why has it become trendy...

[Dr Mindbender]

by which im referring to hi-tech endeavours such as space exploration, and the ususal whinging from the animal rights apologists. (possibly other examples but im too tired to think right now) Also, as another comrade pointed out why have we allowed the right media to become the vanguard of scientific journalism. We are the progressive thinkers, this should be our domain FFS!
:angry:

[Pawn Power]

"hi-tech endeavours such as space exploration" can be seen as a terrible waste of money in the face of, literally, on the ground promblems, even within technology and science. Furthermore, while prjects like "space exploaration, can yeild useful technologies for our lives it also assists in miltary technological advancemnt...which leads to furhter represion.

Outside of that sort of wacky "anti-science" stance which you are talking about (and which really is not anti-science) is the post-modernist war on science which is more of a critique of science as a discourse and which is fare more "dangerous."

[Comrade Rage]

I'm sick of this fucking anti-science/primitivist crap that comes from the right--and left truthfully. Smash it!

[AGITprop]

i am all for technological advancement and science because it has brought us a long way.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 12, 2007 10:09 am
I'm sick of this fucking anti-science/primitivist crap that comes from the right--and left truthfully. Smash it!
Like what?

[MarxSchmarx]

"hi-tech endeavours such as space exploration" can be seen as a terrible waste of money in the face of, literally, on the ground promblems, even within technology and science

Amen sister. How many pure mathematicians, entomologists, and environmental chemists can we give tenure to for the cost of one space craft? I actually tried to tabulate it for theoretical mathematicians once. Assuming office space, a life time of free caffeine, and a stipend to live in the middle of nowhere in a developed country, it comes out to about 30,000 USD. Now, the average cost to launch a space shuttle is 450 million USD (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10) PER MISSION.

That translates into a whopping 15000 mathematicians per annum that could be supported by the cost of a single space mission. Hmmm... greatest good for the greatest number?

The basic costs are a little (but not much) higher for entomologists and environmental chemists. Still imagine the diseases we could cure, the agricultural and environmental problems we could solve, if we just let MIR rot! But suffice it to say that something is awry.

It's a capitalist ploy to establish "space supremacy" and commercialize space. That's why most leftists should be against gov't funded space exploration in the name of "science." Science has higher priorities. So does the human race.



I'm sick of this fucking anti-science/primitivist crap that comes from the right--and left truthfully. Smash it!

Like what?


PTT, I think Comrade Crum was referring to the likes of John Zerzan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan) who goes after such modern concepts as "numbers" and "agriculture" (not to mention the internet and flush toilets) as the source of capitalist oppression. As far as from the (edit: right), I think he meant such reactionary organizations as this (http://www.discovery.org/) or this (http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+October 12, 2007 02:05 am--> (Pawn Power @ October 12, 2007 02:05 am) Furthermore, while prjects like "space exploaration, can yeild useful technologies for our lives it also assists in miltary technological advancemnt...which leads to furhter represion. [/b]
The point of space exploration is NOT to "yield useful technologies for our lives." That may be a nice side effect, but it is only a side effect.

The point of space exploration is to take the human species beyond the boundaries of this little ball of rock we call Earth. The point of space exploration is to expand the knowledge of the human mind and the portion of the universe under its influence, to create new human societies, to bring life to a sterile galaxy and ensure the long-term survival of the human species and Terran life in general.

As for worrying about military applications of new technology, that is exactly the kind of anti-science attitude that we need to shake off. All new technology has military applications, but that does not mean we should stop all research in case someone invents a new way of killing people!

I will even go as far as to say that new military technologies may be a good thing, if they are of such a nature that they could allow untrained personnel to weild more firepower. For much of human history, people had to rely on years of training to become effective warriors - and this allowed warrior classes to crush the rest of the population under the iron heel of oppression. Ordinary peasants and workers had no time or resources to devote to martial training, while the ruling class could afford to buy swords and learn how to use them (since they didn't have much else to do with their time, given that other people were doing all their work for them).

Neither the French Revolution nor any of the socialist revolutions of the 20th century could have been possible without a woderful substance known as gunpowder. Gunpowder allowed the construction of weapons that could be used effectively by untrained workers. While the sword was the weapon of tyrants, the gun became the weapon of revolutions.

So to the "threat" of new military technologies, I say bring it on!


Originally posted by Pawn Power+--> (Pawn Power)"hi-tech endeavours such as space exploration" can be seen as a terrible waste of money in the face of, literally, on the ground promblems, even within technology and science.[/b]

[email protected]
How many pure mathematicians, entomologists, and environmental chemists can we give tenure to for the cost of one space craft?
I take exception to such statements, which I consider to be incredibly narrow-minded. Is space exploration currently very expensive? Yes, of course. But this cost is only a reflection of the lack of interest and research that capitalist governments and corporations have shown towards the issue of space. No major improvements in our space technology have been made in decades - because it does not serve the interests of capital to find better ways to put people in orbit or on the Moon. Indeed, the only interests served by space exploration are the long-term interests of the human species itself.

Arguing that we must solve "our problems here on Earth" before investing in space exploration is bullshit. There will never be a world in which there are no problems at all. There will never be a world in which everyone is happy. There is no such thing as "solving the world's problems" - the point is to make things much better than they are today, but with the understanding that they will never be perfect. Yes, we can have a world without hunger, without poverty, without exploitation, hierarchy, oppression and war - such a world will be achieved under communism. But even in communism, there will still be natural disasters, there will still be crimes of passion, there will still be environmental issues to deal with. And there will still be room for improvement in everyone's quality of life. There will always be room for improvement. We will never reach a point where we can say that we have no problems left to solve.

Therefore, delaying space exploration "until we solve our problems here on Earth" is delaying space exploration forever.

Besides, it's not as if we're already devoting most of our resources to solving Earth's problems and NASA is the only thing keeping precious funding away from cancer research. If you're looking for pointless wastes of money and resources, start with the Pentagon's military spending, the war in Iraq, and the financial sector of capitalist economies.


MarxSchmarx
It's a capitalist ploy to establish "space supremacy" and commercialize space. That's why most leftists should be against gov't funded space exploration in the name of "science." Science has higher priorities. So does the human race.
What? "Commercialize space?" First of all, that's not even possible; space is a vacuum. Second, it is capitalist corporations, not governments, who usually go about commercializing things - and none of them have shown any interest in space. Third, space-related research and exploration is proceeding at a snail's pace. Capitalist governments never had any real interest in it; the only reason NASA exists at all is because of the Cold War.

And furthermore, space exploration is the single most important long term priority of human science and the human species itself. Yes, there are other things that are more pressing in the short term. But we must never completely sacrifice long term goals for short term ones.

The universe is immense. To argue that we should remain confined on one little ball of dust and not concern ourselves with any of the rest is nothing short of madness.

[Pawn Power]

Eric O:

I don't have time to responed to your post in full at the moment but let me say one thing.

