|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 22, 2016 20:23:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 22, 2016 21:37:00 GMT
You think? That's what happens when politicians are funding the science. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 23, 2016 0:27:50 GMT
You think? That's what happens when politicians are funding the science. we pay top dollar and still only get the answer we want less than half the time... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 23, 2016 6:43:17 GMT
When you are hired to "Prove A=B" and failure is not an option, that is not science, its engineering.
When you see a person in a white coat on TV and think "Thats just an actor being paid to play a Dentist isnt it?.." you know how bad it has got.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 23, 2016 13:56:21 GMT
When you are hired to "Prove A=B" and failure is not an option, that is not science, its engineering. When you see a person in a white coat on TV and think "Thats just an actor being paid to play a Dentist isnt it?.." you know how bad it has got. actually, the article is more along the lines of "when you hire somebody to discover something exciting and failure is not an option" |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 23, 2016 16:03:13 GMT
I mentioned this before, but it fits this topic. A number of years ago, the EPA commissioned a study of the effects of drilling gas wells on the prairie Sage Grouse, a small turkey-like bird that runs around the midwest. After a two-year study, the researchers concluded that while gas wells were a minor problem, the real threats to the sage grouse were from wind turbines. The EPA rejected the report, sending it back to the researchers and telling them that they did not commission a study of wind turbines, but gas wells. They were told to remove all references to wind turbines from the report.
So much for scientific research.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 23, 2016 16:20:43 GMT
I mentioned this before, but it fits this topic. A number of years ago, the EPA commissioned a study of the effects of drilling gas wells on the prairie Sage Grouse, a small turkey-like bird that runs around the midwest. After a two-year study, the researchers concluded that while gas wells were a minor problem, the real threats to the sage grouse were from wind turbines. The EPA rejected the report, sending it back to the researchers and telling them that they did not commission a study of wind turbines, but gas wells. They were told to remove all references to wind turbines from the report. So much for scientific research. meanwhile, a ways down the coast, when development was king, they planted imported european beach grass to stabilize the sand dunes. some years back I read an article that was (a) decrying the beach grass for being invasive. and (b) decrying dune buggy recreation for harming the beach grass. in the same article. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 23, 2016 17:46:34 GMT
There’s Something Really Wrong With Science These DaysBasically, a journal sent out a request for papers. A joker submitted a paper that consisted of nothing more than "Get me off this f------g mailing list" repeated over and over again. The journal offered to publish the paper...with only "minor" changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 23, 2016 21:47:31 GMT
I mentioned this before, but it fits this topic. A number of years ago, the EPA commissioned a study of the effects of drilling gas wells on the prairie Sage Grouse, a small turkey-like bird that runs around the midwest. After a two-year study, the researchers concluded that while gas wells were a minor problem, the real threats to the sage grouse were from wind turbines. The EPA rejected the report, sending it back to the researchers and telling them that they did not commission a study of wind turbines, but gas wells. They were told to remove all references to wind turbines from the report. So much for scientific research. Then again, this is the EPA we're talking about. There's a reason why Texas has taken them to court so many times over the last few years. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 23, 2016 23:29:12 GMT
I mentioned this before, but it fits this topic. A number of years ago, the EPA commissioned a study of the effects of drilling gas wells on the prairie Sage Grouse, a small turkey-like bird that runs around the midwest. After a two-year study, the researchers concluded that while gas wells were a minor problem, the real threats to the sage grouse were from wind turbines. The EPA rejected the report, sending it back to the researchers and telling them that they did not commission a study of wind turbines, but gas wells. They were told to remove all references to wind turbines from the report. So much for scientific research. Then again, this is the EPA we're talking about. There's a reason why Texas has taken them to court so many times over the last few years. No doubt. But it's just another case of manipulating scientific research to fit a political agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 24, 2016 7:39:07 GMT
There’s Something Really Wrong With Science These DaysBasically, a journal sent out a request for papers. A joker submitted a paper that consisted of nothing more than "Get me off this f------g mailing list" repeated over and over again. The journal offered to publish the paper...with only "minor" changes. I now have that excellent piece of PDF, and am about to go through my recent spam folder and "forward" it to all involved.... Not because it will do anything usefull, but because it kind of settles in nice with my sense of humour. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2016 7:52:36 GMT
Then again, this is the EPA we're talking about. There's a reason why Texas has taken them to court so many times over the last few years. No doubt. But it's just another case of manipulating scientific research to fit a political agenda. I decided to look up what the EPA had to say about the sage grouse. turns out they recognize that wind farm development also affects their territory. thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243336-feds-release-sage-grouse-conservation-plan |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 24, 2016 8:10:32 GMT
When you are hired to "Prove A=B" and failure is not an option, that is not science, its engineering. When you see a person in a white coat on TV and think "Thats just an actor being paid to play a Dentist isnt it?.." you know how bad it has got. actually, the article is more along the lines of "when you hire somebody to discover something exciting and failure is not an option" Right....... ok.... Maybe this is a miss-communication issue. That post was my own ideas on how science is "Evolving" in the popular media these days, and not anything at all to do with the article, that I only basically skimmed. So saying, I had already come up with the conclusions before I got "that far" in that article.... So in conclusion, who knew, I already knew, me, as "Truck driver ex landlord" from the unpopular-to-ludunites part of the country of North West England, I knew how bad the shape of "Popular" science is right now. However. I cite only "pop" science... There are two different breeds. Those doing REAL science, and may I also cite UMIST and affiliated Universities here for there recent work in Graphene, carbon based monofilaments, their excellent work in the Radio communications field, with the Radio telescopes, there continuing work in Computing science, and thats just the universities. "Real" science happens. Quietly, in the background, every moment of every day. If you want "Real" science, who do you trust, someone who probably uses the same barber shop as Einstein, with a slight thousand yard stare that sort of infers that they are working on several projects whilst talking to you at the same time, unkempt clothing, a look of a thousand cups of coffee, bad diet, but unwavering total focus and 100% sense of job satisfaction that they managed to hammer out the finer details and have something they can now "Publish" that is new, and will actually change the world in some way, For The Better.... Or. Do you trust the starched bleached white hand-picked model in white coat and glasses (stick a pen it the top pocket, it looks good...) from some bad advertising agency that is reading from a script and trying to make it look like they are a REAL dentist, and wish to tell you about the "Major advances" in "Mouth hygiene" that their new product that contains "Madeupium" .... You all know that the product Listerine mouth wash was previously sold as a floor cleaner and several other products before they started making it as a totally useless hygiene product?.. LOOK at the people on the Toothpaste adds. Do you believe a thing they are telling you?. do you believe they even understand anything on the script they are reading?.. So why ARE we allowing this "Re-creation" type science to influence what we buy?.. Because people are stupid. And hare I am, that again only just a Ex Landlord Truck driver with what is seen by those posh gits wat fink dwy run da country as a "Luke warm" intelligence, I see myself not much above average to the people I live and work with, so unless the town of Eureka has popped up around my ears, without me noticing, how the hell is all this bogus science getting round our own bulls---- filters. Unless the advertising agencies are LYING about how much it works... In that they can show some probably madeupium type spreadsheets that show how much better your sales are to their clients but meanwhile nothing is happening, but the trade in bullshat that they call advertising is making a profit out of nothing?... How may adult comics magazines do they sell each week that have articles that when you read through them are just a "we need something to fill this space between adverts". 10 tips to make you life better, when only one of them makes any sense at all, but you wouldnt do that anyway.... Is this likkle tirade against advertising agencies getting anywhere?.. am I making any sense at all to anyone?.. Please let me know if I missed the plot completely here. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 24, 2016 8:18:28 GMT
I mentioned this before, but it fits this topic. A number of years ago, the EPA commissioned a study of the effects of drilling gas wells on the prairie Sage Grouse, a small turkey-like bird that runs around the midwest. After a two-year study, the researchers concluded that while gas wells were a minor problem, the real threats to the sage grouse were from wind turbines. The EPA rejected the report, sending it back to the researchers and telling them that they did not commission a study of wind turbines, but gas wells. They were told to remove all references to wind turbines from the report. So much for scientific research. Then again, this is the EPA we're talking about. There's a reason why Texas has taken them to court so many times over the last few years. Devils advocate says they were actually right on rejection the report... Consider the following statement. We asked you for a report on GAS drills, not wind turbines. That is a separate study. If we wanted a study on Wind turbines, THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD ASK YOU FOR...... So in that, I totally under4stand how they would reject the report as not what they asked for?. It could be that they are looking at planning application for Gas wells in the area's and want to know if its safe to allow those applications to go ahead. Which, logically, has "Bugger all" to do with Wind turbines. If they were looking at applications for Wind turbines, would they appreciate the report on Gas wells being submitted?... Not at all. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 24, 2016 18:33:22 GMT
Then again, this is the EPA we're talking about. There's a reason why Texas has taken them to court so many times over the last few years. Devils advocate says they were actually right on rejection the report... Consider the following statement. We asked you for a report on GAS drills, not wind turbines. That is a separate study. If we wanted a study on Wind turbines, THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD ASK YOU FOR...... So in that, I totally under4stand how they would reject the report as not what they asked for?. It could be that they are looking at planning application for Gas wells in the area's and want to know if its safe to allow those applications to go ahead. Which, logically, has "Bugger all" to do with Wind turbines. If they were looking at applications for Wind turbines, would they appreciate the report on Gas wells being submitted?... Not at all. I would feel a whole lot better if I believed that. I don't. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 25, 2016 0:25:17 GMT
I mentioned this before but it is applicable here as well. NPR's "Planet Money" podcast did a story on this a few months ago. They looks at all these small studies that have unexpected results. They found that that many of these published studies were never peer-reviewed, despite being published. On review they found that there were common flaws in methodology. I'll post what I did originally.
One thing I didn't mention in the original post is that someone did a study where they pulled 300 of the more interesting findings from recent publications and reran the experiments. Over 2/3rds of experiments published in scientific journals that were retested could not be replicated under controlled conditions.
This "imposible" reactionless thruster seems to be an outlier in science. The results are unexpected, but the experiment is something that can be repeated easily and there is enough interest for people to actually do real peer review. Sadly it seems this is very much the exception to the rule today.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2016 5:30:55 GMT
I mentioned this before but it is applicable here as well. NPR's "Planet Money" podcast did a story on this a few months ago. They looks at all these small studies that have unexpected results. They found that that many of these published studies were never peer-reviewed, despite being published. On review they found that there were common flaws in methodology. I'll post what I did originally. One thing I didn't mention in the original post is that someone did a study where they pulled 300 of the more interesting findings from recent publications and reran the experiments. Over 2/3rds of experiments published in scientific journals that were retested could not be replicated under controlled conditions. This "imposible" reactionless thruster seems to be an outlier in science. The results are unexpected, but the experiment is something that can be repeated easily and there is enough interest for people to actually do real peer review. Sadly it seems this is very much the exception to the rule today. as I've said on forums with less rigorous peer review than here, "Dude, that's so cool" does not constitute peer review, even if that is the mentality of your peers. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2016 14:22:04 GMT
On other forums, they dont do the regular testing that we do here.
On this forum, we may be unique in that failure is not only an option, but actually eagerly anticipated, just because the tangents that a failure can drive us off on into why it failed.
The ideal of this forum is to produce a piece that is worthy of being "To camera", in the interest of scientific investigation, into popularly held beliefs, where the end result is open.
There is also a section of reproducing the results, which is often called upon, to find out what exactly would it take to recreate the suggested result, such as Tanker Crush.
Not only do we take an ionterest in actual science, we take an interest in bogus science, not just to state its bogus, but the scientific reasons behind why it wont do "as expected".
To be honest, if I had the opportunity to use the members of this board as a sort of "quality control" on scientific research, I truly believe we would at least know-a-man-[or woman]-who-could if not be able ourselves to "proof" a theory beyond all reasonable doubt at the current state of human knowledge.
If one of us produced a scientific theory, would we not be equally interested in both sets of results, first, proof of being "on the ball" and then second, being "In the right area but need some correction".
For me, the interest of being on the right trail but needing to learn a bit has always been of most interest...
And always, if it all ends in a big boom....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2016 14:40:37 GMT
On other forums, they dont do the regular testing that we do here. On this forum, we may be unique in that failure is not only an option, but actually eagerly anticipated, just because the tangents that a failure can drive us off on into why it failed. The ideal of this forum is to produce a piece that is worthy of being "To camera", in the interest of scientific investigation, into popularly held beliefs, where the end result is open. There is also a section of reproducing the results, which is often called upon, to find out what exactly would it take to recreate the suggested result, such as Tanker Crush. Not only do we take an ionterest in actual science, we take an interest in bogus science, not just to state its bogus, but the scientific reasons behind why it wont do "as expected". To be honest, if I had the opportunity to use the members of this board as a sort of "quality control" on scientific research, I truly believe we would at least know-a-man-[or woman]-who-could if not be able ourselves to "proof" a theory beyond all reasonable doubt at the current state of human knowledge. If one of us produced a scientific theory, would we not be equally interested in both sets of results, first, proof of being "on the ball" and then second, being "In the right area but need some correction". For me, the interest of being on the right trail but needing to learn a bit has always been of most interest... And always, if it all ends in a big boom.... if failure produces a spectacular result then it can be preferable to success. as in "our theory was wrong, but boy did we have fun determining that." |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 25, 2016 16:34:15 GMT
if failure produces a spectacular result then it can be preferable to success. as in "our theory was wrong, but boy did we have fun determining that." I'll bet you could build a successful reality TV series on that premise. |
|
