Science is mere info/data?

[HydrogenBond]

Collecting hard data is solid, but the use or interpretation of the data becomes subjective. If I collect data at Starbucks, the data is what it was. How I use this data is subjective. The point that was made tat there are a lot of variables that need to be taken into consideration is correct. These considerations help limit the subjectivity when interpretting the data.

 

The path I took was conceptual modeling. This reduces things down to the bare bones of understanding so that even someone with limited knowledge or exposure can catch the drift. If one can not reduce a theory to barebones it might contain too much intellectual fluff and/or be a secret handshake of one group. Alternately, if one reduces existing theory down to the barebones, if it is not consistent with common sense and basic or universal undertanding it may be more subjective than was originally thought.

 

I use this example often because it is a good example of a concensus subjective theory, i.e, the earth's iron core. There is no hard data, only circumstantial which does indirectly suggest an iron core, i.e., iron is all over the solar system and the iron can be magnetic. Even a child can observed and play with an iron magnet. But the fact remains an metallic iron core needs to somehow separate from all the oxygen of the earth, which everywhere within the earth, without forming rust or iron oxide. A rusty iron core has problems with magnetism unless the iron was induced magnetic before the rust. This stretches things too thin. Nickel was circumstantially added to the iron core because nickel can also be magnetic.

 

The iron core theory is so dogmatic that new theory attempts to retain it with asteriods and then add the water second with a second wave of asteroids. Even that theory has problems. The critical state of water can dissolve all minerals and therefore can reach the mantle from the surface. This implies plasma water in the upper mantle that should diffuse as H through the mantle oxygen to the core and start corrosion. Once this begins the large size of the core, i.e., size of mars, should cause the ocean levels to drop over time. This does not appear to be occurring. The iron core is a good example of science hiding behind fuzzy data, and subjective theory being presented as reality science. Conceptual consistency allows one to reason through the subjectivity.

[Kriminal99]

I see what you are saying I just find it ironic that science (especially among the general populace) is held in such high regard considering many simple problems like that. I mean from the very beginning experimental design has a potential problem in that you can't sample from the future, though in a perfect world experimental data should only represent where it is sampled from. Anotherwords its automatically assumed that the time which passes after the experiment is not a factor in any experiment. Seems kind of trivial when you are talking about the laws of physics, but then looking at some shady sociology or psychology experiments, or analyzing the stock market etc it can be seen how this assumption causes problems.

 

But experimental data that only tells you about things you already know happened is useless. Experimental data that tells you about an object you already have control over in an experimental enviornment is also not valuable. The whole point is to be able to generalize and this is always a huge potential for error and probably whats behind all difference in belief in philosophy. Yet people treat scientists as authoritative sources on knowledge. The difficulty of the search for knowledge hasn't lessened, the many different opinions among people with different biases that would occur if they were working on the same thing hasn't gone away. Instead it has just been controlled who is "allowed" to participate and thus the biases of who is participating have been controlled, so differences of opinion are less frequent. And then things discovered within these groups are handed to the general populace to accept without scrutiny, and they do it... Only because they have been brainwashed into believing that this system is somehow valid. No doubt this has been intended by someone who accomplished it using the public education system. Use other people's ideas to give someone a young age a strong faith in you and what you have to say, and then abuse that to get them to listen to take what your community has to say on faith for the rest of their life.

 

Of course science is not useless but you have to be equal parts logical thinker and objective scientist in order to come up with useful results. The reasoning skills seem to be lacking in many cases, and the only way to be sure of the objectivity with which a result was determined is to see if you come to the same result despite having different biases.

[Qfwfq]

If you are trying to make an argument past threatening to kick me off the board because I disagree with you, I'm not sure what it is. It sounds like you might be saying that the purpose of the board is to socialize rather than discuss ideas, but there are a few problems with that claim. First of all every science mod makes that claim when someone disagrees with them and then claims the board is all about discussing ideas related to science when people are agreeing with them. Which one is it, you can't have it both ways. Second of all, why would anyone go to an internet forum to socialize. Lastly, what kind of people who are interested in science value socializing over discussing disagreements in ideas?

 

Don't get me wrong. Competitivewise you guys are pretty high on the charts. However until I go to a forum and when I happen to completely disagree with the moderator and he says "I disagree, because of X" rather than kicking me off the forum I will feel like I have been decieved.

Remember Kriminal, the Great Tormod will have you in Our dungeons if you keep refusing to genuflect at Our feet.

 

;) :) ;) ;) ;)