Science! - Why the bad rap? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Traab

2011-06-09, 07:41 AM

The main issue has already been covered, its because on any scientific issue there are people on all sides of the fence. Thats the difference between a mechanic and a scientist. A mechanic deals in facts. This causes that, this fixes that. Scientists deal in THEORIES. Virtually everything is a theory, and the reason for that is because scientists cant come up with a hypothesis that covers every aspect.

Take climate change as the current hot button issue. Man made global warming is a contentious subject because everyone has their own theory, their own climate model graphs, and their own evidence as to whats causing what. One scientists relies on tree rings as a temperature gauge for previous centuries, while another relies on recorded history, both reach wildly different results. Who is wrong? WHO KNOWS?! That ignores the doubt cast on findings as we learn who is funding the scientists in question and learn that, surprise surprise, environmentalist groups are funding scientists who say man is to blame, while big energy corporation scientists say its all natural causes.

Feytalist

2011-06-09, 07:53 AM

Scientists are in the business of pushing the boundaries of knowledge, and people tend not to trust what you don't know or understand.

If, however, we would hear about a bunch of physicists going "Hey you guys, we've totally just invented antigravity!" everyone would take note, because everyone understands the concept.

This is why everyone should read more SF.

On the other hand, very little of (new) science is cut and dried. There are bound to be contradictions, anomalies or just pure statistical variance in the outcomes. It is very difficult to trust anything that gets disproved on a regular basis.

Toastkart

2011-06-09, 07:58 AM

I think in large part it's a disconnect between world views. The more abstract and theoretical that science gets, the less relevant it is for ordinary living.

Similarly, there's a disconnect of language. Scientific terms mean specific things that aren't always the same as a word's ordinary meaning. For example, punishment is intended to deter bad behavior, but in psychological terms, punishment is only punishment only if it actually successfully decreases the frequency of a behavior.

In addition, there's access. Most of our everyday access to science is through news media that twist, sensationalize, and sometimes outright misrepresent what actual findings are. Finding the actual full text of a peer reviewed journal article is usually very difficult. If they're in an electronic format at all, they're often locked away behind costly subscriptions. I can't count the number of times I've found an article that would be useful in a research paper or project, both for in-class and out of class work, that I couldn't access because of a subscription. and I'm working on a masters degree.

Speaking more generally, I think part of why we tend to distrust science so much is because we've put them on such a pedestal. Science is supposed to be the means by which we discover the cold hard facts and the absolute truth of the universe. Facts and truths don't exist. All we have is evidence that supports theories. That's another disconnect. We're culturally ingrained to believe that there is an objective truth out there, be it moral truth or scientific truth, when there really isn't.

pendell

2011-06-09, 08:16 AM

Something has been puzzling me for a while now. Why don't people believe scientists when they talk about their areas of expertise? And, more generally, why is science viewed as either useless, or even wrong? I mean, people trust a mechanic to fix a car, and an electrician to wire a plug, but apparently doctors medical advice is worthless, and a climate scientist has no idea. Why?

Speaking as someone who deals regularly with science skeptics , I think it's because , while scientists have achieved spectacular success, science has also produced some real turkeys (http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/20/reasontv-the-top-five-environm) , too.

Case in point: Back in the 1970s, there were constant predictions that the world would run out of oil AND food by the 1980s. The 1980s came and went, and the predictions continue to come in for the 21st century.

It has also been my experience that scientists are sometimes like lawyers. There are extremely good and ethical ones out there. But it's very rare to find someone who will be disloyal to their paymaster. Don't expect a scientist at the Morris Tobacco Institute to come out with a paper criticizing tobacco, any more than you would expect a lawyer to argue against his client.

Most science is paid for by somebody. Most of the time, that 'somebody' is large private firms or government bureaucracies which have some agenda other than pursuit of the unvarnished truth. And that leads us to suppressed research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union).

I have nothing but respect for scientists with integrity and a fearless determination to seek the truth without regard to whether it costs them their tenure and funding or not. Sadly, the other kind of scientist -- the kind who's really nothing more than an expert witness, a paid advocate putting his knowledge at the service of the highest bidder -- exists too.

I trust a car mechanic because *I* am paying him to fix my car. But I do not trust a mechanic at a used car dealership when he tells me the car I am wanting to purchase is "in good shape". I'll take it to an independent mechanic who's paid by me, not by the dealership, and whose interest is in diagnosing my car, not in helping to sell cars.

Make sense?

Scientists are sometimes not trusted because scientists are like any other kind of human. It's rarely safe to assume any human is acting against his or her own best interest.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Eldan

2011-06-09, 08:17 AM

No, seriously.
Anyone got any examples of this? Because I'm reasonably sure I've never seen this outside of Hollywood movies.

pendell

2011-06-09, 08:21 AM

No, seriously.
Anyone got any examples of this? Because I'm reasonably sure I've never seen this outside of Hollywood movies.

What particular example of WHAT are you looking for? Science skepticism is alive and well here in the US. It's typically based on Forbidden Topics, though, so I may have to give you your example in PM. You can follow the links in my previous post also, for an example of what you're looking for.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gravitron5000

2011-06-09, 08:22 AM

The main issue has already been covered, its because on any scientific issue there are people on all sides of the fence. Thats the difference between a mechanic and a scientist. A mechanic deals in facts. This causes that, this fixes that. Scientists deal in THEORIES. Virtually everything is a theory, and the reason for that is because scientists cant come up with a hypothesis that covers every aspect.

One thing that should be pointed out that could explain some of the disconnect is that what an average person means by the term theory and what a scientist means by that same term are different. The average person uses theory the same way a scientist uses hypothesis. Theory to them means that I have an idea on how this works. To a scientist a theory is a concept that has a large body of evidence that supports a conclusion, and which has no contradicting evidence. A theory to a scientist can pretty much be taken as a statement of fact, unless something comes around that refutes or falsifies that theory, in which case that theory is no longer a theory.

Tengu_temp

2011-06-09, 08:30 AM

The short answer is that many people are anti-intellectual idiots. The long answer I see mostly as a combination of several factors:

1. People don't know how science works. They think that the fact it's based on theories means it's all unreliable make-believe someone pulled out of his arse. This is because they don't know what "theory" means.
2. People expect science to bring instant positive results. When they see that millions of dollars are put into an experiment and that experiment doesn't result in flying cars or a cure for cancer, they consider that money wasted and better spent on something else. Never mind that applied science is an entirely different field than theoretical one.
3. People blame all the negative results of human presence on science, and take all the positive ones for granted. Oil spill? What has science done! I have internet access? Meh, that's ordinary. Movies that paint science as a bogeyman don't help at all.
4. Sour grapes. Some people consider it unfair that a scientist earns much more money than they do, even though he's not doing "real" (read: purely physical) work.

People don't trust scientists? That's a new one to me, I must say. They always seem to carry enormous weight in the media.

Well, some places are more anti-intellectual than others. You apparently have the luck of living in one of the less anti-intellectual ones.

Traab

2011-06-09, 08:32 AM

No, seriously.
Anyone got any examples of this? Because I'm reasonably sure I've never seen this outside of Hollywood movies.

I dont trust the climate scientists. Hows that for an example? I wouldnt say I dont trust any scientists ever, its just that unless we are talking about long established scientific laws, there are several scientists who have "evidence" they claim counters the commonly held beliefs. And speaking as someone who has tried his hardest to follow the full trail that leads these scientists to their standpoint, I find it hard to trust them, because I see so many different points of failure.

Everything from the basic assumption, to the methods of testing, to the end result. A REAL scientist goes into an experiment with no preconceptions on how things will turn out. Unfortunately in this day and age, most tend to go into their testing phase determined to prove themselves right. So data gets twisted and interpreted, assumptions are made to shade results in their direction, and, big surprise, they get the results they are after. Thats not good science, and it happens on all sides of the various debates. So I dont trust the scientists.

*EDIT*
One thing that should be pointed out that could explain some of the disconnect is that what an average person means by the term theory and what a scientist means by that same term are different. The average person uses theory the same way a scientist uses hypothesis. Theory to them means that I have an idea on how this works. To a scientist a theory is a concept that has a large body of evidence that supports a conclusion, and which has no contradicting evidence. A theory to a scientist can pretty much be taken as a statement of fact, unless something comes around that refutes or falsifies that theory, in which case that theory is no longer a theory.

You are of course correct, I misused the term theory for the sake of clarity here.

Telonius

2011-06-09, 08:32 AM

What particular example of WHAT are you looking for? Science skepticism is alive and well here in the US. It's typically based on Forbidden Topics, though, so I may have to give you your example in PM.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I work for a science journal in the US, and I'll second this. Forbidden topics are probably the biggest reason, but there are others.

A big part of the skepticism is based on bad reporting - a journalist or TV broadcaster hears about some research and writes an article about it without fully understanding it. "Does ketchup cause cancer? Details at 11!" At 11, they'll have about 10 seconds of coverage of the actual scientific finding (which might or might not have been peer-reviewed), followed by ten minutes of anti-ketchup-corporation activists, a mother whose kid has cancer and she blames ketchup, and then another ten seconds of a confused-looking botanist who's never heard of the controversy until five minutes ago but feels he ought to say something about it. Repeat this enough times, and people stop listening to anything that actual scientists have to say. (XKCD has a good illustration of this process here (http://xkcd.com/882/)).

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 09:10 AM

I dont trust the climate scientists. Hows that for an example? I wouldnt say I dont trust any scientists ever, its just that unless we are talking about long established scientific laws, there are several scientists who have "evidence" they claim counters the commonly held beliefs. And speaking as someone who has tried his hardest to follow the full trail that leads these scientists to their standpoint, I find it hard to trust them, because I see so many different points of failure.
You should probably look at the data supporting their conclusion. There are numerous attempts to disprove the consensus; in point of fact, that's in a very real sense, the 'easiest' way to be famous as a scientist. I'm not kidding; if you want funding and fame, demonstrating the fundamental inaccuracy of current theories and by extension, the models is an amazingly efficient way to do it. There's a reason it's not done on this, and it's that the consensus is /right/.

I assume you refer to the so-called 'Climate Gate', which is really evidence to the contrary of fails, if you actually read the emails in question for comprehension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us#t=0m55s

Everything from the basic assumption, to the methods of testing, to the end result. A REAL scientist goes into an experiment with no preconceptions on how things will turn out. Unfortunately in this day and age, most tend to go into their testing phase determined to prove themselves right. So data gets twisted and interpreted, assumptions are made to shade results in their direction, and, big surprise, they get the results they are after. Thats not good science, and it happens on all sides of the various debates. So I dont trust the scientists.
Do you understand the purpose of peer review? Of replication and replicability? Of consensus?

Peer review is meant to call out individual cases of apparent misuse of data. Can't get 'em all; next step is replication. When the results turn up once, you're right to be skeptical. Even assuming honesty, it's entirely possible for a single data set to be skewed heavily by chance. You can't know without repeated trials.

You are of course correct, I misused the term theory for the sake of clarity here.
Yes, I noticed that and found it amusing. Protip: If the scientific community has a theory, take it seriously. Even if you don't like it.

Form

2011-06-09, 09:17 AM

You'd have to get very specific about which area of expertise and which group of people you're talking about. The issue generally lies with certain Forbidden Topics. Beyond that, (regarding medical science specifically now) sometimes people who suffer from serious medical problems grow desperate. Because conventional medicine can't help them they I reckon they grow disappointed and turn towards less savory types purely out of desperation.

In a more general sense most people have little to no scientific or mathematical training, so their understanding of science and their ability to interpret results tends to be rather poor. People tend to get confused in particular when error analysis and statistics become important, for instance, exactly because they lack any sort of mathematical background. This also makes it much easier for 'experts' to cast doubt on scientific findings.

Still, in the broad sense I don't really notice a lot of distrust regarding science or scientists (except when it comes to certain Forbidden Topics).

Serpentine

2011-06-09, 09:22 AM

No, seriously.
Anyone got any examples of this? Because I'm reasonably sure I've never seen this outside of Hollywood movies.Look up any sort of Denialism and you'll find plenty. I think it might be more in the US and Australia than Europe, though.

I think that, in the general population, it involves some combination of the following (among other things):
- A lack of understanding of science, scientific process, scientific method, terms, and so on (the "theory" vs. Theory thing is one good example, as are things like "peer review" and "scientific consensus").
- A continuation of superstitious type thinking (not in a disparaging way - the reasons, for example, why "magic" was so popular for so long are very understandable: it let people make sense of the world in a way they could comprehend, and let them feel like they could meaningfully effect it; things people still want).
- The unethical behaviour of a tiny minority of scientists, which gets a disproportionate amount of attention.
- The misrepresentation of scientific discoveries in the media which repeatedly disillusions people when the scientists have to qualify what was said ("science proves that there's life on Mars!" "Well actually, we've just found out some things that increases the probability that there might be life on Mars... but it's still very exciting, really!"; or "scientists predict that climate change will cause a worldwide drought that will kill billions of people!" "Well actually, one single model has produced that outcome as a worst case scenario, but most models suggest that there will probably be some increase in the probability that drought will occur in some parts of the world, but may also cause the opposite in other parts of the world. We should clarify that climate science is very complex and these are only predictions based on models that change all the time as new evidence comes to light." "All climate predictions based on pure guesswork, scientist confesses!"; and so on).
- Related to the above, the inaccessibility of scientific information (whether through the scientists' inability to write for a less educated audience, or the lack of education of the audience), and the lack of a reliable, understandable mediator between scientists and the wider population.
- The ever-increasing interference of partisan groups into the practice of science, and the ever-increasing reliance of scientists on their funding (I've heard scientists dismissed as credible sources because they work for the government or some other organisation and therefore are paid for their work. Apparently, their counterparts working for big corporations are doing it for free or something. I never got that double standard... These people need to get paid for their jobs too. The hard part is making sure that the people paying them butt out).
- Inconvenient or unsettling discoveries by science that people would rather not exist, so they insist they do not, or believe those who do so.

The problems come from all angles, but I have faith that the situation is improving.

valadil

2011-06-09, 09:29 AM

Anti-intellectualism sucks. There are a large number of people who will automatically distrust anyone who they think is smarter than them. I don't get it either.

There was a really good quotation about this, but I can't google it so I'll give you a paraphrasing instead.
Basically a layman says that a scientist has to do research to prove 1+1=2, but the layman just knows it. Because he doesn't need the research he must be smarter than the scientist. I can't remember if it was arithmetic in the example or gravity, but you get the point.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 09:32 AM

In my experience it's certainly not helped by a tendency among those darn Sciencey-types to

a) Not even try to explain things to people or
b) Offer up explanations that aren't designed for laypeople to understand

They'll generally do this while being arrogant, on top of it.

This doesn't apply to all cases, but it's the sort of thing that crops up and then doesn't help ...
While there is definitely arrogant scientists, it's very, very hard to explain things to people who do not have the foundation and understanding you do. Ever try explaining a role playing game or other interest rife with jargon, like computers, to someone who knows nothing about the topic? You basically have to explain your explanations.
"Well, you roll a d20 and add your BAB and modifiers to find your to hit." To someone who hasn't played 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, that's gibberish.
Also, high end physics is math heavy in the extreme. A lot of it really can't be explained in words, not exactly. Analogies like the rubber sheet for spacial distortion by mass are helpful to getting an inkling, but are just that, analogies.
Finally, scientists are often nerds of some variety. They have extreme focus on their work, which is often mind numbingly dull and repetitious, and having years at university and higher education. Their social skills may be lacking. Combined with a certain pride of achievement, and this can come across as arrogant.

pendell

2011-06-09, 09:37 AM

Here's one example of skepticism. Everyone saw the link I posted about the food pyramid being replaced by the food pie, right?

Notice that "dairy" is one huge chunk of the new diagram -- as it was of the last?

Well .. thing is, while dairy is a useful and valuable part of diet, there's no reason it should be mandatory . There are other sources of calcium (http://www.mindfuleats.com/mindfuleats/2009/03/calcium-and-milk.html), and there are lactose-intolerant people.

So it is not unreasonable for people to question just how much of that diagram -- or of the preceding pyramid -- is based on objective fact, and how much of it is due to pressure from the meat industry, dairy industry, etc. Industries who are willing to shell out lots of money to convince the government to tell people they must buy the products of those industrys if they want to live healthy lives.

There's science, and then there's advocacy in a lab coat.

We even get it in commercials! "Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend [blah] chewing gum for their patients who chew gum" -- well, who are these five dentists? Was the sample set precisely five? And are you telling us the entire conclusion, or are you leaving out the bit where the dentists said "Actually, we'd rather you didn't chew gum at all, but IF YOU must, this brand will do."

There are good scientists in this world. But IMO your average layperson doesn't encounter actual science that often. They encounter advertising that pretends to be science, and they encounter political advocacy masquerading as science, and they encounter religious teaching pretending to be science, but *actual science*? Not so much.

Which leads to skepticism.

Respectfully,

Biran P.

valadil

2011-06-09, 09:44 AM

While there is definitely arrogant scientists, it's very, very hard to explain things to people who do not have the foundation and understanding you do.

I don't think it's as simple as arrogance. There are academics who will deliberately fail to explain their work. They would rather come across as confusing, thinking it will impress the listener.

In college, one of my linguistics classes looked at academic papers. They were high level papers that were incredibly hard to read. Skimming over them you'd think that was because the topics were so advanced. But when we changed the sentence structures around, the topics were understandable.

At my last job I had to write and edit some academic papers. Knowing what I knew from linguistics class, I tried to make my writing readable. I used simple sentences that conveyed one point at a time. My boss hated my writing. He'd take a paragraph of mine, rearrange the sentences in a semi-random order and then merge them all into a giant sentence. He seemed to think it would impress more people if I wrote that way. We didn't really get along when it came to writing papers.

That particular breed of academics seek to build themselves a high pedestal to stand on.

But those aren't the only academics out there. A few of my high school teachers reinforced the point that if you can't break an idea down so it's simple enough to explain to a third grader, you don't really understand that idea in the first place. To prove this, my math teacher actually taught trig to third graders. Not a few gifted third graders, but a whole class! He obviously valued clarity in communication so he could share his knowledge instead of hoarding it.

Serpentine

2011-06-09, 09:48 AM

Well, from your own concerns in that regard, note that they've changed "meat" to "protein".
We even get it in commercials! "Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend [blah] chewing gum for their patients who chew gum" -- well, who are these five dentists? Was the sample set precisely five? And are you telling us the entire conclusion, or are you leaving out the bit where the dentists said "Actually, we'd rather you didn't chew gum at all, but IF YOU must, this brand will do."

There are good scientists in this world. But IMO your average layperson doesn't encounter actual science that often. They encounter advertising that pretends to be science, and they encounter political advocacy masquerading as science, and they encounter religious teaching pretending to be science, but *actual science*? Not so much.This has been getting WORSE! The ones that really get me are these:
"In a blind test, 87% of people who tried [product] said they would try it again!"
Tell me true: if you tried some random shampoo just once, what would it take for you to say "no, I never want to use this product ever again"? Dunno about you, but for me it would be a lot - a horrible smell, a lack of lather, complete failure to clean my hair, stuff like that. I find that 13% who said they wouldn't try it again much more interesting.

"97% of women surveyed reported having digestion problems at times."
Really? 97% of women have had reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, constipation, gastro, a stomach bug or any other number of ridiculously common ailments? The Hell is up with the 3% who haven't?! Are they some sort of robot-women or something?

They're so. Damn. Meaningless :smallfurious:

Which leads to skepticism.Skepticism is not a bad thing. Skepticism is the very foundation of science. It is healthy and desirable. The word you're looking for is cynicism.

edit: Efficiency, succinctness and simplicity in writing were encouraged at my uni, in both Arts and Science.

Traab

2011-06-09, 09:55 AM

Well, from your own concerns in that regard, note that they've changed "meat" to "protein".This has been getting WORSE! The ones that really get me are these:
"In a blind test, 87% of people who tried [product] said they would try it again!"
Tell me true: if you tried some random shampoo just once, what would it take for you to say "no, I never want to use this product ever again"? Dunno about you, but for me it would be a lot - a horrible smell, a lack of lather, complete failure to clean my hair, stuff like that. I find that 13% who said they wouldn't try it again much more interesting.

"97% of women surveyed reported having digestion problems at times."
Really? 97% of women have had reflux, indigestion, diarrhea, constipation, gastro, a stomach bug or any other number of ridiculously common ailments? The Hell is up with the 3% who haven't?! Are they some sort of robot-women or something?

They're so. Damn. Meaningless :smallfurious:
Skepticism is not a bad thing. Skepticism is the very foundation of science. It is healthy and desirable. The word you're looking for is cynicism.

edit: Efficiency, succinctness and simplicity in writing were encouraged at my uni, in both Arts and Science.

Heh, reminds me a bit of a dilbert comic.

Dilbert: "So what were the results of the market testing?"

PHB: "The results are trending upwards!"

Dilbert: "Upwards! I heard the focus group spontaneously attacked the researchers using number 2 pencils as shivs!"

PHB: "Well yes, but last time the attack was premeditated."

Tengu_temp

2011-06-09, 09:57 AM

Skepticism is not a bad thing. Skepticism is the very foundation of science. It is healthy and desirable. The word you're looking for is cynicism.

The problem is that many people call themselves skeptics, yet they really aren't: instead of raising valid points which might confirm or question one theory or another, depending on the answer to them, they say why they think a certain theory is not true and don't listen to counterarguments even if you prove them wrong, or trivialize those counterarguments.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 10:00 AM

I don't think it's as simple as arrogance. There are academics who will deliberately fail to explain their work. They would rather come across as confusing, thinking it will impress the listener.
The Jerks will be always with us.

In college, one of my linguistics classes looked at academic papers. They were high level papers that were incredibly hard to read. Skimming over them you'd think that was because the topics were so advanced. But when we changed the sentence structures around, the topics were understandable.

At my last job I had to write and edit some academic papers. Knowing what I knew from linguistics class, I tried to make my writing readable. I used simple sentences that conveyed one point at a time. My boss hated my writing. He'd take a paragraph of mine, rearrange the sentences in a semi-random order and then merge them all into a giant sentence. He seemed to think it would impress more people if I wrote that way. We didn't really get along when it came to writing papers.

That particular breed of academics seek to build themselves a high pedestal to stand on.
See above point.

But those aren't the only academics out there. A few of my high school teachers reinforced the point that if you can't break an idea down so it's simple enough to explain to a third grader, you don't really understand that idea in the first place. To prove this, my math teacher actually taught trig to third graders. Not a few gifted third graders, but a whole class! He obviously valued clarity in communication so he could share his knowledge instead of hoarding it.
I agree, knowledge is a thing to be shared.
But sometimes, maybe, maybe they don't understand. The scientific process is like watching two people play chess if you have never seen a chess board before and trying to work out the rules by observation. Or worse, seen only part of the chess board while you are doing this. A current theory is only the best lie we have, the one that fits the moves the best. Then we see what the little horse piece can do, and we find that our theories are wrong. This is not surprising, this is in fact to be expected. Still, I am glad you had a teacher who was so good at teaching, explaining the explanations.

kamikasei

2011-06-09, 10:15 AM

Science reporting in the media is crap. Results are quoted without qualifiers or missing other information required to interpret them usefully. All nuance is stripped out. Novelty and controversy are selected for, inflating the importance of results and making it look like "science" is constantly flailing about between contradictory assertions, as opposed to slowly getting closer to the truth over time. This is the chief example I see around me (as opposed to online where I run in to more denialism of various stripes) - no one takes news about health risks seriously, because what shows up in the papers has nothing to do with the consensus that comes out of research.

Another part of it, I think related to this, is that people crave certainty and science too often comes with caveats for their comfort.

In my experience it's certainly not helped by a tendency among those darn Sciencey-types to

a) Not even try to explain things to people or
b) Offer up explanations that aren't designed for laypeople to understand

They'll generally do this while being arrogant, on top of it.

This doesn't apply to all cases, but it's the sort of thing that crops up and then doesn't help ...
What scientists, in what contexts? I can easily imagine this as more a problem with people assuming that any scientist should be able to succinctly explain her work to a layperson, on the spot, with no requirement for the layperson to actually think about the topic in any depth. Teaching is hard. Communicating science is similarly hard. Assuming that people for whom those are not their specialties should be willing to do it for you on demand despite the high likelihood in their experience that any attempt to convey or even acknowledge the actual complexity of the subject will be treated as an attempt to bamboozle or intimidate, while any attempt to gloss over complexity will be taken as deceit or arrogance, sounds far the more arrogant position to me.

Karoht

2011-06-09, 10:18 AM

My fiance works at a vet clinic. Before that she worked at a human clinic.

Apparently, everyone is a doctor. Except the people holding a piece of paper that says they are a doctor.

Included in this is the constant amount of articles in magazines and newspapers saying education is not what we think it is. It is described as anywhere from insane (need a piece of paper to flip burgers, much less build a bridge or diagnose cancer), to less meaningful (articles with the title "grades aren't everything") to meaningless (articles regarding individuals with no formal training doing something amazing or inventing or discovering something), which without the proper context would give the implication that education isn't really all that important.

If education isn't important or is meaningless, so are the credentials that go with it. So again, everyone is a doctor. Except the guy holding a Ph. D.

It also doesn't help that many people only read thread titles or newspaper headlines rather than full articles. And no one fact checks anymore. I'm looking at you Fox News.

pendell

2011-06-09, 10:35 AM

Apparently, everyone is a doctor. Except the people holding a piece of paper that says they are a doctor.

Same with weight loss. I can't turn on my car radio or flip on the TV without seeing some guy in a white coat selling his "clinically proven formula for weight loss success! Call now!"

I have to wonder how much of the scientific literature on weight loss your average person is exposed to if they don't take specific steps to seek it out. As it is, the odds are good that the average "scientist" a person encounters on radio or TV is nothing of the sort -- simply a spokesman designed to lend a scientific color to advertising and trigger that Obedience to Authority reflex.

Real honest-to-goodness science has real value. We need more of it. But actually getting to the science past the vast army of advertisers trying to sell things requires an extremely heavy-duty BS detector.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Mx.Silver

2011-06-09, 10:38 AM

A lot of points I would have said have already been made (see: Tengu, Serp, most other peopl) but one thing that I would further emphasize is just how terrible most news sources (particularly in the anglophonic world) are when it comes to reporting on science issues. This is mainly due to the lay media coming from entirely the wrong approach to actually cover scientific issues.
For a number reasons, ranging from time pressures to simply not caring, the lay press essentially never seem to take the time to actually research whatever it is they comment on before they do so. This is made worse by the obsession with 'new discoveries' that 'overturn everything we've seen up until now' because those sort of 'eureka! moments' grab attention. Said obsession very frequently means that any scientific announcement will be spun into this kind of story, regardless of whether or not it actually is (and almost never actually is, because that's not how science works). It also tends to lead to the lay press jumping all over controversial 'discoveries' even if they're actually quite suspect.
The fact that lay news sources don't generally don't have much understanding of how science works also becomes very problematic when combined with the emphasis most news sources place on being balanced. This unfortunate ignorance tends to lead to placing any arguments over scientific issues as a 'he said, she said' situation, even if one side consists of say, practically the entire establishement of medicinal science while the other consists of, say, one doctor with a very dodgy study and various panicked parents along with some alternative medicine proponents who have very little actual scientific knowledge themselves. As far as the media coverage presents it however, both sides will be given similar airtime and presented as having expert knowledge behind them, without any attempt to go into depth about the actual research methods or ever questioning the actual qualifications the various 'experts' claim to have.

Now, I'm not trying to place the blame solely on the lay press here. In many cases, their attitudes can often be swayed at least as much by the public as vuce versa. Nonetheless, if most of your scientific knowledge is being got through the press (and for most non-nerdy types it usually is) then you're going to be left with a very unreliable picture of how science works. That it's just something men in white couts argue about, the actual proccesses of which normal folk can't hope to understand. Moreover, these problems with the lay press are very, very, easy for an dedicated denailist groups to exploit (intentionally or not) which frequently gives them rather more influence on opinion then their actual evidence warrants.

Karoht

2011-06-09, 10:43 AM

Real honest-to-goodness science has real value. We need more of it. But actually getting to the science past the vast army of advertisers trying to sell things requires an extremely heavy-duty BS detector.

Never take your science from a guy on a commercial.

That said, never take your science from anyone trying to sell you something.

Part of why I mistrust quite a few of these global warming scientists. There are plenty of people who will financially benefit from hydrogen powered vehicles (as opposed to plug in electric) as well as the juicy funding for carbon capture technology.
Combo that with my grandmothers personal research in glaciers (she holds a degree in geology FYI), and you get an interesting position on global warming.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 10:50 AM

Part of why I mistrust quite a few of these global warming scientists. There are plenty of people who will financially benefit from hydrogen powered vehicles (as opposed to plug in electric) as well as the juicy funding for carbon capture technology.
Do people who say this have a pathological inability to witness the people who benefit /far more/ from the status quo or something? Mining companies, and the producers of oil, automocars, natural gas, and most current day industrial technology benefit HUGELY from not changing.

None of it makes one tiny difference to the consensus and the replicability. Go actually look at the data, seriously.

paddyfool

2011-06-09, 10:57 AM

One reason is because, especially in the medical world, a lot of fraudsters make their living by pseudoscience, muddying the water and public perceptions.

Serpentine

2011-06-09, 11:01 AM

Part of why I mistrust quite a few of these global warming scientists. There are plenty of people who will financially benefit from hydrogen powered vehicles (as opposed to plug in electric) as well as the juicy funding for carbon capture technology.
Combo that with my grandmothers personal research in glaciers (she holds a degree in geology FYI), and you get an interesting position on global warming.As opposed to, as mentioned, all of those people who financially benefit from coal, gas, mining, deforestation, generally not putting the effort into advancing energy technology, and so on...
Goes back to what I mentioned before: why do you consider the scientists in their pockets so much more reliable than all the thousands of scientists around the world being funded by governments, environmental groups and, possibly (I have yet to see any actual evidence of it) these sinister people who supposedly are so set on having people use hydrogen powered vehicles, the cads?

See also: ocean acidification - same causes and solutions as climate change, similarly bad impact, well established as happening right now.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 11:02 AM

Traab

2011-06-09, 11:21 AM

Do people who say this have a pathological inability to witness the people who benefit /far more/ from the status quo or something? Mining companies, and the producers of oil, automocars, natural gas, and most current day industrial technology benefit HUGELY from not changing.

None of it makes one tiny difference to the consensus and the replicability. Go actually look at the data, seriously.

Thats why I included both in my reasons for distrusting scientists. EVERYONE is funded by somebody, and its truly amusing just how frequently their "scientific research" turns out in favor of their bosses profit margins. Wether its green loving hippy type environmentalists who think humanity should be forcibly sterilized to save mother earth, or Big Al the Oil Baron who wants people to think that seals love bathing in crude oil as it gives their coats an extra layer of protection from harsh weather conditions.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 11:26 AM

Eric Tolle

2011-06-09, 11:29 AM

One reason is because, especially in the medical world, a lot of fraudsters make their living by pseudoscience, muddying the water and public perceptions.

Combine that with the desire for simple, singular explanations that reassure parents it's not their fault, and you have the anti-vacc movement in a nutshell. Real autism research is suggesting a wide variety of genetic and environmental factors involved in the variety of conditions included under the label of "autism". But that's not nearly as reassuring an explanation as "bad vaccines marketed by
Big Pharma."

Karoht

2011-06-09, 11:35 AM

Indeed. There is money to be made either way and a LOT of money to be SPENT by switching over. Still doesn't change facts. It's simple really.
Fact 1: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Fact 2: We are burning hydrocarbons that are ecologically 'new', increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. QED. Oh,and to makes things worse, a lot of carbon dioxide is stored in the Earths oceans. Unlike solids, gasses are less soluble in warmer liquids. Do the math.
Personally, I favour some form of hydrocarbon synthesis, like algae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel) over hydrogen. Oil stores better, and we will need hydrocarbons for our petrochemical industry, like plastics, medicine, fertilizer, you know, our modern way of life and already have an extensive infrastructure in place for its storage, use, and transportation, unlike hydrogen.

I should first clarify that I'm not denying Global Warming. Nor am I confirming it, but I'm not denying it.

Fact 3: Methane is a more dangerous greenhouse gas (it takes much longer for it to leave the atmosphere), and we dump way more methane into the atmosphere than carbon any day. There is no plans for methane capture, and you tend to get a wishy washy answer when people suggest that we trim our biggest methane contributors, namely cattle. Probably because that would cut into cattle producer's profits, and the carbon capture people still want their money for carbon capture.

Fact 4: Volcanoes dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other (singular) man made source. Not much you can do about those mind you.

Fact 5: Ships at sea dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than cars. There are no plans to regulate their emissions (and oil tankers burn straight crude which is crazy dirty), but they'll tax and regulate cars and car owners because they can make money from those sources.

Fact 6: Our natural CO2 scrubbers (those things called forests) are being decimated. Rather than pump money into CO2 capture programs, we could just stop destroying our planets natural environments. Oh wait, money. The loggers wouldn't get paid. Darn.

Either way, the reported science in the mainstream media has been very skewed towards carbon capture. Probably because of money. Which is my point. These snippets of science used to promote certain technologies are indeed true, but they are incomplete and very much not the whole picture. It's no different than if I were to quote you out of context.

========

Combine that with the desire for simple, singular explanations that reassure parents it's not their fault, and you have the anti-vacc movement in a nutshell. Real autism research is suggesting a wide variety of genetic and environmental factors involved in the variety of conditions included under the label of "autism". But that's not nearly as reassuring an explanation as "bad vaccines marketed by
Big Pharma."And on the same line, do you know what the empirical test is for ADD or ADHD?
There isn't one.
It's a very misunderstood misdiagnosed "condition" with drugs to treat it, to reassure parents that they are doing their job when what they really should be doing is not using video games as a baby sitter.
So when 'doctors' dope up kids with drugs as a solution, it breeds quite a bit of mistrust.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 11:35 AM

Do you understand what replicability means? it means even independent researchers find the same results (Ideally it means everyone who gets published in a journal). Most research isn't done by people with an agenda. Funding for these typically comes from government groups who just want the data. If you think NOAA is hippy environmentalists, you don't really know who the players are and have concocted a narrative in your head where you're the lone rebel.

Heck, it's people with government organizations that do most of the research on a general topic like Global Warming. Environmentalist groups don't really have the resources to spend their dollars that much on that kind of expensive propaganda. They're NGOs that are predominantly donation based, and the data already is there for that. As near as I can tell, they usually put forth what research dollars they have on applied science, not basic research.

Global Warming has 96% of the relevant experts agree on its anthrogenic origins. You don't get that from hippy funding. If money was going to buy consensus, oil, gas, etc, companies have a LOT MORE money to throw around, especially as an aggregate. It /is/ possible they're mistaken, but it's extremely unlikely that the body of data is entirely incorrect, and the conclusions flow from the data, not the other way around. What's with the faux skeptic act? The data is there for you to look over, even.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Go read, stop with this independent lone rebel act.

This was in response to Traab, incidentally.

Archpaladin Zousha

2011-06-09, 11:38 AM

Combine that with the desire for simple, singular explanations that reassure parents it's not their fault, and you have the anti-vacc movement in a nutshell. Real autism research is suggesting a wide variety of genetic and environmental factors involved in the variety of conditions included under the label of "autism". But that's not nearly as reassuring an explanation as "bad vaccines marketed by Big Pharma."
That explanation is not reassuring at all. It's a big fat lie that's decieved so many people and hurt the lives of many children both autistic and neurotypical. :smallmad:

Hot button issue, sorry. :smallsigh:

I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. Science tends to get a bad rap because so many outside elements try to worm their way into it, ruining its integrity, people overgeneralize and simplify scientific discoveries, and there are just a lot of outright fakes who pretend to be scientists and instead cause more harm.

Traab

2011-06-09, 11:39 AM

Wow, that is such a silly, strawman depiction of either side of the argument, that it is hard to take your position seriously. Yes, science is expensive and therefore needs funding, and yes, there have been cases of the distortion of data to fit expectations rather than the facts. But a paranoid "you can't trust anyone, man" is just ludicrous.

Oh? Why? Why is it ludicrous to not feel able to trust any of these scientists when they are constantly saying the exact opposite of each other, and acting as if they have figured out the answers, then we find out that most of them are directly funded by the side that has the most to gain from their stance? What makes one scientist more trustworthy than another in this situation? Its getting to the point where I think the only option I have left is to spend a decade in school becoming an expert in the field and go find my OWN conclusions.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 11:43 AM

Oh? Why? Why is it ludicrous to not feel able to trust any of these scientists when they are constantly saying the exact opposite of each other, and acting as if they have figured out the answers, then we find out that most of them are directly funded by the side that has the most to gain from their stance?
96. Percent. Consensus.

Your narrative does not match reality.'

What makes one scientist more trustworthy than another in this situation?
The data.

Its getting to the point where I think the only option I have left is to spend a decade in school becoming an expert in the field and go find my OWN conclusions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Go. Read.

Karoht

2011-06-09, 11:52 AM

96. Percent. Consensus.
Consensus means agreement.
Just because you and I agree that ducks can fly in outer space doesn't make it true. Hence the general distrust towards 'concensus.'

Also, I find it funny that climate researchers tend to ignore geological evidence. IE-Core samples from the antarctic which predate any other kind of climate record. Most climate researchers dismiss any of the conclusions drawn from geological evidence as irrelivant.

Serpentine

2011-06-09, 11:53 AM

Fact 3: Methane is a more dangerous greenhouse gas (it takes much longer for it to leave the atmosphere), and we dump way more methane into the atmosphere than carbon any day. There is no plans for methane capture, and you tend to get a wishy washy answer when people suggest that we trim our biggest methane contributors, namely cattle. Probably because that would cut into cattle producer's profits, and the carbon capture people still want their money for carbon capture.Dunno about the rest of the world, but Australian scientists are looking into ways of handling methane, particularly livestock methane. Kangaroos are involved. And those sorts of decisions are made by governments, not scientists. They can make recommendations, and they certainly have acknowledged that methane is a greenhouse gas, but they can't determine policy.

Fact 4: Volcanoes dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other (singular) man made source. Not much you can do about those mind you.This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the science. Yes, volcanoes dump more CO2 than humans. But the planet is used to that. It can deal with volcano CO2. It can't handle the addition of ours, not without a shift in equalibrium.

Fact 5: Ships at sea dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than cars. There are no plans to regulate their emissions (and oil tankers burn straight crude which is crazy dirty), but they'll tax and regulate cars and car owners because they can make money from those sources.Again: government, not science.

Fact 6: Our natural CO2 scrubbers (those things called forests) are being decimated. Rather than pump money into CO2 capture programs, we could just stop destroying our planets natural environments. Oh wait, money. The loggers wouldn't get paid. Darn.And yet again: government, not science. In fact, I hear large numbers of scientists, from a variety of fields, urging a reduction in deforestation. Scientists are totally for that happening. It's the policy-makers who're worried about money there.

Either way, the reported science in the mainstream media has been very skewed towards carbon capture. Probably because of money.Government, not science.

Oh? Why? Why is it ludicrous to not feel able to trust any of these scientists when they are constantly saying the exact opposite of each other,They're not. The vast majority of scientists are agreed on the big things - the anthropogenicity of climate change, in this case. The tiny but loud minority are the ones "constantly saying the exact opposite", and preventing public discourse from moving away from the big question which is pretty much agreed upon, and working on the littler questions - to what degree is it anthropogenic? How much effect will it have? What's the timeframe? What can we actually do? And so on.

and acting as if they have figured out the answers,They're not. This is a good example of something that's been brought up several times, in the misleading presentation of science by the media. Look at the original published papers and I bet you'll see a lot more qualifying words than you do in the newspapers.

then we find out that most of them are directly funded by the side that has the most to gain from their stance?As opposed to the people from the other side, who have to gain even more from theirs? Again I ask: why do they get off scot-free? Why are they so much more reliable?

What makes one scientist more trustworthy than another in this situation?I could well ask you the same thing. In this particular case, sheer numbers has a lot to do with it, as does the evidence.

Its getting to the point where I think the only option I have left is to spend a decade in school becoming an expert in the field and go find my OWN conclusions.Sure, that'd be great. Failing that, I recommend tracking down all the evidence and reading it for yourself. Take Google Scholar over Fox News and similar, though.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 11:54 AM

[QUOTE]Fact 3: Methane is a more dangerous greenhouse gas (it takes much longer for it to leave the atmosphere), and we dump way more methane into the atmosphere than carbon any day. There is no plans for methane capture, and you tend to get a wishy washy answer when people suggest that we trim our biggest methane contributors, namely cattle. Probably because that would cut into cattle producer's profits, and the carbon capture people still want their money for carbon capture.
Collecting it and burning it as another form of renewable hydrocarbons is proabably the best solution

Fact 4: Volcanoes dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other (singular) man made source. Not much you can do about those mind you.
Except things like the carbon capture you seem to deride.

Fact 5: Ships at sea dump more CO2 into the atmosphere than cars. There are no plans to regulate their emissions (and oil tankers burn straight crude which is crazy dirty), but they'll tax and regulate cars and car owners because they can make money from those sources. Nothing to do with climate change, just the politics surrounding it.

Fact 6: Our natural CO2 scrubbers (those things called forests) are being decimated. Rather than pump money into CO2 capture programs, we could just stop destroying our planets natural environments. Oh wait, money. The loggers wouldn't get paid. Darn.
Most of our Carbon Dixoide is actually scrubbed by algae. Not as funding making as some cuteforest critter, but more important for that reason. Still, forests are valuable for other reasons, like erosion control and animal habitats and we should protect them just on princible, but sustainable logging helps loggers who want to remain loggers. And yes, loggers need to be paid. People need jobs.

Either way, the reported science in the mainstream media has been very skewed towards carbon capture. Probably because of money. Which is my point. These snippets of science used to promote certain technologies are indeed true, but they are incomplete and very much not the whole picture. It's no different than if I were to quote you out of context.

Blame the mainstream media for that, not science itself.

Oh? Why? Why is it ludicrous to not feel able to trust any of these scientists when they are constantly saying the exact opposite of each other, and acting as if they have figured out the answers, then we find out that most of them are directly funded by the side that has the most to gain from their stance? What makes one scientist more trustworthy than another in this situation? Its getting to the point where I think the only option I have left is to spend a decade in school becoming an expert in the field and go find my OWN conclusions.
If you want to have an informed opinion on something, then yes, you have to work for it. Maybe not a decade, but yes, one hundred times yes, go become knowledgeable enough to draw your own conclusions.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 11:58 AM

Consensus means agreement.
Just because you and I agree that ducks can fly in outer space doesn't make it true. Hence the general distrust towards 'concensus.'
So you're just going to throw out the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the experts who examine the data because... why? The evidence makes them correct; if your living depends on it, you tend to know the evidence better than an outsider.

Also, I find it funny that climate researchers tend to ignore geological evidence. IE-Core samples from the antarctic which predate any other kind of climate record. Most climate researchers dismiss any of the conclusions drawn from geological evidence as irrelivant.
What? No, you don't know climate science. The geological evidence is used; go watch the video I linked earlier, wherein it briefly touches on how borehole data and historic data is measured (And taken into account by climate scientists). The geological evidence does not point to a natural warming trend for the current upswing in temperature. Geological and purely natural changes take place In Geological time. That's the span of time by which the entirety of human history is nothing. This trend occurs in under 100 years. That's not a geological change. Yes, warming trends can occur naturally, but when they do, you don't notice them within 2 generations.

Karoht

2011-06-09, 11:59 AM

Government, not science.Ah, but the Government is quoting scientists as their main advisors when determining policies. Which is again another possible source of distrust.
Scientists (in mainstream media) have also advocated carbon capture, in which policy and implimentation is beginning to form. And the scientists get their money from the government, toss in your standard dose of conspiracy theory right there.

Also, the note about australia and methane capture and kangaroo's. Very cool. I'll have to look into that.

========

So you're just going to throw out the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the experts who examine the data because... why?Because of the fact that majorities have been wrong before, countless times on this planet. Citing that the majority believes X to be true is nothing more than an appeal to authority/majority, and doesn't make X a fact. Again, my belief in something does not make it true. Why does that rule not apply to a majority body of scientists?

I'm more saying that to cite consensus is a waste of an arguement. It's compelling, but it's not fact. Opinions have no bearing on science. Which is ironic in a way because we are discussing public opinion OF science. Or at least I find that ironic and kind of funny.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 12:04 PM

@Karoht:
Is the image flawed because of the original, or because the mirror is warped?

Traab

2011-06-09, 12:07 PM

Ok, ive been reading through some of these links, (its a long slog through some of that stuff) and what im missing or may have accidentally skipped over is the part that bugs me the most. The general confusion of what global warming means, whether its an immediate threat, or something thats a hundred years away from being a danger or more, whether it is man made or simply another global climate shift that has been happening since the earth was first formed, what the short term and long term effects could be, and specifics as to how it effects me.

That last part is because im honestly getting annoyed as over the last several years, EVERY SINGLE WEATHER PATTERN gets blamed on global warming. If its hotter than usual? Warming. if its colder than usual? Warming. If it snows more, if it snows less, if it rains more in spring, if it rains later in the year, no matter what happens, even if whats happening is the opposite of the year before it, its all attributed to the same fricking source. Thats probably another thing thats triggering my skepticism, when literally everything that happens, no matter how contradictory, is claimed as proof of concept, it makes me suspicious and I start looking for snake oil.

Its not so much that im arguing about whether global warming is real or not, as that im arguing over the huge mess of what all this information means. Everyone has a different view on it and a different set of thoughts on its effects, some outright contradicting the others. Bah, anyways, we went way off topic here. The topic isnt even about climate change, its about distrust for scientists.

Kislath

2011-06-09, 12:08 PM

Yep, you guys have pinned down the problem exactly. Science cannot be pure and objective when the scientists are controlled by scumbags. When scientists are no more objective or trustworthy than lawyers, we have a problem.
"There's lies, damn lies, and statistics!"-- Mark Twain.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 12:09 PM

?
Because of the fact that majorities have been wrong before, countless times on this planet. Citing that the majority believes X to be true is nothing more than an appeal to authority/majority, and doesn't make X a fact. Again, my belief in something does not make it true. Why does that rule not apply to a majority body of scientists
Fine. Go look at the data itself.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

It's a resource that'll send you to more primers that contain the data. The data is what makes it true, the climate scientists are just the community that is best acquainted with the data.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 12:13 PM

Elder Tsofu

2011-06-09, 12:19 PM

Science also gets bad rap from people who try to do science, but seem completely unable to actually grasp the methods or hire someone who does.
See homoeopathy as an example, lots of studies out there - but most seem to be unusable due to dodgy methods or for not fully documenting.

People tend to get irritated at you when they show you "The Proof" and you look at it, pointing out a critical flaw and asks them to redo and do right. Possibly while rolling your eyes.

Traab

2011-06-09, 12:21 PM

@Traab:
That's why most scientists don't use global warming ,but climate change. A net global temperature increase is going to change weather patterns in ways that are not immediately intuitive. Some places will get more rains while others experience droughts. Weather is complex & literally chaotic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) Just because you got a cold winter does not mean that climate change isn't real or human influenced.

Ok, then climate change. But whats the point of worrying over climate change if you have no way of accurately predicting what the changes will MEAN? All I get from this is that the weather will be different. Will it lead to the end of life as we know it? Will we find our grand children growing different crops in our country because climate change made the old ones impossible here, but they are now grown elsewhere instead? Or will I just be stuck shoveling an average of 6 extra inches of snow every winter?

Karoht

2011-06-09, 12:24 PM

Fine. Go look at the data itself.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
It's a resource that'll send you to more primers that contain the data. The data is what makes it true, the climate scientists are just the community that is best acquainted with the data.

I think you are missing something. I stated earlier that I am not trying to prove or disprove global warming at all.
Also, I don't believe in accepting facts simply because a lot of people say something is true.

The problem with people trusting or distrusting science is the fact that there ARE people who blindly trust it or blindly distrust it. The fact that media has a tendancy to leave out details. Details which I have pointed out and have rarely seen dealt with, or outright ignored.

Truth be told I'm actually and advocate of personal responsibility, that includes fact checking things people say, and asking questions if I see something incomplete. That responsibility compells me to investigate your source. But that same responsibility has lead me to many of the facts I have pointed out earlier.

Fact remains, dealing with CO2 alone is remarkably shortsighted. Dealing with CO2 with a focus on personal automobiles is even more shortsighted. CO2 carbon capture is also very shortsighted, when reduction (of all kinds of sources) would be considerably more effective. But what is mainstream science pitching? Better cars and carbon capture. Way for these scientists to miss the point. I thought science was about considering all the facts, all the options, not just certain ones.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 12:24 PM

That last part is because im honestly getting annoyed as over the last several years, EVERY SINGLE WEATHER PATTERN gets blamed on global warming. If its hotter than usual? Warming. if its colder than usual? Warming. If it snows more, if it snows less, if it rains more in spring, if it rains later in the year, no matter what happens, even if whats happening is the opposite of the year before it, its all attributed to the same fricking source. Thats probably another thing thats triggering my skepticism, when literally everything that happens, no matter how contradictory, is claimed as proof of concept, it makes me suspicious and I start looking for snake oil.
Well t hat would be why, you're confusing weather with climate. Climate is overall trends; the models are imperfect, but they do tend to predict those kinds of patterns (Though I haven't seen any specifically on snow). Although there's a general warming trend, the effect of this is to generally have more harsh weather overall (Which is actually much worse, since that tends to make life harsher for literally every creature). When you see the monsoons start to come in harder and harder, and the models demonstrated this ahead of time, that's called a successful prediction; it joins the body of evidence for a theory, much like the predictions of what we'd find in the fossil record are themselves evidence of the theory of evolution (Because those predictions were born out by new data that wasn't yet accounted for).

Everyone has a different view on it and a different set of thoughts on its effects, some outright contradicting the others
Yes, but hte experts only generally vary on exceeding particulars, which is what you expect from a group who'sboth correct about a general, large scale trend, and working out it's exact effects on a number of factors.

The topic isnt even about climate change, its about distrust for scientists.
It's an apropos topic; you can see the memes used to promote anti-intellectual (and thus, anti-science) thought in the matter. Possibly the best one at hand, though the anti-vax movement might be as good.

Ravens_cry

2011-06-09, 12:26 PM

Ok, then climate change. But whats the point of worrying over climate change if you have no way of accurately predicting what the changes will MEAN? All I get from this is that the weather will be different. Will it lead to the end of life as we know it? Will we find our grand children growing different crops in our country because climate change made the old ones impossible here, but they are now grown elsewhere instead? Or will I just be stuck shoveling an average of 6 extra inches of snow every winter?
I don't know enough about climatology to say, but the one about the grand-children sounds closest to the truth, what with shifting weather patterns. Like I said, read up about it.

Eric Tolle

2011-06-09, 12:31 PM

========
And on the same line, do you know what the empirical test is for ADD or ADHD?
There isn't one.
It's a very misunderstood misdiagnosed "condition" with drugs to treat it, to reassure parents that they are doing their job when what they really should be doing is not using video games as a baby sitter.

You're trying to sell that line to the wrong person. I was THE poster child for hyperactivity when I was a kid, and back then, there were no video games. Hell, "Pong" didn't come around until I was in junior high. Nor was I neglected or had a bad diet, etc., and yet I manifested just about all of the symptoms of what was later to be called ADHD. Ritalin allowed me enough focus to survive in school (oddly enough they tried me on tranquilizers first...for one day) until adolescence. I still have to take Strattera to focus concentration enough to work.

Lack of an empirical test for something as complex as neurological problems doesn't mean much, and symptomatic indicators are commonly used in medicine. Or, in other words, don't EVEN try to feed me that "no ADHD" message.

That explanation is not reassuring at all. It's a big fat lie that's decieved so many people and hurt the lives of many children both autistic and neurotypical. :smallmad:

Well, it's not reassuring to anyone who knows epidemiology. But it's reassuring to parents who feel desperately guilty and want to believe their child's condition is not their fault, and also for parents who want to control what they believe is a mysterious and terrifying condition.

Or in other words, witches.

Hot button issue, sorry. :smallsigh:

I quite understand and I agree. It is doing massive amounts of harm.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 12:31 PM

Also, I don't believe in accepting facts simply because a lot of people say something is true.
Then accept it because the data is on their side. Click on the link. It's not to lolcats. Go look at what they have to say and look at the data used to support their position.

The problem with people trusting or distrusting science is the fact that there ARE people who blindly trust it or blindly distrust it. The fact that media has a tendancy to leave out details. Details which I have pointed out and have rarely seen dealt with, or outright ignored.
I can say with complete honesty that as a USAnian, I have never seen blind acceptance of science.

Fact remains, dealing with CO2 alone is remarkably shortsighted.
Indeed. Most climate change activists I know don't /want/ to deal with just CO2. I remember one of their bigger issues was methane production and its reduction, because carbon alone isn't sufficient; one of the methods I've seen proposed for that was a serious reduction in ranching.

But what is mainstream science pitching? Better cars and carbon capture. Way for these scientists to miss the point.
I think you're confusing activism with science. Which is a thing you do a lot, actually. You said "But the government has scientific advisors!" earlier. Yes, so? That means they're starting somewhere in particular; but it doesn't change that even if it's based on good science, a lot of regulation is based on what is also expedient in political capital. In this case, that means a lot of incomplete solutions to a problem, because the more accurate solutions are much more difficult to enact in full.

Traab

2011-06-09, 12:36 PM

I don't know enough about climatology to say, but the one about the grand-children sounds closest to the truth, what with shifting weather patterns. Like I said, read up about it.

If thats the case, then I cant say I care too much. Climate change happens. So long as the end result isnt ushering a new ice age several thousand years early, or trapping so much heat that the world turns into a dried out desert, I see no reason to go crazy trying to keep it from happening. If canada starts growing bananas instead of wheat, so be it. Im sure the economy will adjust to compensate. And im also sure that some other country will start growing wheat instead to keep the world supply going.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 12:54 PM

Karoht

2011-06-09, 01:06 PM

I can say with complete honesty that as a USAnian, I have never seen blind acceptance of science.I'm certain there is a comedic and entirely non-offensive response available here, it just isn't coming my way.

I think you're confusing activism with science. Which is a thing you do a lot, actually. You said "But the government has scientific advisors!" earlier. Yes, so? That means they're starting somewhere in particular; but it doesn't change that even if it's based on good science, a lot of regulation is based on what is also expedient in political capital. In this case, that means a lot of incomplete solutions to a problem, because the more accurate solutions are much more difficult to enact in full.
My train of thought. Feel free to correct as I feel I'm missing something, or perhaps I am miscommunicating with you.
Scientist says 'CO2 bad' and leaves out other harmful gasses.
Scientist says 'CO2 capture good' and leaves out other alternatives.
Government tries to act on the above.
How is the scientist not at least culpable for the poor solution when the scientist is the one pitching it?

Sure, there is plenty of good science that says CO2 = bad. I dont' deny that. But it isn't the complete picture. There is plenty of good science that says CO2 capture is 100% capable and would have a positive impact (we will ignore the fact that there is no long term study to account for all of the effects). Is it going to make the problem go away? No, but that is certainly how some people are selling it.

Again, throw in public sentiment and a dose of conspiracy theory, along with the fact that it's going to cost taxpayer dollars when there are cheaper and better alternatives... gee, it starts to look like the incomplete picture is being pitched, not the complete picture (and most certainly not a complete solution), all for the sake of money. Which then throws the data into question, no matter how sound that data may or may not be.

Maybe I'm off base, but this is why, in this particular case, I'm not a fan of the majority opinion.

druid91

2011-06-09, 01:09 PM

Let me answer the "Why you should care". Rising sea levels from melted glaciers will obviate a great deal of currently existing infrastructure and displace billions onto an increasingly smaller and more cramped world. It's responsible for a number of wild weather patterns (Such as the droughts that affect much of the continental USA and australia, the increased monsoon flooding in South Asia...). Life will become more expensive, more energy intensive, from the wider gulf of temperatures (If winter is much colder, and the summer in particular is much hotter, every construction and habitation has to be built to meet ever-wider standards of construction and maintenance). A number of species are dying out in numbers, as they're not migrating as quickly as they would have to to keep up with the shift in temperature.

You're seeing the vanishing of entire nations, in a literal sense (Granted, pacific island nations were never huge, but they exist). You'll see more people be cramped on less land from it, as I said, and that's going to force more environmental infringement to maintaint he same standard of living (True, we could adopt environmentalism later, but why not now and also maintain more land for non environmentalist purposes?). We're seeing millions displaced now just from more violent weather, which is also threatening monuments of culture (The Taj Mahal is slowly slipping from its foundations with the new monsoons, IIRC, for instance). Many of the methods to fight global warming need to be done /anyway/ if we want a sustainable life style that will last beyond our generation (If it lasts our entire generation). Oh, and the rising sea water will destroy potable water in aquifers; we kind of are already starting to have problems with a lack of fresh water, relying even more on desalinization will seriously damage things. Even the countries that thought they might win, like Russia, are seeing their predictions turn out false (The railroad that connects the western cities like Moscow to the eastern regions like Kamchatka and Sakhalin island is actually crossable for even less of the year now, f'rex). I don't know what the super long term effects look like, but I know what the ones on a human scale do, and it's not pretty.

Coupla quick questions... First of all this one is something I've been wondering for a while.

Why can't we just build in the water? We do it for bridges all the time, would it be that difficult to make a water-proof house? OR a floating house?

Second.

WHY DOES EVERYONE IGNORE (or in this case mention it but not treat it as an option) DESALINATION!? Everyone I've spoken to (Except my mother) has said it costs. but everything costs. The world changes. Until we get to the point where we control that, then we just have to take the punches and keep going. As for my mother, she seems to ignore it. As though once corrupted fresh water is impossible to purify. And then looks at me like I'm stupid to even suggest that fresh water could be produced from dirty water.

That said, I find it Ironic that my own ideals are so at odds with green-types, yet my views on energy are very similar..:smallbiggrin:

And third... How is the icebergs and such melting supposed to increase the sea level? They float in the water and thus displace it already.

Archpaladin Zousha

2011-06-09, 01:11 PM

And third... How is the icebergs and such melting supposed to increase the sea level? They float in the water and thus displace it already.
When water freezes into ice it doesn't just harden. The hardening is caused by the compression of the water molecules as it changes from a liquid to a solid. When ice melts, the molecules can expand. That's why when you have ice in a drink, the water level will rise as the ice-cubes melt.

