• 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

93JC

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,989
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.

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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.

If having to quote me doesnt embarrass you then it sure doesnt embarrass me.

Feel free to use that too.
 

93JC

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,989
If having to quote me doesnt embarrass you then it sure doesnt embarrass me.

Feel free to use that too.


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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.

:D
 

93JC

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,989
I wonder if I can go for the trifecta.

Let's go for it, everyone.



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.


EDIT: Ooh, maybe he finally wised up...
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
sprinkles said:
No. Their job isn't to explain anything. Explaining things to laymen isn't even practically useful to begin with. What exactly is the point? To satisfy their curiosities?

Some scientists have agendas, whether it be eating healthier, saving some stupid fish from extinction, or building a $1 trillion star gate. To get that support from Congress (congressional donkeys are usually laymen) entails garnering public support and to get that support, they need to be able to explain why a trillion dollar investment is a good idea in laymen terms.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Some scientists have agendas, whether it be eating healthier, saving some stupid fish from extinction, or building a $1 trillion star gate. To get that support from Congress (congressional donkeys are usually laymen) entails garnering public support and to get that support, they need to be able to explain why a trillion dollar investment is a good idea in laymen terms.

While true, that is not the majority of science. That is just the science which the public gets to see because it might pertain to public interests. Moreover, even when this is true, it isn't the scientists doing the work who are addressing the public usually, with a few high profile exceptions which were mentioned previously in the thread.

In the end though convincing people is still not their job even when they have to do it. This gets passed off to journalists because scientists aren't doing their real job if they are busy talking to you.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
[MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION]
Additionally when the public is addressed it isn't usually a realtime dialog. The scientist doesn't sit down and write a letter and mail it. They write a paper or do an interview with a journalist and it's somebody else's job to use that to do any necessary convincing. The journalist is some times another scientist, but regardless there's really no direct line of inquiry. It's not like you ask them questions and they speak back to you, the dialogue goes through channels which are several times removed and handled by various kinds of specialists.

Edit:
Also another important thing slipped my mind - just because they manage to convince Congress of anything doesn't mean that they understand anything. When it comes to getting funds, explaining things sufficiently is not nearly as important as getting people to think that you explained things sufficiently.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
[MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION] But don't you want to know why we just spent $800 K building a treadmill for some shrimp?
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
See [MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION]. If scientists like Professor Skolnick would explain their research, the public wouldn't think they were wasting millions on a shrimp treadmill.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
See [MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION]. If scientists like Professor Skolnick would explain their research, the public wouldn't think they were wasting millions on a shrimp treadmill.

If people wouldn't go around saying shit that isn't true there'd be a lot less to explain.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
See [MENTION=16071]sprinkles[/MENTION]. If scientists like Professor Skolnick would explain their research, the public wouldn't think they were wasting millions on a shrimp treadmill.

Moreover scientists don't need to refute every foolish claim that comes along. If they did, any political opponent could keep them busy by gumming up the works with stupid bullshit. A scientific filibuster. Just keep saying that the government is paying scientists $500 billion to find pink unicorns (pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows) and you'd halt progress if they have to take time to defend it every fricking time something stupid gets said.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

He'd have done more good writing a book against egocentrism. (Hat tip to Tom Weller and the 1986 Hugo award winning Science Made Stupid).
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

Theoretical science often serves as a brake on wasteful pursuits of practical application: for example thermodynamics places strict limits on the maximum efficiency of heat exchangers and engines; forbid the widely amusing attempts to construct working perpetual motion machines; but consensus masquerading as theory (e.g. old theories of the causes of ulcers) often lead to promising results being undiscovered on the grounds that "nothing can be done".

That's why it's important to "turn over the rocks and look under them" when examining scientific claims.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Theoretical science often serves as a brake on wasteful pursuits of practical application: for example thermodynamics places strict limits on the maximum efficiency of heat exchangers and engines; forbid the widely amusing attempts to construct working perpetual motion machines; but consensus masquerading as theory (e.g. old theories of the causes of ulcers) often lead to promising results being undiscovered on the grounds that "nothing can be done".

That's why it's important to "turn over the rocks and look under them" when examining scientific claims.

True. Both aspects need each other (and in fact depend on each other in a feedback loop)
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So while science and engineering are technically different, they overlap considerably and often share the same goals.
Not to mention there is applied science, in which scientific research is directed toward understanding the basic concepts necessary for developing specific applications, or categories of application. These people work closely with engineers to transition what they learn into designs and devices.
 
Top