Life, The Universe, And All That

[cappiecat]

Prolixity might be the term you're thinking of. If nacho's guilty of it, then he's not the only one.

I guessed wrong, I thought teacher Tom would've been first in!

[Tom_McB]

Speaking as someone who earlier on did acknowledge the limitations of science, as CHC didn't:

 

1) Do you think this means we should have less science in society?

2) Do you think this means that goddism is in any way better than science?

 

I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on this, given that you have fingers in both pies, as it were.

 

Decent questions, each in turn.

 

I teach Science, plainly I think it is a very useful part of a child's ed Two reucation.asons, an encouragement of logical thinking and I would hope that it would get rid of the foolish anit science goddam hippy s*** that is anti GM etc.

 

Theism is a whole different bag, not a better way to see the universe than Sciencemore to do with our place in the universe, last mass I attended the reading was Dives and Lazarus, not a bad reminder of social responsibility. Though a humanist could make the same points.

 

[Tom_McB]

I guessed wrong, I thought teacher Tom would've been first in!

 

[Tom_McB]

Interesting observation, thanks for that.

 

As you claim to know a lot about science and scientific procedures, can I be a wee bit cheeky and ask you how many scientific papers you've actually written and had peer reviewed and published? I'd be genuinely interested to know.

 

I've had 2 papers published as the main author (and many more as a co-author) and currently have a 3rd paper under peer review, all for internationally recognised and respected technical journals. I'll send you the two that have already been published if you're interested, though they're probably not in subjects you'd be particularly interested in (they're related to the use of SiGe in MEMS). And my first patent application has been filed for a novel selective deposition technique for trench narrowing and via filing in IC manufacture that's explained in the 3rd paper, which was also peer reviewed by scientific colleagues before being approved for submission.

 

But I'm very new to scientific research (only 3.5 years) having previously worked in manufacturing and then pilot production since leaving school. My background is therefore in engineering and not in science, so I certainly don't claim to be a scientific expert, far from it indeed. But I'm learning all the time and I do have some very recent practical experience in scientific research and procedures, so I do hope I know a wee bit more than 'fuk all' about science.

 

Engineering ain't science, and your gullabilty about the power of Peer review shows you should stick to engineering.

 

 

[dmc]

Dives and Lazarus,

 

 

Did he go doon pretty easily in the penalty area tae then??

[Guest David Edwards]

last mass I attended the reading was Dives and Lazarus, not a bad reminder of social responsibility

 

You'll be telling us next that this was a parabolic reference to the 'Big Society'. Cameron and Osborne (Flashman and Darcy) are on message then?

[TRVMP]

Decent questions, each in turn.

 

I teach Science, plainly I think it is a very useful part of a child's ed Two reucation.asons, an encouragement of logical thinking and I would hope that it would get rid of the foolish anit science goddam hippy s*** that is anti GM etc.

 

This is very important, and that's why - as is the exact opposite of when I was in high school - I think high school teaching should place far greater import on the method of science, and the reasons for science, than learning about the products of science. We did a little bit of how and why to control experiments in chemistry but hardly any (and I didn't even really get why until years later), and instead learned about things like photosynthesis in biology without knowing why they matter. Maybe a lot's changed in the last 15 years or so but at the time science teaching did nothing at all to expound why science works and why it's important.

 

Theism is a whole different bag, not a better way to see the universe than Sciencemore to do with our place in the universe, last mass I attended the reading was Dives and Lazarus, not a bad reminder of social responsibility. Though a humanist could make the same points.

 

First of all, we cannot see our place in the universe, figurativelly or literally, without reference to physical reality. Remember that (to take the example closest to virtually all of us) Christianity's placement of humankind in the greater setting depends greatly on making actual claims about how the world is: that Yahweh created man in his image, that Yahweh imbued men with souls etc. We now read these in metaphorical ways but prior to knowledge about how the human species developed these could very easily (and in many cases were) read literally. To deny that we can draw conclusions - or at the very least form conjectures - about our place in the universe with science every bit as well as with religion is in my opinion a foolish claim to make.

 

Also, as I said earlier, if we look at the contemplative/meditative tradition, there is nothing about this that cannot 1) be explained scientifically, or is at least open to future scientific explanation and 2) cannot be performed better without the encumberance of false physical or metaphysical claims.

 

That ties into your last sentence as well: just as morality and ethics has no need of a god, neither does striving for knowledge of humanity's place, nor the kind of transcendent experience once thought to be solely the preserve of the religious. These points, coupled with the problems that arise all too often from religion, for me outweigh any purported benefits of keeping quiet about religion's many failings.

