Is science a fad?

[sinuous sausage]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'll try, but I need to check with the medical students/residents as to what specific chemical is ok. There are a lot of neurochemical drugs involved for different actions... And I don't know how to deliver them to you.

Cech SDN?

 

[487806]

crap not this again...

that was not an ad hominem. It was just an insult. Insults and arguments can coincide. When one is built upon another... THEN we have an ad hominem 😉 and the purpose of the insult was really only to mess with a troll. That is fun, as opposed to a fallacious debate tactic as you imply here.

and, you are either intentionally misrepresenting my position or really don't get it.
Science, as a noun, is simply a word to describe the systematic approach to learning (we can fudge one way or another in this, but that is the gist).

What religion, cults, or magic 8 balls do has no bearing on this at all. The subjective side of it is what we consider (sure, but popular inclusion) to be valid science. That is what the link you provided discusses. Science, as defined, can absolutely uncover truth. So, is your point concerning the potential misuse of the label "science" by those with agendas or the current shortcomings to true objectivity? Such things are involved in scientific study , but, if we are being careful about the words we are using, science is the set of principles behind such study and it is the study itself that needs to be scrutinized. The scrutiny, then, is actually done upon the principles of science itself. This is why I feel like the entire topic is a non-issue. "what science is" is not vague. "what works are are scientifically valuable" is what is vague. That is all I am saying, and I was hoping you would pick up on that when I mentioned someone "bastardizing" the principles in my first post. But instead I got "lol wut". 🙄

Why are you arguing with a troll? I'm still amazed OP believed that her "size", height and weight are relevant for AMCAS.

 

[sinuous sausage]

Girls don't believe in science, nothing new here.

Those aren't actually my measurements, gays.

I'm more like a 38AAA, 5'11", 170 lbs.

Oh, and I have a penis.

Jeeze, you think a chick with those measurements would be caught dead slinking around a friggin science thread on a student doctor forum?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why are you arguing with a troll? I'm still amazed OP believed that her "size", height and weight are relevant for AMCAS.

because I am bored

It never fails to amaze me how some people treat vbulletin posting space as some hallowed ground that must not be tread upon with any shenanigans

And honestly, trolls are much more likely to post blatantly inflammatory crap rather than idiocy. I'd suspect that about 70% of the people that pre-allo labels as "troll" is actually psych or personality disorder.

 

[La Presse]

Those aren't actually my measurements, gays.

I'm more like a 38AAA, 5'11", 170 lbs.

Oh, and I have a penis. :so excited:

Jeeze, you think a chick with those measurements would be caught dead slinking around a friggin science thread on a student doctor forum?

Anything's possible, but more than likely she'd be out marketing herself.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Those aren't actually my measurements, gays.

I'm more like a 38AAA, 5'11", 170 lbs.

Oh, and I have a penis.

Jeeze, you think a chick with those measurements would be caught dead slinking around a friggin science thread on a student doctor forum?

so you are admitting that you think measurements play a role in.... like... anything involved in this conversation or this forum.

Neat 👍

 

[487806]

Those aren't actually my measurements, gays.

I'm more like a 38AAA, 5'11", 170 lbs.

Oh, and I have a penis.

Jeeze, you think a chick with those measurements would be caught dead slinking around a friggin science thread on a student doctor forum?

😕😕😕

Failed surgery operation? A 38-V AAA battery is pretty small.

 

[sinuous sausage]

so you are admitting that you think measurements play a role in.... Like... Anything involved in this conversation or this forum.

Neat 👍

wtf?

 

[sinuous sausage]

Why are you arguing with a troll? I'm still amazed OP believed that her "size", height and weight are relevant for AMCAS.

it just dawned on me why you have contributed nil to the dialectic

 

[487806]

it just dawned on me why you have contributed nil to the dialectic

I gave possible solutions to changing your brain chemistry.

