HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Key to Science Is Being Wrong
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
Being able to admit to be wrong, to conduct an experiment that he or she knows full well may prove themselves to be entirely wrong is definitely a requirement. However, being right once in a while may certainly help.
To paraphrase something I read in a "nature of science" article one time: Science is the process of eliminating the explanations that don't work. We may never know absolute truth but we become progressively less wrong. If there isn't some possibility that an idea can be proved wrong (even though that possibility may be extremely remote) then it isn't science.
I find another interesting discussion by Feynman to be
We must discuss each question within the uncertainties that are allowed. And as evidence grows it increases the probability perhaps that some idea is right, or decreases it. But it never makes absolutely certain one way or the other. Now we have found that this is of paramount importance in order to progress. We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.
Now the freedom to doubt, which is absolutely essential for the development of the sciences, was born from a struggle with the constituted authorities .
Richard Feynman in 1964 at the Galileo Symposium in Italy.
To paraphrase another, George Box, all models are wrong but I find some useful.
We must discuss each question within the uncertainties that are allowed. And as evidence grows it increases the probability perhaps that some idea is right, or decreases it. But it never makes absolutely certain one way or the other. Now we have found that this is of paramount importance in order to progress. We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.
Now the freedom to doubt, which is absolutely essential for the development of the sciences, was born from a struggle with the constituted authorities .
Richard Feynman in 1964 at the Galileo Symposium in Italy.
To paraphrase another, George Box, all models are wrong but I find some useful.
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
/soapbox/
This is the exact reason I hate it when people get on their soapbox (irony intentional) about "global warming" or "macro evolution disproves creationism/religion", especially when so called scientists are trying to oust others who are using the scientific process to search out other possibilities. If global warming and macro evolution are indeed factual, prove it. That is what science is about. But until you can say with 99% certainty that these are 'fact', then you still need to look at alternatives. That is how science works. Weed out everything until you have the most plausible solution. That is what macro evolution is right now, the most plausible solution, but in no way is it fact yet. Also, don't even get started on the loopholes in the global warming debate, holy moley. Many scientists today seem to make science their 'religion' instead of making it a study of laws that govern the physical world.
The best scientists will admit when they are wrong. Take Einstein, he even submitted theories that he, himself postulated could not really be true. But it was his best guess on the information he had. People need to stop with the zealous religious following of blind science and get back to the systematic process of discovering or disproving laws through trial and elimination.
/soapbox/
This is the exact reason I hate it when people get on their soapbox (irony intentional) about "global warming" or "macro evolution disproves creationism/religion", especially when so called scientists are trying to oust others who are using the scientific process to search out other possibilities. If global warming and macro evolution are indeed factual, prove it. That is what science is about. But until you can say with 99% certainty that these are 'fact', then you still need to look at alternatives. That is how science works. Weed out everything until you have the most plausible solution. That is what macro evolution is right now, the most plausible solution, but in no way is it fact yet. Also, don't even get started on the loopholes in the global warming debate, holy moley. Many scientists today seem to make science their 'religion' instead of making it a study of laws that govern the physical world.
The best scientists will admit when they are wrong. Take Einstein, he even submitted theories that he, himself postulated could not really be true. But it was his best guess on the information he had. People need to stop with the zealous religious following of blind science and get back to the systematic process of discovering or disproving laws through trial and elimination.
/soapbox/
I'd rather be wrong than make shit up and believe it like it's true. Not only believe but force it upon others. What the heck 
Now... people who make up "science" and force that crap on others is also annoying. There's a balance, and there's varying levels of credible science and those who figure it out.
You learn from mistakes.
Now... people who make up "science" and force that crap on others is also annoying. There's a balance, and there's varying levels of credible science and those who figure it out. You learn from mistakes.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
So what you're saying is there are no good scientists on the INTERNET.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
This is a problem. They put faith in their theories and treat it like fact. If an alternative comes along that can disprove their theory, they argue against the science that disproves it. A scientists needs to accept that theories can be proven wrong. They can be 99% correct and may never be proved wrong, but there is a possibility it could be.
I love being proven wrong. Not only do I learn something new, I look at new challenges with it. Wrong? Well, time to find the correct answer.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
100% agree.
But because of the current climate in "scientific" circles; they can't afford to be wrong and disprove their own theories through the scientific process of investigation. Data be damned; fudge the numbers. There is government grant money, endowments, etc at stake not to mention reputations and future paid peaking engagements.
Many of today's scientists are amoral and have not problem lying to keep funds coming in.
This is why you see such scientific fraud perpetrated on the public and why everything is alarmist and a crisis. No crisis to be averted by brave scientists; no grant money.
It is a simple as that.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
100% agree.
But because of the current climate in "scientific" circles; they can't afford to be wrong and disprove their own theories through the scientific process of investigation. Data be damned; fudge the numbers. There is government grant money, endowments, etc at stake not to mention reputations and future paid speaking engagements.
Many of today's scientists are amoral and have not problem lying to keep funds coming in.
This is why you see such scientific fraud perpetrated on the public and why everything is alarmist and a crisis. No crisis to be averted by brave scientists; no grant money.
It is a simple as that.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Being a true scientist requires you to consider ALL possibilities regardless of how you personally feel. Its why I don't understand how many atheists are also scientists. You can't disprove the existence of a god nor can you prove the existence of one existentially. But as a scientist , in pure form , you must commit to the possibility that there could be such a being.
If you begin to accept that all things are possible , you will begin to understand yourself.
If you begin to accept that all things are possible , you will begin to understand yourself.
ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
So wait, you want people to prove evolution? There are studies that prove that evolution is in fact true, but it is still labelled as a "theory" as scientist don't feel they have answered absolutely every question there is about it. The fact is, scientists have more proof and data and working models of evolution than they do for the theory of gravity.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
I suggest you check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
There is a true conspiracy to suppress the evidence that intelligent design is behind the origin of life.
Just the evidence is of a designer, (not creationism, that is drawn from the bible) the Darwinist theories do NOT provide any answer even though we are told the answer is Darwinism.
if you look at it from a non-clouded-with-religion point of view, "intelligent design" is the least plausible theory ever put forth to explain how we ended up here on this rock floating thru space.
to what question does evoloution not plausibly explain?
also i have to point out- while i dont disagree that govt money and grants can cause some people to feel the need to "justify" that money with noteworth results...
this statement quoted is almost completely false and unnecessarily malicious. its unfounded nonsense to say that "most" scientists, or even a significant number, have no problem lying for money. thats is the kind of attitude i would expect from great thinkers like donald trump; certainly not from anyone with any kind of scientific background.
The only thing needed to disprove creationism/religion is religion itself and the explanation given for creationism, which if true, would've been given, accurately, which wasn't (says almost every single intelligent Homo Sapien that ever lived).
I believe the more accurate term is "global climate change". And if one needs Science to prove to you things change, IMO, slapping you in the head with all of the universes reality wouldn't bring you back into reality. Nothing is ever not changing, the time frame is what gets most people. Of course the planet warms, of course it cools, and of course humans have an impact on it, to what degree is the question science is asking, not forcibly touching you with it (the known facts) like your creepy priests do.
Science is usually the smarter of the human race asking questions and finding answers/solutions that they then can't get the less intelligent humans to accept/understand. Same reasons democracies aren't efficient, the majority are 'meh' at best.
You might need to update the encyclopedias in your home.
I feel like you're inadvertently saying Science is doing it wrong and you (a religious guy from the the looks) know of a better way. So...possibly Gods divine plan? lol...j/k, that's just stupid!
Loopholes? This isn't tax code, it's the problems that arise since our species doesn't know it all yet. Things take time to accurately understand, holy shit. Things aren't always clear cut in the real world.
Replace "religion" with "career".
I wish religion would take Science's stance and admit when they're wrong but shit, that will never happen. It's a possible theory though.
SkribbelKat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,330
Skribbels just came by to say that arguing about religion in a computer nerd forum seems silly when there are more important things to think about like pancakes or those hotdogs that have melted cheese in them.
I will watch this, because I watch everything.
Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the beginning of life (everywhere/the universe/whatever), only how it evolved on Earth into what we are now. So this (your wording above) makes no fracking sense, at all.
Most true Scientists (or generally just smart people) are agnostic, not atheists. Your perception is skewed IMO. They don't discredit a possible designer, they discredit man made religions (every single one of them).
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
When you understand that, you will understand ________ (fill in the blank).
i feel this is the one fundimental problem with trying to have an actual logical discussion about which theory of life seems more likely; the scientific point of view, while skeptical, will always be happy to actually listen to and consider any logical arguments supporting intelligent design; whereas the religious point of view will almost never even consider the possibility that theology isnt the most logical explanation. if it doesnt fit with what you already believe, then it must be wrong...
which is exactly the kind of thought process that the orig article condems as harmful to intelectual advancement.
Don't worry, I'm sure that other guy also conveniently forgets that gravity is also still partially just a theory. Le' sigh
I really wish I could +rep you for that whole chain of responses.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
I didn't say most. I said many.
And there is great collusion in the world wide fraud concerning global warming. There consensus among many scientists; but consensus is NOT SCIENCE.
And it is absolute folly to hold scientists up as superior examples of human beings.
Having a string of letters behind your name does NOT make you any less fallible or prone to the temptation of expediences than the average person. In fact I would say they are more.
These scientist are often published authors and have high esteem and high profile positions. They are NOT going to let the cat out of the bag and admit they are a fraud if they can help it. And if anyone questions them or their acolytes, ridicule them, destroy them and always deny them an honest debate. This is easy to do when you have liberal governments, liberal media outlets, and other scientists in the same boat behind you.
"The key to science is being wrong" is a good article and I completely agree! Too many people can't admit to being wrong because they feel it makes them weak and vulnerable. They are only right because that's pretty much the ignorant attitude of most people who criticize them when called out. You live and you learn and you are frequently wrong. If I had a nickle for every time I've been wrong in the half century of my life I'd have a bag full of them too heavy to carry. Self improvement is a bitch but still attainable.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,986
<3
You need to join General Mayhem on this forum as soon as they fix the payment issue.
Science is based on the principal "inference to the best explanation". There is no right or wrong. There is only the most plausible theory that explains a set of data or observations. These theories are taken as correct until a better explanation is discovered.
Evolution, gravity are theories, they are not facts. They are the best theories we have to explain observational data.
That is why science is so successful, it isn't about being right or wrong, in fact it can never be right or wrong because there is never a perfect basis for determining what is right and what is wrong. It is about explaining things to the best of our ability and knowing that everything can be subject to change in light of new data or new theories.
Evolution, gravity are theories, they are not facts. They are the best theories we have to explain observational data.
That is why science is so successful, it isn't about being right or wrong, in fact it can never be right or wrong because there is never a perfect basis for determining what is right and what is wrong. It is about explaining things to the best of our ability and knowing that everything can be subject to change in light of new data or new theories.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
"The key to science is being wrong" is a good article and I completely agree! Too many people can't admit to being wrong because they feel it makes them weak and vulnerable. They are only right because that's pretty much the ignorant attitude of most people who criticize them when called out. You live and you learn and you are frequently wrong. If I had a nickle for every time I've been wrong in the half century of my life I'd have a bag full of them too heavy to carry. Self improvement is a bitch but still attainable.
Exactly.
What does it boil down to? It is a character issue. To admit your are WRONG about something; especially something you have built your career around take great courage and that is a strength of character. And I cannot point fingers at scientists alone because this is a societal issue.
+2 on that brother!
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,689
You just want to see Fail and Skribbel go at it.
Once payment thing is fixed, I'd pitch in for a membership for GenMay for this guy. Not sure how long that will be as they've already said it isn't a priority.ballistic90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,308
This is a good explanation, although many people have a problem with it because the theories are hard to wrap your mind around if people give you the entire thing, but don't sound like they make sense if you give them the abbreviated version. That's why you hear people with mis-interpretations of the theory of evolution, such as "people came from monkies" or "evolution is the process of going from an inferior species to a new superior species through generational changes". A good way to look at evolution (again, abbreviations here) is that as a species lives from one generation to the next, the members of the species that are able to reproduce will have their traits passed on while the ones that can't will die off. There's no value judgement on whether that trait is "good" or "superior", it's just what gets to the next generation. These traits can eventually cumulate into a new species, or a species that is significantly different than the previous one.