I do support scientific projects with the sole purpose of gaining knowledge even if it does not lead to short term technological advancment. However, you are of the incorrect position that space exploration is done for that reason. The US went to the moon not becuase it wanted to explore beyond our rock we call earth but because it was in a propaganda compitition with the USSR. Today, this compitition with the USSR does not really exists, however, the initative to explore space, at least as far as the funding is concered, is still based in propagada and nationalism. That is, "the US is the most technologically advanced not because its citizens have the best living conditions or the best nutrition or the shortest work week, but becuase it can send people farthest into space." I would rather support technological and scientific advancement with the aim at knowledge or the betterment of our lives then at cultural superiority.

[midnight marauder]

animal rights apologists

What does this have to do with science?

[Lynx]

I believe Cassini-Huygens and robotic space exploration missions are well worth the time and effort.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by midnight [email protected] 12, 2007 06:40 pm

animal rights apologists

What does this have to do with science?
Er, vivisection? :blink:

Please dont tell me i need to elaborate?!?

[Dr Mindbender]

Part of the reason space exploration was so financially consuming in the past was down specifically to the cold war, and lack of scientific co-opertion. It wasnt until the formation of international space bodies like the ESA that co-operative missions could keep the cost down. Now this is commonplace, several nations share the burden. Lets not forget that space tourism is now becoming a mainstay of the Russian economy so for them its turned out to be a money spinner in the long run!
We cant afford to live in a world with no space exploration though, for fear of the 'big evil rockets'. Mother Earth has only a limited time so the long term survival of the human species depends upon colonisation of other worlds. Lets not keep all our proverbial eggs in the same basket, so to speak.

[Vanguard1917]

by which im referring to hi-tech endeavours such as space exploration, and the ususal whinging from the animal rights apologists. (possibly other examples but im too tired to think right now)

Some other key examples: biotechnology, hi-tech intensive farming methods, nuclear technology.

You're right: people who consider themselves 'leftwing' are nowadays often at the forefront of attempts to create a climate of suspicion and fear of scientific progress. In the past, it was those on the right who were hostile to scientific innovation, and those on the left who stood up for scientific innovation. Today, this is not the case - each side promotes its own version of anti-science sentiment.


Also, as another comrade pointed out why have we allowed the right media to become the vanguard of scientific journalism. We are the progressive thinkers, this should be our domain FFS!

Absolutely right!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 12, 2007 07:57 pm
Eric O:

I don't have time to responed to your post in full at the moment but let me say one thing.

I do support scientific projects with the sole purpose of gaining knowledge even if it does not lead to short term technological advancment. However, you are of the incorrect position that space exploration is done for that reason. The US went to the moon not becuase it wanted to explore beyond our rock we call earth but because it was in a propaganda compitition with the USSR. Today, this compitition with the USSR does not really exists, however, the initative to explore space, at least as far as the funding is concered, is still based in propagada and nationalism. That is, "the US is the most technologically advanced not because its citizens have the best living conditions or the best nutrition or the shortest work week, but becuase it can send people farthest into space." I would rather support technological and scientific advancement with the aim at knowledge or the betterment of our lives then at cultural superiority.
I actually agree with your point. Yes, it is true that space exploration by capitalist governments is not done for scientific purposes, but for nationalistic propaganda purposes. That is why the fortunes of NASA rise and fall depending on the political climate more than anything else. And that is why capitalism will never be able to effectively take the human species to other worlds. Capitalist governments are not really interested in space - they only support some token exploration to make themselves look good.

However, no matter why space exploration is done, the fact remains that it still results in a wealth of scientific knowledge about the universe.

[Cult of Reason]

The research into fundamental particles at CERN has little obvious practical use, but Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web while there in order to easily transmit the results of the experiments there. ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Edric 0
However, no matter why space exploration is done, the fact remains that it still results in a wealth of scientific knowledge about the universe.
QFT. For all the space exploration naysayers, i challenge them to state why the Hubble space telescope was a waste of money/time, bearing in mind the contributions it has made to the field of astronomy.

[MarxSchmarx]

i challenge them to state why the Hubble space telescope was a waste of money/time, bearing in mind the contributions it has made to the field of astronomy.

Well, it is probably not a waste of time.

But as for money, as a yardstick of scientific productivity, consider the number of journal articles. NASA says the Hubble costs about 230 million USD per year to operate.

hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php

Assuming we pay theoretical physicists a middle class salary, this comes out to about 6000 such physicists we can support per year; probably way more if they are physicists in a lower-income country.

Assuming each such physicist publishes at least 1 scientific article per year, the Hubble will have to lead to the publication of at least 6000 journal articles per year.

According to Thompson Scientific, a search for "Hubble" for 2005 produced 968 articles.



What? "Commercialize space?" First of all, that's not even possible

Let it be known that the US Department of Commerce actually has an "Office of Space Commercialization": http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/space/

I am sure they have NASA's ear.

And I agree that nationalist "my dick is bigger than yours" are an important part of the space programs of many countries, that doesn't make space programs any more rational or justifiable from a class-based analysis.



The point of space exploration is to take the human species beyond the boundaries of this little ball of rock we call Earth. The point of space exploration is to expand the knowledge of the human mind and the portion of the universe under its influence, to create new human societies, to bring life to a sterile galaxy and ensure the long-term survival of the human species and Terran life in general.

As a long-term goal, yes I support space exploration. But given the earth's got AT LEAST another couple of billion years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1749389.stm), and given that how far we've come in only 200,000 years, I think there are more pressing scientific problems like curing diseases, renewable energy, preserving biodiversity, and yes, string theory and nonparametric statistics and nematode genetics and oceanic research than sending humans to Mars.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx+October 15, 2007 06:35 am--> (MarxSchmarx @ October 15, 2007 06:35 am) But as for money, as a yardstick of scientific productivity, consider the number of journal articles. NASA says the Hubble costs about 230 million USD per year to operate.

hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php

Assuming we pay theoretical physicists a middle class salary, this comes out to about 6000 such physicists we can support per year; probably way more if they are physicists in a lower-income country.

Assuming each such physicist publishes at least 1 scientific article per year, the Hubble will have to lead to the publication of at least 6000 journal articles per year.

According to Thompson Scientific, a search for "Hubble" for 2005 produced 968 articles. [/b]
I'm sorry, but the number of journal articles is simply not a good measure of scientific productivity or scientific progress by any stretch of the imagination. First of all, articles can have varying lengths - simply counting the number of articles without taking into account their length would lead us to conclude that it's better to publish a large number of small articles rather than one long in-depth article, which is not necessarily the case. Second, there is of course the question of quality vs. quantity. Some articles may describe fascinating new discoveries, while others may be crap.

At a more fundamental level, the fact is that you cannot simply pay scientists and expect them to sit around all day and make discoveries out of thin air. You also have to invest in research equipment. The Hubble Space Telescope is research equipment. Electronic microscopes are another example of research equipment. Medical science would not progress faster if we sold off all electronic microscopes and used the money to hire additional biologists.


Originally posted by [email protected]

What? "Commercialize space?" First of all, that's not even possible
Let it be known that the US Department of Commerce actually has an "Office of Space Commercialization": http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/space/

I am sure they have NASA's ear.
I said it was impossible, I did not say the US government wouldn't try to do it. ;)

In any case, the website seems to be concerned mostly with GPS and telecommunications satellites. Yes, such satellites are in space, but they are not a form of space exploration. They exist for the sole purpose of providing a service to people on the surface of Earth. They do not make it easier for people to get off the planet, nor do they provide us with any information about space.


MarxSchmarx

The point of space exploration is to take the human species beyond the boundaries of this little ball of rock we call Earth. The point of space exploration is to expand the knowledge of the human mind and the portion of the universe under its influence, to create new human societies, to bring life to a sterile galaxy and ensure the long-term survival of the human species and Terran life in general.
As a long-term goal, yes I support space exploration. But given the earth's got AT LEAST another couple of billion years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1749389.stm), and given that how far we've come in only 200,000 years, I think there are more pressing scientific problems like curing diseases, renewable energy, preserving biodiversity, and yes, string theory and nonparametric statistics and nematode genetics and oceanic research than sending humans to Mars.
The question is not how long the Earth has left, but how long the human species has left. Or, to be even more precise, the question is how much longer will there be a human civilization with the capability of space flight. Given the state of the world right now, the "mutual ruin of all contending classes" (as Marx would put it) - in other words, the resolution of class conflict by a collapse of civilization rather than by revolution - is a distinct possibility.

Also, bear in mind that it's not as if we could just decide that we want to go to Mars one day and set up a Martian base the following morning. Space exploration, at least in its early stages, takes a damn long time. That's why it's a good idea to start as early as you can.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:00 am
You're right: people who consider themselves 'leftwing' are nowadays often at the forefront of attempts to create a climate of suspicion and fear of scientific progress.
Today "scientific progress" firmly represents the interests of the ruling class, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical of their intentions and inventions, as well as standing in their way when need be.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+October 15, 2007 05:35 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ October 15, 2007 05:35 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 09:00 am
You're right: people who consider themselves 'leftwing' are nowadays often at the forefront of attempts to create a climate of suspicion and fear of scientific progress.
Today "scientific progress" firmly represents the interests of the ruling class, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical of their intentions and inventions, as well as standing in their way when need be. [/b]
that isnt to say that scientific progress cant have a progressive context, nor does it mean that present day scientific progress never does.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 15, 2007 11:48 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 15, 2007 11:48 am)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 15, 2007 05:35 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 09:00 am
You're right: people who consider themselves 'leftwing' are nowadays often at the forefront of attempts to create a climate of suspicion and fear of scientific progress.
Today "scientific progress" firmly represents the interests of the ruling class, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being skeptical of their intentions and inventions, as well as standing in their way when need be.
that isnt to say that scientific progress cant have a progressive context, nor does it mean that present day scientific progress never does. [/b]
No, which is why I didn't say that. But it seems that, at least in this section of the board, things tend toward extremes when the solution is much closer to the middle. In this case, being critical of some modern technologies as they're used by the bourgeois is correlated to being "anti-science," which is an absurd slander. Being critical is not the same as fundamental opposition.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm sorry, but the number of journal articles is simply not a good measure of scientific productivity or scientific progress by any stretch of the imagination.

Except, of course, when science faculty get together to decide on who to hire.


there is of course the question of quality vs. quantity.

Fair enough. So I went back to Thompson Scientific and checked the median times each article that includes "Hubble" in its keyword has been cited - that is, half the articles have been cited by other articles above this index, and half the articles below. This is generous - I could have gone for the mean, where the maximum (280 some citations) is halved by each zero citation cases.

And what did I find? A median citation index of 7. That is not too shabby for a 2005 article, but is comparable to the average journal article in middle-of the pack "Mathematical Physics" journals.

In other words, the assumption that theoretical physicists (and I'm exclusing applied mathematicians!), on average, contribute about as much to scientific research, as measured by how many other scientists make use of their published results, as researchers who use the Hubble is basically sound.



At a more fundamental level, the fact is that you cannot simply pay scientists and expect them to sit around all day and make discoveries out of thin air.

This is essentially what Newton, Einstein, Godel, Sewall Wright, von Neumann, Robert May, Konrad Lorentz, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Hawking and plenty of other bang up scientists did. Theoreticians "sitting around all day and making discoveries out of thin air" is as important to empirical science as empirical science is to these theoreticians.


You also have to invest in research equipment. The Hubble Space Telescope is research equipment. Electronic microscopes are another example of research equipment. Medical science would not progress faster if we sold off all electronic microscopes and used the money to hire additional biologists.

Yes. And what research equipment should we invest 250 million USD per year in? How about sequencing the genomes of 300 vertebrates (or 4000 viruses, by my calculation)? How about a carbon dater for ALL geologists. How about 250 new genome sequencing machines GRATIS for 250 life science laboratories? How about 250 new super-computers. Again, it's a matter of priorities. Why should astronomy have first dibs on this funding?

RE: the commercialization of space, I completely agree with you, Edric.

But that doesn't stop the capitalist dogs from trying. But even by their own standards, it is not viable and you are right, it is a waste of money for capitalists and the capitalist state. It is also a waste of money for the worker's councils in the short and medium time range.


Space exploration, at least in its early stages, takes a damn long time.

Which is why we want to be around for as long as possible.



The question is not how long the Earth has left, but how long the human species has left. .

Again, you are correct. Couldn't we do more to prolong our survival if we invested scientific research in environmental sustainability, medical science, and socialist econometrics than sending a few of our elite supermen to Mars?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:49 am


This is essentially what Newton, Einstein, Godel, Sewall Wright, von Neumann, Robert May, Konrad Lorentz, Motoo Kimura, Stephen Hawking and plenty of other bang up scientists did. Theoreticians "sitting around all day and making discoveries out of thin air" is as important to empirical science as empirical science is to these theoreticians.


you clearly dont appreciate the difference in roles between theoretical and applied physics. Sure, Einstein and Hawking provided the mathematics, but it was down to the laboratorians to acheive the conclusive hard evidence behind it. Also, applied astronomy has made leaps and bounds recently thanks to the new hardware that has become available- we are now finding planets around other stars- the reason being we have the telescopes (including hubble) that are necessary to pick up the emission spectra of various compounds which are consistent with the existence of other (possibly life supporting) worlds, and you shouldnt need me to tell you what implications that could mean.

[ecopolecon]

This is a complex issue, given the variety and factionalism of both science and "the left." I can think of three main strands of critique of science on "the left," each of which includes a "hard core" that rejects science completely and a "soft core" that rejects only certain versions of science:

1) Those attacking sociobiology, which is seen as a descendant of social Darwinism and eugenics. Particularly at issue is its association with bio-determinism and the naturalization of socially constructed gender, race and class hierarchies.

On this issue, while I agree with Steven Pinker's argument in 'The Blank Slate' that the denial of innate genetic structures is often taken to absurd lengths, I think the opposite extreme is far more dangerous. Expertise at the biological micro-level has emboldened more than a few scientists to make armchair macro-level statements, which are usually crude social Darwinism at its worst. For example, the famed geneticist James Watson told a newspaper interviewer (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece) earlier this week that Africans are intellectually inferior to Europeans. He has also claimed in the past that skin color is linked to sex drive, and in 1997 he told a British newspaper that women should be able to abort fetuses known to be homosexual. These kinds of statements are not taken seriously in the mainstream of genetics or biology, but laypeople may be convinced by the rantings of an old crank.

Similarly, the writings of E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins are routinely appropriated by those seeking to justify male sexual promiscuity, greed, and laissez faire "gut the state" economics. Look at Robert Ardrey's work--the man has has written a highly conjectural prehistory of the human species centering on themes of territorial and sexual conquest/domination. And guess what? A lot men eat it up, despite the paucity of evidence for many of his claims.

2) Those attacking science for its practictioners' complicity with states and corporations in the development of nuclear weapons, GMOs, petrochemicals and myriad other technologies which have royally screwed up the environment.

Now, obviously, claiming that science as a discipline has to be held responsible for the abuse of its discoveries or the sell-outs of its practitioners is unfair. It's like the old socialism=Stalinism or, for that matter, anarchy=Somalia equation. But science as a really existing discipline is embedded in academic and corporate institutions which channel research into pharmaceutical drugs, agribusiness biotech, and other profit-driven applications. This had to be recognized as a political and economic fact before we abstract away to science as an ideal sphere of research and theory.

3) Those who attack the scientific method as such on philosophical grounds (anarcho-primitivists, post-modernists).

There is an interesting feminist literature (Carolyn Merchant's The Death of Nature, Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch, Maria Mies' Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale) which ties the development of scientific thought into the process of "primitive accumulation" in Europe and its colonies. They show the complicity of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes and other eminent pioneers with various kinds of state violence, and argue that their scientific ideas were necessary concomitants of the new politico-economic order (i.e. factory mechanics, armaments, industrial chemistry/botany, imperial anthropology). I don't think those on the left, particularly Marxists, should discard this critique too readily. After all, Marx insisted that no sphere of intellectual life develops independently of the productive forces in a given society. So the development of science and the development of capitalism were in a recursive relationship. But Marx also believed that science and industrial technology could be adapted to socialist purposes. Some on the left, such as Alf Hornborg, are now arguing that industrialism intrinsically required an imperial relationship between resource-supplying peripheries and entropic core areas. Horborg argues that the Soviet Union collapsed precisely because it attempted to sustain an expanding industrial system by establishing a core-periphery relationship within and contiguous to its borders. Chechens and Afghans might agree with that.

Anyway, either way the argument goes, the burden should be on those who believe science can be emancipatory to show how a "left" application of it would differ from the mainstream/dominant one.

[MarxSchmarx]

but it was down to the laboratorians to acheive the conclusive hard evidence behind it.

Actually, often data analysis sufficed, as in Newton's or Darwin's cases.

But your point about empirical research is well taken - it's just that the question is whether a certain narrow segment of empirical research, that is consulted by the scientific community about as much as theoretical research , is really worth the millions of dollars spent.


which are consistent with the existence of other (possibly life supporting) worlds, and you shouldnt need me to tell you what implications that could mean.

Again, I suppose we can do little more than agree to disagree. I feel the money would have been better spent on adding theoreticians in fields where empirical work far outpaces theoretical work (atmospheric science and molecular biology come to mind). If nothing else I think all scientists need jobs, and all this investment in empirical astronomy hasn't helped the horrid (I am told) job market in that field.

I agree with most of your post, ecopolecon. But I disagree with your conclusion. I think scientists have been all too complicit with the ruling class.



Anyway, either way the argument goes, the burden should be on those who believe science can be emancipatory to show how a "left" application of it would differ from the mainstream/dominant one

That science has proven convenient to the ruling class, and inspired by the ruling ideologies of the day is correct. The scientific method per se is inherently emancipatory - it is open, subject to the judgment of ones equals, and pursued with an open mind. Historically, science has destroyed reactionary dogma from racism to geocentrism to theology to social darwinism.

It is only the capitalist ECONOMIC system that has perturbed this by for example restricting access to journal articles and funding only research that serves capitalists.

Science will realize its inherent emancipatory potential only when human beings are emancipated.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 12:56 am
Also, as another comrade pointed out why have we allowed the right media to become the vanguard of scientific journalism. We are the progressive thinkers, this should be our domain FFS!
:angry:
Care to expand on this?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly+October 26, 2007 10:55 pm--> (Dick Dastardly @ October 26, 2007 10:55 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 12:56 am
Also, as another comrade pointed out why have we allowed the right media to become the vanguard of scientific journalism. We are the progressive thinkers, this should be our domain FFS!
:angry:
Care to expand on this? [/b]
do i really need to or are you just being obtuse?

[Mujer Libre]

I think this is yet another example on Revleft of people critiquing science being misconstrued as being anti-science.

Seriously people- grow up. Learn to look at issues with some subtlety. Just because people don't automatically orgasm when someone mentions the words "scientific progress" does NOT mean that they are a fucking primitivist.

Also- maybe you all need to spend some time considerin the word progress, and what it means, why it is not an absolute measure of goodness.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 26, 2007 04:45 pm
I think this is yet another example on Revleft of people critiquing science being misconstrued as being anti-science.
Uh...being critical of science is "antiscience".

Being critical of a hypothesis and offering a sound alternative that explains as many or more observations, or reducing necessary variables, is science.

Being a scientist, I have no problem with people adopting a scientific position; on the other hand, adopting an antiscientific position is worrying!

And I don't give a flying fuck if you label this as "critical think", "post modernism", or anything else. Let's call a spade a spade: it's fucking antiscience!

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+October 27, 2007 01:20 am--> (ComradeRed @ October 27, 2007 01:20 am)
Mujer [email protected] 26, 2007 04:45 pm
I think this is yet another example on Revleft of people critiquing science being misconstrued as being anti-science.
Uh...being critical of science is "antiscience".

Being critical of a hypothesis and offering a sound alternative that explains as many or more observations, or reducing necessary variables, is science.

Being a scientist, I have no problem with people adopting a scientific position; on the other hand, adopting an antiscientific position is worrying!

And I don't give a flying fuck if you label this as "critical think", "post modernism", or anything else. Let's call a spade a spade: it's fucking antiscience! [/b]
Oh bullshit. What you've said only applies if science as applied by people is perfectly objective- and have news for you. It is not.

For example, even in the best double-blind trial, the way the trial is constructed is determined partially by best scientific practice, but also by society/culture/ethics.

Anyone with half a brain acknowledges that and it means that the results are not "pure science."

An critiquing science does not imply abandoning the scientific method, rather suggesting that it might be impossible to practice pure science in the real world. Therefore it is important to understand the ways in which scientific knowledge is shaped. :rolleyes:

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 26, 2007 05:40 pm
Oh bullshit. What you've said only applies if science as applied by people is perfectly objective- and have news for you. It is not.
No, it really doesn't.

The beauty of science is that it is assuming the current theory is only an approximation that works within certain conditions.

That is irrelevant to whether people are "objective" or not (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Regardless of my "objective" or "subjective" measurement of a particle's velocity, Newtonian mechanics best describes the phenomena on earth.

What the fuck kind of argument is "People aren't objective! ZOMG SCIENCE IS WRONG!" It demonstrates a gross ignorance of the subject.


For example, even in the best double-blind trial, the way the trial is constructed is determined partially by best scientific practice, but also by society/culture/ethics. Someone should tell the particles that our society/culture/ethics are affecting its properties :o


Anyone with half a brain acknowledges that and it means that the results are not "pure science." I don't know what you mean by "pure science" since no one, aside from philosophers, ever use the term really.

Is physics really more "pure" than chemistry?


An critiquing science does not imply abandoning the scientific method, rather suggesting that it might be impossible to practice pure science in the real world. "Abandoning science doesn't mean we've abandoned science" :lol:

When you criticize a scientific hypothesis without offering an alternative, that is not scientific.

There really isn't a "scientific method" as philosophers have suggested, but there is something called "scientific logic"...trying to create hypotheses to explain phenomena, or create new hypotheses which embody old predictions and new ones, etc.

When you criticize a scientific theory, and not offer an alternative hypothesis, you are basically saying "Fuck this shit". That is manifestly antiscientific.


Therefore it is important to understand the ways in which scientific knowledge is shaped. :rolleyes: Being a physicist, I would have no clue how scientific knowledge "is shaped". Please enlighten us all, I would love to know :rolleyes: :lol: <_<

[Lynx]

Scientific logic? What&#39;s wrong with the term scientific method?

When people hear the word &#39;theory&#39; they believe it to mean something tenuous, like hypothesis or conjecture.

There has been criticism of the scientific method, namely insensitive enough measuring instruments. But that sounds like a limitation (pending equipment upgrade), not a flaw.

[Lynx]

What if you have to conceive and build a new measurement instrument? Is that allowed?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:20 pm
Scientific logic? What&#39;s wrong with the term scientific method?
The methodology I use in quantum gravity is not the same that my brother uses in evolutionary biology, or my friend Alan in microbiology, or my friend Chris in Chemistry, or my friend Nelson in Computational and Quantitative biology, or...

All these people have different methodologies for their respective fields.

There is no "single" scientific method, despite what philosophers tell you. Anyone who works in science will explain that there are some things you do when you are working: 1) Look for pre-existing problems and try to solve them, 2) examine pre-existing theories and see where they fail, then try to solve them, 3) Create new hypotheses which unify pre-existing hypotheses or explain more phenomena.

That&#39;s rudimentary scientific logic.



When people hear the word &#39;theory&#39; they believe it to mean something tenuous, like hypothesis or conjecture. A theory is a model which explains phenomena.

I agree people tend to have this prejudice, but it is unfounded in science....at least, if you understand science.



There has been criticism of the scientific method, namely insensitive enough measuring instruments. But that sounds like a limitation (pending equipment upgrade), not a flaw. Certainly this is a criticism dating back to as early as Cavendish(&#33;).

It depends on the accuracy. Sometimes 5% is an acceptable margin of error. E.g. 5% too much cement in a bridge? No problem.

Other times 1% is too much. Geneticists report there is less than 1% genetic variation between a chimpanzee and a human. That&#39;s why a chimp eats a banana, and we do science.


What if you have to conceive and build a new measurement instrument? Is that allowed? Of course, people use the electron microscope don&#39;t they? ;)

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:55 am

There is no "single" scientific method, despite what philosophers tell you. Anyone who works in science will explain that there are some things you do when you are working: 1) Look for pre-existing problems and try to solve them, 2) examine pre-existing theories and see where they fail, then try to solve them, 3) Create new hypotheses which unify pre-existing hypotheses or explain more phenomena.
Yes:
3. Create a new hypothesis, one that is measurable and falsifiable
4. Devise and perform experiments to test hypothesis
5. Repeat experiments to establish reliability of measured data (facts)
6. Publish findings in a peer reviewed journal
7. Have other scientists (or aspiring scientists) repeat steps 4 and 5

How would the above steps differ between your colleagues?


All these people have different methodologies for their respective fields.
Are there really fields of science?


That&#39;s rudimentary scientific logic.
There are several "flavors" of logic. Can you be more specific?


That&#39;s why a chimp eats a banana, and we do science.
That chimp must have all the answers&#33;&#33; ;)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:20 pm
Uh...being critical of science is "antiscience".
Being critical of modern science as used by the ruling class for their own ends is by no means "anti-science." Scientific "progress" does not exist in a vacuum separated from the current global situation, and it therefore predominantly serves the interests of one class: the one with power. Being skeptical or critical of certain developments, as such, is not "anti-science."

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Lynx+October 27, 2007 09:33 am--> (Lynx &#064; October 27, 2007 09:33 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 01:55 am

There is no "single" scientific method, despite what philosophers tell you. Anyone who works in science will explain that there are some things you do when you are working: 1) Look for pre-existing problems and try to solve them, 2) examine pre-existing theories and see where they fail, then try to solve them, 3) Create new hypotheses which unify pre-existing hypotheses or explain more phenomena.
Yes:
3. Create a new hypothesis, one that is measurable and falsifiable
4. Devise and perform experiments to test hypothesis
5. Repeat experiments to establish reliability of measured data (facts)
6. Publish findings in a peer reviewed journal
7. Have other scientists (or aspiring scientists) repeat steps 4 and 5

How would the above steps differ between your colleagues?[/b]
None of my friends are concerned with their methods obeying a constraint generated by a gauge invariance indicating background independence ("diffeomorphism invariance").

Similarly, I am uninterested about approximating protein dynamics with so-and-so&#39;s algorithm as opposed to mumba-wumba&#39;s algorithm.

The method you outlined is not really correct. For example, when Dirac derived Dirac&#39;s equation in relativistic quantum mechanics, he wasn&#39;t thinking of (3) whatsoever. He was trying to relativize Schrodinger&#39;s equation for the electron.

This coincidentally led to the theory of antiparticles.

When Richard Feynman created his "Sum over histories" approach to quantum theory, he simply noted that in the canonical approach the Fourier series is closely related to the Laurent series, and followed this through to its logical conclusion.

"Creating a new hypothesis that is falsifiable" is not really what scientists do. Scientists create models, then check the accuracy of these models. There are usually paradigms in which heuristic rules, "rules of thumb", are used (e.g. canonical quantization: 1) Take fourier transform of the quantity, 2) Turn the fourier transform and its complex conjugate into creator and annihilator operators respectively, 3) reconstruct the quantity as an operator via Fourier expansion using the creator and annihilator pair as the Fourier coefficients; the exceptions to this approach are: 1) Gauge invariances, 2) Constraints, 3)...).

If you can&#39;t test a hypothesis, then by definition it&#39;s not a valid hypothesis. That&#39;s kinda elementary.

Besides of which, your steps don&#39;t really challenge mine...it&#39;s just that your steps are "hairy" and really coarse-grained so that it can be applied to literally anything.

