Jump to content

Science / scientific method thread


action

Recommended Posts

Kind of a tangent, but I figure it's important for the broader picture.

I fixed my driveway yesterday. My wife was so happy, that she asked "how can I thank you". Well that was a question, I didn't need to overthink too long.

My neighbour (true story), is a scientist. He doesn't know the front or the back of a hammer. He looks constantly frustrated, because his wife never wants to give him some action.

What does that tell you?

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, action said:

a scientist is not defined by the mathematical models he "discovers". If that was the case, there wouldn't be many scientists: most of them don't find such a model in all their lives, but they're looking.

No one has said that scientists "discover mathematical models"; I was talking about physicists and how they, collectively, develop mathematical models that describe the world. Try to focus, will you?

 

6 minutes ago, action said:

Now then, why do I think a plumber needs to think more than a scientist, and to put it differently: has more benefit, more use?

Because you are very stupid?

2 minutes ago, action said:

Kind of a tangent, but I figure it's important for the broader picture.

I fixed my driveway yesterday. My wife was so happy, that she asked "how can I thank you". Well that was a question, I didn't need to overthink too long.

My neighbour (true story), is a scientist. He doesn't know the front or the back of a hammer. He looks constantly frustrated, because his wife never wants to give him some action.

What does that tell you?

That you are the type of person who make erroneous conclusions based on small sample-sizes? And that you also like to brag about your love life? And that it is hilarious to even contemplate you "overthinking" anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

No one has said that scientists "discover mathematical models"; I was talking about physicists and how they, collectively, develop mathematical models that describe the world. Try to focus, will you?

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But that's not what scientists do :D You are thinking about engineers who apply the results of physics by using mathematical models to calculate stuff. 

Physicists use the scientific method to expand our knowledge of the material world, and in doing so they develop mathematical models that can be used by others.

it is you who jumped from scientists to physicists, so excuse me if I lost focus here.

What is it, that scientists do then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, action said:

Now then, why do I think a plumber needs to think more than a scientist, and to put it differently: has more benefit, more use?

 

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Because you are very stupid?

:lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I love about you @action (and this is not a diss btw, I'm no fuckin' genius myself, in fact I'm incredibly thick, so more than anything its a comfort finding more people that belong in my particularly category :lol:) is you'll take a subject that you admittedly know jack shit about, question someone who does know something about it...and then summarily write off great swathes of their explanation as a load of bollocks after a brief surface level assessment instead of like...taking the time to process the information or, heaven forbid, actually look some of it up and see how it works in context :lol:  It kinda reminds me of Karl Pilkington talking to Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant.

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, action said:

it is you who jumped from scientists to physicists, so excuse me if I lost focus here.

No, it was you who started this by talking about physicists:

On 17.8.2020 at 9:27 PM, action said:

it just hit me: physicists don't have to think; everything is made up of formulas.

I was responding to this post. Then your brain malfunctioned a bit and you started to talk about scientists in general.

4 minutes ago, action said:

What is it, that scientists do then?

Jesus man. Can't you just pick up one of your son's school books and learn a little?

Scientists study the world using the scientific method, which is a brilliant little method based on the testing of hypotheses. The scientists then publish their results in peer-reviewed journals and the body of all these papers constitute the scientific literature which is humanity's collective knowledge of, well, everything there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The thing I love about you @action (and this is not a diss btw, I'm no fuckin' genius myself, in fact I'm incredibly thick, so more than anything its a comfort finding more people that belong in my particularly category :lol:) is you'll take a subject that you admittedly know jack shit about, question someone who does know something about it...and then summarily write off great swathes of their explanation as a load of bollocks after a brief surface level assessment instead of like...taking the time to process the information or, heaven forbid, actually look some of it up and see how it works in context :lol:  It kinda reminds me of Karl Pilkington talking to Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant.

sometimes, you need to think out of the box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, it was you who started this by talking about physicists:

I was responding to this post. Then your brain malfunctioned a bit and you started to talk about scientists in general.

Jesus man. Can't you just pick up one of your son's school books and learn a little?

Scientists study the world using the scientific method, which is a brilliant little method based on the testing of hypotheses. The scientists then publish their results in peer-reviewed journals and the body of all these papers constitute the scientific literature which is humanity's collective knowledge of, well, everything there is.

ok, got it now. sorry for mixing up scientists with physicists.

to summarise, in regards to physicists: I claim that they only need to apply formulas (you say this is wrong; engineers do). You claim that they invent new mathematical models for other to use (I say: new mathematical models are rarely made).

Is this a correct summary of both our stances?

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Its best to know your way around the box properly first, what you’re looking for might be in there :lol: 

there's only one box i'm interested in, and if feminists are to be believed, it even has a voice 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, action said:

to summarise, in regards to physicists: I claim that they only need to apply formulas (you say this is wrong; engineers do). You claim that they invent new mathematical models for other to use (I say: new mathematical models are rarely made).

On what basis do you make that assertion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, action said:

ok, got it now. sorry for mixing up scientists with physicists.

to summarise, in regards to physicists: I claim that they only need to apply formulas (you say this is wrong; engineers do). You claim that they invent new mathematical models for other to use (I say: new mathematical models are rarely made).

Is this a correct summary of both our stances?

Yes, physicists, collectively, tend to describe the physical world which they study in mathematical models and formulas. An immediate example being E=MC2. But it is not correct to take from this that every physicist is sitting at his desk (or rather in front of a black board) churning out new mathematical models every day. Most of the brunt work done is collecting the data that is needed, and most physicists will never be directly part of formulating a new model. But all this data collecting leads to material that can be used for formulate new models, either by themselves or those who come after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun I looked up the latest issue of Nature Physics (one of the highest ranked journals presenting physics research) and its first "Research highlight" which is an article from Phys. Rev (another hing ranking journal) called "Quantum Metrology with Strongly Interacting Spin Systems" by Zhou et al from July this year. You can read it all here: https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031003#fulltext but unless you happen to be a physicist in this particular field you would likely not understand much of it (like me), but you should still be able to grasp that the scientists have done experimental work (studying electronic spins in diamond) and by doing so and applying what to me is akin to magic, they apparently (going by their own words in the abstract, here) "achieve an ac magnetic field sensitivity well beyond the previous limit imposed by interactions". In other words, they have used expanded our knowledge on quantum science and methods therein. 

Is this the same as simply "applying formulas"? Eh, no.

EDIT: Hehey! The paper conveniently includes a "popular summary", likely intended for people like us:

Quote

Quantum metrology makes use of quantum-mechanical effects, such as superposition and entanglement, to detect weak signals with ultrahigh precision. To enhance sensitivity, it is desirable to increase the density of quantum sensors in the sensing volume. However, in practice, this sensitivity improvement is severely hindered by unwanted interactions between the sensors at a close distance. We demonstrate a novel approach to quantum metrology that overcomes this challenge by employing a robust control-pulse sequence, which decouples the sensor-sensor interactions while detecting a target signal with high sensitivity.

Our approach is based on a new method of robust quantum control, which allows us to simultaneously eliminate the undesired effects associated with sensor-sensor interactions, disorder, and control errors. Specifically, we develop and implement a novel control sequence consisting of short periodic pulses that is designed to respond sensitively to an oscillating ac signal while suppressing the interactions and disorder in a robust fashion, insensitive to experimental imperfections. Combined with optimal initialization and readout protocols, we apply this new sequence to an interacting sensor ensemble in diamond.

Our work provides the first demonstration of a solid-state ensemble quantum sensor surpassing the interaction limit, opening up a promising avenue for the development of magnetometers with unprecedented sensitivity. Looking forward, our approach will have an immediate impact on a wide range of quantum-sensing applications on the nanoscale and also offer new opportunities for engineering of many-body quantum dynamics.

...or not.