 

[487806]

because I am bored

It never fails to amaze me how some people treat vbulletin posting space as some hallowed ground that must not be tread upon with any shenanigans

And honestly, trolls are much more likely to post blatantly inflammatory crap rather than idiocy. I'd suspect that about 70% of the people that pre-allo labels as "troll" is actually psych or personality disorder.

You're right. This is pretty fun to poke the troll before the thread gets locked.

 

[SpecterGT260]

wtf?

over your head again? you need to expand a little more if we are going to have a real dialogue here. Help me help you. Help me.... help you

 

[La Presse]

I am bored and this thread is going nowhere...We should convert it to a picture thread.

 

[sinuous sausage]

crap not this again...

that was not an ad hominem. It was just an insult. Insults and arguments can coincide. When one is built upon another... THEN we have an ad hominem 😉 and the purpose of the insult was really only to mess with a troll. That is fun, as opposed to a fallacious debate tactic as you imply here.

and, you are either intentionally misrepresenting my position or really don't get it.
Science, as a noun, is simply a word to describe the systematic approach to learning (we can fudge one way or another in this, but that is the gist).

What religion, cults, or magic 8 balls do has no bearing on this at all. The subjective side of it is what we consider (sure, but popular inclusion) to be valid science. That is what the link you provided discusses. Science, as defined, can absolutely uncover truth. So, is your point concerning the potential misuse of the label "science" by those with agendas or the current shortcomings to true objectivity? Such things are involved in scientific study , but, if we are being careful about the words we are using, science is the set of principles behind such study and it is the study itself that needs to be scrutinized. The scrutiny, then, is actually done upon the principles of science itself. This is why I feel like the entire topic is a non-issue. "what science is" is not vague. "what works are are scientifically valuable" is what is vague. That is all I am saying, and I was hoping you would pick up on that when I mentioned someone "bastardizing" the principles in my first post. But instead I got "lol wut". 🙄

that's all fine.

I agree with the bolded section, but a lot of things can uncover truth. Science is no different than any other human endeavor. The article goes into more detail.

"What science is," this methodology...dude...the pape you linked to (which seems really good at first blush) starts digging down this epistemological rabbit hole. I mean, if you really are gonna hold onto the notion that "what science is" isn't vague, well, alrighty then. My efforts have been in vain.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I am bored and this thread is going nowhere...We should convert it to a picture thread.

yeah. As trolls go this one is pretty banal, except for his incessant use of capacious diction..... or something 😕

 

[sinuous sausage]

I am bored and this thread is going nowhere...We should convert it to a picture thread.

 

[SpecterGT260]

that's all fine.

I agree with the bolded section, but a lot of things can uncover truth. Science is no different than any other human endeavor. The article goes into more detail.

"What science is," this methodology...dude...the pape you linked to (which seems really good at first blush) starts digging down this epistemological rabbit hole. I mean, if you really are gonna hold onto the notion that "what science is" isn't vague, well, alrighty then. My efforts have been in vain.

the link that I posted was source #1 from the wiki site you posted 🙄
my only point was that you are not using the term "demarcation problem" appropriately. Which is too bad, because otherwise I would have given you a solid B- for your term paper there.

"what science is" and "what is science" are two statements with very very different applications for use 😛. It would appear the focus of your query (yay fanciful language!) is on the latter

 

[lobo.solo]

I am bored and this thread is going nowhere...We should convert it to a picture thread.

What is your new avatar pic?

 

[sinuous sausage]

well this ended in a whimper. to be expected with a bunch of self-serious halfwits. I hate pre-med students

 

[sinuous sausage]

the link that I posted was source #1 from the wiki site you posted 🙄
my only point was that you are not using the term "demarcation problem" appropriately. Which is too bad, because otherwise I would have given you a solid B- for your term paper there.

"what science is" and "what is science" are two statements with very very different applications for use 😛. It would appear the focus of your query (yay fanciful language!) is on the latter

 

[KnuxNole]

Those aren't actually my measurements, gays.

