Most scientific findings are wrong and useless
Options
Comments
-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-getting-it/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
Medical science is probably the worst
I give you mainstream articles so I don't have to hear some tinfoil hat ? , hundreds of scientist has spoken out about this, its just not reported in the mainstream. Scientist are humans and like the poster said above most of them are not that smart, take it how you want it -
-
The article made sense but the headline and thread title were misleading and sensationalized.
Also the author of the article is ironically guilty of doing the same he it accuses the scientific community at large of doing. -
The article made sense but the headline and thread title were misleading and sensationalized.
Also the author of the article is ironically guilty of doing the same he it accuses the scientific community at large of doing.
How is the article misleading? Prominent scientist say 90 percent of research is bunk. Nothing wrong with humans not knowing as much as we think we know -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »The article made sense but the headline and thread title were misleading and sensationalized.
Also the author of the article is ironically guilty of doing the same he it accuses the scientific community at large of doing.
How is the article misleading? Prominent scientist say 90 percent of research is bunk. Nothing wrong with humans not knowing as much as we think we know
He said the Headline is misleading. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.
Shut your ? up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan ? nation.
what part of my post do you disagree with?
All of it. Scientist are not just people with good memories, they develop through observation and studying the natural world, scientist developed the technology that you are using.
who created the technology I am using?
Who found the research that it is possible and tested the data? Scientists, who in then use the knowledge that they discovered engineers.
You can't take one from the other a damn engineer would tell you're statement is foolish
Engineers don't exclusively use science. They rely more on mathematics which is a more rigorous practice. Science also relies on mathematics. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.
Shut your ? up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan ? nation.
what part of my post do you disagree with?
All of it. Scientist are not just people with good memories, they develop through observation and studying the natural world, scientist developed the technology that you are using.
who created the technology I am using?
Who found the research that it is possible and tested the data? Scientists, who in then use the knowledge that they discovered engineers.
You can't take one from the other a damn engineer would tell you're statement is foolish
Engineers don't exclusively use science. They rely more on mathematics which is a more rigorous practice. Science also relies on mathematics.
What? That doesn't make any sense. All engineering is based on scientific principles. Math is basically just the language that ties it all together. Math by itself has no physical context, so it would be useless without the scientific principles that employ it. There is no mechanical engineering without mechanics from physics or electrical engineering without E&M from physics or chemical engineering without chemistry and so on and so forth. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »SolemnSauce wrote: »Most scientist are just people with really good memories that lack basic comprehension. Movies make seem a lot smarter than they are. Engineers are actually smart, intuitive, and imaginative.
Shut your ? up. The engineers based their information based on the scientists years of study and information.
Anti-Intellectualism is at an all time high though. Puritan ? nation.
what part of my post do you disagree with?
All of it. Scientist are not just people with good memories, they develop through observation and studying the natural world, scientist developed the technology that you are using.
who created the technology I am using?
Who found the research that it is possible and tested the data? Scientists, who in then use the knowledge that they discovered engineers.
You can't take one from the other a damn engineer would tell you're statement is foolish
Engineers don't exclusively use science. They rely more on mathematics which is a more rigorous practice. Science also relies on mathematics.
What? That doesn't make any sense. All engineering is based on scientific principles. Math is basically just the language that ties it all together. Math by itself has no physical context, so it would be useless without the scientific principles that employ it. There is no mechanical engineering without mechanics from physics or electrical engineering without E&M from physics or chemical engineering without chemistry and so on and so forth.
I didn't say it doesn't rely on science. They are mostly calculating data with scientific theories that are already proven and sound. Math explains the universe but you can using it to calculate and measure without relying on scientific theories. Math has been used to build and develop well before scientific method was presented and people were just called alchemist when developing chemical reactions and guessing the weight of something without knowing the science of it. -
Joker_De_La_Muerta wrote: »a professor at Arizona State University
There goes all your credit
Ok that's it. Someone explain to me the whole Arizona State thing. It seems like everyone ? on that school for some reason. Even Family Guy did lol -
I didn't say it doesn't rely on science. They are mostly calculating data with scientific theories that are already proven and sound. Math explains the universe but you can using it to calculate and measure without relying on scientific theories. Math has been used to build and develop well before scientific method was presented and people were just called alchemist when developing chemical reactions and guessing the weight of something without knowing the science of it.
Science is just the study of the world around us. Alchemy was science. It was poor science, but it was still science. Math doesn't explain anything. Science explains the universe. Math provides the basis for proving which scientific theories are correct or not.
Understanding calculus give you no understanding of mechanics at all. However, you can take observations from the physical world and then use calculus to derive things like the Kinematic Equations. And while the equations might be just "math," they are meaningless without the science that connects them to the real world phenomena. Good engineers, don't just simply plug numbers into those equations. They also have to understand the principles otherwise they'd have no concept of what numbers go where.
-
Alchemy was science. It was poor science
Prove that -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »Alchemy was science. It was poor science
Prove that
Prove what? That alchemy was science or that it was poor science? -
Prove what? That alchemy was science or that it was poor science?
Poor science. Western Science is poor science IMO -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »Prove what? That alchemy was science or that it was poor science?
Poor science. Western Science is poor science IMO
But alchemy was at once considered western science. It's basically the precursor to chemistry. -
But alchemy was at once considered western science. It's basically the precursor to chemistry.
Western science is not holistic enough to be taken serious -
Quite a bit of good scientific findings are suppressed for corporate, political, or military goals. The tech we use today was figured out decades ago.
For example, you think they didn't have that Ebola vaccine before the outbreak a couple years ago? They just didn't care when it was in Africa. -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »But alchemy was at once considered western science. It's basically the precursor to chemistry.
Western science is not holistic enough to be taken serious
What does that even mean?
