Ideologija Nauke?

[scallop]

Zna se. Čitao sam vrlo ozbiljne nagoveštaje i u SF romanima, ali je lakše ući u noć zatvorenih očiju.

[Meho Krljic]

Dobro, videće se, moguće je da američka administracija, pogotovo sad kad se vidi da Kinezi & Indusi agresivno stupaju put kosmosa, ovo sve ipak shvati kao važan nacionalni prioritet, pa NASA dobije dodatni vepar u leđa, ali.. videće se.

[Meho Krljic]

Dakle, jedan posto naučnika objavljuje 41 posto svih objavljenih naučnih članaka u magazinima:



The 1% of scientific publishing

Publishing is one of the most ballyhooed metrics of scientific careers, and every researcher hates to have a gap in that part of his or her CV. Here’s some consolation: A new study finds that very few scientists—fewer than 1%—manage to publish a paper every year. But these 150,608 scientists dominate the research journals, having their names on 41% of all papers. Among the most highly cited work, this elite group can be found among the co-authors of 87% of papers.
The new research, published on 9 July in PLOS ONE, was led by epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, with analysis of Elsevier’s Scopus database by colleagues Kevin Boyack and Richard Klavans at SciTech Strategies. They looked at papers published between 1996 and 2011 by 15 million scientists worldwide in many disciplines.
“I decided to study this question because I had seen in my life a large number of talented people who just did not survive in the current system and with the current limited resources,” Ioannidis wrote to ScienceInsider in an e-mail. He suspected that only a few scientists are able to publish papers year in, year out. But the finding that less than 1% do so surprised him, he says.
The ranks of scientists who repeatedly published more than one paper per year thin out dramatically.
 >

• Two or more: 68,221
• Three or more: 37,953
• Four or more: 23,342
• Five or more: 15,464
• 10 or more: 3269

Many of these prolific scientists are likely the heads of laboratories or research groups; they bring in funding, supervise research, and add their names to the numerous papers that result. Others may be scientists with enough job security and time to do copious research themselves, Ioannidis says.
But there’s also a lot of grunt work behind these papers that appear like clockwork from highly productive labs. “In many disciplines, doctoral students may be enrolled in high numbers, offering a cheap workforce,” Ioannidis and his co-authors write in their paper. These students may spend years on research that yields, then, only one or a few papers. “n these cases, the research system may be exploiting the work of millions of young scientists.”
If he could pick one thing to do, Ioannidis wrote in an e-mail, he would recommend spreading resources "to give more opportunities to a wider pool of scientists, especially younger ones, to help them secure continuity of productivity and excellence."

[scallop]

Ostali moraju i da rade.

[Meho Krljic]

Mislim da je tu ključno ovo:

Many of these prolific scientists are likely the heads of laboratories or research groups; they bring in funding, supervise research, and add their names to the numerous papers that result.

Što je samo dobrodošlo podsećanje na to koliko nauka zavisi od interesovanja potencijalnih finansijera.

[scallop]

Ako je to ključno onda sam ja blesav. Šefovi redovno podstiču, proveravaju i odobravaju radove, pa i potpisuju u nedostatku savesti.

[Meho Krljic]

u nedostatku savesti.

Ma, savest na stranu, ovde više mislim da na kraju istorija pamti onog ko je mogao da ispregovara pare umesto onog koji je zaista napravio istraživački uspeh...

[scallop]

U to veruju i oni koji pregovaraju o parama, ali istina je malo drugačija. Oni koji daju pare traže na uvid i "istraživački komplet", pa se uvek zna i ko rinta. Na primer, moju ćerku su Filadelfiji držali kao saradnika na platnom spisku pet godina pošto je otišla u Tulsu. Ona je morala da im kaže da više neće sa njima. Kadrovi su roba koja se prodaje zajedno sa projektima. I prodavac mora da ima robu inače je u bedaku. Nadam se da je to jasno?

[Meho Krljic]

To je lepo i u redu, ali da li ona spada u jedan procenat koji objavljuje skoro pola svih radova u svetu? Ne! Dakle, sa strane nekog tamo istoričara nauke, ona je fizikalac a ovaj koji je sredio fanding i potpisao rad je mudri istraživač!

[scallop]

Ti sad možeš da nastaviš, a ja ću poštedeti sebe.

[Meho Krljic]

Scientific consensus has gotten a bad reputation—and it doesn’t deserve it

It's used by both sides in the climate debates, but consensus is part of a process.



One of the many unfortunate aspects of arguments over climate change is that it's where many people come across the idea of a scientific consensus. Just as unfortunately, their first exposure tends to be in the form of shouted sound bites: "But there's a consensus!" "Consensus has no place in science!"
Lost in the shouting is the fact that consensus plays several key roles in the process of science. In light of all the consensus choruses, it's probably time to step back and examine its importance and why it's a central part of the scientific process. And only after that is it possible to take a look at consensus and climate change.
 Standards of evidence Fiction author Michael Crichton probably started the backlash against the idea of consensus in science. Crichton was rather notable for doubting the conclusions of climate scientists—he wrote an entire book in which they were the villains—so it's fair to say he wasn't thrilled when the field reached a consensus. Still, it's worth looking at what he said, if only because it's so painfully misguided:


"

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

"


Reproducible results are absolutely relevant. What Crichton is missing is how we decide that those results are significant and how one investigator goes about convincing everyone that he or she happens to be right. This comes down to what the scientific community as a whole accepts as evidence.
In an earlier discussion of science's standards for statistical significance, we wrote, "Nobody's ever found a stone tablet etched with a value for scientific certainty." Different fields use different values of what they think constitutes significance. In biology, where "facts" are usually built from a large collection of consistent findings, scientists are willing to accept findings that are only two standard deviations away from random noise as evidence. In physics, where particles either exist or don't, five standard deviations are required.
While that makes the standards of evidence sound completely rational, they're also deeply empirical. Physicists found that signals that were three standard deviations from the expected value came and went all the time, which is why they increased their standard. Biologists haven't had such problems, but other problems have popped up as new technology enabled them to do tests that covered tens of thousands of genes instead of only a handful. Suddenly, spurious results were cropping up at a staggering pace. For these experiments, biologists agreed to a different standard of evidence.
It's not like they got together and had a formal vote on it. Instead, there were a few editorials that highlighted the problem, and those pieces started to sway the opinions of not only scientists but journal editors and the people who fund grants. In other words, the field reached a consensus.
That sort of thing is easiest to see in terms of statistical significance, but it pervades the process of science. If two closely related species share a feature, then we conclude it was present in their common ancestor. The scientific community decided to establish 15 percent ice coverage as the standard for when a region of the ocean contains ice. It required that every potential planet imaged by the Kepler probe must have its presence confirmed by an independent method before being called a planet. There's no objective standard that defines any one of these test as the truth; it's just that the people in the field have reached a consensus about what constitutes evidence.
 Consensus is not just for standards Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.
That doesn't mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don't find their arguments persuasive. We've since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact.
In most fields, however, the stakes aren't quite so high. You get informal consensuses forming around things that the public isn't ever aware of: the existence of morphogens in patterning embryonic tissues, the source of the radiation in the jets of quasars, and so on. If you asked a large group of scientists, their consensus would be that consensus is a normal part of the scientific process. Contrary to Crichton's writings, the consensus forms precisely because reproducible evidence is generated.
 Consensus matters On its own, the existence of a consensus seems trivial; researchers conclude some things based on the state of the evidence without that evidence ever rising to the level of formal proof. But consensus plays a critical role in the day-to-day functioning of science as well.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn discussed the idea of paradigms: big intellectual frameworks that organize a field's research. Paradigms help identify problems that need solving, areas that still have anomalous results—all while giving researchers ways of interpreting any results they get. Generally, they tell scientists what to do and how to think of their results. Although not as important or over-arching as a paradigm, a consensus functions the same way, just at a smaller scale.
For example, researchers will necessarily interpret their results based on what the consensus in their field is. So odd cosmic observations will be considered in terms of the existence of dark matter particles, given that there's a consensus that the particles exist. It doesn't matter whether the researchers—or their results—agree with the consensus. The existence of a consensus simply shapes the discussion. In the same way, research goals and grants are set based on areas where the consensus opinion seems a bit weak or has unanswered questions.
At first glance, this may seem like it can stifle the appearance of ideas that run counter to the consensus. But any idea in science carries the seeds of its own destruction. By directing research to the areas where there are outstanding questions, a consensus makes it more likely that we'll generate data that directly contradicts it. It may take a little while to get recognized for what it is, but eventually the data will win out.