I reiterate that the various maneuvers one can do in science are:
1) Look for pre-existing problems and try to solve them,
2) examine pre-existing theories and see where they fail, then try to solve them,
3) Create new hypotheses which unify pre-existing hypotheses or explain more phenomena.

Things get more and more specific as you get more and more precise about the field of science you are talking about.

Again, background independent gauge generators are irrelevant to biophysicists, as are protein synthesis algorithms are to a cosmologist, and so on and so forth.

You may argue "That&#39;s not the method I was talking about&#33;" But that&#39;s the method that scientists use.

I myself am practicing steps 1 and 2, other friends of mine are doing 2 and 3, 1 and 3, and so forth.




All these people have different methodologies for their respective fields.
Are there really fields of science? Yes, there are&#33;

Biology is different from physics and chemistry; chemistry is different from physics. Then within each field there are subfields.

Physics, for example, has a number of different subfields: thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, mechanics, field theory are the most general subfields.

Then within each of them are more specific fields: nonlinear thermodynamics, relativistic entropy in curved spacetime, quantum fluid dynamics, relativistically quantum fluid dynamics, foundational issues in quantum theory (e.g. background independence, etc.), different approaches to quantum theory (e.g. deformation quantization, star products, moyal brackets, etc.), generalizing these approaches to quantum field theory, etc.

Then you can get more and more specific. And this is just for physics&#33;



That&#39;s rudimentary scientific logic.
There are several "flavors" of logic. Can you be more specific? When I say "Scientific logic", I do not refer to logic as in "Aristotlean logic", "Dialectical logic", "Constructivist/Intuitionistic logic", etc.

What I mean is that there are certain valid maneuvers one can do while still being scientific.

When you criticize a hypothesis without offering an alternative, it&#39;s a bit like saying in the middle of an argument "You&#39;re a dickhead&#33;" And refusing to participate anymore. It&#39;s bad manners ;)

You work with a hypothesis, or a model, until you can create a better model, then you have a paradigm change, more or less.

BCBM



Being critical of modern science as used by the ruling class for their own ends is by no means "anti-science." Well, that&#39;s called junk science...distinguish it from science in that science actually explains stuff, whereas junk science justifies ideologies.

Dialecticians are expert junk scientists, for example.

Pointing out that a hypothesis is junk science (or even pseudoscience&#33;) is not antiscientific.

Criticizing, e.g., Newton&#39;s theory of gravity because the critic thinks that bodies aren&#39;t attracted by a force proportional to the masses of the bodies, then offer no alternative, is antiscience.

Suggesting that "society/culture/ethics" somehow affects the behavior of particles, thus rejecting all of science, is antiscience. (Then again, rejecting all of science with or without justification is antiscience&#33;)


Scientific "progress" does not exist in a vacuum separated from the current global situation, and it therefore predominantly serves the interests of one class: the one with power. I don&#39;t know what you mean by "scientific progress", whether it&#39;s the progress of science within its respective fields or the progress of applying technological advancements...even then measuring progress in science would be nightmarish at best.

Historically, the bourgeoisie championed science because it challenged the ideological superstructure of the feudal ruling class.

Aristotlean mechanics rejected for Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics, the Ptolemy astronomical model rejected for the Copernician/Keplerian model, and so forth.

Science has always been revolutionary in this respect. However, what the ruling class does with science is not necessarily scientific...e.g. the "scientific" arguments for race via genetics is bunk&#33; That does not mean that genetics all of the sudden becomes invalid&#33;

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:06 pm
The method you outlined is not really correct. For example, when Dirac derived Dirac&#39;s equation in relativistic quantum mechanics, he wasn&#39;t thinking of (3) whatsoever. He was trying to relativize Schrodinger&#39;s equation for the electron.

This coincidentally led to the theory of antiparticles.
The intent is to categorize the scientist&#39;s actions. If his actions can be shown to follow a methodology then that is something which might be understood by a non-scientist. Perhaps Dirac was following (1) and (2) and generated a result consistent with (3).


If you can&#39;t test a hypothesis, then by definition it&#39;s not a valid hypothesis. That&#39;s kinda elementary.
So what is done with invalid hypotheses? Are they discarded, renamed as conjecture, shelved for the future?


Besides of which, your steps don&#39;t really challenge mine...it&#39;s just that your steps are "hairy" and really coarse-grained so that it can be applied to literally anything.
They&#39;re not meant to challenge yours; they only attempt to expand on your #3.
And yes they&#39;re hairy, they are meant to give non-scientists a better idea of what (some) scientists are doing and the general methodology they are following. I didn&#39;t invent them&#33;


You may argue "That&#39;s not the method I was talking about&#33;" But that&#39;s the method that scientists use.
Well, now I know there is more than 1 generalized method. How many methods are there? They would be called Scientific Methods. Logic is assumed.

[Lynx]

Anyway, thank-you for your detailed response. A lot of your response is too technical for me to grasp, so I apologize if I wasted your time. Lynx.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Lynx+October 27, 2007 08:52 pm--> (Lynx @ October 27, 2007 08:52 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 09:06 pm
The method you outlined is not really correct. For example, when Dirac derived Dirac&#39;s equation in relativistic quantum mechanics, he wasn&#39;t thinking of (3) whatsoever. He was trying to relativize Schrodinger&#39;s equation for the electron.

This coincidentally led to the theory of antiparticles.
The intent is to categorize the scientist&#39;s actions. If his actions can be shown to follow a methodology then that is something which might be understood by a non-scientist. Perhaps Dirac was following (1) and (2) and generated a result consistent with (3). [/b]
No...he was trying to formulate a sort of Klein-Gordon equation for electrons since quantizing electromagnetism was the next logical step in science.

For the most part, Dirac - a mathematician - was not constrained by the scientific method. He actually did whatever the hell he felt like, it seems, but he did things out of his mathematical curiousity...which ended up having physical consequences.




If you can&#39;t test a hypothesis, then by definition it&#39;s not a valid hypothesis. That&#39;s kinda elementary.
So what is done with invalid hypotheses? Are they discarded, renamed as conjecture, shelved for the future? Discarded altogether.




Besides of which, your steps don&#39;t really challenge mine...it&#39;s just that your steps are "hairy" and really coarse-grained so that it can be applied to literally anything.
They&#39;re not meant to challenge yours; they only attempt to expand on your #3.
And yes they&#39;re hairy, they are meant to give non-scientists a better idea of what (some) scientists are doing and the general methodology they are following. I didn&#39;t invent them&#33; The problem is that it doesn&#39;t adequately describe how scientists work.

You either work within a paradigm, e.g. quantum field theory, and apply it to what it can be applied to (puzzle finding more or less) or you create a new paradigm altogether.

Those two maneuvers are described by the three maneuvers in scientific logic.



You may argue "That&#39;s not the method I was talking about&#33;" But that&#39;s the method that scientists use.
Well, now I know there is more than 1 generalized method. How many methods are there? They would be called Scientific Methods. Logic is assumed. It&#39;s not a method though.

