Science and Money

[hallenrm]

This a terrible paradox for science. One wants to be rewarded and recognized for their efforts. And culture should respond. Yet these rewards often come easier, at the expense of the truth.

.........................

When I look at science if I feel I am be sold on something, like soap suds, I assume it is a marketing illusion. If one can not reduce their science to something easy to understand, it is probably at least part smoke and mirrors. If it is too complicated for the layman to understand it is also easier to slide past them. Just use pride to slide it past them.

 

I feel like echoing your thoughts HydrogenBond. But I think this is the pulse of the present.

 

Have you ever wondered, Why there have been a Lull in the realm of really relevent scientific discoveries of late? Compare the numbers with those exactly hundred years ago keeping in mind the etos of scientists at that time.

 

Do you perceive any differences????

[Vending]

If one can not reduce their science to something easy to understand, it is probably at least part smoke and mirrors. If it is too complicated for the layman to understand it is also easier to slide past them. Just use pride to slide it past them.

 

This is an absolutely horrible benchmark for scientific accuracy. Why would we ever assume that for a scientific theory to be a good one, it must be understood by those outside of the field?

 

Are we too assume that those without a firm understaning of partial differential equations will be able to understand the work being done on turbulat flow of fluids?

 

Is it resonable to expect people who have not studied quantum mechanics to be able to critic the latest work in spintronics?

 

I think not.

 

The simple fact is that people outside the feild of study usually do not have the education nessesary to understand the arguments being made. THis is not a bad thing, but it is the truth. The assumption that if you do not undertand something it must not be true is a very human position to hold, however, it is still remains a poor position.

 

What is your resoning that in order for things to be correct, they must be simple and understandable by an untrained person? I really am curious here.

 

Have you ever wondered, Why there have been a Lull in the realm of really relevent scientific discoveries of late? Compare the numbers with those exactly hundred years ago keeping in mind the etos of scientists at that time.

 

man, i hear this kind of stuff all the time. SO i have a question for you.

 

What was the rate of "really relevent scientific discoveries" 100 years ago? What is it now? What do you mean by really relevant scientific discoveries?

 

There are relevent discoveries occuring all the time these days. The problem is that we do not have the ability to look back on today the way that we can on 100 years ago. They say that hindsight is perfect, but it is also less confusiing and cluttered. The problem with looking for discoveries today is that we are mired in the myriad of scientific data comming forth, whereas when we look at 100 years ago, we have the filter of 100 years. After all that time, it is only the most important things that are spoken about now. Thus, it appears as if 100 years ago everything that was discovered was earth-shattering. Time has filtered out all the floatsom.

 

100 years from now, it will look like all we did was discover really cool stuff too. Why? Because it is only the cool stuff that people will be talking about.

[InfiniteNow]

Have you ever wondered, Why there have been a Lull in the realm of really relevent scientific discoveries of late?

When constructing a large building, you must first lay the foundations. If you try to build the 26th floor of a building before the structure of all those below it have been solidified, your building will fall.

 

So it is with science. The ideas are put forth, it then takes years and years of effort from hard working grad students (read:slave) to ensure the structure is solid. Then, one can start building the 27th floor... but not before.

[Queso]

aren't we building in omni directions though, when it comes to science?

 

Sure, build floor one before floor two OVER THERE,

but, OVER HERE we can build something completely different

to add to the "big picture" if you see what I mean.

 

Ok maybe I just took the metaphor too far.

[InfiniteNow]

aren't we building in omni directions though, when it comes to science?

Good point... indeed. My metaphor was a best "quick post" analogy...

 

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... :hihi:

[Queso]

and othertimes it's a worm!! ahhhhhhhhhh

[Doctordick]

Hi Vending; glad to see you are still here. I was somewhat surprised by your comment, "I have not been formally trained in physics", as your posts indicate a rather good comprehension of the basics. Of course we might be using different interpretations of the word "formal" (or different expectations). :hihi:

This is an absolutely horrible benchmark for scientific accuracy. Why would we ever assume that for a scientific theory to be a good one, it must be understood by those outside of the field?

If it isn't understood by anyone outside the field, who is going to check ride the veracity of the field? And, exactly what purpose does such a theory serve? If its truth is known only by the initiates, how does it differ from a scam? Personally, I think the education level in the US has already descended to an unacceptable level and we should never imply there exist any ideas which cannot be understood by others; it encourages people to be intellectually lazy.

