Go Back   AFA Forums > Science, Logic and Reason > Ask a scientist

Ask a scientist Not up to speed with science jargon but have a sciency question?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 16th November 2016, 07:39 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Re: The Core of Science

I'll never forgive the Vulcans for what they did to Zefram Cochrane, their stonewalling tactics which delayed the human warp-drive program, their interference when we tried to establish the Federation. Ambassador Soval, T'Pol and Spock are all right I suppose, but the rest of them are ratbags!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 19th November 2016, 08:19 AM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,446
Default Re: The Core of Science

Quote:
Spock said View Post
Okay, I made a little draft. It looks alright
https://my.visme.co/projects/w4yr09wo-science
I like the way this is headed. That slide should have a sub heading about the form and testing of hypothesis. There is more to science obviously. I think the connections between some of the points is perhaps too much in your head instead of on the graphic. There are not that many people who have even done high school science so you need to consider who your target audience is and try and see what the blanks are from their point of view.

A big positive value of the infographic is that it does introduce important terms and show them hanging together. What if you highlight terms like Null Hypothesis. Then other infographics have that term as the heading and may contain other terms to highlight. Connect heading and term highlighting visually in some way. You don't have to connect them with active links, just have a place where the graphic for each term can be found by name.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 19th November 2016, 08:24 AM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,446
Default Re: The Core of Science

A brief look around the web yields sites like this: http://easyscienceforkids.com/

Interestingly most of these sites introduce science by the knowledge it has produced so far, with not too much about the method used to gain that knowledge. I have noticed this is a general attitude in the population that science is answers, not how to go about finding them.

Your inphographics are about methodology, which is good. However in a vacuum its hard for people to grasp. A single example running through the graphic would help but put pressure on space.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 19th November 2016, 08:43 AM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,446
Default Re: The Core of Science

I wish I didn't find things like this out there

Quote:
A hypothesis is a speculation or theory based on insufficient evidence that lends itself to further testing and experimentation. With further testing, a hypothesis can usually be proven true or false.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what...-examples.html

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of data, couched in a way that it makes testable predictions. If its predictions are tested and found to be incorrect then the hypothesis as it stands is incorrect. The test becomes a new data point for future hypothesis. If the predictions test ok then the hypothesis stands for the time being but can never be 'proved' true.

There also may be competing hypothesis for the same data that make the same predictions. A prediction needs to be formed to differentiate hypothesis. Some hypothesis may have greater explanatory power than others and so the less helpful ones become less often considered, even though they have not been shown to be incorrect.

There are a lot more things to say about hypothesis but the quoted text is not one of them.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 19th November 2016, 11:43 AM
Spock's Avatar
Spock Spock is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Default Re: The Core of Science

I feel that I have been aiming for the step above the first introduction to science because I was thinking about the basic points that I have found very important for planning a scientific proposal etc. I mentioned the main points that I make sure never to forget. But I may need to explain the connections that I only have in my head and not in the infographic. There is just no room to fit it in. I will have to change things. I would like to have this main infographic attached to others that explain the null hypothesis and other concepts. It is difficult keeping each piece simple and small.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 19th November 2016, 01:58 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Core of Science

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
I wish I didn't find things like this out there

Quote:
A hypothesis is a speculation or theory based on insufficient evidence that lends itself to further testing and experimentation. With further testing, a hypothesis can usually be proven true or false.
W...T....F....?

A giraffe is a 6 legged woodwind instrument made of oak sap and cocaine crystals.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 19th November 2016, 02:15 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Re: The Core of Science

The important thing in science is the model. Hypotheses, IMHO test specific aspects of the model. A particular phenomenon within that model.

It all starts off with scientists noticing a possible pattern in natural phenomena. The model is more descriptive than explanatory. [ I will return to explanatory a bit latter].

Emergent from the description in the model, are various falsifiable predictions. These predictions are tested from evidence gained from further observations or experiments.

If and only if the model passes all tests against the evidence, does the model get tentatively accepted. [Subject always to any further experimental results which will either confirm or refute the theory].

If statistically significant anomalies arise the model may have to be re-worked and re-tested.

Uniquely in science there is no claim to truth, particularly absolute truth, although the success of a model my be termed a scientific truth, which is by definition, not absolute and always tentative, because science is iterative.

Which leaves "explanation". Although sought after, explanation in science is not the core. The core is description and testing emergent predictions of the model.

Perfectly valid science can often lack mechanism. And knowing the mechanism[s] provides the "how" level explanation. "Why" level explanations are not necessary, and indeed, can lead great scientists [like Albert Einstein] to look for hen's teeth and horse feathers.

Einstein found quantum mechanics confronting, because they did not conform to his beliefs about how nature should behave. That was his mistake, he was asking "why" type questions! He did not leave his beliefs at the door of the lab, his second mistake. Of course Einstein was almost certainly an atheist, and his "god does not lay dice" quip criticising QM was metaphorical.

This "why" or "explanation creep" as I call it, is a not-uncommon flaw in theoretic scientists, particularly theoretical physicists. Simply put, I believe they should spend more time in labs, to help them remember and appreciate that it is the actual evidence that matters. The power and utility of math makes people forget that math can describe systems in nature or systems not implemented in nature, or at least, not implemented in the universe that we live in.

__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 19th November 2016, 02:33 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: The Core of Science

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
The important thing in science is the model. Hypotheses, IMHO test specific aspects of the model. A particular phenomenon within that model.

It all starts off with scientists noticing a possible pattern in natural phenomena. The model is more descriptive than explanatory. [ I will return to explanatory a bit latter].
Here's the absolute pixel of where we disagree.

For me, the model is necessarily descriptive (otherwise it's useless or about something else) but is only truly valuable to science or to knowledge if it provides explanatory power, while descriptive patterns do allow a form of prediction, it's about form, that something will occur again, whereas explanatory mechanisms provide predictions about mechanism, about the reasons we see the pattern in the first place, the forces which make that pattern.

To defer to my distinguished colleague ()

Quote:
How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of service.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 19th November 2016, 03:18 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,406
Default Re: The Core of Science

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Here's the absolute pixel of where we disagree.

For me, the model is necessarily descriptive (otherwise it's useless or about something else) but is only truly valuable to science or to knowledge if it provides explanatory power, while descriptive patterns do allow a form of prediction, it's about form, that something will occur again, whereas explanatory mechanisms provide predictions about mechanism, about the reasons we see the pattern in the first place, the forces which make that pattern.

To defer to my distinguished colleague ()
I disagree with you my distinguished friend! The value of science and scientific process/procedures are two different things, and should not be conflated.

In practice of course, scientists try for the whole bundle- a realistic model that has both descriptive power [in the full sense of having credible mechanism] and predictive power, and is in that sense fully explanatory.

But if we exclude science that does not produce a mechanism, then we are guilty of labelling it as pseudo-science, which would be wrong. Indeed the history of science is riddled with examples of valid empirical work that was descriptive, but lacked mechanism, and was therefore rejected.

The most famous case is biological evolution. Until Darwin, evolution was rejected by scientists despite misgivings, because they saw that evolution was a good idea, but lacked credible mechanism[s]. [But the empirical support for evolution models was always there]. And grew with time!

Historically, it is because humans have been obsessed with creation stories, where some creator-god provided mechanism. The problem here is the obsession with mechanism, rather than the body of evidence.

Of course, there must be mechanism, but obsession with finding mechanism can inhibit science. People have had notions about evolution for thousands of years, based on empirical evidence: the diversity of forms, for example.

Sometimes mechanism does not matter. Remember the discovery by Ernst Mayr and Jarad Diamond that various indigenous tribes in new Guinea had a taxonomy of bird species that was almost an exact match with modern science, despite them not knowing anything about evolution or real science.

Arguably, science that lacks mechanism can more resemble technology. But that was how science began. [Of course historically we can remember the conflict between the idealists and empiricists in ancient Greece]. Now we realise that both model and evidence is important.

The difference between science and technology is blurred, but I like to see science as the "How it works" and tech as the "howto".

If science is about "how it works", then of course we must include mechanism. But in doing that, we tend to ignore empirical models that can be both descriptive [albeit without mechanism] and predictive. So if science without mechanism is done, is it science, or technology?

I can understand the reticence about science without mechanism, because it can appear to be more resembling pseudo-science. But it isn't, as long as it is honest [talking consideration of both confirming and confounding evidence].

Pseudo-science often lacks credible mechanism, and handles data dishonestly or at least with bias].

I suppose it is all about where we think the edges are?
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 19th November 2016, 03:28 PM
Loki's Avatar
Loki Loki is offline
You get what everyone gets....you get a lifetime
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 11,042
Default Re: The Core of Science

It's a mistake to ignore the negative here. Most science is negatives but largely only positives get reported. "We don't know how it works yet but so far we have ruled out x and y, maybe it's z, lets try that" is good science.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."Philip K. Dick

Reply With Quote
Like Darwinsbulldog liked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.