nature alone. It could be a silly misunderstanding from past.

 

[Read-Only]

hehhehee... sure it has. bcoz a major part of astrology deals with human nature and its dynamics between each other zodiac. So now since you have agreed that there is no way it can be measured and its purely subjective, you might as well consider the possibility on how it can be proved or observed with accuracy. One persons observation about a particular human trait cannot be verified by another person because of the limitations in language and its meaning. Forget abt the stars and prediction part in zodiac and just focus on human nature alone. It could be a silly misunderstanding from past.

It's all just silly and has no connection to science at all. This is supposed to be a SCIENCE section of the forums. If you want to discuss pure nonsense then I suggest you move to Free Thoughts or Pseudoscience and carry on there. Your discussion certainly does NOT belong here.

 

[Pete]

Tell me how you measure your happiness or any of your emotions.

Now we're entering the softer sciences, where measurements tend to be fuzzier.
The difficulty here is that "happiness" is a rather poorly defined beast, and correspondingly harder to pin down.

However, there are some useful metrics. A simple Likert scale springs to mind for comparing self-reported happiness between two groups.
I think there are other more indirect instruments as well used in psychology, but I don't know how well their reliability has been tested.

Try here:
Google Scholar (measure happiness)
And try the same search terms here: PubMed (I can't link directly to a search in PubMed)

From a skim of the top few hits, this article looks promising: Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the Farsi version of the Oxford Happiness Inventory.

 

[theobserver]

It's all just silly and has no connection to science at all. This is supposed to be a SCIENCE section of the forums. If you want to discuss pure nonsense then I suggest you move to Free Thoughts or Pseudoscience and carry on there. Your discussion certainly does NOT belong here.

This is the biggest trouble with most current day scientists. Hardly open minded towards ideas they cant comprehend because of their prejudice and limited knowledge.

 

[theobserver]

Now we're entering the softer sciences, where measurements tend to be fuzzier.
The difficulty here is that "happiness" is a rather poorly defined beast, and correspondingly harder to pin down.

Yes it is. That's the entire complexity am trying to point out. It cannot be even defined with accuracy. let alone, prove it. That's the limitation of words in explaining human emotions. We can be even more critical by asking ourselves "what does it mean by happiness?".

None of the tests can be trusted like how we can get proof in physics or chemistry. Even when we seek statistics, we cant be sure of the samples. What if only a particular group of people volunteer to be tested? What if their brain produces different results because of the awareness that its being tested? We dont have answers to any of those. So it questions humans understanding of thoughts, emotions, intelligence, morals and so on....

 

[Pete]

This is the biggest trouble with most current day scientists. Hardly open minded towards ideas they cant comprehend because of their prejudice and limited knowledge.

Do you have any support for that assertion beyond your personal prejudice?
Have you interviewed scientists to gauge their open-mindedness? Or perhaps you've read and evaluated the research of those who have?

 

[Read-Only]

This is the biggest trouble with most current day scientists. Hardly open minded towards ideas they cant comprehend because of their prejudice and limited knowledge.

There's a big difference between being open-minded and having holes in your head. The problem here is that you fall into the latter group because you still don't realize the difference between solid science and nonsense.

 

[Pete]

Yes it is. That's the entire complexity am trying to point out. It cannot be even defined with accuracy. let alone, prove it.
None of the tests can be trusted like how we can get proof in physics or chemistry.

Can you back up this assertion? Perhaps you have read and analysed some of the research that purports to measure happiness?

Even when we seek statistics, we cant be sure of the samples. What if only a particular group of people volunteer to be tested? What if their brain produces different results because of the awareness that its being tested? We dont have answers to any of those.

Actually, we do have answers. Those effects can be avoided by good sample selection and experiment design. For example, data can be collected without performing a specific test, perhaps by analysing the archives of an internet discussion forum (yes, I know there are sampling problems with that particular example... but it would be useful data about discussion forum users.) If you think about it, I'm sure you can come up with ways of finding data about other groups as well. You can then devise ways of comparing and correlating the different metrics used, which allows you to compare the different groups.

Experimental techniques in the social sciences are much more refined than you seem to think.

 

[theobserver]

Do you have any support for that assertion beyond your personal prejudice?
Have you interviewed scientists to gauge their open-mindedness? Or perhaps you've read and evaluated the research of those who have?

No I haven't interviewed any scientist I must admit. That wouldn't serve any purpose for me than to convince myself and the results cannot be verified in any scientific manner since its once again within the complex set of human nature and words, meanings and its accuracy. So i had only one choice to deduct it back from rest of the available sources, their outputs, works, and studies.

 

[theobserver]

Experimental techniques in the social sciences are much more refined than you seem to think.

Yes it is. But it haven't produced any convincing results so far. usually it end up inviting criticism and contradictory theories from other scientists and philosophers. If it was really refined to the point of perfection, there wouldn't have been any space for criticism. But trouble lies in the root of everything - Language and words and its limitations to explain human emotions and nature accurately. So any studies or research done will have to face the same complexity they are trying to address.


Good sample selection by humans would definitely clash with the entire field of study since we are perceiving the very subject with the complexities we are trying to address.


Regarding researching on forums: I spend 3 years on researching forums and playing mind games with random samples(expat discussion group) to collect data. Obviously data cannot be recorded or reproduced with accuracy for anyone else due to the very complexity in doing so. So its inside my brain. I know the patterns but i cannot put it in words. I cannot even share it with another person and prove it the way science expect anyone to prove their claims because other persons understanding is different. And the way he is about to acquire information is directly clashing with the very method required in acquiring accurate information. If a group of people with same level of knowledge and same mind setup can observe the same forum for the same amount of time, they can probably come up with some decent information which can be presented. But their individual psychology due to variations in nurture would mess it up.

 

[stateofmind]

"Has scientific merit" doesn't mean "is established science."

An idea that is consistent with observations without excessive complexity or real contradictions can be of scientific merit without being established science, and without necessarily being true.

Ideas of scientific merit only stay being of scientific merit if they are thoroughly tested, if they are actively attacked in a serious attempt to demolish them. This is science. Science submits ideas to vigorous trial by fire, so that ideas that survive can be trusted.

Pseudoscience is taking an idea, declaring it to be a good one, then proceeding to prop it by any possible means and denying any flaws that others might find.

Would you provide an example of something that has scientific merit but is not accepted in the scientific community?

The thing that you and Read-Only are missing is that pseudoscience is not something that has been proven to have no scientific foundation, but is considered(based on opinion/belief) to have none.

You say the things you repudiate have glaring contradictions but then resort to name calling rather than simply pointing out the contradictions. This leads one to think that you don't see any contradictions but are instead just pretending to see them to protect your limited mindset.

I could imagine someone who lived in a cave all his life. One day a visitor comes and tells him about this thing called "lightening." How it's this fantastic tree-like stream of electricity that only flashes for a second and that it's caused by clouds running into each other.

The man living in the cave would probably have a hard time accepting this phenomena unless he saw it himself but that doesn't mean lightening doesn't exist.

 

[Bishadi]

Would you provide an example of something that has scientific merit but is not accepted in the scientific community?

caloric by lavoisier

calories on most all food items shares that the energy upon that mass is approximately ...........x

but make that comment to a physicist

'energy upon mass'...... rather than a potential difference

and be in psuedo section within minutes

you asked for an example

and you got it

 

[Bishadi]

Would you provide an example of something that has scientific merit but is not accepted in the scientific community?

or my favorite

they say that the eclipse of the sun, covering the sunlight... proved einstein's space bending was true.

that because of the sun's gravity bending space, we should be able to see the stars behind the sun when an eclipse comes

and they did see them

but drive in the desert on a hot day....... ever seen a mirage or how the HEAT refract the light

it was a mirageeee

 

[Read-Only]

Would you provide an example of something that has scientific merit but is not accepted in the scientific community?

The thing that you and Read-Only are missing is that pseudoscience is not something that has been proven to have no scientific foundation, but is considered(based on opinion/belief) to have none.

You say the things you repudiate have glaring contradictions but then resort to name calling rather than simply pointing out the contradictions. This leads one to think that you don't see any contradictions but are instead just pretending to see them to protect your limited mindset.

I could imagine someone who lived in a cave all his life. One day a visitor comes and tells him about this thing called "lightening." How it's this fantastic tree-like stream of electricity that only flashes for a second and that it's caused by clouds running into each other.

The man living in the cave would probably have a hard time accepting this phenomena unless he saw it himself but that doesn't mean lightening doesn't exist.

I see TONS of contradictions - and so does any educated individual. The pseudo-scientists are constantly bombarding us with claims of free energy, over-unity devices and other forms of smoke and mirrors like levitation and anti-gravity. We've had dozens of them pass through SciForums. They try to contradict relativity, do not accept the laws of thermodynamics and many, many other well-established scientific principles.

They use such idiotic terms as "flow of magnetic energy" while the principles of electricity are THE most understood subsection of physics.

There is NO other label you can apply to such people other than uneducated, woo-woos, idiots and fools. And as Ben The Man pointed out in another thread, they aren't bright enough to even realize that they are being idiots.

So what would you call someone that believe is such nonsense, eh?

 

[stateofmind]

So what would you call someone that believe is such nonsense, eh?

I agree that there are such people as quacks and fools. What I'm saying is you have your definition of pseudoscience wrong.

Just like how you wouldn't call someone a scientist if they fudge the numbers to fit the equations. There are bad examples in every field.

Not all pseudo scientists are the way you describe. Einstein was a pseudo scientist before his theory of relativity was widely accepted by the scientific community.