Summing up science education with 1 photo

[#juan]

That's kind of irrelevant to what I said. Perhaps I should have said that even Einstein was wrong sometimes, or Hawking. Do you like those examples better? Perhaps Pierre and Marie Cure?

I want to know why you think you can criticize Newton and others who were breaking new ground in a half dozen fields. They were making new science and of course they were going to go up the odd blind alley but I don't like to see him and others like him called wrong for their thought processes during their research. While I may not like it, it is still your God-given right to say what you want.

 

[#juan]

Actually that's wrong.

Google is indeed biased and the reason is because of not just meta tags within web sites, but the fact that if you pay google enough or join one of their fancy packages for your site, you get bumped up above the others.

It simply gives you the illusion that it's fair and give you what you ask for.

Search directly for a company's name and of course they normally pop up near the top (Minus the few that pop up above them that are advertisement sites that eventually may or may not direct you to the site you want after getting a crap load of spyware)

Search for a topic in general and you will find that the whole situation changes still. I've done enough screwing around with google and meta tags over the years to know a bit of how it works......

Example:

Google Advertising

Sometimes you can get your site on google for free if you play around with your meta tags long enough..... but chances are you will never get to the top of the first page unless you shell out some cash to them, even if you're the only one supplying a site for a paticular topic.

And with the marijuana example, half of those web sites from the US against marijuana are directly funded by the government due to the war on drugs BS..... so they have plenty of money to send to google in order to get out on top.

Google IS Biased.

It's not a conspiracy, that's how they operate and that's how they get their money.

It's like the difference between Googling "Horse", or "race horse", or "winning race horse", or "winning race horse 1962" . All of these will get different answers. The more you refine your search the better will be your results.

 

[CanadianLove]

Try useing a more open minded country search engine. Switch your browser to google.dk and leave your desired language on english. - you will be surpised at the information that will find on the net.

 

[petros]

I read Google like I would Hebrew. From the back to the front. The first URLs to pop up are the ones that advertisers have the most success on.

 

[petros]

BTW my science degree is heating your home.

 

[Twila]

Um, about the frenzy, it is nothing new. People that don't understand science are always in a frenzy about something concerning science. They don't seem to understand that science changes as new evidence and stuff shows up.

If science was static and never changed, never evolved, and never corrected its self we'd call it religion.

 

[Tyr]

All that tells me is that people are comfortable with Darwin's theory and need not post endlessly refuting it. Those that do refute it are stridently oppossed 9to the point of hysteria) to anything that refutes the fables of creationism

 

[Tyr]

anyone who thinks that ANYONE was always right is, obviously, wrong. You can't do science without being wrong a LOT of the time.

You can't do science without being wrong a LOT of the time

Obviously science isn't your strong suit if you are comfortable with making such a broasd statement

...a LOT of the time? How about once in a while or sometimes (<10%)

 

[hermanntrude]

A lot of the time. it's true. Your first guess will be wrong, your second guess will be mostly wrong or wrong, the third, fourth, fifth and so on might be closer and even when you've run out of idead you might not be right. Of course it depends on how close you are to the frontier. remember I come from a research background. I have added to the sum knowledge of humankind, and it's hard to do that without getting it wrong a few times

 

[Tyr]

A lot of the time. it's true. Your first guess will be wrong, your second guess will be mostly wrong or wrong, the third, fourth, fifth and so on might be closer and even when you've run out of idead you might not be right. Of course it depends on how close you are to the frontier. remember I come from a research background. I have added to the sum knowledge of humankind, and it's hard to do that without getting it wrong a few times

remember I come from a research background

That could mean alot of things. Researching peoples yogurt preferences or researching the best metallurigal properties foe space flight.

It doesn't indicate you're a scientist though and to make a statement that science is wrong ALOT is naive to say the least

ps. I am a scientist Bsc1984

 

[darkbeaver]

I am slightly wrong almost all of the time, that what places me on the cutting board of science.

 

[Tonington]

I haven't done research like Hermann has, but it's been an observation of mine that science is very messy. You add the fact that some scientists get comfortable with using the same statistical treatments and they might miss something that a new tool with more power might pick up on. One of the papers I am leaning on for my project is the result of a very long line of focused research by a couple of British fellows. Lots of investigations, some of it useful. Other findings just cross a question of the list.

 

[#juan]

I am slightly wrong almost all of the time, that what places me on the cutting board of science.

Would it be your grammar that keeps you from the cutting edge?...;-):smile:

 

[darkbeaver]

I haven't done research like Hermann has, but it's been an observation of mine that science is very messy. You add the fact that some scientists get comfortable with using the same statistical treatments and they might miss something that a new tool with more power might pick up on. One of the papers I am leaning on for my project is the result of a very long line of focused research by a couple of British fellows. Lots of investigations, some of it useful. Other findings just cross a question of the list.

That's right Tonnington science is dirty messy dangerous business but ultimately rewarding when one realizes he has survived the chemical reaction and not been to torn to pieces by the hurling fragments of metal, glass and splintered furniture due to poor statistical treatments of the British.:lol:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... to make a statement that science is wrong ALOT is naive to say the least

There was no such statement. The statement was "You can't do science without being wrong a LOT of the time," which is true, not that science itself is wrong a lot. In another sense though, science IS wrong a lot, it's just the nature of things. Isaac Asimov in one of his essays reported being asked after one of his public lectures something like, "The phlogiston theory was wrong, the luminiferous ether theory was wrong, Einstein showed Newton was wrong, and so on, so isn't it true that one thing we can say with certainty about any scientific theory is that it's probably wrong?" Asimov's response: "People once thought the earth was flat. Then people thought it was a sphere. If you think the latter are just as wrong as the former, you're more wrong than both of them."

 

[L Gilbert]

I want to know why you think you can criticize Newton and others who were breaking new ground in a half dozen fields. They were making new science and of course they were going to go up the odd blind alley but I don't like to see him and others like him called wrong for their thought processes during their research. While I may not like it, it is still your God-given right to say what you want.

No god gives me rights. Laws do that.
Anyway, I wasn't criticising anyone, really. Just pointing out that EVERYONE is wrong sometimes.

Einstein versus Newton

 

[L Gilbert]

BTW my science degree is heating your home.

You burnt your diploma under the house?

 

[L Gilbert]

Anyway, the thread was about summarizing science in a picture. I thought it was mildly funny.
Public ed never keeps up with science. One of my kids pointed out something in one of her bio books one time and asked if I had a SciAm issue or Science issue or something that could clarify it. I found an article written a couple years after the last edition of her textbook that refuted what the text was saying.

 

[Spade]

Anyway, the thread was about summarizing science in a picture. I thought it was mildly funny.
Public ed never keeps up with science. One of my kids pointed out something in one of her bio books one time and asked if I had a SciAm issue or Science issue or something that could clarify it. I found an article written a couple years after the last edition of her textbook that refuted what the text was saying.

Ahhh, books! They should all be burnt except Fahrenheit 451!

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I read recently that the only reason that we say there are seven colours in the rainbow is because newton decided there should be as many colours as there are days in the week.

I think,really, it was because he went with his wife to the Sherwin-Williams paint store. "152 colours of white!!?? I didn't even know white was a colour".:lol: