What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[Audie]

Still no examples of how Science is nothing to do with 'fact'.

There never will be, as that is not the case,and no claim
made that it is; you just made that up in a dishonest attempt
at stump-a-chump.

"Science" is not a proper noun.
"Is nothing to do..." makes no sense.

Your ideas (attitudes) about science are in keeping with
other evident aspects of your schooling.

It was observed earlier that your "science" education
was evidently in the hands of ignorant hacks, who
taught no science. How they managed to convey
such an inadequate grasp of the subject matter, I
dont know. Too bad for you.

Decline of the West, I guess.

I dont blame you for that, or for your attitude.
Some can rise above their circumstances,
others do not have it in them.

There is a lot of equivocation to be played with
the word "fact"; it amuses who it does, and
may convince the facile.

"It is a fact that this is my data."
That is the basic use for the word in science.

Science tends to work with probabilities, other than
in the descriptive sciences such as were so characteristic
of the 19th century.

Probability does not mean fact.

A great pile of data is of no use without
a theoretical framework. Science usrs theory,
not just what you are pleased to refer to as facts.

You've heard of theory having a role in science,
you just need to, like, synthesize this data and
incorporate it into your understanding of what science is.

Science is a methodical way of investigating
nature. A pile of "facts" is not a method.

 

[cladking]

Yep........
The King is in the altogether, the altogether...........

We used to play 'Simon says', where every command by Simon had to be obeyed, but today the call is 'Science Says!....!!!'

Even the good old BBC feels the need to use this facilitator whereby any News report about Surveys, researches, ideas, etc starts with ... 'Scientists have.....'

The words Science, Scientist, Scientific are the modern Truth Pills. If you want a high % of listeners, readers and watchers to be impressed or believe in what you tell them, you need a good TRUTH PILL, and this word, 'Science' works wonderfully as a truth pill.

Most scientists are taking these pills like vitamins.

They've fallen for their own hype. Even many of those who know better and can see through the drapery often don't understand the limitations of experiment to determine reality. This is proven by the fact that they so commonly believe things that can't even be shown by experiment.

Modern science is very much a one trick pony and we've made an entire circus of it where even the ring masters wear the same costume as the gorillas on the day they were born.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most scientists are taking these pills like vitamins.

They've fallen for their own hype. Even many of those who know better and can see through the drapery often don't understand the limitations of experiment to determine reality. This is proven by the fact that they so commonly believe things that can't even be shown by experiment.

Modern science is very much a one trick pony and we've made an entire circus of it where even the ring masters wear the same costume as the gorillas on the day they were born.

If you understood the scientific method people might take you seriously. Of course your statement only tells us that you probably never will understand the scientific method. Not that you are unable to do so. You simply won't let yourself learn what the scientific method is or how it is applied. Your unfounded beliefs would crumble in your mind if you did so.

 

[exchemist]

Most scientists are taking these pills like vitamins.

They've fallen for their own hype. Even many of those who know better and can see through the drapery often don't understand the limitations of experiment to determine reality. This is proven by the fact that they so commonly believe things that can't even be shown by experiment.

Modern science is very much a one trick pony and we've made an entire circus of it where even the ring masters wear the same costume as the gorillas on the day they were born.

Actually what I think Oldbadger is mainly complaining about it the way the media, in their hunger for sensation, tend to big up scientific findings and encourage unthinking worship at the altar of science. Hence his remarks about the BBC, with which I almost entirely concur.

In the UK I blame this on the culture that treats science as something difficult, obscure and alien - probably because only arts graduates go into the media for a career. The BBC today is almost incapable of putting on a decent science programme. Invariably they think it has to be dumbed down. Result: gosh-wow journalism that does nobody a service. In this sense I agree with you: "we" - or rather the media - have indeed made a circus out of it. And some scientists have got rich out of playing along, of course.

 

[oldbadger]

If you understood the scientific method people might take you seriously. Of course your statement only tells us that you probably never will understand the scientific method. Not that you are unable to do so. You simply won't let yourself learn what the scientific method is or how it is applied. Your unfounded beliefs would crumble in your mind if you did so.

The above was sent to another.........

Scientific method has existed for two or three centuries, more or less unchanged in its disciplines. But it has always been founded on the right of the investigator (researcher) to test it's discoveries, to shake them hard, to criticise them.

And our beliefs about science change dramatically with time. Ask any psychiatrist what they think about Floyd's medical diagnosis and treatment and you'll see that point, although I think you already have that example clear.

I can think of examples, where science has adjusted its tenets and 'facts' to suit changing cultures........ it can be a chameleon when it wants to. The scrapping of the medical condition 'hysteria' into its many separate manifestations to suit modern political movements is another example, I guess.

And so criticism is healthy...... can be healthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The above was sent to another.........

Scientific method has existed for two or three centuries, more or less unchanged in its disciplines. But it has always been founded on the right of the investigator (researcher) to test it's discoveries, to shake them hard, to criticise them.

And our beliefs about science change dramatically with time. Ask any psychiatrist what they think about Floyd's medical diagnosis and treatment and you'll see that point, although I think you already have that example clear.

I can think of examples, where science has adjusted its tenets and 'facts' to suit changing cultures........ it can be a chameleon when it wants to. The scrapping of the medical condition 'hysteria' into its many separate manifestations to suit modern political movements is another example, I guess.

And so criticism is healthy...... can be healthy.

What @cladking was offering was no criticism, but denial. There is a difference. And yes, especially in the softer sciences there have been some major changes. But when people offer examples of theories that have been dropped in the harder sciences I have found that most of those ideas were not scientific theories in the first place.

 

[Audie]

What @cladking was offering was no criticism, but denial. There is a difference. And yes, especially in the softer sciences there have been some major changes. But when people offer examples of theories that have been dropped in the harder sciences I have found that most of those ideas were not scientific theories in the first place.

Ignorant criticism is just nattering of the nabobs of negativism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignorant criticism is just nattering of the nabobs of negativism.

Much more true than the original use of that phrase.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually what I think Oldbadger is mainly complaining about it the way the media, in their hunger for sensation, tend to big up scientific findings and encourage unthinking worship at the altar of science. Hence his remarks about the BBC, with which I almost entirely concur.

In the UK I blame this on the culture that treats science as something difficult, obscure and alien - probably because only arts graduates go into the media for a career. The BBC today is almost incapable of putting on a decent science programme. Invariably they think it has to be dumbed down. Result: gosh-wow journalism that does nobody a service. In this sense I agree with you: "we" - or rather the media - have indeed made a circus out of it. And some scientists have got rich out of playing along, of course.

You explain it better than I...... very clear points, there, above......

This can also manifest itself in other ways, for instance where some folks will almost enjoy the finger-pointing and bashing of other cultures, beliefs, religions etc.

I don't believe in a literal Genesis story, the 6 day creation events....... just don't believe, and I don't think that schools should exclude lessons in Evolution in favour of the Creation beliefs, but that is for the voters in any particular country, state or county to decide upon. Democracy needs to be democratic across the political spectrum, I reckon.

But for bunches of folks to ridicule and demean beliefs is most certainly contrary (in principle) to our UK Equality Act 2010, it's just a pity that such amazing policy hasn't stretched across the seas everywhere.

Thirty years ago I invited some Jehovah Witnesses to park their cars on our unused 2nd driveway, because parking is difficult here, and for the last twenty years they have visited here, as much for my wife's brilliant coffee as in any expectations of converting such as us. We talk, discuss and very rarely we debate, but I would never think of confronting them over their beliefs, all I can do is tell them that I acknowledge their faith but as a Deist I can't share their beliefs. There's just no need for smart-alec comments about such subjects as Creationism, especially by some that (I suspect are) pseudo scientists.

 

[oldbadger]

What @cladking was offering was no criticism, but denial. There is a difference. And yes, especially in the softer sciences there have been some major changes. But when people offer examples of theories that have been dropped in the harder sciences I have found that most of those ideas were not scientific theories in the first place.

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!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.........

Yes, one has to be careful with the materials that one uses. Just for fun you should look at some YouTube videos involving thermite.

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!

Hard to say if it was due to the aluminum in the cladding. To burn the aluminum needs a lot of surface area, as one finds in a powder. Otherwise it tends to melt. Molten aluminum can be poured and cast by amateurs.

I just got back from a Google search and it appears that the plastic interior to the cladding was what burned. The aluminum melted and dripped down:

Cladding used on Grenfell Tower before the fire 'was the more flammable and cheaper version' of two options

Molten liquid aluminum is relatively safe. It is the fine powdered aluminum one needs to worry about.

And in response to your edit, the superstructures would be relatively safe. By the time those would burn everyone would be dead.

 

[Audie]

Isnt powdered aluminum a primary ingredient of rocket fuel
such as solid fuel space shuttle boosters?

 

[cladking]

But when people offer examples of theories that have been dropped in the harder sciences I have found that most of those ideas were not scientific theories in the first place.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

The first two would be so unexpected that it would be shocking. If the alternative to evolution is creationism it would mean that we have a lying god. Global warming would be almost as amazing. Since string theory is not even a proper scientific theory I would barely be phased.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isnt powdered aluminum a primary ingredient of rocket fuel
such as solid fuel space shuttle boosters?

Not that I am aware of. The ignition temperature is so high that it seems impractical for that usage.

Edit:

always Google search first

Rocket Fuel - Star Molecule

 

[Audie]

Not that I am aware of. The ignition temperature is so high that it seems impractical for that usage.

Edit:

always Google search first

Not me. I know about things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not me. I know about things.

I could have pretended. I don't think anyone saw it before I added my correction. But if I screw up I tend to admit it

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, one has to be careful with the materials that one uses. Just for fun you should look at some YouTube videos involving thermite.

Sure.....

Hard to say if it was due to the aluminum in the cladding. To burn the aluminum needs a lot of surface area, as one finds in a powder. Otherwise it tends to melt. Molten aluminum can be poured and cast by amateurs.

I just got back from a Google search and it appears that the plastic interior to the cladding was what burned. The aluminum melted and dripped down:

They are still arguing about how hundreds of tower blocks of flats could have been clad in that way, and although molten aluminium is reasonably stable it's melting point is low, and how it might react at higher temperatures (such as in building infernos) is another matter.

I recently watched a television program about 9/11 and a specialist in fires and oxidation explained that although there was no aluminium content in the structure of the buildings which could have therefore exploded in the very high temperatures, a few hundred tons of aluminium alloy was delivered to the epicenter of the fires ........ the aircraft themselves.

And in response to your edit, the superstructures would be relatively safe. By the time those would burn everyone would be dead.

There were many survivors from the Sheffield. Of course the Sheffield's superstructure was made of mag-alloy and magnesium is very strange at high temps.

The above were just two examples of how researched, tested and trusted structures failed horribly, and showed that they had not been adequately researched, tested and should not have been trusted. Before either incidents these would both have been hailed as scientific advances ............

This is how 'science' staggers forward, rewriting itself as true science smacks it down. I understand all this, yonks ago trained in a science for years and qualified to (UK) level four before entering commerce and industry, but today the very word is a fashion accessory to so many CVs, and once awarded distinctions such as 'Intellectual', 'educated', 'degree-awarded' etc....... some folks just get very big-headed, and want to point at sneer at groups of folks who have different values. The irony is that such people are often found to be ignorant.

When I was a kid many folks treated physical and mental disabilities with derision... it's taken decades to move away from such horrible cultures, but today bigotry raises its head in other ways, and we need to (metaphorically) punch it in the mouth when we see it.

 

[oldbadger]

I could have pretended. I don't think anyone saw it before I added my correction. But if I screw up I tend to admit it

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. ..... '

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure.....



They are still arguing about how hundreds of tower blocks of flats could have been clad in that way, and although molten aluminium is reasonably stable it's melting point is low, and how it might react at higher temperatures (such as in building infernos) is another matter.

I recently watched a television program about 9/11 and a specialist in fires and oxidation explained that although there was no aluminium content in the structure of the buildings which could have therefore exploded in the very high temperatures, a few hundred tons of aluminium alloy was delivered to the epicenter of the fires ........ the aircraft themselves.



There were many survivors from the Sheffield. Of course the Sheffield's superstructure was made of mag-alloy and magnesium is very strange at high temps.

The above were just two examples of how researched, tested and trusted structures failed horribly, and showed that they had not been adequately researched, tested and should not have been trusted. Before either incidents these would both have been hailed as scientific advances ............

This is how 'science' staggers forward, rewriting itself as true science smacks it down. I understand all this, yonks ago trained in a science for years and qualified to (UK) level four before entering commerce and industry, but today the very word is a fashion accessory to so many CVs, and once awarded distinctions such as 'Intellectual', 'educated', 'degree-awarded' etc....... some folks just get very big-headed, and want to point at sneer at groups of folks who have different values. The irony is that such people are often found to be ignorant.

When I was a kid many folks treated physical and mental disabilities with derision... it's taken decades to move away from such horrible cultures, but today bigotry raises its head in other ways, and we need to (metaphorically) punch it in the mouth when we see it.

I can assure you that the 9/11 video you saw was by troofers. Loons that you would be better off ignoring. And I am betting that the super structure was steel. Stronger and cheaper than a mag-alum alloy.