It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
haha, that's because there's almost an equal ammount of crazy finatics agaisnt Christians (go watch an origins debate....you got cuckos on both sides of the nest) and Republicans and Democrats duke it out here better than they conspiracy theorize. There's a need for a don't think scifi group jsut so they have crazies on both sides of the line...
Originally posted by whaaa
Couldn't the same thing be said of Christians, Conservatives, Democrats, and people in general. Why single out the "conspiracy community".
Way too true.
Originally posted by MadMachinist
how many times have you heard the phrase "you have to think outside the box" kinda ironic that scientist would say this because people are thinking outside the box.
But then again the uptight scientific community has always been against non-scientist thinking outside the box, that would be part of the reason why alot of them wont come forward because they know they would be excommunicated from the scientific community.
See, this whole paper is in danger of these principles. btw, the story is cute, go read it.
Moral 1: Science consists of two processes, deduction and induction.
Deduction goes from the general to the specific: making predictions based on theories. Induction goes from the specific to the general: pulling observations together to create a new theory. The nice thing about deduction is, if you do it right, the conclusion is always right (at least as right as the theory it starts with!). Induction, no matter how well you do it, is always suspect, and frequently wrong.
Nonetheless, real science consists primary of induction! (This is also why I chose to write this as a fable, story-first moral-second, instead of giving some general points and then saying "here is a story that illustrates them." If I've done my job, my general morals are obvious from my specific story. You got them by induction!)
Moral 2: Everyone likes to have theories that are right. Scientists spend a lot of time making predictions, and hoping they will come true. But they actually don't learn much when they do! The real learning happens when the predictions don't come true. In many cases, the scientists themselves refuse to believe the key results that lead to the new theories. (Moral 2': scientists are people too. They like to be right as much as anybody.)
Moral 3: Wrong theories are still useful. Every one of Fred's theories was eventually proven wrong, or at the very least, to be a specific case of a more general principle. Einstein is probably wrong too. But each theory is a building block to the next, bigger theory: and each one is also useful, as long as you work within the domain in which it is true. Almost everything we build today is based on 19th century Physics, which has been known to be very fundamentally wrong for almost a hundred years. But it's still useful for making cars and bridges and rockets and anything else that isn't too fast or too big or too small.
Moral 4: Sometimes you get so caught up in the excitement of science, you forget to eat. Which about wraps it up for Fred, I'm afraid.
I am entertained.
The "hypothetico-deductive" schema taught to students was not developed as a method at all: It was intended a logical analysis of how scientific theories derive support from evidence, and it was developed in a process that intentionally excluded consideration of the process of discovery in science. Few people learn that this notion came by a tangled route from an unreliable source (philosophical speculation), or that actual research on how science proceeds is still in its infancy. The question of how science is so successful at improving understanding is hardly ever presented as a question at all.
The current situation is harmful in many ways: People in some immature scientific disciplines are actually trying to use this "method" as a guide to research practice; Others are required to pretend to have followed it when they report their results; and everyone is denied the benefit of useful, insightful analysis of how science works.
A real scientist fears not the powers of the unknown or superstition. he fears nothing but an end of discovery.
Originally posted by behindthescenes
I just wanted everyone to know that the National Science Foundation recently concluded...
...may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality...
...may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills...