Science is dumb.

[UfarkTheRipe]

Now before you have your mouth agape for too long and get a cramp, be advised that I am not making a blanket statement that applies to the scientific method.

Non interfering objective acquisition of knowledge rocks.

I'm talking about some of the stupid crap money is wasted on studying.

Discuss.

Cheaters look in the spoiler:

Spoiler

http://beforeitsnews.com/fun-news/2...rnment-wasteful-spending-projects-327666.html
http://www.darwinsmoney.com/dumb-stimulus-bill-spending/
http://pobeptsworld.wordpress.com/2...dation-waste-more-than-1-billion-tax-dollars/
http://pobeptsworld.wordpress.com/2...ience-grants-more-waste-of-tax-payer-dollars/

 

[Cherry Cola]

This thread is dumb for a number of reasons.

Were supposed to assume that all the studies you've linked us to are stupid based on the fact that they sound a little weird even though we don't really know.

Where is the war on terrorism and its atrocious "dollar spent"/"people dying from terrorism" ratio? That's the gold guzzling sink hole of sink holes innit?

And besides, far too little is spent on science in general and we know it.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

"Science is dumb." is a far dumber choice of title than any of those studies.

Firstly, most of them were not directly connected to any of the STEM fields, and those that did haven't sounded that unreasonable. Are you an expert in the fields in this studies are done? How can you be so presumptuous if not? Because you found it posted on some blogs or because somebody compiled a subjective list?
Where are the projects that actually revolutionize our perceptions of the world, like the LHC? Or the latest math study that revolutionized our perception of the gaps between primes (btw if you cannot think of an application for the latest, you surely aren't qualified enough to criticize this, as those who originally posted that weren't).

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

 

[Analyzer]

Science can be as dogmatic as religion. See positivism.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

I didn't say it was hard. I'm a programmer and complexity doesn't scare me.

Science can be as dogmatic as religion. See positivism.

This thread provides data corroborating that statement. Note how users rush to the rescue of science- almost passionately.

Why would science need to be defended?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Science can be as dogmatic as religion. See positivism.

Just about everything worth discussing is dogmatic. PEOPLE are dogmatic.

There is a difference however between being dogmatic and being dismissive.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

The title is meant to provoke. I love science and want to have relations with it.

 

[Analyzer]

Just about everything worth discussing is dogmatic. PEOPLE are dogmatic.

There is a difference however between being dogmatic and being dismissive.

True but many folks believe the scientific method (in the empirical science way) is the most objective and non-bias way of looking at the world. The less dogmatic the better, which would be separating things into systems instead of combining everything like positivism does trying to explain knowledge about the world.

The main point of the thread though is the wasteful amount of spending the government does on science. I would argue that everything the state steals from society is waste; as the allocation of resources including money would be done more efficiently, and certainly more morally in a voluntary fashion.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

You have seen the impetus behind the thread, the rest saw what they wanted to see.

 

[Wolf18]

Some of these "dumb" things are quite important.
The methane emissions of dairy cows could save this planet.

Also, your sources are blogs and tabloids.

SW

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Those aren't sources. I just grabbed a few links off of Google and I didn't even read them.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Science can be as dogmatic as religion. See positivism.

Sorry, but positivism is a philosophy. Religion also claims to be a philosophy. Claims is the key word here.
Not that I have anything against positivism though, on the contrary.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

The title is meant to provoke. I love science and want to have relations with it.

Well that sounds like lust. Reminds me of neighbors I once had always fighting all day before having sex. Loud enough to hear through a shared wall.

Science is an invention of people. People do stupid things sometimes (a lot of times). To find stupid science therefore shouldn't be hard* and certainly not surprising or revealing.

But a lot of it isn't dumb, at least by our standards. So the title doesn't provoke INTPs any more than anything else wrong would. If the title read "Science can be dumb" I would have nodded in agreement before opening the thread. Instead I was dismissive at the outset.

*although maybe it was, I can't remember particularly looking

 

[Analyzer]

Sorry, but positivism is a philosophy. Religion also claims to be a philosophy. Claims is the key word here.
Not that I have anything against positivism though, on the contrary.

yeah philosophy of science

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

True but many folks believe the scientific method (in the empirical science way) is the most objective and non-bias way of looking at the world. The less dogmatic the better, which would be separating things into systems instead of combining everything like positivism does trying to explain knowledge about the world.

The main point of the thread though is the wasteful amount of spending the government does on science. I would argue that everything the state steals from society is waste; as the allocation of resources including money would be done more efficiently, and certainly more morally in a voluntary fashion.

I didn't see government spending on science in the title or OP. Sure some of the samples he linked may be government backed spending but like Ufark, I didn't read them either. Should I look up private funding of science research that was dumb? Do I really need to?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

yeah philosophy of science

Still not science.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Private funding is exactly that, private. Government spending should have oversight and should be within reason.

I have a government grant to study the reaction of forum folk to misleading thread titles. The amount is excessive and I appreciate your participation(your tax dollars of course). I'm even making a chart for my dupes.

 

[Analyzer]

I didn't see government spending on science in the title or OP. Sure some of the samples he linked may be government backed spending but like Ufark, I didn't read them either. Should I look up private funding of science research that was dumb? Do I really need to?

I'm sure you would find private and government research that was wasteful. Dumb research is not dependent on the funding.

I'm just saying without government subsidies for scientifically research, companies would be subject to complete market forces as they are now with private funding. Government research is not subject to these forces as they are primarily funded by tax money and not private individuals. So they don't have to worry about dumb research as their job will still be there.

 

[Analyzer]

Still not science.

what is science?

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Acquisition of knowledge through observation and experimentation.

This is why religion is not science nor are theories. Guesses are not science.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

what is science?

Science = knowledge (the best way we can see it)

As soon as a thing like positivism is proven, it will become a part of science.

So science currently does not state that scientific knowledge is the only truth there is.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Private funding is exactly that, private. Government spending should have oversight and should be within reason.

I have a government grant to study the reaction of forum folk to misleading thread titles. The amount is excessive and I appreciate your participation(your tax dollars of course). I'm even making a chart for my dupes.

That's interesting. Although your title is less misleading and more outright different topic altogether so your research may be invalid from the start. Stupid scientist! I'm calling my congressman, he's one of those tea-party crusader types and when he finds out about this I'm quite certain your funding will be cut off in the next sequester deal. Cash your checks quickly son, the time is a tickin'!

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Hey, I am be inept but I got pizzaid! I'm giving myself a bonus! My face hurts from grinning about how I got over!

Incidentally, science is not dumb- it's the best thing we have to describe the world.
If you want a strong reaction, call something people venerate, dumb. I could make a whole series of these threads and maybe get another grant. And then I'll have relations with more science- and there will be leavins.

 

[Analyzer]

Acquisition of knowledge through observation and experimentation.

This is why religion is not science nor are theories. Guesses are not science.

So in your mind is science only based on a posteriori knowledge. And reason (a priori), like thought experiments are only theories?

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

What knowledge speaketh thou of? Witness testimony?

 

[Analyzer]

What knowledge speaketh thou of? Witness testimony?

deductive based which are independent from observation or experience. "All bachelors are unmarried".

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

No, logical deduction has merit in science to validate a theory, but it doesn't prove anything.

A candle burned down to the plate it's on doesn't guarantee that it is what was used to ignite the ashes in the trash can in the same room.

A valid theory, but alas, only a theory. We'll never know for sure!

 

[Cherry Cola]

You have seen the impetus behind the thread, the rest saw what they wanted to see.

I'm sure he did, but about rest seeing what they wanted to see? Geez this is an even more sleep inducing attempt at provocation than the title of the thread.
Either, go with the flow, and hate science based upon some random studies which after a superficial glance seem like a waste of money, or be a full-fledged positivist clad in fedora and an unwarranted sense of superiority; most often expressed through redundant usage of prestigious words like "logic"?

No way man I ain't buying into that, too much picking sides.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

You don't have to do anything. You are responsible for your own actions, feelings and words and you decide if you feel compelled to respond certain way.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes that makes sense and doesn't say anything.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Yes that makes sense and doesn't say anything.

Incorrect. It says a buttload and it's even relevant.

This thread is dumb for a number of reasons.

I called science dumb so you called the thread dumb.

Were supposed to assume that all the studies you've linked us to are stupid based on the fact that they sound a little weird even though we don't really know.

I didn't ask you to assume anything. I didn't even imply that you should read the spoiler. And if you were concerned about the things I listed, then you would have verified whether they we true or false before making a comment.

Others went off half cocked saying those links are blogs and such as if blogs and such never deliver truth. Maybe even implying mainstream media is always honest. Did any one of those commentators check snopes or some other fact finding site about even one of those thing listed on the links I did not invite anyone to read? Or did they pass judgement in an instant transcending reason and any fact finding discipline? Maybe they saw what they wanted to see, made a uninformed comment, and smiled to themselves, saying out loud, "dumb thread." <=this is just s theory..

I rage in my heart against an unwinnable neverending war like the War on Terror also, but I'm only talking in this thread about wasteful spending of my money that I did not approve. And I am entitled to whine about it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

So much assumption that everyone else is an idiot while you're watching from some detached imaginary platform of solidity.

Protip: if you wanna play that card make a decent thread instead of one that is intentionally (and obviously) packed with little traps and things for people to step on, complete with a list of boring links that you cba to do anything but skim through. At least pertain to make what you want to be. If you wanted an intellectual discussion you'd have cooked up something informative, established a red thread; or whatevah.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Who said anyone was an idiot? Where did that come from? I'm not standing above anyone, I just have an opinion.

I had three goals with this thread and since the premise is based on an opinion which I am not going to change, intellectual discussion wasn't one of them. Analyzer nailed 2 of them(in one post) and third one has not been addressed yet.

 

[Hawkeye]

It would have been nice if you would have elaborated on stupid crap.

It's difficult to discuss on a topic that lacks content. I love the beauty of your title as it creates even more confusion, although this was intentional.

Speaking of technically trivial science, the UK government forked millions of pounds into a research project that estimates the happiness index of its denizens.

Apparently, the level of happiness this year rose to 77% from 75.9% last year. Also from 2007-2011, the British were happier than the French, Germans and Italians.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Your input is the third goal I was looking for. I was soliciting the forum for funded science projects that you, the forum, disapprove of. I didn't come right out and say it because I wanted to see the reaction to the title also. I knew eventually someone would offer something. I have to tendency to ask for opinions before I provide my own so as to not pollute my sample. I want to see if anyone thinks the way I do without prompting.

Hawkeye and Analyzer win (in my mind at least)

So what I wanted to see was acknowledgement of:
1. Blind faith in science for science sake causing..
2. Government waste.
and get..
3. Examples from forum members.


Anyone else know of government funded science projects that you deem stupid?Your opinion is valuable.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Look you're analyzing some kind of game that no one is playing except you. Next time just state your business and people can take it from there rather than waste time to amuse you.

You want to see if someone thinks like you in order not to risk getting stuck in your own perspective and declare those who think like you winners. Something's not right here. Actually, I retract that: a lot is wrong here is a more fitting way to describe the state of things.

This is like TimeAsylums antics minus the point of them.

 

[s0cratus]

True but many folks believe the scientific method
(in the empirical science way) is the most objective
and non-bias way of looking at the world.

Correct.
But some scientific ideas can be dumb.
For example: the “ big bang “ theory, the “ CERN ” project,
the “quark” particles, the “string theories” ,
“ temperatures below absolute zero simple have no meaning ” . . . .
#
The geniuses technology + a comic philosophy = our modern education.
====

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

Look you're analyzing some kind of game that no one is playing except you. Next time just state your business and people can take it from there rather than waste time to amuse you.

You want to see if someone thinks like you in order not to risk getting stuck in your own perspective and declare those who think like you winners. Something's not right here. Actually, I retract that: a lot is wrong here is a more fitting way to describe the state of things.

This is like TimeAsylums antics minus the point of them.

You decide your own level of involvement, not me. Don't like it? You are free to complain. It's not like we are building a relationship, but why are you so grumpy? Does it not stand to reason my purpose here is different from yours? Why are you trying to force your mindset onto me? I didn't go into one of your threads and trash it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I am grumpy because I am sad, lonely, and weak.

I am trashing because you want everyone else to do your work and act superior at the same time. If the meta structure of the thread is considered, that's hardly off topic either.

But on topic then, scientists depend upon funding which dictates what they do science about. If stupid shit is being researched that is not to the fault of science but that of the funders, the title of the thread would have science itself be the guilty one however.

The articles mention numbers such as "over a billion", which appear very large indeed, but are they when compared to other wasteful government spending?
Not really. Go compare the US figures spent on science to those spend on the war on terrorism for instance.

The thread paints a false picture of a situation; wherein, there is an issue of capital being carelessly slung at scientific endeavors with little considering of what they may yield. The truth is that scientific studies in general receive too little money and that people fail to see the long term benefits of funding shit that doesn't pay off right away or very soon. Indeed we should be looking to science because the rest isn't looking to good what with the economy going to shit everywhere, racism and extremism being on the rise in Europe, and China being on the rise in general. But hey fuck renewable energy, resources from space, and significant advances in medicine, let's welcome the collapse of capitalism which will follow once the oil becomes too expensive for it to be worth transporting goods across the globe, and let's welcome the resistant bacteria to. Lets just lie down and die for science is dumb because someone wanted to measure stupid stuff and had the cash to pay for it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Look you're analyzing some kind of game that no one is playing except you. Next time just state your business and people can take it from there rather than waste time to amuse you.

+1


ban this fagtwat please.

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

I am grumpy because I am sad, lonely, and weak.

I am trashing because you want everyone else to do your work and act superior at the same time.

You seem grumpy in some of your other posts also so I know it's not just me. I don't feel like I'm acting all superior and what of my work do you do?

The rest of your post seems well written, relevant and without attitude.

 

[Hadoblado]

Science isn't dumb, but it often seems mindless.

Spendings on science are not even a thing, relative to some other issues. Sometimes the studies seem wasteful, but getting your study past the board can be quite difficult. Perhaps you're not seeing the entire picture?

 

[UfarkTheRipe]

That is always a possibility.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Correct.
But some scientific ideas can be dumb.
For example: the “ big bang “ theory, the “ CERN ” project,
the “quark” particles, the “string theories” ,
“ temperatures below absolute zero simple have no meaning ” . . . .
#
The geniuses technology + a comic philosophy = our modern education.
====

So you think they are dumb?
Well, since you are surely qualified, do tell us what they are are all about and the arguements for and against them.
You seriously think that generations of sophisticated, experienced scientists who are the experts on the matter are wrong in their professional assumptions or calculations?
Or is it more probable that you are simply ignorant?

Do tell, please, try to show us how stupid these ideas are.

 

[spoirier]

What a confusion of responsibilities.
Many of the troubles that are reported there are about absurdities and waste in public spending.
Decisions about public spending are usually made by bureaucrats in an administrative system that is the way it happened to be developed in this world, but that is absolutely not a scientifically designed decision system, and not controlled by any scientists doing any effective scientific reseach on the subject of what kind of reseach project would have the best expectable usefulness.
Wastes and nonsense happen in all sectors of public spending, there is nothing specific about science there.
Okay, the NSF is something supposed to be more scientific, but still, I don't think its decisional structure, or people that take decisions there, should be considered very scientific.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I'll echo the OP.

Science is no longer an institution of discovery, but subservient to the pursuit of money. Profitable discovery.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I'll echo the OP.

Science is no longer an institution of discovery, but subservient to the pursuit of money. Profitable discovery.

Science is a method of inquiry. This is regardless of the intentions of the person who uses the method.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Science is a method of inquiry. This is regardless of the intentions of the person who uses the method.

Science guided by profit is inherently biased. How about the intention of the benefactors? Just ignore that other stuff, amirite?