agendas in science

Since the extent of my name-calling in this thread has been limited to the most toned-down, non-offensive, PG-rated version of the pigeon meme I could find (which strategically uses the term "internet troll" in place of some of the more colorful monikers popularized by said meme), I'm going to ask everyone to take a good, long look at this thread and what's happened in it before they point fingers at those of us who have been here longer with that "Shame on you" attitude.

I appreciate the attempt at peacekeeping, Proteus, but I entered this thread to combat a swiftly growing, culturally-accepted form of discrimination, which was subsequently taken as a personal attack by the only person in the thread I was directly not addressing, whom I then entreated to find more constructive outlets for their obvious verbal talents than resorting to name calling of other forum-users.

I was met with more name-calling and a cartoon depiction of me as a bald finger puppet with a cartoonishly large nose. While this is a clear illustration that the artist does not know me (seriously, it didn't even have a monstrous beard), the fact that this refrigerator-door doodle was made to directly reference the aforementioned namecalling, then specifically linked in this thread, and then specifically made the artist's avatar says a little more than "I drew you a pretty picture."

We debate ideas, not people. We discuss flaws in ideologies and systems of thought and lines of logic, but we do not call people names. It's illogical, it's unrefined, and it's beneath the lot of us. I may disagree completely with both the content and credibility of everything some people here say, but that doesn't mean they're an "idiot", or an "imbecile", or a "moron." It means we disagree, and nothing more.

With respect, Proteus, I may be a complete jerk 99% of the time, but I am not wrong here. And I won't pretend I am.

So, please. I entreat the moderation staff to do whatever they feel is necessary in regards to this thread and others like it.

Returning to the title I would refer people to two reference books on truth and how truth is not really truth. More precisely how my truth and your truth are different. The two books are:
1. The structure of science revolution by T Kuhn 1962
2. Progress and its problems Towards a theory of scientific growth by L Loudan 1977

I need to put a disclaimer in here that Kuhn does not define paradigm which by default causes all discussion of paradigm shift to be murky. However the lack of definition does not change the logic argument about truth.

I will attempt to give an example of both authors idea here.

A Loudan example might be my truth is that gravity pulls stuff strait down however Steven Hawkins truth is that gravity pulls stuff like a bowling ball in a sheet. My truth is based on the facts I know and Hawkins is based on the facts he knows we have different realities and therefor different truths.

A Kuhn examples might be there are 50 people trying to describe how gravity works each with a different understanding all of which are different from the shared truth. When the mass of differences hits a critical point our shared understanding of gravity changes in a paradigm shift.

Although it is not my place to say, or perhaps it is since I'm still an objective party, but this thread lacks compassion and empathy.

For better or worse, every human institution is rife with agendas... because they are rife with humans.

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but lot's of us have STEM careers and if I flaunt mine at you, you will get offended.

Perhaps if we strive to take each other more seriously and ourselves less, we might avoid another thread like this.

As Associate Pastor here is my suggestion for what participants of this thread can do: leave it be. Whatever happened in this thread, whoever did what to whom etc, doesn't really matter, what matters is that we realise something has gone wrong and that, for whatever reason, tempers got agitated and patience wore thin. Now what we can do is recognise the error, put it behind us, and move on.

Situations are normally much better after a few breaths and a few days of letting it be, that is what I suggest for this instance. Demanding apologies and such won't help to resolve the situation if people feel bullied or unheard, nor will finger pointing and blaming.

Statements can come across as orders and accusations if there is tension, so perhaps in the case of this thread we just let it go?

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Third Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1996. Originally published in 1962.

It is not the case that Kuhn doesn't define paradigm, but rather, that he employs a variety of definitions. One working definition: paradigms are "universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners" (Kuhn, Preface). Kuhn's thesis is that the body of scientific knowledge changes (or that the working model evolves with new interpretations of the evidence) but that change does not also imply progress. "Perhaps science does not develop by accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions" (Kuhn 2). Paradigms are a kind of schematic characterization of one scientific discipline, for example, biology, and Kuhn shows how the paradigms at one period in history differ from those of another. There are at any time important problems to solve, existing evidence, and research techniques that change over time. "Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with conceptual and instrumental techniques close to those already in existence" (Kuhn 96, emphasis original ). The questions that scientists asks change and so also do the interpretation of evidence. Change (paradigm shift) occurs when a 'new' discovery emerges that does not fit into the current paradigm and so requires a new theory to explain this 'incompatible' evidence. My favorite paradigm shift example is plate tectonics: rejected when first proposed it later became and continues to be today the normative theory. The earlier description of the nature of our planet is incompatible with the later paradigm.

Steamboat didn't resort to personal attacks at any point during this thread. I didn't do either. Both of us were belittled and caricatured, one in response to a post that was itself a response to a different one, the other one was unambiguously insulted repeatedly even after a peace offer.

Whatever happened here was long overdue and had been coming for weeks waving its flag in our faces meanwhile, but none of it was brought about by our side of it. We have been way more patient than we should and more civil than we could be expected to be and we remained so in spite of the provocation and attack.

And speaking of sides, here is a thought: How about there be not two equal sides to every issue? There have been more severe reactions for some here over way lesser, more ambiguous things. I will not be told that both parties here bear the same responsibility in that they have an equal part in what went on. That is not true, you know it isn't and please do not pretend that it is. This thread is on record, everybody can read it.

This Jedi sense of justice whereby one gotta see both sides and never think about either of them and pretend like walking a middle path after you are already pretending that there exists one, and ontop of that to also think that this is the solution is frankly beneath all of you. There is no middle path between inquiry and insult. There is no middle path between exchange and scoff. There is no middle path between sincerity and lying. If truth, goodness and beauty are not your ideals, what are your ideals? If honesty, courage and hope are not your standards, what are your standards?

[/sick rant]

Among the many narrative themes presented in the 2014 film, Transcendence, is its interpretation of one possible scenario regarding human evolution: the hybridization of nano-technology with organic material, particularly the bio-chemistry of the brain-states of human consciousness. Any thoughts?

dangerous

Alan wrote: Among the many narrative themes presented in the 2014 film, Transcendence, is its interpretation of one possible scenario regarding human evolution: the hybridization of nano-technology with organic material, particularly the bio-chemistry of the brain-states of human consciousness. Any thoughts?

:laugh:

Vesha wrote:

Gisteron wrote: Or I could go my own route and kindly ask you for a reference to a scientific study you surely conducted at some point during the past decade. I don't even care that you try to make it look like you had no idea what science is although you still seem to hold yourself an authority on big conspiracies covering it up for centuries, or that you seem to hold yourself an authority on what true Christianity was and how it suffered the same treatment.

To Gisteron,
Don't bother, this is why I thanked him when he said people at universities are children. This guy is clearly not a scientist and has no scientific background and training. With that knowledge he can simply be dismissed. Any attempt to further argue with him or criticize him will only result in him going further down the rabbit hole in believing he is secretly the smartest person in the world and no one will ever understand this because they aren't smart enough. This phenomenon is called Dunning–Kruger effect , it's fascinating you should read about it.

Historical antecedents[edit]
Although the Dunning–Kruger effect was formulated in 1999, Dunning and Kruger have noted similar observations by philosophers and scientists, including Confucius ("Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance"),[2] Socrates ("I know that I know nothing"), Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"),[11] and Charles Darwin, whom they quoted in their original paper ("Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge").[1]
Geraint Fuller, commenting on the paper, noted that Shakespeare expressed a similar sentiment in As You Like It ("The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole" (V.i)).[14]

http://youtu.be/T69TOuqaqXI

A boat was docked in a tiny Mexican fishing village.

A tourist complimented the local fishermen on the quality of their fish and... asked how long it took to catch them.

"Not very long" they answered in unison.

"Why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?"

The fishermen explained that their small catches were sufficient to meet their needs and those of their families.

"But what do you do with the rest of your time?"

"We sleep late, fish a little, play with our children, and take siestas with our wives. In the evenings, we go into the village to see our friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs.
We have a full life."

The tourist interrupted, "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you! You should start by fishing longer every day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat."

"And after that?"

"With the extra money the larger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers.
Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can then negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City!!! From there you can direct your huge new enterprise."

"How long would that take?"

"Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years." replied the tourist.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? Well my friend, that's when it gets really interesting," answered the tourist, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start buying and selling stocks and make millions!"

"Millions? Really? And after that?" asked the fishermen.

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta with your wife and spend your evenings drinking and enjoying your friends."

"With all due respect sir, but that's exactly what we are doing now. So what's the point wasting twenty-five years?" asked the Mexicans.

And the moral of this story is:

Know where you're going in life, you may already be there! Many times in life, money is not everything.

“Live your life before life becomes lifeless” :evil:

http://youtu.be/dtBkkY7txhY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZklRSn92ek4

Unfortunately the scientific community is prone to the same failings as the religious community is, namely the tendency to develop tunnel vision for pet theories. It serves to illustrate the importance of cultivating the naive mind, or beginners' mind as it's referred to in Zen practice. These ideas are not trained in the communities they are most crucial in and meaningless squabbles ensue.

Lone Starr wrote: Unfortunately the scientific community is prone to the same failings as the religious community is, namely the tendency to develop tunnel vision for pet theories. It serves to illustrate the importance of cultivating the naive mind, or beginners' mind as it's referred to in Zen practice. These ideas are not trained in the communities they are most crucial in and meaningless squabbles ensue.

No...

https://youtu.be/EV1SqGINnP8

Aren't we all by now mildly amused at hearing how science is unreliable because it changes its mind all the time but then in the same breath how science is unreliable because it is dogmatic and stubborn as if it were but another religion?

Lone Starr wrote: Unfortunately the scientific community is prone to the same failings as the religious community is, namely the tendency to develop tunnel vision for pet theories. It serves to illustrate the importance of cultivating the naive mind, or beginners' mind as it's referred to in Zen practice. These ideas are not trained in the communities they are most crucial in and meaningless squabbles ensue.

In the spirit of science, let us put this idea to the test (anyone else thinking of this one ?), shall we:

Could you, please, name one falsifiable 'pet theory' that has by the scientific community been in the past or is currently widely held and defended despite an utter lack of evidence in its favour or indeed despite considerable evidence to the contrary? Can you conversely name a falsifiable hypothesis that is being ignored or discarded by said community despite considerable evidence in its favour?
Can you think of a marginally recognizable religion that hasn't been doing just that for about as long as it's been around?

I think the main agenda in science is to achieve funding, probably represented in two main ways:
1. to achieve some measure of fame to increase personal wealth
2. to acquire research funding to ensure employment and scientific application and progress

.... but these can unfortunately lead to;
1 -> falsifying, manipulation and stealing to achieve some competitive advantage to 'stand out'
2 -> narrow application of funding proposals along established lines of entrenched belief and effort.

Ideally I guess if a discovery leads to a revenue stream, then they can have their own business model founded upon science -which can then relieve the burden of the 2nd agenda from dictating the scientists efforts/interests. Otherwise the main agenda would probably be to increase the breadth (amount) and depth (accuracy) of the body of scientific knowledge.

The fasted way to achieve fame and funding in science is to prove someone else wrong. This is how science self regulates and why it is so different than other systems. If you try to publish something that is wrong you will be eaten alive and your career is over and that is beauty of the system, there is no room for agendas or personnel views because you will be criticized and laughed out of the room and this system is the scientific method.

What Vesha said.

Individual people, scientists included, may have quite a number of agendas of thei own and most of us are fundamentally biased in some way or another. This is the reason for the falsificationism principle and the peer review process. Science is an effort to acquire knowledge of the reality we find ourselves and each other, and as such, it would be doing its job wrong if it didn't take measures to counteract biases and bad intent. You don't get your words to be gospel truth in science even if they accurately represent observable reality. You will conversely not be expelled for being wrong either. You will however be laughed out of the room for being dishonest in your methods. For bad conduct, so to speak. Even if your conclusions may turn out correct. So it is in one's own interest to look past one's biases, and there is an entire world of scientists helping one out in the few places one will inevitably fail.