Are we too assume that those without a firm understanding of partial differential equations will be able to understand the work being done on turbulent flow of fluids?

No, but we certainly shouldn't assume they are incapable of understanding. My wife is a chemist and worked for the state lab checking for radioactive contamination of drinking water. At one time there was a suit concerning some radioactive contamination and her boss (think of that pointy haired guy in the "Dilbert" strip) was called to testify. When he was on the stand, the lawyer who had called him asked his first question: "Could you explain radiation to the jury?" His answer astonished my wife. All he said was "No!" And later he insisted that was the correct answer as radiation was beyond the comprehension of ordinary people. As I said, sometimes real life is straight out of the cartoon strips. If people are interested, they can understand any rational argument and if someone knows his subject, he or she can present any aspect of that field in a form which will make sense to the uninitiated. Of course, I am assuming they are reasonably sensible which is not always the case. :(

 

My point is that it isn't education which makes people sensible! Not advanced education anyway. :eek:

The simple fact is that people outside the field of study usually do not have the education necessary to understand the arguments being made.

Maybe not on a subtle detail of concern to the researcher but I have found that the professional is often just as confused as layman because he himself doesn't have a decent understanding of what he is doing. It has been my experience that questions usually answer themselves when the question is really understood. :smile:

The assumption that if you do not understand something it must not be true is a very human position to hold, however, it is still remains a poor position.

Now here, I agree with you a hundred percent. As my mother used to say to me, "you learn a lot more by listening than you do by talking", (I am afraid my father was somewhat of a blow hard). I find that most people don't listen at all. They seem to believe that "truth" will make itself evident to them without any effort to understand on their part. :eek:

What is your reasoning that in order for things to be correct, they must be simple and understandable by an untrained person? I really am curious here.

What HydrogenBond said was, "If one can not reduce their science to something easy to understand, it is probably at least part smoke and mirrors." That is certainly an attitude which I find quite reasonable. :cup:

The problem with looking for discoveries today is that we are mired in the myriad of scientific data coming forth, whereas when we look at 100 years ago, we have the filter of 100 years. After all that time, it is only the most important things that are spoken about now. Thus, it appears as if 100 years ago everything that was discovered was earth-shattering. ... 100 years from now, it will look like all we did was discover really cool stuff too. Why? Because it is only the cool stuff that people will be talking about.

True and false! When I was a graduate student (long-long ago) we often had to read the original journal publications on which our work was to be based (part of any graduate thesis research in those days). We had to track down and read the references on which those significant articles were based. So what most researchers get to see are those particular publications which lead to the current accepted circumstance in the field. Such research pretty well leaves them with the impression that the scientists of the past were a logical and reasonable lot.

 

By the way, everyone did "re" search and I always wondered who did the original "search". :cup:

 

At any rate, I had the habit of always reading the whole journal instead of just the referenced article (I guess I was just an avid reader and often found it entertaining). I noticed that most of the stuff wasn't worth the paper it was written on: for the most part, the publications were confused and nonsensical ravings displaying utterly no comprehension of what they were talking about. (Actually about the same intellectual level as these forums to tell you the truth.) So it's true, we won't be talking about what the idiots thought a hundred years ago. But your comment is false with regard to the idea that the professionals understand what they are talking about. A hundred (or two or three hundred) years ago, most of the published stuff was worthless garbage and why should one think that things are any different now? :hihi:

 

In fact, I really believe that if someone had asked Newton how one could guarantee all the clocks in the universe were set together, (the fundamental issue of simultaneity) modern relativity would have been understood four hundred years ago. Newton was a serious thinker. Another thing Newton said always intrigued me: he apparently said, "Even though action at a distance was clearly impossible, ..." in at least one introduction to his theory of gravity. By the way, all field theories essentially presume action at a distance. I can only guess what he might have done with virtual particle exchange; after all, his theory of light was a particle theory. :beer:

 

Regarding my earlier reference to my thoughts,

However, if you would like to send me a copy of it then you can pm me and we set up a way to get me the document

I have just rewritten a paper I posted on the web some four years ago. People were apparently having great difficulty understanding what it said so I made an attempt to clarify the issues that seemed to be bothering them. One major problem is that I am totally ignorant of the background of most people here so I have no idea as to what is confusing them. If you find anything I say confusing please let me know. :cup:

 

You can find the paper here. [sorry, it no longer exists!]

 

I am looking forward to your comments. :cup:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity