What is Digg?177 Comments
- Murdats, on 02/12/2008, -9/+50sorry to bring this up but this is one of the many reasons that science supersedes religion.
scientists are not closed minded elitists (in general, the closed minded elitists are still closed minded and elitist)
but they base their beliefs on evidence, if the evidence shows something else, they will change their beliefs to take this into consideration.
as this article shows, you have scientists spending their life believing one thing, and readjusting that as soon as they are presented with new evidence related to that.
this is part of why I find science so beautiful. - brettmurf, on 02/12/2008, -1/+33Actually, every educated, intelligent person should question it. Then they should make up their mind and decide it seems pretty correct. The key is "Change their Mind" not if they questioned a belief.
- inactive, on 02/12/2008, -3/+31Nothing by Einstein, way to be misleading.
- omnithought, on 02/12/2008, -3/+26Yeah, kinda happens when they peer review things and if the evidence doesn't support the theory, the theory gets chucked, as opposed to someone thinking they have the ultimate answer and never changing their minds regardless of what evidence is discovered.
- Elliuotatar, on 02/12/2008, -4/+27When the world's greatest scientific thinkers? What?
1. A PHYSICIST changed his mind about a HISTORY QUESTION.
2. A PSYCHOLOGIST changed his mind about a BIOLOGY QUESTION.
3. A PSYCHOLOGIST changed her mind about a PHYSICS QUESTION. (Or religion, take your pick.)
4. A PSYCHOLOGIST changed his mind about a PHILOSOPHY QUESTION. (Which he thinks is a biology question.)
5. A PHYSICIST changed his mind about PHILOSOPHY QUESTION.
6. A PHILOSOPHER changed her mind about a SOCIOLOGY QUESTION.
7. A PHYSICISIST change his mind about a PHYSICS QUESTI... oh wait.
8. A GENETICIST changed his mind about THE ENVIRONMENT.
9. AN ANTHROPOLOGIST changed her mind about EVOLUTION.
10. A BIOLOGIST changed his mind about BIOLOG... Oops again!
Only two of these "geniuses" were actually experts in the field they chose to formulate an opinion about and then later changed their opinion on. That would be like ME deciding that maybe string theory wasn't such a good idea after all.
Also, how in the hell do you call someone one of the greatest minds when it took her YEARS to decide that PARANORMAL STUFF DOESN'T EXIST after she'd done experiment after experiment that came up negative! That means she's exactly the OPPOSITE of smart. - jacenat, on 02/12/2008, -1/+22isn't that the reason for science in the first place?
to change or refine views? - tightscrummy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+19He hasn't changed his mind because he's been dead for +50 years.
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -2/+18It's only hard to change their mind IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE WRONG.
- 40yrOldVirgin, on 02/12/2008, -2/+14They forgot Galileo. He used to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but he changed his mind because the Church told him to.
- manicleek, on 02/12/2008, -5/+17because no educated, intelligent person can question it?
- Croaton, on 02/12/2008, -1/+12Great job missing the point...
FTA: "Of course, had we the slightest experimental evidence in favor of unification, of supersymmetry and superstrings, I'd be the first popping the champagne open. But it's been over twenty years, and all attempts so far have failed."
After 20 years of study without an ounce of corroborating evidence it may be time to take a step back and see whats wrong. That doesn't mean "giving up"... it means that you refine your hypothosis and try to find answers with a slightly different approch.
Other then that you just resort to Godwin's Law... which, I'm sorry to say, just makes you look like and idiot... - inactive, on 02/12/2008, -1/+10thank you for questioning my credibility, as you should. It was part of an international summer school for young physicists. Basically, the founder and CEO of RIM, Mike Lazaridis, made a large donation to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, and that money is partially put towards taking 100 of the best high school physics students from around the globe, to try to teach them the fundamentals of theoretical physics, in a two week period during the summer. So, to answer your question, no, my friend from England and I did not have university education. Keep in mind that Eistein's famous thought experiment about traveling alongside a beam of light was made at the age of 16. In no way am I comparing my knowledge or thought process to the great Albert himself, but I bring it up merely to point out that young age and curiosity sometimes leads to profound breakthroughs in the fundamentals of complex concepts.
But, in all honesty, Smolin did most of the talking. We merely suggested the hypothesis that time may not be necessary.
(to 'nospinhere' below me: ***** off) - Sendai129, on 02/12/2008, -1/+10This is possibly the singles most ill-thought out comment I have ever read anywhere... It is in asking and pursuing these fundamental questions that make us human and make it possible to strive for a Utopian society. Have you ever heard of a great man by the name of Norman Borlaug? While he was off wasting his time thinking about genes and genetic mutation and all that stuff we "shouldn't give a ***** about", he managed to save OVER A BILLION PEOPLE with genetically modified plants. OVER A ***** BILLION PEOPLE. Scientists ask these sorts of questions so that they can understand the world around us so that it may one day be shaped into the world you speak of. The only way to achieve it is to first figure all this out and then with that knowledge we can make this a better world.
- deakBlue, on 02/12/2008, -2/+11So, turns out Simon Baron-Cohen (autism researcher) is Ali G's cousin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Fam ...
Respect. - omnithought, on 02/12/2008, -7/+16Take note: no question about evolution. Just sayin'.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -4/+12don't be sorry to bring it up, it's a very important point. I'm glad people are finally addressing the "dogmatic science" argument that the religious seem so fond of. religion and science share many common goals, such as explaining the universe and our place in it. religion was our first (and worst) attempt at science and philosophy, its sad that in this age of knowledge and achievement, that people still cling to the primitive superstitions of our species' history.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -0/+8idiotic. if you asked me how many children i'd let die so i could build Hubble, I'd say "How on earth does the building of a space telescope kill children?" I mean, were the funds stolen from famine relief organizations? Were the bodies of small children used in the construction? Is NASA funded by the taxes of starving African families? Tell me how exactly you think your hypothetical would play out, because I think your going to struggle to find a link between space exploration and starving kids.
- 40yrOldVirgin, on 02/12/2008, -1/+9He was alive at some point, but he changed his mind about that too.
- mOdQuArK, on 02/12/2008, -3/+11Let's see, if I'm a layman trying to decide which theories sound more credible, do I blindly accept some wild-assed theory from someone who might be crazy, a moron or have a conflict of interest, or do I put a little more credibility in an study which has at least been put through a standard process of criticism by the author's peers? Hmmmmm, it's so hard to make up my mind about this.
The only thing "dangerous" here is your idea that everyone has to be so "open-minded" that their brains fall out. It's certainly not perfect, but there are a bunch of damn good reasons why the peer review system was put together the way it is, and the only people trying to bypass it are the people who don't like it when it doesn't give them the results they want. - sirlancelot88, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7You've got a good point. However, human evolution is a biological anthropologist's field of study. So make that three experts instead of two.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -1/+8he didn't change his mind, the Catholics put him under house arrest. His opinion didn't change, he just wasn't allowed to express it anymore.
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -0/+7yep, who knows what he might think if he was alive and thus able to change his mind. Science has come a long way since Einstein's day.
- TheTruthHurts, on 02/12/2008, -2/+8Wait , so scientist change their minds?
- Mescaline, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6unfortunately it's the best we have
- SPThom, on 02/12/2008, -0/+6Yeah because the highly scientific/mathematically minded are HUGE grammar nazis, right?
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+7That comment was relating to quantum physics, not atomic theory.
- jacenat, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5when i was 16, i also suffered "there has been all done" syndrome.
but since then, there is not one single day i don't encounter a mystery.
it all depends on how long and close you are looking at things. - Slavidskis, on 02/12/2008, -4/+9Just goes to show that we are still living in a time where anything can be discovered or disproved even though many think it has all been done.
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6Funnily enough, it's you who don't sound so smart to me.
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Political correctness and science are heading towards a crossroads. It will soon be impossible to follow both simultaneously. I just wonder how the masses will respond after having been brainwashed by over 40 years of egalitarian propaganda.
- eightballrj, on 02/12/2008, -3/+8@hmcook87
There certainly is a place for God in everything right? If not, you actually think that everything that is on the Earth and is in the universe happened by CHANCE? I have been both a BioSci/PreMed major and now am a Mech Eng student. So, I have been all over the sciences for most of my adult life. During that time, I have certainly studied how things have happened. I have studied evolution, physics, genetics, more physics, numerics, mathematics, still more physics, etc. Just because I know why, how, when something seems to have happened.... does that instantly mean that God had no part in its creation? He had no part in its design, functionality, and in some cases its intelligence? Is that not possible, if not obvious? - ashlocke, on 02/12/2008, -0/+5Here are the full replies (and not just a 1 paragraph summary) :
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_15.html
I read a lot of them, and they're all fascinating. - Daz3, on 02/12/2008, -1/+6Despite what Einstein thinks about quantum physics and dice, the probabilistic quantum theories have been verified through experiment time and time again...
- lukeev, on 02/12/2008, -2/+7Agreed, but science in general is certainly not yet free from dogmatic assumptions and bias, careers and reputations are at stake and let's be honest, smart people can still be ***** (intellect is not intelligence). Science is methodology, not a position or ideology.
- darienphoenix, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5Furthering humanities understanding of the universe is what makes us worth saving in the first place.
- JasonMaloney101, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4I logged in just to digg you down. Congrats.
- smacksaw, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5smurfsahoy is on fire. He gets it.
Should the layman accept peer-reviewed agreements as the end of the discussion, or a launching point to ask new questions?
You have to understand - it's not credible if we simply stop at peer review. Peer review is like the break you take in a car race to gas up and change your tires. It's then you adjust your strategy.
The point is to constantly refine, not simply be satisfied. I think you are the person I am speaking of that is most dangerous because there's a point where you're satisfied. Peer review should ask as many questions as it answers. I don't think you really understand how it works, because if you did you would see the inherent flaws in the process.
Peer review should create dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction in peers testing the veracity of the science and also developing and refining the theories to always find something better. It should spur competition and spark imagination, not placate anyone. - smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5You completely missed the point of that post. He said he is worried about people citing peer review as a reason for something being true, and nothing else. Which is completely valid. Sure, peer review is better than not peer review. Nobody ever argued otherwise here. The problem is that people tend to perceive peer review as in itself sufficient as a package deal for accepting a study as true, which is highly dangerous. You should actually read studies yourself before believing them as absolute truth... pretty crazy concept, huh?
- hmcook87, on 02/12/2008, -1/+5Why can't we land on the moon, build the Hubble telescope, study history (so we don't repeat it), while stopping people from starving to death at the same time. we have plenty of people, there's no reason why we need to stop scientific progress in order to address poverty.
- FreshWes, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4i hate you for this
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4By definition, peer reviewed studies, even if the process was 100% perfect, would be wrong 5% of the time. Add in the fact that it is highly imperfect, and that also many many studies have glaring problems that cannot possibly be detected even if the reviewer is godly (simply due to lack of all the details being given to them), and they're probably wrong 15-30% of the time, depending on the journal. More in some fields.
It doesn't even take complex statistics to figure this out for yourself. Pick any controversial topic and do a literature search, and you'll find dozens of articles that all directly contradict one another. If half say X and the other say not X, half are wrong. All were peer reviewed...
Peer review is a VERY weak reason to believe a study. READING the study is a good reason to believe or not believe a study. What YOU are saying is like saying that we should let everybody go free in guantanamo right now who are believed to have planned 9/11, because some guy had a theory suggesting otherwise, and some other guy with a PhD looked over his argument and couldn't find any glaringly obvious logical flaws.
I think the orbital energy weapons thing would be more logical than that, personally... - inactive, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Here we go again with more humanities people trying to discuss quantum physics.
- sabach, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4I'm relatively certain that most of those people would continue to starve to death no matter how much money you threw at the problem.
- alz0rz, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4waste of vertical space imho
- known, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Always "Ask Why"and we will discover the unknown world....
- Cyberen, on 02/12/2008, -0/+4Gee, nobody talking about #8?
What a shocker.
(cue the Manbearpig-referencing idiot) - strangewill, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4Smurfsahoy, what are YOU doing to prevent this?
- smurfsahoy, on 02/12/2008, -1/+4You have a pretty stilted view of peer review processes. Its not some big oaken hall full of robed academics pondering and pacing about and pondering anything in an open-ended forum. There's really nothing open about it at all, in fact. An editor of a journal simply sends out copies of a submitted study to a couple of experts in the field, who rate it, and send it back. They don't all sit in a room together and talk it out. The editor takes their advice (just that, advice, not binding at all), and makes a completely business-oriented decision about whether this article will increase the prestige of the paper/sell subscriptions/fill out pages/not draw lawsuits/etc.
The vast majority of the time, peers involved in the process have no contact with one another at all, and once the paper is published, the process is already over. So I don't quite see where this "smoothing out over time" is coming from.
There's also no guarantee of scrutiny most of the time. These are professors and researchers with busy schedules. They don't set aside all day to read a potential study. They're going to read it barely more carefully in many cases than they read any other article, and give advice based on a few observations here and there, and an overall gestalt of quality. - covertbadger, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3No, it's called freedom of choice. If someone wants to work on astronomy and contribute what they can to various famine charities, that's their choice. If they want to work on astronomy and completely ignore famine charities, that's their choice too, and you're in no position to condemn.
- ashlocke, on 02/12/2008, -0/+3Whoops, wrong link. Thats page 15, but heres the directory:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html#contribut ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is