Real Scientists Are Concerned That Science Is Dead

Tazx said:
Watching Richard Nixon talk to the guys on the moon on youtube. Lol. No delay huh? How is that possible?
Also watching Armstrong going down the ladder, and NASA says we are watching you descending the ladder. How. No delay? Never knew digital tech was so advanced in 1969 that they could send real time footage back to earth so clear, smooth, and in real time. Care to explain.
Click to expand...

I don't know. It's almost as though video can be edited or something.
 

VaughanJB said:
Your second paragraph follows your third - if you can submit anything, then a lot will be nonsense.

But honestly, there's nothing wrong with that - it's all by design. Submitting a scientific paper isn't the be-all and end-all of science. Others have to pick it up, run it back, confirm results. If that's not done, then it's insignificant. Peer review is the bedrock of science, and if that peer review hasn't happened, then nothing written is confirmed.
Click to expand...
You may have missed the point of my comments. The conclusions reached in most peer reviewed research are not able to be replicated. The papers are bogus. So when decisions are made based on these papers, the decisions are faulty and erroneous.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
I find it hard to believe that there has been no scientific innovation since the 1920s. In fact, I don't believe that.
Click to expand...
I guess scientific innovation would be something like proving germ theory, and technical innovation would be in developing antibiotics to fight germs. Or positing that dividing atoms would release massive quantities of energy (innovation) and then developing a bomb based on that theory. Pretty hard to say there have been no advances since the 20s but people can twist anything into a knot.
 
This is a question; I'm not trying to make a statement. Where does the development of the PC and the Internet fall in terms of innovation? Is that something new or just engineering based on existing theories? Somebody smart like @David777 might weigh in on that.
 
This was an interesting thread before it got hijacked. One problem with innovation/disruption seems to be that there is so much knowledge that it's difficult to find your way to the forefront of a field anymore. That's something that AI should be able to help with.
 
When people talk about medicine being poison I think you need to be knowledgeable about what you take of course but antibiotics have saved countless lives. My dad had double pneumonia in his 20’s and only survived because penicillin had recently become available.

I’ve had many friends and relatives with cancer. When I was younger it was a death sentence. Now people are even surviving stage 4. Each person needs to weigh their options and decide what is best at that time of their lives.
 
tonyr said:
Technology is not Science although it is an outcome of and dependent on Science.

Fundamental science is what is meant by real science (here).
Click to expand...
Tony, by fundamental science, would you mean something like the Watson & Crick paper on DNA structure?
 
Either people didn't watch the videos or they're speaking way over your heads.

Watson and Crick were not the discoverers of DNA, but rather the first scientists to formulate an accurate description of this molecule's complex, double-helical structure. Moreover, Watson and Crick's work was directly dependent on the research of numerous scientists before them, including Friedrich Miescher, Phoebus Levene, and Erwin Chargaff. Thanks to researchers such as these, we now know a great deal about genetic structure, and we continue to make great strides in understanding the human genome and the importance of DNA to life and health.
Click to expand...
And their paper was published back in 1953.
 
Tazx said:
Not sure why the explanation, but...every year is a novel coronavirus. The cold and flu has been mutating since forever. That's the explanation the cdc gives for why you need a new flu shot every year. So in essence, every year is a novel CV. Yes the CV-19 for the year, and?
Click to expand...
Help Stop the Spread of Cold and Flu Viruses This Season w/ Clorox® Disinfectant Products. Help Keep Your Home Healthy This Year With Clorox® Disinfecting Products and Tips.

Site visitors: Over 100K in the past month
-----------------
Near Halloween now...

How do you talk to a huge Ogre?
Use Big-Giant words.
-----------
Why does the very tall Oger keep getting headaches every time he's thirsty for a drink?
Because he keeps walking into a Bar.
-----------
Who says, "MUF, OF, IF, EFF ?
A very large Oger walking backwards.
----------

Why did the Halloween Spirit keep losing its Teeth?
It slept with his head under the pillow and the Fairies kept taking them.
----------
 
Last edited:
Irishdude said:
This is a question; I'm not trying to make a statement. Where does the development of the PC and the Internet fall in terms of innovation? Is that something new or just engineering based on existing theories? Somebody smart like @David777 might weigh in on that.
Click to expand...
Understanding the "here a byte & there's a byte." ... Bits & Bytes, it's so confusing! Are USB devices the best way to corral them?
Since they represent 256 different values can a Puter make stuff up? Or does have to be told?
 
ChiroDoc said:
You may have missed the point of my comments. The conclusions reached in most peer reviewed research are not able to be replicated. The papers are bogus. So when decisions are made based on these papers, the decisions are faulty and erroneous.
Click to expand...

Hm, I don't think I did. The key statistic is the number of papers that CAN be replicated, not the ones that can't. Those that can't have fallen foul of the scientific process, and that's how it should be. You or I could submit a paper. it's not the submission that's key, it's the entire length of the process. No-one, and I mean no-one, should be making decisions based on half the scientific process. Without replication of results, it's pointless.
 
tonyr said:
Psychology studies are notorious as they often cannot be replicated.

Also, a mathematical model showed that reproducible scientific results are not always true and true scientific results are not always reproducible.
Click to expand...

Psychology is a wholly different thing. It has to account for every tiny difference in each of us. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% replicable.

As for what is "true" - that is not what science is doing. Results need to reproducible. How that relates to "true" - whatever that means, is another question.
 
tonyr said:
When replicating results, one says: the results were true.
Click to expand...
One replication does not a truth make, although some might make that claim. At any rate, science doesn't deal in truths. It deals with probabilities. Several replications add support to a probability. But the door is always open to changes.
 
tonyr said:
Although Science's basis is replication of results, I have not come across the sentence, "I have replicated the previous results published by X, Y, and Z." in any science paper I referenced or wrote. Again, a matter of using English (not of Science).
Click to expand...
I'm just more cautious about claims of truth. English gives us the tools to make claims of truth, but only claims. But all this is in the eye of the beholder. Some people claim science gives us truth, some claim absolute truth. But I prefer probabilities.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top