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit more on the scientific method:

To come up with hypotheses to test, you need to have a very deep understanding of the current situation in a scientific discipline. Basically, you need to know exactly what is known and what is just out of reach for our knowledge, basically where the frontiers goes beyond the known and the unknown. This demands absolute grasp on the scientific literature within a field. And with thousands of papers being published every year in a field as broad as physics, it means that every scientist spends quite a lot of his time studying other peoples' work to be able to ask the right questions (=formulate the right hypotheses). It wasn't like that 200 years ago, then we knew much less and a scientist could manage to be an expert in more than one field. Today, most scientists are extremely focused on a very narrow field and might not know much outside of this.

In addition to having this extremely deep understanding of current research in your field, a good scientist must then "connect the dots" and come up with an hypothesis that, when answered, helps to push that frontier a little bit forward, but which is also testifiable. This requires a certain amount of intuition.

Then the scientist must come up with ways of testing the hypothesis, which relies on a good understanding of experimental methods and often quite a bit of ingenuity. 

Lastly, collected data must be analyzed and discussed, in the context of all other data that exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dazey said:

On what basis do you make that assertion? 

which one?

- that they only need to apply formulas

this is the fundament of physics. it is very much based on math. ask any physicist and they will agree with this.

- new formulas are rarely made

there are only so many forces that need to be turned into formula's. there is still more to find, but progress is slow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, physicists, collectively, tend to describe the physical world which they study in mathematical models and formulas. An immediate example being E=MC2. But it is not correct to take from this that every physicist is sitting at his desk (or rather in front of a black board) churning out new mathematical models every day. Most of the brunt work done is collecting the data that is needed, and most physicists will never be directly part of formulating a new model. But all this data collecting leads to material that can be used for formulate new models, either by themselves or those who come after them.

this is pretty much what I was saying, but in your words.

but:

- collecting date

- describe the world with mathematical models

does not require much thinking does it? 

I agree, that when new models need to be thought up, THEN there is thought involved. But that is only a smart part of the job, and you agree with this: "it is not correct to take from this that every physicist is sitting at his desk, churning out new mathematical models every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Just for fun I looked up the latest issue of Nature Physics (one of the highest ranked journals presenting physics research) and its first "Research highlight" which is an article from Phys. Rev (another hing ranking journal) called "Quantum Metrology with Strongly Interacting Spin Systems" by Zhou et al from July this year. You can read it all here: https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031003#fulltext but unless you happen to be a physicist in this particular field you would likely not understand much of it (like me), but you should still be able to grasp that the scientists have done experimental work (studying electronic spins in diamond) and by doing so and applying what to me is akin to magic, they apparently (going by their own words in the abstract, here) "achieve an ac magnetic field sensitivity well beyond the previous limit imposed by interactions". In other words, they have used expanded our knowledge on quantum science and methods therein. 

Is this the same as simply "applying formulas"? Eh, no.

EDIT: Hehey! The paper conveniently includes a "popular summary", likely intended for people like us:

...or not.

scientific jargon is hard to understand, but even then, this does not mean that science involves a lot of thinking.

setting up an experiment, in the hope that something cool happens, again, homer simpson could do that. If something cool happens, then "eureka", fame for eternity, but you're basically just letting nature do her job, observe, and describe what you observed in mathematics. You need to have a knowledge of mathematics and the correct jargon, but tell me where do you need to think here?

Also, I agree, quantum mechanics is hard to understand. Nature itself is hard to understand. Does still not mean that scientists think a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, action said:

this is pretty much what I was saying, but in your words.

but:

- collecting date

- describe the world with mathematical models

does not require much thinking does it? 

I disagree. First you need to figure out what data needs to be collected to test your hypothesis, then you need to come up with experimental methods to collect the relevant data, then there is usually some processing of the data and analyses of it, then you must figure out what it all means, then, if lucky, you have answered your hypothesis and expanded our knowledge a little bit and if possible it can all be condensed into some kind of mathematical model. Your argument was that science is just applying some formulas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, action said:

setting up an experiment, in the hope that something cool happens, again, homer simpson could do that.

But it not "hoping that something cool happens", it is devising an experimental set-up that collects data to test the hypothesis. It is not just collecting any random data and hoping it is cool. Say you are a molecular biologist and by reading through recent publications by your peers to stay up to date you have this idea that there must be some interaction between nascent polypeptides and an unknown molecule that prevents they from misfolding. First off, there is intelligence in looking at the existing studies and coming up with a hunch, an idea, of what is missing and what could be going on. Secondly, you need to find a way to test the hypothesis. This requires not only a good understanding of existing experimental methods but also the intelligence to understand how to apply them to generate data that will test the hypothesis. So let's say the hypothesis is that some RNA molecules interact with the polypeptides and somehow stabilizises them. Then you need to be able to fixate polypeptides with RNAs intact to see this interaction, and this requires quite likely the need to devise a new experimental method that doesn't exist already, or tweaking one that does to fit the purpose. Or maybe you decide to use computational modelling to look for putative RNA molecules that would fold in certain ways that could cause interactions with proteins? That would likely require the development of suitable software. Again, this requires thinking and success relies on choosing the right approach. Then the data must be generated (usually by an undergraduate) and analyzed. Normally you will get lots of unexpected results that requires interpretation and discussion, which involves a lot of thinking in the context of the scientific knowledge in the field, to deduce what is going on, and then, maybe, hopefully, you have tested the hypothesis. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all of this is rocket science (and incidentally, rocket science isn't always rocket science, if you get what I mean). But it definitely requires a lot of thinking throughout and is far away from your stupid "just applying models". And really good scientists are those who ask the brilliant questions (=formulate the most clever hypotheses) and have the resources (intelligence, funding, colleagues, equipment, etc) to have them properly tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, action said:

but you're basically just letting nature do her job, observe, and describe what you observed in mathematics. 

First off, no, you don't just let nature do her job. You set up a clever series of experiments (hopefully) that has been designed to answer a cleverly formulated hypothesis (hopefully). Granted, occasionally it is enough to simply observe nature to collect data (say, comparing bird egg's colors at various locales) but there is always a significant amount of thinking involved in formulating a testifiable hypothesis that when tested will expand our knowledge.

Secondly, you now seem to think that all scientists describe their findings in mathematics. No, they don't. It is common in physics to condense knowledge in scientific models and formulas, but not at all that common in most other scientific disciplines. Like in my field of science a result could simply be that the gene idi1 encodes a protein that when active is responsible for proper cell division in archae. No mathematics involved. From this result another scientists may ponder whether also eubacteria and eukaryotes contain homologues of the Idi1 protein and set up a corresponding hypothesis which can easily be tested by looking for similar gene sequences in these other organisms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I disagree. First you need to figure out what data needs to be collected to test your hypothesis, then you need to come up with experimental methods to collect the relevant data, then there is usually some processing of the data and analyses of it, then you must figure out what it all means, then, if lucky, you have answered your hypothesis and expanded our knowledge a little bit and if possible it can all be condensed into some kind of mathematical model. Your argument was that science is just applying some formulas. 

fair enough. I was being a bit flippant. I'm sure I've seen people made the joke that all that scientists have to do, is apply formulas. I think it was on one of those youtube videos I watch on physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, action said:

fair enough. I was being a bit flippant. I'm sure I've seen people made the joke that all that scientists have to do, is apply formulas. I think it was on one of those youtube videos I watch on physics.

Like anything else, science can be done with a lot of intelligence and thinking...or not so much. The best science involves people making genuinely brilliant connections and drawing upon an incredible understanding and control of contemporary research, coming up with extremely clever ways of designing experiments, and presenting the results in great scientific prose that ultimately change the way we view the world. The worst science, without being direct fraudulent, is just derivative works that relies upon the great thinking of others; copy-cat science.

But all in all scientists think a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is pomposity a prerequisite? Have you got to have a preliminary entrance exam before getting accepted on a sciencey course, establishing a heightened level of smugness and arrogance? The reason I ask is not just because of Soul - well, actually it partially is - but Brian Cox's pontificating on twatter. He blocked me incidentally; it might have had something to do with me calling him a ''muppet headed mancunian star gazing remainer twat from a crap '90s band'' or something or other?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...