I'm more like a 38AAA, 5'11", 170 lbs.

Oh, and I have a penis.

Jeeze, you think a chick with those measurements would be caught dead slinking around a friggin science thread on a student doctor forum?

Yeah, those chicks are busy in the Singles forum posting personal ads for horny peeps!

 

[sinuous sausage]

I'm mostly kidding. You gays ain't bad.

 

[Eiot]

well this ended in a whimper. to be expected with a bunch of self-serious halfwits. I hate pre-med students

Haterz gonna hate. Baterz gonna bate.

👍

 

[La Presse]

What is your new avatar pic?

It is from an anime called Shin Chan. I might end up donating so i can get it bigger , but not just yet. Or I might just change it.

 

[SpecterGT260]

well this ended in a whimper. to be expected with a bunch of self-serious halfwits. I hate pre-med students

without focusing too hard on the irony of the last statement, what did you think would happen?

Did you expect to share with us all some deeper knowledge and such a surge of lightbulbs go off simultaneously that poor little La Presse seizes to death?

If that was your goal, I would suggest having a better grasp or understanding of the issues you bring up. Your language suggests you are onto something profound, but the impact is more akin to that time when my niece told me that Dora wasn't really talking to us through the TV box.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I could hold your hand through this, but I don't really feel it necessary as I can't imagine you will be with us for too much longer.

 

[KnuxNole]

Of course she is!!! How else do you stop Swiper from swiping huh?

 

[sinuous sausage]

without focusing too hard on the irony of the last statement, what did you think would happen?

Did you expect to share with us all some deeper knowledge and such a surge of lightbulbs go off simultaneously that poor little La Presse seizes to death?

If that was your goal, I would suggest having a better grasp or understanding of the issues you bring up. Your language suggests you are onto something profound, but the impact is more akin to that time when my niece told me that Dora wasn't really talking to us through the TV box.

dude, you've drooled out the same claptrap since the discussion has started. I say there is no defined method, never mind pre-ordained method in the stars, and you say there is. not only that, you consider an intellectual curiosity as to what that method is to be laughable and derisive. then you link to a intellectually curious article that spends the better part of 10 pages deliberating the very topic I raised in the OP, and yet I'm supposedly in over my head. there seems three options:

1) one of us is smarter than the other--ya know, that whole "capacity" thing

2) one of us is 3) or both of us are being intellectually disingenuous

sorry for thinking abstractly. "science" "good." let's just repeat that over and over.

 

[SpecterGT260]

dude, you've drooled out the same claptrap since the discussion has started. I say there is no defined method, never mind pre-ordained method in the stars, and you say there is. not only that, you consider an intellectual curiosity as to what that method is to be laughable and derisive. then you link to a intellectually curious article that spends the better part of 10 pages deliberating the very topic I raised in the OP, and yet I'm supposedly in over my head. there seems three options:

1) one of us is smarter than the other--ya know, that whole "capacity" thing

2) one of us is 3) or both of us are being intellectually disingenuous

sorry for thinking abstractly. "science" "good." let's just repeat that over and over.

once again, the only thing I linked was the primary source for YOUR link. The more you undermine that link in terms of validity of argument, the more you undermine your own

 

[sinuous sausage]

I could hold your hand through this, but I don't really feel it necessary as I can't imagine you will be with us for too much longer.

 

[SpecterGT260]

you do know that those little blue numbers all over that wiki article reference articles at the bottom which link out to the primary sources, right? click one of 'em. Go on, do it 🙂 I'll wait

 

[sinuous sausage]

once again, the only thing I linked was the primary source for YOUR link. The more you undermine that link in terms of validity of argument, the more you undermine your own

I don't actually read Wikipedia. I just linked that to show (as the paper does) that questioning what science is is what sane, rational, intelligent people do. There's a history of it. This isn't working. I agree with wannabe jester: let us make this a picture thread. I'm sure you're a nice bloke and all, and it's possible much of what I was trying to say was drowned out when I disclosed my alter ego's cup size. That's actually a great idea for the pictures thread.

 

[circulus vitios]

Science is definitely a fad. I'm waiting for alchemy and the dark arts to make a comeback.

 

[La Presse]

I don't actually read Wikipedia. I just linked that to show (as the paper does) that questioning what science is is what sane, rational, intelligent people do. There's a history of it. This isn't working. I agree with wannabe jester: let us make this a picture thread. I'm sure you're a nice bloke and all, and it's possible much of what I was trying to say was drowned out when I disclosed my alter ego's cup size. That's actually a great idea for the pictures thread.

....no. You just suck at making effective arguments. Or you are a troll.

 

[SpecterGT260]

dude, you've drooled out the same claptrap since the discussion has started. I say there is no defined method, never mind pre-ordained method in the stars, and you say there is. not only that, you consider an intellectual curiosity as to what that method is to be laughable and derisive. then you link to a intellectually curious article that spends the better part of 10 pages deliberating the very topic I raised in the OP, and yet I'm supposedly in over my head. there seems three options:

1) one of us is smarter than the other--ya know, that whole "capacity" thing

2) one of us is 3) or both of us are being intellectually disingenuous

sorry for thinking abstractly. "science" "good." let's just repeat that over and over.

just to revisit this a bit....

bold: I agree

underlined: this seems to be the fundamental problem with your reasoning. Method for what? For science? well... yes. Science itself is clearly demarcated because it isn't terribly complex. It is just the ideal. How about methods for attaining scientific validity? I would agree (and mentioned so several times in ways that didn't use a thesaurus but still seemed too complex for you) that there is plenty of wiggle room here. What some people consider to be "good science" others would not.

However, your initial post and those which follow (and this is treating it as if there isn't a bored and/or sexually frustrated troll off his meds sitting across from me on the internetz right now) pose the question, "is science capable of uncovering truth". Without waxing overly philosophic here.... the answer is yes. Any shortcomings are not the fault of "science" but of those who attempt to wield it. You allude to this in the OP when you talk about the career opportunists. So basically, I am still unsure why you are so hung up on this.

to recap some of the confusions around here --

"Science" is a concept. The things you are complaining about are not science, they are scientific (or scientif-ish if we are talking about things like homeopathy ) i.e. of or relating to science... I think... I dunno, you're the arbitrary scholar here, am I using my suffixes correctly? 😀

Yes, "scientific validity" is determined by popular vote. We recognize that a purely unbiased and systematic approach is often unreasonable or impossible. But anything attempting to reach an ideal suffers from the same pitfall and is inescapably subject to assessment through popular opinion (btw, this would be a fun place to plug your earlier reference to religion/cults/whatever). However, this has little to no bearing on whether or not the ideal that was attempted to be reached is still valid.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I don't actually read Wikipedia. I just linked that to show (as the paper does) that questioning what science is is what sane, rational, intelligent people do. There's a history of it. This isn't working. I agree with wannabe jester: let us make this a picture thread. I'm sure you're a nice bloke and all, and it's possible much of what I was trying to say was drowned out when I disclosed my alter ego's cup size. That's actually a great idea for the pictures thread.

except they are not asking "what is science". They are asking "is THAT science" (they say as they point to some random object).

This is like the 4th or 5th time I have said this.... It isn't even terribly complicated, yet you seem to struggle with it. Linking a source after not reading it before criticizing me for a source which actually came from your source which you didnt read before linking it (intentionally redundant for effect) is like.... oober fail. And add one more for still not understanding the issue with the links and how they relate to your thread in the first place 👍


followup:bold....

didnt you just spend a good 2 minutes of my life that I will never get back trying to discredit that paper??.... this is what spawned this latest tangent in this trainwreck of a thread. This is the sort of thing that keeps me from taking you seriously.

 

[Freesia88]

Sorry.

:: ahem ::

OMG! It's October 1 and I've only received interview invites from nine schools! 🙁

Here's my stats:

34C, 5'4", 125 lbs, 31 MCAT (should I retake?!?!) help!

Also, I've got pretty good ECs and my teacher wrote me a wonderful LOR!!! I worked in lab and stuff.

Time to give up?!?!

Should I withdraw?!? Or maybe look at DO?

Will someone look at my PS? That has to be my weakness! Gap year to write a better one, fosho!

👍

😕. That's what I thought initially when you mentioned 34C, height and weight as possible indicators for AMCAS.

Why are you arguing with a troll? I'm still amazed OP believed that her "size", height and weight are relevant for AMCAS.

This has come up before...I believe the gentleman in question had 7.5"

 

[487806]

👍

Freesia joins the party!

 

[sinuous sausage]

....no. You just suck at making effective arguments. Or you are a troll.

the thing is, you're just not a funny person, and I can tell you think you are. there's nothing wrong with it, I'm also not a funny person. but, Jesus Christos, at least Spectre is going for the scholarly angle with this. you sat pretty hard on the thread clown role, and you've failed utterly.

logic is hard, so I don't discount the bold portion.

 

[Freesia88]

Freesia joins the party!

'Sup B?

 

[sinuous sausage]

just to revisit this a bit....

bold: I agree

underlined: this seems to be the fundamental problem with your reasoning. Method for what? For science? well... yes. Science itself is clearly demarcated because it isn't terribly complex. It is just the ideal. How about methods for attaining scientific validity? I would agree (and mentioned so several times in ways that didn't use a thesaurus but still seemed too complex for you) that there is plenty of wiggle room here. What some people consider to be "good science" others would not.

However, your initial post and those which follow (and this is treating it as if there isn't a bored and/or sexually frustrated troll off his meds sitting across from me on the internetz right now) pose the question, "is science capable of uncovering truth". Without waxing overly philosophic here.... the answer is yes. Any shortcomings are not the fault of "science" but of those who attempt to wield it. You allude to this in the OP when you talk about the career opportunists. So basically, I am still unsure why you are so hung up on this.

to recap some of the confusions around here --

"Science" is a concept. The things you are complaining about are not science, they are scientific (or scientif-ish if we are talking about things like homeopathy ) i.e. of or relating to science... I think... I dunno, you're the arbitrary scholar here, am I using my suffixes correctly? 😀

Yes, "scientific validity" is determined by popular vote. We recognize that a purely unbiased and systematic approach is often unreasonable or impossible. But anything attempting to reach an ideal suffers from the same pitfall and is inescapably subject to assessment through popular opinion (btw, this would be a fun place to plug your earlier reference to religion/cults/whatever). However, this has little to no bearing on whether or not the ideal that was attempted to be reached is still valid.

mother of god. I can't...I won't. you win.

 

[Freesia88]

mother of god. I can't...I won't. you win.

Well...if you're gonna take on Specter, you better be packin'. Just sayin'
He has a way of wearing you out...

 

[sinuous sausage]

Science is definitely a fad. I'm waiting for alchemy and the dark arts to make a comeback.

I already don't like you, Simple Jack.

 

[SpecterGT260]

mother of god. I can't...I won't. you win.

I choose to take this as sincere because it makes you look less silly 🙂

might I suggest some meditation on the concept of "ideal" and maybe try to look up some other examples of ideals that are relatively simple in concept and become a righteous mess when people devise systems to quantify the "proximity to ideal"?


I understand just fine that you take issue with the scope of things that get called "science". what I don't understand is why anyone would attempt to extrapolate that back up to the foundational principles in the first place.

 

[La Presse]

the thing is, you're just not a funny person, and I can tell you think you are. there's nothing wrong with it, I'm also not a funny person. but, Jesus Christos, at least Spectre is going for the scholarly angle with this. you sat pretty hard on the thread clown role, and you've failed utterly.

logic is hard, so I don't discount the bold portion.

You sound mad.

 

[circulus vitios]

I already don't like you, Simple Jack.

 

[sinuous sausage]

I choose to take this as sincere because it makes you look less silly 🙂

might I suggest some meditation on the concept of "ideal" and maybe try to look up some other examples of ideals that are relatively simple in concept and become a righteous mess when people devise systems to quantify the "proximity to ideal"?

sure, I'm all about the ideal. the pure essence of an idea existent independent of my comprehension or attempt to realize it. I believe things REALLY exist.

Science is not one of these. It has no essential characteristics that can properly identify it, or demarcate it, from non-science. There are characteristics commonly associated with science, but these characteristics belong equally to other ideas: skepticism, testing, empiricism, inference, peer-review, etc. could be attributed to a discipline we all consider non-scientific, such as Intelligent Design or the dark arts or homeopathy. For Popper it was Freud's psychoanalysis. The ideal cannot be realized because it is not a defined ideal.

Really, you sound like a metaphysical realist, which is why I think we're closer than either one realizes.

 

[sinuous sausage]

except they are not asking "what is science". They are asking "is THAT science" (they say as they point to some random object).

This is like the 4th or 5th time I have said this.... It isn't even terribly complicated, yet you seem to struggle with it. Linking a source after not reading it before criticizing me for a source which actually came from your source which you didnt read before linking it (intentionally redundant for effect) is like.... oober fail. And add one more for still not understanding the issue with the links and how they relate to your thread in the first place 👍


followup:bold....

didnt you just spend a good 2 minutes of my life that I will never get back trying to discredit that paper??.... this is what spawned this latest tangent in this trainwreck of a thread. This is the sort of thing that keeps me from taking you seriously.

the paper's on my side, brochacha. I've been on board with it since you linked it.

 

[sinuous sausage]

You sound mad.

 

[SpecterGT260]

sure, I'm all about the ideal. the pure essence of an idea existent independent of my comprehension or attempt to realize it. I believe things REALLY exist.

Science is not one of these. It has no essential characteristics that can properly identify it, or demarcate it, from non-science. There are characteristics commonly associated with science, but these characteristics belong equally to other ideas: skepticism, testing, empiricism, inference, peer-review, etc. could be attributed to a discipline we all consider non-scientific, such as Intelligent Design or the dark arts or homeopathy. For Popper it was Freud's psychoanalysis. The ideal cannot be realized because it is not a defined ideal.

Really, you sound like a metaphysical realist, which is why I think we're closer than either one realizes.

so you are getting hung up on the fact that the metrics used to establish scientific from non-scientific are intangible? .

I disagree that it is not a defined ideal. It is pretty simple at a very high level. The confusion arises when we take individual terms of the definition and ask "well, realistically, what does that MEAN?"

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

ok, so we need to know what constitutes "systematic" and what constitutes "experiment". When am I systematic enough?

Experiment: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

well crap.... how controlled is "controlled"? how valid is "valid"?

These are the issues that arise.... Nobody is debating that there is not gray area about whether or not something is scientific. But it is inappropriate to replace the term "scientific" with "science" and suddenly question the validity of science itself, i.e. the practice of objectively testing hypotheses under controlled circumstances. By simple definition alone the concept of "science", again, at a very high level, is completely infallible because the definition includes several lofty concepts.

to put it another way, there is certainly debate about whether something is scientific or "of good science". However, this is an internal reflection about how well the work adheres to the core principles of the ideal. "how much of the ideal", if you will. We can tell when something is faster or slower than something else, but when is something "fast" or when is it "slow". We can only compare to an ideal (speed of light, for this example) but the arbitrary line of scientific/fast unscientific/slow is arrived at through mutual agreement. In the same way, things can be clearly assessed in comparison as more or less scientific than another work, and therein lies the accepted value of the work.

The only reason I am harping on the word choice and the nuance is because you seem to want to turn and go upstream with the line of logic and I interpret this as a misunderstanding of meaning.