Large Hardon Collider

[Kuya]

Do people in the natural sciences hate philosophy or something?

[Tristam]

Yes, sciences in general need more visibility in the public. However, it's still not an excuse to do half assed popular sciences or philosphy. If you want to break away from sciences neutrality, then mention it, or at least, make it obvious in your speech.

I can't take issue with your critique of Krauss, since I haven't read him yet, but Dawkins' book's are on the whole very very good and stick to data and explanations (I haven't of course read the god delusion). He is first and foremost an encyclopedia of evolution, and he is amazing at showing in detail how it works at the level of inividuals, populations, species, and the planet as a whole in an accessible and entertaining way. It's not an easy thing to do, and I think philosophy mischaracterizes almost all of the popular work he has done. Even the blind watchmaker, which was a book prompted by a bad theological argument against evolution, sticks in a large part to the data and what the data means, even if it means politely pointing out where it conflicts with theology.

If you want nuts and bolts, stick to journals and chalk talks. Everything else is popsci and we expect (and need) a little entertainment. Sagan went very far into the realm of speculation in dragons of eden and contact, but that's his right, and if he gave it (obviously) lots of thought I think he's worth listening to even if I don't agree with him on philosophical issues (and even if he gets a little kooky with the biology). I mean, at the very least I like knowing how he thought/wondered about big picture issues. Darwin's Descent of Man was extremely speculative *edit: at the time he wrote it it was speculative, but he was actually pretty prescient about sexual selection and anthropology* (and often incorrect on the less important points), but the philosophical debate it started was hugely important.

I like being a little romantic about science, I see too many people get too angry over the small things in data meetings.

[Eliseos]

Do people in the natural sciences hate philosophy or something?

I think it's more how they seem to just make up their proofs, or make up something that helps them prove whatever it is they are seeking.

I'll try to find a comic that can explain it better.

EDIT: Here it is:

http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100923.gif

[Tristam]

Do people in the natural sciences hate philosophy or something?

Yes and no, we are increasingly trained to focus only on what we can prove and prove it to the best of our ability. Even fifty years ago one could be a biochemist and have a pretty good understanding of most of the biochemical literature of the day. Now most labs are extremely specialized, and most biochemists probably couldn't tell you much about a matrix metalloproteinase (nor could I, I just know the name cuz' it sounds cool).

The big picture for most of my research isn't really that big, and I think that's true for most of us. The hypercompetitive atmosphere hasn't helped either, why study philosophy or even history when one could read more journal articles or do more labwork (increasing the likelihood that you will beat your competitors to proving the mechanism for the biological thing that everyone in the sub-field already knows but is working frantically to publish first)?

edit: And I should say that on the occasion when someone goes into philosophy about something that alot of people are working on mechanistically (the brain, for example) there's a very hostile reaction I think because of the perception that "fuzzy" thinking about the brain minimizes the importance of the biological mechanism. I'm guilty of this.

editx2: And I'm working to break that habit for myself, I picked up David Linden's "the accidental mind"

[Max™]

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/file...icture_3_0.png
Also:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/stephen_hawking.png

http://www.bogost.com/images/content/blog/cartoon.gif

Weeee, applicable pictures!

[Kaylia]

I can't take issue with your critique of Krauss, since I haven't read him yet, but Dawkins' book's are on the whole very very good and stick to data and explanations (I haven't of course read the god delusion). He is first and foremost an encyclopedia of evolution, and he is amazing at showing in detail how it works at the level of inividuals, populations, species, and the planet as a whole in an accessible and entertaining way. It's not an easy thing to do, and I think philosophy mischaracterizes almost all of the popular work he has done. Even the blind watchmaker, which was a book prompted by a bad theological argument against evolution, sticks in a large part to the data and what the data means, even if it means politely pointing out where it conflicts with theology.

If you want nuts and bolts, stick to journals and chalk talks. Everything else is popsci and we expect (and need) a little entertainment. Sagan went very far into the realm of speculation in dragons of eden and contact, but that's his right, and if he gave it (obviously) lots of thought I think he's worth listening to even if I don't agree with him on philosophical issues (and even if he gets a little kooky with the biology). I mean, at the very least I like knowing how he thought/wondered about big picture issues. Darwin's Descent of Man was extremely speculative *edit: at the time he wrote it it was speculative, but he was actually pretty prescient about sexual selection and anthropology* (and often incorrect on the less important points), but the philosophical debate it started was hugely important.

I like being a little romantic about science, I see too many people get too angry over the small things in data meetings.

I'm not talking about their works, these men know how to do proper sciences. I'm simply annoyed when they (the one I mentioned earlier, can't say the same about the other you listed) use their status to slip an opinion inbetween fact.

They can do philosophy, they can do sciences, but make it clear in your speech which one you're doing, especially if you're talking to people who are not very knowledgeable or smart.



@Kuya
Not as much as we hate engineers.

But seriously, I don't think most people have issue with philosophy, as long they stick to rationalism up to a certain extent.

[BerenTebogo]

I've never agreed with the conclusion Krauss seems to 'inevitably' come to regarding the existence of life outside of the Earth (he pretty much states that it exists 100% despite us still being the only sample size) and I think that's part of what Kaylia is talking about. I agree on points like that, but at the same time, the talk was at an annual atheists conference - I think everyone in attendance, speaker and audience alike, knew that some pandering to the cause was to be expected.

Edit: I don't disagree with the conclusion I just don't agree with how fervently he can assert a position as fact which has no empirical defense whatsoever at the moment.

[Shiroikage]

I love philosophers.
They're out in the trenches for all of us.

[Max™]

Well, really the only reason to doubt that there is a 100% chance of finding (just carbon based, nevermind arguments that it should exist in any sufficiently complex chemistry soup) life elsewhere is due to some religious belief conflicting with the possibility, isn't it?

If it is here, and it is not prohibited by something being drastically different everywhere else, it must be there as well.

[Woozie]

I didn't read the entirety of the discussion, but I'm of the same opinion I was the last time this issue came about. I think Kaylia and I discussed this before.

Smart people are smart enough to know when they are doing sciences, and when they are philosophy, but everyone else take their opinion for granted. In the end, it doesn't really matter, but it annoys me on the same level popular sciences annoys me.

I feel like it's the public who are at fault here and not the actual scientists. For example, when Stephen Hawking made that comment about contacting advanced alien civilizations and it became a huge deal in the media, you argued (iirc) that Hawking was being irresponsible for making such a comment. My argument was that the public and the media are the ones being irresponsible. Why is it that I can say whatever I want about an alien civilization without the public making a big deal over it, but when Stephen Hawking does it everyone is all like "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!" ? Do they think Stephen Hawking knows more about alien civilizations than I do? I think Krauss/Dawkins/Hawkings should be able go "beyond the data" and talk about their interpretations, philosophies, and opinions, and the public should view each thing that's said in the appropriate contexts.

Max's XKCD comic illustrates my point perfectly. In "The God Particle", Leon Lederman states how once he won is nobel prize, he was suddenly viewed as an expert on practically every subject imaginable instead of being viewed as an expert in just particle physics. People would literally ask his opinion on foreign policy and economics and other stuff and latch on to every word he spoke on these subjects. Working with neutrinos has put him in a position where he can't speak freely about totally unrelated subjects freely because he knows people are going to make a big deal out of what he says even though what he says has absolutely nothing to do with neutrinos.

Also:

http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100129.gif

[Max™]

I agree about sending in the clergy, check their ranks some, we'll all be better off with less people trying to pawn their skyparent off on us like some divine king.

[BerenTebogo]

Well, really the only reason to doubt that there is a 100% chance of finding (just carbon based, nevermind arguments that it should exist in any sufficiently complex chemistry soup) life elsewhere is due to some religious belief conflicting with the possibility, isn't it?

If it is here, and it is not prohibited by something being drastically different everywhere else, it must be there as well.

No. The probability is almost assured that there is other life but it isn't known and we have no data to the contrary as of now, so it remains an educated opinion, but that's all.

I mean, I don't disagree with his claim, but it can't be proven and stating the existence of life other than on Earth as fact is still factually unfounded.

[Mizango]

lmao Woozie. That is the best one yet, im sure we all get asked stupid stuff all the time like that. God my family is the WORST at that. They will ask me something completely off base as if I just know everything off the bat.

[Max™]

Eh, like I said, I favor the extreme copernican principle: I should not be a privileged observer in any way.

If there is only life here, then I am privileged in one particular aspect.

Now, I give you that INTELLIGENT life may be rare, and it is even possible that we are the only example, though unlikely.

There is no reason why carbon compounds would interact any differently around Gliese 581 g than they do here though, so I can confidently say that if there is liquid water and similar elements present as there are here on earth, there is or has been life there.

[Kaylia]

I've never agreed with the conclusion Krauss seems to 'inevitably' come to regarding the existence of life outside of the Earth (he pretty much states that it exists 100% despite us still being the only sample size) and I think that's part of what Kaylia is talking about. I agree on points like that, but at the same time, the talk was at an annual atheists conference - I think everyone in attendance, speaker and audience alike, knew that some pandering to the cause was to be expected.

Edit: I don't disagree with the conclusion I just don't agree with how fervently he can assert a position as fact which has no empirical defense whatsoever at the moment.

Nah, that claim about aliens life isn't too bad. Krauss was talking about sciences solving ethic problems (lol) and consciousness versus sciences, Dawking always seem to use any opportunity to bash religion (I don't disagree with his complaints most of the time, but how he state them), and Hawking always say completely random things as well.

Anyway, I just wish anyone speaking in public would weight their words a little more, or would show more humility in their speech. No reason to show such confidence when it come to subject like this, it's not sciences.

I feel like it's the public who are at fault here and not the actual scientists. For example, when Stephen Hawking made that comment about contacting advanced alien civilizations and it became a huge deal in the media, you argued (iirc) that Hawking was being irresponsible for making such a comment. My argument was that the public and the media are the ones being irresponsible. Why is it that I can say whatever I want about an alien civilization without the public making a big deal over it, but when Stephen Hawking does it everyone is all like "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!" ? Do they think Stephen Hawking knows more about alien civilizations than I do? I think Krauss/Dawkins/Hawkings should be able go "beyond the data" and talk about their interpretations, philosophies, and opinions, and the public should view each thing that's said in the appropriate contexts.

That's where I disagree I guess. I believe greater responsability come with fame, and because of this, they have to be even more careful when they speak.

Like I said to Sath right above, if there was a slight ounce of humility in their texts, if they were admitting their statement is an opinion (educated or not), I wouldn't blame them when they are poorly quoted. However, they often come out as arrogant instead, and that's partly why people take what they say for granted, without considering the context.


Anyway, I'm done with this topic. Let's go back to sciences please.

[Kaylia]

Anyone here used Monte carlo methods before to simulate system? Just curious since it's what I'm working on right now.

[Eliseos]

lmao Woozie. That is the best one yet

First panel got me haha. I'm definitely using that the next time someone asks me a science question. I need to get that old, angry man look down though.

[Eliseos]

Also more pictures of my lab:

Note the broken knob. This thing can't be younger than 30 years old.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...9_592322_n.jpg

The insides of the above. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a capacitor that big using today's standards. And if I did and it was fully charged, it'd probably kill me. Also evidence for it being build in the 70s: no transistors that I could see at all.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._7204914_n.jpg

The "upgrade" to the above. It works a lot better, but my experiment requires over 5 MHz for the correct resonances, but it can only do a max of not quite 2 MHz
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._2084904_n.jpg

You know you are using old signal generators when you have to use one of these with it
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...0_520219_n.jpg

Sad how I consider the multimeters the most modern of the equipment I get to use. The bigger one is almost like the one we have for my EE labs, only it's still about 10-15 years older.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._1566248_n.jpg

[Kaylia]

Stop it please. No more lab equipment.


Last year, we had to go to the engineering department to borrow multimeter. The two we had (about as new as the one you have) were broken. It was really nice to have new equipment for once!

[Penthesilea]

Nah, that claim about aliens life isn't too bad. Krauss was talking about sciences solving ethic problems (lol) and consciousness versus sciences, Dawking always seem to use any opportunity to bash religion (I don't disagree with his complaints most of the time, but how he state them), and Hawking always say completely random things as well.

I listened to the whole talk and he never mentioned sciences solving an ethical issue. My honest opinion is that you misunderstand a lot due to being an ESL.


http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7820/photo11za.jpg my lab, nothing special or excitang