Lost human cilvilizations?

[Blender]

Science is a methodology. It's forming hypotheses and performing repeatable experiments on testable phenomenon to try and falsify the hypothesis. Peer review is simply a quality control method where your peers in the field review and scrutinize your work. People who complain about peer review often do so because their work fails to stand up to basic scrutiny by their peers in the field.

What that person in the video is describing is also not science, it's intuition. Intuition is known to be unreliable and inaccurate.

 

[Stylizer1]

Science is a methodology. It's forming hypotheses and performing repeatable experiments on testable phenomenon to try and falsify the hypothesis. Peer review is simply a quality control method where your peers in the field review and scrutinize your work. People who complain about peer review often do so because their work fails to stand up to basic scrutiny by their peers in the field.

What that person in the video is describing is also not science, it's intuition. Intuition is known to be unreliable and inaccurate.

His analogy about the candle makers was very accurate.

 

[Blender]

His analogy about the candle makers was very accurate.

No, it's laughably bad. Candle makers were not engaged in science, they were engaged in making candles, and often this was just done by individuals in their home. Electric lighting, like many scientific advancements, came about indirectly by people experimenting with electrolysis and discovered that metal wires will incandesce when heated. This is a common and backwards way of thinking about how most scientific advancements have actually occurred.

 

[Stylizer1]

No, it's laughably bad. Candle makers were not engaged in science, they were engaged in making candles, and often this was just done by individuals in their home. Electric lighting, like many scientific advancements, came about indirectly by people experimenting with electrolysis and discovered that metal wires will incandesce when heated. This is a common and backwards way of thinking about how most scientific advancements have actually occurred.

Candle makers where engaged in lighting the dark.

Do you think every step of the way to get to the light bulb was peer reviewed?

Scientists can be inventors but inventors don't need to be scientists.

That's the point he is making.

Peer reviewed isn't the end all be all to science. For academia it is.

 

[Blender]

Candle makers where engaged in lighting the dark.

Do you think every step of the way to get to the light bulb was peer reviewed?

Scientists can be inventors but inventors don't need to be scientists.

That's the point he is making.

Peer reviewed isn't the end all be all to science. For academia it is.

You are again demonstrating that you don't really understand this topic.

You are equivocating applied science and scientific research by just using the label "science" as if they are the same thing. Scientific research advances knowledge and understanding in a field of study, while applied science takes that knowledge and uses it for applications. For scientific research, testable and repeatable experiments are critical so that others can replicate the research and results. Peer review is an important quality control method for this, because as we see regularly published in garbage pay-to-publish journals, when you don't have peer review you end up with cranks and swindlers presenting their claims as legitimate for gullible people to eat up.

Scientific research is when chemists ran experiments with electricity, metals, and inert gasses and discovered that you could produce different results depending on the materials and currents used. This advanced knowledge in the field of study. Applied science is when people took that knowledge and created practical applications from it such as the commercial light bulb. This didn't advance our knowledge or understanding, it created a practical application for scientific knowledge.

 

[Stylizer1]

You are again demonstrating that you don't really understand this topic.

You are equivocating applied science and scientific research by just using the label "science" as if they are the same thing. Scientific research advances knowledge and understanding in a field of study, while applied science takes that knowledge and uses it for applications. For scientific research, testable and repeatable experiments are critical so that others can replicate the research and results. Peer review is an important quality control method for this, because as we see regularly published in garbage pay-to-publish journals, when you don't have peer review you end up with cranks and swindlers presenting their claims as legitimate for gullible people to eat up.

Scientific research is when chemists ran experiments with electricity, metals, and inert gasses and discovered that you could produce different results depending on the materials and currents used. This advanced knowledge in the field of study. Applied science is when people took that knowledge and created practical applications from it such as the commercial light bulb. This didn't advance our knowledge or understanding, it created a practical application for scientific knowledge.

Kind of like your Covid vaccine. lol

Thanks for stopping bye.

 

[Blender]

Kind of like your Covid vaccine. lol

Thanks for stopping bye.

As usual, you have no actual response to anything that counters your posts.

 

[JMCx4]

... What that person in the video is describing is also not science, it's intuition. Intuition is known to be unreliable and inaccurate.

My intuition says you are wasting keystrokes/finger pokes

 

[Stylizer1]

As usual, you have no actual response to anything that counters your posts.

Across all of the threads you participate in all you do is argue with people. I hate talking with people who's only goal is to "win" a "conversation". I don't care if you can't entertain things that are beneath your level of intelligence but I find it funny that you stick around in those conversations. Again, I'm not trying to win here, I'm just trying to use my curiosity to look at things objectively. How ever wrong you find my opinion is not my problem and you are wasting your time here. I'm sure there are few others on the internet who need correction and will appreciate it.

There is nothing left for you to gain.

 

[lomiller1]

Science is a methodology. It's forming hypotheses and performing repeatable experiments on testable phenomenon to try and falsify the hypothesis. Peer review is simply a quality control method where your peers in the field review and scrutinize your work. People who complain about peer review often do so because their work fails to stand up to basic scrutiny by their peers in the field.

What that person in the video is describing is also not science, it's intuition. Intuition is known to be unreliable and inaccurate.

Which is exactly what's going on in the video clip. Allan Savory is a biologist who came up with the notion that if you quadruple the number of grazing animals on a piece of land it won't get stripped bare, rather it will become super productive and be able to absorb infinite amounts of CO2 and stop global warming.

Some rancher got behind him because he told them they didn't need to worry about overgrazing public land, but the scientists who've looked at it have generally decided it's bunk, and and dangerous bunk at that.

Anyway here is a pretty thorough debunking of Savory

Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle | George Monbiot

George Monbiot: Allan Savory tells us that increasing livestock can reduce desertification and reverse climate change – but where is the scientific evidence?

www.theguardian.com

And another from Realclimate

RealClimate: Cows, Carbon and the Anthropocene: Commentary on Savory TED Video

RealClimate: Guest post by Jason West and David Briske Allan Savory delivered a highly publicized talk at a “Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED)” conference in February of this year (2013) entitled “How to fight desertification and reverse climate change.” Here we address one of the most...

www.realclimate.org

 

[lomiller1]

Candle makers where engaged in lighting the dark.

Do you think every step of the way to get to the light bulb was peer reviewed?

Scientists can be inventors but inventors don't need to be scientists.

That's the point he is making.

Peer reviewed isn't the end all be all to science. For academia it is.

Yes, actually. Every step needed to be tested and confirmed. If that step worked it was accepted by others in the field, if it failed it was rejected. This too, is peer review.

Peer review is often though of as just a quality control process for scientific journals, but the process of advancing arguments to convince ones peers of the validity of a theory doesn't stop when a paper is published. Especially for controversial subjects it can take a lot of convincing and this requires rock solid arguments and evidence. The people that complain about it are usually the ones who can't produce rock solid arguments and evidence. As time goes on good theories become accepted while bad ones fall away.

 

[RandV]

I have no idea what's going on here but very strong 'old man yells at clouds' vibe from that video. I mean, "going into universities as bright young people, they come out of it brain dead not even knowing what science is"... that's a hell of a statement to make, I don't know who that guy is but wide sweeping statements like that scream bullshit artist to me.

 

[Blender]

Across all of the threads you participate in all you do is argue with people. I hate talking with people who's only goal is to "win" a "conversation". I don't care if you can't entertain things that are beneath your level of intelligence but I find it funny that you stick around in those conversations. Again, I'm not trying to win here, I'm just trying to use my curiosity to look at things objectively. How ever wrong you find my opinion is not my problem and you are wasting your time here. I'm sure there are few others on the internet who need correction and will appreciate it.

There is nothing left for you to gain.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "winning". You seem to view conversations on topics like this as confrontational, I view them as an opportunity to explore claims for truth value. You may hate talking with people who challenge your views, but that is what not being in an echo chamber is like. Stick to echo chambers where everyone agrees with you if you don't want to have your views scrutinized. For myself, if my positions can't hold up to even basic external scrutiny, I seriously reevaluate why I hold those positions. It's also that I value honesty in conversations and I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. Do you care about honesty and believing true things? Not everyone does, some people want to believe things that provide them comfort or entertainment for example, they don't particularly care about honesty or truth value.

"Looking at things objectively" would involve applying logic to evaluate claims and in the case of a scientific claims, holding them to the high standard required in the scientific fields.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is really not an accurate framing of what peer review means, what universities do, or how science works.

Anyone who has actually participated in peer review can attest that it has nothing to do with 'agreeing' with the author. It's a test of the methodology that they used to come to their conclusions, nothing more. Real university scientists routinely approve papers that conflict with their views on a subject, as long as there's nothing suspicious about the methodology behind them.

The fact that this guy has so much energy against that method -- and so much energy against educated young people insisting on a high level of scrutiny in the sciences, as opposed to just accepting things that someone dreamed up while walking around in a field -- is not a particularly good look for him.


edit: It also bears noting that the account which posted that video is heavily politicized, only touching on science as it relates to politics.

 

[Stylizer1]

edit: It also bears noting that the account which posted that video is heavily politicized, only touching on science as it relates to politics.

What does that mean?

 

[tarheelhockey]

What does that mean?

Look at the content of the account. Every post is politically related. To the extent that it touches on science, it’s for obviously political purposes (e.g. criticizing climate science or COVID science).

 

[Stylizer1]

Look at the content of the account. Every post is politically related. To the extent that it touches on science, it’s for obviously political purposes (e.g. criticizing climate science or COVID science).

i dont speak what ever language most of those post are made in. Because that person has a political agenda has nothing to do with why i posted it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

i dont speak what ever language most of those post are made in.

Yes you do. The vast majority of the content they’re pushing is in English.

Because that person has a political agenda has nothing to do with why i posted it.

I’m not saying anything about your intentions. I’m saying that account is very blatantly pushing a bunch of political propaganda, much of which is specifically about skepticism of COVID and climate change. Their publication of an anti-scientist video has to be viewed in that context.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Graham Hancock tried pushing that same pseudo-profound anti science crap too. He doesn’t debate people because of it and their “rigid ideologies”

Science is a testing mechanism. What’s true and repeatable survives, what isn’t gets tossed to the way side. The human brain isn’t perfect, if we don’t have a way to keep our flaws in behavior and thinking in check we lose our grip on reality

 

[Stylizer1]

Asteroid 2.3 times the size of dinosaur heading for Earth - NASA

Asteroid 2022 PW may be small, but it will fly dangerously close to the Earth, relatively close to the Moon's distance to the planet.

www.jpost.com

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Stylizer1]

This is an interesting explanation for the "lost city of Atlantis".

 

[JMCx4]

This is an interesting explanation for the "lost city of Atlantis".

1.56M subscribers can't be wrong ... right?

 

[Stylizer1]

1.56M subscribers can't be wrong ... right?

not saying he's right. It's just interesting.