Science vs. "science" - and "engineering" too

Julia Winter wrote:So, kinda like Godwin's Law but not for politics.

Dale Hodgins wrote: far more weight than that of Drs. Pepper or Seuss.

elle sagenev wrote: Loads of criminals make claims about how they popped a dirty U/A. I'd say that is an acceptable point to claim science disagrees. Science is not always gray. Some subjects have been studied so thoroughly that there is no room to dispute them, no matter how many attempts at convincing argument and experience are claimed.

I suppose the scientific subjects I have become familiar with, through my work and my husbands, have me seeing the world of science a bit differently. Well studied, these subjects are. Saying you can't say "science" at all or you lose, that is too broad, imo.

Zach Muller wrote:

elle sagenev wrote: Loads of criminals make claims about how they popped a dirty U/A. I'd say that is an acceptable point to claim science disagrees. Science is not always gray. Some subjects have been studied so thoroughly that there is no room to dispute them, no matter how many attempts at convincing argument and experience are claimed.

I suppose the scientific subjects I have become familiar with, through my work and my husbands, have me seeing the world of science a bit differently. Well studied, these subjects are. Saying you can't say "science" at all or you lose, that is too broad, imo.

Im not sure if you mean things like the laws of thermodynamics, or things like energy generation through processes. People usually believe something is totally impossible until it is showed to be possible. So it may be studied by thousands of people for 100 years, but then one person thinks of a new way to do it and the topic is changed forever.
Just as we have a working model of physics, but we dont have a unified theory, so it isnt like we have arrived at " the complete right" answer. We just know a lot of stuff and that stuff works a certain way.

So on one hand if someone is claiming in an argument that the laws of physics are somehow not really going to apply, we can be relatively sure that they will fail to demonstrate their claims. The body of science has showed that the laws of physics do apply.
But on the other hand, someone might claim in an argument that they can use the laws of physics to accomplish something no one ever has before. Since it hasn't happened before people will point to the current scientific efforts and say, " look science shows it cant happen". But as with all innovations, something new does happen, and the new evidence has to be integrated into the old evidence.

Until we do have a unified theory there will be no settled science in my opinion, how would that work? It cant be settled up here in the macro scale, but at the nano scale we are still smashing particles wondering what the nature of the universe really is. Thats not settled, its unknown at a very essential level. Until we know of every exception that exists in the universe, we will really only know the little bit we do know, and that is only my opinion, humans know very little even though it took us a looong time to get it and sometimes it seems vast. If we knew a lot, then we wouldn't constantly screw everything up. Also just my opinion.

It should be considered that the term science is broad and defines different things sometimes. Sometimes "science" is really just a survey some people filled out and the information was interpreted and codified into a " scientific finding" but sometimes "science" is referring to something the ideal gas law. Two very different meanings.

Well ... this is awkward ...

First, all the stuff that has been proven (with our without a bright red sticker that says "SCIENCE!") is mighty large. I wouldn't be surprised to find there are a few hundred white papers proving almost anything. And the same number proving that the first batch ain't so.

As time passes, we find that a lot stuff that was "proven" was doctored. Thus making this awkward-ness awkward-er.

One day I was hauling a load of manure on a new trailer and a pretty new wheel with a pretty new tire passed me. I knew it was mine. We had been stopping about every ten minutes to tighten the lug nuts.

I stopped in case any more wheels wanted to make a solo venture. As I was retrieving my wayward wheel, my 80-year-old neighbor Tom came out to see what was up. Tom told me that I shouldn't use aluminum wheels on a trailer. Don't know why, but aluminum wheels just don't like staying on a trailer.

A week later I had all steel wheels - which never gave me a lick of trouble.

The point to all this is: is there "scientific proof" out there, somewhere, about aluminum wheels on trailers?

I once read of somebody doing fecal parasite counts and feeding their critters DE. They said DE works at eliminating parasites. And there are dozens of other folks that seem mighty certain of the same thing.

This is part of science: it is anecdotal evidence. When we get enough of it, and somebody gets the idea of doing some serious studies, they might prove or disprove .... and even then, their results could be questionable.

I think .... and I am just one giant doofus, so it really doesn't matter what I think .... I think there could be some truth in these claims. And it might take science a few decades to come up with their first thoughts, and a few centuries to clear up whether those first studies were true or not. In the meantime, we each read the debate and make our own decisions.

Frankly, I think DE is amazing stuff and should be kept in every building on the homestead. Which is why i wrote the article.

Another totally false statement, since anecdotal evidence is the opposite of "science".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

And I follow the link, and in the first paragraph it says:

considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable

So, just to recap. I said "This is part of science: it is anecdotal evidence."

you said "totally false statement, since anecdotal evidence is the opposite of "science"."


now you said "another totally false statement". This is terribly awkward, as it suggests that I am a less than honest person. Not only on this occassion, which it seems I had to do to some length to defend myself. And, prove, that I was telling the truth. But you state "another" which suggests that there is at least one other time that I said something that was less that true. Can you please direct me to any statement that I have ever made that was less than true? I would appreciate the opportunity to defend that statement also.

paul wheaton wrote:In another forum, somebody pointed out that the stuff about using DE to combat parasites in livestock has "never been proven scientifically".   Here is my response:

Well ... this is awkward ...

First, all the stuff that has been proven (with our without a bright red sticker that says "SCIENCE!") is mighty large. I wouldn't be surprised to find there are a few hundred white papers proving almost anything. And the same number proving that the first batch ain't so.

As time passes, we find that a lot stuff that was "proven" was doctored. Thus making this awkward-ness awkward-er.