A climate of consensus It's easy to find examples of how a consensus operates from any area of science, and the field of climate science is no different. A strong consensus has formed about the broad outlines of climate change, although there are still some details, like the precise impact of aerosols, that are recognized as uncertain. (You could say that either no consensus has formed or that there's a consensus that we don't precisely know.) You're never going to convince everyone in the field, but a variety of studies have suggested that over 95 percent of the scientists with the relevant expertise are on the same page about the general outlines of climate change.
What's really different is that the consensus has been formalized. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produces assessment reports that summarize the latest knowledge in the field. These reports synthesize multiple research papers to paint a general picture of the state of knowledge, and they even provide measures of how certain that picture is. And as mentioned above, people have used a variety of methods—literature searches, polling of scientists, and so on—to measure the state of the consensus. Each of those attempts has put the consensus number for climate change in the area of 97 percent agreement.
A consensus definitely exists. Does that mean it's right?
There have clearly been times in the past where the consensus wasn't especially brilliant. Mendel was ignored instead of starting to build a consensus, and Alfred Wegner's formative ideas about plate tectonics were roundly ridiculed. But it's worth noting that these cases are the exception. The majority of the time, the consensus is a bit closer to being right than whatever came before it. And while it may be slow to change sometimes, it can eventually be shifted by the weight of the evidence.
The other thing is that scientists are reasonably good at knowing when they don't know something as well as they'd like to. For example, uncertainties about aerosols and cloud feedbacks are generally recognized as the biggest challenge facing climate projections, and most scientists would also agree that projections don't do a great job with regional effects.
That doesn't mean individual scientists aren't convinced that they know what's going on, either about these topics or others where scientific knowledge remains fluid. It's just that there are enough other scientists convinced that the first group are wrong. It becomes clear to everyone involved that there's a bitter argument going on. And that's enough to show bystanders that matters haven't been settled yet.
 No consensus? Unfortunately, for people outside the field, it can be hard to distinguish these sorts of scientific arguments from the pedantic nitpicking that's often done by scientists who haven't been persuaded by the evidence and probably never will be. There will always be people with relevant credentials who aren't convinced, and they often make technical-sounding arguments about why the evidence falls short. And they typically find ways of making sure the public hears those arguments.
But it's important to understand what the few scientists that don't accept the consensus are arguing. To begin with, critics of the mainstream climate consensus aren't arguing that consensus has no place in science. Judith Curry, often an outspoken critic of other climate scientists, describes consensus as a normal part of science. And Roy Spencer has no complaints about the existence of a consensus—he just questions the extent of the agreement.
Spencer also attempts to clarify what, exactly, the consensus is about: the warming of the Earth and the existence of a greenhouse effect that can be driven by carbon dioxide. By that standard, he has suggested, pretty much everyone is in agreement.
 The consensus in popular arguments All of this is true in the scientific community. But in the popular debate, these things frequently get lost to the extent that polls consistently show that a large fraction of the US public doesn't even think that the temperatures have gone up, much less that humans might have anything to do with it.
If the consensus comes up in these conversations at all, it's usually used in one of two ways. Either advocates of the consensus use it as a rhetorical club—essentially asking why anybody wouldn't agree with all the scientists. In other cases, it's used as a parry. Someone will start an argument from authority based on a scientist who doesn't agree with the scientific community's conclusions, and the consensus will be pulled out in order to provide a bigger, more comprehensive authority.
Things usually go downhill from there. People will argue that consensus has no place in science (often quoting Crichton) or complain that studies that showed a consensus exists were somehow lacking (even though several independent ones have come to roughly the same numbers).
Given that it's so often used in unfortunate ways, is there any value in publicizing the existence of a consensus on climate? Quite possibly. Repeated polls indicate that most people think there is still significant debate about the reality of human-driven climate change within the scientific community; the strength of the consensus indicates that the debate is largely over. The gap between the public's perception of things and reality indicates that there's a need for better communications. And one of the people who have studied the degree of consensus, John Cook, has argued that the gap exists across the ideological spectrum, even among those predisposed to accept the scientific community's conclusions.
But simply pointing out that a consensus exists won't help much if the public doesn't understand that consensus is a natural part of the process of science, something arrived at by a careful evaluation of evidence. Mentions of the consensus are best made in the context of a conversation about how it functions within science rather than when people are attempting to shout each other down. And discussions on climate change far too often veer to the latter.

