• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

Robin L

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
1,222
Likes
1,112
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
why are people talking about economics in a science thread?
I was wondering the same thing. The OP was about Rupert Sheldrake, about faux science, starting with the red herring of Sheldrake's, that science was dogmatic because science proved him wrong. And wrong is wrong. This spattered out to a wide variety of rants and bitches, but the primary issue was settled many posts back.
 
Last edited:

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,305
Likes
3,468
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
You will get dumbass questions and claims from guys like me and others, but you should view it as an opportunity to rehearse your knowledge, if applicable.
That's the primary reason I responded to ignorance and pseudo-science based comments and claims about AGW/CC (Anthropogenic Global Waring and resultant Climate Change) at Dr. Ricky Rood's climate blog at Weather Underground for several years. Then IBM bought the company, and the fun went away. I'm sure I didn't change many minds, but I certainly learned a lot about the subject, because I verified the science behind every reply if I was not strongly confident of my knowledge on the scientific details of any given reply.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
372
Likes
211
Science has always been dogmatic. When a new theory or discovery occurs met with diresion and distain. Human nature is inconsistent with scientific process Forensic analysis of "science" should follow the money.
 

j_j

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
772
Likes
1,288
Location
My dining room.
Science has always been dogmatic. When a new theory or discovery occurs met with diresion and distain. Human nature is inconsistent with scientific process Forensic analysis of "science" should follow the money.
Um, really? There is resistance to new theory, what wins the argument is evidence. Provide testable evidence. Or not.
Science
 

Xulonn

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
1,305
Likes
3,468
Location
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
Economics is a science, too.
"the dismal science".

ahem my daughter's an economist.
I took an upper division class in "Economics of natural Resources" as an adult "returning student" during my final year at U.C. Berkeley in 1976. It was part of my interdepartmental major which lead to me earning an undergraduate B.S. degree in "Conservation of Natural Resources." It was a "concepts and principles" economics class, and not a math/computational one. A very significant new term I learned in class that year was "externalities", and that concept cemented my opinion that classic economics was not a real science. Classic economics completely ignored some very important factors that would have huge and costly consequences for society, but if included in the calculations would negatively affect desired outcomes.

I see a similar pattern these days as the stock market rises rapidly while the pandemic continues to rage and U.S. unemployment figures are fudged to be lower than reality - and investors assume that after this pandemic, everything will return to normal and the path to eternal exponential economic growth will continue unabated.

Another lesson I learned during those two years at a prestigious university was that it is very difficult to predict hugely disruptive changes that could override the predictable ebb and flow of past economic patterns and their causes, particularly "black swan" events that can destroy the very foundations and principles that economies are based on. It appears to be easier to predict a supernova than a black swan economic event.

Even the present period in time, which is can be viewed as the future they tried to predict in my youth - is far different from that portrayed in 1950's science fiction movies. With its cheap computers, big high-res TV's, smartphones and low-cost global commuications - including social media phenomena - the future is not like anything I dreamed of as a child of the 1950's!
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
9,861
Likes
13,318
why are people talking about economics in a science thread?
Because while I'd not call economics a science, it comes closer than Sheldrake's ideas.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
372
Likes
211
I took an upper division class in "Economics of natural Resources" as an adult "returning student" during my final year at U.C. Berkeley in 1976. It was part of my interdepartmental major which lead to me earning an undergraduate B.S. degree in "Conservation of Natural Resources." It was a "concepts and principles" economics class, and not a math/computational one. A very significant new term I learned in class that year was "externalities", and that concept cemented my opinion that classic economics was not a real science. Classic economics completely ignored some very important factors that would have huge and costly consequences for society, but if included in the calculations would negatively affect desired outcomes.

I see a similar pattern these days as the stock market rises rapidly while the pandemic continues to rage and U.S. unemployment figures are fudged to be lower than reality - and investors assume that after this pandemic, everything will return to normal and the path to eternal exponential economic growth will continue unabated.

Another lesson I learned during those two years at a prestigious university was that it is very difficult to predict hugely disruptive changes that could override the predictable ebb and flow of past economic patterns and their causes, particularly "black swan" events that can destroy the very foundations and principles that economies are based on. It appears to be easier to predict a supernova than a black swan economic event.

Even the present period in time, which is can be viewed as the future they tried to predict in my youth - is far different from that portrayed in 1950's science fiction movies. With its cheap computers, big high-res TV's, smartphones and low-cost global commuications - including social media phenomena - the future is not like anything I dreamed of as a child of the 1950's!
Yea. Different this time. My great aunt tendered your speech in 1968.
 

j_j

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
772
Likes
1,288
Location
My dining room.
I only wish. I have practiced law for 40 years. "Evidence" is maleble. You need to witness battle of the experts in a court room.
Would the Lucent v. Microsoft trial in San Diego District Court be close enough?

You do, though, make the tragic, often-fatal mistake of almost every lawyer, in that you assume that facts are mutable, and that any degree of argument that wins is the right argument. Winning the trial, loosing the war, wrecking society in the process. Yep. That's the modern law.

That's not how physics works. Science is not the law.
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,019
Likes
4,873
Location
Australia
Would the Lucent v. Microsoft trial in San Diego District Court be close enough?

You do, though, make the tragic, often-fatal mistake of almost every lawyer, in that you assume that facts are mutable, and that any degree of argument that wins is the right argument. Winning the trial, loosing the war, wrecking society in the process. Yep. That's the modern law.

That's not how physics works. Science is not the law.


An anecdote. When I studied Introduction to Law, the tutor explained how English Law was devised as a considered, albeit expensive but alternatively less so, means to prevent the Establishment Class from killing themselves off in 'duels of honour' and thus diminishing the Right To Rule class. It was never about the plebs.

Is it much different today when the appointment of judicial officers and legal costs are considered?

Science it is not.
 
Last edited:

vert

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
141
Likes
78
Location
Switzerland
I don't understand what this means. As in, I'm not understanding the difference between that and TB3 or upcoming TB4?



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.
Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,165
Likes
4,381
Location
Hampshire
I'll close, since you continue ignoring most questions I pose.

So you finally see the dishonesty I kept trying to explain that forms when you have "standards" as the ones we discussed. What the authors intended is precisely the contention, and is what you have acknowledge would be dishonesty in the first paragraph. As for your final question, the violation is on HDMI's part for certifying the TV, when LG themselves have said to Forbes in a statement (if you read the link I provided all those posts ago) the connectors themselves aren't fully HDMI 2.1 compliant.
Why are _you_ continually refusing to answer _my_ question, i.e. which feature of the TV violates which paragraph of the HDMI spec? The video mode you mention (4K 120P 4:4:4/RGB 10bit) exceeds the bandwidth available in HDMI 2.0. It is thus correct to certify the model according to HDMI 2.1 even though this spec revision permits still more demanding modes.

You seem to be of the mistaken impression that HDMI compliance requires support for the most demanding video mode on the targeted spec revision. This is not the case. Protesting and calling it fraud isn't going to change the text of the spec. I think the root of the misunderstanding is that you see the HDMI badge as a promise of minimum performance. It is not. HDMI is an interoperability spec, nothing more.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,165
Likes
4,381
Location
Hampshire
Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?
Anyone who promotes homoeopathy as a remedy for anything should be excommunicated from everywhere, anecdotes notwithstanding. Furthermore, referring to autism the way you do is disrespectful towards the millions of autistic people out there, and your suggestion that determination alone can overrule the laws of nature is disrespectful towards scientists as well as science itself. If there's hubris here, it's that woman who has it. Perhaps it can be cured with homoeopathy.
 

j_j

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
772
Likes
1,288
Location
My dining room.
Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?

Testing of a falsifiable premise makes something science. Your comments contain multiple facts not in evidence, such as "whose determination saved her son". It is good her son recovered. If she can show an actual theory of treatment that can be tested, then there's a chance she has a viable theory. You have a single example, and not a data point. Especially when dealing with neurology, the plasticity of the human brain can surprise many people, including doctors, neurologist researchers, and many other people, so it is also necessary (and responsible) to look for other reasons, ANY other reason, that might have helped. (I will note that could provide a means of treatment as well.) Now, "countless doctors", "condemned", "excommunication", and the rest of your emotionally loaded baggage I'm simply going to point out, and not reply to.

But it all comes down to one question: How could one falsify the results reported here? Can you propose a method that shows that it was her homeopathic treatment, and nothing else whatsoever, that provided the solution. Was there some other component? Was the recovery natural (it does happen, you know, although it's depressingly rare), how good was the recovery, and so on. This is much more complicated than you make it out to be, and choosing to attack tks as you have isn't called for here.

As to Sheldrake, his assertions are not science, and his attack on science does not even understand what science is, or how it works. He is rather infamous in many circles, as is Uri Geller, who was thoroughly debunked by Johnny Carson and James Randi on live TV. Parapsychology has failed, time and again, to produce any results whatsoever under proper testing protocols. All it takes is evidence created under a proper testing protocol. However, proper testing protocols are very, very difficult. Parapsychologists reject the entirely mundane ability of the human brain to extract information from the person's surroundings. It's happened over, and over, and over, and over and over again.

Speaking as someone who has run double blind tests, single blind tests, and as a lark, a non-blind test I am well aware of how little a cue it takes to actually influence a subject in an experiment. For instance, the way one holds a pen. Facial expression, subliminal cues, you name it. The fact is simple here, the human brain is built to synthesize all cues that are available to it, all the time. Everything is a hint. The many, many megabits from the ear and eyes, other senses, all get boiled down in the human brain, past the first few levels of analysis, in the same place, and simultaneously, along with any memories and intrinsic thoughts held by the subject. ANYTHING AT ALL that enters the sensorium can and will affect all results. Even very small delays in switching, etc, in computer-administered tests can and WILL provide cues that result in false positives, or sometimes false negatives (very small timing issues can, for instance, cause a 100% negative result on an ABC/hr test, which is of course just as non-random an answer as 100% positive, just to use one example.
 
Last edited:

onion

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
108
Likes
69
Parapsychology may be bunk. But there is a 'consciousness' problem in science. We do not have a physical model that explains phenomena including:
- where do the voices known as auditory hallucinations affecting schizophrenics come from?
- what is the mechanism for time's arrow ordering our consciousness in a 4d space-time world?

More generally, we have an 'observer' problem:
- why does observation collapse a wave-function?

Any 'grand unified theory' of quantum gravity will be deficient if it does not solve the observer problem. Any physical theory of consciousness must explain time's arrow and make testable predictions about aberrant consciousness phenomena like hallucinations.

I watched some YouTube videos from Klee Irwin's quantum gravity channel. I think they are on a better track than the superstring theory guys. They still need testable hypotheses though for this to be science.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,640
Likes
1,824
Location
France
Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?
Scientists publish papers, not "books". Basically, when she chose the second method, she wasn't acting in her quality of scientist, so using her degree/position as an argument while she purposedly went the other way is fallacious.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom