/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2311934]

"Science is basically anti-intellectual. Its suspicion of common sense and demand presentation of the objective truth."
Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)

Do you agree or disagree and why?
Imo he is right, we need to reconsider our scientific methods. We can't continuing banish everything we can't explain and leave it as "pseudo-science", evidences are getting too massive for such a childish gesture.

[Anonymous No.2311949]

What scientist "banishes" something he can't explain? In fact, all scientists do is try to find out what it is they can't explain. Science doesn't start until you admit you don't know something.

[EK !D96TK2PSsI No.2311955]

[Anonymous No.2311961]

Science is just a process which creates repeatable results. The results aren't "science", they're just its practical debris. If you don't care about repeatable results, you are still free to believe whatever else you'd like.

Common sense is much more equivalent to biological evolution. It creates ideas which, right or wrong, are best at spreading. If you prefer popularity to repeatability, common sense is for you.

[Anonymous No.2311959]

>>2311949
Most of them, they defend outdated and obviously flawed theories because that's where they get their money from

[Anonymous No.2311980]

It seems you need examples. There are things you've never heard about public like:

-The hollow earth theory
- Nikola Tesla's inventions (especially about Free Energy)
-The fact that our bodies have a physically, psychological, chemical and electrical system. Whereby we never learn about the last mentioned
- The fact that thoughts has alot more to say about our health then the actual medicament, ask any placebo researcher
- and the list goes on...

[Anonymous No.2311981]

>>2311961
>science
>repeatable

cool story bro

>But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz19cnTF6JJ

[Anonymous No.2311988]

>>2311959
I didn't know that Newtonian mechanics gave money away until Einstein.

[Anonymous No.2311989]

>>2311981
Yes. Then you apply more science until either the old theory regains repeatability or you discard the old theory and make a new one. Scientific thought can't remain in stasis... it's a process, not a goal.

Just because some New Yorker wonk doesn't know what science is doesn't mean you have to believe them.

[EK !D96TK2PSsI No.2312006]

the scientific method is fuck'hen awesome.

there is no better way to establish truth.

[Anonymous No.2312011]

He basically claims that gut feeling is the best source of knowledge, and that observation isnt that important. He clearly has a strong religious bias going on in his brain.

[Anonymous No.2312015]

>>2311989
In inductive reasoning, one makes a series of observations and infers a new claim based on them. For instance, from a series of observations that at sea-level (approximately 14.7 psi, or 101 kPa) water freezes at 0°C (32°F), it seems valid to infer that the next sample of water will do the same, or that, in general, at sea-level water freezes at 0°C. That the next sample of water freezes under those conditions merely adds to the series of observations. First, it is not certain, regardless of the number of observations, that water always freezes at 0°C at sea-level. To be certain, it must be known that the law of nature is immutable. Second, the observations themselves do not establish the validity of inductive reasoning, except inductively. You cannot make scientific observations that are useful unless you can justify both of those two things.

[Anonymous No.2312024]

>>2312006
>science
>establish truth

[Anonymous No.2312037]

>>2312015
So your saying no matter how much proof of something we have nothing can ever be certain? That's not anti-science that's just rewording everything.

[OP No.2312110]

Have you guys ever tried to make an experiment of an old known scientific theory?

It's utterly horrible! You have to accept alot of errors in your results and the deviation percent is quite high and yet accepted, you just fumbles with the numbers abit and then the established theory is repeated. The experiment calculation of air resistance effect of a falling object, a cupcake tin.

Common sense and science cannot be compared... at all because objective truth is a myth; a fairytail for novice scientists. We are humans we perceive the world subjectively.

We need to think outside the box, and here is something that will blow your mind, a new mentality:

>Perceiving Reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0drT_L4G8w8

[Anonymous No.2312117]

this is some pretty decent trolling

[Anonymous No.2312121]

Science is based on fallibilism. This is nothing new.

[Anonymous No.2312133]

>>2312121
You can stretch any theory into being infallible. Just continue to add qualifications, exceptions, expansions, and vagueness to any idea you don't want to give up.

[OP No.2312195]

>>2312117
Aww thank you, if I was trolling i would be really flattered.

