The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[q3cpma]

That person probably thought these were just passive dongles. It can be confusing telling which is which, since USB-C, the mess that it is, has a mode that passes an analog audio signal through the data pins. This is pretty much only found in some Android phones though. The fact that the Apple dongle worked connected to a PC is a pretty good indicator it’s an active dongle (i.e. has a DAC inside).

Hmmm, didn't know about that part of USB. Probably just for those jack-less fashion statements.

 

[tomtoo]

Yes science is dogmatic! Somehow

It's bound to the scientific method. And that's cool! Keeps astrologie, homeopaty and other snake oil sellers out.

 

[mansr]

Hmmm, didn't know about that part of USB. Probably just for those jack-less fashion statements.

This is called Audio Adapter Accessory Mode. Four of the pins are reassigned to match a standard TRRS headset connector. USB Type-C also has something called Alternate Modes. These repurpose the superspeed signal pairs for other uses including HDMI and DisplayPort.

USB 4 is going to be fun. It defines a wrapping layer that can carry USB, PCIe, and DisplayPort packets multiplexed over the same link.

 

[mhardy6647]

Scientists do indeed seek truth (or at least an operating approximation to truth) -- but, on any given day, we mostly deal in models, approximations to reality. The models are useful if they allow testable hypotheses. That's part one. Part two is to devise experimental approaches that test the hypotheses without undue (and I hate to use the word in 2020 AD -- or CE, if one prefers!) bias as to the anticipated outcome that 'rigs the system'. Unfortunately, it is common (and, again, I do speak from experience -- I did/do this stuff for a living) to (unconsciously or otherwise) devise experimental approaches that assume that the outcome of the experiment will reflect a scientist's expectation of that outcome. Science is still the most fun when the expectation is not met! Some scientists devote big chunks of their careers trying to 'prove' a deeply-held believe that is, simply put, incorrect (I knew and worked with at least one of them in my grad school days). On the other hand, the best scientists do learn from their mistakes, so to speak

Another regurgitation of one of my lecture slides (sorry!) -- 'cause I really liked this statement from one of last year's Nobel laureates when I heard it on the radio.

 

[vert]

The thing is that there's science (the scientific method), organizations pretending to use it often with some biases in funding or hypothesises and mostly crooked medias saying "Science (tm) said this", where Science (tm) is basically a replacement or complementary religion.
And there's the problem of scientists/engineers being very often intelligent (it's basically a requirement) but not with a significatively higher proportion of wise men than average.

Here is the thing, there's always a label at the ready for people like Sheldrake, he gets his little "pseudoscience" tag on Wikipedia. That may be useful for the public while also helping some people feel superior to a "quack". A bad scientist doing "legitimate" science will be much less likely put publicly at the stake in this way. And the world is flooded with biased, corrupt science. But that gets a pass. For one guy like Sheldrake there always seems to be 20 debunkers. Don't those people have work to do?

I remember hearing a podcast with a former NASA engineer who cured her autist son with homeopathy, she wrote a book about it. So is she a pariah all of a sudden, an unworthy scientist, unworthy of science and the NASA, because she found homeopathy worked for her son? Someone mentioned Uri Geller. The fact is various states had and likely still have an interest in such "research". A large chunk of his carreer Geller spent in taxpayer-funded programs. That's reality, too.

 

[mansr]

View attachment 66755

Scientists seek to know the workings of the world. Engineers bend it to their will.

 

[mhardy6647]

Scientists seek to know the workings of the world. Engineers bend it to their will.

That's a fair assessment.

 

[pkane]

Here is the thing, there's always a label at the ready for people like Sheldrake, he gets his little "pseudoscience" tag on Wikipedia. That may be useful for the public while also helping some people feel superior to a "quack". A bad scientist doing "legitimate" science will be much less likely put publicly at the stake in this way. And the world is flooded with biased, corrupt science. But that gets a pass. For one guy like Sheldrake there always seems to be 20 debunkers. Don't those people have work to do?

I remember hearing a podcast with a former NASA engineer who cured her autist son with homeopathy, she wrote a book about it. So is she a pariah all of a sudden, an unworthy scientist, unworthy of science and the NASA, because she found homeopathy worked for her son? Someone mentioned Uri Geller. The fact is various states had and likely still have an interest in such "research". A large chunk of his carreer Geller spent in taxpayer-funded programs. That's reality, too.

Nobody would confuse a mom using homeopathy to cure her son with a scientist doing scientific research. I wouldn't take her opinion over scientific establishment until she does and publishes proper research. Same with Sheldrake. He's done no research and no science, just popularized some of his pet theories through books. Pet theories attempting to explain unsubstantiated fairy tales.

 

[Wes]

your post is about clinical treatment

while having a basis in science, it isn't science

 

[SIY]

I remember hearing a podcast with a former NASA engineer who cured her autist son with homeopathy, she wrote a book about it. So is she a pariah all of a sudden, an unworthy scientist, unworthy of science and the NASA, because she found homeopathy worked for her son?

She didn't. Just because she believes it to be so doesn't make it so.

Someone mentioned Uri Geller. The fact is various states had and likely still have an interest in such "research". A large chunk of his carreer Geller spent in taxpayer-funded programs. That's reality, too.

Yes, a great argument for getting taxpayer money out of funding research. Geller destroyed several careers, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, and defrauded millions of people with cheesy, easy-to-replicate, and poorly done sleight of hand. His exposure didn't seem to discourage the foolish folks who wanted to believe. This is a poor choice of a hill for you to die on.

 

[Tks]

This is called Audio Adapter Accessory Mode. Four of the pins are reassigned to match a standard TRRS headset connector. USB Type-C also has something called Alternate Modes. These repurpose the superspeed signal pairs for other uses including HDMI and DisplayPort.

USB 4 is going to be fun. It defines a wrapping layer that can carry USB, PCIe, and DisplayPort packets multiplexed over the same link.

I don't understand what this means. As in, I'm not understanding the difference between that and TB3 or upcoming TB4?

I remember hearing a podcast with a former NASA engineer who cured her autist son with homeopathy, she wrote a book about it. So is she a pariah all of a sudden, an unworthy scientist, unworthy of science and the NASA, because she found homeopathy worked for her son? Someone mentioned Uri Geller. The fact is various states had and likely still have an interest in such "research". A large chunk of his carreer Geller spent in taxpayer-funded programs. That's reality, too.

Yes.. Unless she can demonstrate it worked for ANYONE (her son could be used if she wants to demonstrate), she forfeits scientific integrity passing off unsubstantiated claims as matters of fact.

 

[j_j]

Rupert Sheldrake is 100% quack, sorry.

The key to science is testability. You must be able to test your hypothesis, with a test that could deny it if your hypothesis is wrong. Once you can, and have, tested something, then you must obtain external confirmation via someone else's experiment. The plural of anecdotes is not science.

 

[krabapple]

Yes, a great argument for getting taxpayer money out of funding research. Geller destroyed several careers, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, and defrauded millions of people with cheesy, easy-to-replicate, and poorly done sleight of hand. His exposure didn't seem to discourage the foolish folks who wanted to believe. This is a poor choice of a hill for you to die on.

That would be a terrible, extremely short-sighted reason to defund government-sponsored research. You could counterbalance a Geller with thousands of actual scientists who were funded by NIH, DARPA, etc whose research yielded actual advances in knowledge, technology, and well being.

 

[RayDunzl]

The key to science is testability.

Does Astronomy/Cosmology rate an exception?

They have a wealth of observations and models and conclusions, but test?

 

[j_j]

Does Astronomy/Cosmology rate an exception?

They have a wealth of observations and models and conclusions, but test?

A test does can amount to things, for instance, the measure of light bending via gravity. There is no manipulation required. The only part of physics/cosmology that might be untestable is some string theories, and there is objection to those on that basis, as they can describe many kinds of universe just by adjusting coefficients.

Things like astronomy can be tested, i.e. "the orbit will go there". Did it? Yes? Good, then the theory is acceptable. Continued success leads to an accepted theory, until, of course, error is discovered, and then refinement is required.

A good example is the evolution from Newtonian Mechanics to simple Einsteining mechanics, to full relativistic mechanics, which so far is batting 100%.

Likewise, measures of things like absorption lines in spectra, etc, can be used, carefully, to do some very surprisingly accurate testing.

So, a test can be an observation of a prediction or the like.

 

[j_j]

That would be a terrible, extremely short-sighted reason to defund government-sponsored research. You could counterbalance a Geller with thousands of actual scientists who were funded by NIH, DARPA, etc whose research yielded actual advances in knowledge, technology, and well being.

It does, however, also show that especially in some administrations, quacks successfully take over the money in respect to actual, real scientists and researchers. Furthermore, one of the results of basic research is 'you might learn something you didn't expect', and very often in our MBA-run, accountant-measured times, government or not, a NEW discovery is regarded as nothing but a loss.

 

[krabapple]

Does Astronomy/Cosmology rate an exception?

They have a wealth of observations and models and conclusions, but test?

You don't think astronomers ever propose falsifiable hypotheses?

Theoretical physicists and cosmologists have come under recent fire for (it is accused) ignoring falsifiability in favor of 'elegance' and explanatory power of models.

Astronomers, AFAICT, not so much.

 

[krabapple]

It does, however, also show that especially in some administrations, quacks successfully take over the money in respect to actual, real scientists and researchers. Furthermore, one of the results of basic research is 'you might learn something you didn't expect', and very often in our MBA-run, accountant-measured times, government or not, a NEW discovery is regarded as nothing but a loss.

Quacks generally get to take government money when they find a powerful fool with a pet theory and anecdotes to tell, who will bend/bypass peer review and scientific oversight for them. Example, the fact that there is an 'alternative medicine' arm of the NIH (NCCAM) , thanks to ex-Sen. Tom Harkin's abysmal foolishness re: the curative powers of bee pollen. But again I would balance this against the far vaster record of tax-funded scientists who have done good science.

 

[solderdude]

The plural of anecdotes is not science.

nice, just like this one:

Scientists seek to know the workings of the world. Engineers bend it to their will.

 

[Wombat]

It seems to me that the most dogmatic posters on AScienceR are those who overrate their knowledge and understanding of what they talk about and can't be reasoned with. The modern world is full of it, too.