Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 212 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
recently I've been thinking about this video
by paul
Yesterday at 10:48 PM
Gravity Wheel ( SCIENCES VERSION )
by paul
Yesterday at 10:38 PM
Snow Cover Data aka Global Warming Data
by paul
Yesterday at 09:30 PM
does the forum work again?
by paul
Yesterday at 09:01 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 6
Topic Options
#54051 - 06/29/15 02:46 AM I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either.
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
I'm putting this in the not quite science section because it is more about the philosophy of science rather than straightforward science. Sabine Hossenfelder has a post on her BackReaction blog by that title.

I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either.

It is basically about what scientists need to watch out for to keep from getting it wrong. For that matter everybody really needs to watch out for this stuff in everything they do.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#54053 - 06/29/15 02:36 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
I find his statements to be contradictory.

Quote:
We’re born mistrusting people who look different from us, and we treat those who look like us better.

This idea stated above is ridiculous.



Quote:

But since we are born being extra suspicious about anybody not from our own clan
How is it we are born with the prejudice and cognitive awareness of who is related and not?


Then here comes the contradiction to the above:
Quote:

Yes, we are born being curious, and as children we learn a lot by trial and error.

The contradiction is in his suggestion that curiosity (in this case) is void of the cognitive functioning (recognition) he implies within the first two examples
The following would be better suited to the truth of how we learn to identify and recognize the prejudice described within the first two statements I quoted.
Quote:

Still today much of my daughters’ reasoning begins with “mommy says."


The following quote would be subjective to having an awareness that wasn't in league with the statements made within the previous quotes.
It's actually the premise to enlightenment, in that objectivity is based on a larger perspective than any one idea being a rule, but instead being subjective to a particular thought generated while standing in identification with ones self and any one particular experience that can and will change, when moving thru different experiences and having evolving cognitive functioning and awareness.
Quote:

Being a good scientist requires constant self-monitoring and learning about the ways we fool ourselves.


It actually implies, that one must master the Self before becoming objective enough to study anything else, without interjecting personal prejudices and identification with ones own personal reality.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54054 - 06/29/15 06:01 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
First off a minor matter. Sabine Hossenfelder is a woman. She is a physicist, which is why she switches pretty quickly to a discussion of science.

While we may not be born with the basic prejudices we are born with an automatic bias in favor of our immediate group. Basically most of us imprint on whoever we first perceive as our caregivers. This is like animals who imprint on the person who is there when they are born and provides for their care and feeding. After that, at least for a while, we are uneasy about anybody else. This varies from person to person. Some babies will go to almost anybody, but others won't have anything to do with anybody except their immediate family. So Sabine's first statement may be slightly over done, but not too much. If you read the link she gave (the words "research says" imbedded in the second paragraph) you will find more information about just how being in the in group influences children.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The following quote would be subjective to having an awareness that wasn't in league with the statements made within the previous quotes.
It's actually the premise to enlightenment, in that objectivity is based on a larger perspective than any one idea being a rule, but instead being subjective to a particular thought generated while standing in identification with ones self and any one particular experience that can and will change, when moving thru different experiences and having evolving cognitive functioning and awareness.

I'm afraid I really don't follow what you are trying to say in that paragraph.

Basically what Sabine is trying to say is that we have a built in system that leads us to act in a prejudiced manner. So we really need to actively work at evaluating our beliefs and assumptions. She is speaking specifically in regard to science, but what she says applies to all areas of our life.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54055 - 06/29/15 08:55 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Bill, anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a flare for stringing together words in such a way as to give the impression that they have a depth of meaning beyond the scope of "hoi polloi" can do a demolition job on this sort of article.

Of course, the early part is open to criticism in that it suggests that babies are born with a suspicion of people who look different from them, when it is almost certain that this is a suspicion of those who differ from the appearance of the people the infant observes; which is quite different.

Beyond that, I think this is an excellent call to reason which, I suspect, will largely fall of deaf ears in the scientific community.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54063 - 06/30/15 04:04 AM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill


Basically what Sabine is trying to say is that we have a built in system that leads us to act in a prejudiced manner. So we really need to actively work at evaluating our beliefs and assumptions. She is speaking specifically in regard to science, but what she says applies to all areas of our life.

Bill Gill
The idea that we are predisposed to prejudice is crap!

There are folks that used to make statements to the fact that all people of color (not white) are genetically inferior to whites as a scientific fact. All crap
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54064 - 06/30/15 01:13 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The idea that we are predisposed to prejudice is crap!

Do you have any scientific evidence for your statement? Sabine did reference a report on a scientific study that indicated we do have a built in prejudice system.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54065 - 06/30/15 02:25 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The idea that we are predisposed to prejudice is crap!

Do you have any scientific evidence for your statement? Sabine did reference a report on a scientific study that indicated we do have a built in prejudice system.

Bill Gill
http://www.education.com/reference/article/core-concepts-prenatal-infant-toddler/
Here's one, that suggests environment on prenatal development is communicative. It suggests that the parents state of mind is part of the nature (surroundings including culture) that influences the state of mind the child has as it steps into the world, but is not something ingrained or predisposed or set in concrete. It also suggest the child has the ability to discover and make up its own mind when realizing its own ability to make judgment calls without assuming the judgments of others.

What the article does not state, and what is also void in the article referenced by Sabine and many others is that consciousness (which is rarely studied or referenced) has resonance. Children resonate to the thoughts and emotions of their surroundings in development as do adults after they have become set in their ways to programmed ideology.

I have 7 young turkeys which I bought from a hatchery. I also have 7 young guinea chicks which I took from the mother the day they hatched.
I put the guineas with the turkeys and they bonded immediately.
After a month I took both the turkey poults and the guinea chicks and put them in with the adult guineas. The adult guineas attacked the turkeys and their own offspring and the guinea chicks hid under the turkey poults as any chick would hid under its mother.
Obviously the guinea chicks were not predisposed to be turkeys, but they had developed from the day they hatched in relationship with the turkeys and not their own species of guinea birds.

Infants are resonant with their surroundings and the study Sabine referenced doesn't seem to reference any of these ideas.

The idea that children are predisposed to anything is science fiction. Like the movie minority report where science culls the perspective criminals at birth because they are deemed to be predisposed to violence.

There seems to be no scientific interest in the study of how society helps to create its own villains as well as its hero's.
Psychology is not a very reliable science, and so science as a club mindset, seeks to find markers that are repeatable, then it sets standards, which they (scientists) then tear down as new markers and standards are set.
People often put on blinders to isolate thought, to discount anything that cannot be chained, or boxed, then measured and disassembled into categories that are democratically set before the world as truth.

Sabines one referenced study is not a standard I would accept as the authoritative statement to validate her rationality.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54068 - 06/30/15 07:27 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Ah! The good old nature vs. nurture argument. I see you have decided totally in favor of nurture. It isn't that simple. In fact I have here a quote from your link.

Originally Posted By: Core Concepts of Prenatal, Infant, and Toddler Development
It has often been asked which has more effect on a child’s development: nature (Genetic influences on the growth and development of a child.) or nurture (The influences of the environment, experiences, and education on the growth and development of the child.) This is no longer a controversy in the early childhood field. There is a complex interplay between these two in the development of an infant (Gottlieb, 1992). Both play their parts in shaping who the infant will become.

That seems to agree with the prevailing sentiment. I figured it out for myself a long time ago. Nature predisposes us to certain characteristics, nurture refines the characteristics. To a large extent our personality is dictated by our genetic heritage but there is a large overlay of education. The education can take many forms. Education doesn't come just in school, but from the whole world around us.

In fact your example of the turkeys and guineas seems to indicate just what I have said before about imprinting. But notice that the adult turkeys attacked the young turkeys and guineas, because they were not a part of the in group. That appears to me to be an expression of an inbuilt prejudice. That is just what was shown in the report that Sabine gave the link to. The only difference was that the children were involved in a controlled experiment which showed clearly that children, and people in general, do have a tendency towards prejudice.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54076 - 07/01/15 02:32 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill
Ah! The good old nature vs. nurture argument. I see you have decided totally in favor of nurture.
No I think you made that decision eek


Originally Posted By: Bill
It isn't that simple.
Boy howdy


Originally Posted By: Bill
In fact I have here a quote from your link.

Originally Posted By: Core Concepts of Prenatal, Infant, and Toddler Development
It has often been asked which has more effect on a child’s development: nature (Genetic influences on the growth and development of a child.) or nurture (The influences of the environment, experiences, and education on the growth and development of the child.) This is no longer a controversy in the early childhood field. There is a complex interplay between these two in the development of an infant (Gottlieb, 1992). Both play their parts in shaping who the infant will become.

That seems to agree with the prevailing sentiment.

Who's sentiment? Certainly not mine!

Originally Posted By: Bill
I figured it out for myself a long time ago. Nature predisposes us to certain characteristics, nurture refines the characteristics.
What is nature? Is it the nature where dinosaurs exist or the nature of our future development?



Originally Posted By: Bill
To a large extent our personality is dictated by our genetic heritage but there is a large overlay of education. The education can take many forms. Education doesn't come just in school, but from the whole world around us.

Are you are speaking of the collective consciousness and its affect as nature upon both prenatal development and human growth and awareness?



Originally Posted By: Bill

In fact your example of the turkeys and guineas seems to indicate just what I have said before about imprinting.

Imprinting would seem to favor the nature of external forces and not "gene specific" dominance.

Originally Posted By: Bill
But notice that the adult turkeys attacked the young turkeys and guineas, because they were not a part of the in group.

Actually, what I wrote was that the adult Guineas attacked the young guineas, which supports an idea that your powers of comprehension affect your ability to observe and determine reality... but I digress wink
What I found interesting was that if prejudice is something supported by having the ability to identify relationship (to something or someone) was that it kinda supports the idea that the mother who gave birth to her children had no ability to recognize them. Interesting how prejudice could be used as a theme towards the ability to recognize, when the fact was that there was definitely a clear lack of recognition within the mother guineas repeated behavior. it would seem to support a territorial mindset however.

I guess it just depends on what you want to argue for. grin

Originally Posted By: Bill
That appears to me to be an expression of an inbuilt prejudice.

Right, where ones own kind attack each other by their inherent nature, because of a lack of cognitive resonance.


Originally Posted By: Bill
That is just what was shown in the report that Sabine gave the link to.
I don't think so. That, is assumed, not shown as definitive.


Originally Posted By: Bill
The only difference was that the children were involved in a controlled experiment which showed clearly that children, and people in general, do have a tendency towards prejudice.
And love, kindness, compassion, intelligence, reasoning, coordination, mechanical skills, philosophy, science, art, drama etc. etc. all of which are packaged up in a 15 month child and available to the observer wink

The idea actually seems to want to point to the idea of racism being a scientific fact in that it (science in this particular case) specifically points to the use of mixed race babies with same race parents (without discussing the parents beliefs and racial bias).
It doesn't say they had used mixed race parents with a bi-racial baby and whether it (the baby) had a disposition for or against either parents race.
It seems rather to isolate one race against another.

And the example of the mothers statement:
Quote:
When my older daughter was three or four years old, we approached an African American cashier in a store and she asked her, “Are you sad that you don’t have light skin?” I winced and began to splutter an apology, but the woman answered, “No, honey. Are you said that you don’t have dark skin?” When my daughter said no, the woman responded, “So you see? We’re both happy with who we are.”
towards the response of the adult woman who said "we're both happy with who we are" would seem to support the curiosity of the child rather than any inbred prejudice or condemnation and separation, as well as having a lack of exposure or education regarding racial equality. I guess this could point to an idea where assumptions could be made about the white mother who was embarrassed but secretly hides her prejudice from community, yet openly expresses her prejudice in front of her child, making statements about how lucky she is to be white... laugh Further, the parent had been raised in a white suburban community that had more than the adjacent black community a few blocks away where there was poverty, drug use, unemployment and gang activity. whistle
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54079 - 07/01/15 08:20 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, I'm sorry you aren't interested in discussing the reality of the world, but I can't force you to actually study the matter.

I am going to mention one thing that you brought up.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
And the example of the mothers statement:
Quote:

When my older daughter was three or four years old, we approached an African American cashier in a store and she asked her, “Are you sad that you don’t have light skin?” I winced and began to splutter an apology, but the woman answered, “No, honey. Are you said that you don’t have dark skin?” When my daughter said no, the woman responded, “So you see? We’re both happy with who we are.”

towards the response of the adult woman who said "we're both happy with who we are" would seem to support the curiosity of the child rather than any inbred prejudice or condemnation and separation,

What I see there is that the child automatically assumed that the clerk would rather have white skin. This seems to me to represent a prejudice, but there is nothing to say that the child had been taught that black skin was not as good.

One of the things I think you may be overlooking is that having prejudices in favor of people who look like ourselves was a good thing through most of the time that we have been evolving. Animals all have built in instincts that help them survive. There is absolutely no reason to assume that when be became human beings we threw off all of our instincts. In fact it would be contrary to evolutionary theory for us to have done so.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54080 - 07/01/15 09:15 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill
Ah! The good old nature vs. nurture argument. I see you have decided totally in favor of nurture. It isn't that simple. In fact I have here a quote from your link.

Originally Posted By: Core Concepts of Prenatal, Infant, and Toddler Development
It has often been asked which has more effect on a child’s development: nature (Genetic influences on the growth and development of a child.) or nurture (The influences of the environment, experiences, and education on the growth and development of the child.)

This is no longer a controversy in the early childhood field. There is a complex interplay between these two in the development of an infant (Gottlieb, 1992). Both play their parts in shaping who the infant will become.
That seems to agree with the prevailing sentiment. I figured it out for myself a long time ago. Nature predisposes us to certain characteristics, nurture refines the characteristics.

To a large extent our personality is dictated by our genetic heritage, but there is a large overlay of education. The education can take many forms. Education doesn't come just in school, but from the whole world around us....... Bill Gill
Bill G, decades ago, when as part of an undergraduate program, I chose to begin a major study of psychology, including and what you call, "The good old NATURE vs. NURTURE" argument. Instead of arguing with my prof, I simply came to the conclusion: A very important factor, spirituality, is missing here.

Unlike the early years, modern psychologists, now, do include consciousness, awareness and spirituality as worthy science-based topics. Like Pneumatology, It is no longer just a philosophy.

I THINK OF LIFE AS LIKE A TRI-POD--Nature, Nurture, Pneumature--THE GOAL OF LIFE IS KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM & POWER AND MEANING

Based on the Greek word, pneuma, meaning spirit, I chose to call this missing Pod, PNEUMATURE--the Loving, power-filled and FREE self. As spiritual, self-aware and normal human beings, we already have this great gift of free-Will.

Now, in cooperation with the natural sciences, as we explore the infinity of space, and nurtured by the social ones (education) as we live in the eternity of time, we are able at any point, to use and apply the gift of free-WILL. It is then we find the meaning and purpose of life--the kind which we all seek.

Truly and lovingly cultivated, this growing awareness of SELF (pneuma) and others--within what we call time and space--is what gives all of us all the power and cultural variety we all need to be, to know, to do and to grow, with no limit to space and time in which to do it.


Edited by Revlgking (07/01/15 09:24 PM)
Edit Reason: Always helpful
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#54082 - 07/02/15 01:30 AM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill
Well, I'm sorry you aren't interested in discussing the reality of the world, but I can't force you to actually study the matter.
Well you can't force anyone to see what they can't see, nor will you fool someone who knows better to fall for ignorance when they know the difference between reality and delusion.

My point in discussing assumptions within this thread.
Originally Posted By: Bill

I am going to mention one thing that you brought up.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
And the example of the mothers statement:
Quote:

When my older daughter was three or four years old, we approached an African American cashier in a store and she asked her, “Are you sad that you don’t have light skin?” I winced and began to splutter an apology, but the woman answered, “No, honey. Are you said that you don’t have dark skin?” When my daughter said no, the woman responded, “So you see? We’re both happy with who we are.”

towards the response of the adult woman who said "we're both happy with who we are" would seem to support the curiosity of the child rather than any inbred prejudice or condemnation and separation,

What I see there is that the child automatically assumed that the clerk would rather have white skin. This seems to me to represent a prejudice, but there is nothing to say that the child had been taught that black skin was not as good.

Exactly, no in depth information, no mention of whether anyone asked the child why the question was asked, nor any interest to pursue the thought of her mothers beliefs and private conversations at home, but rather an instant leap to make the assumption that it's an inherent quality... blush
Originally Posted By: Bill

One of the things I think you may be overlooking is that having prejudices in favor of people who look like ourselves was a good thing through most of the time that we have been evolving. Animals all have built in instincts that help them survive. There is absolutely no reason to assume that when be became human beings we threw off all of our instincts. In fact it would be contrary to evolutionary theory for us to have done so.

Bill Gill
Instinct and prejudice are not the same thing. Prejudice is not inherent, whereas instinct is driven by extraordinary senses, in tune with the consciousness of the world around ones self. However fear, when engaged within the senses clouds instinct.
If you are suggesting prejudice is instinctual, I would have to say you are a wrong. I don't know... maybe its my instincts.. grin
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54087 - 07/02/15 01:30 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Instinct and prejudice are not the same thing. Prejudice is not inherent, whereas instinct is driven by extraordinary senses, in tune with the consciousness of the world around ones self. However fear, when engaged within the senses clouds instinct.
If you are suggesting prejudice is instinctual, I would have to say you are a wrong. I don't know... maybe its my instincts..

An instinct is an automatic reaction to certain stimuli. If you see a large animal with sharp claws and teeth then your instinct is to run. If you see a stranger your instinct is to be cautious. Prejudice is an instinctive reaction to the world around you. We are not as controlled by instinct as the other animals in the world, but it is still there. We are fortunate that we can learn to override out instincts and thus do not necessarily have to give in to prejudice. We can also overcome out instinctive response to different ideas and at least look to see if there is some validity to them. If there is evidence to support the new ideas then we can then accept that they may be true. Some people of course refuse to take this attitude and maintain their righteousness in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54088 - 07/02/15 02:03 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill

An instinct is an automatic reaction to certain stimuli.
Conditioning creates an automatic reaction to certain stimuli.

Originally Posted By: Bill
If you see a large animal with sharp claws and teeth then your instinct is to run.
Some run some stand frozen when surprised. Fear can produce probable and sometimes predictable outcomes. There are stories of people dying from a heart attack when coming across a piece of rope, thinking its a poisonous snake. Obviously the instinct to survive can be overridden by a need to die because of a lack in perception. Which brings up an interesting idea.
If mans perception is unreliable, just how does instinct become effective?


Originally Posted By: Bill
If you see a stranger your instinct is to be cautious.
Children (prior to conditioning by their parents warnings) will smile and openly approach a stranger. It's why its such an issue with adults to pound it into their children, that they should instinctively fear what they don't know. Perhaps if they were of the same mind as yourself they would simply trust in the child's instincts, rather than say anything at all.


Originally Posted By: Bill
Prejudice is an instinctive reaction to the world around you.
A reasonable assumption when duped by an authority who (like an ambulance chaser would, when presenting a case) would stack information in favor of something without presenting all the details.



Originally Posted By: Bill
We are not as controlled by instinct as the other animals in the world, but it is still there. We are fortunate that we can learn to override out instincts and thus do not necessarily have to give in to prejudice.....(paragraph truncated to get to the point).. Some people of course refuse to take this attitude and maintain their righteousness in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Bill Gill
Yes I've heard of these types of people. Sometimes they're called visionaries. Reminds me of the story a doctor told me one time about the guy who came up with the pap smear. All of his peers in the medical community told him he was crazy to step outside of normal procedures and take a thought that wasn't stamped and approved by the majority. Now his idea is standard procedure. Go figure. Who in the hell would ever stand up for themselves in the face of the opposition when they as a majority are stuck within beliefs rallied around isolated data and experience? wink
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54090 - 07/02/15 08:21 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Reminds me of the story a doctor told me one time about the guy who came up with the pap smear. All of his peers in the medical community told him he was crazy to step outside of normal procedures and take a thought that wasn't stamped and approved by the majority. Now his idea is standard procedure.

And the difference is that his idea worked. When ideas work science accepts them. When there is no experimental evidence they look upon the idea with great caution. When there is contradictory evidence they downplay that idea. That is one of the things the Sabine was getting to in her article. Maybe you should go and look at the whole of the article instead of just jumping on an idea that you don't agree with.

And that is about enough of that. If somebody wants to discuss the overall ideas in the article I will be happy to respond.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#54091 - 07/03/15 02:50 AM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill

And the difference is that his idea worked.

The point was, how peer pressure often stymies new ideas and perspectives when something is put into place and no one wants to make a change to upset the status quo.

Originally Posted By: Bill
When ideas work science accepts them.
Sure (as a cult collective), when any group relies on democratic process, proof is sometimes like getting something thru a hazing process where if everyone is not to busy to listen, you just go thru a group of people who bash the crap out of everything to see if it withstands the pressure, or if you fit into their personality profile.

Originally Posted By: Bill
When there is no experimental evidence they look upon the idea with great caution.
Right the inherent prejudice thing you mentioned. It would be nice if science had a voice that spoke to having an open mind, rather than one that had to be pried open, because they justify their prejudice and condemnation as inherent and a survival instinct.


Originally Posted By: Bill
When there is contradictory evidence they downplay that idea.
Or in the way you present this article, if there is more interest in the evidence collected highlighting certain characteristics and outcomes, then any other is irrelevant if the goal to a purpose is achieved regardless of any collateral damage (like the approval of thalidomide).



Originally Posted By: Bill
That is one of the things the Sabine was getting to in her article. Maybe you should go and look at the whole of the article instead of just jumping on an idea that you don't agree with.

The whole of the article seems to want to highlight the idea of credibility. I addressed what I wanted to address in support of the idea that when you build a bridge with inferior supports, it's gonna look nice but collapse under pressure, weight and time.



Originally Posted By: Bill

And that is about enough of that. If somebody wants to discuss the overall ideas in the article I will be happy to respond.

Bill Gill
Right, overlook the details and focus on the person making the statement as the credible authority because she's got a degree. sick
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54092 - 07/03/15 04:54 AM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I don't agree with everything you say TT but it is close enough. Yes science is a blunt instrument by design and closed in it's formulation to some ideas, which you happen to favour. However it does what it is intended to do, no more no less, it doesn't pretend to be a solution to all questions.

Some questions we just deem invalid because we have a certain bias, a door Rev K sometimes tries to open. We even openly discuss our bias but no it isn't going to change anytime soon smile

Similar in a way your philosophical musings have a place just not in science. smile

In some ways I have an advantage I have seen science under 3 different political systems, I don't think Sabine has. Much of her view on science and indeed the report she refers too is very very Western culture centric, they forget there are other cultures out there smile

A little fact to throw in in the sixties the number of female physicists and chemists in Russia hovered around 47%. All comrades are expected to do their bit for the glorious nation male or female smile

On the same line: http://elitedaily.com/women/you-wont-bel...ale-executives/
Quote:
Russia takes home the gold for the highest proportion of women in these high-level job titles, with 43 percent.

The discussion changes markedly depending on the culture under discussion smile

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Bill
And that is about enough of that. If somebody wants to discuss the overall ideas in the article I will be happy to respond.

Bill Gill
Right, overlook the details and focus on the person making the statement as the credible authority because she's got a degree. sick

That gave me a laugh you picked Bill off exactly, gave me a chuckle.