Borgh

2011-06-09, 01:12 PM

Serpentine: why are you always, on any topic, able to express what I think, only more eloquently then I ever could? I'm jelly. of your way with words.

Another point that waters down science:
Opinions, and the definition of,

there are scientific opinions and normal opinions. many news outlets don't differentiate between them and that is terrible. Scientific opinions are reached through looking at data, normal opinions are made of emotion.

Following this, scientific consensus means that a lot of people looking at data and trying their best to disagree (nothing more glorious then rubbing your peers face into the fact he was wrong) and nevertheless reaching the same conclusion. This can lead to the horrible comparicon of a normal opinion versus a scientific consensus.
example:
Dr. O'rlysmart: well scientific consensus is that second hand smoking causes cancer.
Presenting guy: well thanks for you opinion mr. O'rlysmart, now for another opinion we go to our reporter in the street:
reporter: Sir, can I ask you something? what is your opinion on second hand smoking?
Mr. McBricklayer: well ah think people shuld be abl' to do what we wont no wud we?

also:

Coupla quick questions... First of all this one is something I've been wondering for a while.

Why can't we just build in the water? We do it for bridges all the time, would it be that difficult to make a water-proof house? OR a floating house?And third... How is the icebergs and such melting supposed to increase the sea level? They float in the water and thus displace it already.
we, do, search for IJburg, a dutch constuction project on the IJlake. it is just not yet that profitable in most parts of the world as ground is still cheap.
also, its not the iceberg, it is the glaciers that are above sea level that cause raising levels. it is the difference between dunking ice cubes into your drink and having those cubes melt.

When water freezes into ice it doesn't just harden. The hardening is caused by the compression of the water molecules as it changes from a liquid to a solid. When ice melts, the molecules can expand. That's why when you have ice in a drink, the water level will rise as the ice-cubes melt.
nope wrong, water actually expands by 10% as it freezes, it has to do with molecualr bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water that are charged. In water this charge is distibuted evenly, allowing more molecules per m3 ewheras in ice all the charges are ordered, which makes molecules repulse each other a bit.

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 01:13 PM

My train of thought. Feel free to correct as I feel I'm missing something, or perhaps I am miscommunicating with you.
Scientist says 'CO2 bad' and leaves out other harmful gasses.
Scientist says 'CO2 capture good' and leaves out other alternatives.
Government tries to act on the above.
How is the scientist not at least culpable for the poor solution when the scientist is the one pitching it?

Unless I'm vastly underestimating the effectiveness of environmentalist researchers, the activists I know and am familiar with are themselves familiar with a number of techniques and directions to attack the problems with. The 'unless I underestimated them' bit comes with the fact that those same warnings and methods are likely coming from the exact same science advisors. What is feasible to pass based on estimates on who will vote where is not in the same set of things as what is being recommended.

In other words, I think you're seeing a gap at the end, and assuming the gap begins at the beginning, not at the end.

Again, throw in public sentiment and a dose of conspiracy theory, along with the fact that it's going to cost taxpayer dollars when there are cheaper and better alternatives...
Here's a really, really, REALLY cheap, effective solution that would help drive down methane production.

End ranch subsidies. Raise tariffs on beef, pork, etc, products. Guess how likely that is to be suggested at the regulation level, by non-scientists.

Following this, scientific consensus means that a lot of people looking at data and trying their best to disagree (nothing more glorious then rubbing your peers face into the fact he was wrong)
I'd like to emphasize this. It's not just personally satisfying being able to prove you were the most insightful person in the room on a particular topic; it's a rewarding career move that can guarantee your name in history. It is glory, funding, and vindication in one package.

Traab

2011-06-09, 01:17 PM

End ranch subsidies. Raise tariffs on beef, pork, etc, products. Guess how likely that is to be suggested at the regulation level, by non-scientists.

/flips off RPGuru

/goes back to eating his hamburger.

Leave my meat alone, OR YOU WILL BE MY NEXT HAMBURGER PATTY!

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 01:21 PM

Case in point, for that particular point.

On the larger meta-level, I'd also like to emphasize basic research as a reason scientists aren't trusted. This is, by a wide margin, the most societally critical area of research. It also produces no immediate benefit. It gives the appearance of waste, despite being a driver for hundreds of new applications in science.

pendell

2011-06-09, 01:24 PM

Scientific opinions are reached through looking at data, normal opinions are made of emotion.

I respectfully disagree. A scientific opinion is one reached by adherence to the scientific method. A 'normal' opinion is one that uses non-scientific methodology or makes use of non-scientific assumptions.

A 'normal' opinion may be based on logic and reason, yet not be scientific.

Case in point: I believe, based on the opinions of critics and my own viewing, that, from a technical perspective, the phantom menace is not an excellent piece of film. I can make use of material from film school to advance that point. While that is a logical opinion that derives directly from the principles of film-making, it is not a scientific opinion.

Before the scientific method became commonplace, the pre-eminent western methodology was called scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism). This involved deriving truth from written authorities or other ancient sources and then applying dialectic reasoning to discover truth.

It's main difference from the scientific method is that it does not permit experimental verification of truth; if Plato said it, it is so. You can use logic to derive new theorems from what Plato said, but you cannot do an experiment and show him wrong.

Again: This is a logical approach not based on emotion. It is not, however, a scientific opinion.

==========

Actually, here's a speculative question.

I have shown briefly how the scientific method replaced the scholastic approach.

What would a post-scientific view look like? Is it possible that we might one day find a new method for arriving at truth that will replace science just as science replaced scholasticism? If so, what would it look like?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Borgh

2011-06-09, 01:30 PM

Wikipedia.

:smallwink:

Edit: just realized wikipedia would be a bit back to the scholastic method.

Karoht

2011-06-09, 01:50 PM

In other words, I think you're seeing a gap at the end, and assuming the gap begins at the beginning, not at the end.Perhaps that is my issue.

Here's a really, really, REALLY cheap, effective solution that would help drive down methane production.
End ranch subsidies. Raise tariffs on beef, pork, etc, products. Guess how likely that is to be suggested at the regulation level, by non-scientists.I've yet to see it mentioned by scientists, let alone non-scientists. Not saying they haven't mentioned it, just not that I've come across.

JonestheSpy

2011-06-09, 02:11 PM

/flips off RPGuru

/goes back to eating his hamburger.

Leave my meat alone, OR YOU WILL BE MY NEXT HAMBURGER PATTY!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much sums the question posed by this thread.

Groups of people are always anti-science when it challenges their worldview, whether by declaring that humans are an animal that evolved like the others instead of the center of the unvirse created by Divine Figure [X] or by pointing out that driving gas guzzling machines and wolfing down meat products every day is unsustainable in the long run.

Poison_Fish

2011-06-09, 02:15 PM

Perhaps that is my issue.

I've yet to see it mentioned by scientists, let alone non-scientists. Not saying they haven't mentioned it, just not that I've come across.

A quick (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39257) trip to (http://www.iea.org/papers/2009/methane_brochure.pdf) google (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err111/) answers your comments (http://www.hollandhart.com/articles/Capturing_Methane_Gas_White_Paper.pdf). Seriously, it exists. Do note there is a difference between research, policy-suggestion, legislation, media, etc. Also note that the majority of legislation is done based on short term fixes + influences from other lobbies, not what we actually need/is suggested by scientists.

Archpaladin Zousha

2011-06-09, 02:21 PM

Before the scientific method became commonplace, the pre-eminent western methodology was called scholasticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism). This involved deriving truth from written authorities or other ancient sources and then applying dialectic reasoning to discover truth.

It's main difference from the scientific method is that it does not permit experimental verification of truth; if Plato said it, it is so. You can use logic to derive new theorems from what Plato said, but you cannot do an experiment and show him wrong.

Again: This is a logical approach not based on emotion. It is not, however, a scientific opinion.

I remember hearing a story about this method at one point. A bunch of scholars were arguing about how many teeth are in a horse's mouth. One quoted Aristotle, another quoted some other ancient Greek thinker, and they were ultimately getting nowhere. One of them looks out the window and says, "Hey, there's a horse standing outside. Why don't we just go look in its mouth and count its teeth?"

The other scholars beat him up and then tossed him out on his arse.

pendell

2011-06-09, 02:24 PM

I remember hearing a story about this method at one point. A bunch of scholars were arguing about how many teeth are in a horse's mouth. One quoted Aristotle, another quoted some other ancient Greek thinker, and they were ultimately getting nowhere. One of them looks out the window and says, "Hey, there's a horse standing outside. Why don't we just go look in its mouth and count its teeth?"

The other scholars beat him up and then tossed him out on his arse.

It's times like this I wish this forum had a 'like' button.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Traab

2011-06-09, 02:28 PM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much sums the question posed by this thread.

Groups of people are always anti-science when it challenges their worldview, whether by declaring that humans are an animal that evolved like the others instead of the center of the unvirse created by Divine Figure [X] or by pointing out that driving gas guzzling machines and wolfing down meat products every day is unsustainable in the long run.

Meh, i honestly dont care that much, ill just make more burgers out of what I hunt down and shoot. Mmm, venison burgers. Mmmm, bear burgers. Keep your farting cows.

Keld Denar

2011-06-09, 02:29 PM

The real reason people mistust science:
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/0000/500/511/511.strip.gif

Archpaladin Zousha

2011-06-09, 02:40 PM

nope wrong, water actually expands by 10% as it freezes, it has to do with molecualr bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water that are charged. In water this charge is distibuted evenly, allowing more molecules per m3 ewheras in ice all the charges are ordered, which makes molecules repulse each other a bit.
Whoops! You're right, I had it reversed. Sorry! :smallredface:

The real reason people mistust science:
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/0000/500/511/511.strip.gif
Hey! I've got a sort of Liberal Arts degree (English BA with Literature emphasis), and I can understand technical talk for the most part! :smallannoyed:

It's times like this I wish this forum had a 'like' button.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Why, thank you! I actually believe I picked that one up from Terry Deary's Horrible Histories series, specifically The Measly Middle Ages.

Karoht

2011-06-09, 02:43 PM

A quick (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39257) trip to (http://www.iea.org/papers/2009/methane_brochure.pdf) google (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err111/) answers your comments (http://www.hollandhart.com/articles/Capturing_Methane_Gas_White_Paper.pdf). Seriously, it exists. Do note there is a difference between research, policy-suggestion, legislation, media, etc. Also note that the majority of legislation is done based on short term fixes + influences from other lobbies, not what we actually need/is suggested by scientists.

I should probably rephrase with "I haven't seen it suggested in mainstream media." Most people wouldn't consider the MIT webpage or the USDA webpage to be mainstream, for example. Heck, even the TED talks aren't really mainstream yet, a crying shame I assure you.

Telonius

2011-06-09, 02:43 PM

When water freezes into ice it doesn't just harden. The hardening is caused by the compression of the water molecules as it changes from a liquid to a solid. When ice melts, the molecules can expand. That's why when you have ice in a drink, the water level will rise as the ice-cubes melt.

Another problem are the glaciers that aren't floating in the water, such as the ones sitting on Greenland and Antarctica. That water is currently (for most purposes) not part of the water cycle and irrelevant to ocean levels. However, if it were to melt, and the runoff reach the oceans, it would suddenly be adding to the ocean volume and once again be part of the water cycle.

Poison_Fish

2011-06-09, 02:50 PM

I should probably rephrase with "I haven't seen it suggested in mainstream media." Most people wouldn't consider the MIT webpage or the USDA webpage to be mainstream, for example. Heck, even the TED talks aren't really mainstream yet, a crying shame I assure you.

Then I suggest you stop confusing what scientists do/say/research with what media sources you look at. Though I question what media sources you seem to be looking towards.

Edit: As for not having 'seen' it in the media, and basing that as your form of questioning the consensus, I suggest you do actual research into the matter rather then be an armchair skeptic.

Traab

2011-06-09, 03:10 PM

Another problem are the glaciers that aren't floating in the water, such as the ones sitting on Greenland and Antarctica. That water is currently (for most purposes) not part of the water cycle and irrelevant to ocean levels. However, if it were to melt, and the runoff reach the oceans, it would suddenly be adding to the ocean volume and once again be part of the water cycle.

The easy solution is to create a vastly powerful freeze ray that is aimed at the north and south poles. Once every decade it shall be fired to refreeze a specific amount of water. In this manner, we can keep the needed portion of the earths water supply locked up in ice where it cannot bury us under the sea.

Borgh

2011-06-09, 03:39 PM

The easy solution is to create a vastly powerful freeze ray that is aimed at the north and south poles. Once every decade it shall be fired to refreeze a specific amount of water. In this manner, we can keep the needed portion of the earths water supply locked up in ice where it cannot bury us under the sea.

this would only work if the freeze ray also deposited the ice onto land as just freezing the sea would do absolutely nothing at all.

Brother Oni

2011-06-09, 03:40 PM

Thats why I included both in my reasons for distrusting scientists. EVERYONE is funded by somebody, and its truly amusing just how frequently their "scientific research" turns out in favor of their bosses profit margins. Wether its green loving hippy type environmentalists who think humanity should be forcibly sterilized to save mother earth, or Big Al the Oil Baron who wants people to think that seals love bathing in crude oil as it gives their coats an extra layer of protection from harsh weather conditions.

Let's try a different type of science that's less up for debate.

Suppose I tell you that the LD50 for Drug X is 100 mg/kg oral dosage in rats.

In layman terms, you take 100 rats, force feed them 50mg of Drug X, 50 of them will die (assuming an average rat weighs 500g).

Are you going to assume that I'm skewing the results because my boss wants the LD50 to lower, thus showing less drug is needed to have a pharmacological effect, hence the product will be cheaper to manufacture?

So what happens when I take the drug into Phase 2 clinical trials and the artificially low dosage is shown to have no effect on the human patients?
I can't give them higher doses as my LD50 dictates the maximum dosage I'm allowed to give, so if I want to give more drug to the patients, I'll have to repeat the toxicology study again but with a higher dosage, then take it through P1 clinical trials before going to P2.

Alternately, I could do it right the first time.

Traab

2011-06-09, 03:41 PM

this would only work if the freeze ray also deposited the ice onto land as just freezing the sea would do absolutely nothing at all.

It would connect it back to the respective poles. Otherwise I would have said to place them at random points in the ocean just for all sorts of interesting bits of fun when icebergs pop up off the coast of hawaii or something. :D

Traab

2011-06-09, 03:42 PM

Let's try a different type of science that's less up for debate.

Suppose I tell you that the LD50 for Drug X is 100 mg/kg oral dosage in rats.

In layman terms, you take 100 rats, force feed them 50mg of Drug X, 50 of them will die (assuming an average rat weighs 500g).

Are you going to assume that I'm skewing the results because my boss wants the LD50 to lower, thus showing less drug is needed to have a pharmacological effect, hence the product will be cheaper to manufacture?

So what happens when I take the drug into Phase 2 clinical trials and the artificially low dosage is shown to have no effect on the human patients?
I can't give them higher doses as my LD50 dictates the maximum dosage I'm allowed to give, so if I want to give more drug to the patients, I'll have to repeat the toxicology study again but with a higher dosage.

Dammit Jim, im an electrician! Not a doctor!

Karoht

2011-06-09, 03:44 PM

Then I suggest you stop confusing what scientists do/say/research with what media sources you look at. Though I question what media sources you seem to be looking towards.

Edit: As for not having 'seen' it in the media, and basing that as your form of questioning the consensus, I suggest you do actual research into the matter rather then be an armchair skeptic.

This was someone else's point earlier in the thread. Notice how easy it is to confuse what scientists do/say/research with what media reports.

Also, pardon me for not reading every scientific journal known to man to discover that some scientists had (vocally? quietly?) voiced an opinion regarding climate change that didn't focus heavily on CO2. Pardon me for reading Scientific American only ever reading about CO2 focused "solutions" to climate change.

Telonius

2011-06-09, 03:50 PM

The easy solution is to create a vastly powerful freeze ray that is aimed at the north and south poles. Once every decade it shall be fired to refreeze a specific amount of water. In this manner, we can keep the needed portion of the earths water supply locked up in ice where it cannot bury us under the sea.

Oh, now that's just nonsense. The energy needed to re-freeze the ice would make us worse off than before. Besides, the only real expert we have on that sort of technology is currently in Arkham Asylum. (Though the man who finally apprehended him was also a scientist, we can't seem to track him down either).

Brother Oni

2011-06-09, 03:53 PM

Dammit Jim, im an electrician! Not a doctor!

I'm not a doctor either. :smalltongue:

It all depends on the science in question - for some reason, the more unknown the field is, the more people are willing to weigh in with their opinions on it.

Pharmaceutical science is more known than climate science, yet people tend not to argue with the scientists working in that field, despite there being more information available for them to read up and understand it.

It's odd that when a pharmaceutical scientist says 'taking too many pills will kill you', people tend to listen yet when a climate scientist says "burning too many fossil fuels will eventually kill the world', people don't.

pendell

2011-06-09, 03:58 PM

I absolutely, positively refuse to debate climate science on this board and if I do, I hereby give permission to the readers of this thread to smack me. Hard.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Poison_Fish

2011-06-09, 04:07 PM

This was someone else's point earlier in the thread. Notice how easy it is to confuse what scientists do/say/research with what media reports.

Also, pardon me for not reading every scientific journal known to man to discover that some scientists had (vocally? quietly?) voiced an opinion regarding climate change that didn't focus heavily on CO2. Pardon me for reading Scientific American only ever reading about CO2 focused "solutions" to climate change.

You (http://www.pages.pomona.edu/~cjt04747/chem106ps/Scientific%20American%20Feb%202007.pdf) were (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-a-menace-surfaces) saying? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rice-paddy-methane-emissi)

I'm not saying to read every journal out there. I'm answering your points with a 2 second google search and everything I pull is from the first page. I'm questioning your complaint on a base level by doing active searching. Not to mention you still seem to have no idea what the peer review process is which I find hilarious considering your earlier diatribe on accountability and fact checking, yet rejecting the consensus of global climate change because it's a 'consensus' and sometimes 'majorities are wrong'. Reaaaally convincing logic there!

I'm pointing out that you are greatly confused on the connection between science/research and the policies interacted by governments. Your placing blame on a system you don't understand. As many of us have said before, it is an interaction between governments, NGO's, scientists themselves, corporations, etc. As for the methane question, a 5 second jump to wikipedia can help to answer your questions. seriously, do some reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atm osphere).

Simply put, the narrative you have constructed does not match up with the reality of the situation. This is solved by pointing out the reality of the situation. The lack of passive information is a problem when it comes to the public learning anything. But any active look on your or my part (for the 2 seconds that it takes) provides a fair amount more. Hence I was doubting your own sources (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=defusing-the-methane-time-bomb).

RPGuru1331

2011-06-09, 04:42 PM

Why can't we just build in the water? We do it for bridges all the time, would it be that difficult to make a water-proof house? OR a floating house?

Yes, it would be that difficult. It may be possible, but that's hardly an excuse to slack now just because MAYBE iwth tons of research we can throw down new waterborn infrastructure.

WHY DOES EVERYONE IGNORE (or in this case mention it but not treat it as an option) DESALINATION!? Everyone I've spoken to (Except my mother) has said it costs. but everything costs. The world changes. Until we get to the point where we control that, then we just have to take the punches and keep going. As for my mother, she seems to ignore it. As though once corrupted fresh water is impossible to purify. And then looks at me like I'm stupid to even suggest that fresh water could be produced from dirty water.
Quelling urge to respond with image macro.

Because it's flipping expensive. You're getting dirty looks because it's so expensive that it is actually impractical. You are better served trying to prevent the necessity than just saying "WELP BUILD THE PLANTS AND RUN 'EM".