What is Science?

Off Topic
101

[quote]Humbert wrote:
IMHO, good science should advance human civilization, not luxuries for select countries(eg, I can watch porn on my phone while thousands of infants worldwide die of diarrhea–see the discrepancy?).

Why is this thinking SO offensive?[/quote]

I think you’re only seeing the glamorous side of science and technology. There’s still a lot of people doing very basic research (meaning not applied) out there. There’s also plenty of people working on issues most people wouldn’t care about. We’ve recently reduced incidences of malaria. When was the last time anyone you knew had to worry about that. I spent two years of my life working on a vaccine for dengue fever. Most people in the developed world haven’t even heard about that.

Again it’s an issue of confirmation bias and a small representative sampling. If you’ve never seen what most scientists are doing, and have it in you’re head that they’re all twisted and working for corporations, I’m sure there’s evidence out there to support your claim.

102

[quote]majik wrote:

[quote]Theface wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
For that matter, I am not a scientist, and won’t claim to be. However, as a reasoning adult, I see science chasing the dollar. That’s my beef with the whole issue. Modern science isn’t doing it right, and nothing I’ve here so far has even begun to address that side of it.[/quote]

Confirmation Bias: you choose only to look at science in instances where it proves your point. Medicinal Science has accomplished nothing because you have a cold? (in an earlier post). Give me a fucking break. I suppose eradicating polio means nothing to you because you’ve never had it (which is sorta the point). And that HIV/AIDS is miraculously no longer a death sentence with modern medicine. Shit, they now believe someone has been CURED of HIV via stem cells. Not “managed pain”, or “extended life”, fucking cured (here’s the link: Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient' | HuffPost Latest News).

Or how bout the average life expectancy that’s grown from 45yrs to 67yrs since the beginning of the 20th century? (That’s not a randomly chosen point to prove a point: that 45yr life expectancy was arguably the highest it had ever been in history to that point).

But, you have a cold, so medicinal science has done nothing.[/quote]

Clarification on the life expectancy- you can’t attribute that completely to medicine, a vast majority of that is due to public works/sanitation initiatives, and the fact that we actually realize that feces and drinking water don’t mix.

Cool stuff about the AIDS patient, I heard something similar to that with Magic Johnson, that his T-cell levels are near the levels of a 'healthy" individual[/quote]

Wouldn’t you call the creation of water filtration and the creation of infrastructure as a type of science???

Remember, science covers so many things. I am not going to write a wall of text but it is all revolving around evolution (and not the radical thinking of man from ape based on Darwin… who never said that) but that through stressors, things evolve at a faster pace. War, science advances happen. Plagues? medical advances happen, over population? quality of life goes up due to advances in infrastructure.

Internet butt hurt? well, apparently people don’t use this to LEARN more about what caused the butt hurt.[/quote]

Facepalm- Where did I say it wasn’t science? I clarified (note-not Contradicted. clarified) that it was not medicine alone that caused these advances, some but not all. So yes, I know science covers many things, and yes water filtration and creation of infrastructure is a part of science, but if you actually read my post you would realize that I never said it was not science.

103

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
For that matter, I am not a scientist, and won’t claim to be. However, as a reasoning adult, I see science chasing the dollar. That’s my beef with the whole issue. Modern science isn’t doing it right, and nothing I’ve here so far has even begun to address that side of it.[/quote]

Confirmation Bias: you choose only to look at science in instances where it proves your point. Medicinal Science has accomplished nothing because you have a cold? (in an earlier post). Give me a fucking break. I suppose eradicating polio means nothing to you because you’ve never had it (which is sorta the point). And that HIV/AIDS is miraculously no longer a death sentence with modern medicine. Shit, they now believe someone has been CURED of HIV via stem cells. Not “managed pain”, or “extended life”, fucking cured (here’s the link: Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient' | HuffPost Latest News).

Or how bout the average life expectancy that’s grown from 45yrs to 67yrs since the beginning of the 20th century? (That’s not a randomly chosen point to prove a point: that 45yr life expectancy was arguably the highest it had ever been in history to that point).

But, you have a cold, so medicinal science has done nothing.[/quote]

Polio eradicated, you say? Odd, look at the countries where it still thrives. What do you suppose they have in common?

And HIV is manageable for those (countries? persons?) who can afford it.
My point: Science handcuffed by dollar bills.

National cancer institute(US) says annual budget for cancer research is around $5 billion.
2009 US military budget? $626 billion.

My point: Are we using science to advance civilization or not? I believe we could do a lot better job, but we don’t do it right.

–and just to be contentious, life expectancy is up, but quality of life at the upper end of those numbers is awful(Alzheimer’s, poverty, etc). “Hope I die before I get old.”

104

[quote]XiaoNio wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
IMHO, good science should advance human civilization, not luxuries for select countries(eg, I can watch porn on my phone while thousands of infants worldwide die of diarrhea–see the discrepancy?).

Why is this thinking SO offensive?[/quote]

I think you’re only seeing the glamorous side of science and technology. There’s still a lot of people doing very basic research (meaning not applied) out there. There’s also plenty of people working on issues most people wouldn’t care about. We’ve recently reduced incidences of malaria. When was the last time anyone you knew had to worry about that. I spent two years of my life working on a vaccine for dengue fever. Most people in the developed world haven’t even heard about that.

Again it’s an issue of confirmation bias and a small representative sampling. If you’ve never seen what most scientists are doing, and have it in you’re head that they’re all twisted and working for corporations, I’m sure there’s evidence out there to support your claim.[/quote]

This is a nice response. If I were a betting man, I’d say you were Chinese and doing that medical research at a large American university. I have more than a few friends here at OU medical doing the same thing. They are overworked, underpaid, and highly undervalued. My hat is off to them. I wonder if those aren’t the reasons you got out of Dengue fever research?

…and meanwhile Zuckerburg is the world’s youngest billionaire (computer scientist) for inventing Facebook. Go science!

105

On the other hand, the Department of Health and Human Services has a 2011 fiscal budget of $911 billion.

See what I did there? NCI is big institute but still only one institute of 27 on the NIH campus. You’re comparing it with the entire DoD. Don’t forget most of the DoD budget isn’t in military research just as most of the HHS budget isn’t in applied research.

I’ll agree that a lot of science points in the direction of money, but there’s tons of science being done that is driven by academics or human benefit.

106

Actually you’re right. I’m an American born Chinese guy who worked for a large American University. But the financial compensation was fine for a guy right out of college. I left because I need more schooling to have a substantial impact.

As an aside, science and medicine require huge amounts of training. If you want to do serious work, you’ll need an MD or a PhD. Without those, you’re going to be a tech for the rest of your life. Even having a graduate degree doesn’t guarantee you’ll ever make it out of your fellowship and into a real position. Science is incredibly competitive and there’s a limited number of slots out there.

107

[quote]Humbert wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
For that matter, I am not a scientist, and won’t claim to be. However, as a reasoning adult, I see science chasing the dollar. That’s my beef with the whole issue. Modern science isn’t doing it right, and nothing I’ve here so far has even begun to address that side of it.[/quote]

Confirmation Bias: you choose only to look at science in instances where it proves your point. Medicinal Science has accomplished nothing because you have a cold? (in an earlier post). Give me a fucking break. I suppose eradicating polio means nothing to you because you’ve never had it (which is sorta the point). And that HIV/AIDS is miraculously no longer a death sentence with modern medicine. Shit, they now believe someone has been CURED of HIV via stem cells. Not “managed pain”, or “extended life”, fucking cured (here’s the link: Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient' | HuffPost Latest News).

Or how bout the average life expectancy that’s grown from 45yrs to 67yrs since the beginning of the 20th century? (That’s not a randomly chosen point to prove a point: that 45yr life expectancy was arguably the highest it had ever been in history to that point).

But, you have a cold, so medicinal science has done nothing.[/quote]

Polio eradicated, you say? Odd, look at the countries where it still thrives. What do you suppose they have in common?

And HIV is manageable for those (countries? persons?) who can afford it.
My point: Science handcuffed by dollar bills.

National cancer institute(US) says annual budget for cancer research is around $5 billion.
2009 US military budget? $626 billion.

My point: Are we using science to advance civilization or not? I believe we could do a lot better job, but we don’t do it right.

–and just to be contentious, life expectancy is up, but quality of life at the upper end of those numbers is awful(Alzheimer’s, poverty, etc). “Hope I die before I get old.”[/quote]

God you are hopeless.

The fact that we have eradicated polio from America is a bad thing because we can’t afford to do it worldwide? That logic just astounds me. Fuck, someone in Africa has AIDS and I don’t…that’s so much worse than if we both had it!

If your problem is that not everyone can AFFORD the RESULTS of science (as opposed to the science itself being wrong, which you’re sorta admitting it isn’t), then give up your internet subscription and send your $40/month to Haiti.

108

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
For that matter, I am not a scientist, and won’t claim to be. However, as a reasoning adult, I see science chasing the dollar. That’s my beef with the whole issue. Modern science isn’t doing it right, and nothing I’ve here so far has even begun to address that side of it.[/quote]

Confirmation Bias: you choose only to look at science in instances where it proves your point. Medicinal Science has accomplished nothing because you have a cold? (in an earlier post). Give me a fucking break. I suppose eradicating polio means nothing to you because you’ve never had it (which is sorta the point). And that HIV/AIDS is miraculously no longer a death sentence with modern medicine. Shit, they now believe someone has been CURED of HIV via stem cells. Not “managed pain”, or “extended life”, fucking cured (here’s the link: Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient' | HuffPost Latest News).

Or how bout the average life expectancy that’s grown from 45yrs to 67yrs since the beginning of the 20th century? (That’s not a randomly chosen point to prove a point: that 45yr life expectancy was arguably the highest it had ever been in history to that point).

But, you have a cold, so medicinal science has done nothing.[/quote]

Polio eradicated, you say? Odd, look at the countries where it still thrives. What do you suppose they have in common?

And HIV is manageable for those (countries? persons?) who can afford it.
My point: Science handcuffed by dollar bills.

National cancer institute(US) says annual budget for cancer research is around $5 billion.
2009 US military budget? $626 billion.

My point: Are we using science to advance civilization or not? I believe we could do a lot better job, but we don’t do it right.

–and just to be contentious, life expectancy is up, but quality of life at the upper end of those numbers is awful(Alzheimer’s, poverty, etc). “Hope I die before I get old.”[/quote]

God you are hopeless.

The fact that we have eradicated polio from America is a bad thing because we can’t afford to do it worldwide? That logic just astounds me. Fuck, someone in Africa has AIDS and I don’t…that’s so much worse than if we both had it!

If your problem is that not everyone can AFFORD the RESULTS of science (as opposed to the science itself being wrong, which you’re sorta admitting it isn’t), then give up your internet subscription and send your $40/month to Haiti.
[/quote]

I suppose they think scientists are going to invade countries so they may cure diseases and improve their quality of life, then form a enormous army equipped with futuristic weapons and conquer the world so they may free it of all the injustices.

109

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
Wow. Pretty hostile. I only wanted to put forth a non-religious opposing view. I clearly stated that sccience has done some good. I also said that man’s greed and avarice are partly responsible for science’s shortcomings. I feel REALLY sorry for the fool that tries to put forth a religious view.

And Legendaryblaze, that’s nice how you decide what kind of person I am ahead of time and refute statements I haven’t even made. That’s REALLY good science. The reality is, we’re all headed for trouble with the current state of ecology/power/disease/war. World conditions are not improving, regardless of the advances of technology and medicine and science in wealthier countries.

IMHO, good science should advance human civilization, not luxuries for select countries(eg, I can watch porn on my phone while thousands of infants worldwide die of diarrhea–see the discrepancy?).

Why is this thinking SO offensive?[/quote]

It’s not offensive, it’s just naive in light of what we’re working with.[/quote]

Could you clarify that? I’m not quite sure what your point is?
[/quote]

Scroll back and check out my previous response to you.[/quote]

It wasn’t to me, I’m a different poster. To clarify, are you saying he is naive to think we can aspire to greater social priorities than those of primates? Thats what I took you to mean, although perhaps you didn’t mean that exactly?[/quote]

That’s exactly what I meant.

People who argue that science isn’t progressing the way they’re hoping display little understanding of the animal that holds it.

Now, IS it possible for us to accomplish something more? I think so.

There are behavior triggers for tribes of humans. For instance, if a populace defines itself as extremely different than the populace next to it, it’s more likely to be aggressive towards them due to the “other” complex (the stereotyping of a group you don’t know).

This is why you see Europe in a more peaceful state than it’s ever known; the unification of the monetary and education system the individual “tribes” are starting to see each other as a part of their “tribe” instead of competition. As symbolism between the countries (such as money and lanuage) integrates, the people become less violent. We’re going to see this more and more thanks to the internet.

You have to understand that war and thinking of one’s own comfort needs first are paramount to our existance in the first place and the triggers for these patterns must be erradicated if you want more from the species.

110

I’m a scientist. I use fancy mathematics and biology to save species and ecological networks for governments and companies.

When I was a masters student, my professors worked on marine ecological population dynamics. As a rule fisheries won’t reduce the rate they fish at to save the fishes because environmental ethics would stop them from being competitive.

The species I save are arbitrary, generally people want to save the cute ones, rather than the ecologically significant ones.

Science is awesome, but either you do nothing of use, and do it for the right reasons, like my professors; or you do science for financial reasons, like me and know that it may or may not have use.

I love what I do, but i think it illustrates the problems that scientists face today

111

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
If it moves, it’s Biology.
If it stinks, it’s Chemistry.
If it doesn’t work, it’s Physics.[/quote]

In geophysics, the saying is: “If the data don’t fit, alter reality.”

112

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
If it moves, it’s Biology.
If it stinks, it’s Chemistry.
If it doesn’t work, it’s Physics.[/quote]

In geophysics, the saying is: “If the data don’t fit, alter reality.”[/quote]

Ah then it’s Magic :slight_smile:

113

[quote]pch2 wrote:

[quote]Bullmoose33 wrote:
It’s magic.[/quote]

The whole point of the inquiry was to differentiate between science and magic. I’m starting to think a lot of people don’t bother. [/quote]

Sorry for the joke. I’m a scientist-in-training so I often ask myself the same question. I’d like to think that science is the puzzle that God left for man (and woman) to occupy our minds while we weren’t having sex.

114

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.

115

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
technology/science is good. The problem is overpopulation. If we could be let’s say 50 million instead of 8 billion or I dont know the count now we could all own 8 hummers and it wouldn’t make any difference. Granted the hummers would be probably all the same color but who cares[/quote]

So, what you’re saying is that you just want to have all the stuff you want without consequences…

116

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]Humbert wrote:
For that matter, I am not a scientist, and won’t claim to be. However, as a reasoning adult, I see science chasing the dollar. That’s my beef with the whole issue. Modern science isn’t doing it right, and nothing I’ve here so far has even begun to address that side of it.[/quote]

Confirmation Bias: you choose only to look at science in instances where it proves your point. Medicinal Science has accomplished nothing because you have a cold? (in an earlier post). Give me a fucking break. I suppose eradicating polio means nothing to you because you’ve never had it (which is sorta the point). And that HIV/AIDS is miraculously no longer a death sentence with modern medicine. Shit, they now believe someone has been CURED of HIV via stem cells. Not “managed pain”, or “extended life”, fucking cured (here’s the link: Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient' | HuffPost Latest News).

Or how bout the average life expectancy that’s grown from 45yrs to 67yrs since the beginning of the 20th century? (That’s not a randomly chosen point to prove a point: that 45yr life expectancy was arguably the highest it had ever been in history to that point).

But, you have a cold, so medicinal science has done nothing.[/quote]

I would like to point out that the score is 48 cures (if this is actually found to be a cure) for adult stem cells to 0 for embryonic stem cells.

117

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
scientific method.

[/quote]
nonono can’t use part of the definition to explain the word.[/quote]

That applies in most cases, but in this one she’s naming a set of steps by saying “scientific method” which is different than the word “science”.

You can’t say “What is cold? Well this room is cold.”

But you could say “what is jack hammering? Well, it’s when you use this thing called a jack hammer to hammer with.”[/quote]
I can’t believe I got a serious response for this.

Sorry for wasting your time Leenerz.

118

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
scientific method.

[/quote]
Peanut Butter runs through my veins. I’m so creamy, motherfucker…[/quote]
[/quote]
That’s the response I’m looking for.

119

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]TD54 wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:
Science is the formulation of hypotheses, and the subsequent testing/proving of those hypotheses.[/quote]

yea yeah we know that definition. We were all told that in the 4th grade
[/quote]

Were you taught Occam’s Razor in 8th grade? That the simplest definition is usually correct?

No need to write a paragraph explanation when a sentence answers the question. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that there’s a better way to say it by writing more words.[/quote]

Kind of, it is the hypothesis that explains with the fewest new assumptions, with all being equal.

However, I would like to point out that the man that came up with Occam’s Razor was Fr. William of Ockham, a Franciscan Friar in the Catholic Church. You know, just in case someone doesn’t want to use a “religious” idea.[/quote]

Thanks to religion we have biology! It’s now in no way connected to religion, but the catalyst was man wanting to understand god through his creation (much like Taoists believe).

120

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:
scientific method.

[/quote]
nonono can’t use part of the definition to explain the word.[/quote]

That applies in most cases, but in this one she’s naming a set of steps by saying “scientific method” which is different than the word “science”.

You can’t say “What is cold? Well this room is cold.”

But you could say “what is jack hammering? Well, it’s when you use this thing called a jack hammer to hammer with.”[/quote]
I can’t believe I got a serious response for this.

Sorry for wasting your time Leenerz.[/quote]

I think I come across as far more serious than I am because I type a lot and stick to a topic until it’s hashed when in actuality I’m quite amused by most of what goes on here.