>>2312121
>>2312133

It's not directly the science I'm upset about, because the hunt for absolute truth is what most people really wants.

It's just they haven't updated it since Kopernikus or even Galileo Galilei. Kopernikus theories about the sun as the center of out solar system came from inspirations from Ancient Egypt which i don't even wanna talk about in this thread since it's a whole realm to open up for. They were far ahead back then and we haven't even reached a fraction of their wisdom.

[Anonymous No.2312214]

>>2312110
That's nothing new, really. I figured that out by myself pretty easily. It's pretty obvious that what we perceive went through a lot of processing before it reached our brains, and could be in fact nothing like how we perceive it.
The video turns into complete bullshit when it starts talking about perceiving the actual reality though. The man talks like he knows what's out there, while he doesn't. He's chained by the same boundaries as you and me, but he thinks he isn't. That is ignorance, or at least, it is not accepting that we are not able to see it. He wants to see it so badly he is starting to believe he can. It's a mere glimpse of hope, just like religion.

[Anonymous No.2312213]

>>2311981
Not this shit again. They didn't consider that there could be some other influencing factor that could have caused the anti-psychotics to become less effective. Thing's don't just spontaneously "stop working" for no reason.

[Anonymous No.2312256]

>>2312195
why you want to update something, when every proof shows, that the theory is right ? xD

If there would be only 1 scientific hint, the some theorie is not true, than it would be examined...

[Anonymous No.2312263]

Anyone who uses the word "Basically" in their speech is a fucking idiot or a girl.

[Anonymous No.2312273]

>>2312263
We live in a world full of qualifications. "Basically" or "generally" are useful.

[OP No.2312282]

>>2312214

And you think you are qualified to judge a man whom you know nothing about in such an ignorant way?

Science should follow the best quote ever about how to acquire truth:
>“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Gautama Siddharta

[Anonymous No.2312305]

The observation stage of science is anti-intellectual. You're not supposed to think about it, just record data as is.

Between experiments, however, science is very intellectual. It takes a certain way of thinking to invent new tests based upon the results of previous tests.

Sagan said something to the effect of "science is the fusion of objective data collection with speculative creativity" (not an exact quote). A good scientist can do both, and is critical of their own "pleasant speculations" which often turn out to be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.2312318]

>>2312282

>is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all

I agree with all except for this portion. You shouldn't shy from the truth just because it is an ugly truth.

[Anonymous No.2312326]

>>2312273
they weaken sentences

"Science is anti-intellectual. Its suspicion of common sense and demand presentation of the objective truth."

much better without "basically"

[OP No.2312327]

>>2312011
I would say though you are a bit off that you are rather sharp minded. Religion? ha! That old control manipulating system is long dead and should not even be used on this board. But what the hell? The old priest system has been switched to a scientist system and that is why we need to have more radical thoughts and seek truth on our own instead of eating shit from their hands.

Don't let these priests in carnival costumes reconvince you that the earth is flat, seek out and seek truth for yourself.

[Anonymous No.2312338]

>>2312318
But the discovery of an unpleasant truth can be motivation to circumvent it. So even an ugly truth can lead to conductive good that has benefits.

[Anonymous No.2312340]

>>2311934
>Do you agree?
No.

Go away.

[Anonymous No.2312352]

>>2311980
> -The hollow earth theory
Pseudo-science, not science.

> - Nikola Tesla's inventions (especially about Free Energy)
Gotta be more specific. He was a genius, but he's often misquoted as inventing perpetual motion machines and the like.

> -The fact that our bodies have a physically, psychological, chemical and electrical system. Whereby we never learn about the last mentioned
What?

> - The fact that thoughts has alot more to say about our health then the actual medicament, ask any placebo researcher
I don't know if I agree with "a lot". If you have apendicitis, no amount of good feelings will make you feel better. Otherwise this is widely known to anyone who gives a fuck.

> - and the list goes on...
No it doesn't.

[OP No.2312358]

>>2312318

It's not that they should deny any kind of science but also by a little ethical instead of for instance spending soo much time on silly weapons and control factors just because some leaders have a small self-esteem and wants to show how big his destruction level is xD

Is it bad to invent things that is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, or would you think there is a better purpose for science?

[Anonymous No.2312364]

>>2312195
>It's not directly the science I'm upset about, because the hunt for absolute truth is what most people really wants.
Unfortunately that's impossible. The best we can do for questions about the natural world is science. For other kinds of questions, it's all subjective.

[Anonymous No.2312374]

>>2312358
>Is it bad to invent things that is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, or would you think there is a better purpose for science?

Personally, I don't really think humanity is ready for much more scientific advance. Most technology now is used frivolously and in the same breath people mock its inventors. (Evolution isn't real, hang on, I have to text my friend and make sure she takes her blood-pressure medication and vaccinates her children...)

Likewise, a lot of science is used for detriment, inventing new ways to kill each-other and the like.

I'm happy as a gray scientist. I don't directly invent anything, and I don't manufacture anything with an inherent "good" or "bad" application.

[OP No.2312379]

>>2312352
>>2312340

Not very open minded are we? What was it Albert Einstein said?
> "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

And this should be the Science & Math board, I'm disappointed.

[Anonymous No.2312385]

>>2312379
if you really think hollow earth theory is in any way valid or scientific then you either haven't done any investigation at all, or you have and have chosen to ignore or willfully misinterpret the results of that investigation.

[Anonymous No.2312397]

>>2312379
There's only so much investigation that can be done before it becomes a waste of time.

[OP No.2312412]

>>2312364
I like your way of putting it, very perceptive.
Fine acknowledgement of Cosmology.

>>2312374
Yea indeed, it is not required of a scientist to be ethical that is other peoples jobs.

[Anonymous No.2312431]

you guys should read 'structure of scientific revolutions' by thomas kuhn. it explains how science works

[Anonymous No.2312445]

Science is NOT the search for an absolute truth. Its the search for models that can explain real world phenomenas

[Anonymous No.2312436]

>>2312379
Here's another quote because einstein is fucking awesome

“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

Albert Einstein

[Anonymous No.2312454]

>>2312397
>so much investigation
>a waste of time

This is the kind of mindset they had in the dark ages, you know that?

Nobody challenged the greek masters, and research got stuck in the same place for CENTURIES.

[OP No.2312467]

>>2312385

Ah the hollow earth theory is one of my favourites.
Have you ever heard of Richard Evelyn Byrd and his expeditions to the North pole? He describes it in details in his dairy.

In fact this Theory is centuries old and even Edmond Halley supported it. ref:
http://www.dioi.org/kn/halleyhollow.htm

Here is a video over the lastest updated theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubKFmIDBMjU&feature=player_embedded

[Anonymous No.2312472]

Don't you guys recognize aether when you see him? He does this sometimes just to attention-whore. No need to humor him, he has already contradicted himself several times or rendered himself inert on this subject.

[Anonymous No.2312507]

>>2312467
Aether, you make the same mistakes ever time. Science is not learning by authority. It doesn't matter who says something. It doesn't make it science. It doesn't matter if Dawkins called something a scientific certainty. It is not evidence, and all that matters in science is evidence. There is no "Pope" of science. There is no authority in science.

PS: As a practical matter, there are people out there who have earned our trust based on past experiences, aka evidence of the kind of personal interactions, and thus their word counts for more, but not as proclamations, only as promises that they have personally seen the evidence.

[Anonymous No.2312509]

>>2312454
Ok, so you can spend your days contemplating Hollow Earth while the rest of us acknowledge its fallacies and move on to more important, unsolved problems.

Dark age reasoning was more along the lines of "if I think about this I will be punished (either by nobility or "god"). It wasn't ever about consciously acknowledging when hypotheses were clearly false, and moving on.

[Anonymous No.2312518]

>>2312213
>Thing's don't just spontaneously "stop working" for no reason.

How do you know this is so?

[Anonymous No.2312526]

>>2312507
The natural world as it really exists is the authority in science.

[OP No.2312533]

>>2312436

I agree Albert Einstein was a brilliant man. The man was a genius.

>"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
>"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
>"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
>"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[Anonymous No.2312554]

>>2312467
>claiming the Earth has four magnetic poles
Demonstrably false.

>not accounting for the magnetosphere that we can measure today

>not accounting for the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF MOLTEN ROCK AND PRESSURES

Also to suggest that a 'central sun' exists is completely ludicrous. Stars do not form at that size. It cannot be massive enough. Any fusion reaction that took place (if any) would be ridiculously limited.

If a relative layman like myself can see these glaring flaws, any person well versed in astrophysics can rip it to absolute fucking shreds.

[OP No.2312603]

>>2312472
>>2312507

Aether? no idea who that is tbh.

>There is no "Pope" of science. There is no authority in science.

No of course there isn't. But scientists are men and if somebody in power dislike sudden disclosures like when the church back then disliked the study of Ancient Egypt.

If you have money you can buy patents. Would it be impossible to imagine that some people would rather not have some discoveries made public? I could think of a few.

[Anonymous No.2312619]

>>2312603
You quoted some wackjob who was talking about hollow earth as though that was a legitimate scientific theory. It is not. We corrected your fallacious reasoning. That is all.

[OP No.2312645]

>>2312554

Mate what you fail to realize is that anything we've ever known about anything more distant then the birds in the skies is 99% pure untested theory, we also have almost no clue whats on the ocean bed and the deepest any man ever have dug was a Russian team 12 kilometers into the earth. All their theories of graviation, pressure and temperature failed them so badly that they concluded that they might know nothing about these things at all.

Please i beg you, do some research before condemnation, isn't this /sci/ ?

[Anonymous No.2312663]

>>2312507
>this is what highschoolers actually believe

http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm

[Anonymous No.2312667]

>>2312645
>Mate what you fail to realize is that anything we've ever known about anything more distant then the birds in the skies is 99% pure untested theory,
Don't believe in the moon landing? Don't believe in space flight? Don't believe in communication satellites, GPS, etc.?

>we also have almost no clue whats on the ocean bed
We've mapped it with sonar pretty well. I agree that we have done little to no investigation of the life forms down there, habitat, etc.

>and the deepest any man ever have dug was a Russian team 12 kilometers into the earth. All their theories of graviation, pressure and temperature failed them so badly that they concluded that they might know nothing about these things at all.
>Please i beg you, do some research before condemnation, isn't this /sci/ ?
Citations please.

[Anonymous No.2312716]

>>2312663
That is how science works. If people aren't doing it in the real world, then they're not practicing science.

Also, I suspect that that list is quite biased and not telling the full truth. Also, I've never heard of that website before, so I can't even comment further.

[OP No.2312773]

>>2312667

>Don't believe in the moon landing? Don't believe in space flight? Don't believe in communication satellites, GPS, etc.?

What have these things taught us about the universe and our planet? Nothing really

>Citations please.
Sorry to ask but are you American? Science is apparently still affected by the Cold War.
Here you go: http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s2

>>2312663

I fully agree there are just some things you don't learn in school about the reality.

[Anonymous No.2312795]

>>2311934
>google quote in op
>only result is this page

What's the exact quote OP? It seems like something said by a man as famous as Mencken should be on at least one other website.

[Anonymous No.2312865]

>>2312773
> >Don't believe in the moon landing? Don't believe in space flight? Don't believe in communication satellites, GPS, etc.?

>What have these things taught us about the universe and our planet? Nothing really

...

The hell is wrong with you. You don't think space probes to other planets has taught us anything? You don't think examining moon rocks has taught us anything? You don't think that the successful use of GPS which uses and confirms General Relativity?

[OP No.2312875]

>>2312795

Alright i'll get you a resume from the link I've posted

>The deepest hole drilled into the crust of the earth is located at the Kola Peninsula in Murmansk Russia and extends down 12,262 meters (7.6 miles). Earth scientists had a very precise agenda of pressures, temperatures and rock compositions they expected to encounter with each new depth as they drilled. Instead, they found that they were wrong on nearly all accounts as the Kola borehole produced one surprise after another. It was so astonishing that one scientist commented 'Every time we drill a hole we find the unexpected. That's exciting, but disturbing.' And a science reporter remarked: 'Kola revealed how far from truth scientific theory can roam.'

[Anonymous No.2312883]

>>2312875
Call me when that in any way implies a hollow earth, or when it invalidates cool shit like large portions of modern cosmology, astrophysics, general relativity, quantum theory, evolution by natural selection, and so on.

[Anonymous No.2312892]

>>2312875
I meant the quote in the first post, the one you claim was said by Henry Louis Mencken. I believe you either paraphrased it slightly or made it up.

[OP No.2312903]

>>2312865

Sorry if i was a bit short in my statement, what I meant was that we have learned nothing of a significant value we didn't already know based our old theories.

[Anonymous No.2312913]

>>2312903

Thus you are completely full of shit when you said:
>Mate what you fail to realize is that anything we've ever known about anything more distant then the birds in the skies is 99% pure untested theory,
As it's all very much tested.

[OP No.2312974]

>>2312883

If you like modern cosmology like I do which no longer can be a secret, then why not go research for yourself?

here is a good start, try see some stuff on thwis channel on YouTube.
>Dr. Rauni Kilde
http://www.youtube.com/user/Creatrix13#p/u/12/4_738N1JR8g

[Anonymous No.2313101]

>>2312892
OP? I know this is a bit trivial but by ignoring the question I'm starting to assume you made it up.

[OP No.2313215]

>>2313101
Sorry if i missed you out. The reason you couldn't find it is because google translate is foul :P

He statement in English goes:
> Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.

[Anonymous No.2313222]

>>2313215
If you think that intellectual means armchair philosophy, then I feel sorry for you.

I am proud that I am a scientist under his description of science.

[Anonymous No.2313269]

>>2312352
http://scienceblog.com/cms/physicists-challenge-notion-of-electric-nerve-impulses-say-sound-more-lik
ely-12738.html
>Every medical and biological textbook says that nerves function by sending electrical impulses along their length. “But for us as physicists, this cannot be the explanation. The physical laws of thermodynamics tell us that electrical impulses must produce heat as they travel along the nerve, but experiments find that no such heat is produced,” says associate professor Thomas Heimburg from the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University. He received his Ph.D. from the Max Planck Institute in Göttingen, Germany, Thomas Heimburg is an expert in biophysics, and when he came to Copenhagen, he met professor Andrew D. Jackson, who is an expert in theoretical physics.
>Nerves are ‘wrapped’ in a membrane composed of lipids and proteins. According to the traditional explanation of molecular biology, a pulse is sent from one end of the nerve to the other with the help of electrically charged salts that pass through ion channels in the membrane. It has taken many years to understand this complicated process, and a number of the scientists involved in the task have been awarded the Nobel Prize for their efforts. But – according to the physicists – the fact that the nerve pulse does not produce heat contradicts the molecular biological theory of an electrical impulse produced by chemical processes. Instead, nerve pulses can be explained much more simply as a mechanical pulse according to the two physicists. And such a pulse could be sound. Normally, sound propagates as a wave that spreads out and becomes weaker and weaker. If, however, the medium in which the sound propagates has the right properties, it is possible to create localized sound pulses, known as “solitons”, which propagate without spreading and without changing their shape or losing their strength.

[Anonymous No.2313287]

No offence, but I really don't understand what OP is trying to get at. You open your eyes, look around you, and try to explain what is occurring, and back it up with something. Not "Oh let me use pure reason and say Earth is the center of the universe and is flat etc.."

We are curious about the world around us and we try and find out more about it...there is no absolute truth out there, and a real (read:good) scientist would never claim to know any objective truth. Watch videos of the late Richard Feynman talk about uncertainty.

I say, find a passion, and go for it. Get out there and discover shit.

[Anonymous No.2313294]

>>2313269
Cool. Never heard about this before. I'll have to check it out. If it contradicts the scientific establishment, it's likely full of shit though.

[Anonymous No.2313313]

>>2313269
>sound, not electroalchemy
EEG apparently measures sound waves

[OP No.2313326]

>>2313269

Thanks for the nice quote. Everything is vibration, frequency and energy :)