User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 41

  1. #21
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    135 so/sp
    Posts
    8,697

    Default

    I have started this thread because it looks to me that public and science are going in different directions.

    What I mean by this is that the public is loosing connection with science.

    Average person does not know almost anything about it and I am sure that they are not even aware of how much they don't know. Plus they don't look to interested in this topic.
    There is also a fact that the problems of the society(s) are getting more and more complex as tech. level grows. But the catch is that the public is not prepared for them materially and psychically.

    Also it is very easy to make someone believe that something is this way or that way when person does not know 99% of story.
    Believe me, when you are reading some scientific magazine you are barely scratching the surface.


    What leads to some scenarios.

    1. Science is stoped because it is going too far.
    We already have that way of thinking is society but I think that this leads to disaster because of many reason.


    2. Society starts huge scientific education programe but the results are questionable if you ask me.


    3.Most likely scenario everything stays as it is.
    But that means that the rift will be growing if the future. What leads to question: What then?

    I say that because this means that the public will no longer be reliable for making decisions. Also if you add political propaganda in the equation there is no way that there can be a good result.

    What in the end means that modern democracy and science are not compatibile with each other. The only thing that can slow the process down is creating elections that are just symbolic.
    I would not be suprised if we are already on this this level.

    The only thing that can happen on the long run with this scenario is that scientists and engineers accumulate enough knowledge that they can do whatever they want with the world.
    Someone once said "There is only one reason why this world is not destroyed by some deadly virus - ethics of experts."

    So, as time goes by this efect will probably be more and more obvious.


    If my position is not clear, I am future scientist and if some parts need to be explained to a greater detail it can be done.

    This is what this thread is all about.

  2. #22
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Wrong. If you're going to talk about falsification, you have to realise that theories can't be "proven" empirically. They can only be falsified. i.e. A theory can never be "right", it can only be of the property "has not have been proven wrong". And if you say that something "falsifiable" is scientific and something that is "unfalsifiable" is pseudoscience (Karl Popper's definition), you are excluding String theory from "science", because it is unfalsifiable. Similarly evolution from biology, and many, many other things that have been accepted as "scientific truth".
    Agreed that there's no absolute truth in science... but there is relative truth and that is what empirical testing gets at. Science is to increase our understanding of the world. Obviously it can only answer the "how" and not the "why". About proving theories, perhaps I've used the word "prove" too loosely. What I meant (and I'm sure you well know already) is if something fails to be falsified, then it's probably true under the tested conditions. This is what I meant by "proving" the relative truth. Not that it's true under all circumstances.

    Also, Karl Popper (and the other falsificationists) asserted that ad hoc modifications are a property of psuedoscience. He says that you should throw out completely old theories that have been "falsified" by data. But again, that's not true of the nature of science, which does not "progress" in a linear fashion. There is a whole branch of philosophy of science that delves into the nature of research, research ethics and its links to science... and there is, again, no common consensus.
    For people who want to find ways to cheat, they'll always be able to. Please read up on what exactly the scientific method is. When you've done so, you'll see scientists are suppose to follow a very rigid set of methodology for precisely this purpose.

    Is string theory science? A lot of scientists don't think it falls under the traditional heading. As to evolution, assess the data for yourself. Are there any cases where life cannot have originated from evolution? The same cannot be said for other, I'll put it loosely, "theories" like creationism. Until the Darwin's theory is proven incorrect, I'll stick to it.

    It is a lot more complicated than you think... Which is why I think it's silly to teach people that science is "this concept of falsification", and think that they have a "true understanding" of what's going on. It's like telling lies to children all over again.
    I'm not sure where you get this idea that scientists have a complete understanding of anything. That's not true. I can describe something to you with all the caveats... how we conducted the experiment, under what conditions... that we obtained a statistically significant result. But once you start going into the details, people get turned off.

    To provide enough interest to educate people, we're stuck with summarizing... in other words, simplifying our results. It's a pity that the public have so little contact with actual research scientists. So any "science" they get are filtered through numerous sources and it's bound to get muddled.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Is is "true" understanding if you don't know the context? Do the people advocating that others "learn about science" actually know the context of the thinking that they're advocating? Or are people advocating that others learn scientific dogma?
    It's definitely no complete understanding if that's what you meant by "true". But if you understand the fundamentals, it helps make it easier for you to understand the rest. And it certainly helps get across the point that science isn't magic.

