User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 239

  1. #201
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    The point was you get the benefits regardless of whether you know or not. Scientists make life very nice for you without ever saying a word so I'm saying that your premise that science should be cut off because it's useless if it doesn't explain things to you is entirely faulty.
    So you're happy with the level of understanding in the general populace then? I wasn't getting that from your earlier posts. I thought you were of the opinion that people don't understand well enough.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #202
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    So you're happy with the level of understanding in the general populace then? I wasn't getting that from your earlier posts. I thought you were of the opinion that people don't understand well enough.
    I said people need to either understand more, or know less. Knowledge is problematic as it is now. It's also not scientists job to make people understand. We have SCHOOLS for fucks sakes.

    Not to mention that to me when somebody spouts off like they know some shit in one breath then in the next complain that scientists need to explain more, it sounds like they're saying that scientists need to do all the work and I find that incredibly selfish, childish, spoiled and lazy.

    It's also not scientists job to make people understand. Next thing you know people won't be able to fucking READ because authors should EXPLAIN THINGS IN PICTURES TO THEM.

  3. #203
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    I said people need to either understand more, or know less. Knowledge is problematic as it is now. It's also not scientists job to make people understand. We have SCHOOLS for fucks sakes.

    Not to mention that to me when somebody spouts off like they know some shit in one breath then in the next complain that scientists need to explain more, it sounds like they're saying that scientists need to do all the work and I find that incredibly selfish, childish, spoiled and lazy.

    It's also not scientists job to make people understand. Next thing you know people won't be able to fucking READ because authors should EXPLAIN THINGS IN PICTURES TO THEM.
    Don't get me wrong, I get your point, but as you are talking in a technical language as a habit and simplifying to get your point across I would say that logically the burden of proof (or in this case adequate explanation) falls to the side with all the information. You can't expect people to just accept that you know what you're talking about.

    Well that's not strictly true. You can't expect people to unify behind your ideas without being able to get both sides to agree you're right.

    Why should you bother about them agreeing? Well chances are that the guy with the big purse strings who's looking for "the next big thing" will have scientific advisers but will support those who can speak to the common layman in terms they might grasp.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #204
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I get your point, but as you are talking in a technical language as a habit and simplifying to get your point across I would say that logically the burden of proof (or in this case adequate explanation) falls to the side with all the information. You can't expect people to just accept that you know what you're talking about.
    Most of the time they don't have to accept anything. As I said before, most of science isn't about explaining things, it's about getting stuff done.

    Well that's not strictly true. You can't expect people to unify behind your ideas without being able to get both sides to agree you're right.
    Being right has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

    Why should you bother about them agreeing? Well chances are that the guy with the big purse strings who's looking for "the next big thing" will have scientific advisers but will support those who can speak to the common layman in terms they might grasp.
    That's not how it works and has never been how it works. Whether the common layman agrees or understands or not is largely irrelevant as it pertains to the vast majority of science.

    It's like the fricking Apollo missions. The government wanted it done, the scientists did it, and the populace just knows it happened. They can tell you we went to the moon, they can talk about space capsules and reentry and even gravity turns and command modules and all of that, but even if they tell this to you, this isn't explaining anything. You don't actually know what it takes to get to the moon by listening to that. So in reality that layman explanation is not an explanation at all but mostly consists of empty words meant to seem like they're saying more than simply "we went to the moon in a space can that moves by shooting fire out the back"

  5. #205
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Most of the time they don't have to accept anything. As I said before, most of science isn't about explaining things, it's about getting stuff done.
    Scientists don't often "get stuff done". In my experience that'd be more the poor git making the item or the engineer redesigning it so it can be made.
    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Being right has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
    If you're not right then you're not worth dealing with. I can get ten crack pots for a cup of coffee.
    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    That's not how it works and has never been how it works. Whether the common layman agrees or understands or not is largely irrelevant as it pertains to the vast majority of science.

    It's like the fricking Apollo missions. The government wanted it done, the scientists did it, and the populace just knows it happened. They can tell you we went to the moon, they can talk about space capsules and reentry and even gravity turns and command modules and all of that, but even if they tell this to you, this isn't explaining anything. You don't actually know what it takes to get to the moon by listening to that. So in reality that layman explanation is not an explanation at all but mostly consists of empty words meant to seem like they're saying more than simply "we went to the moon in a space can that moves by shooting fire out the back"
    Who said they wanted to know the colour of the universe? What possible application has that got? Can I open a can of food with it? Will it solve the economic crisis in foreign countries? Nope.

    Now take for example computers and I want a faster PC. I don't care how you do it as long as it's commercially viable and faster. However I can measure that result. It would appear that there's much research done into things we have no current application for or that can't be explained in terms of an immediate improvement. So why would we bother? Plus at what point does the person's good nature tire? You've spent six years costing lord knows how much and haven't solved the problem but repeatedly say it's close to being solved. Do I assume you're right and allow you to continue to spend my money? Do I assume you're a liar and sack you on the spot? I certainly can't performance manage you as I've no idea what you're doing. Ergo your contribution is unknown until you've done what I asked. Ergo it is at my whim (if I'm the benefactor) whether you continue in employment or join the ranks of Starbucks. Not a great prospect.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #206
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Xander
    Oh my god I am done with you.

  7. #207
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @Xander
    Oh my god I am done with you.
    Fair enough.
    It does seem a little unsolvable at this point.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #208
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Fair enough.
    It does seem a little unsolvable at this point.
    Science and engineering are overlapping fields by the way. Just thought I'd let you know so you don't continue to cart around the false statement that scientists don't get stuff done.

    Scientists are often easily engineers as well when it comes to applied sciences (most of science) especially when it comes to aerospace engineering. A lot of those scientists are engineers as well, and you don't get to be an engineer in a field like that without at least some knowledge of applied physics and probably chemistry too.

  9. #209
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Also purely theoretical "natural science" is only the base of science discipline and only a fraction of science remains at the purely theoretical level. This is what a lot of people call "science" and what they get excited about but this isn't the only kind of science, and is only scratching the surface.

    There are overlaps with natural science and applied science, such as with thermodynamics or materials sciences. When you study the nature of heat transfer for theoretical purposes you can also learn at the same time how to apply the knowledge for practical purposes. This means that engineering is on board and very nearby, even if the scientist is not also the engineer - and there are times when the scientist is the engineer too because the two are so closely related. Studying heat exchange can be for theory and practical applications at the same time, such as HVAC systems, and studying the structure of a special kind of steel is also theoretical and applied at the same time because you're making discoveries about the steel and then you can put the knowledge to practical use.

    So while science and engineering are technically different, they overlap considerably and often share the same goals.

  10. #210
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Based on this thread, everyone I know is a scientist!

    Must get them to start publishing... I could be editor and give up real work.
    Still true.

    Un-subscribing though as the war will never end otherwise.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

Similar Threads

  1. Final decision on my type between INTP and INFP.
    By Cat Brainz in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 07:10 PM
  2. Russian Orthodoxy on the rise with decreasing seperation between church and state
    By UniqueMixture in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 01:57 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 01:58 AM
  4. on this day midway between solstice and christmas
    By bcvcdc in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-23-2009, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO