March For Science, April 22, 2017

[nitsuj]

hmmm...

per wiki;

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.​

Wow philosophy is a broad term and I still don't know what it means lol...

buried in that wiki page was a sub article on logic, ...turns out logic and reasoning was merely "examined by philosophy"..whatever that means...but looks like I meant Logic, instead of philosophy...and of course logic does not get pooped on by the "sciences". But I'll stick to my convoluted point...there needs to be more logic.wrong thread but today I learned philosophy is not about reasoning or logic.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
wrong thread but today I learned philosophy is not about reasoning or logic.

That's ok. My guess, from looking over comments regarding the demise of the "Philosophy sub-forum" here, is that most people don't know what "Philosophy" is.

The Boss; "... The reason is that the Philosophy forum over the past couple years has been almost impossible to moderate fairly and two out of three threads end up locked..."​

RIP
Oct 15, 2012

 

[BillTre]

I went to the March in Eugene (Oregon) and took a bunch of pictures.
I would guess there were between 1,000 and 2,000 people there.
From looking over my pictures, I would estimate there were
~5% anti-Trump signs.
Most signs were pro-science, some were pro-environment (specifically).
2-5% were pro-more-science-funding.

 

[Evo]

That's ok. My guess, from looking over comments regarding the demise of the "Philosophy sub-forum" here, is that most people don't know what "Philosophy" is.

The Boss; "... The reason is that the Philosophy forum over the past couple years has been almost impossible to moderate fairly and two out of three threads end up locked..."​

RIP
Oct 15, 2012

LOL, don't ask me what the quality of the threads in that Philosophy forum were. Don't. "Are baseballs sentient?" It was argued that they were.

 

[OmCheeto]

LOL, don't ask me what the quality of the threads in that Philosophy forum were. Don't. "Are baseballs sentient?" It was argued that they were.

I seem to remember that the forum mentor once complimented one of my posts "in there". So yesterday I spent two hours trying to find it. FAIL!
But I did find another doozy:

"Do you think humans have the ability to see in the mind of god?"​

I thought my response was wonderful.

Excerpt:

2. God, as described by most religions, is either a father or mother figure.
Fathers and mothers are usually wiser than their children. Therefore, we should try to understand them. Because if we don't, we'll be just a bunch of daft children.​

Even though I'd only been at the forum for a little over a year, and had never read the forum rules, I sensed that politeness was paramount. Otherwise, I'd have written that last sentence just a little bit differently.

Because if we don't, we'll ALL be a bunch of daft children, like you. ​

 

[Callmejoe]

They have good intentions, but I don't think this is a real meaningful protest. It like having a march for "morality". It sounds nice and everyone wants to say that they are moral yet people do immoral things all the time.

 

[Borg]

LOL, don't ask me what the quality of the threads in that Philosophy forum were. Don't. "Are baseballs sentient?" It was argued that they were.

I seem to remember that the forum mentor once complimented one of my posts "in there". So yesterday I spent two hours trying to find it. FAIL!

I didn't see any posts by you Om but, it looks like Evo started that particular debate.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/an-official-debate-thread.79862/#post-611693

I know this sounds terrible, but I truly believe that I could start a thread in philosophy right now asking why baseballs aren't sentient and half a dozen people would start a serious discussion about it.

 

[OmCheeto]

I didn't see any posts by you Om but, it looks like Evo started that particular debate.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/an-official-debate-thread.79862/#post-611693

Wow...

Way over my head...

But going through the thread, I noticed one name, of a mutual PF/FB friend, who was the only person who posted a picture of her sign at the march:

Smart lady.

 

[mheslep]

They have good intentions, ...

What's the scientific basis for your knowledge of their (whoever they are) intentions?

 

[BillTre]

Here are a couple of post-march stories from Science Magazine.
One is mostly on several surveys and their preliminary results, the other more on the mood and coverage.
To me, they reflect what I saw in the photos I took (post #63).
I find this interesting in that it might provide some data about the arguments leading up to the march.

Personally, I did not find the Eugene (Oregon) march very blatantly anti-Trump and even less give-me more-money-for-research. This seems to also be the case in a larger scope.
I would have liked there to have been more publicity for my issue of choice (science and rational integrity affecting policy) than there was, but its a complex world.

I found it puzzling that the surveyors had so much trouble with collecting data in the rain. There are many solutions to this including water proof paper and water proof containers for tables with allow them to be used in wet environments. We did this for years in fish facilities. They have also been used in aquaculture and probably other places.

 

[mheslep]

A march for something like Less Bias in Science might have been worthwhile, instead celebrity led the way:

 

[collinsmark]

A march for something like Less Bias in Science might have been worthwhile, instead celebrity led the way:

Of course reducing bias in science is important. I speculate that Bill Nye and other science celebrities would be the first to agree with you on that point.

But there is something more troubling afoot in today's world: policy makers are ignoring science altogether when forming policy. That's a big deal. It's terrifying.

 

[BillTre]

There's nothing wrong with celebrity in of itself.
Its what celebrities might do that could be troubling.

Is there some unstated problem with Bill Nye?

By the way, I think that's one of the better pictures I've seen of him.
Thanks!

 

[strangerep]

I watched some of the local TV news coverage of the marches in my part of the world. Unexpectedly, I became a bit depressed when I saw some of the signs...

One of them proclaimed "I believe in science" -- which totally misses the point that science is not an alternative religion.