    I personally find it terribly condescending, all of this "people who could bother to learn would actually understand science" talk. That is what I'm arguing against. If the professionals don't know basic concepts out of their field, and if the philosophers can't agree on what is "science", how can we even talk about "understanding" and "science" in such general terms? It's based on nothing but personal impressions of science and prejudices.
    It is not condescending at all. People have varying interests... and it's not their fault that science seems to them to be so dull and filled with equations and numbers etc that sounds overly complicated. The problem is in outreach. The science community is doing a very poor job of educating the public. That's why you see rampant pseudoscience taken as truth.

  3. #23
    Senior Member gloomy-optimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Well, if that's what you're aiming at Antisocial One, then I am definitely inclined to agree. But the problem is not just an issue of science vs. the general public.
    I say that because it goes beyond just science. People are becoming less informed on more topics; they are constantly being bombarded with information, so they can only truly learn very select few topics.
    That's one of the set backs of the information age. We're growing too quickly for our own good; in the last 60 years alone we saw a rate of advancement that before took hundreds of years . And we have more info at our disposal than ever before. People are getting shorter attention spans and concentration issues....it's kind of becoming too much, and yet I don't know if there's really much of a way to stop it at this point. We're too far along to stop now; too many industries rely on this rapid advancement.

    Growth is a way towards a mean; you grow to achieve a goal. Growth for the sheer sake of growth can spiral out of control...scientifically, commercially, socially, and in all areas in between

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    I couldn't trace a broken circuit on a fried board, but I could do a small-angle x-ray diffraction experiment at the synchrotron alone. It's all about context, training and areas of specialisation.

    Most physicists have no idea about basic molecular biology. Same thing can be said of molecular biologists and basic quantum physics. I think it's unfair to expect the "general public" to understand even basic scientific concepts if they have no interest in science or research. The onus is on the scientific community to educate and explain in a context that relates to the daily lives of "non-science" people. People don't expect me to be able to write essays dissecting Keynesian economics if I don't care in the least about economics and am not working in that field. Why should science be any different?

    I guess what you want people to say is, "no, they (the general public) can't, obviously. you need to be trained for years and decades to even understand a portion of what's going on". What I personally believe is that scientists often over-state what they know, cover up assumptions and obfuscate what they don't know. I am speaking from personal experience and observation. Almost everyone thinks that everyone else is full of crap and only in a certain field for the money. What is true understanding? Is there a true position that can be described for any given field for "modern science"? (I would assume science that is cutting-edge.)

    Personally, I think this is a silly topic that assumes a lot, can lead to no justifiable conclusion and therefore serves no purpose.
    Let's not get carried away here. This all depends on how basic "basic" is.

    An interested science enthusiast can understand quite a bit about modern science. You don't have to be able to do research in a field to know the basics. You don't have to be researching in a field to make sense of the results coming out, even at the cutting edge.

    I know several people, and the technical industries are replete with people, transfering between feilds of science and technology. There is a LOT of overlap. I know several Electrical Engineers who switched to work in biotech, material science, and chemical processes, without going back to school. I know several people who majored in chemistry or biology working as software or electrical engineers. Of course, EE and CS is almost interchangable and often in the same department in schools.

    Note, the laws of probability and the use of inferential statistics is the same from field to field. A t-test is a t-test, a chi-square is a chi-sqare, p-value are p-values. I actually took some of my STAT classes as an EE from the Biomedicine department. It is the same.

    Biological and chemical systems will not violate the laws of physics, and to understand systems fully many life-science programs have extensive "physical" and "chemical" coursework.

    Linear Systems concepts are the same whether one is talking about mechanical ones, chemical ones, electrical ones, thermal ones, or even biological ones (if they are can be modeled linearly). Non-linear dynamics is the same no matter what the underlying system is.

    It will be interesting to see if you still believe years of re-training will be needed to switch technical feilds after you've worked in industry for a while. Teams tend to be interdisciplinary. There is exposure to other fields if you are curious enough to pick up the knowledge.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #25
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gloomy-optimist View Post
    I don't think you're backing up any of your propositions. There is definitely a defined scientific method; the scientific community is surprisingly organized. It would be hard for scientists to use each others data without a method behind it.

    I'm not sure what you mean when you imply that no one actually knows what science is. And I definitely don't believe that science is just a "lie to children" especially considering the advancements the scientific community has made. Lies means we're teaching a false principle; if you known how much we have learned or discovered or utilized, then you'll see that that is not true. No matter what it is, you can't really say it is a "lie."

    Post some examples of philosophers that can't agree what science is, please.

