Is everyone a scientist?
I think Cole means that science is not about all those external instruments. And I agree
Nah, GW is not about science, it is about politics. Nothing is proven there because of the lack of data, so scientifically there is nothing to talk about yet.
I disagree in reference to climate change. But I still love you Misha
There is some science concerning GW, but it is buried beneath a huge pile of opinionated and biased crap, from both sides. Sadly, people have difficulty in separating the science from the politics - the oil lobby and Gore are equally to blame.
To go back to the OP, IMO, everyone is not a scientist judging by the amount of half-assed pseudoscience available online
No, I'm not offended. I guess I have to put a smiley face after everything.
I'm just a little appalled at how many people don't seem to understand or appreciate the difference between junk knowledge and real knowledge. It seems so prevalent these days. Again, Well Stated.
<---(almost forgot)
http://hubpages.com/hub/what-science-is This will get you started
Indeed. At we least we can actual do that: agree to disagree.
perhaps above all, these 'arguments' only add further proof that human logic/reason is limited to its own ideologies/interpretations.
perhaps when we human beings realize this, we will achieve universal understanding...
enjoy the days
In a way yes. And most people use the scientific method in everyday thought.
Thats right! Thats exactly how I figured out you were a girl!
I charted your level of emotional attachment to the issues, you're a girl.
We are kinda twinish.
Um.. no. I really don't think we could be any more different.
LOL
I was confused she has serious eyes but she does have a cute little nose.
Science is about a particular method. The vast majority of non-scientists have no idea about the method, let alone using it in processing their observations. So, the answer is no.
- Twenty One Daysposted 13 years ago
0Cags, you know we could debate that all day, right.
any 'practical.rational' scientist knows this. They have a set system of rules, equation, 'logical approach' that they apply to achieve some result. The parody is that mysticism does the same.
science: the step & methods of discovery of a thing which is achieved by experimentation, hypothesis, theory, search, discovery, logical acceptance of said theory as proof of the existence/purpose of a thing until otherwise more concrete proof is found. a type of enlightenment.
mysticism: the step and methods of discovery of a thing which is achieved by experimentation, hypothesis, theory, search, discovery, logical acceptance of said theory as proof of the existence/purpose of a thing until otherwise more concrete proof is found. a type of enlightenment.Please refrain from putting mysticism in the same sentence as science. You disrespect the rest of humanity, when you do so.
And, as far as bantering back and forth all day/night about this topic, would not happen. For the simple fact that I would beg to agree to disagree and you can go about doing whatever it is that you do. No less the wiser. Which is really a saddened fact to accept about any human being. But, in your case, I'll make an exception to the average person. Therefore, now I agree to disagree with you and good-bye.
Yes Misha that is what I meant. Psychology is in a way the study of thought. So it isn't a matter of which comes first.
- R.G. San Ramonposted 13 years ago0
I can go with vaguely similar. Maybe. For some people.
"A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy."
In the terms of the word, in a way we're all scientists.
In terms of the profession... no.I'm reporting you to homeland security. It is illegal to use zombie flesh in your experiments unless you have a science degree.
I hope Maurice Strong doesn't send his troops after me.
Whilst I love CSI, it has probably led to more incorrect convictions than dodgy lawyers.
I fully agree with you about the portrayal of science as absolute - partly due to the media and politicians, partly due to some scientists, that is a common misperception. Sadly, most of this is due to the decline of philosophy - a scientist should read Karl Popper, at the very least, but many are not exposed to this.
Going back to your original post, too many people comment about science without understanding. Off the top of my head, I remember a Free Market proponent stating that we should not have fishing quotas because the invisible hand, and supply and demand, would prevent overfishing. Sadly, fish do not understand economics and refuse to comply with the Austrian School, but I could not be bothered arguing the case because it would have fallen upon deaf ears.
As for GW - I walked out of 'An Inconvenient Truth' after 15 minutes. I lean towards man-made GW, but about 60 - 40 - More good research is needed as to whether climate change is natural or anthropomorphic. I would rather resources be spent upon preparation for rising sea levels, rather than fiddling about with carbon trading.
The Dutch are building up their dykes, and they know a thing or two about sea-levelsI was told that we should not institute fishing quotas because supply and demand would take care of everything. As fish became scarcer, the higher price would ensure that fewer people would buy fish and that stocks would recover. That makes some economic sense.
Unfortunately, fish stocks usually have a point of no return - once the numbers decline below a certain level, stocks rarely recover. History and fisheries research both show that, sadly. Economic sense does not always guarantee scientific sense, and vice versa.
I am from a town where that happened and there is now no fishing industry, nor will there ever beAh, so the quotas would have added balance from everyone fishing at once? I admit, I am pretty clueless on fish although I have started taking a fish oil supplement.
Why can't they breed fish and bring them in? To simplify things, lack of politics/regulation killed the fish?Hehe - my dissertation was about fish oils!
Weak politicians, political lobbying and poor regulation were responsible, as were social factors. If a fisherman has taken on hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to buy a fishing boat, then he will continue to fish for as long as possible. The nature of fish stocks, spread over such a huge expanse of ocean, means that it is very difficult for them to recover.
As for the breeding, to cut as long story short: Fish such as Atlantic Salmon can be restocked, but they are carnivorous and the feed comes from anchovies, putting more pressure on those stocks and simply moving the problem elsewhere.
Restocking is difficult - marine fish larvae are tiny and very difficult to grow. My dissertation was about that exact thing, finding a marine food source of live food that has the correct balance of fatty acids and oils and is the correct size. There has been some progress (I have a Norwegian friend working with Halibut), but it will be many years before we can grow fish at the rate needed, if at all.
I am not trying to destroy free-marketism, just make the observation that it does not have all of the answers when faced with reality
- PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago0
I think the subtext of this thread is to suggest that nonscientists' observations and conclusions are as valid as scientific observations. While this can be true, if I had to make an important decision that would affect the future of the planet, I would rely on science more than personal observations of non-scientists.
But, then, I don't believe every person is a scientist.Okay .... Even though I've read your paragraph several times, it makes no sense to me. Perhaps your scientific conclusion based upon observable, measurable data and experimentation that can be replicated by others is beyond my limited cognitive abilities.
I would love to see that, as lawyers are amongst the worst offenders - Appeals to emotion, appeals to authority and strawmen abound. Sadly, I cannot see it happening - you also have 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt.' I never fully understood what that is
Maybe we should have a Fallacy Awareness Test before being allowed to post on the HP forums
- PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago0
Why don't you walk the talk and start a new trend?
I don't know, he is obviously a smart man...have you seen the women he works with on bay watch? And how they dress....
- StormRyderposted 13 years ago0
Related Discussions
- 35
What is your definition of terrorism?
For me, it would entail the coalition of an elite and a government to terrorize a third group, the people. For instance, the collusion of Mandchurian candidates and the CIA to attack totally randomly the Boston Marathon venue or to go on a killing spree in a theater (the last Batman would be a...
- 216
Are the religious insane?
We all know the onus is on the claimant to prove his/her claim if they are stating it as fact. Can it be proven, as it would be in a court of law, that the religious on the hubpages forums are insane?
- 93
What is the significance of the election and protests in Iran?
Some are saying that the defiant protests over the election are undermining the authority of the Ayatollah and his government and may make future protests more likely and harder to control whether or not the immediate goal of a recount or another election is achieved.
- 14
Do you believe that plastic surgery is a necessity or just plain stupid vanity?
Do you believe that plastic surgery is a necessity or just plain stupid vanity?I think that the only reason for plastic surgery is a car accident or a burn victim that has lost part of thier face etc..otherwise why get cut if you don't really need it? is it really a necessity to look all tight and...
- 76
How do you handle new hubbers questions?
I mean we all know all they have to do is look the answers up up right , instead of asking over and over and over , The reason I'm asking is because I just read a hub calling new hubbers questions stupid, I personally don't think any question in this world is stupid , if one never asked...
- 30
Has Airport Security Become Totally Insane?
When I read about an elderly cancer patient in a wheel chair having to remove her diaper because of security procedures at US airports, I think the requirement to follow procedure and not common sense has truly gotten out of hand. It just seems TSA is void of any logic or intelligence, am I...