Bill's byline tag is so cute but not quite accurate, off the top of my head I can name at least 2 things faster than the speed of light being the expansion of the big bang and quantum entanglement transfers. Perhaps he needs to go and talk to someone with a degree about it smile


Edited by Orac (07/03/15 05:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54093 - 07/03/15 01:34 PM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Orac]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Orac
I don't agree with everything you say TT but it is close enough. Yes science is a blunt instrument by design and closed in it's formulation to some ideas, which you happen to favour.
Only as the devils advocate to this particular argument.

Originally Posted By: Orac
However it does what it is intended to do, no more no less, it doesn't pretend to be a solution to all questions.
Well, depending on who you talk to (when claiming to be the authoritative mouthpiece for science) all defenses I seem to run into regarding science is that scientists are seemingly better equipped mentally to ascertain the reality of everything, regardless of any humility in being just short of perfect. wink


Originally Posted By: Orac

Some questions we just deem invalid because we have a certain bias, a door Rev K sometimes tries to open. We even openly discuss our bias but no it isn't going to change anytime soon smile

Right, the "IF you can't get a consensus to put it on a table and disassemble it", then it's not worth discussing kind of approach. I get that


Originally Posted By: Orac

Similar in a way your philosophical musings have a place just not in science. smile

Too bad, I always have room for science. In my world everything has value AND no thing is mutually exclusive. When you add another perspective rather than isolating it within a certain mindset, then thought becomes less "cult-ish." wink


Originally Posted By: Orac

In some ways I have an advantage I have seen science under 3 different political systems, I don't think Sabine has. Much of her view on science and indeed the report she refers too is very very Western culture centric, they forget there are other cultures out there smile

Actually its the report on Sabine and the reference to the study that lacks credibility. No report can do justice to actually getting to know Sabine or what actually went on in the study and what the science was behind it. There is an incredible lack of detailed information. What was presented in the article was in fact vague and leads to assumptions.


Originally Posted By: Orac

A little fact to throw in in the sixties the number of female physicists and chemists in Russia hovered around 47%. All comrades are expected to do their bit for the glorious nation male or female smile
And did the male comrades fully accept the gender as equal, or just follow orders for fear of being castrated or shot? shocked
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54097 - 07/04/15 05:41 AM Re: I wasn’t born a scientist. And you weren’t either. [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Only as the devils advocate to this particular argument.

I am told often I am the devil, should I be getting treatment smile

Joking I understand what you mean.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Well, depending on who you talk to (when claiming to be the authoritative mouthpiece for science) all defenses I seem to run into regarding science is that scientists are seemingly better equipped mentally to ascertain the reality of everything, regardless of any humility in being just short of perfect. wink

I find it tends to be a certain group of individuals that actually don't participate in science but have studied in their distant past that try to make science authoritative and can't help but want to convert others. To those actually active in the science field worrying about what someone especially a layman thinks about a topic is pointless, you recognize they don't have the basis to have a view that actually matters. In a way it is blatant arrogance but you have a set of experiments and results and any answer must be valid to all those.

Religion doesn't require all experiments and results to be consistent because GOD is above such things. Hence I have no issue in general with religion unless those who follow it enter science forums and try to present incorrect science results as proof of their GOD.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Right, the "IF you can't get a consensus to put it on a table and disassemble it", then it's not worth discussing kind of approach. I get that

Correct and as much as you don't like it a truth only you can see is not useful to us. That doesn't diminish such things might be important in other fields.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Too bad, I always have room for science. In my world everything has value AND no thing is mutually exclusive. When you add another perspective rather than isolating it within a certain mindset, then thought becomes less "cult-ish." wink

You may call us a cult and closed minded and from your perspective that may all be true. However at the end of the day you don't get a vote smile

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
What was presented in the article was in fact vague and leads to assumptions.

Yes I would agree with that as well.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
And did the male comrades fully accept the gender as equal, or just follow orders for fear of being castrated or shot? shocked

Again I could only offer vague facts but it was effective whichever it was. So there is possibly an argument for the latter in Western society smile


Edited by Orac (07/04/15 07:21 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.