[Meho Krljic]

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

"European society is very advanced, very civilized. Between holocausts."
The painter Barnett Newman is said to have replied along these lines to a friend who was bemoaning the sorry state of American political life and praising European social democracy.
It's a good joke. It casts light on the whole religion versus science controversy as well.
Scientists, and cultural defenders of science, like to think of themselves as free of prejudice and superstition, as moved by reason alone and a clear-eyed commitment to fact and the scientific method. They reject religion as an irrational and ungrounded burden of tradition. They see religion the way Europeans (and some Americans) see Americans. As somehow backward.
To which one might reply: Science is all those things. Between holocausts!
Scientists supported Hitler the same as anyone else. Their scientists and engineers made missiles and gas chambers. Ours made atomic bombs.
I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek. I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior.
Spock-ism gives us a false picture of science. It gives us a false picture of humankind's situation. We are not disinterested knowers. The natural world is not a puzzle.
Part of what Spock-ism gets wrong is that science isn't one thing. There's no Science Party or Scientific Worldview. Nor is there one scientific method, advertising to the contrary notwithstanding.
Spockians like to pretend that science has proved that there is no God, or that fundamental reality consists only of matter. But both of these claims are untrue. The first is untrue because science doesn't concern itself with God one way or they other. As for the second: Science has no more proved that only matter is real than it has proved that there is no such thing as love, humor, sunsets or knuckleballs.
Spockians give science a bad name. If you think of science as being in the business of figuring out how atoms spinning noiselessly in the void give rise to the illusion that there are such things as love, humor, sunsets and knuckleballs, then it isn't surprising that people might come to think that the inner life of a scientist would be barren.
I suspect this is what is at stake when people find it hard to believe that atheists have active spiritual lives — or that they might experience wonder or awe. It isn't the non-belief in God that makes atheism seem puzzling. It's theactive adherence to the Spockian worldview. For the Spockian worldview is the denial of meaning and value.
In this context, it is no answer to critics of atheism to say that, as a matter of fact, atheists feel awe in the face of nature, that you don't need God for wonder.
For in a Spockian universe there is no such thing as nature, there is just material process, particles and fields, in the void. Nor, for the Spockian, is there any such thing as wonder, not really; for what is an emotion, but a conjury of particles in the nervous system?
The religionist, it should be noted, is not much better off. God doesn't explain meaning or value any better than the laws of physics. But in one respect, the religionist may have an advantage: Atheists, in so far as they are followers of Spock, have an explanatory burden that religionists don't carry — that of explaining how you get meaning and value out of particles, or alternatively, that of explaining why meaning and value are an illusion.
The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value.
What we need, then, is a Kirkian understanding of science and its place in our lives. The world, for Captain Kirk and his ontological followers, is a field of play, and science is a form of action.

[Meho Krljic]

O ovome smo ovde više puta diskutovali, pa vredi pročitati lepo obrazložen tekst:



How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything               

Intellectuals of all persuasions love to claim the banner of science. A vanishing few do so properly.


Here's one certain sign that something is very wrong with our collective mind: Everybody uses a word, but no one is clear on what the word actually means.
One of those words is "science."
Everybody uses it. Science says this, science says that. You must vote for me because science. You must buy this because science. You must hate the folks over there because science.
Look, science is really important. And yet, who among us can easily provide a clear definition of the word "science" that matches the way people employ the term in everyday life?
So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet. But what almost everyone means when he or she says "science" is something different.
To most people, capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It is a thing engaged in by people wearing lab coats and/or doing fancy math that nobody else understands. The reason capital-S Science gives us airplanes and flu vaccines is not because it is an incremental engineering process but because scientists are really smart people.
In other words — and this is the key thing — when people say "science", what they really mean is magic or truth.



A little history: The first proto-scientist was the Greek intellectual Aristotle, who wrote many manuals of his observations of the natural world and who also was the first person to propose a systematic epistemology, i.e., a philosophy of what science is and how people should go about it. Aristotle's definition of science became famous in its Latin translation as: rerum cognoscere causas, or, "knowledge of the ultimate causes of things." For this, you can often see in manuals Aristotle described as the Father of Science.
The problem with that is that it's absolutely not true. Aristotelian "science" was a major setback for all of human civilization. For Aristotle, science started with empirical investigation and then used theoretical speculation to decide what things are caused by.
What we now know as the "scientific revolution" was a repudiation of Aristotle: science, not as knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but as the production of reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation.
Galileo disproved Aristotle's "demonstration" that heavier objects should fall faster than light ones by creating a subtle controlled experiment (contrary to legend, he did not simply drop two objects from the Tower of Pisa). What was so important about this Galileo Moment was not that Galileo was right and Aristotle wrong; what was so important was how Galileo proved Aristotle wrong: through experiment.
This method of doing science was then formalized by one of the greatest thinkers in history, Francis Bacon. What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation. Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It's a form of engineering — of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not "true" knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions — which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment. Many people are surprised to hear this, but the founder of modern science says it. Bacon, who had a career in politics and was an experienced manager, actually wrote that scientists would have to be misled into thinking science is a pursuit of the truth, so that they will be dedicated to their work, even though it is not.
Why is all this ancient history important? Because science is important, and if we don't know what science actually is, we are going to make mistakes.
The vast majority of people, including a great many very educated ones, don't actually know what science is.
If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed.
This leads us astray. Since most people think math and lab coats equal science, people call economics a science, even though almost nothing in economics is actually derived from controlled experiments. Then people get angry at economists when they don't predict impending financial crises, as if having tenure at a university endowed you with magical powers. Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look "more scientific" by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge.
Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment. This is how you get articles with headlines saying "Study Proves X" one day and "Study Proves the Opposite of X" the next day, each illustrated with stock photography of someone in a lab coat. That gets a lot of people to think that "science" isn't all that it's cracked up to be, since so many studies seem to contradict each other.
This is how you get people asserting that "science" commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is "scientific" because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is "science" even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.
This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.


You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and anti-vaccine looney-toon Jenny McCarthy as polar opposites on a pro-science/anti-science spectrum, but in reality they are the two sides of the same coin. Both of them think science is like magic, except one of them is part of the religion and the other isn't.
The point isn't that McCarthy isn't wrong on vaccines. (She is wrong.) The point is that she is the predictable result of a society that has forgotten what "science" means. Because we lump many different things together, there are bits of "science" that aren't actual science that get lumped into society's understanding of what science is. It's very profitable for those who grab some of the social prestige that accrues to science, but it means we live in a state of confusion.
It also means that for all our bleating about "science" we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our "pro-science" people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science).
This bizarre misunderstanding of science yields the paradox that even as we expect the impossible from science ("Please, Mr Economist, peer into your crystal ball and tell us what will happen if Obama raises/cuts taxes"), we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.
For example, our approach to education is positively obscurantist. Nobody uses rigorous experimentation to determine better methods of education, and someone who would dare to do so would be laughed out of the room. The first and most momentous scientist of education, Maria Montessori, produced an experimentally based, scientific education method that has been largely ignored by our supposedly science-enamored society. We have departments of education at very prestigious universities, and absolutely no science happens at any of them.
Our approach to public policy is also astonishingly pre-scientific. There have been almost no large-scale truly scientific experiments on public policy since the welfare randomized field trials of the 1990s, and nobody seems to realize how barbaric this is. We have people at Brookings who can run spreadsheets, and Ezra Klein can write about it and say it proves things, we have all the science we need, thank you very much. But that is not science.
Modern science is one of the most important inventions of human civilization. But the reason it took us so long to invent it and the reason we still haven't quite understood what it is 500 years later is it is very hard to be scientific. Not because science is "expensive" but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.
But until we take science for what it really is, which is both more and less than magic, we will still have one foot in the barbaric dark.

[Albedo 0]

odličan tekst, mada ga je na kraju sa pozivom na eksperimentalna istraživanja u obrazovanju i socijali malo zastranio

mislim, ja bih rado eksperimentiso na djeci, al ne daju dušmani

[Meho Krljic]

Mrzi me da ga sad ponovo čitam ali mislim da on nije pozvao na eksperimentisanje na deci (nešto o čemu svaki pošten čovek razmišlja bar po nekoliko puta svakog dana), već da je pokušavao da napravi poentu da ne možemo da tvrdimo da su nam obrazovanje i socijalna politika utemeljeni na nauci (radije nego na proizvoljnim nagađanjima) jer njihove principe nikada nismo eksperimentalno proveravali. Isto važi i za politiku i druge stvari za koje nominalno mislimo da su "dizajnirane" sa kartezijanskim, racionalnim, naučnim principima na prvom mestu iako, tehnički gledano nisu.

