I think in the US we do not go by scientific fact , people bring in their personal agenda's and misrepresent. Thats why you can find a scientific study to support "Almost" any statement you want to claim. Except for Cosmic's claims about cob's
A Brief Word For Science
- Thread starter mso489
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
You must mean, specifically climate science or tobacco related sciences, because we use a lot of newly developed science day in and day out. New discoveries in science are being made every day. Like, less than 1% of all the science going on could even remotely be claimed as agenda driven.
I think mostly environmental science and human science. I think alot of people have study to say what they want on both sides of the argument and the common man just scratches his head
In my humble opinion, I think it’s a good idea to read the studies themselves, not just the news article you found about the journal article. The reason I say this is that there’s oftentimes a huge difference in what the actual study states and what the magazine/newspaper writer understood or took away from the study. Many do their homework and get it right, but I’ve noticed an increased number that don’t. The magazine/newspaper articles are great attention grabbers, and I’m not saying they don’t have their place, but if you can get it straight from the horse’s mouth, too, then all the better.
Exactly, the most famous one is a news article that stated that humans need to drink 12-15 cups of water a day. One news organization misinterpreted this, and all of the other news mediums repeated it. Next thing you know people are on talk shows talking about how you need to drink that much water a day.
The original study showed, yes, you need 12-15 cups opf water a day to stay alive, but it also stated that humans mostly get this from foods that contain waters, as well as other beverages, and soaking in water even.
Next thing we hear about is overhydrating and hyponatremia from people drinking too much water.
Same with the new report that red wine is good for your heart. The original study was about why the French had fewer cases of heart disease than the rest of Europe. They found that the French walk more, they drink more water, and have more vegetables in their diets... and drink red wines... Guess what the news latched onto? "Red wine is good for your heart." Then the news generated other news about how and such... and a whole spin started. Sure, sure there are things about wine that if removed and isolated would be good for your heart, but further studies show that even one glass a day is NOT good for you.
Like the whole bullshit about nicotine preventing alzheimers... The amount in the study used was less than a whiff a day. Any positive that comes from using nicotine on brain cells is negated after the first puff. But, yet it keeps coming up again and again...
I prefer to leave science to those with an interest in such. The old "que sera, sera," is a grand mantra. Means I do not have to delve into subjects I care little about and understand even less of.
I'm in an academic research lab, at a University. Industry (like Monsanto, Geron, etc.) has supplanted academia for innovation a while back, and funds more basic research than government.
This sums up quite well. As a scientist and student of science for many years, I've seen this happening constantly. Explains why those of us who value integrity and the lofty ideals won't be hired by anyone and instead try to eke out an existence crafting leather goods at home.
@cosmicfolklore: this happens all across the board: corporate, gov't, academia. I've had first experience with it in the latter.
In academia, university professors must do research and publish a number of papers each year. Their tenure depends on it. Many of them, in fact, spend more time doing research than teaching (hence all the Teaching Assistants doing a lot of the marking of assignments and tests—been a TA myself, so I know). Thing is, in order to do research you need grants. Grants come from people/organisations with big pockets... and with particular interests. They want particular results to further their ends. If you, researcher, take their funds and give them results they won't like, you won't get funded again. No more research, no more university tenure. So, either cook your results and make them look as real finds, or get a cab driver licence.
See, if you science guys can't keep up, the magic guys are going to surpass you guys in breadth and depth of knowledge, ha ha.
Already happened: in the last two decades the interest and participation in witchcraft has skyrocketed (though, I think 'has bored more and more deeply towards the Earth's centre' is a better expression).
That's one of the problems resulting from nescience (i.e. 'science' that has been manipulated to conform to given interests): it makes the people cynical and mistrusting of scientists, to the point that they won't even listen to the ones who are honest and are actually telling the truth (assuming these manage to get their message across before being censored). When this happens, people turn to other alternatives to find the answers they need or seek.
Again, I've seen this issue first-hand: the monumental failure of the medical establishment to treat patients and cure them with efficience, caring, and ethics has caused ailing people, especially the chronically ill, to look for healing in alternative practices that range from those founded on sound natural science (homoeopathy, herbology) to those dealing with the supernatural (mediums, yoga, reiki, &c.). These last named compound their suffering by exposing them to the influence of diabolical spirits; the blame for the misery and perdition that most times results from this must be visited at the door of the 'scientists' who failed to do their job through carelessness or self-interest.
An interesting aside: it turns out subjective color is more objective than many would like one to believe. Specifically, work done by Berlin & Kay in 1969 revealed that there is a common, cross cultural recognition of color (~11 hues account for the basics found in each language), the order in which colors are acquired by each culture is universal. For example, if a language only has two colors, they are ALWAYS variations on Black or White. IF a third color exists in the language, it is ALWAYS Red. IF a fourth color exists in a language, it is ALWAYS either Green or Yellow, and if a fifth color exists in a language, it is ALWAYS the complement, Yellow or Green. Finally, IF there is a sixth color, it is ALWAYS Blue. Many anthropologists consider this finding "amount the most remarkable discoveries in anthropological science." (Sahilns, '76)
So, in addition to rough agreement on blue being blue, the order in which blue comes to being is universal across cultures. It is remarkable, and offensive to many a post-modernist!
Lee
A lot of this is sadly true, especially in the UK and US where funding bodies try to commercialise research before it even materialises, missing the point that directed research is less likely to uncover really novel things - which in turn can bring the biggest innovation and hence profits. The catch is that the innovation and profits take years, maybe decades to mature and bear fruit, so it's not attractive.
A lot of grant proposals have to be written in a way to suggest things of interest to those who'll pay, even for public funding. I know, I've written a few, even a handful of successful ones. We had to frame things in a medical way even though our research was primary biochemistry, with a potential of medical application many years down the line on a 1-3 year funding contract.
There are very few researchers who can do research on whatever they feel like and expect to get funding, and they get that funding because of the weight of their names and connections (yes, sure, grant proposals are supposed to be blinded, anonymized etc...).
As far as I knew before I left science, mainland Europe still holds in terms of academic freedom though, particularly Germany and the Nordics where tenure = guaranteed funding for whatever strikes your fancy.
That's fascinating. Thank you for sharing that. I don't see it as offending anyone who believes consciousness to be a function of neurology. Blue is not made uncertain by postmodernism in the sense of something we've made up and collectively agreed upon—perhaps guided by brain structures, perhaps not—like borders, & monetary value.
Indeed, blue is universally identifiable because it is a wave of so many nanometers, activating such opsins, and producing signals in certain anatomical brain structures.
But what I'm saying is that the objectively real phenomenon which we both happily call blue, might be experienced as something different. There's no way to verify or deny this (yet). I might be experiencing what you experience when you look at purple.
Thanks to all who have engaged this topic - MSO, in particular -
There are two, large scale challenges science is facing. First, from within disciplines. Second, from outside disciplines.
Per challenges within, they break largely into two categories: a crisis in replicability and divergence over priorities. Per the former, it is well documented, particularly in the "soft" sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.), that 50%+ of published material is simply not replicable. It is a crisis, effecting the perceived veracity of entire fields. While I have a theory as to why this is occurring, I'm not sure anyone has identified a root cause that is accepted by the various communities.
As for priorities, one could argue this has always been the case, but it has become rather insidious over my lifetime. Physics offers an example of the dynamic. I'll attempt to summarize.
Okay, that's within.
As for challenges from outside, I'll just summarize, largely because these "arguments" wander outside my "depth." Specifically, there is a growing academic view in the social sciences that science proper is an arbitrary social construct, and a subversive form of oppression! Yes. This group argues against Sex having an objective basis in fact (wrong: it is easily reducible to haploid cells that fall into binary classifications, and a union of these binaries are required for life). They'll argue similarly against gender norms (hormonal differences and their impact on behavior, neurophysiological differences between the sexes, etc.), medicine (that obesity is an arbitrary construct, and irrelevant in health outcomes), genetic differences between groups, etc. In short: there exists an growing population of academics that seek to invalidate science as being a relevant discipline, and are attacking it's place in the university.
So?
Science is messy within disciplines and within academia, writ large. Thus, I'm not surprised there's confusion with the lay.
Best,
Lee
There are two, large scale challenges science is facing. First, from within disciplines. Second, from outside disciplines.
