What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[Subduction Zone]

I mentioned it in post 170, thus:-
........'He explained to me that this dust is extremely explosive in certain conditions, and when, years later I read that the retrievable rockets that shoved the shuttles into orbit burned some kind of aluminium dust that wasn't a surprise for me. ..... '

one never wants rocket fuel to explode. One would want it to burn very very quickly.

 

[ecco]

Which is exactly what you'll say if evolution, global warming, or string theory is shown to be wrong.

I suppose string theory could be shown to be wrong.

String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe.​

Note the words "leading candidate". If a better explanation came along, it would not be earth shaking.

I suppose we could find that things like auto exhausts of 1,000,000,000 cars do not pollute the atmosphere. But that would go against what we know happened in Los Angeles.
I suppose we could find that things like burning coal does not pollute the atmosphere. But that would go against what we know happened in London.

I suppose we could find that natural evolution is not correct. But what, cladking, could the alternative be?

 

[cladking]

I suppose string theory could be shown to be wrong.

String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe.​

Note the words "leading candidate". If a better explanation came along, it would not be earth shaking.

I suppose we could find that things like auto exhausts of 1,000,000,000 cars do not pollute the atmosphere. But that would go against what we know happened in Los Angeles.
I suppose we could find that things like burning coal does not pollute the atmosphere. But that would go against what we know happened in London.

I suppose we could find that natural evolution is not correct. But what, cladking, could the alternative be?

In each case the alternative is far more complex than anything we understand.

-String theory is a perspective of reality generated by math.
-Evolution is a perspective of species change imparted by creatures who can only observe in the very short term and the here and now.
-"Global warming" is an example of hubris of people who think we are powerful enough to cause global destruction, smart enough to predict it, and wise enough to prevent it through politics driven not by reduction of waste or "greenhouse gasses" but by the funneling money and power to the well connected.

We live in a world built with an infinite number ramps where the omniscient are powerful, wise, and smart enough through survival of the fittest to stop its own self destruction by rewarding itself at the expense of those less fit and less suited to their environment.

Or maybe we don't live in a world that flies in the face of logic and common sense. Maybe we are all seeing what we believe instead of what's there.

 

[cladking]

-String theory is a perspective of reality generated by math.

Perhaps the math that makes string theory work is generated by looking at time from either end. Perhaps what we are seeing isn't an infinite number of universes created by an infinite number of causes but rather a single universe that unfolds from a very large number of causations which merely appears to be asymptotic as X = 0. Perhaps this is because X can't equal 0 because in reality time has no end and no beginning. I certainly don't know but it is illogical in the extreme to imagine that an infinite number of universes springs into existence with each infinitesimal increase in time. There is obviously a math error and this is apparently caused by cosmology being stuck in the 1920's. They are trying to build Toyotas when they still haven't perfected the Model T or even understand how it works.

 

[ecco]

-Evolution is a perspective of species change imparted by creatures who can only observe in the very short term and the here and now.

Apparently you don't believe that science can know anything about the past by examining the current. That's just wrong.

 

[ecco]

-"Global warming" is an example of hubris of people who think we are powerful enough to cause global destruction

People didn't think we could destroy rivers as big as the Hudson, until we did.

People didn't think we could kill enough whales to wipe them out entirely, until we almost did.

People didn't think we could wipe out Chesapeake oysters, until we almost did.

In all of the above cases people stepped in and changed the status quo before it was too late.

 

[oldbadger]

I can assure you that the 9/11 video you saw was by troofers. Loons that you would be better off ignoring.

It was a telly program............

And I am betting that the super structure was steel. Stronger and cheaper than a mag-alum alloy.

The Sheffield's superstructure was mag-alloy, strong, resilient and kept the CG lower.......... just burned furiously.

 

[oldbadger]

one never wants rocket fuel to explode. One would want it to burn very very quickly.

Both reactions are forms of combustion................. Some Aluminium alloys combust.......

 

[Polymath257]

Fair enough.......... I do like your use of the term 'softer sciences' and I would definitely use that in future when talking about, say, psychiatry. Previously I have called them the inexact-sciences but your term would surely avoid quite as much contention as mine has in the past.

But the harder sciences do go wrong. You might be thinking of these within academic works, but they go horribly wrong out there in the big bad world. An acquaintance and associate of mine was a finger-print specialist and expert-witness who used the older techniques including finest aluminium dust. He explained to me that this dust is extremely explosive in certain conditions, and when, years later I read that the retrievable rockets that shoved the shuttles into orbit burned some kind of aluminium dust that wasn't a surprise for me. ..... moving forward.........

Last year when I saw (on TV) the Grenfell Tower block in London in total furious conflagration of fire, and my wife said that 'they' were talking about the building cladding spreading the blaze furiously, I said to her, 'I'll bet that's an aluminium cladding!' She looked at me as if I was nuts, but days later she heard that the cladding was an aluminium based product. Hundreds of Tower Blocks have been found with the same cladding. produced, designed, drawn up, planned, fitted, inspected and approved by bunches of specialists and Fire experts were among them.

Oh yes........ hard science can go wrong. Or would you exclude that as an example?


EDIT: If you see this, look into the sinking of HMS Sheffield circa 1981....... in those days we built our warships with aluminium superstructures........ oh dear!

Hmmm...I don't see that as an example of failure of the hard sciences. The chemical properties are well known to chemists (for example).

Even *if* the aluminum in the building contributed to the disaster, I see it more as a *communication* problem between the scientists and the architects that designed the building. The architects were probably worried about weight and structural integrity and may not have even been aware of the chemical properties of the aluminum.

Just because we get the science right doesn't mean the correct results are communicated effectively to engineers, architects and, especially journalists. Given that the basics were well known, I'm not sure what, exactly, the scientists who know this could have done.

 

[oldbadger]

I suppose we could find that natural evolution is not correct. But what, cladking, could the alternative be?

Could Erik von Daniken be right?
The more life supporting planets we find, so the more interesting his theories could become.

 

[oldbadger]

Hmmm...I don't see that as an example of failure of the hard sciences. The chemical properties are well known to chemists (for example).

Even *if* the aluminum in the building contributed to the disaster, I see it more as a *communication* problem between the scientists and the architects that designed the building. The architects were probably worried about weight and structural integrity and may not have even been aware of the chemical properties of the aluminum.

There was no aluminium incorporated into the structure of that building....... or so the program claimed. The program claimed that the aluminium allow, maybe a hundreds tons of it, was delivered in the form of and AIRPLANE.

Do you read all of my posts? I don't blame you if you don't, but I did mention this before.

Just because we get the science right doesn't mean the correct results are communicated effectively to engineers, architects and, especially journalists. Given that the basics were well known, I'm not sure what, exactly, the scientists who know this could have done.

Do you believe that scientists are really accurate researchers, but just rubbish at communicating their results?

 

[Polymath257]

Could Erik von Daniken be right?
The more life supporting planets we find, so the more interesting his theories could become.

Highly doubtful. The Fermi paradox alone shows this.

 

[Polymath257]

There was no aluminium incorporated into the structure of that building....... or so the program claimed. The program claimed that the aluminium allow, maybe a hundreds tons of it, was delivered in the form of and AIRPLANE.

Do you read all of my posts? I don't blame you if you don't, but I did mention this before.

I was talking about the London fire.

Do you believe that scientists are really accurate researchers, but just rubbish at communicating their results?

They are very good at communicating results to other experts. But, outside of the research journals, the communication goes down considerably.

Do scientists tend to communicate their results to other scientists in that specialty? Yes. Do they tend to communicate to scientists in other specialties? Somewhat. Do they communicate to engineers and architects? Not so much. Do they communicate with journalists? Poorly.

 

[ecco]

I suppose we could find that natural evolution is not correct. But what, cladking, could the alternative be?

Could Erik von Daniken be right?
The more life supporting planets we find, so the more interesting his theories could become.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that von Daniken is right, you need to have a theory as to the origin of the aliens. If they didn't evolve naturally, then cladking, what could the alternative be?




Also, let's give some thought to just one of von Daniken's "ideas".
Von Däniken suggests that the Nazca lines (200 BC - AD 700) in Peru could be "landing strips" for alien spacecraft

Consider an alien race capable of travelling light years to get here. With all their advanced technology, they needed to carve, or have the natives carve, "landing strips".

With just the comparatively rudimentary technology of the early 21st Century, Elon Musk can land a rocket on a figurative postage stamp without the need for "landing strips". Yet, you believe von Daniken's fully debunked interpretation.

THINK!

 

[oldbadger]

Highly doubtful. The Fermi paradox alone shows this.

The possibility of discovery about all that, in our lifetimes, is so minuscule that it's probably best to address more immediate issues, but if there was any lifeform moving around anywhere close to us, I just hope that we would have the brains to switch off all the lights and stay very very quiet and still..... after all, you know what humans have been like in the past, when discovering weaker cultures.

 

[oldbadger]

I was talking about the London fire.

Sorry........
......... sorry yet again..... somehow I thought I was writing to another member, hence my query about previous posts.....

The cladding used in Grenfell Tower was also installed on about another hundred blocks of flats throughout the UK....... all incorporating aluminium alloys, and specialists such as fire-prevention researchers, the manufacturers and many others all passed this product as suitable......... I would expect every single one of these bodies to be classed as scientific, and if not, then who are the scientists here?

They are very good at communicating results to other experts. But, outside of the research journals, the communication goes down considerably.

I try to avoid using the word 'experts', probably because in Civil and Criminal Court cases both defence and prosecution would introduce experts in the same field as each other, both payed well to offer totally conflicting evidence. Sadly they cannot have automatic-trust, a typical example being the expert who wrote the Met police training manual for handwriting identification and analysis got tested with a back-hander to alter his viewpoint and did so........ he was being tested by a television journalist. How they let themselves down.

