Welcome to Gaia! :: Temp sticky

Log In

Forgot your login?

Sign Up

Register
 
GST
 Post Reply
Gaia Forums » GAIA Online » Extended Discussion » Science and Technology
Sticky: Temp sticky
Export this topic to other sites using WildFire!
forum:59, topic:11351481
1 2 3 4 >
Post: 11351481_1 created on Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:53 pmPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:53 pm
The original sticky has been destroyed in some horrible accident.

So, the moderator team of this forum will construct a new sticky.

For the meantime, I would just like to remind everyone that this forum is a subforum of ED; therefore, needs to follow all of their rules, in addition to any rules that we post here.
 
     
The previous statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the account holder.
Get a strong password.
Report this post
Post: 11351481_2 created on Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:16 amPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:16 am
 
We have rules? XD

Though I think you might need a section on the ideas behind the scientific method in the sticky: Problem of Induction; Falsificationism and the confirmation-falsify method (confirm big predictions, falsify small ones); maybe some Kuhn as well as an alternative view of the way science works. Mainly because there needs to be a clear view about what makes something scientific, protoscientfic and pseudoscience. Would be useful. (I'm game for writing it once I hit Christmas break and all I have to do is research and my hardcore first and only term of lectures is over).
     
"Now, I'm no science major, but if I'm being told by a group of people that the protons, neutrons, and electrons need unifying, then I think we owe it to the American people to go in and unify them"
Report this post
Post: 11351481_3 created on Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:30 pmPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:30 pm
I think that a blurb about the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, a conclusion, and incoherent ramblings while high would be nice. Also, a breif blurb on correlation vs. causation would be very nice.

Maybe something like:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an if-then statement (If I raise the temperature of the stove with a pot of water on it, then the water will come to a boil more quickly) used to judge the possible outcomes of an experiment. More than one hypotehsis is made; a positive, a negative, and a neutral hypothesis.

If I raise the temperature of the stove, then the water will boil more quickly.
If I raise the temperature of the stove, then the water will not boil more quickly.
If I raise the temperature of the stove, the speed of the water's boiling will be unaffected.

At the end of the experiment, during the analysis of the data, the incorrect hypotheses are rejected, and the remaining one is not rejected. The remaining one has not been "proven," or "accepted" based on the outcome of the experiment; that would involve too many assumptions of variables that cannot be controlled. The remaining hypothesis is "not rejected," and considered to be the most likely one.

Theory

A theory is a statement that is the most acceptable means for explaining how something works. A theory is supported by a large body of scientific data, and has shown that the experimental data used to support is can be replicated. A theory is not formed until multiple experiments have been shown to support it.

"I have a theory that ..."

This is a misuse of the word theory. You may call it a hypothesis if you think that it's a likely explanation. If you don't have the body of scientific data to support, you're working on hypothesis at this point.

Correlation

Break up the word to its roots, and you have "co" and "relation."

A correlational relationship is one where two events have been to occur together when all other conditions are kept the same. For example, you could say that increasing the stove's temperature is correlated to the speed of the water boiling. This is not assuming that one causes another, but rather that the two have been shown to be related to each other.

Causation

Citing a causal relationship is very sticky ground. It's saying that the actions of X cause the actions of Y. You can say that the formation is caused by the translation of RNA. After running multiple experiments, it has been shown to happen this way. You cannot say that animal testing causes animal abuse. You'd have to design a proper study that follows scientific method to do this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just a suggestion, and I'm merely batting around ideas in my head in the hopes that it'll stimulate others to contribute too.
 
     

Win Alruna's Rose! Free to enter.
Report this post
Post: 11351481_4 created on Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:24 pmPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:24 pm
 
Nah, D!no that's good.

I believe that the sticky should be contained in two parts. Actual rules of the forum wit regardes to ToS violations, etc and then a breif discussion into scientific discourse. I liked what you wrote.

I could ask for user input, make suggestions, comments, actually possibly write blocks of "rules" (like you just did) because in the end it will be the moderators editing, cropping and then in the end putting together the entire set into a new and better sticky.


Should I bring back the series of proofs about 1 == .9repeating? Or have there not been threads about that lately?
     
The previous statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the account holder.
Get a strong password.
Report this post
Post: 11351481_5 created on Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:58 pmPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:58 pm
This is one of my bugbears: laws and theories.

Quote:
To those who say that a law is a more accepted that a theory...