[Albedo 0]

There have been almost no large-scale truly scientific experiments on public policy since the welfare randomized field trials of the 1990s, and nobody seems to realize how barbaric this is.

eo otprilike ova rečenica



nismo eksperimentisali - to je varvarski

[mac]

Eksperimenti se sprovode na uzorku populacije, koja može valjda i da odbije da bude deo eksperimenta, a eksperiment na živom svetu i tako mora da prođe etičku komisiju, što je najbitnije u celoj priči. Ja ne vidim problem, ako se sve uradi po pravilu službe.

[scallop]

Mislim da tekst pokušava da objasni da nauka nije apsolut. I nije. Da jeste odavno bismo digli hramove i klanjali u njima. Nauka počiva na sumnji u nju, na teorijama, hipotezama, eksperimentalnim programima, definisanim uzorcima i odabranim parametrima koji grade okvir hipoteze i uslovima u kojima se eksperimentiše. Rezultat mora da bude prihvatljiv i ponovljiv. Ustvari, postoji veoma jednostavan kriterijum ocene pouzdanosti neke nauke, ali će društvenjaci popizdeti ako ga navedem. To je: što je više stepena slobode koji određuju neku naučnu disciplinu to je manji stepen njene pouzdanosti, a verovatnoća greške veća. Imam ja lepu priču kako se to iskazuje od matematičkih teorija do teorija umetnosti, ali biće da vas to ne zanima.

[Albedo 0]

pa dobro, prirodnjaci imaju mnogo gluplji predmet istraživanja

nađeš 100 apsolutno istih atoma i mućkaš epruvete, jaka stvar, i onda je kao eksperiment ponovljiv, provjerljiv, prihvatljiv

ako uzmeš 100 ljudi, nikad ne možeš da ponoviš eksperiment, jer je riječ o složenim bićima, koja na trista različitih načina reaguju na ''stimulans''

pri čemu i stimulans ne može suštinki biti izolovan, Srbi, Španci i Škoti će sasvim različito reagovati na ekonomsku krizu (pri čemu ne postoji jedna vrsta krize već ko zna koliko), neće isto, nisu istovjetni atomi, nemaju isti broj neutrona i protona

glup predmet istraživanja, rekoh

[scallop]

To sam i napisao. Ja se svaki put prekrstim kad neko napiše da je ono čime se ti baviš nauka.

[Albedo 0]

gledaj na to ovako, dođe balavi Bata fizičar i pametuje nešto scallopu politikologu, starom 2700 godina

znaš, ja sam suštinski pola milenijuma stara nauka, i ja fizika posedujem superiornost nad vama matorima politikolozima, filozofima, psiholozima... ko ste vi bre, stariji od Biblije, vi da budete nauke. More, ja sam fizički uhvatio Platona za muda. Pardon, za jajca

[scallop]

A ti gledaj ovao: Dođe balavi Bata, politikolog, da drži lekcije Scallopu i uhvati se za Platonova muda. Ne zna ništa više, ništa dalje. A Platon i njegova svojta se držala za kitu Demokritu, koji je postavio značajnije teorije univerzuma i bio jedan od prvih koji je shvatio da je teorija ništa bez eksperimentalnog dokaza. Skokni malo do Abdere, pa se uveri kako je to radio.


Ustvari, nisam potcenjivao različite naučne pristupe, samo sam ukazao da je neka nauka manje pouzdana što više zavisi od broja parametara koji neku pojavu određuju. Budući da se matematika bavi nematerijalnim svetom, najmanje je ugrožena. Već fizički zakoni zavise od materijalnog sveta i ništa se u njoj ne može smatrati konačnim. Hemija uvodi promenu materije šta snižava njenu validnost. Biologija uvodi živu materiju i tu je već kuršlus. Ako pogledaš opstojnost narednih nauka ustanovićeš da u njima ništa nije pouzdano. Naravno, politikologija je nešto iznad umetničkih nauka.

