The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[j_j]

I think this "debate" just proves to me that our technology has become so advanced that it's indistinguishable from magic.

...

It's a failure of education, I would say. But education is neither desirable nor desired for most parts.

To a great extent I think I must agree that to people who have not been trained to think critically, the seemingly magic nature allows other ideas to leak in and obscure the facts.

There is, however, another issue, that of the 'teach the controversy' taken by the "Cigarettes do not cause cancer" people, the "evolution is nonsense" science-haters, the "AGW is a myth" people who simply want to defend their masters' income, and of course the "COVID Hoax" people. This kind of anti-science "controversy" has been used extensively to create doubt where none belongs. The lawyer's point of being able to convince a jury shows, I think, just how far and how bad this problem is.

I've seen a legal team convince a jury that a device that didn't use a particular patent should still pay for patent rights. Fortunately, the judge sat on that. But the law, now, is useless to anyone but the richest of the rich. The rest of us can neither defend or protect ourselves.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

To a great extent I think I must agree that to people who have not been trained to think critically, the seemingly magic nature allows other ideas to leak in and obscure the facts.

There is, however, another issue, that of the 'teach the controversy' taken by the "Cigarettes do not cause cancer" people, the "evolution is nonsense" science-haters, the "AGW is a myth" people who simply want to defend their masters' income, and of course the "COVID Hoax" people. This kind of anti-science "controversy" has been used extensively to create doubt where none belongs. The lawyer's point of being able to convince a jury shows, I think, just how far and how bad this problem is.

I've seen a legal team convince a jury that a device that didn't use a particular patent should still pay for patent rights. Fortunately, the judge sat on that. But the law, now, is useless to anyone but the richest of the rich. The rest of us can neither defend or protect ourselves.

And in the United States, lawyers make up the vast bulk of elected officials.

 

[j_j]

And in the United States, lawyers make up the vast bulk of elected officials.

Indeed, and still the laws that are written are poorly constructed, with loopholes, logical fallacies, and ad-hoc guesstimates, and worse.

 

[mansr]

Indeed, and still the laws that are written are poorly constructed, with loopholes, logical fallacies, and ad-hoc guesstimates, and worse.

You say it as if that were unintentional

 

[Wes]

Lobbyists write most state laws in the US; maybe federal ones too.

 

[j_j]

Lobbyists write most state laws in the US; maybe federal ones too.

Well, there's "ALEC" the Federalist Society Shill that names things like "right to work law" that is actually "the right to be fired law", or the "Freedom from Religion Act" that is "how to place sharia law on everyone". But the really bad ones come when legislators try to do their jobs.

 

[amirm]

Well, there's "ALEC" the Federalist Society Shill that names things like "right to work law" that is actually "the right to be fired law", or the "Freedom from Religion Act" that is "how to place sharia law on everyone". But the really bad ones come when legislators try to do their jobs.

J_J, let's not discuss politics please. It is quicksand when it comes to grief on forum.

 

[j_j]

J_J, let's not discuss politics please. It is quicksand when it comes to grief on forum.

OOokaaay. But the politics is why science is held in such low regard today. There's been 40 years of endless, intentional disinformation about what science is, what it does, and how it works. I'll leave it be. The silence is how we got where we are today.

 

[FrantzM]

It is difficult to discuss Science without Politics.. Politics impacts how Science is perceived and taught. Too many politicians with a dim view of "Science" that doesn't fit their world views. Consequences are beyond our feeble discussions of Science as a dogma, these can negatively affect the lives of billions.

 

[SIY]

It is difficult to discuss Science without Politics..

I find it easy to discuss science without politics. What's difficult is discussing "science" without politics.

 

[Wes]

What's difficult is discussing the role of scientific information in society without politics.

Some do not like the truth and will hire PR firms to delay policies that can save people's lives. TO avoid getting political, I will just note that we saw thatin a medical area in the 1960s on, and in an energy related area from the 1980s on - the industry groups hired the SAME PR firm.

 

[mansr]

What's difficult is discussing the role of scientific information in society without politics.

Some do not like the truth and will hire PR firms to delay policies that can save people's lives. TO avoid getting political, I will just note that we saw thatin a medical area in the 1960s on, and in an energy related area from the 1980s on - the industry groups hired the SAME PR firm.

Maybe smoking is bad for individuals, but it's OK for an entire planet to smoke.

 

[j_j]

I find it easy to discuss science without politics. What's difficult is discussing "science" without politics.

And "science" is where this started.

 

[Xulonn]

Science it is not.

However, this is science - a new finding...
Giant wombat-like creatures, the size of black bears, once walked the earth...

 

[Wes]

Dis-Information has consequences

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...high_media-analysis-1118am:homepage/story-ans

 

[tomtrp]

We should distinguish between physical science and social science.
The results of physical science are usually based on a well propsed theory in the form of mathematical modelling and tested by numerous amounts of experiments, trying to find the priciples of nature.
Social science studys human. Hence the results of social science has to rely on the statistical inference from sample to the public.
As a result, results of physical science is usually way more accurate, repeatable and has way more power to predict and apply with little limitations.
While social science results is limited by the statistical inference. No matter how high the correlation between sunrise and crow of roosters, crow of roosters is never the true reason of sunrise.
There is a vital difference between explaining phenomenon by principle and by correlation.
Unfortunately, physcoacoustics is fundamentally based on social science methods. Even though Toole and Olive did a grear job trying to explain perceived sound in a rational way, their results are based on statistical correlalations. You have to be careful when applying their results to individuals. And their is a risk of explaining a phenomenon by another phenomenon. For example, they say there is a high corrleation between some frequency response characteristics and perceived "high resolution" speakers and headphones. However, fundamentally, they can't find or disprove that there exists some engineering design or physical performance of the driver that determines the ability of speakers to retrieve details and react to quick signals accurately.

 

[TimF]

I want to develop a form of scrabble where the game pieces are algebraic operation symbols and letters, and such.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

For example, they say there is a high corrleation between some frequency response characteristics and perceived "high resolution" speakers and headphones. However, fundamentally, they can't find or disprove that there exists some engineering design or physical performance of the driver that determines the ability of speakers to retrieve details and react to quick signals accurately.

Huh?
Should that not be rather easy to measure?
You need a driver that can follow a 20-20KHz signal up to an amplitude that generates ~100dB. That would give you a flat frequency response.
Another property of said driver is the ability to start and stop very quickly and reach the high amplitude with little overshoot.
A rectangular waveform can be used to measure that.
Keep in mind that it's impossible for any mechanical system to do that w/o any overshoot at all unless you overdamp it, making it slow to react, so in reality this is always a compromise between overshoot/ringing and reaction time.

There you go: you now have a driver design that it capable of resolving everything the audio that humans can hear has to offer.

 

[j_j]

Unfortunately, physcoacoustics is fundamentally based on social science methods.

A strange claim for a sense whose sensitivity can be explained by physics and mathematics.

Higher order things like "I like that music" are certainly the domain of social sciences.

Things like absolute thresholds, loudness understanding (as well as intensity understanding), time resolution of the periphery, and the like are very much the domain of physics, mathematics, and statistics. Your claim about psychoacoustics is, therefore, completely inaccurate and insultingly dismissive to everyone working in the field. The results are testable, falsifiable, and repeatable. That is the domain of hard science, not of "social science".

Wandering in and inaccurately and insultingly dismissing psychoacoustic research as a "social science" as your first post strikes me as a lead-in to all sorts of things that are not appropriate.

 

[j_j]

However, fundamentally, they can't find or disprove that there exists some engineering design or physical performance of the driver that determines the ability of speakers to retrieve details and react to quick signals accurately.

Why yes, the physical performance of a driver or system is quite exactly what defines frequency response, impulse response, etc. What in the name of creation do you mean "can't find or disprove" something I can do in my lab with 200 dollars of equipment and freeware?