Do scientists tend to communicate their results to other scientists in that specialty? Yes. Do they tend to communicate to scientists in other specialties? Somewhat. Do they communicate to engineers and architects? Not so much. Do they communicate with journalists? Poorly.

If public funded scientific bodies cannot communicate effectively to commerce, industry, retail, travel and catering then they should lose any grants and support..... absolutely.

Public funded research bodies need to be open for their results. Private funded research only gets a time limitation of protection for its discoveries.

 

[oldbadger]

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that von Daniken is right, you need to have a theory as to the origin of the aliens.

If von Daniken should be proved correct one morning, the last thought in my head would be for a theory about how they had just blooming arrived....... I would be far too busy looking for a rock to hide under.

Also, let's give some thought to just one of von Daniken's "ideas".
Von Däniken suggests that the Nazca lines (200 BC - AD 700) in Peru could be "landing strips" for alien spacecraft

Consider an alien race capable of travelling light years to get here. With all their advanced technology, they needed to carve, or have the natives carve, "landing strips".

With just the comparatively rudimentary technology of the early 21st Century, Elon Musk can land a rocket on a figurative postage stamp without the need for "landing strips". Yet, you believe von Daniken's fully debunked interpretation.

THINK!

OK......... I've had a 'THINK!' and I just thought about how US shuttles needed such long landing strips......... but fixed departure points.

 

[Polymath257]

If public funded scientific bodies cannot communicate effectively to commerce, industry, retail, travel and catering then they should lose any grants and support..... absolutely.

You can lead a horse to water.....Once the results are published, it is the responsibility of the other professions to read it.

Public funded research bodies need to be open for their results. Private funded research only gets a time limitation of protection for its discoveries.

I completely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that people are *lazy* and trying to get engineers to understand anything remotely refined is almost impossible.

 

[oldbadger]

You can lead a horse to water.....Once the results are published, it is the responsibility of the other professions to read it.

I completely agree. But that doesn't change the fact that people are *lazy* and trying to get engineers to understand anything remotely refined is almost impossible.

OK, so, acknowledging what you say, and since you mention that engineers generally 'find it hard to understand anything remotely refined' I begin to wonder why they are recognised generally as scientists?

And this wide group of 'engineers' produce a vast range of differing products and machines, from public highways, frames for buildings, aircraft, ships and more, on to jet and rocket motors....... and their university academic degrees (here in the UK) are all BSc and Msc.

I begin to realise that some groups of scientists see only themselves as such, and would class other groups as 'quasi' or 'pseudo' scientists........ is this about right?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so, acknowledging what you say, and since you mention that engineers generally 'find it hard to understand anything remotely refined' I begin to wonder why they are recognised generally as scientists?

Well, that is certainly a good question. They have been trained with facts from science, and the PhD engineers do use the scientific method, but the rank and file would not, for me, be scientists.

And this wide group of 'engineers' produce a vast range of differing products and machines, from public highways, frames for buildings, aircraft, ships and more, on to jet and rocket motors....... and their university academic degrees (here in the UK) are all BSc and Msc.

I begin to realise that some groups of scientists see only themselves as such, and would class other groups as 'quasi' or 'pseudo' scientists........ is this about right?

The ones I tend to classify as scientists: physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists. Psychology straddles the boundary--it's trying but hasn't quite reached it. Medical research also often straddles the boundary: if they would set their significant p values to something like .001 instead of .05, it would help immensely. Sociology is NOT science as it is currently done.

Engineers are mostly technicians. They usually don't use the scientific method, but instead memorize a bunch of received results and use them to design things. Very, very seldom do they actually use the scientific method.

Doctors are mostly technicians also. Most practicing doctors do not use the scientific method. They use logic and memorized material about how the body and medicines work, but your typical doctor isn't doing research.

There is a HUGE problem even getting good scientific information out to technologists. Part of the reason is that the relevant scientists aren't aware of what the technologists are actually using in practice. And part of the reason is that most technologists have only limited 'updates' to their stock of information as required in professional programs.

 

[sayak83]

OK, so, acknowledging what you say, and since you mention that engineers generally 'find it hard to understand anything remotely refined' I begin to wonder why they are recognised generally as scientists?

And this wide group of 'engineers' produce a vast range of differing products and machines, from public highways, frames for buildings, aircraft, ships and more, on to jet and rocket motors....... and their university academic degrees (here in the UK) are all BSc and Msc.

I begin to realise that some groups of scientists see only themselves as such, and would class other groups as 'quasi' or 'pseudo' scientists........ is this about right?

Scientists are the people who publish research in well known, peer reviewed journal papers (or write peer reviewed monographs.) Engineers and doctors use science, but they are not scientists. People who work in the R&D wings of some Hi-tech companies will also count...and they will generally also have patents and publications to their name even if much remains classified. But frankly, since a classified material is not really peer-reviewed, it may hide serious flaws of in-group thinking. Its one of the reason why many patents and start-ups fail.