Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: opportunity on 24/02/2018 03:34:16
-
The title sounds ridiculous, "yet" if the scientific community has yet to get reality right, yes, there are errors, yes there are hyperbolic ideas, and yes the non-scientific community will think everything such as the big bang is law and not a postulate..............but, is there a trickle effect into the lives of citizens on par with scientific belief?
I'm aiming this to be a "light' subject.......half witted, tongue in cheek.
Politics is about getting the small scale, the person, right with the big scale, the populace. Science does that with the atom and cosmology. Is politics born from a big bang for instance? That sounds stupid, I do agree......but think deeper into the idea......
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
That's how it was civilisations ago.....whether that's a good or bad thing to consider is not the point of this discussion.
-
No
People who deliberately tell lies for their own selfish purposes are responsible for fake news.
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
There is compatibility to exactly the degree that politics is evidence based.
(You may need a microscope to find it)
-
but, is there a trickle effect into the lives of citizens on par with scientific belief?
I see what you are getting at; but "fake news" is probably the wrong way to label the effect you are trying to describe though, because "fake news", as @Bored chemist highlights, is an intentionally nefarious attempt to deceive the masses.
You are right, though, that whatever scientists think is the likely explanation becomes the publicly accepted opinion until it is replaced by a new idea. A good example of this is the early, Earth-centric model of the Universe. Admittedly religion had a role in promulgating this too, but that was what everyone thought until people like Copernicus (De revolutionibus), Kepler and Galileo proved that the theory did not fit the facts and opinion moved on.
More recently, the Victorians were convinced that the Universe must be pervaded by a mysterious ether; Michelson spent 7 years of his life floating mirrors on baths of mercury and bouncing light beams between them to prove its existence only to admit defeat and realise that it didn't exist at all. With this, and Einstein's thought experiment about his own reflection potentially disappearing if he travelled at the speed of light, people realised that ethers were merely "hot air" and the idea was dismissed.
I wonder what the "ether" of our modern era will be?
-
There are two definitions of fake news
1.Real news that is embarrassing to an incompetent parasite in high office
2. Lies and smears presented as fact by an incompetent parasite in high office.
Scientific hypotheses are valid if they are explanatory, predictive, and not disproved by experiment. A weak hypothesis is occasionally politically convenient, at which point it becomes fake news, but the conversion is generally made by a parasite, not a scientist.
-
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
Two problems,
1. they have different objectives,
2. very few politicians understand science - we recently had a UKIP politician arguing with a scientist about whether the sun or the moon has greatest influence on tides, I’ll leave you to guess which side the politician was favouring.
whatever scientists think is the likely explanation becomes the publicly accepted opinion until it is replaced by a new idea.
One problem is that science is interpreted by non-scientists. Press reports, even in the technical press, can give a very wrong impression of the true case. Read the Daily Mail version and you are already in fantasy land.
Also, very few people have enough science understanding and rely on their own beliefs, people believe homeopathy even though science says doesn't work.
I agree with @chris that this isn’t really fake news.
I wonder what the "ether" of our modern era will be?
Conspiracy theories?
-
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
Science is occasionally useful to politicians. But whereas a scientist abandons any hypothesis that isn't supported by facts, a politician will advocate any hypothesis that is supported by votes.
So watch out for gun-toting teachers in the USA, promotion of diesel cars, demonisation of diesel cars, the impending ice age, anthropogenic global warming, the joy of communism, the threat of communism, the dangers of drugs (except alcohol and tobacco), the dangers of alcohol and tobacco, statins free for all, the danger of statins, "this is about regime change in Iraq" (H M Foreign Secretary), "this is not about regime change in Iraq" (H M Prime Minister, 2 weeks earlier), Lysenko in Russia, eradication of sparrows in China, Aryan superiority.....all supported by "science".
-
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
Science is occasionally useful to politicians. But whereas a scientist abandons any hypothesis that isn't supported by facts, a politician will advocate any hypothesis that is supported by votes.