Per challenges within, they break largely into two categories: a crisis in replicability and divergence over priorities. Per the former, it is well documented, particularly in the "soft" sciences (sociology, psychology, etc.), that 50%+ of published material is simply not replicable. It is a crisis, effecting the perceived veracity of entire fields. While I have a theory as to why this is occurring, I'm not sure anyone has identified a root cause that is accepted by the various communities.
As for priorities, one could argue this has always been the case, but it has become rather insidious over my lifetime. Physics offers an example of the dynamic. I'll attempt to summarize.
- Big vs. Small science. You see it come up all the time, yet nowhere more so than in high-energy physics (a euphemism for atomic physics). There is a dominant group that is sketching out and advocating a follow-on to CERN - a 100km machine, with initial costs estimated ~$21B (I usually multiply these types of initial estimates by PI to assess actual cost ;-). The counter point? Think about how many smaller investigations could be conducted for even a fraction of that spend, and the contributions to core knowledge that would follow, especially when contrasted against how limited the CERN findings have been (yes, Higgs was a big one, but all Super Symmetry theories were wasted by CERN).
- Arguments over what "legitimate" science even is! This dynamic is seen with the String Theory groups (strings, multiverse, etc) that have dominated fundamental theory for the past few decades, vs other views. While complicated, it nets out to the following conflict:
- Do we prioritize research based upon "beauty" and intuitive appeal, or do we...
- Prioritize predictive, testable, falsifiable hypotheses?
Okay, that's within.
As for challenges from outside, I'll just summarize, largely because these "arguments" wander outside my "depth." Specifically, there is a growing academic view in the social sciences that science proper is an arbitrary social construct, and a subversive form of oppression! Yes. This group argues against Sex having an objective basis in fact (wrong: it is easily reducible to haploid cells that fall into binary classifications, and a union of these binaries are required for life). They'll argue similarly against gender norms (hormonal differences and their impact on behavior, neurophysiological differences between the sexes, etc.), medicine (that obesity is an arbitrary construct, and irrelevant in health outcomes), genetic differences between groups, etc. In short: there exists an growing population of academics that seek to invalidate science as being a relevant discipline, and are attacking it's place in the university.
So?
Science is messy within disciplines and within academia, writ large. Thus, I'm not surprised there's confusion with the lay.
Best,
Lee
Another problem in science is that studies where the hypothesis is not confirmed are less likely to be published.
8 studies fail to see an expected effect from a certain manipulation and 3 issues do observe the effect. But, only 2 of the former are published, and all 3 of the latter are.
8 studies fail to see an expected effect from a certain manipulation and 3 issues do observe the effect. But, only 2 of the former are published, and all 3 of the latter are.
You make some good points. I think I’d be “exhibit A,” I have a pretty glaring contention with even the name “string theory.” To probe to the tiny scale on which the proposed strings exist, is essentially impossible. Can it truly be called “string theory,” if the idea is not testable? By definition it’s not even a string hypothesis. More like string conjecture. Just my opinion, and for the record, I think the strings exist, but it’s hardly a theory.
I recently came across this article which I think is germane to this discussion.
The Denialist Playbook - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-denialist-playbook/
The Denialist Playbook - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-denialist-playbook/
Not a fan of the term “denialist,” personally. It easily becomes a pejorative and can hold back discovery and stifle alternative views that may have merit. I mean, Antoine Lavoisier was regarded as one of the greatest scientists in his day. He thought heat came from a substance that he named “caloric.” His fame and reputation as a scientist meant no one dared argue with him, and his view became accepted. He was dead wrong, of course. When a lesser known amateur scientist, Count Rumford, destroyed his hypothesis with a simple experiment utilizing a dull canon borer, he could’ve easily been labeled a “denialist,” and summarily dismissed, even though he was right. I guess my point is that there are people that champion science as long as it fits their ulterior motives, and blaspheme it when it doesn’t. It takes stepping back and looking at the big picture sometimes to not get caught up in that sort of bullshit. Just my opinion. ?
Yup. Look at the number of true scientists who are able to reconcile a belief in God with their scientific studies. One demands faith and the other proof. And, neither cancel out the other. I'm being as careful as possible here not to start a discussion on religion. So, try and not take it there guys. Thanks. I'm just making an observation, not a judgement.
- Status