Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: CG on 24/04/2020 16:35:38
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions?
There are no required qualifications. It is a forum, not a place where you can expect a real peer review. Most science forums are tougher on unscientific theories than they are here.
-
And I don't want to post it for the general public to see.
Then don't put it on the internet.
-
Quote from: CG on Today at 16:35:38
And I don't want to post it for the general public to see.
Then don't put it on the internet.
.
I didn't see that, that is pretty funny.
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
No qualifications are needed to ask a question. Any "Joe Lunchbox" can ...
-
I guess there is no one qualified to answer the question. Bunch of amatuers,
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions?
It varies. Some of our members are actual scientists. Others are science enthusiasts. Others still are cranks.
-
Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
There are lots.
They live in America. (Because that's where DARPA is)
Did you notice that this is a UK based site?
It doesn't mean that there are no Americans here, but it rather suggests that you don't know what you are looking for.
Bunch of amatuers,
Some are; some aren't. Some of us can spell amateur.
I'm a professional scientist.
What were you actually hoping to find here?
If you want to talk to the people at Darpa, why not contact them directly?
https://www.facebook.com/DARPA/
https://www.facebook.com/DARPA/
-
I have an idea that could be weaponized
People who were allegedly doing "gain of function" testing on bat viruses in Wuhan also had an idea that could be weaponized. And look where that got us...
Why don't you try to patent it?
- That will take 18 months, by which time we will (hopefully) be able to see the light at the end of the current crisis
- That will make you think through your idea more carefully and express it more clearly
- And if the idea is any good (or even terribly bad), the military in your country will classify it, and we will never hear about it again...
-
I guess there is no one qualified to answer the question. Bunch of amatuers,
So what are your qualifications to actually ask the question?
-
Some are; some aren't. Some of us can spell amateur.
That cracked me up. :)
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
The answer to the question depends on the answer you are looking for. If you want a status quo answer, or an answer that will appear on a test at school, your best responders would be educators in the subjects.
A PhD means someone trained for detailed research, who can come to focus, in terms of their education. Their thesis would be very targeted in terns of a specialty within a specialty. These people are better at a targeted answers instead of a more generalized answer. They may prefer use the math instead of develop the conception landscape; bulls eye.
There are also Generalists, who know something about a lot of things and will answer questions by crossing the boundaries of specialty. They may have one or more area of formal educational specialty, and many other areas of self learning, without a formal degree. Good education teaches us how to keep learning, on our own.
As an example of a contrast between a specialist and generalists, if you were asking a question about a dream, to someone who was specialized in psychology, they may answer your question in a certain way connected to repression and symbolism. If that person was also knowledgeable in biochemistry, they might also answer that same question, based on chemical imbalances. Both can be part of the truth. If you were a chemistry specialist you may not like the symbolism answer even if the person had a PhD. You may prefer the chemical answer.
If those answering the question are research and development people, you may get a an entirely different approach, than someone who is a manufacturing scientist. Both ca be very educated. The first will be tempted to think outside the box, since this is what they do for a living The latter will stay inside the box, since making management comfortable is part of their job. R&D people have different types of handlers who cut them slack, since they need to try new things.
In the forums, one can get a variety of approaches to questions, by differently qualified scientists and science enthusiasts. This is not right or wrong, unless you are studying for a test and the status quo or teachers opinions is how you get the A.
One thing to consider, in terms of answers, is the idea of a science consensus. This is an oxymoron, since science is about repeatable fact. Politics is about the consensus of opinion. Consensus implies some level of subjectivity allowing us to vote on it. Political parties have the same facts, but each uses different theory. Consensus is something one can build, apart from the facts. The whip in politics makes sure everyone votes the same. Those afraid of the whip of consensus, may wish to avoid new ideas. They may only want the party line.
In the golden age of science, theory had a much tougher standard, than it doescoday. If there was new data that did not agree with a theory, the theory needed to be revised or updated. or cast aside. Many people hated Einstein's relativity, and worked hard to experimentally disprove it, But it stood the test of time and scored 100% even until today. This is old school.
When statistics entered the scene, the concept of margin of error, watered down the standards of theory. "Margin of error", allows bad theory to persist using a loophole. The standard got watered down, which is why consensus and politics have entered the scene. If we have to decide between two competing theories, that are not perfect to all the data, we will use a whip, and then take a vote.
Many of the debates, which may have caused you to question people's credentials, is connected to some people using the old fashion higher standard. Others use use the water down standard of consensus, to ignore any inconsistent data.
For example, the solid core of the earth; about the size of the moon, rotates faster than the surface. This data have been around since 2005. When I first heard about it, I was excited for the future of earth science. This would change everything. However, it is still not part of the status quo theory, other than as a possible footnote. The whip came out.
Common sense says such a large moving object, inside the earth, should be near the top of any good earth theory worth its weight in salt. That is not rocket science but common sense. However, that framework, is still not taught by education. Formal education is not always the deciding factor, when it comes to new data, and the implications with respect to existing theory. If your goal, is an A on the finals, a large rotating earth core is the last thing you wish to think about, since it could make harder to memorize the stock answers.
What are looking for in terms of science answers? All the paths and styles are represented in the forums, if you look closer. However, this variety will not come across in a way that is consistent with a consensus approach to science. Consensus is subjective, about whips, chains and politics and not science; science bondage. Forums allow for anonymity without too many tethers, chains and whips, although these will come out.
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
The answer to the question depends on the answer you are looking for. If you want a status quo answer, or an answer that will appear on a test at school, your best responders would be educators in the subjects.
A PhD means someone trained for detailed research, who can come to focus, in terms of their education. Their thesis would be very targeted in terns of a specialty within a specialty. These people are better at a targeted answers instead of a more generalized answer. They may prefer use the math instead of develop the conception landscape; bulls eye.
There are also Generalists, who know something about a lot of things and will answer questions by crossing the boundaries of specialty. They may have one or more area of formal educational specialty, and many other areas of self learning, without a formal degree. Good education teaches us how to keep learning, on our own.
As an example of a contrast between a specialist and generalists, if you were asking a question about a dream, to someone who was specialized in psychology, they may answer your question in a certain way connected to repression and symbolism. If that person was also knowledgeable in biochemistry, they might also answer that same question, based on chemical imbalances. Both can be part of the truth. If you were a chemistry specialist you may not like the symbolism answer even if the person had a PhD. You may prefer the chemical answer.
If those answering the question are research and development people, you may get a an entirely different approach, than someone who is a manufacturing scientist. Both ca be very educated. The first will be tempted to think outside the box, since this is what they do for a living The latter will stay inside the box, since making management comfortable is part of their job. R&D people have different types of handlers who cut them slack, since they need to try new things.
In the forums, one can get a variety of approaches to questions, by differently qualified scientists and science enthusiasts. This is not right or wrong, unless you are studying for a test and the status quo or teachers opinions is how you get the A.
One thing to consider, in terms of answers, is the idea of a science consensus. This is an oxymoron, since science is about repeatable fact. Politics is about the consensus of opinion. Consensus implies some level of subjectivity allowing us to vote on it. Political parties have the same facts, but each uses different theory. Consensus is something one can build, apart from the facts. The whip in politics makes sure everyone votes the same. Those afraid of the whip of consensus, may wish to avoid new ideas. They may only want the party line.
In the golden age of science, theory had a much tougher standard, than it doescoday. If there was new data that did not agree with a theory, the theory needed to be revised or updated. or cast aside. Many people hated Einstein's relativity, and worked hard to experimentally disprove it, But it stood the test of time and scored 100% even until today. This is old school.
When statistics entered the scene, the concept of margin of error, watered down the standards of theory. "Margin of error", allows bad theory to persist using a loophole. The standard got watered down, which is why consensus and politics have entered the scene. If we have to decide between two competing theories, that are not perfect to all the data, we will use a whip, and then take a vote.
Many of the debates, which may have caused you to question people's credentials, is connected to some people using the old fashion higher standard. Others use use the water down standard of consensus, to ignore any inconsistent data.
For example, the solid core of the earth; about the size of the moon, rotates faster than the surface. This data have been around since 2005. When I first heard about it, I was excited for the future of earth science. This would change everything. However, it is still not part of the status quo theory, other than as a possible footnote. The whip came out.
Common sense says such a large moving object, inside the earth, should be near the top of any good earth theory worth its weight in salt. That is not rocket science but common sense. However, that framework, is still not taught by education. Formal education is not always the deciding factor, when it comes to new data, and the implications with respect to existing theory. If your goal, is an A on the finals, a large rotating earth core is the last thing you wish to think about, since it could make harder to memorize the stock answers.
What are looking for in terms of science answers? All the paths and styles are represented in the forums, if you look closer. However, this variety will not come across in a way that is consistent with a consensus approach to science. Consensus is subjective, about whips, chains and politics and not science; science bondage. Forums allow for anonymity without too many tethers, chains and whips, although these will come out.
Why does this forum allow anti-science soap boxing. If someone has a non-mainstream idea that's fine, but having some bozo hijack a thread simply rant about how bad science is seems like it should deserve a warning of some sort.
What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
-
Why does this forum allow anti-science soap boxing. If someone has a non-mainstream idea that's fine, but having some bozo hijack a thread simply rant about how bad science is seems like it should deserve a warning of some sort.
What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
The "On the Lighter Side" section is more relaxed about such things. As long as members don't do this in the main forum section, it's allowed. I don't like the anti-science sentiment either, but at least keeping it confined here helps it not to interfere when people come along asking for genuine answers to their science questions.
-
What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
Alerts us to spam mainly, also some trolls.
As has been said, forum policy is tolerant on the wackos and the replies to their threads can be educational. We keep them contained.
-
I guess there is no one qualified to answer the question. Bunch of amatuers,
Hardly, many of us are professional scientists.
-
What are the qualifications and education of people who answer the questions? I have an idea that could be weaponized but I don't want any joe lunchbox poopooing my idea. And I don't want to post it for the general public to see. Any Defence DARPA connected experts out there?
The answer to the question depends on the answer you are looking for. If you want a status quo answer, or an answer that will appear on a test at school, your best responders would be educators in the subjects.
A PhD means someone trained for detailed research, who can come to focus, in terms of their education. Their thesis would be very targeted in terns of a specialty within a specialty. These people are better at a targeted answers instead of a more generalized answer. They may prefer use the math instead of develop the conception landscape; bulls eye.
There are also Generalists, who know something about a lot of things and will answer questions by crossing the boundaries of specialty. They may have one or more area of formal educational specialty, and many other areas of self learning, without a formal degree. Good education teaches us how to keep learning, on our own.
As an example of a contrast between a specialist and generalists, if you were asking a question about a dream, to someone who was specialized in psychology, they may answer your question in a certain way connected to repression and symbolism. If that person was also knowledgeable in biochemistry, they might also answer that same question, based on chemical imbalances. Both can be part of the truth. If you were a chemistry specialist you may not like the symbolism answer even if the person had a PhD. You may prefer the chemical answer.
If those answering the question are research and development people, you may get a an entirely different approach, than someone who is a manufacturing scientist. Both ca be very educated. The first will be tempted to think outside the box, since this is what they do for a living The latter will stay inside the box, since making management comfortable is part of their job. R&D people have different types of handlers who cut them slack, since they need to try new things.
In the forums, one can get a variety of approaches to questions, by differently qualified scientists and science enthusiasts. This is not right or wrong, unless you are studying for a test and the status quo or teachers opinions is how you get the A.
One thing to consider, in terms of answers, is the idea of a science consensus. This is an oxymoron, since science is about repeatable fact. Politics is about the consensus of opinion. Consensus implies some level of subjectivity allowing us to vote on it. Political parties have the same facts, but each uses different theory. Consensus is something one can build, apart from the facts. The whip in politics makes sure everyone votes the same. Those afraid of the whip of consensus, may wish to avoid new ideas. They may only want the party line.
In the golden age of science, theory had a much tougher standard, than it doescoday. If there was new data that did not agree with a theory, the theory needed to be revised or updated. or cast aside. Many people hated Einstein's relativity, and worked hard to experimentally disprove it, But it stood the test of time and scored 100% even until today. This is old school.
When statistics entered the scene, the concept of margin of error, watered down the standards of theory. "Margin of error", allows bad theory to persist using a loophole. The standard got watered down, which is why consensus and politics have entered the scene. If we have to decide between two competing theories, that are not perfect to all the data, we will use a whip, and then take a vote.
Many of the debates, which may have caused you to question people's credentials, is connected to some people using the old fashion higher standard. Others use use the water down standard of consensus, to ignore any inconsistent data.
For example, the solid core of the earth; about the size of the moon, rotates faster than the surface. This data have been around since 2005. When I first heard about it, I was excited for the future of earth science. This would change everything. However, it is still not part of the status quo theory, other than as a possible footnote. The whip came out.
Common sense says such a large moving object, inside the earth, should be near the top of any good earth theory worth its weight in salt. That is not rocket science but common sense. However, that framework, is still not taught by education. Formal education is not always the deciding factor, when it comes to new data, and the implications with respect to existing theory. If your goal, is an A on the finals, a large rotating earth core is the last thing you wish to think about, since it could make harder to memorize the stock answers.
What are looking for in terms of science answers? All the paths and styles are represented in the forums, if you look closer. However, this variety will not come across in a way that is consistent with a consensus approach to science. Consensus is subjective, about whips, chains and politics and not science; science bondage. Forums allow for anonymity without too many tethers, chains and whips, although these will come out.
Why does this forum allow anti-science soap boxing. If someone has a non-mainstream idea that's fine, but having some bozo hijack a thread simply rant about how bad science is seems like it should deserve a warning of some sort.
What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
Science is about being rational and objective, apart from emotions and sentiment. You are passing an emotional judgement, which is not scientifically valid. My hope, in making this claim, is that someone will show me hard data to disprove my claim. Instead I get politics trying to shut me up or shut me down.
The culture of science can be investigated in a scientific way, if we stick to hard data and logic. If I can show examples of inconsistencies to the philosophy of science, as applied to the culture of science, why is that not scientific? I am analyzing a phenomena in external reality, that is subject to testing and secondary verification. Examine my experimental claims. Why should any subject be taboo to science, when it comes to logical analysis, unless what is being exposed, is not science, but politics.
Science should be able to analyze politics and political claims. This could be done based on data from historical applications and experiments, that used the theories behind political concepts. For example, one could use science to analyze the various applications and experiments connected to Socialism.
Socialism has been around since the French Revolution in 1789. There have been many pilot and field tests from 1789 to the present. The data collective over the past 200 years, says Socialism can work on a small scale of like minds, but it does no scale up very well. This is what science should be able to conclude, apart from sentiment.
Science could speak up and say we do not need to run more expensive experiments, until the theory is revised. If revised we can run a pilot test. Science will not go there, since it is beholden, for funding, to the same people who do not learn from history. They will run the same experiment, without adjusting parameters, expecting different results. If earth science will not make the rotating core of the earth the center piece how is this different?
Science needs to be called for what it has become. My goal is to restore things back to a better time when such experimental analysis was possible. If science can look the other way and play politics with small things, it can also look away for larger things.
-
You are passing an emotional judgement,
Someone is, but it's not Bobolink.
. My hope, in making this claim, is that someone will show me hard data to disprove my claim.
OK
Socialism has been around since the French Revolution in 1789.
You are wrong; it's been around since forever, in particular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler
Do you feel better now?
We have established, in line with the actual topic of the thread, that you are not qualified to talk on this subject since you make obvious errors of fact.
Please desist from further comment.
-
We have established, in line with the actual topic of the thread, that you are not qualified to talk on this subject since you make obvious errors of fact.
Please desist from further comment.
Let me give an example of how one arm of science, does not seem to know or care, what the other arms is doing, even when they contradict each other. Nobody seems to complain, unless you try to point it out.
Many years ago, a debate that was more popular was connected to researcher claims that homosexuality was natural and therefore genetic based. Being a person who likes the latest data, I decided to go with the new conclusion. What came to my mind was this new "scientific" claim was very significant, since it disproved Darwin's theory of Evolution.
In Darwin's theory, natural selection reduces all the critters of a species, based on fitness and circumstances. This reduction is designed to maximize the genes which will be perpetuated through reproduction. This is very logical and seemed very straight forward.
However, since homosexuality, by its very definition, cannot or does not reproduce itself, biologically, then the mechanism for evolution needed to change, since homosexuality showed that reproduction was not needed to perpetuate favorable genes.
Somehow, the genes connected to homosexuality could keep reappearing, even though this behavior precludes sexual reproduction. If one was gay and also the smartest, healthiest and handsomest of the bunch, since you cannot make a baby, with your sexual preference, somehow these genes would still appear in the next generation. That was amazing and revolutionary.
In my mind, there had to be an internally based mechanism, connected to the DNA, since homosexuals have been appearing in species for eons, based only the sex of heterosexuals who can reproduce. These two different science claims; evolution and homosexual genes, were mutually exclusive and both could not be true, at the same time, yet nobody was willing to say so.
I took a blue sky approach, that the brain may play a role in modifying female eggs, before fertilization, so that what was neurally anticipated; cultural assumptions, were ready to roll off the assembly line during heterosexual sex. This was totally unproven, but it was consistent with the new science of homosexuality, which implies natural and genetic does not require direct sexual reproduction for transmission of genes. In Darwin's theory, the one deer standing on the side line and who never reproduces can still have a mini-me, if a female brain's survival of the species instinct, sees benefit in the wall flower.
The traditional evolutionists would call my theory a form of Creationism, since it did not take into account the dogma of reproduction. I also look magical by using the brain and nervous system. This was their main point of disagreement and attack. There was no oil side theory that could bridge this gap. But this theory was conceptually consistent with the implications of homosexual research conclusions.
Now I take a more traditional Darwinian approach, but I add the impact of water. If you add water you have away to interface nervous tissue and other aspects of biology. This is taboo and makes it Creationism. I now argue that since Evolution is dogma, homosexuality would need to be type of choice, due to will power, since genes perpetually reappearing without reproduction is Creationism according to other science, who will not attack the theory directly.
Maybe we can run a social experiment, where we have the debate about evolution with and without reproduction to see how the system reacts. This could be educational in terms of the points I am making. The problem that is created is that politics and science will intersect. This can create a no win situation.
Again, science is not self sufficient and left wing politics rule the university system. They can make trouble for even going there, and not towing both conflicting lines when the two lines cross.