So watch out for gun-toting teachers in the USA, promotion of diesel cars, demonisation of diesel cars, the impending ice age, anthropogenic global warming, the joy of communism, the threat of communism, the dangers of drugs (except alcohol and tobacco), the dangers of alcohol and tobacco, statins free for all, the danger of statins, "this is about regime change in Iraq" (H M Foreign Secretary), "this is not about regime change in Iraq" (H M Prime Minister, 2 weeks earlier), Lysenko in Russia, eradication of sparrows in China, Aryan superiority.....all supported by "science".
You raise a good point. If anyone here in the forum has Netflix, I suggest watching the show "Dirty Money". The first episode explains how the US has appeared to turn a blind eye to the diesel emissions that technically "don't exist" in all the VW diesel autos.
The problem is, these emissions are dangerous, and kids are getting sick. Is there a case of med-compensation pending here?
Clearly a lot of people are behind this fraud, techies and scientists to start with, yet politics caves. Despite the blame game, this is bad.
-
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
At the risk of coming across as pedantic, I would like to point out that politics and science are unlikely ever to be "compatible." Science and policy should be compatible--evidence-based policy depends on science (ideally both to base initial policies on evidence, and to assess the effectiveness and side-effects of enacted policies for use in future iterations).
This may sound like medicine, and it should. Policy is like medicine: Specific remedies prescribed in certain cases with the aim of demonstrably improving some measurable aspects of very complex systems. Politics, on the other hand is more like bedside manner: How to convince people that you are doing a good job and that the prescriptions are necessary and working. Medicine and policy are both dependent on the scientific process, while politics and bedside manner are more about communication, obfuscation, and manipulation (the latter two are more important for politicians than doctors, but still applicable to both...)
-
I agree.
Id like to think science is the void we make things in, and politics the ethics with others in mind.
Well, given current ideas of new science, theres a void there, imagining what we can't actually see, faster than light space expansion holding other galaxies.
I'd like to think science can do what it can to make our own reference "realistic" compared to those faster than light expansive realms.
-
The aim of this discussion is to marry science with politics, see if there is any compatibility.
At the risk of coming across as pedantic, I would like to point out that politics and science are unlikely ever to be "compatible." Science and policy should be compatible--evidence-based policy depends on science (ideally both to base initial policies on evidence, and to assess the effectiveness and side-effects of enacted policies for use in future iterations).
This may sound like medicine, and it should. Policy is like medicine: Specific remedies prescribed in certain cases with the aim of demonstrably improving some measurable aspects of very complex systems. Politics, on the other hand is more like bedside manner: How to convince people that you are doing a good job and that the prescriptions are necessary and working. Medicine and policy are both dependent on the scientific process, while politics and bedside manner are more about communication, obfuscation, and manipulation (the latter two are more important for politicians than doctors, but still applicable to both...)
To extrapolate this, fake news, based on political bias, is like a placebo. It is not real medicine based on research and experiment; facts and proof. It is more like a sugar pill sold as medicine. You hand out sugar pills, and then try to convince the audience that this is the latest medicine. Because of the placebo affect, there will be those who will show symptoms and/or symptom relief, based on a placebo affect.
The question is why do placebos appear to work better, if your orientation is slanted toward liberal? Conservative is connected to conserving the past. This might be the literal interpretation of the Constitution, or old fashion family and religious values. Such things tend to have a long history of data collection, home experiments, and even time proven proof of concept. This large data set makes it easier to isolate a placebo, due to the nuance collected by traditions.
Liberal is often more novel and even cutting edge, with much less historical proof of concept. One is not 100% sure of the impact of this state of the art medicine. It is very new, and its side affects and it impact may not be 100% settled before going to market. Fake news placebos are not as easy to differentiate when the medicine itself is not fully developed and test proven. For example, who saw a rise in childhood poverty as a side effect connected to the break up of the nuclear family medicine? The lack of symptom, up front, might be blamed on the placebo.
The contrast in terms of getting a new medicine to market would be the Conservative medicine is a large pharmaceutical company, developing a new medicine that takes 10 years to come to market. It is based on previous technology and previous medicine precursors, that have been used for many decades. The placebo is much easier to isolate since there is lots of data.
Liberalism is like a new medicine that has little connection to what already is. It may be revolutionary but unprecedented. A few trials are run and it is time to go to market to beat the competition. They may use the swamp to push it through the system, so it looks as good as gold, with no side affects. However, since it was not fully tested, the affect and the side affects are not 100% clear. The placebo is not easy to isolate. The lack of performance may be interpreted as the placebo and not the medicine being snake oil. Obama Care was supposed to cut costs. This was the sales pitch connected to the placebo and not the medicine.
If you want to get a good placebo affect yield, from your test subjects, this will work easier if the subjects are desparate for a cure and are willing to try anything. Fake news can be used to induce and cater to desparate people. For example, the Russian collusion narrative would have been a drastic situation, if is was true. It would be like a terminal disease with no easy cure. The test subjects; liberals, want to be cured of this social disease and are willing be part of the test. They will react better to the placebo, hoping to be cured. The want to belief since they need relief.
The dire straights and doom and gloom of manmade global warming is another disease that is hard to cure. Placebos can also work here due to the desperation. Every symptom of the climate can be made to be part of the disease. Now we have a large test group to whom the placebo affect can become amplified.
Thoughts are food for the brain. We may need to set up a commission to look at the brain food supply to make sure it is not too high in fat and sugar pills.
-
I think the key point I was trying to make was the subject of global warming and our responsibility there.
Worst case scenario: we have a nuclear war, and 80% of the world became contaminated. Did we have an effect there? Some would say no, some would say it was mind control from a volcano that was going to erupt anyway, right?
Ok, so if we're deforesting the planet at an alarming rate, and forests, well, do we know this for sure, are essential to the atmosphere?
An example of fake new media is saying the impact of deforestation on the planet is negligible.
What if we made a planet of just grasslands, cows, palm plantations, and concrete, see how that works....somewhere. Has anyone done a scientific study on those four variables, or is that too absurd?
It woiuld be nice if the high paid and influential scientists could stand up for the basics....and if its in favor of the four basics mentioned here it would be great to see that report. Although it looks like the set of "high (grand, whatever) theft auto", one of those computer games, second life, whatever, I mean, seriously.
This is why politicians think global warming is absurd.....it hasn't played into their game yet, because technically global warming is not a forecast, its about how successful a state can be.....now....right?
-
I think the key point I was trying to make was the subject of global warming and our responsibility there.
Worst case scenario: we have a nuclear war, and 80% of the world became contaminated. Did we have an effect there? Some would say no, some would say it was mind control from a volcano that was going to erupt anyway, right?
Ok, so if we're deforesting the planet at an alarming rate, and forests, well, do we know this for sure, are essential to the atmosphere?
An example of fake new media is saying the impact of deforestation on the planet is negligible.
What if we made a planet of just grasslands, cows, palm plantations, and concrete, see how that works....somewhere. Has anyone done a scientific study on those four variables, or is that too absurd?
It woiuld be nice if the high paid and influential scientists could stand up for the basics....and if its in favor of the four basics mentioned here it would be great to see that report. Although it looks like the set of "high (grand, whatever) theft auto", one of those computer games, second life, whatever, I mean, seriously.
This is why politicians think global warming is absurd.....it hasn't played into their game yet, because technically global warming is not a forecast, its about how successful a state can be.....now....right?
I would like to quote myself here and ask when the state was no longer interested in the better interests of "the planet"? Not other states, but "the planet"? It could be a "new thing"...requiring us to understand more than our own immediate political situation, yet what we can be alerted to beyond such a seemily mystifying idea?
This planet has no hope, no hope, unless we have for it, or it has for us, a ground-breaking revelation we're not aware of yet.
America rejected the Paris accord because it wasn't binding; there were no agreements on limiting dirty energy.
-
...and yes the non-scientific community will think everything such as the big bang is law and not a postulate
When you say things like this you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You are using the term "law" as it pertains to physics as if its something which has been proven when in fact no law of physics can ever be proven. That's not how physics works. We'd like it to but its not possible.
A law of physics is a statement about nature which is inferred from observations while a postulate is a statement that is taken to be true so as to serve as a premise for further reasoning and arguments.
All laws of physics start out as postulates. They become a law of physics when more and more observations are made which verify it. Since all observations to date verify the big bang scenario it is, by definition, a law of physics.
I suggest you pick up a book on the philosophy of science before making any further claims. Otherwise you'll continue to make errors like this.
-
Pseudoscientists are likely to be responsible for fake news. They are true pioneers in the field. They have the ability to make fantastic claims. I give them 10 out of 10 for effort.