Surprisingly enough, gravity is a much more difficult force to define and explain, since it seems to disappear at very small scales without any known explanation.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
Most true Scientists (or generally just smart people) are agnostic, not atheists. Your perception is skewed IMO. They don't discredit a possible designer, they discredit man made religions (every single one of them).
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
When you understand that, you will understand ________ (fill in the blank).
Yes, the eminent scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson labels himself as an agnostic.
A (meaning without) gnostic (meaning knowledge)
But really what he means is he found no compelling evidence that would lead him to being a theist.
And yet how inconsistent the man is in his thinking.
This is Neil on Sir Issac Newton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
Basically Neil goes on and on about the towering intellect of Newton. And is truly in awe of Newtons accomplishments in the sciences.
Yet he forgets one great truth about Newton. Sir Issac Newton was a theologian first and a scientist second. Newton was a man of profound faith in God. Newton wrote as much about Christianity and theology as about science.
Newton found no conflict with science and Christian theology. This is because God as ultimate cause gave everything in the universe meaning.
How is it that Newtons believe in God did not ruin his scientific objectivity?
According to Tyson, religious belief harms the scientific endeavor.
Zumino Zufeilon
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 917
Remember folks, the science that says the world is 4.56 Billion years old is driven by the exact same effects that allow transistors to work.
If we can use it well enough for transistors, what makes it suddenly suspect when it comes to radioactive decay.
In fact, our understanding of transistors comes straight out of science attempting to understand radioactive decay.
So, if quantum tunneling exists, and it works according to our current theory (which it plainly does because we're communicating via applied quantum tunneling right now), there are only 2 options.
1) The Earth is ~4.56 billion years old, and the bible is factually incorrect (but can still be tremendously valuable from a parable state).
or
2) God is a gigantic troll who setup the universe and then piled ALL of the evidence in direct contradiction to the rules he/she/it specifically setup.
Additionally, someone called for "99%" of evidence/scientists/etc.
99% of biologists and geologists agree with Evolution
99% of geologists and climate scientists agree with Anthropogenic Climate Change
And as for the person claiming "they are just doing it for the grants". You obviously don't understand science.
It is significantly easier to get funding for, and get a name for yourself, if you can prove something wrong.
If we can use it well enough for transistors, what makes it suddenly suspect when it comes to radioactive decay.
In fact, our understanding of transistors comes straight out of science attempting to understand radioactive decay.
So, if quantum tunneling exists, and it works according to our current theory (which it plainly does because we're communicating via applied quantum tunneling right now), there are only 2 options.
1) The Earth is ~4.56 billion years old, and the bible is factually incorrect (but can still be tremendously valuable from a parable state).
or
2) God is a gigantic troll who setup the universe and then piled ALL of the evidence in direct contradiction to the rules he/she/it specifically setup.
Additionally, someone called for "99%" of evidence/scientists/etc.
99% of biologists and geologists agree with Evolution
99% of geologists and climate scientists agree with Anthropogenic Climate Change
And as for the person claiming "they are just doing it for the grants". You obviously don't understand science.
It is significantly easier to get funding for, and get a name for yourself, if you can prove something wrong.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
No idea what you are smoking.
The discovery of the transistor was made almost by accident. It was merely experimenting at Bell laboratories with the magic properties of crystals and there ability to "detect" over the air signals. (how a simple crystal radio works)
The detection property is simply the action of a diode. This was the first discovery. If you take 2 diodes and give them a common junction (PNP or NPN) and attach a electrode to the junction they found you can control the biasing of the diode with a voltage. Make it act like a valve to current. BUT, when they injected a signal into this base electrode it amplified the signal. Low and behold, the transistor.
Zumino Zufeilon
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 917
Hehe, now go look up the actual science behind the actions of the transistor.
Yes, it was discovered by accident, but it was understood through <SCIENCE>
And that science is the Quantum Tunneling effect, which is exactly the same effect that governs Radioactive Decay.
Zumino Zufeilon
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 917
In fact, here's the Wiki page on Quantum Tunneling, it's a good place to start learning about the science behind both effects!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling