Science / scientific method thread

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

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?

No, they just seem smug to you because of your inferiority complex. You never were good at science and thus you despise science and scientists. It's okay, you are good with dates and stuff. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, they just seem smug to you because of your inferiority complex. You never were good at science and thus you despise science and scientists. It's okay, you are good with dates and stuff. 

In actual fact I wasn't that bad at Physics. Think I got a B. 

[action]

and me, I'm better now at physics than I ever was.

all thanks to youtube 👨‍🎓

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

and me, I'm better now at physics than I ever was.

all thanks to youtube 👨‍🎓

Watching videos that claim scientists just use formula? And that makes you better in physics? 

[action]

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Watching videos that claim scientists just use formula? And that makes you better in physics? 

I said, a little better than befa-wa

Edited August 25, 2020 by action

[SoulMonster]

Some astrophysics claim that there is a constant production of the molecule phosphine on Venus. This is interesting because phosphine is usually a byproduct of biological degradation. In other words, life on Venus? 

[ZoSoRose]

On 9/14/2020 at 11:54 AM, SoulMonster said:

Some astrophysics claim that there is a constant production of the molecule phosphine on Venus. This is interesting because phosphine is usually a byproduct of biological degradation. In other words, life on Venus? 

This is the most interesting story in a long time. I wonder what will come from it

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

This is the most interesting story in a long time. I wonder what will come from it

It would be fantastic if there were microbial life there, but most likely it is just a new way that phospine can be created which wasn't obvious to the scientists. 

I see some Norwegian newspaper use headlines "Evidence for life on Venus", but that is not entirely true. Would be cool, though  

[action]

light is really fascinating. it is the only known thing that travels at the speed of light. At that speed, time seemingly "stops" relative to something else. Einstein said that time slows down or speeds up depending on how fast you move relative to something else.

approaching the speed of light, a person in a spaceship would age much slower than the person left behind.

So this means, time goes slower for the remainer, relative to the time experienced by the person in the spaceship.

Light, traveling at the speed of light, is this spaceship. So for the light particle time goes faster, than for us who observe the light particle moving.

Surely, this difference of "times" must have some influence on how we observe light? Could the influence be, that we observe light as a wave, or as a particle? Could this be the cause for the wave / particle duality of light, that scientists seem to be struggling with?

we can "capture" this light particle, making it's speed, and therefore it's time relativity, drop to zero. If it hits a detector, it stops moving. So the way we view the light particle changes with it.

So when light moves at the speed of light, we view it as a wave form.

When we observe it, (when we made the light particle drop its speed to zero), we view it as a particle.

So the true nature of light is a particle. But when it moves at the speed of light, it "appears" to be a waveform, to us.

[SoulMonster]

In less than a year science has identified the causative agent of a novel respiratory disease, modelled its structure and studied its function, and developed vaccines -- which are likely to be approved very soon -- against the disease based on a novel RNA vaccine technology. That is quite amazing and a huge testament to what we can do together through the scientific process when we collaborate across borders. The greatest scientific achievement in modern times? And not the effort of one single genius, but the concerted effort of thousands of scientists, working together with a shared goal.

[Dazey]

26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

In less than a year science has identified the causative agent of a novel respiratory disease, modelled its structure and studied its function, and developed vaccines -- which are likely to be approved very soon -- against the disease based on a novel RNA vaccine technology. That is quite amazing and a huge testament to what we can do together through the scientific process when money is no object.

 

[DieselDaisy]

...until the vaccine gives you fish gills. 

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

...until the vaccine gives you fish gills. 

Hey, all the better to breathe with

[DieselDaisy]

20 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Hey, all the better to breathe with

I was going to say manboobs.

[Dazey]

44 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I was going to say manboobs.

I must be immune already then.  

[action]

the virus was certainly a remarkable piece of biogenetic engineering, targetting fat people and italians

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, action said:

the virus was certainly a remarkable piece of biogenetic engineering, targetting fat people and italians

Sounds like a Daily Mail editorial.

[action]

when was science "invented"?

I'm not sure. The answer is somewhere on google.

You wonder, how did the world cope before science? Before people could look at "experts", pardon me, scientific experts, for guidance? To have a small grasp on the difficulties of life?

Is it thinkable, there once was a time people actually had to think for themselves, to survive?

When I watch the news, and an important decision is to be made by the government, they are always awaiting the advice of " a comitee of experts", even for the most ridiculous things. Like the problem, if the summer holidays should be prolonged by two weeks or not. the "committee of experts" is discussing this difficult matter.

is this, because the question is of such difficulty, that a scientific committee is needed? Or is this just a case of diverting responsability, and lack of politicial courage?

A technocracy is a society led by experts, not by chosen politicians.

who are these experts that always seem to fight with each other? What is their democratic authority? Who voted for these people? What is even the point in voting for politicians altogether, if decisions are made not by politicians, but by experts?

Is politics replaced by science? Or rather, is science replaced with politics?

what is the philosophy behind science?

see:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/#:~:text=Enlightenment philosophy tends to stand,in directing thought and action.

Enlightenment philosophy tends to stand in tension with established religion, insofar as the release from self-incurred immaturity in this age, daring to think for oneself, awakening one’s intellectual powers, generally requires opposing the role of established religion in directing thought and action. The faith of the Enlightenment – if one may call it that – is that the process of enlightenment, of becoming progressively self-directed in thought and action through the awakening of one’s intellectual powers, leads ultimately to a better, more fulfilled human existence. 

Does science even exist today, in this form? "daring to think for itself" => does that even exist anymore? 

Is it science, or totalitarism, with a thin coat of science paint?

Edited July 1, 2022 by action

[action]

we must establish a new definition of science, as it is practised today.

science is not the means to reach the truth through a continued synthesis between thesis and antithesis. this concept of science is long gone. Note that, reaching truth can be a very dangerous activity in many cases.

A real definition would look something like this:

"science is a technical method, materialised in peer reviewed papers and statistics, with the purpose of backing the general political consensus and opposing theories that violate the general political consensus"

[ZoSoRose]

What

[Dazey]

9 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

What

Is he talking bollocks again?

Edited July 1, 2022 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

20 hours ago, Dazey said:

Is he talking bollocks again?

Did he ever stop? 

[action]

ah, the wisdom of the scientists

peer reviewed scientific research now has shown that working in your garden is seriously dangerous for your health

they recommend, based on a consensus, to wear a face mask when you're working in your garden

https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/19059935/urgent-warning-gardeners-soil-increases-risk-killer/

I'm not trolling, I'm not making ridiculous claims. I merely have to report what scientists, these havens of ultimate knowledge, are telling you

look at the absolute drivel these dumbasses are claiming:

Experts at the University Medical Center Mainz, Germany said pollution of air, water and soil is responsible for at least nine million deaths each year.

They highlighted that more than 60 per cent of pollution-related deaths are due to heart issues such as strokes, heart attacks, heart rhythm disorders and chronic ischaemic heart disease.

Writing in Cardiovascular Research, a journal of the European Society of Cardiology, the authors said soil pollutants include heavy metals, pesticides, and plastics.

[ZoSoRose]

5 minutes ago, action said:

I'm not trolling, I'm not making ridiculous claims. 

 

[janrichmond]

@action I think most of those you are addressing have you on ignore