-
...and yes the non-scientific community will think everything such as the big bang is law and not a postulate
When you say things like this you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You are using the term "law" as it pertains to physics as if its something which has been proven when in fact no law of physics can ever be proven. That's not how physics works. We'd like it to but its not possible.
A law of physics is a statement about nature which is inferred from observations while a postulate is a statement that is taken to be true so as to serve as a premise for further reasoning and arguments.
All laws of physics start out as postulates. They become a law of physics when more and more observations are made which verify it. Since all observations to date verify the big bang scenario it is, by definition, a law of physics.
I suggest you pick up a book on the philosophy of science before making any further claims. Otherwise you'll continue to make errors like this.
C'mon, I suggest you pick up a book on "economics"......you know, how Congress can fund certain adventures.
-
C'mon, I suggest you pick up a book on "economics"......you know, how Congress can fund certain adventures.
See what I mean about confusing posts. How is this an answer to quote you put it beneath??
-
C'mon, I suggest you pick up a book on "economics"......you know, how Congress can fund certain adventures.
See what I mean about confusing posts. How is this an answer to quote you put it beneath??
ABC, KISS (keep it simple stupid).
The more the spin, the more the words.
Congress is very down to earth, likes the KISS philosophy.....if there is spin, they will be doing that first.
-
ABC, KISS (keep it simple stupid).
The more the spin, the more the words.
Congress is very down to earth, likes the KISS philosophy.....if there is spin, they will be doing that first.
Then you failed with this KISS, as it is still difficult to see how it answers the post you put under
-
Some of the issues with "Science" and "Fake News" are tied to Global Warming and Climate Change.
Part of it may not be the fault of science at all, but rather the fault of misinterpretation of science. Nonetheless, as global warming was being politicized, more people jumped on the bandwagon, as well as starting cherry-picking data. So, the "Hockey Stick" temperature graph is dramatic, but only when one restricts one's view to the last few centuries.
The polar ice data had huge issues between association and causation. Likely there were feedback loops involved, so while temperatures drove the CO2 levels due to partial pressures of mixed liquids/gases, there likely was a feedback loop associated with the CO2 also driving the temperatures. Yet, the two processes were easily confounded when they reached the political scene.
Then one can document data, but everyone is most curious about what the future will bring, and that is difficult to predict, and early models were likely oversimplified. One of the issues is that heat is often associated with dryness. Yet, the relationship is far more complex with heat also driving evaporation which needs to be accounted for. And, thus one turns away from the term of "Global Warming" to the newer term of "Climate Change".
Toss in some bad data and exaggerated reports such as the Himalayan glaciers disappearing over the next few years, and one gets stuck in the quagmire. Add to that confounding normal summer ice melt that provides spectacular photo ops with actual reduction of ice volume.
Then, of course, there is the issue that few people wish to park their car and admit their own contributions to the changing Earth. It is far easier to ignore the impending issues.
In the end, we get good science, bad science, and political propaganda rolled together, as well as people denying what is being observed for their own personal benefit, and we get a mess of "real" vs "fake" vs "opinion".
-
"News", of course, has been manipulated since the beginning of time. Tell the people what one wishes them to hear.
Propaganda was used big-time during World War II with the powers vilifying the opponents, or exaggerating their own positions and accomplishments. Time major announcements with major successes :)
By the time the Vietnam war rolled around, the governments had less control over what was being presented to the public, and we got to see first hand the horrors of warfare.
News, of course, isn't just a list of facts, but also includes opinion, and perhaps speculation. And, there is always the temptation to cherry-pick the facts that supports the viewpoint that one wishes to convey while ignoring the facts that support the opposing viewpoint.
But, why even base news on facts... perhaps exaggerate the facts a little... or make up new facts when one can't find the ones one needs. Just make the fiction plausible, and someone will believe them, and treat them as doctrine.
This really has nothing to do with science, but rather propaganda and sensationalism.
Of course, the scientists and engineers created the technology that made all this possible. :o
-
As scientists, do we have a sense of responsibility to account for facts? Some would say science is what facts are all about, yet I've been chided in another thread stating that theory is theory and because its theory its not necessarily factual.
......aaaaany ideas there?