Cargo Cult Science • Richard P. Feynman

a reply to: GetHyped

Sometimes crappy evidence is worse than no evidence because people can leap to faulty conclusions based on bad data. Credulous anecdotes for extraordinary claims fall under this category.

So you have seen and tested the computer modelling that underlies climate change rhetoric? Or do you also subscribe to anecdotal evidence, after all its only hearsay

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I don't think you know what "anecdotal evidence" means or what the scientific method is. Seriously, what a bizarrely ignorant argument.

a reply to: GetHyped

By your logic, the entire fields of observational science aren't science. That's just silly.

Your comment above is even sillier. You failed in even addressing the unscientific anecdotal assessment of the mechanics opinion as to the better brakes. If you applied the same criticism of posters unscientific stories when discussing your car servicing with a mechanic I think you would never get your car serviced. No mechanic would entertain you. Try living in the real world.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Yeah, no offence but I'm not going to engage with your bizarre ramblings.

a reply to: GetHyped

I don't think you know what "anecdotal evidence" means or what the scientific method is. Seriously, what a bizarrely ignorant argument.

Do you lack comprehension skills, I'll repeat the question, or are you going to deflect again?

So you have seen and tested the computer modelling that underlies climate change rhetoric? Or do you also subscribe to anecdotal evidence, after all its only hearsay

a reply to: GetHyped

Yeah, no offence but I'm not going to engage with your bizarre ramblings.

Again you dont want to reference the post that you critiqued, and start name calling.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: James1982

By your logic, the entire fields of observational science aren't science. That's just silly.

It's not my logic, it's the logic of the person in the article. They are saying how the word science is being abused by being applied to things which don't rigidly follow the scientific method. Yet this same criteria is abandoned when it comes to climate science or other sciences which are pushed by the mainstream.

He dismisses certain fields of study as not being scientific because they don't follow a specific model, yet that same model isn't used in other sciences that are seen as beyond reproach so there is some hypocrisy at play here.

a reply to: James1982

So the fields of, say, geology, archeology, paleontology and astrophysics aren't science? Well, suffice to say, they are. Science is not confined to what can be replicated in a laboratory.

"Observational science is theoretical, experimental and applied research related to oceanic, atmospheric, and terrestrial sciences. The ultimate goal of observational science is a better description of the world around us."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Observational science. A third branch of science (which can be considered a type of
experimental science) is observational science. Often, it is not feasible to perform a
controlled study of scientific phenomena. For example, an astronomer simply
cannot travel to the distant stars, but must rely on collecting and interpreting the
light from the cosmos. Similarly, Earth system scientists cannot control any system
to observe the large-scale effects on other systems. Thus, observational science
depends on seeing and watching less than manipulating or applying laws and
principles.

www.usc.edu...

I'm sorry to say but it seems to be that I'm the only person in this thread that I'm engaging with who's actually backing up their statements with actual sources and evidence. I'm not interested in playing the game of "nuh uh you're wrong because I said so" so unless you (or anyone else) is prepared to back up their statements with credible sources then I won't be engaging any further.

a reply to: GetHyped

The Scientific Method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Hypotheses are things you suspect, not things you believe.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: bastion

Witnessing something isn't scientific

As a trained observer I apply scientific criteria to anything entering my MK 1 eyeballs. One aspect of Science after all, is a process of informed observation.

When you look trough a microscope, a telescope or review any instruments reading you look at that with your eyeballs and interpret the results with your brain.

Disregarding observed data might as well be reading brail as a blind man.

Basing experiments purely in interpretation is amateur at best.

By using the equipment you list, it's easy to take data and measurements and data which others can try and explain or reproduce the sane experiment/effect. That's what separates science from voodoo.

Eyeballing and self interpreting things just leads to corrupt data and interpretations, I've been guilty of it myself far too many times.

originally posted by: intrptr
Hypotheses are things you suspect, not things you believe.

While 100% true in the way science should be done manner - it's tricky to embark on a several year journey to see if a revolutionary observation/equation is correct without a vague belief that ui may be right (otherwise why waste your time?) however it's incredibly important to constantly remind yourself this is faith/belief and nit take it personalty when it turns out to be rubbish,

a reply to: bastion

While 100% true in the way science should be done manner - it's tricky to embark on a several year journey to see if a revolutionary observation/equation is correct without a vague belief that ui may be right (otherwise why waste your time?) however it's incredibly important to constantly remind yourself this is faith/belief and nit take it personalty when it turns out to be rubbish,

It can be similar in anguish to the discovery of one's wife's infidelity. Painful and confidence shaking but, just part of the realization that things and people don't always adhere to our expectations.

A thick skin and ability to approximate disinterest are prerequisites to a competent and reasonably objective would-be scientist.

my beef is with the original post, with Mr. Feynman lumping in UFO's, with astrology and mysticism. apples to oranges, and the fact that he seems to be a rather intelligent guy, deliberate.....both astrology and mysticism are of the "mind" only, meaning that outside ones own thoughts, there is no evidence they exist, hence, they are a belief. there is no way one can record or measure, astrology and mysticism. to lump in UFO's with those two things is disingenuous.

a reply to: jimmyx

I would agree with that.

Economics is not a science either and praxeology is purely a priori logical ratiocination. There is no end to the exploration of it as a field, we just can't justifiably call it a "science".

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jimmyx

I would agree with that.

Economics is not a science either and praxeology is purely a priori logical ratiocination. There is no end to the exploration of it as a field, we just can't justifiably call it a "science".

agreed, economics has too many variables, generated by the whims of humans, and of course, the bastardization of statistical data....for instance, the fact that as a whole, the top 10% of wealth pay the aggregate share of taxes, but as a percentage of assets and/or income the least amount...

I think I have been blinded by science..




youtu.be...

a reply to: jimmyx

Feynman was said to be a master at bypassing security, or maybe he just decided for himself the clearance measures needed for declassification?

a reply to: jimmyx

UFOs are phenomena which, for all intents and purposes, are not quantifiable. There is anecdotal evidence that they "exist" but as far as attributing them to any particular source or cause, not so much.