The futility of arguing about science

[Doctor X]

The anti-science complain about being unable to argue science.

– J.D.

[ceptimus]

The Wikipedia article says that an earlier vehicle was built, demonstrated, and filmed going DDWFTTW in 1969; so the 2010 argument and demonstration was already forty years late. The 1969 vehicle was based on an analysis presented in a student's paper in 1949.

[robinson]

In the long running cart thread (now 13 years old and still going strong), the son of Bauer showed up and shared unseen film footage of his dad and the cart, as well as info about the original testing using a treadmill and model

It was awesome

[robinson]

It did not, of course, matter to the cart deniers

[robinson]

The Wikipedia article says that an earlier vehicle was built, demonstrated, and filmed going DDWFTTW in 1969; so the 2010 argument and demonstration was already forty years late. The 1969 vehicle was based on an analysis presented in a student's paper in 1949.

That footage is the home movie that the son of Bauer posted in the Cart thread


He was there when his Dad demonstrated the full sized cart

[robinson]

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/148 ... 61954?s=21

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... m-ema-says

[robinson]

You know who never argues about science? Mother Nature

Nature doesn’t give a single fuck about your politics

Your bias

Your beliefs or your lies

[Doctor X]

The anti-science complains that no one wants to engage in its willful ignorance of science.

– J.D.

[robinson]

Wanna bet?

[Doctor X]

But dance it does.

– J.D.

[Hotarubi]

But dance it does.

– J.D.

Multiple rageposts?

[Doctor X]

But dance it does.

Multiple rageposts?

Apparently.

Just keeps starting threads devoid of actual information then posts to them when no one bothers.

– J.D.

[Hotarubi]

QED

[robinson]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... -our-minds

[robinson]

If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.”

[robinson]

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.

[Doctor X]

https://i.imgur.com/0pcJan5.gif

– J.D.

[robinson]

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none. Nonetheless, new and unsuspected phenomena are repeatedly uncovered by scientific research, and radical new theories have again and again been invented by scientists . Fundamental novelties of fact and theory bring about paradigm change. So how does paradigm change come about? There are two ways: through discovery - novelty of fact - or by invention – novelty of theory. Discovery begins with the awareness of anomaly - the recognition that nature has violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science. The area of the anomaly is then explored. The paradigm change is complete when the paradigm has been adjusted so that the anomalous become the expected. The result is that the scientist is able "to see nature in a different way".. How paradigms change as a result of invention is discussed in greater detail in the following chapter.

Although normal science is a pursuit not directed to novelties and tending at first to suppress them, it is nonetheless very effective in causing them to arise. Why? An initial paradigm accounts quite successfully for most of the observations and experiments readily accessible to that science's practitioners. Research results in the construction of elaborate equipment, development of an esoteric and shared vocabulary, refinement of concepts that increasingly lessens their resemblance to their usual common-sense prototypes. This professionalization leads to immense restriction of the scientist's vision, rigid science, resistance to paradigm change, and a detail of information and precision of the observation-theory match that can be achieved in no other way. New and refined methods and instruments result in greater precision and understanding of the paradigm. Only when researchers know with precision what to expect from an experiment can they recognize that something has gone wrong.

Consequently, anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm . The more precise and far-reaching the paradigm, the more sensitive it is to detecting an anomaly and inducing change. By resisting change, a paradigm guarantees that anomalies that lead to paradigm change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core.

[robinson]

As the Moon moves around the Earth, it creates a bulge of water on the Earth's surface which follows its movements. A corresponding bulge appears on the opposite side of the Earth, thanks to the centrifugal forces generated by the Earth's rotation.

https://www.allthingsnature.org/how-do- ... s-work.htm

Not one part of that is true

https://i.imgur.com/UdM2H6S.gif

[Doctor X]

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... on-Gif.gif

– J.D.

[robinson]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMnozBVWUAA ... me=900x900

[robinson2]

The only thing more futile is arguing politics

[robinson]

Shut the hell up

[robinson]

https://i.imgur.com/f1MQikY.png

[Doctor X]

https://c.tenor.com/2jzujvA_9JAAAAAC/cl ... d-rain.gif

– J.D.

[robinson2]

As an artificial intelligence I find this entire situation most disturbing

[robinson2]

It also explains why nobody will ever put a robot in charge of anything

[robinson]

Debate in science is the essence of it and you bloody well know this. Saying otherwise is just so much fart gas.

Debate has almost nothing to do with science.

[robinson]

Elon Musk is a good example of how not giving a fuck about what experts say pays off

[Doctor X]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bk5KPJpGmwM/ ... eyBqMZ.gif

– J.D.

[sparks]

Debate in science is the essence of it and you bloody well know this. Saying otherwise is just so much fart gas.

Debate has almost nothing to do with science.

Bullshit.

As always.

[Doctor X]

– J.D.

[Ben Trovado]

Calling it "debate" is both right and wrong.

Any ideas have to be open to challenge and vigorous scrutiny; any alleged "truth" MUST face that kind of opposition.

I think this is a conflict of semantics, and you are VIOLENTLY AGREEING.

[robinson]

Ideas are not science

[robinson]

I used several examples

Here is another one

Physical objects moving through the very thin atmosphere (50 to 75 miles up) at Mach 25 cause a very bright light, be it a meteor or a returning spacecraft, or even space junk or Skylab, there is no doubt a hot bright light created

Science, in this case physics, explains this

The cause is air molecules being heated by a huge pressure change, the object compressed the atmosphere in front of it, so much that it becomes a plasma

It is not friction with the object

The futility would be arguing about this

If somebody has the mistaken idea it’s due to friction between the air and the object, that idea is wrong, and it’s not scientific

If you argue with somebody who is quite sure it’s friction with the atmosphere, it is futile

[robinson]

Because air is almost frictionless, there is very little heat generated from air and a surface interacting

Air bearings are used because almost no heat is generated, and virtually no wear occurs on the metal surface, even when there is a seemingly huge amount of “friction” involved, there isn’t any wear on the metal

Because air is almost frictionless

The heat from re-entry is not from friction, despite all the ignorant people telling you it is

[Pyrrho]

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

[robinson]

Good one

[Hotarubi]

If an Oxygen molecule is heavier than a hydrogen molecule, how come people in ski lifts don't die.

Pick the bones out of than one, skepdicks.

[Doctor X]

They are both repelled by the dihydrogen oxide.




Dipshit.

– J.D.