Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_SteelHead]

Frank,
Spotlight follows the data to its conclusion, your world view is based on no evidence, you can not claim to follow data. You follow predetermined conclusions and ignore the data.

[_spotlight]

The advantage of science is it can be demonstrated regardless of the purity of the experimenter. A murderer and a saint will get the same result when they perform Millikan's experiment.

That's the difference between you and me. I focus on the raw data and you focus on the people. I think that comes from a secret desire to be famous in the field. I think that you imagine people in the future performing an experiment with your name on it.

My statement essentially says that the data are paramount and the person is insignificant. The whole idea of science is to eliminate prejudices, biases and preconceived ideas of the experimenter. The data and the evidence are what matters. Is there more than one way to look at the existing data on some subject? Then the answer is not an inward journey prone to the whims of the experimenter but the answer is to collect more data until there is enough to constrain the model one way or the other.

The fact that the first scientists to discover something are remembered historically seems to bother you. Do you envy their fame or the fact that they actually contributed something to society with the time they had to live?

[_Gunnar]

That's the difference between you and me. I focus on the raw data and you focus on the people. I think that comes from a secret desire to be famous in the field. I think that you imagine people in the future performing an experiment with your name on it.

The problem is, Frankalk, that you don't really give a whit about the raw data, any more than you do about the theories based on it. You have repeatedly claimed and demonstrated that you don't require any evidence for "inner jouney" derived conclusions, and systematically discount or ignore the evidence (raw data) that conflicts with those conclusions. Besides that, the raw data by itself is not very useful unless organized systematically to see how it all fits together. That's all a scientific theory is: a formalized and testable framework that makes it possible to make practical use of the evidence we have gathered through our observational efforts. The raw data is like the individual unorganized pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Scientific theories that we have worked out to explain the data, and are analogous to working out how the individual pieces of the puzzle fit together so we can see the picture.

I vehemently disagree with you that the main motivation of most scientists comes from a desire to become famous in their field. Scientists, especially the truly great ones whose discoveries have made the great contributions to our knowledge and understanding of how the world works, were motivated by curiosity and a sincere desire to expand human knowledge. You seem to highly resent the fact that these scientists are given credit for the contributions they have made to human knowledge. Why should they not want to be acknowledged for their hard work and valuable contributions, and why should you or anyone else resent the idea of giving them that credit and honoring them?

Spotlight asked essentially the same question as I was typing this post, and I share his perplexity over why you think there is something intrinsically wrong with honoring scientists who have made valuable contributions to human knowledge and society. Perhaps you just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere knows more than you do or is smarter than you are.

[_Jersey Girl]

The advantage of science is it can be demonstrated regardless of the purity of the experimenter. A murderer and a saint will get the same result when they perform Millikan's experiment.

That's the difference between you and me. I focus on the raw data and you focus on the people. I think that comes from a secret desire to be famous in the field. I think that you imagine people in the future performing an experiment with your name on it.

How is he focusing on the people in the comment that you are replying to, Franktalk?

[_Franktalk]

How is he focusing on the people in the comment that you are replying to, Franktalk?

This is how I would write a comment dealing with an experiment.

Some time back an experiment was performed dealing with charges on oil drops. This led to establishing the charge on a particle. Today anyone can repeat that experiment and you can get the same results.

Notice the difference between my comment and that written by Spotlight. Both comments make the statement that anyone can repeat the experiment and get the same results. If science is a collection of knowledge and not people then when writing about science we should focus on the knowledge. Now if someone is writing about a scientist then by all means focus on the person. But I find a tendency from the scientific community to focus on people. It is like they worship the men in science. A similar thing happens in religion. In the LDS church many focus on the prophet and pretty much don't care about the doctrine. Leader worship happens in all groups of men on this earth. It happens in religion, government, and science. My comments to Spotlight are intended to point out a focus on people and not the knowledge. Even on this site we find many people posting comments from others, in some cases this is done for data, but far too often it is done citing an authority. This really bugs me. It is like we can't think for ourselves anymore.

[_Franktalk]

Spotlight asked essentially the same question as I was typing this post, and I share his perplexity over why you think there is something intrinsically wrong with honoring scientists who have made valuable contributions to human knowledge and society. Perhaps you just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere knows more than you do or is smarter than you are.

I love studying the history of science and the people involved. I find it fascinating to read about how and why advancements to knowledge were acquired. But science is not a collection of people. It is a collection of knowledge. It is also a collection of theories. You see in my mind I can separate out the knowledge of science from those who first discovered those natural relationships. But for many the knowledge is secondary. They raise up the men on a pedestal and the data is but part of the structure holding the man up on high. My comments to Spotlight were intended to point out how he is focused on the men of science and not the knowledge. I have made it known many times that I think science is like many other groups of men on this planet. There are layers of priest and the lower classed people must grovel at the feet of the leaders in the field. If you think the men of science are pure and don't sport huge egos then I invite you to read the posts of DrW.

[_Maksutov]

Spotlight asked essentially the same question as I was typing this post, and I share his perplexity over why you think there is something intrinsically wrong with honoring scientists who have made valuable contributions to human knowledge and society. Perhaps you just can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere knows more than you do or is smarter than you are.

I love studying the history of science and the people involved. I find it fascinating to read about how and why advancements to knowledge were acquired. But science is not a collection of people. It is a collection of knowledge. It is also a collection of theories. You see in my mind I can separate out the knowledge of science from those who first discovered those natural relationships. But for many the knowledge is secondary. They raise up the men on a pedestal and the data is but part of the structure holding the man up on high. My comments to Spotlight were intended to point out how he is focused on the men of science and not the knowledge. I have made it known many times that I think science is like many other groups of men on this planet. There are layers of priest and the lower classed people must grovel at the feet of the leaders in the field. If you think the men of science are pure and don't sport huge egos then I invite you to read the posts of DrW.

If you think the men of inner journeys are pure and don't sport huge egos then I invite you to read the posts of Franktalk.

It's interesting to me how you continue to insist on treating science as if it were a religion. You try to recast scientists as priests and knowledge as dogma. Your distortion and misrepresentation is noted. Because you won't bother to understand science, you just dismiss it as another religion. Very lazy and, "frankly", dishonest of you. But your Eloi status is still intact. You can continue to nurture your third world spiritual fantasies while the first world takes care of your ungrateful self. One more hypocrite won't matter.

[_spotlight]

This is how I would write a comment dealing with an experiment.

Some time back an experiment was performed dealing with charges on oil drops. This led to establishing the charge on a particle. Today anyone can repeat that experiment and you can get the same results.

So you took 22 words and two sentences to refer to the same thing that I did with 2 words, "Millikin's experiment."

And that is actually the only reason I mentioned his name at all, because it was more concise.

I love studying the history of science and the people involved.

Even though as you demonstrate time and time again that you comprehend nothing about science itself, the history of it fascinates you does it? When this or that fact was discovered but not by whom. History has to do with people Frank.

I find it fascinating to read about how and why advancements to knowledge were acquired. But science is not a collection of people.

But science history is about people as well as what they discovered and when. Without scientists there is no science Frank.

It is a collection of knowledge. It is also a collection of theories. You see in my mind I can separate out the knowledge of science from those who first discovered those natural relationships.

OMG you have such talent!

But for many the knowledge is secondary.

You left out "on this earth" here. You are slipping Frank. We might think you are referring to the eternals.

They raise up the men on a pedestal and the data is but part of the structure holding the man up on high.

I think when this actually happens it is with the hopes of influencing the younger generation to do something useful with their lives and contribute to mankind's advancement rather than being self absorbed and piss their life away on inward journeys.

My comments to Spotlight were intended to point out how he is focused on the men of science and not the knowledge.

And you were wrong. Seeing what you want with your inward magic has failed you once again.

people must grovel at the feet of the leaders in the field.

People with a normal amount of respect acknowledge the accomplishments of others. Of course those without any accomplishments are more comfortable when accomplishments are ignored.

If you think the men of science are pure and don't sport huge egos then I invite you to read the posts of DrW.

Frank your ego is off the charts. Nobody comes close to yours. You are the only one with your beliefs in the entire history of the world! And of course your beliefs are correct! Not only are all scientists clueless about what it is they study and you correct who haven't done a lick of science yourself but the leaders of all religions are incorrect as well where you are the only enlightened one that has ever set foot on the planet! I'd suggest you see a shrink but you'd wonder why when he won't listen to you or believe you.

Socrates wrote about his ponderings and they are still read today.

Franktalk worships men and sets them upon pedestals! Poor inconsistent Franktalk.

[_Maksutov]

Frank your ego is off the charts. Nobody comes close to yours. You are the only one with your beliefs in the entire history of the world! And of course your beliefs are correct! Not only are all scientists clueless about what it is they study and you correct who haven't done a lick of science yourself but the leaders of all religions are incorrect as well where you are the only enlightened one that has ever set foot on the planet! I'd suggest you see a shrink but you'd wonder why when he won't listen to you or believe you.

Socrates wrote about his ponderings and they are still read today.

Franktalk worships men and sets them upon pedestals! Poor inconsistent Franktalk.

But of course that's what a parrot parroting other parrots would say.

Spotlight, I've been reading a fascinating book called Aum Beep! Beep! by Vipul Trivedi. The book is a long letter written from a scientifically literate Brahmin to his son about the incredible nonsense and viciousness of much of Vedantism. A culture that has long made "inner journeys" central has also enabled ignorance, disease, misogyny, caste oppression, etc and the author lays it out in excruciating detail and candor. Slavish worship of scriptures, traditions and Godmen are exposed as tragic abuses, politically corrupting and fraudulent. Looks like East and West aren't so different after all.

http://www.amazon.com/Aum-Beep-Lifting- ... 1500599468

[_spotlight]

Spotlight, I've been reading a fascinating book called Aum Beep! Beep! by Vipul Trivedi. The book is a long letter written from a scientifically literate Brahmin to his son about the incredible nonsense and viciousness of much of Vedantism. A culture that has long made "inner journeys" central has also enabled ignorance, disease, misogyny, caste oppression, etc and the author lays it out in excruciating detail and candor. Slavish worship of scriptures, traditions and Godmen are exposed as tragic abuses, politically corrupting and fraudulent. Looks like East and West aren't so different after all.

http://www.amazon.com/Aum-Beep-Lifting- ... 1500599468

Well the problem here is his literacy in science, duh!
And there can be only one valid inner journey! That of Franktalk!