 

Above all, though, religious claims simply aren't true, or haven't been shown to be true, or cannot be shown to be true, and that should really kill the discussion stone dead before it even starts (but it doesn't.)

[Guest David Edwards]

That ties into your last sentence as well: just as morality and ethics has no need of a god, neither does striving for knowledge of humanity's place, nor the kind of transcendent experience once thought to be solely the preserve of the religious. These points, coupled with the problems that arise all too often from religion, for me outweigh any purported benefits of keeping quiet about religion's many failings.

 

Above all, though, religious claims simply aren't true, or haven't been shown to be true, or cannot be shown to be true, and that should really kill the discussion stone dead before it even starts (but it doesn't.)

 

I agree with the point highlighted, but of course, many great minds, much greater than mine, do/did not. Dostoevsky's novels, which some might claim to be the greatest ever written, explored that same 'thorny' question. One small reason perhaps, that the discussion isn't killed "stone dead before it even starts".

[Cet Homme Charmant]

Engineering ain't science, and your gullabilty about the power of Peer review shows you should stick to engineering.

I specifically said engineering isn't science so I know that already. Read it again. So I'm not sure what point you're making? If you're asserting that I'm not suited to scientific research, well, 2 published papers, a third under peer review and a patent application isn't a bad return for 3.5 years I think, and my boss seems happy enough.

 

I notice however you didn't answer my question. You obviously have stong opinions on the flaws of the peer review process. So, how many scientific papers have you actually written, had peer reviewed, and had published, to make you formulate that opinion? Or is it, as I suspect, based purely on anecdotal evidence?

 

My admittedly limited experience of peer review is that it's extremely rigorous. Remember that the credibility of the Society or Journal could be compromised if it published something that was subsequently shown to be insufficiently or improperly researched and/or contained incorrect or inaccurate conclusions. Does that make peer review 100% fool proof? No, of course it doesn't. For example, I have a pile of technical papers on my desk on a subject I'm working on just now, and two of them directly contradict each other in one specific but relatively minor detail. One was published in 2001 when this topic was first being explored (as far as I know this was the first paper on the subject), and the second was published in 2008 after a lot more research had been performed and it was far better understood. Both papers were thoroughly and properly peer reviewed (I assume, as they're both from respected Journals) but of course one of them has to be wrong, in this case it was the earlier paper. So of course errors and incorrect conclusions can slip through peer review, especially if it's in a subject or area of research that's in its infancy and understanding of it is limited. In this case however, the error in the earlier paper was almost certainly made in 'good faith', indeed if you read the paper the error was understandable from the available data and knowledge at that time. But it was eventually corrected as subsequent research in that area became more refined and detailed, and the knowledge and understanding increased. I suspect that would be the case for most errors or inaccuracies, eventually they'll be corrected by subsequent research. So it may not be perfect (what procedure involving human subjectivity is?), but I believe the peer review procedure is pretty efficient in separating the credible from the non credible.

 

How does that tally with your own personal experiences of peer review, if indeed you have any? I prefer to rely on personal experience when forming an opinion on something, rather than relying on anecdotal evidence from 3rd parties who may not be entirely objective.

[maccaboy]

Prolixity might be the term you're thinking of. If nacho's guilty of it, then he's not the only one.

 

yeah, you're right.

 

With both statements.

 

 

[TonInDublin]

I've had 2 papers published as the main author (and many more as a co-author) and currently have a 3rd paper under peer review, all for internationally recognised and respected technical journals. I'll send you the two that have already been published if you're interested, though they're probably not in subjects you'd be particularly interested in (they're related to the use of SiGe in MEMS). And my first patent application has been filed for a novel selective deposition technique for trench narrowing and via filing in IC manufacture that's explained in the 3rd paper, which was also peer reviewed by scientific colleagues before being approved for submission.

 

Can you post a link to this stuff - sounds like an interesting read.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

Can you post a link to this stuff - sounds like an interesting read.

Not sure if you're taking the piss, but since we're in the same line of business I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Here are links to the abstracts Johnny Boy of the 2 that have already been published, but if you're not a member of the ECS or don't have company access I think they'll charge you to download the full paper (not sure). If you can't access them and they're of interest to you let me know and I'll send you them.

 

http://www.ecsdl.org/getabs/servlet/Getabs...ps&gifs=Yes

 

http://www.ecsdl.org/getabs/servlet/Getabs...ps&gifs=Yes

[Guest David Edwards]

Not sure if you're taking the piss, but since we're in the same line of business I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Here are links to the abstracts Johnny Boy of the 2 that have already been published, but if you're not a member of the ECS or don't have company access I think they'll charge you to download the full paper (not sure). If you can't access them and they're of interest to you let me know and I'll send you them.

