Why do most people find science boring?

Schmelzer said:
Given that I'm not a democrat, thus, don't care about the number of people supporting some nonsense (else, I would have to start choosing some religion), but care about the arguments, I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I really couldn't care less.
Schmelzer said:
Given that I accept myself GR as a good approximation almost everywhere (except some zone where it is not applicable), and have never claimed that my theory has been accepted by the mainstream, where do you see the disagreement? I see only a minor disagreement, of the type you seem to reject as quibble or so.
Click to expand...
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.
Schmelzer said:
Yes. If scientist are paid for their research, they are obliged to give information about this. I would guess this is not because being paid adds reputation. ;-)
(Rants about conspiracy which show only that you cannot distinguish conspiracy theories from economic arguments omitted.)
Click to expand...
:) 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.
 
Watching this thread is like watching a train wreck in slow motion... have we deviated from the op enough yet?
 
paddoboy said:
What other conspiracies do you accept on flimsy narrow evidence? Bigfoot?? Moon landing hoax??9/11 conspiracy??
Click to expand...
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 ;-)
paddoboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 is both a body of knowledge and a process. In school, science may sometimes seem like a collection of isolated and staticfacts listed in a textbook, but that's only a small part of the story. Just as importantly, science is also a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world.


  • Science is exciting. Science is a way of discovering what's in the universe and how those things work today, how they worked in the past, and how they are likely to work in the future. Scientists are motivated by the thrill of seeing or figuring out something that no one has before.


  • Science is useful. The knowledge generated by science is powerful and reliable. It can be used to develop new technologies, treat diseases, and deal with many other sorts of problems.


  • Science is ongoing. Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be "finished."


  • Science is a global human endeavor. People all over the world participate in the process of science. And you can too!
Click to expand...

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.
 
I just ran across this little gem which seems entirely appropriate in this thread.
If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. […] Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun. --Daniel Dennett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
Click to expand...
 
Schmelzer said:
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 ;-)
Click to expand...

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

Kittamaru said:
Watching this thread is like watching a train wreck in slow motion... have we deviated from the op enough yet?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
paddoboy said:
Only a person with a political agenda or one that is extremely gullible would say that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Write4U said:
I am not sure I understand the term "recover" in context, but from what I have read, the 3D fractal function results in the formation of dodecahedrons, which would allow for the 11 dimensions as proposed in M theory.

The idea of fractal properties to the universe was already put forth by Plato, but of course his knowledge was very small compared to the current state of cosmological knowledge and its mathematics.

I realize that I am also way over my head here, but when I see commonality in seemingly unrelated theories, I wonder if there may be some actual connection in reality.
I even see a possible relationship with Schmelzer's concept an "ether". Of course I may be way off base here also.

@ the mods,
please allow me to link to this Nova presentation and another unidentified presentation which appears to be simple enough to be reliable, to illustrate the thrust of my observation. I promise not to abuse the freedom in other, more formal threads.

I know it is not strictly scientific, but (as layman) these types of available explanations of the mathematical nature of the universe sure peak my interest and I'm sure is equally of interest and delight to other interested lay persons and hopefully of some general interest to scientists as well.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365464997/
http://www.dodecahedron.us/Dodecahedron.html
Click to expand...
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:
Schmelzer said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
river said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
river said:
Sorry for who?
Click to expand...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the greater Sciforums Community - I rest my case :)

tumblr_mh9kzvBGXv1s1popdo1_500.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top