Better scientific policy decisions start with knowing facts from values

Aug 12, 2013

When gathering public input on policy questions, scientists can speak with authority about facts, but must remember that everyone is an expert when it comes to values.

"Using climate change as an example, a scientist could say, 'The climate is changing.' That's a fact that can be checked," said Thomas Dietz, a member of the MSU Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability (CSIS) and professor of sociology, and policy, and animal studies. "But if a scientist says, 'We need to take these actions to halt because it's affecting what people care about,' that's a value. And scientists have no more authority to speak about values than anyone else. Everyone is qualified to speak about values."

The paper, "Bringing values and to ," is published in the most recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Because they are conducting the science, scientists are highly qualified to speak about facts. But when offering solutions to scientific problems, scientists must be careful not to present values as facts because they may lose their credibility, according to Dietz, who also serves as vice president for environmental research at MSU.

"Most federal and state agencies are required to get public input to inform decision-making on a number of scientific issues, ranging from global warming to management," Dietz said. "The process of making decisions always involves both facts and values, and the differences between the two need to be made very clear in science communications. Some philosophers argue it's hard to distinguish between facts and values, but I think for practical purposes we can and when we are discussing policy we should try hard to make that distinction."

What science can do, Dietz says, is help figure out what people's values are and then work to come to agreement or on them.

"It's much safer to have a debate about facts than about values," he said. "Facts can be proven. When you're debating values, it's almost like calling someone a bad person if you speak negatively about their values. We need to learn how to talk about values in a constructive way. As a society, we have to have these discussions so we can decide how to move forward and address scientific issues. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution."

Instead, Dietz recommends agencies diagnose the situation and then make a plan that allows for all viewpoints to be heard and considered. It's also important to begin public participation early, when a study is being designed, not just when it's being concluded.

"Sometimes people are concerned about an issue that research can easily resolve," Dietz said. "This makes people believe in science more and gives the research more credibility."

Explore further: Why plants in the office make us more productive

More information: Bringing values and deliberation to science communication, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212740110

Related Stories

Scientists suggest how countries can cooperate on climate

Sep 12, 2011

When countries try to work together to limit the effects of climate change, the fear of being the only nation reducing greenhouse gas emissions – while the others enjoy the benefits with no sacrifice – can bring ...

More people, more environmental stress

Jun 11, 2012

Although it's long been suspected that human activity has greatly contributed to environmental stress, it's only recently that science has begun to show just how great a role that activity is playing.

Why 'scientific consensus' fails to persuade

Sep 14, 2010

Suppose a close friend who is trying to figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket ...

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

Aug 29, 2014

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

Girls got game

Aug 29, 2014

Debi Taylor has worked in everything from construction development to IT, and is well and truly socialised into male-dominated workplaces. So when she found herself the only female in her game development ...

Computer games give a boost to English

Aug 28, 2014

If you want to make a mark in the world of computer games you had better have a good English vocabulary. It has now also been scientifically proven that someone who is good at computer games has a larger ...

Saddam Hussein—a sincere dictator?

Aug 28, 2014

Are political speeches manipulative and strategic? They could be – when politicians say one thing in public, and privately believe something else, political scientists say. Saddam Hussein's legacy of recording private discussions ...

User comments : 134

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2013
Sort of in two minds about this:
Yes - everyone is an expert in values.
No - not all values are created equal.

Values also need to be based on a rationale. And that is where one gets to be in the region of facts again.
And when it comes right down to it we all share some values (e.g. wanting to survive). If the facts lead us to conclude that survival is threatened then those who understand the facts and their ramifications best are also best suited to argue (and make decisions) about values.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2013
Yes - everyone is an expert in values.

Individuals know what they value, today, subject to change tomorrow.
Stating everyone is an expert in values is a stretch.

It is good to have this discussion, separating science from values points out science, the discovery of nature around us,is amoral, and should be so.

Individual survival is generally a shared value along with the survival of the individual's family.
Too often, here, I see the socialists proclaim as a value the survival of humanity, which usually requires some individuals must sacrifice their survival for 'humanity'.
Bastiat's The Law is based upon the fundamental value of the survival of the individual and leads to a political and economic system that is anti-socialist.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 13, 2013
""Using climate change as an example, a scientist could say, 'The climate is changing.' That's a fact that can be checked,""

The challenge for science in studying climate, human nutrition, economics, psychology, ...is they have not control, no objective standard for comparison.
To study climate known physics are applied to observations and extrapolated with computer simulations. Which leads to another challenge, using the correct models (value judgements here) to match observations and to validate those simulations with retrodiction and wait to see if predictions are valid.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2013
proclaim as a value the survival of humanity, which usually requires some individuals must sacrifice their survival for 'humanity'.

While I would readily agree that some must sacrifice a degree of luxury for humanitiy's survival I have yet to see anyone (socialist or otherwise) to claim that some must sacrifice their SURVIVAL for that of humanity (quite the reverse - I see a lot of anti-social people asking others to sacrifice their survival so that they can continue to enjoy their current level of luxury)

And when all is said and done: What's the point of a strategy based solely on individual survival which results in the extinction of the species?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2013
o claim that some must sacrifice their SURVIVAL for that of humanity

Ask the out of work coal miners in West Virginia because the socialists don't value individual liberty and prosperity.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2013
Ask the out of work coal miners in West Virginia because the socialists don't value individual liberty and prosperity.

You equate people losing their jobs to death? Really? I mean...seriously?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2013
Ask the out of work coal miners in West Virginia because the socialists don't value individual liberty and prosperity.

You equate people losing their jobs to death? Really? I mean...seriously?


You equate welfare with life?
"A recent study found that a 10 percent increase in the unemployment rate (say from 8 to 8.8 percent) would increase the suicide rate for males by 1.47 percent. This is not a small effect. Assuming a link of that scale, the increase in unemployment would lead to an additional 128 suicides per month in the United States. "
http://www.nytime...nted=all
"Eighteen West Virginia coal units have been closed due to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations."
" President Obama's recently announced rulemaking has the potential to dwarf the impacts of previous regulations and lead to even more job loss across our state."
http://www.wvcoal...-let-pre
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2013
"In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. "I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior," she said."
http://washington.../2534142
We know what socialist state values, conformity.
Guy_Underbridge
3.9 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2013
o claim that some must sacrifice their SURVIVAL for that of humanity

Ask the out of work coal miners in West Virginia because the socialists don't value individual liberty and prosperity.
What about when some CEO shuts down a factory and ships all the jobs elsewhere for labor's cheaper? Are you mostly interested in the CEOs individual liberty and prosperity, or do you just get paid by how many times you can post the word 'socialist' in a day?
You equate welfare with life?
I figured with all the libertarian dogma you parrot, you'd be telling those miners to look for a job elsewhere.
nowhere
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2013
Too often, here, I see the socialists proclaim as a value the survival of humanity, which usually requires some individuals must sacrifice their survival for 'humanity'.

This comment reminds me of a part in the movie Armageddon. They all draw straws to see who remains behind, giving their life to save all of humanity. A good thing they sent socialist, otherwise that movie would have had a shit ending.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 13, 2013
What about when some CEO shuts down a factory and ships all the jobs elsewhere for labor's cheaper?

Why was the labor cheaper?
In Detroit it was the socialist unions that drove up costs and hindered innovation..
brt
3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2013
"It's much safer to have a debate about facts than about values," he said. "Facts can be proven."

While facts can be proven, there are still many in society (on all sides of all arguments) who will ignore any facts that don't agree with their values; just look at the comments here. Already there are 3 people who just can't resist injecting their polarizing values into the conversation. Luckily there exists the independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion. Scientists should ideally be independent, though there are some out there who are obviously biased or bought off by lobbies or corporations (just saying corporation is sure to trigger some polarized viewpoint despite my neutral intention). That is why the experience and credentials of each scientist is so important. Those who have very little experience, no history, with a mid-grade degree are more likely to be corrupt.
brt
4 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2013
There comes a point where people simply don't care at all about facts and are far more concerned with their values and opinions being correct. To have their values/opinions be incorrect is experienced by that person as a blow to their own self-worth. I think it may be the increased use of the internet over the years or just the country I reside in, but this seems to be an exponentially increasing problem in society. It sure as hell is in politics and every god damn thing has to be politically identified these days.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2013
sway the argument towards the correct conclusion

Which is....?
To have their values/opinions be incorrect is experienced by that person as a blow to their own self-worth.

Scientists are immune?
every god damn thing has to be politically identified these days.

This is in part due to the scientists, funded by the state, that believe their more worthy opinions and values should be imposed to save humanity from itself.
The 'progressives' started this with the creation of the FDA. Ostensibly a body of technocrats to advise the govt on policy.
It even goes further back to the National Academy of Science created by Lincoln. NAS is not composed of govt bureaucrats and does a decent job of being objective.
Govt agencies like FDA, EPA, .....are not objective.
Eliminate the Regulatory State and most scientific politics will disappear.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2013
@ ryggesogn2,

I'm not arguing politics at the moment (only mentioned it once at the end), just the context of the article. My 2 comments prior to yours answers your 2nd and 3rd question-statements; please go back and read them again to find the answers you're looking for.

The answer to your first question is that it depends on what the topic is and what the evidence shows. I'd also like to remind you that the United States government does not employ every scientist in the world and that the USA is not the leader in science anymore, that title belongs to Europe, and always has really; we just took Germany's scientists during WWII to beat the Nazis.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2013
Luckily there exists the independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion


The answer to your first question is that it depends on what the topic is and what the evidence shows.


How do you know it is THE one and only CORRECT conclusion?
Because it was decided upon by 'independent thinkers'?
Who is, or can, be a truly independent thinker?

What is the correct conclusion here?

"National Academy Of Sciences 'Misled The World' When Adopting Radiation Exposure Guidelines"
""The regulatory research community needs to hear about this. This isn't an academic debate; it's practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on unvalidated assumptions and scientific panel decisions made without sound evidence."
http://www.scienc...s-118411
No agendas here?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2013
the United States government does not employ every scientist in the world

Never said they did.
The point is technocrats( some are, or were, scientists) staffed agencies to create a Regulatory State.
Too many of these 'scientists' have agendas, and now have the coercive power of the state to advance their agendas. James Hansen comes to mind.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 14, 2013
"Urgent cuts in carbon emissions are needed if Caribbean coral reefs are to survive past the end of the century, scientists have warned.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

How can this be based upon any facts?
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2013
Luckily there exists the independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion


The answer to your first question is that it depends on what the topic is and what the evidence shows.


How do you know it is THE one and only CORRECT conclusion?
Because it was decided upon by 'independent thinkers'?
Who is, or can, be a truly independent thinker?

What is the correct conclusion here?

"National Academy Of Sciences 'Misled The World' When Adopting Radiation Exposure Guidelines"
""The regulatory research community needs to hear about this. This isn't an academic debate; it's practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on unvalidated assumptions and scientific panel decisions made without sound evidence."
http://www.scienc...s-118411
No agendas here?


I'm not big on conspiracies, so I didn't read the link
brt
3 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2013
"Urgent cuts in carbon emissions are needed if Caribbean coral reefs are to survive past the end of the century, scientists have warned.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

How can this be based upon any facts?


Your past 3 comments have been conspiracy theories that *choose* to ignore facts and evidence. You are exactly what I meant when I said: "There comes a point where people simply don't care at all about facts and are far more concerned with their values and opinions being correct. To have their values/opinions be incorrect is experienced by that person as a blow to their own self-worth." in my above comment.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (16) Aug 14, 2013
I'm not big on conspiracies, so I didn't read the link

How do you determine the facts if you won't research?
brt
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2013
I'm not big on conspiracies, so I didn't read the link

How do you determine the facts if you won't research?


internet links aren't research. Ex: the thousands of websites that refer to America as the great satan. Those websites are not proof that America is actually the great satan. Though I'll admit, I didn't look at it because I have a pretty good picture of who you are and I knew it would be a waste of my time. You seem to be unable to comprehend my comments from above, so I have no interest in continuing any further if you don't realize the irony of your actions in response to me.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2013
a pretty good picture of who you are

I'm not surprised you say this.
Some who claim to be "independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion" don't want to have their 'correct conclusions' questioned.

BTW, if you bothered to read the link you would find the reference to this from a toxicology professor from UMassAmherst.
But I guess it's like the AGWites say, it' s not real science unless its by committee.

rug
3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2013
@brt - One question, a real question.

You seem to understand these trolls pretty well. Why do they always try to get the last word? In your option do you think it makes them feel like the won? That has always been my assumption.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2013
The problem is that facts are value-laden. What a fact means depends upon the theory that explains it, and that theory is constructed with respect to certain values, i.e. parsimony, universality, consistency, etc. Even deeper is the problem of relevance, in which values are deeply embedded. "The Earth goes round the Sun." So what? From a certain perspective, this fact has nothing to do with 99.9% of anything any human being has to do, unless they happen to be involved with the 0.1% of humanity that's sending probes to explore space. From another perspective, it's an earth-shattering revelation that changes the meaning of almost everything about being a human being.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2013
The problem is that facts are value-laden. What a fact means depends upon the theory that explains it, and that theory is constructed with respect to certain values, i.e. parsimony, universality, consistency, etc. Even deeper is the problem of relevance, in which values are deeply embedded. "The Earth goes round the Sun." So what? From a certain perspective, this fact has nothing to do with 99.9% of anything any human being has to do, unless they happen to be involved with the 0.1% of humanity that's sending probes to explore space. From another perspective, it's an earth-shattering revelation that changes the meaning of almost everything about being a human being.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2013
The problem is that facts are value-laden. What a fact means depends upon the theory that explains it, and that theory is constructed with respect to certain values, i.e. parsimony, universality, consistency, etc. Even deeper is the problem of relevance, in which values are deeply embedded. "The Earth goes round the Sun." So what? From a certain perspective, this fact has nothing to do with 99.9% of anything any human being has to do, unless they happen to be involved with the 0.1% of humanity that's sending probes to explore space. From another perspective, it's an earth-shattering revelation that changes the meaning of almost everything about being a human being.


I see your point, but I think that's an oversimplification. Gravity is important to anyone who has a cell phone, GPS, utilizes manned flight, uses tall buildings. So my response would be that not everyone recognizes when something has value and facts be distorted by that ignorance(by meaning of the word).
brt
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2013
@brt - One question, a real question.

You seem to understand these trolls pretty well. Why do they always try to get the last word? In your option do you think it makes them feel like the won? That has always been my assumption.


That's what I think too. They are usually a combination of all the worst personality traits a person could have; the list is too long to mention and case dependent. It's no surprise that they retreat to the internet where they can escape reality and take on a completely different identity in a false reality. The identity they already have is a depressing one, so who wouldn't want to pretend to be someone else? Loneliness seems to play a large role too. All those negative personality traits have them isolated from real, physical interaction with people. It's just like the child that acts out so that someone will pay attention to them. Some are just hell bent on a topic that nobody cares to discuss with them...see above.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 15, 2013
take on a completely different identity in a false reality.

Who is 'brt'? I note there is no identity information provided.

"independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion"

This comment from brt is a loaded with value judgments. Who are the thinkers independent of? What is the 'correct' conclusion?

Billy Koen, author of Discussion of the Method, note that to engineer is human. Humans were engineering for thousands of years before science was invented. Engineering solves problems people value using whatever heuristic works.

Is arrogance and hubris of value to those who study science? It must be as that tends to be the response to my questions.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2013
take on a completely different identity in a false reality.

Who is 'brt'? I note there is no identity information provided.

"independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion"

This comment from brt is a loaded with value judgments. Who are the thinkers independent of? What is the 'correct' conclusion?

Billy Koen, author of Discussion of the Method, note that to engineer is human. Humans were engineering for thousands of years before science was invented. Engineering solves problems people value using whatever heuristic works.

Is arrogance and hubris of value to those who study science? It must be as that tends to be the response to my questions.


Seen in his natural habitat, the internet troll engages in attempting to aggravate those he feels threatened by. In doing so, his low intelligence, paranoia, and severe personality disorders become more apparent than ever. Let's watch...
rug
3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2013
@ryggesogn2 - Here is a few questions you should ask yourself.

How does anyone elses opinion affect you?
Why does it affect you that way?
Think of humanities place in the universe.
"A speck, living on a speck, orbiting a speck, orbiting another speck in a universe full of spects." - Bill Nye
Now ask yourself, who am I to say I know anything?

(continued....)
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2013
take on a completely different identity in a false reality.

Who is 'brt'? I note there is no identity information provided.

"independent thinkers who can sway the argument towards the correct conclusion"

This comment from brt is a loaded with value judgments. Who are the thinkers independent of? What is the 'correct' conclusion?

Billy Koen, author of Discussion of the Method, note that to engineer is human. Humans were engineering for thousands of years before science was invented. Engineering solves problems people value using whatever heuristic works.

Is arrogance and hubris of value to those who study science? It must be as that tends to be the response to my questions.


To answer questions that should be obvious: thinkers who are independent of personal and social bias in whatever form it presents itself (political or not). The correct conclusion is the one that has the most evidence supporting it.
rug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2013
Once you come to the realization that no one can know anything without absolute unarguable proof because we as the human race are nothing compared to the universe as a whole. You then have freed yourself from most (not all) of the biases that come with being human. (great show btw) Once you reach that point you are one of the free thinkers.
Sometimes there is no right direction. Like when you buy a car. No car is going to meet all your wants and needs. So you pick the best of what you have available. When there is a right direction. Such as saving the whole race from death. We need to have people that can see beyond the biases of being human to lead the way. Otherwise we are all gonna end up like the every other dominate creatures that have ceased to exist on this planet.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2013
When there is a right direction. Such as saving the whole race from death.

In most cases. One could construe a scenario in which the sacrifice of humanity would be worth it (e.g. if one were to postulate that the opposite decision would lead to the destruction of the universe. And it is arguably preferrable to have a universe in which life can, again, develop rather than not.)
Very hypothetical. But I'm trying to make a point:
I generally agree with you. But there is no absolute right or wrong. Any situation is relative. (Note: 'Relative' doesn't mean that when there are two possibilities they are automatically equal.)

So to end this on a whimsical note: to be a free thinker you'll also have to free yourself from the "pro-human" (and possible even from the "pro-life", "pro-universe" and maybe even the "pro-existence") bias, too.
rug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2013
Thats true, but as of this moment we do not have the capabilities to affect more than our planet.

OK, Maybe some other spots in the solar system. Like accidently putting earth life on mars and so on. But outside of our solar system there isn't a whole lot we could mess up at the moment.

You are correct in saying there is no absolute right or wrong. However, given your hypothetical situation. I think humanity would be advanced enough at that point to make a better decision then I would at this moment. Given that caveat, I would vote for the universe. Life could always start again somewhere else even if wasn't already.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2013
thinkers who are independent of personal and social bias in whatever form it presents itself

How is this independence determined? After all, no human is 100% unbiased.
The correct conclusion is the one that has the most evidence supporting it.

What is the quality of the evidence? What is the uncertainty?
We are told day after day after day that 'independent' thinkers have decided using the best evidence that human produced CO2 is the only cause for global warming, I mean, climate change.
I'm sure you have read about how independent thinkers could claim an elephant was a snake or a tree based upon which part of the elephant they are examining.
""SEEING" THE FULL ELEPHANT

"It's a tree." "It's a fan." "It's a rope." "It's a wall." "It's a spear." "It's a snake." They are all correct statement in some ways and at the same time they are also incorrect! " http://www.philip...ee-its-a
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2013
as of this moment we do not have the capabilities to affect more than our planet.

The technology exists now to possibly save 'humanity' from catalclcims that have destroyed much life in the past, asteroids, yet there does not seem to be much value in preparing a defense.
Much more value seems to be placed upon the speculation humans will destroy themselves before an asteroid will and humanity must adopt values to 'save the planet from us'
Another example of hubris.
rug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2013
What you just said had nothing to do with the point I was making or the quote you made of my comment. If you are going to comment about something I said please at least make it have something to do with the quote. Otherwise you are just pushing you own agenda and not discussing the topic at hand.
rug
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2013
What is the quality of the evidence? What is the uncertainty?


Evidence - "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Uncertainty - "The state of being uncertain"

Both definitions are from Merriam-Webster

When you have valid evidence there is no uncertainty. If the evidence is not quality evidence it is not valid evidence.
rug
3 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2013
How is this independence determined? After all, no human is 100% unbiased.

That has already been covered. (See above)
brt
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2013
ryggesogn2,

I don't have the patience to spell out every small detail for you while pretending that you are not being willfully ignorant so that you can continually try to argue politics. Go to a political website to continue fighting about your talking points.

Do you see how stupid you look? Do you seriously believe that you are making valid arguments that have anything to do with the topic at hand? You've reverted to the tactics of a young child by continuously asking why and not understanding the fundamental and universal concept of uncertainty. That's why I advise you to continue on a political website, because you lack the most basic knowledge of science. Just as I would not debate topics on a website dedicated to pregnancy (because I know very little about it), you should not debate topics on a science website (because you know very little about it).
brt
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2013
Knowing when to admit that you don't know something is also part of being an independent thinker. Pretending like you know something and veering off topic when you can't maintain the illusion is an old technique used by the brilliantly stupid.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 15, 2013
When you have valid evidence there is no uncertainty.

How often does this occur?

Any physical measurement has uncertainty, therefore one can never have valid evidence.

Knowing when to admit that you don't know something is also part of being an independent thinker.

Then in science all correct conclusions are "we know this much to this level of uncertainty".
rug
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2013
Any physical measurement has uncertainty, therefore one can never have valid evidence.


If you are going to make such an extraordinary claim such as this you need to have evidence.
brt
3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
When you have valid evidence there is no uncertainty.

How often does this occur?

Any physical measurement has uncertainty, therefore one can never have valid evidence.

Knowing when to admit that you don't know something is also part of being an independent thinker.

Then in science all correct conclusions are "we know this much to this level of uncertainty".


CORRECT! That is the nature of reality. Things are always subject to change. That's what Time is and why Time is so important that it is actually considered a dimension. That's why you hear about all these discoveries being "5 sigma or greater"; that means that at 5 sigmas, we are 99.99994 % certain. Anything below that level of certainty does not count as a discovery. Nothing in nature is ever 100%. It is simply impossible. So we have decided that 99.99994% is close enough to 100% that we can claim we found something with certainty. This is why Statistics is so important in all STEM fields.
brt
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2013
When you have valid evidence there is no uncertainty.

How often does this occur?

Any physical measurement has uncertainty, therefore one can never have valid evidence.

Knowing when to admit that you don't know something is also part of being an independent thinker.

Then in science all correct conclusions are "we know this much to this level of uncertainty".


Though it is incorrect that you can never have valid evidence. What is correct is that you can NEVER 100% describe what is happening in nature. You're existence, your body's physical existence, is only 99.9999_% real.

So you are free to believe that nothing ever has valid evidence if you want, but that's a pretty odd stance for you to take, because it means that you are wasting your time here and that your life and everyone else's is completely meaningless. In which case, why try at anything? why be afraid of anything? Doesn't seem like that's what you really believe.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2013
Any physical measurement has uncertainty, therefore one can never have valid evidence.


If you are going to make such an extraordinary claim such as this you need to have evidence.

"The simultaneous measurement of two conjugate variables (such as the momentum and position or the energy and time for a moving particle) entails a limitation on the precision (standard deviation) of each measurement. Namely: the more precise the measurement of position, the more imprecise the measurement of momentum, and vice versa. In the most extreme case, absolute precision of one variable would entail absolute imprecision regarding the other. "
http://www.aip.or...p08a.htm
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2013
"The laws would grant Kepler enduring fame, but the real takeaway from his work was something just as integral: Kepler showed millions of future scientists how to be wrong.

"It is the first published account wherein a scientist documents how he has coped with the multitude of imperfect data to forge a theory of surpassing accuracy," Owen Gingerich, a Harvard Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science, wrote in 1992. "
http://www.realcl...ong.html
How many scientists invested in their theory have the courage of Kepler?
brt
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
ryggesogn2,

An overwhelming majority of scientists. Again, this is the most basic of the basic concepts of science. To question it shows the gross ignorance of the person implying that scientists don't know when to admit fault. The answer "no" is just as exciting as the answer "yes" because it gives a conclusion based on evidence. The only disappointing answer is "I don't know", but we still admit it. Examples include but are not limited to: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, etc... finding conclusive answers to the biggest questions in the universe is not a short term goal. You're going to have to think a little bit bigger than your computer and your neighborhood in order to understand that. These are pathetically silly attempts to try and sound like you made any good or informed points throughout the entire off topic back and forth in this comments section. Your incredibly shallow perspective of the world is incredible.
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
How many times do we have to show you how uneducated you are on this topic?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
Of course they "don't know" it, because they're protecting their job places and salaries with it.

By repeating that lie it doesn't get any more true. Go talk to a scientist (any) - and you will quickly see that this is false.

Any scientist has skills that will let him earn a multiple of his salary in the free market for a fraction of the effort (I'm living proof of that), no weekend work, no night work, total job security ...

The number of applications a scientist has to write to land such a job is in the single digits (I wouldn't say I'm was a top scientist - but the number of applications I had to write to get the jobs I wanted was always exactly 1).

So, has he demonstrated a "gross ignorance" - or did he simply recognize and named the bare truth

Planck lived in a different era. It was deeply chauvinistic and research instuitutes were highly political. This isn't the case anymore (as no such institute could survive for long in the face of evidence from others)
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
being an experts, they're manage to analyze the questions deeper, than most of laymen

1) This shows off your ignorabce again. Expert isn't a job description or a defined label. Anyone can call themselves expert on anything.
When these answers get wrong occasionally, then these experts are often willing to guard the wrong

Again: Repeating your lies doesn't make them any more true. Show evidence of where this happens. Evidence. Not conjecture.

The obstinacy of scientists in occupying the wrong stance is directly proportional their occupation hazard.

Again a lie: Scientist have NO OCCUPATION HAZARD. If you have tenure you have tenure for life. There is nothing to gain for a scientist by 'protecting a false stance' (and everything to lose - as they'd quickly lose all credibility and the impact of their publications would plummet to pre PhD levels)
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
Teech,

The fact that you think scientists are corrupted by large salaries tells us all we need to know about your "knowledge" of the subject.

I'm sure the world operates in the exact same way that it did back when Max Planck was alive. Yep, nothing has changed at all. The role of science in society has not placed increased emphasis on its necessity causing any change in social mechanisms at all...at all.

Why do trolls like yourself always insist on projecting all your traits on someone who clearly does not display them? Your comment "you're just anonymous half-educated troll at the Internet, who never predicted something correctly here" clearly describes you and also doesn't make any sense. "predicted something correctly here"...what does that mean? It is such a stupid comment, devoid of all intelligence, that it has no meaning. LOL! XD I mean, all I can do is laugh at the irony of someone so stupid and half educated claiming that someone else is the opposite.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
The salaries of top researchers isn't so bad

You're thinking science managers (i.e. heads of institutions) - not scientists. And even their salaries are a pittance compared to what they'd be able to pull if they worked for some company as an advisor.

and social positions

What social positions? Any wall street speculator (and pobably mime artist) has a better social standing than a scientist.

and they've full control over the subject of their research

No they do not. There are comissions which have to greenlight research. You have to find industry partners who want a certain thing to be researched. The research needs to be financed (you have to write grants proposals). You can't just research anything you want and expect that to be financed. If you think that you must be out of your mind.

You pontificate on stuff that you have absolutely NO knowledge of. Stop it. It's getting beyond pathetic. It's slanderous.

brt
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
Teech,

you are proof that there are such assholes in this world that are so angry about being stupid; they just can't resist feeling inferior. It's the same thing as a Napoleon complex; you have to take down these intellectual behemoths because they absolutely crush your infantile attempts at trying to sound smart when you're just a failure in life. That's why I can be happy with letting you have the last word, which I can predict on here XD lol, is what you will swoop in to do no matter what. I'm just interested in the delusions of a miserable failure such as yourself. Losers like you are what we face when we popularize science; I'm interested to know everything about the typical physics troll so that I can shut them down in the future. So go ahead and keep feeding me information.
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
you are proof that there are such assholes in this world that are so angry that they are stupid, they just can't resist feeling inferior
My person is solely irrelevant - I'm just describing and explaining, what everyone of you can read in various multiple sources. If you cannot oppose it in matter of fact arguments, then whatever else speculations about me or whoever else are completely redundant and off-topic here. Such a comments just demonstrate the subjectivist character of your thinking. Just try to imagine, I'm a machine or the result of computer program. Nothing what I write here has a slightest connection to my person.


Oh it's a matter of absolute fact, you're an angry asshole who presents straw man arguments and pretends like they are the special theory of relativity. Are your oppositions to me or others via matter of fact? no. So don't attempt to impose double standards that you can't fulfill yourself.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
But the true experts are defined with time, which they spend in learning of subject of expertise

True. Why don't you start...somwhere? Or anywhere for that matter?
Do some actual work. You'll quickly realize that all you have been doing until now is calling yourself an expert with zero understanding.
Yes: the experts are defined in time. Fools, however, are apparent immediately.

My person is solely irrelevant

No. If someone is 'explaining' something that he patently has no understanding of then it's relevant.
Consider a long time coach of a football team explaining about coaching football - and an armchair slob who has maybe watched the occasional game every sunday pontificating on how coaching works. Does that make a difference? You bet it does.

As to sources: Since you couldn't tell a quality source from a bad one if someon nailed a sign to your head (not knowing anything about the subject) what good do you think is it that you post any?
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
you are proof that there are such assholes in this world that are so angry that they are stupid, they just can't resist feeling inferior
My person is solely irrelevant - I'm just describing and explaining, what everyone of you can read in various multiple sources. If you cannot oppose it in matter of fact arguments, then whatever else speculations about me or whoever else are completely redundant and off-topic here. Such a comments just demonstrate the subjectivist character of your thinking. Just try to imagine, I'm a machine or the result of computer program. Nothing what I write here has a slightest connection to my person.


This is exactly what I mean when I say that you're a delusional person who projects their own faults and failures onto others. We have to continually bring it up because your faulty logic and piss poor behavior never changes. You are someone who opposes any article based solely on the fact that it is popular belief. Are you this oblivious?
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
Guys, this is not a Facebook or any other social club.

Then act like it. Stick to the science in the articles. Blather your other tripe and scientific crackepot stuff on Facebook. Stop talking about stuff you know nothing of.

Try to propose practical solution, which would prohibit the scientists to ignore the important findings for hundreds of years.

Here's the solution: the people who cry about this should get an education and do some actual scientific work. Then they'd soon notice that they don't need to cry about this because it's hogwash.
I know this would require WORK. But people like you shun work like the plague. Crying is so much easier.

my only problem with scientific community

No. Your problem is that you don't know what the scientific community is (you have some very twisted idea based no hollywood movies that is devoid of any reality). You also don't know what science is and you couldn't tell snake oil from aspirin if your life depended on it.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013

Scientists admit when they are wrong, but people likely you tend to grossly misunderstand what is happening when we don't refer to it by the same name. If a scientist spends their entire life trying to find an answer (be it yes or no), then you intensely disrespect their life and their sacrifice to find that answer by changing the definition of what they worked on. Ether for instance. It was a correct idea, but with some slight variations in theory that had major implications in observation. To call our current theories of fields "ether" is to disregard the scientific definition of ether and to disregard history. Many people worked on this problem to identify its failures. Just like the Cosmological Constant. That idea was mostly correct, but we call it dark energy now because there were some slight changes the resulted in major changes to the model. You can't accurately call it a cosmological constant because the CC model doesn't work. We still give credit for that first step though.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
Teech,

you believe that we are ignoring that history as though it never happened. You could not be more incorrect. We are altering the theory to fit the observations and giving it a different name because it IS a different theory with different rules. The Cosmological Constant is incorrect by 120 orders of magnitude; that's something that shouldn't be overlooked. Ether theories were created before we knew quantum mechanics existed, they don't describe anything that has to do with quantum mechanics, that shouldn't be overlooked. We can't just ignore the ability to accurately describe space and time. The irony, which serves the dual purpose of also showing how oblivious you are, is that you are ignoring history while claiming that your problem with the scientific community is that they ignore history...you are fundamentally distorting reality and you refuse to admit your fault. You are an endless abyss of irony, ignorance, and arrogance. That defense can't be penetrated.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
An overwhelming majority of scientists. Again, this is the most basic of the basic concepts of science.


Then only a small minority involved with climate research have been a bit dodgy? But then there is claimed 95% of ALL scientists agree with the dodgy ones.
corrupted by large salaries

But they can be corrupted by status.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
The fact that you think scientists are corrupted by large salaries tells us all we need to know about your "knowledge" of the subject.


Evidence shows some are corrupted by large salaries.
rug
3 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2013
@rygg and teech - Do you guy understand how you make a name for yourself in the scientific community? I'm going to guess not, so I'm going to tell you.

Here it is...you ready?.......

PROVE A THEORY WRONG!

Thats it. The single best way to get the fame, prizes, awards, grants, scholarships, and maybe even the women out there that find smart people sexy. (I hope they are out there)

With that in mind, what would be the motivation for not bringing information forward about a theory that shows it to be wrong?
brt
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2013
What status? We don't get comped meals or penthouse rooms. I don't understand the claim of advanced status. Such a claim is applicable to all branches of society from churches to strip clubs.

You have to question where you get your information from and the exact phrasing of that as well. 95% agree that there is evidence of a noticeable change in the environment since the industrial revolution and the introduction of modern pollutants? or 95% agree that there is a noticeable change in the environment since the industrial revolution? 3rd hand reports tend to through in additional words and phrases. Rush Limbaugh is going to misrepresent information to one side and Chris Matthews is going to misrepresent it to the opposite; neither one is correct.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
The fact that you think scientists are corrupted by large salaries tells us all we need to know about your "knowledge" of the subject.


Evidence shows some are corrupted by large salaries.


This is evidence that I WOULD check out. Can you provide this evidence or is that just a claim that purely an opinion that you've injected in order to try and prove your point? like Limbaugh and Matthews? Are you doing exactly what I've said you are doing by distorting the facts solely for the purpose of self-worth or is this something that is unbiased? Being biased in science is the quickest way to be permanently blacklisted. http://en.wikiped..._scandal . You lose absolutely everything; even your university degree is revoked.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
Evidence shows some are corrupted by large salaries.

Since science doesn't pay well (compared to any other job requiring only a fraction of the skillset a researcher has), scientists are pretty much safe from that type of corruption.

If a scientist were in it for the money they'd not be scientists but would be working as advisors for companies. The amount of time/work you invest to become a scientist is just so huge - there are MUCH easier ways of getting money. To not see that you'd have to be stupid.
And if there's one thing scientists aren't: it's stupid.

Here's what you will never get: the scientific mindset is so much different from that of ordinary Joes like yourself.
The frustrating thing is: there is no way you will ever understand this, since you cannot think 'smarter' than yourself. To you greed is all. The joy of mental ability is beyond you.
(However the scientist get how you think - since it IS possible to think down to the level of a dumber person)
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
"At its core, scientific fraud violates every moral and ethical code that scientists stand by. And beyond that, it violates reason itself. Why, after all, would one commit to the lowly salary and long hours of the academy only to sacrifice the one reward that no other career can bestow, that of genuine discovery?"
" Meanwhile, "success" in science massages the ego, leads to promotion, and establishes the winner as a powerful and trusted authority. Added to that, competition for academic posts is peaking and research funding is stretched to the limit.

It comes as no surprise, then, that to survive in academia, let alone thrive, scientists must now game the system in ways that would have appalled our forebears. Outright fraud is just the tip the iceberg. Beneath it churns an ocean of dubious practices that spans the physical, biological and social sciences."
http://www.thegua...y%20link
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
"A review of retractions in medical and biological peer-reviewed journals finds the percentage of studies withdrawn because of fraud or suspected fraud has jumped substantially since the mid-1970s. In 1976, there were fewer than 10 fraud retractions for every 1 million studies published, compared with 96 retractions per million in 2007.

The study authors aren't quite sure why this is happening. But they and outside experts point to pressure to hit it big in science, both for funding and attention, and to what seems to be a subtle increase in deception in overall society that science may simply be mirroring."
"In science, he said, "there's a disproportionate reward system" so if a researcher is published in certain prominent journals they are more likely to get jobs and funding, so the temptations increase.

"Bigger money makes for bigger reasons for fraud,"
http://www.cbsnew...he-rise/
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
I give up. You win. Enjoy your life.
rug
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
ok, so it's a quote, taken out of context. Here is some of the paragraph before it.

"The only way to stop academic malpractice is to eliminate the culture that rewards it. Science today faces a serious challenge in the form of academic fraud,"

They are talking about stopping fraud. No one says it hasn't happened. However, when it has happened it's not 95% of scientist.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
Your problem is that you don't know what the scientific community is (you have some very twisted idea based no hollywood movies that is devoid of any reality)
Such a scary movies were never presented at Hollywood. And they never will.
Being biased in science is the quickest way to be permanently blacklisted.
Until the whole science isn't biased like every else sectarian community. Actually just the people which are doing the cold fusion research http:// instead.


Then why is NASA receiving funding for, and conducting, serious cold fusion research?

http://www.extrem...nd-plane

Anything to say about that?
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
ok, so it's a quote, taken out of context. Here is some of the paragraph before it.

"The only way to stop academic malpractice is to eliminate the culture that rewards it. Science today faces a serious challenge in the form of academic fraud,"

They are talking about stopping fraud. No one says it hasn't happened. However, when it has happened it's not 95% of scientist.


It's not worth it, he's a liar and an idiot. He has to take quotes from the guardian and CBS news out of context in order to validate his comments. Those same sources would point out blatant bias towards Obama and support for government healthcare and he would set off like a rocket slamming them as worthless news outlets.

Why have there been more retracted papers? because we are doing a better job of peer reviewing ourselves; because we are less corrupt now than we were before, because we have higher standards than they did in the past. It all falls on deaf ears though.
rug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2013
Sadly that is the case more often than not.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
Sadly that is the case more often than not.


On the peer review thing... there's also this crazy new thing the kids are calling "the internet" that allows us to review anything we want from almost anywhere in the world in less than a minute. It's a little different from the 1970s method of subscribing to a magazine.
rug
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2013
On the peer review thing... there's also this crazy new thing the kids are calling "the internet" that allows us to review anything we want from almost anywhere in the world in less than a minute. It's a little different from the 1970s method of subscribing to a magazine.


Yup, cost us billions of dollars to research, design, and implement and then most people use only for porn, games, and facebook. How does that make sense?

Sure I use it for them things too but I also use it to have friendships with people I would never have been able to keep in contact with. Research things I don't know or want to know more about. Get news much faster than a newspaper/magazines can provide. That is what I see as the useful aspect of the internet. That is what I see as making all the money spent worth it.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2013
'For many years physicists lagged way behind biologists in the perpetration of scientific fraud. But they have caught up in spectacular style with the ambitious opus of Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs, who placed seven of his fictive works in Nature and nine in Science. All those ad hoc explanations for biomedicine's leadership role in fraud--that entrance to medical school selected for corner-cutters, or that the mathematical structure of physics leaves little slack for fudging figures--must be laid aside. "
"The Schon case does not strongly support this contention. His fraud remained undetected for two years, during which time he produced work of such seeming distinction that he was talked of for the Nobel Prize. He was detected because of an insider's tip, not by the usual checking mechanisms of science; refereeing and replication."
http://www.the-sc...bout-It/
rug
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2013
Can you find sources that are not pissed of christians? Not likely.
rug
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2013
You know what? I think the comments on this article have really added some meaning to it.

Given the many different directions these comments have taken I think it might be a fair bet that lots and lots of people out there can't tell the difference between facts and values.

Don't complain I'm not saying who can and who can't.

If the human race can't agree on the simple question is that a fact or a value. Then when a huge meteor comes heading towards earth. The earth finally gets way too hot or way to cold for us to survive here. Maybe when the sun turns into a red giant. Maybe when a supernova goes off close by.

At least someone was right all along and there will be no more argument or disagreement.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2013
Can you show me the NASA patent for cold fusion? That sounds like complete bullshit with no evidence to support it at all. That sounds like you completely made it up.

You also ignore the fact that your claim of mainstream science blacklisting cold fusion research is a flat out lie, as I just showed you. Now you want to switch over to a conspiracy theory with no evidence behind it? How about this, you're working for a foreign government trying to spread conspiracy theories throughout America so that the citizens won't support its various science programs. This offers you and your government the opportunity to catch up to our overpowering dominance in STEM fields.

DavidW
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2013
"...scientists can speak..."

That's a lie. Fact: We are human animals. It should have said those that practice science.

Antialias considers himself to be a person that practices science, yet in actual observation he dismisses the very fact that life is the most important thing in life. Therefore, this study is flawed.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2013
"Individuals know what they value" - RyggTard

RyggTard values his ignorance.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2013
"In the interim, the stagnant budgets and sequestration have caused researchers to go to extreme lengths just to stay afloat.

Dr. Olga Gursky is among the more fortunate scientists working today. She received a $1.5 million NIH grant last month to study microproteins and how they can help cure cardiovascular diseases. The money effectively saved her lab at Boston University School of Medicine. She spent the year before it arrived surviving without one of her funding streams, after a grant she secured through the stimulus package expired.

"We needed another stimulus," she said. "Instead of the stimulus we got sequestration.""
http://www.huffin...tpopular
Sequestration was Obama's idea.
every god damn thing has to be politically identified these days.

Yes, because wealth is not infinite and resources must be prioritized.
Want to increase wealth? Slow or stop govt plunder.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2013

Dr. Olga Gursky is among the more fortunate scientists working today. She received a $1.5 million NIH grant last month to study microproteins and how they can help cure cardiovascular diseases.

I think here's what you don't get about such awarded grants.

The money is NOT awarded to the researcher (the researcher in question does not get one cent more in salary than he/she did get before the grant). This is a GRANT. A grant is money for continuing to do the research - i.e. for funding materials and equipment, getting more PhD students/postdocs to work on it, being able to go to conferences, paying for rent on larger premises, etc.

Yes, because wealth is not infinite and resources must be prioritized.

You're barking up the wrong tree, then. Science budget is e.g. less than 10% of the military budget. (And some of the science budget is even for the DoE and NASA which do contractual research for the military, too)

Science over death/weapons - a good priority, no?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2013
Science budget is e.g. less than 10% of the military budget. (And some of the science budget is even for the DoE and NASA which do contractual research for the military, too)

Science over death/weapons - a good priority, no?


The DoD funds many universities and research centers, FFRDCs and UARCS. The DoD funds Air Force, Army, and Navy research centers around the country.
The point is still valid, wealth is finite and resources must be prioritized by using some value of the research.
Many in the US would like to withdraw all its military from Germany, but many in Germany do not want the US to leave.
The NAWC in China Lake conducted LENR research and publish a report of positive results.
Science over death/weapons - a good priority, no?

You first. Would you rather have Iran and DPRK building nuclear weapons and Germany and the West with no defense or a strong, high tech defense to counter socialist tyrants?
VENDItardE
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2013
rug brt.............hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

dogbert's ignorant brethren?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2013
Many in the US would like to withdraw all its military from Germany, but many in Germany do not want the US to leave.

Ask a couple of germans. We'd rather have them out yesterday than tormorrow. There are a very few that have business connections with the bases - and those, naturally, will not want those to stop. But for the most part the bases supply themselves via 'air-drop' so the number of people actually making business with these bases is suprisingly small.

And I'd be VERY surprised is if that were any different for any other US base in the world.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2013
""We Germans fought for the Russians to go, now we are fighting for the Americans to stay," jokes Brunner, chairman of the German-American contact club in Grafenwoehr, whose lifeblood is its U.S. military base."
"There is wide political consensus in Germany in support of the troops staying, not least for their economic importance. Only the pacifist Left Party has challenged the 50 million euros a year Germany contributes towards the cost of U.S. bases, and called for all U.S. troops to leave."
http://www.reuter...20120127
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2013
The essence of this article and the paper described in the article is getting the public to be willing to trust what "scientists" say. Part may have to do with "scientists" not emphasizing values, but at least as much, if not much, much more, comes from the "scientists'" displayed attitude that the "rank and file" are little more than "beasts of burden". "Science" always plays up new developments, discoveries and inventions as having absolutely no down side. Not warning ahead of time of problems does precisely that. Then, when things go wrong, they claim they never promised anything. They keep redefining autism so more and more children are included, they never criticized the lies about banned weapons in Iraq, they never warned about the disaster of subprime loans. There is no reason to trust "scientists". If "scientists" were truthful, they wouldn't necessarily have to work at appearing truthful!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2013
Scientists are people too and have the right to organize themselves and promote a cause.
Organizations can highjacked and corrupted.
Thee AARP is one and the Union of Concerned Scientists another.
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2013
Then in science all correct conclusions are "we know this much to this level of uncertainty".

Rather it is, "we know this much to this level of precision."
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2013
Scientists are people too

Yeah. But it's rather oathetic to see some people here talk about scientists as if they knew any.

It's like watching the typical overweight sportsfan talk about how his favorite team should be coached. It's so far removed from any sense of reality that it's just sad (and the saddest part is how these people don't even notice it themselves - because they are only ever in the company of other fat slobs who spout the same, ignorant tripe).

Go out. Meet the people you're criticizing. Do some scientific word (if you're able to).
Your world view will be turned around 180 degrees by a 5 minute check-in with reality..
nowhere
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2013
Any physical measurement has uncertainty, therefore one can never have valid evidence.


If you are going to make such an extraordinary claim such as this you need to have evidence.

"The simultaneous measurement of two conjugate variables (such as the momentum and position or the energy and time for a moving particle) entails a limitation on the precision (standard deviation) of each measurement. Namely: the more precise the measurement of position, the more imprecise the measurement of momentum, and vice versa. In the most extreme case, absolute precision of one variable would entail absolute imprecision regarding the other. "
http://www.aip.or...p08a.htm

Non sequitur.
brt
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2013
I think the bottom line is that science is not a religion. There are people in each field that treat it that way, and they are ignorant and likely subordinates to a scientist who doesn't think this way. Those who think science is this Illuminati style corruption are equally as ignorant. That's what the article is about; both of those types of people get values confused with facts. The facts are, every bit of modern technology and medicine comes from science. All your modern comforts that make life easy are products of science and engineering. I wouldn't care even if science was 100% corrupt like so many crackpots claim that it is; it would STILL be worth the benefits we get from it. The idea that all scientists are morally perfect is as stupid as stupid gets. But the idea that scientists are mainly corrupt is a rambling line of thought from a syphilitic brain. Ask any scientist why they got into science and I doubt you will find one that says " the money and the bitches".
brt
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2013
... "Science" always plays up new developments, discoveries and inventions as having absolutely no down side. Not warning ahead of time of problems does precisely that. Then, when things go wrong, they claim they never promised anything. They keep redefining autism so more and more children are included, they never criticized the lies about banned weapons in Iraq, they never warned about the disaster of subprime loans. There is no reason to trust "scientists". If "scientists" were truthful, they wouldn't necessarily have to work at appearing truthful!


"science" doesn't play up anything, the media does, as they always do. Recent example that you know well, the "god" particle. Scientists fucking HATE that term for so many reasons, which you've also heard. Scientists usually list a wide range of possibilities, mention one small sentence about the most far flung possibility that could be true; and that far flung possibility becomes the ONLY thing the media will report on.
brt
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2013
"Science" always plays up new developments, discoveries and inventions as having absolutely no down side. Not warning ahead of time of problems does precisely that. Then, when things go wrong, they claim they never promised anything. They keep redefining autism so more and more children are included, they never criticized the lies about banned weapons in Iraq, they never warned about the disaster of subprime loans. There is no reason to trust "scientists". If "scientists" were truthful, they wouldn't necessarily have to work at appearing truthful!


This is what I mean when I say that science isn't a religion. What do scientists have to do with making political or economic decisions? A marine biologist is supposed to stop the economic collapse caused by subprime loans?

This is what every scientist who doesn't know anything about a topic would say: "that's not my field of expertise. I could give you my opinion, but it would be about as valuable as any other person's".
nowhere
not rated yet Aug 19, 2013
Yes, because wealth is not infinite and resources must be prioritized.
Want to increase wealth? Slow or stop govt plunder.

Ironic. You agree wealth is not infinite, yet you would do away with "govt redistribution of wealth". Since wealth generation is a cumulative effect, business only spends money to make more money, there would reach a point where all wealth is horded by only the most successful businesses. Are you by any chance a business owner?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2013
"science" doesn't play up anything, the media does, as they always do.

Unless one is a scientist who want to push his values.
Like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (who campaigned to get coconut oil out of theater popcorn) or the Union of Concerned Scientists who promote their values or the IPCC or the NRDC or the EDF or ....
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
" Over the past few years, and particularly in the past few months, there seems to be a growing gulf between U.S Republicans and science. Indeed, by some polls only 6 percent of scientists are Republican, and in the recent U.S. Presidential election, 68 science Nobel Prize winners endorsed the Democratic nominee Barack Obama over the Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

As a scientist myself, this provokes the question: What are the reasons for this apparent tilt? "
"As professionals, scientists should not be put into a subservient place by politicians and ideologues. They should never be felt that their advice might well be attached to carrots or sticks. "
"Just to be sure, there are a number on the left who have their own dogmatic beliefs; the most notable are unscientific theories with regard to the dangers of vaccinations, genetically modified produce, or nuclear energy."
http://www.theatl.../267327/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
"The Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes is an intellectual network aimed at enhancing the contribution of science and technology to society's pursuit of equality, justice, freedom, and overall quality of life."
"In the U.S. and abroad, much publicly funded science is explicitly promoted and justified in terms of the quest for specified societal outcomes, such as those listed in the table below. The enormous challenge of using science to contribute to such desired outcomes rests upon the ability to implement appropriate science policies.

Desired Societal Outcomes Promoted by National Science Agencies:
http://www.cspo.o...out-cspo
Check out the list.
This group does pretty well IMHO, but they have stated values and apply science and technology to achieve those values.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2013
"science" doesn't play up anything, the media does, as they always do.

Unless one is a scientist who want to push his values.
Like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (who campaigned to get coconut oil out of theater popcorn) or the Union of Concerned Scientists who promote their values or the IPCC or the NRDC or the EDF or ....


Like I just said you brain damaged clown, those people are wrong too. What is the problem with you? Why do you manufacture arguments that don't exist? Are you unable to communicate without there being some sort of conflict that you must create so that you can argue?

For as many "science foundations" I can present an equal number of completely biased and corrupt Republican foundations that do nothing but present lies about science because republican "values" are not rooted in facts. That's the issue you have with science and that's why you paint science with such a broad brush just like any other idiot republican.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
Since wealth generation is a cumulative effect, business only spends money to make more money, there would reach a point where all wealth is horded by only the most successful businesses.

Ever hear of creative destruction?
JD Rockefeller put the lucrative sperm whalers who built up New England and Cape Cod out of business by creating a cheaper alternative to sperm whale oil, kerosene.
Wealth can't be horded for long. Even if someone wanted to buy up all the gold or diamonds in the world and keep them in some vault somewhere, there is a cost to doing so.
And by doing so, innovation will likely find alternatives making that hoarded wealth worthless.
If a business doesn't spend its profit to innovate and create more profit it dies.
Saudis used to buy fancy cars and drive them until they blew up. They didn't change or check water or oil. MBs littered the desert until someone offered to collect them for parts/scrap.
Wealth does not last forever and effort expended to maintain it.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
brt, you can lay all the blame on the media.
As noted, scientists with agendas, who may be wrong in your opinion, use their credibility to push their values.
You say science isn't a religion yet you expect scientists to act like monks to science.
brt
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2013
Without a government to regulate them, businesses will ruthlessly and endlessly progress towards monopolies. A government must control the greed of corporations or else the country and its people will die. That's why countries that employ socialist policies are the most advanced countries in the world with the most intelligent and comfortable, long living, citizens.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
businesses will ruthlessly and endlessly progress towards monopolies.

Are you an economist?
What you say is demonstrably false.
A government must control the greed

Who controls the greed of the govt?
That's why countries that employ socialist policies are the most advanced countries in the world with the most intelligent and comfortable, long living, citizens.


Like Cuba or DPRK?
brt
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2013
brt, you can lay all the blame on the media.
As noted, scientists with agendas, who may be wrong in your opinion, use their credibility to push their values.
You say science isn't a religion yet you expect scientists to act like monks to science.


because 1% of hundreds of thousands do, that does not mean that 100% do. That's what you are suggesting and that's not true at all. That's you distorting the facts to further your agenda. That's like saying "All republicans hate women and treat them like throw away sex toys. We've seen it happen so many times before". You are labeling all individuals based on a theoretical concept without any proof.
brt
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2013
businesses will ruthlessly and endlessly progress towards monopolies.

Are you an economist?
What you say is demonstrably false.
A government must control the greed

Who controls the greed of the govt?
That's why countries that employ socialist policies are the most advanced countries in the world with the most intelligent and comfortable, long living, citizens.


Like Cuba or DPRK?


like France, Germany, Italy, China, and so on... and so on... need more?

Do you have any evidence that what I say is false? no. Yet I have evidence that socialism is the only way to progress once society hits a certain point.

The people control the greed of the government. Do you need the principles of Democracy laid out for you? You don't even understand the topic you are obsessed with, what makes you think you know anything about science?
brt
3 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
What irritates you is that science proves all your radical right wing ideologies to be untrue. Socialism is a superior form of government. Unions are a necessity of human rights. Women do have the right to choose and are not slaves to men. Religions are blatantly lies used to control the masses (those who are stupid enough to anyway). I could go on, but what's the point with you?

You know what FoxNews tells you to know, that's about it. You know what Glen Beck wants you to know. That's why you hate the idea of science, because you've been taught that the concept of free thought and independence is evil. If we were to enforce what was right and rule society so that everyone was treated fairly and equally, then you would loose your status as a rich fat cat who makes their money by cheating millions of honest hard workers out of theirs. You just can't have that, can you? You can't have free thought because then people would rise up against you.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
Do you have any evidence that what I say is false?

All the states you mentioned depend upon anti-socialist, free market capitalism to support their socialism.
"The Socialist government of France is conceding defeat to free market forces by announcing 20 billion euros worth of tax cuts for businesses."
http://www.cathol...id=48390
"Germany's dependable commitment to regulatory efficiency and open-market polices continues to be bolstered by a legal framework that provides effective protection of property rights"
http://www.herita.../germany
The people control the greed of the government.

Since when?
When 51% discover they can use the state to plunder the wealth of the 49%, the monetary greed is supported by the greed of the state for power.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 19, 2013
Socialism is a superior form of government.

That didn't take long.
Carl Popper was motivated by the scientific failure of Marxism to develop his falsifiability definition of science.
What I like best about science is that one individual can, has has, changed the world by discovering something new about the universe.
everyone was treated fairly and equally,

Pol Pot tried to do that, treat everyone the same. He was a socialist, and murderer along as are most other socialists.
brt
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2013
@ ryggesogn2,

I don't actually believe any of that, I just wanted to prove my point that you can't separate facts from values. So you aren't able to speak on this topic without bias.

If you were a scientist, then you would be the exact topic the article was discussing.

You are unable to separate your values from what you believe to be facts... on a scale of 1 to 10, 11.

Just because you are biased and can't separate facts from your own personal bias, it doesn't mean that others behave the same way. You are a bigot, and you believe that the actions of a few people speak for everyone.

It also proves that everything I've said about you is correct and that you're easily duped because your mind is already made up. Scientists are already guilty in your eyes. To you, we're all just a bunch of pot smoking, tree hugging, socialists. Obama pays all our salaries. Would you say that Reagan's or Bush's science advisers were what you claim too. Isn't he responsible for their actions?
brt
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2013
@ ryggesogn2,

You are egotistical in thinking that everyone shares the same faults as you. Though you aren't rare in your shortcomings, scientists are taught to overcome bias because it ruins their work. This is a concept that is above you that you will never know if you can't accept your own faults. Maybe you will one day, but you certainly don't right now. Now quote some offhand quote that doesn't really mean anything in this context and pretend like you're making a good point; I don't think your ego could handle it if you didn't...
brt
3 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
checkmate. take care little fella.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
brt, I don't expect people to lie.
I believe what they say.
Now, I can't trust anything brt writes.
That's what happens when scientists loose credibility.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
I don't agree, the scientists very actively contribute to the contemporary situation and confusion of layman public.

Scientists publish in journals and conferences. Nothing else matters. An article in an newspaper means nothing to a scientist (as he/she knows it's only a blurb to be read by laymen). But acknowledgement of your work can't come from these people. You can only get that from your peers (through peer review and seeing that your work is getting cited).

For example at PhysOrg most of news are produced with universities directly and their PR departments

Exactly. It's university PR departments that care about such fluff - not the scientists
(To tell the truth: most of the time scientists could do without the conferences and journal papers, too...as these can take up weeks (in the case of journals months) in which you can't do much productive work)
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
I think you're missing a very obvious point: Medical research goes on in an environment where you can't control all the variables. Even if you don't use patient studies but mouse models you're dealing with an immensely complex systems. The chance that you overlook a factor is not negligible. Yes: scientists are also human and do make mistakes on occasion. That is why we have peer review.

In physics you have much more control over your experiment so the chance for some fluke leading you to wrong results is much less (it does happen there, too. Cold fusion is a good example of a fluke reading being misinterpreted or a technical issue not being noticed. Another would be the "faster-than-light neutrinos" result by OPERA not so long ago)

That said: The number of eventual retractions is well below the 1% mark. So no reason to panic and go wailing about 'corruption'. That's just ridiculous.
Doc Brown
Aug 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 19, 2013
Exactly. It's university PR departments that care about such fluff - not the scientists

Do scientists care about the money that flows from fluff?
rug
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2013
@Doc Brown - That was just great. Hey, tell Marty he still owes me a hoverboard. lol
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
"Dietz recommends agencies diagnose the situation and then make a plan that allows for all viewpoints to be heard and considered. "

Except when there is a political agenda, such the current regime's EPA that use private emails to hide their conspiracies.
"Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Lisa Jackson, who resigned last year as she was being investigated on transparency issues, may have used her private email account and an alias to conduct official EPA business during her tenure. Doing so may have violated federal laws."
http://www.breitb...-Account
"EPA's TSD Peer Review Methodology
Did Not Meet OMB Requirements for
Highly Influential Scientific Assessments "
http://www.epw.se...48105e09
Or when cronies want to 'free' govt money. Enron's Key Lay lobbied Clinton to trade carbon.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
"Quick: what's 3 x 4?

If you said 11 — or, hell, if you said 7, pi, or infinity squared — that's just fine under the Common Core, the new national curriculum that the Obama administration will impose on American public school students this fall.

Read more: http://dailycalle...cT5nLvmV

But we have all sorts of STEM initiatives trying to promote science, technology, engineering and math?

What is 2+2? Depends upon who you ask and what they value:
Computer scientist: 10.
Engineer: 3.9999999
Physicist: order of magnitude of 1
Lawyer: What do you want it to be?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2013
Hey jigga

Did you see this new theory of everything on the e cat world website? Here is the original page
http://www.peswik..._Physics

-I dont know, the narrator sounds a little too much like this guy:
http://www.youtub...gl0pOQfs

"fuckin magnets how do they work?
And I dont wanna talk to a scientist, mutha fuckas lyin an gettin me pissed" waaaaaaa

-Their theory of everything is also developed to an extent.

But seriously (?) this other guy is being published by the IOP
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2013
The problem is that facts are value-laden. What a fact means depends upon the theory that explains it, and that theory is constructed with respect to certain values, i.e. parsimony, universality, consistency, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I think I have smelled this before. Please provide links to studies conducted by SCIENTISTS and not the wannabes referred to as philos, which confirm this word spaghetti, or forgive me if I decide to order pizza instead-
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
"What science can do, Dietz says, is help figure out what people's values are and then work to come to agreement or disagreement on them."

How will science impact the debate among scientists who argue with each other regarding space exploration?
One group asserts NASA's budget should all be spent on non-manned programs. Another group insists manned exploration is essential.
Gmr
3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2013

That said: The number of eventual retractions is well below the 1% mark. So no reason to panic and go wailing about 'corruption'. That's just ridiculous.


But but but... Conspiracy! Communists! And Cronies!

Oh my!

Having watched this tiresome campaign to tear down experts, I have to ask why there is not nearly this amount of noise on the "Doctor" monopoly, which is to a large extent a self-regulating industry that has been raking in money by the basketful for NO MEANINGFUL RESARCH or REPORTABLE RESULTS!

Not to mention the shocking rate of failure! One-hundred percent of people who see doctors are dead or will eventually die! Coincidence?

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!?!
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013
That isn't a scientific debate... Tardieboy.

"How will science impact the debate among scientists who argue with each other regarding space exploration? " - RyggTard

It can however be transformed into one through the addition of facts.

You seem incapable of learning.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013
"What is 2+2? Depends upon who you ask and what they value:" - RyggTard

Only morons are falling for the nonsense you have fallen for, Tardieboy.

The object of the curriculum is to teach how and why. In that context the precise answer is not particularly significant as long as a correct process for obtaining the result is provided.

Later, once the process is known, precision is taught.

Republicans feel that children should know that 2+2=4. But since they don't know why this is so, they feel that children also need not know.

Republicans are fond of rote learning of non-facts that they retain for the rest of their ignorant existence.

They have no process to correct for their perpetual failure.

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013

"If you said 11 — or, hell, if you said 7, pi, or infinity squared — that's just fine" - Daily Caller

Mindless Nonsense from a Republican Propaganda Outlet.

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013
"Except when there is a political agenda, such the current regime's EPA that use private emails to hide their conspiracies." - RyggTard

Oh, gosh. TardieBoy has uncovered another evil conspiracy among scientists.

I'm shocked, it tells ya.. Shocked.

Why hasn't Tardieboy uncovered the WACO tapes proving that Koresh ordered the building set on fire?

And why hasn't Tardieboy seen the children of Waco claim on camera that they were molested by Koresh?

Probably because he is too busy claiming that Da Evils Gubderment started the fires, and that those Evils Gubderment Scientists are stealing his money.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2013
"Do scientists care about the money that flows from fluff?" - RyggTard

Scientists generally oppose the inefficiency of the current American Corporate Kleptocracy.

Which is why they generally oppose unregulated Capitalism.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2013
"Carl Popper was motivated by the scientific failure of Marxism to develop his falsifiability definition of science." - RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. He doesn't even know that Popper was a staunch defender of Liberal Democracy and therefore RyggTard's enemy.

Unlike RyggTard, Popper knew the difference between political theory and scientific theory, and did not devise a "definition" of science because of the failure of Marxism, but rather criticized Marxism on it's claim to being a scientific theory.

And of course, no political theory is scientific so the same basic criticism can be leveled at any political theory.

RyggTard... Is there anything he doesn't lie about?
Gmr
3.2 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2013
Wow... AWT and cold fusion... it's like a Twilight-Harry Potter slash crossover.

I'm sure it's /somebody's/ fantasy...
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2013
Just hit 'report' whenever you see 'cold fusion' or 'AWT'. It's against site guidelines to post junk science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2013
Just hit 'report' whenever you see 'cold fusion' or 'AWT'. It's against site guidelines to post junk science.
But dear luddite, physorg has had articles on this very subject
http://phys.org/n...734.html
http://phys.org/n...deo.html]http://phys.org/n...deo.html[/url]

-Hey heres a good one:
http://phys.org/n...deo.html]http://phys.org/n...deo.html[/url]

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2013
I dont know why I cant post links. Lets try again
http://phys.org/n...her.html
It's simple physics, really - pour in more energy than can radiate away and the thing heats up until eqilibrium is reached.
Stove platters are desigend to convert electricity to heat very efficiently (they're basically a big resistor coil) .
Conduction, convection and radiation. Without a pot/pan you're just left with the two (inefficient) heat transfer
-Ring any bells?