What's new

The good thing about science

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
There is not, nor ought there be, nothing so exulted on the face of God's great earth as that prince of foods, the muffin!
 
There are two types of science. One is observational science which produces those things that are useful and valuable. Then there is theoretical science which is concerned with theories and conjecture and attempts to provide theoretical answers for questions which observational science has or can produce no real answers. Observational Science can and does benefit mankind, theoretical science does not.

It it is important to understand the two types of science and their respective roles. Science can tell us how things work the way they do and by what means things occur. But by observational science we can never arrive at an answer for the basic question of why it is so. Or where it all comes from, because we can not and will not discover those answers through Observational science.

so in essence I enjoy and promote the work of observational science, and care not at all for theoretical science.

Theoretical sciences are necessary to move the needle on progress. If we are stuck with tests based on what we observe, we're not going to make a whole lot of progress. Theoretical science creates ideas that can be tested experimentally, and help us jump from one kind of observations to another.
 
Theoretical sciences are necessary to move the needle on progress. If we are stuck with tests based on what we observe, we're not going to make a whole lot of progress. Theoretical science creates ideas that can be tested experimentally, and help us jump from one kind of observations to another.

Indeed. Atomic theory comes to mind.
 
The issue with many theoretical scientists (esp my pal Niel DeGrasse Tyson) is that instead of trying to come up with new ideas and concepts, they take the old, unproven ones and trot them out as fact. That doesn't promote any sort of progress whatsoever and is actually counter-productive. Instead of presenting to young minds that "this is just a theory...perhaps such and such ...". Instead, they say "...and so, because of X, Y happened. You know it's true because I have stars and planets in my vest..."
 
Dr. Tyson is as much an evangelist at this point in his career that much of what he communicates is about the work of others with an eye toward moving both progress and dialogue forward. No one gets to his professional station without having serious chops as a scientist. If he didn't, he wouldn't have the credibility that he has in the community. Sagan got written off by many when he went "Cosmos," but before that his stature as an astrophysicist was immense.

Crick and Watson built models of what DNA looked like based on inscrutable diffraction patterns of the molecule. They couldn't see it, but they could put 2 and 2 together about what it looked like. From there, they theorized in one throwaway line at the end of the paper about how it made perfect copies of itself. Others came in, tested the theories and proved it. Now we have treatments for diseases because of how this works, and it only took 40 years from that first paper.

The theorists are pure risk takers. They look at the available information and do a whole lot of math and chemistry to try and explain things. They put themselves and their ideas out there at the risk of getting savaged by a horde of fellow nerds, many of whom apply the academic wedgie worse than the ones they got in high school. A lot of them get it way, way wrong. Some get it partly or completely right, but even in the failures, they lay a trail of bread crumbs for others to chase and bring the big ideas and discoveries to ground.
 

TexLaw

Fussy Evil Genius
I'm not quite sure you understand what "theory" means in the scientific context. While that term may mean something similar to "conjecture" in the rhetorical context, a scientific theory has been worked over a great deal more. I'll grant you that some historically popular "theories" are total junk, but those pretty much arose before more rigorous, peer reviewed science got underway. In science, the term applied to something that is merely accepted but yet to be proven is "hypothetical."

Keep in mind that the scientific method merely eliminates possibilities. It tells you what is not the answer, rather than what is. Once we eliminate all the other possibilities we can think of, we might refer to the remaining possibility that we thought of as a "fact." Theoretical science comes up with possibilities we have not thought of. That's incredibly valuable, even if it will be decades or even centuries before we can deal with them observationally.

An example is the Standard Model in physics. Much of the Standard Model was developed mathematically, not observationally, and much of it still exists that way.
 
I'm not going to argue the overarching concepts of science pros and cons.

It is simply my opinion that Dr Tyson does not impress me that much with the stuff he trots out for public consumption. I'm sure his papers on mathematical distribution of stars are all well and good. And I'm sure his IQ is much higher than mine. But when he pulls stuff out of a hat like when describing how the moon was formed it is complete fabrication and not even that well put together conceptually. Much as the quote that begins this thread: at first glance, it looks dynamite, solid and succinct. Yet, upon closer examination it is rather flawed and weak. I guess I just don't care for his showmanship.
 
Last edited:

luvmysuper

My elbows leak
Staff member
I'm not going to argue the overarching concepts of science pros and cons.

It is simply my opinion that Dr Tyson does not impress me that much with the stuff he trots out for public consumption. I'm sure his papers on mathematical distribution of stars are all well and good. And I'm sure his IQ is much higher than mine. But when he pulls stuff out of a hat like when describing how the moon was formed it is complete fabrication and not even that well put together conceptually. Much as the quote that begins this thread: at first glance, it looks dynamite, solid and succinct. Yet, upon closer examination it is rather flawed and weak. I guess I just don't care for his showmanship.

That is a beautiful summation, and pretty much how I feel.
A little showmanship to make a stodgy subject interesting to the 30 second soundbite, I get my news from facebook crowd, ok - I get that.
But sweeping generalizations that are not true don't help science or those who desire to learn more.
 

luvmysuper

My elbows leak
Staff member
My cheesecake begs to differ.

We already settled that - cheesecake isn't cake, it's pie.
But even if cheesecake WAS cake, I'd make that exception without fear that I had violated my anti-cake code of conduct! :lol:
 

ouch

Stjynnkii membörd dummpsjterd
We already settled that - cheesecake isn't cake, it's pie.
But even if cheesecake WAS cake, I'd make that exception without fear that I had violated my anti-cake code of conduct! :lol:

A point upon which both science and religion will always agree.
 
You ever get bored and want to Google someone, Dr. Ron Mallett from the University of Connecticut. I was fascinated by his work in time travel and closed time like curves for quite awhile, but things have since gotten a wee bit quiet, so not sure where he got to in progress?
 
Top Bottom