There is no difference between a law and a theory when it comes to their relevant scientific acceptance. As has been mentioned Newton's "Laws" of Motion are superseded by Einstein's "Theory" of Special Relativity (or general, you would be splitting hairs; SR is just a special case of GR).

The different is that a theory needs to be able to make predictions and be able to explain what is happening, a law states a relationship with not real attention paid to the mechanism. Newton's laws of motion are just mathematical relationships; the theories of relativity are complete packages that seek to explain where Newton's laws come from.

"Wikipedia on 'Theory'"
In sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

The term theoretical to describe certain phenomena often indicates that a particular result has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to produce a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.
Wikipeda: Theory

"Wikipedia on 'Physical law'"
A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations. It is different from a theory which is a framework designed to make predictions and to explain physical laws. Laws of nature are different from legal code (see law). Legal code is the creation of man, sometimes perhaps inspired by higher beings. Laws of nature are conclusions from scientific experiments. Some of the more famous laws of nature are Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Principia Mathematica and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

Within most fields of study, and in science in particular, the elevation of some principle of that field to the status of "law" usually takes place after a very long time during which the principle is used and tested and verified. Though in some fields of study such laws are simply postulated as a foundation and assumed.
Wikipedia: Law of nature

Before you take heart from the last point�for one, it only states that an axiom become a 'law'[1]�you would be well advised to consider that this is a completely arbitrary distinction, and one that just does not work that well. Just because something has worked for a long time is no more an indication that it is more correct that a better hypothesis that has only worked for a decade. The distinction between law and theory is that a theory is more 'complete' than a law. Newton's laws are just relationships, there is no why, which is crucial to our understanding, a theory seeks to underline the whole framework. One should be able to derive laws from a correct theory.

"Sir Isaac Newton"
I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction

Newton looked at the results of an experiment, and then induced some theory as to how they worked from the results. This is very different from Einstein, who postulated his two axioms while he was trying to resolve inconsistencies between classical mechanics and electromagnetism.

In short. A "law" can be regarded as a key scientific axiom that has been verified beyond all reasonable doubt as to its veracity. A law may also be a relationship that is induced from experimental observations with no credence paid to how it actually works (outside of a mathematical formalism). A "theory" is scientific hypothesis that seeks to provide a underlying framework in which one can explain the mechanisms behind current observations, and it should also be able to make some new predictions because it scope is not limited to only explaining the current phenomena. A theory may contain one or more laws, depending upon how well verified its axioms are.

A law is no more correct than a verified theory.
__________
[1] For an example, the theory of electromagnetism has four key axioms, Maxwell's laws. Special relativity has two axioms: the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, and that the physics is the same in all inertial frame (that it is co�rdinate-independent).

If you are metioning correlation and causation you out to bring up the post hoc and c** hoc fallacies.

Hmm, a sticky linking to threads about some ofted brought up topics would be useful.
 
     
"Now, I'm no science major, but if I'm being told by a group of people that the protons, neutrons, and electrons need unifying, then I think we owe it to the American people to go in and unify them"
Report this post
Post: 11351481_6 created on Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:17 pmPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:17 pm
 
Iguana -- that might give those particular threads the feeling of being "official" threads, and new threads on that subject matter that might become better would be nuked needlessly. Because we move slowly, I haven't seen *too* many repeats on the whole. However, I'd like to take your idea and tweak it. Maybe if we had a referene thread list? Possibly like a "Maybe refer to this thread, it might help you better," sort of thing rather than an outright official list?

Paakun -- I'd love the contents of the original sticky (with the 'easy' questions already explained, so that we can all move on) to avoid the cropping up of those threads both here and in ED. A simple, "Please refer to this post where it says ____. Thank you, and have a nice day" could put an end to certain fallacious spewings. People get all redfaced and start screaming about blatantly misinformed scientific protocol, and wonder why others don't take 'em seriously.

Iguana -- I like the idea of including some of the major logical fallacies used in pseudoscience to try to falsely draw conclusions. Should we also include a blurb on questioning statistics' validity in a claim? Maybe something along the lines of:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Numbers, and Choosing Viable Resources

Statistics are a valuable tool for any scientist, when trying to make sense of things. However, numbers can be manipulated to show a false positive in a certain direction.

For example, one might say something like, "The nutritional balance of children's diets has decreased," where your definition of "children" is anyone under the age of 19. In including the larger population subset, you're also including people who have greater dietary choices, and are skewing your results.

