A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] How science is not done



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 14th 09, 07:11 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 11:15*am, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:

And who is that? *Names, please, and the verifiable quote where they say
they "know everything."


It is true that recognized, accredited scientists will admit, over and
over again, that there are many, many things about the Universe they
don't know.

But what you quoted is still not without validity, if you allow for
the way in which the ordinary English language is used.

Because even though they admit there is lots that they don't know, it
IS true...

that reputable, recognized scientists generally show not the slightest
bit of inclination to go to UFO researchers, astrologers, alchemists,
shamans, gurus, and the like to find out the things they don't know!

(Surely you will admit that _this_ is a well known fact of which
specific proof is not needed?)

No - instead, while they do admit there are things they don't know,
they still maintain that they're the only ones qualified to find out
those things they don't know! So this is all a ploy to get grant money
to find the Higgs boson and things like that.

So they do indeed manifest a superior attitude that hurts the feelings
of UFO researchers, astrologers, and so on, just as the fellow said,
even if you can be pedantic about the details!

John Savard
  #22  
Old August 14th 09, 07:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 7:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change neé Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.


Reading this thread, though, shows that the situation is not as it
seemed.

The quote wasn't real, and the data is available to qualified
researchers so that their findings can be validated - and falsified.
All that he wouldn't do is do a crank's work for him.

It is also true that in some cases, researchers to get to work with
the raw data that they've amassed first before everyone else rushes to
mine it for fame and glory, but apparently that issue doesn't apply
here.

John Savard
  #23  
Old August 14th 09, 07:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Dave Typinski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 778
Default [OT] How science is not done

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?


No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it
selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for
instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw
data to anybody who asks.


I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x °C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

The real question is whether a reasonable
number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the
article doesn't make that clear one way or the other.


Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave
  #24  
Old August 14th 09, 07:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Dave[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default [OT] How science is not done

Dave,
I agree with you. Science is based on observation and experimentation... in
this case observation alone. Those who would hold back or require others to
repeat observations do so for reasons having to do with human nature which
is a whole 'nother area that deserves observation in and of itself.
Anyone secure in the conclusions they have made after observations should
be secure enough to have those conclusions questioned. Sad to say that
greed, hubris, self love, and other negative aspects of human nature have
always interferred with true discovery.

Dave


"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?


No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it
selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for
instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw
data to anybody who asks.


I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x °C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

The real question is whether a reasonable
number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the
article doesn't make that clear one way or the other.


Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave



  #25  
Old August 14th 09, 07:45 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default [OT] How science is not done

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:16:03 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?


The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by
virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and
can be career damaging. This is why scientists don't normally hand out
their raw data indiscriminately. They do provide their raw data to other
researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept
papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access
(perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #26  
Old August 14th 09, 08:19 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 7:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

The next time Wormley posts his 'no center/big bang' thingie,all he is
doing is promoting something which horrified astronomers before
Copernicus proposed planetary dynamics to resolve it,the fact that
this world worships the 'big bang' cretinous view is far more
horrifying.You get what you pay for John and that is how 'science
works'.


* *Gerald, you fail to see the difference in "no center" for cosmic
* *expansion and the uniqueness of a polar (or other) position on the
* *surface of a rotating earth.

* *No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* *Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* *WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


In 1904,empiricism or to be more precise,the agenda that tried to link
terrestrial ballistics to structural astronomy and planetary dynamics
was like a giant inverted pyramid perched on its apex with the error
of Flamsteed at the bottom of it.In fact a few guys came close to
identifying the problem but in hindsight few would have the
astronomical background to untangle the error and th elaborate scheme
Newton built on it,a few did though -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

For the rest of the 20th century and slightly into the 21st
century,empircism was like one of those punchbags that cheerfully
rights itself -

http://www.superdairyboy.com/picture...Bozobopbig.jpg

You must have missed the slight urgency in Archbishop's Cusa's
statement regardlng the need to discover planetary dynamics for
constellation motion about Polaris was intolerable and produced a view
where every-point-is-the-valid-center-of-the-universe ,I'll repeat it
again in case you didn't see it first time -

"And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

That is what you get if you link daily rotation directly to the
apparent motion of constellations around Polaris -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY

"No center/big bang" is the logical end you get when you make a
really,really dumb conclusion -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed

A person who is capable of knowing he can be right is one thing,a
person who is too dumb to know he is chasing rainbows is something
else,the horrifying thing is that the 'big bang' is considered the
height of human reasoning and that is what is disconcerting.









  #27  
Old August 14th 09, 08:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Curtis Croulet[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default How science is not done

You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze
at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls
eye sockets*


As I suspected, you have nothing. But, I wonder, why are you in a forum
that is intended to discuss science?
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California

  #28  
Old August 14th 09, 08:56 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
John Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default How science is not done


"Curtis Croulet" wrote in message
...
You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze
at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls
eye sockets*


As I suspected, you have nothing. But, I wonder, why are you in a forum
that is intended to discuss science?
--

And I wonder how he manages to trick of rolling his eyes sockets, I mean
come on their fixed in the normal human skull aren't they?


  #29  
Old August 14th 09, 09:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Dave[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default [OT] How science is not done


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:16:03 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?


The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by
virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and
can be career damaging. This is why scientists don't normally hand out
their raw data indiscriminately. They do provide their raw data to other
researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept
papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access
(perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by
virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and
can be career damaging.


One would assume that the original collector of the data would publish his
findings before making the data generally available. the only harm then to
the original scientist is if a "more correct" finding was published
later...in my opinion.


They do provide their raw data to other
researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept
papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access
(perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data.


Peer reviewers should not be the only arbitirs of theory or conclusions
again in my opinion...not that that means much.... :-)


David






  #30  
Old August 14th 09, 09:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
gabydewilde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 9:32*pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:
You will just have to take my incredilously edukated word for it. Gaze
at me diplomats on the wall. Oh, and "study harder" of course. *rolls
eye sockets*


As I suspected, you have nothing.


There, you eventually provided yourself to be the ultimate example of
your own askerings.

suspected something argue it is teh truth

Attack those who do not agree with you.

Jet fuel melts steel again.

Heavier than air flying machines are made of steel that is why they
can vaporize spontaneously on the grassy knol.

Is it a plane is it a bird... no it is a magic bullet!

HAHAHAAHAHA

Thanks for the laughs pancake theoretician. No offense intended, just
learning by example.

Have a nice day,
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 11th 07 05:37 PM
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 July 11th 07 04:48 PM
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers nightbat Misc 4 November 11th 06 03:34 AM
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order nightbat Misc 8 September 8th 06 09:50 AM
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 December 16th 04 10:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.