Science / scientific method thread

[action]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

That is why it is different from history. Historians, academic historians, all seem to read history for fun. In fact there is a sort of blurring of the edges, between academic discipline, hobbyism and mere entertainment. 

in fairness, I do watch the discovery channel from time to time.

But then again, "paranormal caught on camera" seems to be the most interesting program on it, so maybe not

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Maybe they do then.

I didn't necessarily mean popularization.

Scientists don't write books for other scientists, in general. The literature if science is scientific journals with short articles written by groups of scientists. And they are not really entertaining t read and would usually require the reader to be extensively familiar with the topic from before. 

[Dazey]

5 hours ago, action said:

This is one of my favorite achievments of science of the last decades:

A choir boy as seen up close by Father O’Reilly?  

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Couldn’t help myself. I think I need to have myself checked.  

[Dazey]

36 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is why it is different from history. Historians, academic historians, all seem to read history for fun. In fact there is a sort of blurring of the edges, between academic discipline, hobbyism and mere entertainment. 

The papers might not be a laugh riot but the shit you can do after reading them can be great. Anybody who’s ever dropped a stink bomb in McDonalds has many an unknown chemist to thank for all their hard work.  

[action]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

A choir boy as seen up close by Father O’Reilly?  

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Couldn’t help myself. I think I need to have myself checked.  

don't forget to kiss his ring, when you're having an audience

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

A choir boy as seen up close by Father O’Reilly?  

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Couldn’t help myself. I think I need to have myself checked.  

Shame you ain't 30 years younger, Father O' Reilly'd probably do it for ya.

Just now, action said:

don't forget to kiss his ring, when you're having an audience

See now thats just tasteless

[action]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

See now thats just tasteless

I wouldn't know how it tastes, and I don't wanna know 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Shame you ain't 30 years younger, Father O' Reilly'd probably do it for ya.

I’m probably a little on the slack side for his tastes these days.  

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, action said:

I wouldn't know how it tastes

Sort of nutty i'd imagine?

[action]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Sort of nutty i'd imagine?

nutella, perhaps

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, action said:

nutella, perhaps

Buttella.  

[action]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Buttella.  

children love it!

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, action said:

children love it!

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/14/personalise-nutella-jars-arsemuck-bumgravy-and-backdirt_n_8976880.html

 

[Len Cnut]

You don't half lower the tone McLeod

[soon]

Everyone should like Phish. But some people don’t like Phish.

I would like there to be a scientific study to determine why this is.

Is it because some people have no taste? Or is it because we are a simulation existing in Elon Musks bunghole?

I’ll take my answer directly from Bill Nye, in the form of cat emojis. Thank you.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is why it is different from history. Historians, academic historians, all seem to read history for fun. In fact there is a sort of blurring of the edges, between academic discipline, hobbyism and mere entertainment. 

But history is great. I mean, this is not a popularity contest. I read more history books than science books myself. History lends itself more to entertainment. It is not so easy to popularize science and make science into entertainment. The reasons are likely that many scientific details in themselves aren't entertaining. The history of science, though, can be fun when you get to read about all the weird scientists and what they did. But the science itself is more useful than entertaining. And scientists don't tend to be very good at communicating science to non-scientists. They are not trained at prose; they are trained to write as "concise and precise" as possible. Usually a good science book is one that doesn't really focus on the scientific results themselves, like some finches having a 10 % smaller beak than some others, but the implications of this and about the scientists who made the discovery. 

It is unfortunate that most scientific results are hidden away in obscure scientific journals written in a style that is usually indecipherable to the uninitiated, but that's how it is. What is missing, really, are good journalists writing for magazines and newspapers, with a scientific background, who can extract the scientific findings and write about what they mean to us and our understanding of the world in an entertaining and enlightening style. Those are few and far between.

Edited May 29, 2020 by SoulMonster

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

What is missing, really, are good journalists writing for magazines and newspapers, with a scientific background, who can extract the scientific findings and write about what they mean to us and our understanding of the world in an entertaining and enlightening style. Those are few and far between.

well, the thread is all yours

should I struggle with a scientific problem myself, I'll be here to ask some enlightenment in an entertaining style

[DieselDaisy]

14 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Scientists don't write books for other scientists, in general. The literature if science is scientific journals with short articles written by groups of scientists. And they are not really entertaining t read and would usually require the reader to be extensively familiar with the topic from before. 

Academic history subsists on both books and journals, journals published on William and Mary Quarterly and JSTOR, etc etc. If an item is not lengthy enough to work-up into book format, it basically becomes a journal/essay. Although we don't really use the term ''peer review'' often, these tend to be exclusively read by other historians and critiqued. You consequentially get these ''academic wars'' between rival papers (and books); these wars often become rather frosty. 

Don't you have mammoth books, which I have often seen during this corona nonsense, on some boffin's book shelf when he is on his webcam. More referency type affairs maybe? 

Edited May 30, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[lame ass security]

11 hours ago, action said:

don't laugh, but there is this program I watch "paranormal caught on camera" on discovery channel, and these show various footage of ghosts, cryptids etc, which is then reviewed by "experts".

I watch it for entertainment purposes, but when I watch all that footage, I'm starting to see patterns and stuff that's consequent across all those videos.

Like batteries draining instantly in the vicinity of a ghost, stuff like that.

EMP's can measure electric magnetic fields. that's not imaginary; that's real

All perfectly measurable data. 

But as we speak, only freaks and self proclaimed "ghost hunters" are involved in this field.

Why can't this be a fully fledged discipline? 

Now, as it stands, when I watch that program and those "witnesses", you're always left with the thought that they set up everything as a hoax. Whereas, with an experiment run by respected scientists, this would not be the case.

Lots of missed opportunities for science here

 

I watch Paranormal Caught...also and like you for entertainment purposes. But I've watched the ghost hunting shows for years and have always been fascinated. I do believe that paranormal studies and research is becoming more accepted in the scientific community.

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Academic history subsists on both books and journals, journals published on William and Mary Quarterly and JSTOR, etc etc. If an item is not lengthy enough to work-up into book format, it basically becomes a journal/essay. Although we don't really use the term ''peer review'' often, these tend to be exclusively read by other historians and critiqued. You consequentially get these ''academic wars'' between rival papers (and books); these wars often become rather frosty. 

Don't you have mammoth books, which I have often seen during this corona nonsense, on some boffin's book shelf when he is on his webcam. More referency type affairs maybe? 

You got textbooks of course, intended for students. 

[DieselDaisy]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You got textbooks of course, intended for students. 

Surely scientists possess big reference works? I would have thought it essential. A biologist say, or a paleontologist, must possess cladistics books for instance.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Surely scientists possess big reference works? I would have thought it essential. A biologist say, or a paleontologist, must possess cladistics books for instance.

Depending upon the field there might be something like that, although we didn't have any in my field. And definitely not something one would read for entertainment.

In my field (bacterial genetics) things were happening so fast that any books would quickly be outdated; we basically had to keep abreast by continuously reading the primary literature - which took up quite a lot of our time due to the massive output.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Depending upon the field there might be something like that, although we didn't have any in my field. And definitely not something one would read for entertainment.

In my field (bacterial genetics) things were happening so fast that any books would quickly be outdated; we basically had to keep abreast by continuously reading the primary literature - which took up quite a lot of our time due to the massive output.

I am glad I opted for the humanities. 

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am glad I opted for the humanities. 

Or you could have chosen any science with little progress.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Or you could have chosen any science with little progress.

Dropped the sciences as they were excruciatingly dull and lacking any sort of entertainment value. I have to be entertained by the academic subjects I excel in. History, Classics, English Literature, languages and music were my subjects (in rough order of preference). The only thing worse than science was maths! Although I also hated PE. And woodworking, electronics and all that nonsense.