 

http://www.ecsdl.org/getabs/servlet/Getabs...ps&gifs=Yes

 

http://www.ecsdl.org/getabs/servlet/Getabs...ps&gifs=Yes

 

Not sure if this is an elaborate hoax of yours, with names like Rita Van Hoof and Eddy Kunnen.

[Guest David Edwards]

Can you post a link to this stuff - sounds like an interesting read.

 

Wrong forum. General Nerdishness for this pish.

[TRVMP]

I agree with the point highlighted, but of course, many great minds, much greater than mine, do/did not. Dostoevsky's novels, which some might claim to be the greatest ever written, explored that same 'thorny' question. One small reason perhaps, that the discussion isn't killed "stone dead before it even starts".

 

To my shame I've never read any Dostoevsky. That said, no matter how gifted the writer and the thinker, anyone writing in his context would be unaware of advances made in (say) evolutionary psychology to the present day. Anything they say about deities and their relationship to morality needs to be studied as a product of what they knew then. Of course as I've not read any of his work I'm in no position to comment one way or the other but I can say with certainty that it's not as simple as "Dostoevsky was a great figure in literature, therefore maybe God."

[Guest David Edwards]

To my shame I've never read any Dostoevsky. That said, no matter how gifted the writer and the thinker, anyone writing in his context would be unaware of advances made in (say) evolutionary psychology to the present day. Anything they say about deities and their relationship to morality needs to be studied as a product of what they knew then. Of course as I've not read any of his work I'm in no position to comment one way or the other but I can say with certainty that it's not as simple as "Dostoevsky was a great figure in literature, therefore maybe God."

 

Of course you say with certainty, that is your wont after all, it's what you do. Others, for all sorts of reasons aren't so certain.

Whatever, have a read at old Fyodor, maybe start with Crime and Punishment and maybe the torments of Raskolnikov might provide food for thought. For me, Dostoevsky's concern was not 'maybe there is a god', rather it was, 'what becomes if there isn't'.

[TRVMP]

Of course you say with certainty, that is your wont after all, it's what you do. Others, for all sorts of reasons aren't so certain.

 

This is what I don't get: I'm a skeptic. The one thing I'm sure about is that the best way to discover real facts about the world is judicious and rigourous study of empirical reality, combined with a healthy respect for the rules of logic. Skeptical doubt is absolutely and completely a cornerstone of my worldview - as it should be, I feel, with everyone's. So when I make a claim it's because I have a very good reason to do so.

 

Yet somehow the discourse is slanted in such a way that people who leap to supernatural conclusions are thought of as courageous free-thinkers if they simply append their wacky claims with some noises about "doubt." Doubt should be the starting point for inquiry, not something tacked on to make your hacked-together opinions sound more respectable than they are.

 

Is it, in my view, much less of a mental arrogance to be serious and sincere about a conclusion arrived at via skeptical means than it is to be evasive and slightly "doubtful" about something that you've just made up. Yet in our society it's somehow seen as the other way around, and thus any show of "certainty" is considered dogmatic or hostile when that isn't how it is at all.

 

Whatever, have a read at old Fyodor, maybe start with Crime and Punishment and maybe the torments of Raskolnikov might provide food for thought. For me, Dostoevsky's concern was not 'maybe there is a god', rather it was, 'what becomes if there isn't'.

 

I will one day. Right now I have like 12 books of various types and genres to get through, though, and I read books for maybe 45 minutes a day at the most. So it'll take a while.

[cappiecat]

I will one day. Right now I have like 12 books of various types and genres to get through, though, and I read books for maybe 45 minutes a day at the most. So it'll take a while.

I think you should move Mr Happy by Roger Hargreaves to the top of that list.

[TRVMP]

I think you should move Mr Happy by Roger Hargreaves to the top of that list.

 

Nah... the thing about those books is that all the people in them have set roles, which implies that they were placed there for a reason. That in turn implies someone who placed them there, which obviously would be a supernatural being of some kind. The Mr. Men books are clearly just creationism via the back door, and I've a good mind to petition for their removal from pre-schools so as not to indoctrinate the youth.

 

... amirite?

[TonInDublin]

To my shame I've never read any Dostoevsky.

 

Not sure about shame nach0, but it is something you should look to rectify. And I don't say that in a slagging, flippant way. Make time for it my man, you won't be disappointed.

 

No man should go through his life without reading Crime And Punishment - as a minimum.