One day I was hauling a load of manure on a new trailer and a pretty new wheel with a pretty new tire passed me. I knew it was mine. We had been stopping about every ten minutes to tighten the lug nuts.

I stopped in case any more wheels wanted to make a solo venture. As I was retrieving my wayward wheel, my 80-year-old neighbor Tom came out to see what was up. Tom told me that I shouldn't use aluminum wheels on a trailer. Don't know why, but aluminum wheels just don't like staying on a trailer.

A week later I had all steel wheels - which never gave me a lick of trouble.

The point to all this is: is there "scientific proof" out there, somewhere, about aluminum wheels on trailers?

I once read of somebody doing fecal parasite counts and feeding their critters DE. They said DE works at eliminating parasites. And there are dozens of other folks that seem mighty certain of the same thing.

This is part of science: it is anecdotal evidence. When we get enough of it, and somebody gets the idea of doing some serious studies, they might prove or disprove .... and even then, their results could be questionable.

I think .... and I am just one giant doofus, so it really doesn't matter what I think .... I think there could be some truth in these claims. And it might take science a few decades to come up with their first thoughts, and a few centuries to clear up whether those first studies were true or not. In the meantime, we each read the debate and make our own decisions.

Frankly, I think DE is amazing stuff and should be kept in every building on the homestead. Which is why i wrote the article.

the same person then responds:

Another totally false statement, since anecdotal evidence is the opposite of "science".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

My reply:

And I follow the link, and in the first paragraph it says:

considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable

So, just to recap. I said "This is part of science: it is anecdotal evidence."

you said "totally false statement, since anecdotal evidence is the opposite of "science"."


now you said "another totally false statement". This is terribly awkward, as it suggests that I am a less than honest person. Not only on this occassion, which it seems I had to do to some length to defend myself. And, prove, that I was telling the truth. But you state "another" which suggests that there is at least one other time that I said something that was less that true. Can you please direct me to any statement that I have ever made that was less than true? I would appreciate the opportunity to defend that statement also.

I guess my point with this is to show how the word "science" is used as a weapon.  And it seems to often be used by folks that don't know what the word means.  It's just a great weapon that is so easy to use.  

I think that folks that are doing the research and writing the white papers tend to not say "my science beats up your science" or "I crush your stupidity in the name of science".  They let their research and their work stand on its own merit.  And the word "science" never shows up.

So when I see the word "science" being thrown around as a weapon, my first thought is that the person wielding the word just found the weapon to be convenient and powerful - their knowledge of science is probably not significant.

John Weiland wrote:Re: "...Another totally false statement, since anecdotal evidence is the opposite of "science". ..."

@Paul W.:  "I guess my point with this is to show how the word "science" is used as a weapon. ....  I think that folks that are doing the research and writing the white papers tend to not say "my science beats up your science" or "I crush your stupidity in the name of science".  They let their research and their work stand on its own merit.  And the word "science" never shows up.

Weellllll, yes and no.  First, I agree that "...anecdotal evidence is the opposite of "science".."  is nothing short of a boneheaded comment with, minimally, a grave misuse of the word "opposite".

But I can only partially agree with the notion that " ....folks that are doing the research and writing the white papers tend to not say "my science beats up your science" or "I crush your stupidity in the name of science"."  That is to presume that getting a PhD and embarking on a career in scientific inquiry by default somehow imbues someone with the highest of ethical standards.   There certainly are no such formal criteria for getting the PhD although the notion of producing fraudulent data is considered unacceptable to the field.  While I agree that one would not use directly the phrases "my science beats up your science" or "I crush your stupidity in the name of science", you'd be amazed at the number of articles that point to some human malady for which both a lifestyle change and a potential new drug would be equally valid control measures.....and yet depending on leaning of the authors, one of those measures might be more highly represented in the literature.  Would it be any surprise that the "drug" option is more frequently alluded to?  Journal editors are **supposed** to catch such bias, but the process is an all-too human one.  Ultimately which is to say that all such information, anecdotal, scientific or otherwise, might IMO be taken as a starting point for person-specific, site-specific, and context-specific investigation.  And you are correct that the word 'science', given it's power to persuade, surely will be misused when it suits those wielding it.



[/
Oh Yes! The amount of petty competition and "my science is nettet Ryan your science" kind of remarkable (though often disguised as "constructive criticism" is staggering in the academic milieu...

Tyler Ludens wrote:  In these cases, demonstrated personal examples (preferably with photo documentation) can be more persuasive.  Such as "I made this machine and it works, see!" or "I implemented these aspects of ecology into my garden and it works, see!"

Jason Hernandez wrote:
I tell you, I would be more convinced by a controlled experiment than an anecdotal testimony. As a hypothetical example, take gardening by the moon. Lots of people believe it works; but is it really the effect of the moon, or are they just overall very competent gardeners? But now suppose we approach it experimentally. Set up a series of test plots, homogenized as to soil conditions, sunlight, water, etc. Randomly assign half of the plots to be sown at what is considered the most optimal moon time, and the other half, at the least optimal moon time. Use the same cultivars in both treatments, and care for the plots the same in every way except date of sowing. Record important dates like first seedling emergence, first flowering, first produce, for each plot. Also record total harvested weight from each plot. See if the two treatments differ.

This would tell me far more than, "I garden by the moon and my gardens always thrive."

Burra Maluca wrote:

Jason Hernandez wrote:

This would tell me far more than, "I garden by the moon and my gardens always thrive."

Excellent idea.  Why not go and do that for us and share your results?

the onus is on the one making the claim to provide evidence for it.

the onus is on the one making the claim to provide evidence for it.

I, for one, do not ask for them to prove anything, I am simply glad that they took the time to share.