    I respect your passion behind your argument, but I can't see the basis to it. I don't know how you're getting your information or whether or not you're actually educated on the subject.
    Please back up your arguments with some examples, sources, etc. Being "fired up" alone isn't too convincing.
    OK, here is some material, available from the assigned reading in any philosophy of science class:
    Feyerabend's "Against Method", 1975
    T.S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", 1962 (Good starting point, considering that it's the most cited book in the philosophy of science)

    Change in definition of "the scientific method"/expansions
    Imre Lakatos' "Proofs and Refutations", 1976

    History has proven, time again, that science does not progress via "the scientific method". (Just read Kuhn for this.)

    I am not going to expand on the above, because you can do the reading yourself.

    I am not saying that science is a "lie to children". I have never said that, and never will. I am saying that teaching "simplified" science out of context is in the vein of lies to children. And that would be the form taught to the "general public" so that they could supposedly "understand" science... Apparently "expanding" their knowledge but in fact making them think that they "know".

    e.g. People know that "scientifically", the reason why a solution is green is because it reflects that wavelength of light, and therefore conclude that every solution that is green reflects that wavelength of light (not true, because its fluorescence emission wavelength could coincide with the wavelength of "green" light). Explaining the principles are one thing. Explaining context (which takes far more time) is another.

    If someone asked me why a solution is green? I'd say that it could be this, or that, or something else, I don't know. Science is based on being a skeptic. My biggest beef with "teaching simplified science just so that everyone can apparently understand what's going on" is that it does not encourage skepticism (and therefore "growth in science"). What it encourages is wholesale faith (which I do see a lot), lack of context and dogmaticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by gloomy-optimist
    And scientists definitely do understand concepts outside of their own field of specialization; maybe not so indepth that they could tell you the reasoning behind all manners of topics going on in that field, but there is not a scientist with a diploma out there that has not had training in quite a few fields. They just specialize in one field.
    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo
    It will be interesting to see if you still believe years of re-training will be needed to switch technical feilds after you've worked in industry for a while. Teams tend to be interdisciplinary. There is exposure to other fields if you are curious enough to pick up the knowledge.
    Um, I am specialised in several fields myself. A structural biologist by training, with background in organic synthesis, molecular biology, x-ray crystallography, mass spectrometry and a few other things. BUT I don't claim to "understand" x-ray crystallography, or many of the mechanisms in organic synthesis, or even the reasons why certain molecular biology protocols just don't work. It's just that I don't have the time or energy (curiousity is not a factor) to "understand" it. With 3 separate projects and a class to teach, you just take what works, and go with it (i.e. I am pragmatic). I'm saying that if even most scientists just go for "what works" for them professionally, why should the general public even take an interest?

    Also, w.r.t. teams being inter-disciplinary: That is completely true, and also completely untrue. It's a team, because there are people with various skills that complement each other. Protein science can also be applicable to organic chemistry and vice versa - doesn't mean that the protein scientists will understand organic chemistry or know organic chemistry, and the same is also true of the organic chemists. I am currently on an inter-disciplinary team that is looking at linking quantum dots (nanoparticles) to a specific protein (my specialisation). The chemists know nothing about proteins, and no one can explain why the nanoparticles are so unstable in various solutions. There is collaboration, yes. It is inter-disciplinary, yes. But people don't know about other fields - they rely on "experts" to do it, or be unable to do it, and give them an answer. That's the point of collaboration - not so that you can "understand" another field or get exposure - to publish papers that other specialised labs wouldn't be able to publish!

    Quote Originally Posted by gloomy-optimist
    And the OP post "Can the general public understand the position of modern science." Don't warp the topic to your own devices.
    Did not warp the topic. I took issues with the terms "the position" (which assumes that there is one position), "modern science" (what is "modern"?) and in the secondary topic (Can somebody who is not a scientist have the right picture about the science? ) the term "right picture" (which assumes that there is a "right" picture that can be observed).

    Seeing as none of the terms were properly defined and that every individual term can be a discussion in itself, I concluded that there could be no reasonable conclusion to this discussion. I was not alone in the assessment that the topic and terms were ill-defined, if you look at other people's posts. It's just that I got a lot more emotional about it, because it propogates prejudices that I'm trying to dispel.

    Will reply to the rest when I get food and rest.

  6. #26
    Senior Member gloomy-optimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Okay; that's an argument I can follow
    Teaching simplified science, although it may not do justice to the entire process, is about the best we can do at a level below university. There is too broad a spectrum to learn; even as it is, kids have to take at least a year of chemistry, biology, and physics, with an extra afterwards; naturally, one could not understand the precise details of a field in that time. It is simplified so that they can get a general view point that they can expand later if they want to follow up with it; if not, then it is enough education to get them through the world with enough understanding to function.
    Should they teach skepticism? Perhaps, but I'm not sure how useful it would be to the general public. Most people do not need to know the exact reason why the solution is green; the principle is usually as much they need. A non-scientist doesn't need to understand the major context behind an event; they need to know how to use it. That does not require as much skepticism.

    I'll agree that scientists do not have to understand all of the other fields they are collaborating with. However, they do have to have a basic understanding of what the other field does and how that ties into their own area of knowledge. And the scientific method, although it does not always progress science, does allow for a pattern of organization between these fields and across continents. Anymore, when scientists are trying to share their discoveries with others that speak different languages and have different customs, they need to have some sort of layout to follow, especially in a way that allows for recreation of experiments. If something can not be recreated and, therefore, proven or disproven, then it becomes very debatable about whether or not it is credible. Therefore, it gives method to the madness, and it is definitely arguable that in contemporary science it is necessary.
    That is not to say that it is necessary to science for the sake of science. If I am not mistaken, the scientific method wasn't even developed until Galileo's time, and there have been many progressive scientific discoveries before him.
    But the scientific method, now, helps people to understand the way science is proven/disproven in modern times, and it is a good start in understand what science itself encompasses.

    And I am aware that others were off topic; you just seemed rather forcefully so. But you're making some very good points now, and I respect your opinion

  7. #27
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    135 so/sp
    Posts
    8,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gloomy-optimist View Post
    Well, if that's what you're aiming at Antisocial One, then I am definitely inclined to agree. But the problem is not just an issue of science vs. the general public.
    I say that because it goes beyond just science. People are becoming less informed on more topics; they are constantly being bombarded with information, so they can only truly learn very select few topics.
    That's one of the set backs of the information age. We're growing too quickly for our own good; in the last 60 years alone we saw a rate of advancement that before took hundreds of years . And we have more info at our disposal than ever before. People are getting shorter attention spans and concentration issues....it's kind of becoming too much, and yet I don't know if there's really much of a way to stop it at this point. We're too far along to stop now; too many industries rely on this rapid advancement.

    Growth is a way towards a mean; you grow to achieve a goal. Growth for the sheer sake of growth can spiral out of control...scientifically, commercially, socially, and in all areas in between
    True, but you can do something about other parts of the problem while this part unavoidably goes in this direction.


    Nonsequitur I agree with your claims and that we need much more skepticism in this world on all levels not just science.

    As for thread title I did not think of a better one but I agree that this title
    isn't perfect.

  8. #28
    Senior Member gloomy-optimist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    True, but you can do something about other parts of the problem while this part unavoidably goes in this direction.


    Nonsequitur I agree with your claims and that we need much more skepticism in this world on all levels not just science.

    As for thread title I did not think of a better one but I agree that this title
    isn't perfect.
    Yeah; the issue is figuring out how. It's very easy to point out areas that have problems; the hard part is changing the makeup of society to fix it :/
    Skepticism is good when routed in the right direction; skepticism towards everything can lead to a lot of unhealthy consequences. I agree there should be more skepticism in science, but if skepticism is to be taught, it needs to be taught in a way that people can understand where and how to be properly skeptical...

  9. #29
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    135 so/sp
    Posts
    8,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gloomy-optimist View Post
    Yeah; the issue is figuring out how. It's very easy to point out areas that have problems; the hard part is changing the makeup of society to fix it :/
    Skepticism is good when routed in the right direction; skepticism towards everything can lead to a lot of unhealthy consequences. I agree there should be more skepticism in science, but if skepticism is to be taught, it needs to be taught in a way that people can understand where and how to be properly skeptical...
    Of course.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Um, I am specialised in several fields myself. A structural biologist by training, with background in organic synthesis, molecular biology, x-ray crystallography, mass spectrometry and a few other things. BUT I don't claim to "understand" x-ray crystallography, or many of the mechanisms in organic synthesis, or even the reasons why certain molecular biology protocols just don't work. It's just that I don't have the time or energy (curiousity is not a factor) to "understand" it. With 3 separate projects and a class to teach, you just take what works, and go with it (i.e. I am pragmatic). I'm saying that if even most scientists just go for "what works" for them professionally, why should the general public even take an interest?
    First off, I appologize if I offended you--I was a little surprized you only quoted just the last part of my post. For some reason, I got the impression that you were just a year or two out of college. It is not meant as an insult, but I knew people in technical fields who said similar things as RCGs but changed after working for many years. But that was not meant to change anybody's mind, and it is certainly possible people believe that long retrainings are a necessity even after seeing many others make career transitions without needing them.
    ---
    In response to the ideas that "simplifed" science is harmful, and the idea that even scientists don't know what is happening in science, there are a few points I wanted to make (hopefully, they are self-evident):

    1) First and most importantly, it is not an all-or-nothing matter. There are different levels of sumarization. One does not have to have run the experiments (or even similar experiments) to make sense of the results. Certainly, the more closely you've worked to a particular line of research and development the deeper your understanding will be.

    2) Second, there is a vast difference between an accurate "simplificaton" (sumarization) and misinformation.

    3) The general public ought to know general science, for the same reasons they ought to know how to read, and how to do basic calculations. Note, I am not saying people won't survive if not scientifically literate. But like general literacy, it will elevate the level and content of discourse when scientific literacy is nearly universal.

    4) There may be no "scientific cannon" and no real "scientific method" to learn. But skepticism alone does not make someone scientifically literate. There are still rather well established concepts in science (which are of course apporximate) that a sceintifically educated people knows. You can call it "faith" if you want, but I would prefer that the general public have faith in these approxomate truths to nonsense or magical thiking, or simply held onto their myths while being irrationally skeptical of science.

    ---
    I am purposely gong to pick gross approximations.

    The Earth is kind of a sphere. Opposite poles of a magnet attract. F=ma. Atoms make up the matter around us. Germs can make us sick. We can control the features of animals through breeding.

    These are all "general science" concepts that lay-people learn. But if they were not taught, what would people go around thinking?

    The earth is flat, just look at it.
    There are "magic" attraction forces, I don't believe in your poles.
    Force just imparts a bit of movement, it is not proportional to acceleration-look *pushes object*.
    There is no proof that atoms exist--look at this table--it is solid.
    Hand-washing does nothing for health (not even for doctors)--I mean c'mon, invisible things that float around and make us sick?

    This is an exageration, but people held these sorts of beliefs at one point and you will still find uneducated people who believe things like this.

    Imagine, in addition, if they voted against reseach on germs because they thought it similar to believing in fairies?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Also, w.r.t. teams being inter-disciplinary: That is completely true, and also completely untrue. It's a team, because there are people with various skills that complement each other. Protein science can also be applicable to organic chemistry and vice versa - doesn't mean that the protein scientists will understand organic chemistry or know organic chemistry, and the same is also true of the organic chemists. I am currently on an inter-disciplinary team that is looking at linking quantum dots (nanoparticles) to a specific protein (my specialisation). The chemists know nothing about proteins, and no one can explain why the nanoparticles are so unstable in various solutions. There is collaboration, yes. It is inter-disciplinary, yes. But people don't know about other fields - they rely on "experts" to do it, or be unable to do it, and give them an answer. That's the point of collaboration - not so that you can "understand" another field or get exposure - to publish papers that other specialised labs wouldn't be able to publish!
    It's good that we have a concrete example that you know well. Because I belive my reasoning is general enough to work on any example, and as long as you are honest, I think I can persuade you that it works on your own example, too.

    To illustrate different levels of accurate simplification.... Despite saying that chemists know nothing about proteins, I think you will have to admit that they know enough about them to be working on the project. Also, despite not being a protein scientist I and also many science enthusiasts who read nature, lifescientist, or other science magazines know that quantum dots can be used to mark proteins as a means locate or identify molecules that contain that protein. I don't know what you mean by "linking" but I have some base-line for trying to understand what you are doing. What are you doing , BTW?
    I find your blanket statement that "people don't know about other fields" to be false. The people working together have to know enough about what the other is doing to interface with each-other. In arenas of scientific collaboration, the base-line knowledge of someone scientifically trained (espeacially in a similar feild) will be vastly superior to a layperson. Do you believe this to be false in your own team? If it is false, has it been detrimental?

    Also, who is going to read your publications? Your own team? What is the point of that? Don't you have people who are interested in your results? Who is funding you? What "field" does your money source have to be from to "understand" your results?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. Can the brain understand the brain?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-28-2011, 08:16 PM
  2. [sp] Think I might be sx/sp but I still can't quite understand the definitions of them all
    By FalseHeartDothKnow in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 05:16 PM
  3. Why does modern science scares you?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 07:34 PM
  4. Can Es be quiet? Can Js be messy? Questions of broad MBTI descriptions.
    By Mort Belfry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 08:33 AM

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