• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
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.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
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.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
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.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
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"
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
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.
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.
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.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
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.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
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.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
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.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Yeah say that people need explanations then bite the hand that feeds you and argue about it when you get some explanations but don't like the explanation that you got, or if it doesn't sit right with you then it isn't from 'real' scientists, then wonder why nobody wants to waste their flipping time.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
There's an RC theologian who had to write a book against geocentricism just this year or something like that so it kind of shows the old differences die hard. Its a shame.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Yeah say that people need explanations then bite the hand that feeds you and argue about it when you get some explanations but don't like the explanation that you got, or if it doesn't sit right with you then it isn't from 'real' scientists, then wonder why nobody wants to waste their flipping time.

Every inch the feeling reaction to differences of opinion there.

You know that there's nothing like the consensus among scientists which you suppose exists here between scientists and non-scientists and its a good thing.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Every inch the feeling reaction to differences of opinion there.

You know that there's nothing like the consensus among scientists which you suppose exists here between scientists and non-scientists and its a good thing.

You're talking to me.

Consensus is irrelevant to what I was saying. Consensus is an incidental consequence that doesn't even mean something is right or not. But when a consensus happens to be wrong it'll be a different consensus which overrules it. Argumentum ad populum may be a fallacy but letting a singular source railroad everyone is even worse.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
You're talking to me.

Consensus is irrelevant to what I was saying. Consensus is an incidental consequence that doesn't even mean something is right or not. But when a consensus happens to be wrong it'll be a different consensus which overrules it. Argumentum ad populum may be a fallacy but letting a singular source railroad everyone is even worse.

I regret it every time.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Then stop. I didn't ask for you to talk to me. You imposed yourself. By doing this knowingly you disrespect both of us.

Sometimes your thinking is so broken its hard to ignore.

Now, you'll be needing the last word if memory serves, make it a good one, go for profound and some how triumphant. That's never embarrassing if you realise your error and read it back with the full passage of time.
 

93JC

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,989
Sometimes your thinking is so broken its hard to ignore.

Now, you'll be needing the last word if memory serves, make it a good one, go for profound and some how triumphant. That's never embarrassing if you realise your error and read it back with the full passage of time.

:laugh:

I get a kick out of you, Lark. You so poignantly explain your own obnoxious behaviour.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
:laugh:

I get a kick out of you, Lark. You so poignantly explain your own obnoxious behaviour.

Its good to see how you frame things. Whatever works for you because I see it as precisely the converse.

Your information is wrong but I'm well used to that by this point.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Sometimes your thinking is so broken its hard to ignore.

Now, you'll be needing the last word if memory serves, make it a good one, go for profound and some how triumphant. That's never embarrassing if you realise your error and read it back with the full passage of time.
It's pointless to come out of the blue and reiterate to me what I already know you think about me.

It's like you believe I'll be normalized. I'll be embarrassed. See the error of my ways. You're wrong about that, I regret nothing.

This served no purpose but to stir me up. Poking the pile when it is at rest and wasn't bothering you is ridiculous. I didn't need yet another unwarranted character evaluation from you.
 
Top