Canonical quantization is a method. There is a strict recipe (given &#092;phi, take the fourier transform &#092;tilde{&#092;phi}, construct operators &#092;tilde{&#092;phi}&#092;rightarrow&#092;tile{&#092;phi}a, &#092;tilde{&#092;phi}^{*}&#092;rightarrow&#092;tile{&#092;phi}^{*}a^{+ }, reconstruct &#092;phi as an operator via Fourier series using the operators from step 2).

Hell, the method there isn&#39;t even that strict&#33;

With scientific logic, there are a few operations that could be done. Look for a new problem, solve an old problem, etc.

Methods tell you how to do something, but scientific logic tells you what to do. That&#39;s the difference between the two.

The methodology in background independent quantization is different than the methodology of microbiology...because we&#39;re trying to accomplish different things.

[bcbm]

Well, that&#39;s called junk science...distinguish it from science in that science actually explains stuff, whereas junk science justifies ideologies.

Dialecticians are expert junk scientists, for example.

Pointing out that a hypothesis is junk science (or even pseudoscience&#33;) is not antiscientific.

Criticizing, e.g., Newton&#39;s theory of gravity because the critic thinks that bodies aren&#39;t attracted by a force proportional to the masses of the bodies, then offer no alternative, is antiscience.

Suggesting that "society/culture/ethics" somehow affects the behavior of particles, thus rejecting all of science, is antiscience. (Then again, rejecting all of science with or without justification is antiscience&#33;)

You&#39;re not really following the discussion, are you? Reread the original post and perhaps you&#39;ll better grasp the point I&#39;m trying to make.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:08 am
The problem is that it doesn&#39;t adequately describe how scientists work.

You either work within a paradigm, e.g. quantum field theory, and apply it to what it can be applied to (puzzle finding more or less) or you create a new paradigm altogether.

Those two maneuvers are described by the three maneuvers in scientific logic.

With scientific logic, there are a few operations that could be done. Look for a new problem, solve an old problem, etc.

Methods tell you how to do something, but scientific logic tells you what to do. That&#39;s the difference between the two.
Can a list be made of the more notable (yet routine) things scientists do?
e.g. Scientists create models, then check the accuracy of those models.

Some possible FAQ&#39;s:
How can the general public determine what is science and what is not?
How is science funded?
What are the effects of discretionary funding on scientific research?

[MarxSchmarx]

Besides of which, your steps don&#39;t really challenge mine...it&#39;s just that your steps are "hairy" and really coarse-grained so that it can be applied to literally anything.

I reiterate that the various maneuvers one can do in science are:
1) Look for pre-existing problems and try to solve them,
2) examine pre-existing theories and see where they fail, then try to solve them,
3) Create new hypotheses which unify pre-existing hypotheses or explain more phenomena.


Well the same charge could be said of these steps. Whether they succeed or not, convicted non-scientists like Heidegger and Hegel (not to mention literary scholars) claim to do all of (1),(2) and (3). In fact, it is what most practitioners in the "Humanities" do.

I mean, when it comes right down to it, the theoretical branches of any science is in principle little different from symbolic logic, right? Empirical science, based on measurement, and whose validity is confirmed not by the rules of logic, but by the operation of the natural world, seems radically different.

But the whole exercise of establishing rigid criteria distinguishing science from nonscience seems kinda pointless. We can always trumpet up border-line cases that can&#39;t be decided.

"Science" seems like shorthand for "consistent statements". For example, the problem with astrology is not that it is so much "junk" science or "pseudo-science" per se, it is that its predictions contradict with our observations, while the predictions of astronomy don&#39;t lead to the contradiction.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:23 am
Can a list be made of the more notable (yet routine) things scientists do?
e.g. Scientists create models, then check the accuracy of those models.
Well, uh, that&#39;s basically all scientists do, in my opinion.

The method of creating these models depends on the paradigm that is being used...e.g. classical field theory has a different approach to describing a field than, e.g., quantum field theory.

Then you have to check the mathematical/logical coherency of the model...does the model make sense? Are there any contradictions? Where does the model break down? Etc.

Typically one goes about making a toy model, e.g. quantum gravity in 1+1 dimensions (working in fewer dimensions than really exist, to simplify the equations), then make it more realistic (e.g. adding more parameters, etc.).

But if a toy model is "good enough", then the theoretical work is done and the mathematical scientists come in and "finish the job".


Some possible FAQ&#39;s:
How can the general public determine what is science and what is not? Science will generally say things like "This could possibly go awry when these parameters do not hold". Generally review papers (albeit technical and intended for the scientific community to read) do this so researchers know where to research.

Also when "science" tends to be ideological, like Common Sense Science (http://commonsensescience.org) is founded on "Judeo-Christian beliefs", you can begin to note it&#39;s pseudo science.

A number of times, cargo cult science appears to have the "rigor" of science but actually fails to be scientific...which makes it more difficult for a layperson to say "This is bullshit pseudoscience&#33;" (Admittedly, even I have difficulty sometimes looking at technical papers and saying it&#33;)

Pseudoscientists love to be selective of their data...which would make it difficult for a layperson to identify it as pseudoscience.

That&#39;s one of the problems with pseudoscience: it tries to look "real enough" like science to fool the people who hate science.

You might be suspicious that someone appeals to authority in science...it doesn&#39;t really matter what Einstein thought, or anyone else for that matter. Nature doesn&#39;t give a rats ass what they thought.

So in short, I guess the answer is I don&#39;t know&#33; I wouldn&#39;t know how a non-scientist could easily identify pseudoscience and junkscience because I&#39;m not a non-scientist&#33;


How is science funded? Depends on the research.

Sometimes the government funds it, other times private corporations fund it, and other times it goes unfunded.

Chemistry and biology are the fields where the most applicability is. These are usually funded by drug companies or the oil company.

The theoretical work is by far and large unfunded...it always has been. The applied work is usually funded by corporations and/or the government.


What are the effects of discretionary funding on scientific research? Well, usually when the government funds it, it&#39;s for weapons research.

When corporations fund research, it&#39;s usually R&D.

One of the problems, that Lee Smolin notes in The Trouble With Physics, is that oftentimes a fair discussion is not allowed on a subject...the reason why String Theory is so popular is because they get all the grant money.

If you&#39;re a theoretical physicist working in background independent approaches to quantum gravity, you&#39;re asking to live poorly&#33; :lol:

So you don&#39;t necessarily get a well rounded discussion, at least in theoretical physics.

In R&D one of the problems is that PR is favored over nature. Corporations don&#39;t care that the result of, say, a battery that never runs out of energy produces dangerous amounts of radiation. :o Hypothetical situation, of course, but it&#39;s an example of the consequences.

And weapons research goes without saying.

MarxSchmarx



Well the same charge could be said of these steps. Whether they succeed or not, convicted non-scientists like Heidegger and Hegel (not to mention literary scholars) claim to do all of (1),(2) and (3). In fact, it is what most practitioners in the "Humanities" do. The difference is that with a scientist, they depend on the models being mathematical and describing real phenomena.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Hegel nor Heidegger did this.


I mean, when it comes right down to it, the theoretical branches of any science is in principle little different from symbolic logic, right? Empirical science, based on measurement, and whose validity is confirmed not by the rules of logic, but by the operation of the natural world, seems radically different.
It depends if you think math "is" logic.

Further, as Richard Feynman (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY) said, it doesn&#39;t matter how smart you are, what your name is, or where you got your degree, if your model disagrees with experiment the model is wrong&#33;

So theoretical scientists are "constrained" to obey this law.


"Science" seems like shorthand for "consistent statements". For example, the problem with astrology is not that it is so much "junk" science or "pseudo-science" per se, it is that its predictions contradict with our observations, while the predictions of astronomy don&#39;t lead to the contradiction. Well science deals with producing models which are not wrong.

Note that there is a difference between being right and not wrong. A model could be wrong later on with more evidence; the perihelion of mercury cast doubts on the theory of Newtonian gravity only centuries after Newton formulated his idea.

Science is ultimately a culture of doubt. We "need" to doubt the accuracy of our models because there may be times when the parameters of our models don&#39;t work&#33;

For example, quantum mechanics assumes that particles are "point-like", i.e. dimensionless, without any size. So quantum mechanics fails when we are describing a baseball&#39;s trajectory...but we can still use quantum mechanics if we describe the baseball as a collection of point-like particles (the nucleons and electrons and so forth).

The way to approach this now is to ask "What if particles are not point-like in nature?" What are the alternatives: particles are a string, particles are "atomic" in nature, or something else.

We then create models for these cases, then look at the consequences.

To simply say, on the other hand, that quantum mechanics is bull because particles are not point-like in nature, they take up space, is manifestly antiscientific...supposing no alternative model is given, of course&#33;

Junk science, on the other hand, does not allow for such doubt. Common Sense Science is "guided" by the "will of God" and therefore infallible :lol:

Dialecticians use dialectics and therefore are irrefutable :lol:

The list goes on and on.

When you cannot cast doubt on a model&#39;s parameters, and try to build a model with fewer parameters, the model is hinted to be based off of junk science.

There are times when it&#39;s mathematically impossible to build a model either because the math needed is unsolvable (or not formulated yet, e.g. category theoretic explanations of quantum theory) or because the parameters can&#39;t be reduced.

I&#39;m sorry, but neither I nor anyone I know can figure out a way to get rid of the Newton&#39;s gravitational constant from Einstein&#39;s field equation; perhaps it&#39;s possible&#33; But it&#39;s just a parameter that we have to work with.

Such is life...

BCBM



You&#39;re not really following the discussion, are you? Reread the original post and perhaps you&#39;ll better grasp the point I&#39;m trying to make. No, I answered your post adequately.

When the ruling class uses science to justify its actions (e.g. the pseudoscience of race via genetics, or "social darwinism", or any other nonsense), that is manifestly junk science.

It is acceptable to point out that the hypothesis is junk science and explain why.

It is unacceptable to criticize a scientific hypothesis and not offer an alternative.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Please please please DO NOT label junk science as "science"&#33; When the ruling class uses a "scientific hypothesis" usually there is: 1) selective or insufficient data, 2) specious reasoning, and/or 3) non-testability of the model. That is junk science by definition.

And if you look back to the "science" the ruling class has used to justify its actions, they fulfill the criteria of junk science. What a surprise :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 27, 2007 12:20 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 27, 2007 12:20 am)
Originally posted by Dick [email protected] 26, 2007 10:55 pm

Ulster [email protected] 12, 2007 12:56 am
Also, as another comrade pointed out why have we allowed the right media to become the vanguard of scientific journalism. We are the progressive thinkers, this should be our domain FFS&#33;
:angry:
Care to expand on this?
do i really need to or are you just being obtuse? [/b]
No, really. What do you know about scientific journalism? How does "the right media" manifest itself in it, and how is it even the "vanguard"? What do you even mean when you say "scientific journalism"? The science of being a journalist? Or journalists reporting on scientific matters?

The obvious answer is that it has all to do with capitalism itself. That they control the media has nothing to do with the failure of the few thousand western European communists, it is simply a matter of exercising bourgeois class dictatorship.

[MarxSchmarx]

ComradeRed:

We probably agree more than we disagree, but RE: your three criteria that distinguishes science from non-science I am still unpersuaded.


The difference is that with a scientist, they depend on the models being mathematical and describing real phenomena.

Not so. Darwin, for instance, did not have a mathematical model or argument, and to this day mathematical models are rarely used in fields that confirmed his problem solving approach like developmental biology or paleontology. Sure, natural selection could be formalized mathematically, but the validity of Darwin&#39;s ideas as a scientific theory didn&#39;t hinge on it being formalized mathematically.

You could say the only real "science" in evolutionary biology is population biology and phylogenetic theory... ;)

But the absence of a mathematical model isn&#39;t unique to biology. Ditto with Wegener&#39;s theory of continental drift. Sure, one could build up a mathematical model if one were so inclined, but what will it accomplish? The hypothesis, if I recall, was proven correct with very, very little mathematical modeling.

Or, more subtly, you could claim that statistical hypothesis testing implicitly assumes a mathematical model, but these would evade the issue. Statistical hypothesis testing is just one way to draw inferences from data. Graphs and photographs can also suffice.

As for what constitutes "real" phenomena, and whether the subjects Heidegger and Hegel engages, well, that is a tougher question. But one could argue whether Heidegger&#39;s "Da Sein" is just as "real" as the normal distribution.

RE: the other stuff,


It depends if you think math "is" logic.

Since the validity of mathematical propositions can be reduced to symbolic logic, this would seem to me to be the case...


To simply say, on the other hand, that quantum mechanics is bull because particles are not point-like in nature, they take up space, is manifestly antiscientific...supposing no alternative model is given, of course&#33;

Well, I think we agree, but the example of continental drift shows the geologists of Wegener&#39;s time needn&#39;t be antiscience just because they said he hadn&#39;t a shred of what at that time was considered valid evidence, that it could be coincidence that south america and Africa&#39;s coast lines matched up, that Wagener was bull.

After all, these geologists hadn&#39;t formulated a mathematical, or for that matter really a very predictive <_< "model" of how exactly sea water rose and fell, or how we got variegated terrain in the first place. It was sufficient to let the existing model of how the continents came to be stand, and Wegener declared a crackpot, in the absence of compelling empirical evidence. That&#39;s really all it took, and the burden was on Wegener and not the geological establishment, to prove his case to the contrary. Does this mean geologists were "antiscientific" for decades?



Junk science, on the other hand, does not allow for such doubt. Common Sense Science is "guided" by the "will of God" and therefore infallible laugh.gif


What about something like phrenology or chiropractic medicine? There was/is doubt among the practitioners, just in much lighter doses. It seems a matter of degree, not of kind.

On another note:


There are times when it&#39;s mathematically impossible to build a model

This is FOR SURE for another thread. I argue that no matter how "irreducible" the input parameters or "unsolveable" the equations, as long as we agree to live with the errors induced by numerical methods, there is nothing that cannot be expressed as a "mathematical model", even if the computer code for it cannot be finished in the lifetime of the universe. Then it is physically impossible, but not mathematically impossible.