[chiralSPO]

@charles1948

I think the aspect of science that appears to be eluding you is that scientists, above all else, want to be right. Yes, I want the answer that I found to be the right one, because it is important to my ego and career to be the one who found it. But I would much rather use someone else's better answer than my own worse one!

Because of this, often scientists are their own most dogged critics. We test, and double test, and triple test. Concerned about false wiring? I'm sure the guy who did the wiring spent more time checking it than actually setting it up. And then come the control experiments!

The nifty thing about control experiments is that they very unambiguously allay "what if it's just ___" questions. Because you can set up thee experiment exactly the same way many times, and then verify that the results are X. Over and over and over: always X. Then you change something about the experiment, and the result is Y. Try it the first way again, X. New method? Y. Back and forth a few times, two experiments simultaneously in neighboring setups. Multiple experiments done on different parts of the planet! etc. If what you change about the experiment doesn't change the result, then you have "controlled for" that variable.

So a control experiment is not a guarantee that the experiment is valid, but it can guarantee that whatever factor is being "controlled for" is not causing the results (or it can identify that it is). We only say A causes B when we have ruled out C causes B, D causes B, C and D cause B... etc.

[syhprum]

Technicians should not be blamed for design faults caused by engineers ! it is up to them to vet their designs so that they are technician proof it should be very difficult to put a wrong plug in a socket and power pin outs should be adjusted so that alarums sound and no damage is caused

[alancalverd]

Technicians can certainly be excused for a major statutory stupidity.

3-phase wiring used to have the live phases red, yellow and blue, with neutral black. No possibility of getting it wrong even in a dim light, and the  incoming conductor to any single-phase ring main was easily identified so you couldn't have two different phases in the same room. No likelihood of motors running backwards because everyone knows in the numeric color code red < yellow < blue, so connect to terminals 1, 2, 3  on the motor.

The European Powers that Be mandated that the live phases shall be brown, grey and black (so they all look the same in a dim light and have no special order) and the neutral, blue (so it is at 230 volts to the old blue wire). But par raison de logique the live feeds to single phase rings must all be brown, whichever incoming phase they are derived from.

My best story so far was finding that the parts of a newly-installed x-ray machine that would be in contact with the patient, measured 440 volts to the casings of all the other equipment in the room. Other guys have been surprised when the x-ray table rotated in the wrong direction and dumped the patient on the floor.

From the Technician's Book of Common Prayer: "That which a genius hath invented, let no committee put asunder."

[charles1948 (OP)]

Are technicians really scientists who failed their exams

[alancalverd]

No.

There are two distinct aspects to the provision of scientific services in health care, and probably in most other industries. Broadly speaking, some problems require investigating and solving "off line" and are in the realm of research and development rather than clinical service, though they usually originate from a perceived failure or inadequacy of a clinical service. Meanwhile, the much larger area of clinical services requires the continuous provision of quality-controlled scientific investigation using proven techniques and technologies.  Pretty much the same academic entry requirements apply to both areas of work, but in my experience people succeed and progress in one or other area depending on a developing preference for radical innovation versus consistency and patient contact. Within the NHS, at least, this was recognised by constructing parallel pay scales, the "scientific officer" scale consisting of several short bands with promotion depending on a record of  innovation and discovery, and the "technical officer" scale with longer bands to allow for personal development in post and promotion reflecting managerial and clinical responsibility.     

[charles1948 (OP)]

No.

There are two distinct aspects to the provision of scientific services in health care, and probably in most other industries. Broadly speaking, some problems require investigating and solving "off line" and are in the realm of research and development rather than clinical service, though they usually originate from a perceived failure or inadequacy of a clinical service. Meanwhile, the much larger area of clinical services requires the continuous provision of quality-controlled scientific investigation using proven techniques and technologies.  Pretty much the same academic entry requirements apply to both areas of work, but in my experience people succeed and progress in one or other area depending on a developing preference for radical innovation versus consistency and patient contact. Within the NHS, at least, this was recognised by constructing parallel pay scales, the "scientific officer" scale consisting of several short bands with promotion depending on a record of  innovation and discovery, and the "technical officer" scale with longer bands to allow for personal development in post and promotion reflecting managerial and clinical responsibility.   

Thanks Alan for your post.  It's difficult for me to understand. It's full of "management-speak".

I wonder, could you express it in lucid English?

[alancalverd]

I'm not a manager, and no speaka da bullshit. Which words didn't you understand?

[charles1948 (OP)]

I'm not a manager, and no speaka da bullshit. Which words didn't you understand?

You used too many abstract nouns, instead of concrete words, that's my objection.  But it's the current fashion:

So please carry on. The advantage is that no-one understands what you say, so no-one can disagree.

[Bored chemist]

You used too many abstract nouns,

I am sorry to hear that you can not understand abstract ideas .
This is a science forum; Abstract ideas are the only way we can do science.

Please feel free to ask for a refund on your membership fee when you leave.

[Colin2B]

So please carry on. The advantage is that no-one understands what you say, so no-one can disagree.

It’s not true that no one understands what he says, but I can understand that some might not. However, it is obvious many of those don’t understand concrete ideas either.

[alancalverd]

When I was but a mere stripling I was mucking about with vacuum systems attached to an electron accelerator. I had a great friendship with Louie, a refugee from Eastern Europe and a brilliant mechanical workshop technician who built most of my kit.

Came the day a couple of parts didn't mesh together. After a long (four pint) discussion Louie admitted he had misread my drawing, then said "OK, boy, you got it in your head, but I got it in my trousers, which is where the missus likes it."

Is that sufficiently concrete?

[charles1948 (OP)]

Too much information!

[Jolly2]

It's a polite way of saying Philip Ball doesn't understand it.

Phillip Ball did understand it and proceeded to offer his own explanation which I thought joined the category of 'not at all easy to follow'.

Does anyone understand Physics these days.  Hasn't it become a kind of fantasy subject, filled with speculations about Black Holes, multi-dimensional wormholes, Gravity Waves revealed by wiggles on pre-filled in graphs, the so-called "Higg's Boson" supposedly found by electronic detectors  -without leaving any trace in Bubble Chambers.

Doesn't  present-day "Physics" increasingly resemble a mathematical construct, divorced from  physical reality.

This is the tragedy.  Physics has ceased to explain how the Universe works.  It just says, in the famous words, "Shut up and calculate".  Who doesn't find this deplorable?

I believe Mr Eric Weinstein has been trying with his theory of geometric unity to actually drive the subject forward.

[Bored chemist]

I believe...

That's a long list.

[EuniceSmith]

a lot of comments, could not read everything
I completely agree with the comments above, I am very sorry that physics turned into numbers and nothing else, I really liked physics at school, but in college I completely disliked it and I was disappointed in it
Stephen Hawking you are the best

[charles1948 (OP)]

a lot of comments, could not read everything
I completely agree with the comments above, I am very sorry that physics turned into numbers and nothing else, I really liked physics at school, but in college I completely disliked it and I was disappointed in it
Stephen Hawking you are the best

The trouble is that modern Physicists can only operate with numbers.  They can't deal with "qualitative" properties.

Such as colour, smell, taste, softness and hardness.  These qualities are recognised by Chemists, who use them as an essential tool to distinguish between the different atomic Chemical elements.  As they exist in the real world.

But to a Physicist, these qualities count for nothing.  All a Physicist wants to know is:

What's the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in each atom.

Thus the Physicist inhabits an abstract world of numbers, quite divorced from reality.

[Bored chemist]

These qualities are recognised by Chemists, who use them as an essential tool to distinguish between the different atomic Chemical elements. 

Nope.
I do not rely on taste to identify any of the elements.
That would be silly.

[Bored chemist]

But to a Physicist, these qualities count for nothing.  All a Physicist wants to know is:

What's the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in each atom.

No
It's likely that a physicist would like to know why the total mass of a neutron and a proton separately differs from the mass of a neutron and a portion when they are the nucleus of a deuterium atom.

[charles1948 (OP)]

BC, I fear you are straying into mere sophistry. Again!

[Kryptid]

What's the number of protons, neutrons and electrons in each atom.

Thus the Physicist inhabits an abstract world of numbers, quite divorced from reality.

So you think the number of particles in an atom is divorced from reality, huh?