Science and science methedology

[Yazata]

To begin, science needs less conformism and more cteativity.

That sounds like a call for science to become something more like poetry. So why continue to call it 'science'?

Science has to conform to observation and to experimental evidence, simply by its nature.

Its evolution, like that of any other field, requires amateurs as well as professionals.

Up until the 19'th century, science was largely conducted by amateurs. University programs in the sciences didn't exist. I think that scientific amateurism worked at that time, in part because science was simpler then and easier to learn.

I guess that amateurs are still making important contributions in some areas of science. Amateur astronomers and naturalists do good work. There are lots of amateur geologists around.

The problem today is that subjects like particle physics or genomics have become so incredibly complex that only a handful of specialists are fully up to speed on cutting-edge developments. It's increasingly difficult for amateurs to acquire the background necessary to make their own contributions, without years of post-graduate study.

So to some extent science is evolving into kind of a priesthood, whose authority the general public is supposed to trust largely on faith. Of course that faith is buttressed by the magic that scientists can perform (advances in medicine and engineering).

I think that this growing disconnect between the people and science might become a significant problem in years to come.

 

[Yazata]

The reason I started this thread is that I have done my own research in Space science as well as in particle physics and have made "breakthroughs" in both areas.

I don't see anything wrong with amateurs speculating about science and trying to form hypotheses of their own. That's a good thing.

But calling those speculations 'breakthroughs' sounds grandiose. It's the grandiosity that typically gets people labeled 'cranks'.

 

[brucep]

I don't see anything wrong with amateurs speculating about science and trying to form hypotheses of their own. That's a good thing.

But calling those speculations 'breakthroughs' sounds grandiose. It's the grandiosity that typically gets people labeled 'cranks'.

Saying he has done his homework is grandiose.

 

[brucep]

That sounds like a call for science to become something more like poetry. So why continue to call it 'science'?

Science has to conform to observation and to experimental evidence, simply by its nature.



Up until the 19'th century, science was largely conducted by amateurs. University programs in the sciences didn't exist. I think that scientific amateurism worked at that time, in part because science was simpler then and easier to learn.

I guess that amateurs are still making important contributions in some areas of science. Amateur astronomers and naturalists do good work. There are lots of amateur geologists around.

The problem today is that subjects like particle physics or genomics have become so incredibly complex that only a handful of specialists are fully up to speed on cutting-edge developments. It's increasingly difficult for amateurs to acquire the background necessary to make their own contributions, without years of post-graduate study.

So to some extent science is evolving into kind of a priesthood, whose authority the general public is supposed to trust largely on faith. Of course that faith is buttressed by the magic that scientists can perform (advances in medicine and engineering).

I think that this growing disconnect between the people and science might become a significant problem in years to come.

It's already a 'big problem' just based on 'ignoring' the science for climate change. Most people don't even understand the scientific method. Amateurs reading about important scientific work should be able to figure out whether they can trust the science just by following the method. We should have been teaching the scientific method, and how to utilize it, from kindergarden to senior year in high school. Think of the scientific illiterates we elect to public office. The scientific literature is available for everybody to read. It's one of the 'few' things humans can be proud of. You'd never think that was true based on the 'noise' coming from the mouths of cranks. Mobil oil is a crank company lying to the masses and the masses are to stupid to realize it. IE the scientific literature is for nerds. Really dumb in my estimation.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, I have never entirely disagreed with any of what you have Posted.

Also, as river pointed out, we are discussing methodology ( or possibly Methedology? OP Title!)) here.

paddoboy, there are indeed quite a few problems with current mainstream science, and sincerely, only a few of them have been touched upon in this Thread.
However, when, if and how that ever gets back on track, one thing must remain as it has always been, preciseness and attention to the smallest of details...especially in the types of science methodology being discussed in this Thread.

paddoboy, do you remember this:

Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error
October 01, 1999|ROBERT LEE HOTZ | TIMES SCIENCE WRITER
NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

A navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the metric system of millimeters and meters in its calculations, while Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, which designed and built the spacecraft, provided crucial acceleration data in the English system of inches, feet and pounds.
from link : http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

paddoboy, in Post #10 you stated : "...out there somewhere, sometime, a "Zefram Cochrane" will come to light...".

I then, in my Post #21 said "...a quote from Seavy Harcasm from the Federation of Planets...".
..."from S eavy H arcasm" - humor...wordplay...pun on Heavy Sarcasm...

paddoboy, in Post #29 you stated : "Given time, human kind will get to the stars.....The fictional character I used was a combination of humour and a metaphoric analogy....sheeesh!"

paddoboy, when I joined this thread, I was not attacking you, I was trying to point out, with humor, that indeed there was problems with Science Methodology - including mixing fiction with fact and attention to detail - along with the myriad of other problems that seemed to have "jumped on the Train since Politics and Capitalism took over the jobs of Engineer and Conductor".

paddoboy, you do not in any way seem to be anything less than intelligent and insightful.

I, dmoe, can only claim, myself to suffer delusions of adequacy when it comes to - on my best days - my mental ability.

paddoboy, please understand, I may have used a different type of humor, so you may feel that I was "...dealing in pedant as opposed to the real substance" and you may be "...inclined to believe...(that I,dmoe, am)... scraping the bottom of the barrel and don't really have an argument at all."

You are partially correct - I have no argument with you - but...pedant...scraping...?

I hope the points - I'm not arguing with you, and be precise and detailed in your Scientific Methodology - can be understood.

Wow!!!!! What can I say?
With attention to the smallest of details, yes, obviously you are quite correct, but we are not a couple of scientists trying to establish a space/time manipulator to achive FTL travel.
What I'm saying is that forums such as this are not usually a vehicle for great discoveries and/or some new physics.
Although I will say, that as a layman, I have learnt quite a bit, particularly off two blokes that readily come to mind from another forum...a young GR expert and an Astronomer.

With the lost Mars probe that actually then, and still does, make one question why the US has not followed the rest of the world and switched entirely to metric.
Australia did in 1968, and it was far more difficult [though not hard] for us, as our currency was based on pounds shillings and pence, with 12 pence in a shilling, and 20 shillings in a pound.
Yet they [the US] still maintain the f.p.s system of weights and measures.


On the subject of the thread, I have said it in other posts, the scientific methodology is not perfect, but it is the best we have and has certainly stood the scientific discipline in great stead.
And as long as the qualities of knowledge, standing on the shoulders of giants, Imagination, speculation outside the square, and Innovation, all are maintained, it will continue and advance humanity in many fields.
So far the optimism in the amount of Imagination/speculation by some scientists, is tempered with the more critical and just as necessary pessimistic mainstream approach by others.
One side cannot achieve much without the other.
I'm with the optimists in most fields particularly with the existence of ETL and getting to the stars in time.