[Albedo 0]

teorija ništa bez eksperimentalnog dokaza

theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding"

došo neki balavi fizičar, i poslije 2000 godina društvenih nauka umislio da može da postavlja temelje i izmišlja kriterijume prema kojima je nešto nauka, mlađi da određuje i ocjenjuje starije, pa je kao eksperiment postao glavni kriterijum naučnosti

a pritom ta ista fizika nije ispunila kriterijume koji su postojali prije nje, pa se sad grči u filozofskoj jalovosti, i eventualno oduševi nekoga rečenicom ''vidi, mikser!''

a što na glavna životna pitanja ne zna da odgovori kakve to veze ima, mislim glavno je da dobro sjecka luk

pitam se kako se eksperimentom dokazuje da kapitalista uzima radniku višak vrijednosti

[scallop]

Dakle, ko shvatio shvaio, ko nije ni neće.


Ako ima neko još kome nije jasno nek' se javi. Bata je dokazao svoje.

[Albedo 0]

nemoj sad da si takav, mislim upravo si rekao da je Marksova teorija o prisvajanju viška vrijednosti od slabe vajde, pošto nije eksperimentalno potvrđena

pa da, ona uopšte nije validna, zato kapitalizam i dalje postoji! Zašto i ne bi postojao kad je višak vrijednosti u stvari nepouzdana tvrdnja nekog bradatog Jevrejina sa prevelikim stepenom slobode

[scallop]

To ti je kao Seldonova psihoistorija u Zadužbini. Mogao je da sačini idealnu utopijsku predikciju društvenih promena u univerzumu, ali je morao da predvidi i pojavu Mazgova, kao iskakanje iz teorije. Da je politikologija validna i teorije zavere bi bespogovorno funkcionisale.

[Albedo 0]

još malo pa ćeš zvučati kao Boris neoliberal

[scallop]

A ti ćeš da prestaneš da zvučiš.

[Albedo 0]

a sad eksperimentalno dokaži da ja zvučim!

[scallop]

Pa, dalo bi se, ali bih morao da te turim u eksperimentalni program, da odredim zavisne i nezavisno promenljive parametre i mernu tehniku, kao što su malj, čekić, testera... U svakom slučaju, zvučao bi neko vreme.

[JasonBezArgonauta]

Pa onda, recimo, u neku pećku gde će preći iz manje verovatnog stanja u verovatnije?

[scallop]

Ček malo, Jasone, rekli smo ZVUČANJE, a ne CVRĆANJE.

[JasonBezArgonauta]

I cvrćanje je neko zvućanje.

[Albedo 0]

 a ne, teza je bila da ja zvučim sam po sebi, bez pomagala, bez malja i rerne, dakle eksperiment je već namješten i netačan

[scallop]

a ne, teza je bila da ja zvučim sam po sebi, bez pomagala, bez malja i rerne, dakle eksperiment je već namješten i netačan

Opet dokićavaš osnovnu sliku. Uskoro ćeš stići do Platona i Deride. I nemoj po sebi da zvučiš, pokvasićeš se. Hajde, reci nam iskreno: Jesi li ikada postavio i sproveo neki eksperiment?

[JasonBezArgonauta]

Jebeš nauku bez pomagala. Missim, npr ako te otmu vanzemljaci, nisu te oni oteli da bi im ti čitucko Marksa i prodavo Platonova muda za bubrege. Nemaju oni vremena za to glupiranje, ima bre da seckaju i peku, a bez alata nema ni nauke. Ajd sad, u peć.

[Albedo 0]

a ne, nije to isto, npr ti možeš nekim pomagalom da mi mjeriš decibele i provjeriš da li zvučim, ali ne možeš pomagalom da izazivaš zvučanje

scallop, nadrinaučnik, je tvrdio da ja zvučim prije bilo kakvog kontakta sa testerama i pećnicama

samim tim, ubacivanje takvih pomagala kontaminira laboratorijski prostor!

Jesi li ikada postavio i sproveo neki eksperiment?

na hiljade!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

[scallop]

A, ta vrsta eksperimenta.

[Albedo 0]

nego šta, pa to je i Demokritu omiljena vrsta eksperimenta

učestvovo sam ja i u eksperimentalnom nerviranju scallopa, totalno provjerljiv, potvrdljiv eksperiment, dokazano

ali meni još uvijek nije jasno kako da organizujem eksperiment o prisvajanju viška vrijednosti, to je misterija

[scallop]

Šta mogu, osetljiv sam na glupost.

[Albedo 0]

kakve gluposti, pa ja bacam bisere pred tebe a ti ih samo njuškom makneš i nastaviš da rovariš

kako se eksperimentalno dokazuje da su svi ljudi jednaki?

[mac]

Jednaki u pravno-ideološkom smislu, to jest da svi mi podjednako imamo prava da ostvarimo svoje ciljeve? To se ne dokazuje, nego se od te ideje polazi. Indusi, recimo, u svom kastinskom sistemu ne polaze od te ideje.

[scallop]

Ne dokazuje se. Ljudi nisu jednaki. To je fičlozpofsko tupljenje, kao što je tupljenje Platonova Utopija. Ne postoji utopija. Naravno, možeš misaono da eksperimentišeš koliko te volja i sve je u redu dok ne stekneš istomišljenike. Onda postaješ štetočina koju je Hari Seldon nazvao Mazgov. Ni konj ni magarac. Na neki način ti si već štetočina, jer si svojim nasilnim prozivanjem oterao Borisa, a sa njim je bilo moguće raspravljati. I šteta je što si izvršio subverziju nad temom koja je mogla da rasvetli dokle je nauka nauka, a odakle postaje ideologija. Šteta.

[Meho Krljic]

S druge strane, Američka deklaracija nezavisnosti tvrdi da je jednakost ljudi očigledna i da joj ne treba obrazlaganje (verujem da je Bata na to smerao):

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Naravno, pozivaju se na Tvorca što takođe podrazumeva da nema govora o naučnom dokazivanju ovih istina već da je u igri samo i isključivo vera.

[scallop]

Deklaracije su foliranje neukih. I taj Tvorac nagrađuje i kažnjava, znači, nisu mu svi jednaki.

[Meho Krljic]

Deklaracija je vrlo precizna: svi su STVORENI jednaki, ali to ne znači da će se dalje ponašati jednako. 

[scallop]

Budi ljubazan pa mi objasni kakve to veze ima sa naukom?

[Albedo 0]

Uskoro ćemo saznati da je scallop glasao za Vučića

inače, ako eksperimentalno dokažemo da ljudi nisu jednaki onda lijepo valja uvesti gore spomenuti kastinski sistem, napredni gore, nazadna opozicija dolje, i čitavo društvo ustrojiti prema eksperimentalno dokazanim kriterijumima

oduzeti opšta ljudska prava, nema beneficiranih ponuda, ko hoće da se vozi javnim prevozom da plati punu cijenu, ko hoće da se liječi takođe, nema solidarnog zdravstvenog sistema, nema potrebe za opštedostupnim obrazovanjem, šta će bilo kom naprednjačkom nadčovjeku autoput do Niša. Ukinuti penzije, tog socijalističkog frankenštajna zasnovanog na egalitarističkoj fantaziji

ljudi nisu jednaki, eksperimentalno dokazano, na čelu je Supervučić, dole smo mi miševi

ukinuti izbore, ne služe ničemu, eventualno iluziji da smo jednaki ili da kao brinemo jedni o drugima, u stvari, ovo je sve džungla u koju si tigar ili si plijen

[Meho Krljic]

 

Budi ljubazan pa mi objasni kakve to veze ima sa naukom?

Nikakve, samo ukazujem da je Bata najverovatnije na ovo mislio - verovanje da su svi ljudi stvoreni jednaki je u temelju savremenih demokratskih teorija, iako je u pitanju naučno neproverena tvrdnja koju politikologija - ili makar njeni delovi - uzima za aksiom.

Edit: Ili, da, ovo što je Bata sad iznad mene ispiso, samo manje strastveno.

[scallop]

To i jeste savremena neoliberalna doktrina. Ali, teorije i javni iskazi ništa ne dokazuju. Sve je to blebetanje, nauka je something completely different. U njoj nema cile-mile, šta bio neko "teo da oće", ona teorije i hipoteze ili dokazuje ili baca na đubre. Zato i Batini stavovi ne vrede pišivog boba, a Američka deklaracija se nikad nije potvrdila. To je jedino bitno za nauku, pa kako hoćete.