This is but one example. Before submitting something as scientific cannon, make sure that the journal you're citing is an established, peer-reviewed journal. Ensure that the experiment has replicable results in other studies. Skim through the article's bibliography, and see if the research has current information.

The whole point of science is to constantly question, and search for what's going on. Continue to do so, and you'll find your base of knowledge expanding.
     

Win Alruna's Rose! Free to enter.
Report this post
Post: 11351481_7 created on Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:04 amPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:04 am
Hmm, an overview of the major fallacies to do with research should be useful. If you wanted to discuss journals then it would not be too tricky to provide a list of the major journals in certain fields. That said, I would be shocked if people actually began citing work.

Warnings about statistics should be provided as well, the media is known to distort figures to sell a story and I have lost count of the number of times I have wanted to see how the figures were collected.

Edit: http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8518275 (I'm saving threads that may be useful read)
 
     
"Now, I'm no science major, but if I'm being told by a group of people that the protons, neutrons, and electrons need unifying, then I think we owe it to the American people to go in and unify them"
Report this post
Post: 11351481_8 created on Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:47 pmPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:47 pm
 
To comment about having a list of threads to reference; Gaia doesn't condone that. It's basically the "official" thread business. This was brought up to massive discussion when a while ago, the abortion thread (I believe that's what it was about) was moved to chatterbox since it was mainly chit-chat with little discussion.

The rules are that multiple threads about the same topic are allowed, unless, of course, they are carbon copies of themselves. Threads die, and resurface; but most importantly new people come and go and most people are alienated by a 100 page thread and choose not to read it, maybe the first page and then comment with something already said. With smaller threads, people will most likely actually read through the thread (new users to the thread, obviously people keeping up with the thread have read it).

So, in the end, it was decided to not allow official threads and to let natural selection take the process. Good threads will stay and bad threads will go away (or be flame, in which they get reported and moved).

However, what we can do is reference outside sources or other stickies (that have an official status). We will reference the core ED rules and maybe certain sites that explain logical fallacies and all the various fancy Latin terms, or something like that.
     
The previous statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the account holder.
Get a strong password.
Report this post
Post: 11351481_9 created on Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:25 pmPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Another section that may or may not still be useful is the homework help bit. Should we recollect that data as well?
 
     
Report this post
Post: 11351481_10 created on Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:39 pmPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:39 pm
 
Some people set up a homework help guild, a link to that might be handy.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewforum.php?f=2658
     
"Now, I'm no science major, but if I'm being told by a group of people that the protons, neutrons, and electrons need unifying, then I think we owe it to the American people to go in and unify them"
Report this post
Post: 11351481_12 created on Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:11 pmPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:11 pm
Onus of proof! Onus of proof!

Onus of Proof

While having a scientific discussion, it is important to remember the concept of the onus of proof. It is not up to a scientist to disprove the existence of a particular concept. It is up to the person making the claim to prove his/her assertions.

For example:

Quote:
I have a definitive method of deterring hippos from coming onto my lawn. I sprinkle my lawn daily with fresh tap water. I'm proving that it works, because there aren't any hippos on my lawn!


This does not constitute proof. This simply constitutes statement of a concept, without proving it scientifically. However, something like:

Quote:
I have found, through the results of a double-blind experiment, that people like the flavour of this brand of soda over a similarly marketed brand.


Notice the difference? The second statement is making the process of gathering the data transparent. Someone else could come in, take his method, and try it out themselves.

You cannot prove the negative.

What does this mean? It means that when a claim is made (for example, there exists out there, somewhere, a unicorn) the burden of proving that statement is on the shoulders of the person making that claim. It is not on the shoulders of the people who doubt that claim. There is no way to definitively prove that the unicorn does not exist. There is, however, a method of proving that it does; that method is for the person claiming such a thing to produce incontrovertible evidence of one.
 
     

Win Alruna's Rose! Free to enter.
Report this post
Post: 11351481_13 created on Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:17 amPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:17 am
 
Well, homework help isn't allowed in ED, but having a link to the guild would be nice (helps avoid threads that will just get moved).

Also. The old sticky - does anyone actually have that? It might be somewhere on my computer, but seriously it's so highly disorganized that anything over a year old is probably really hard to find (forgot where I put it ^^;; ).

We could work off of that, or just start fresh.
     
The previous statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the account holder.
Get a strong password.
1 2 3 4 >
 Post Reply
Gaia Forums » GAIA Online » Extended Discussion » Science and Technology
 Subscribe to Topic  Report this Topic