 

[Astronuc]

which totally misses the point that science is not an alternative religion.

Perhaps it is for some, for others it's entertainment or some other nonsense.

John Oliver discusses how and why media outlets so often report untrue or incomplete information as science. The problem is often not the science, but rather how it is communicated or miscommunicated to the public.

 

[RonL]

Wow...

Way over my head...

But going through the thread, I noticed one name, of a mutual PF/FB friend, who was the only person who posted a picture of her sign at the march:

View attachment 196696​

Smart lady.

Sure miss lisab ?

 

[OmCheeto]

Sure miss lisab ?

Moonbear.

I didn't ask her permission to post the picture, which is why I cropped her face off.
But in the past when I've notified Moonie that I shared something here, that she said on FB, she's always been fine with it.

ps. I miss lisab also.

BTW, thank you for the segue for my response to Astronuc's post:

The problem is often not the science, but rather how it is communicated or miscommunicated to the public.

Which was in response to:

science is not an alternative religion

hmmmmm... Where do I start?

It all started, two days after the March for Science, on my local MFS FB feed, when a youngnotevenclosetoascientist lady, accused people who didn't trust a certain scientific consensus, of being guilty of believing in pseudoscience.

Not wanting to start that particular debate here, as that topic was the only topic that lisab and I ever fully disagreed upon here at this forum, I will try and tie this into both Astro and Strangreps comments:

I'll start with "science is not an alternative religion", as, in the past, I once used the phrase; "faith based science", and I'm sure people cringed when I said that. It's also the easiest to explain.
What I meant, was that the scientists here at PF are so freakin' smart, and I am so scientifically illiterate, that I have no choice but to have faith in what they are talking about.
And as far as "alternative religion", I would like to point out

"Fake Science News" The Sugar Conspiracy - notable example [ref: PF]

My point being, that sometimes the juggernaut of knowledge gets stuck, and it does become "an alternative religion" type of dogma.

"Everyone believes it, I kind of have my doubts, but that's a lot of work to disprove it, and it's not really hurting anyone to believe this, so... meh."

ah hmmmm...

On to point two:

"The problem is often not the science, but rather how it is communicated or miscommunicated to the public."

This was my takeaway from the great FB debate I was involved in.

Of the 68 people engaged in the debate, 26 people were "pro policy" and only 8 were "con policy". And yet the general public has voted down the "pro policy" initiative every single time it has come up. The point being: Scientists have not convinced the people of my city that there is any validity to their conclusion.

This indicates, as far as I can tell, some possible conclusions:

1. a major lack of communication
2. the general public is smarter than we all think
3. the pseudoscientists are correct

I'm going to throw out #3, as I hate pseudoscience.

So that leaves 1 & 2.
#2 strikes me as only half right, as, I'm sure everyone remembers George Carlin's comment about the intelligence of the average person.

pps. In my studies over the last few days, I'm even less convinced that the "scientific consensus" is correct in this "pro policy", "science is right" matter.
ppps. Thank you John Oliver, for that "p-hacking" term.
pppps. One of the articles I read regarding our local "pro policy" matter said that "There is a weak (r^2 = 0.23), but statistically significant (p < 0.01), relationship between [insert fighting words here]". From my 3 hours of study yesterday, you need a "Null Hypothesis" to get a "p value", and for the life of me I couldn't figure out where the people in that study came up with their "Null Hypothesis" data.
ppppps. My final conclusion: Statistics is the bastard child of a Quantum Physicist and a Lawyer. Lots of ways to interpret things, and WAY too many worthless words.

 

[XZ923]

There's nothing wrong with celebrity in of itself.
Its what celebrities might do that could be troubling.

Is there some unstated problem with Bill Nye?

By the way, I think that's one of the better pictures I've seen of him.
Thanks!

Couldn't agree more with the first point.

No unstated problem with Bill Nye (at least not that we know of; if we did it wouldn't be unstated). My concern is that he's called for jailing people who don't agree with him:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

That to me means he's unfit to be the face of rational discourse on scientific material. As far as I'm concerned, you can claim the Earth is flat and the sun circles around it if you want to. The best antidote to false claims is fact, not inflammatory rhetoric. I'd rather see a few PhDs leading that march, even if they didn't have a TV show of their own. When you link your cause (however worthy) with the kind of statements Bill Nye has made about the opposition IMO you give up some of the legitimacy of your protest.

 

[BillTre]

Of the 68 people engaged in the debate, 26 people were "pro policy" and only 8 were "con policy". And yet the general public has voted down the "pro policy" initiative every single time it has come up. The point being: Scientists have not convinced the people of my city that there is any validity to their conclusion.

My interpretation would be a little different in a detail.
the result of an election reflects not only the ability to convince people among a population, but also how many of those people actually go out and vote in the issue (often called turn-out or motivation).

Thank you John Oliver, for that "p-hacking" term.

This is probably the article John Oliver referred to on 538.

 

[OmCheeto]

My interpretation would be a little different in a detail.
the result of an election reflects not only the ability to convince people among a population, but also how many of those people actually go out and vote in the issue (often called turn-out or motivation).

I would agree, but it's been 61 years, and there have been 4 votes: 1956, 1962, 1980, 2013
So 3 generations of people haven't been convinced.

I just went over some google hits on the topic, and the same problem popped up as in the FB discussion.

A Sci-Am, "pro-topic" advocate, grouped everyone who voted against it into the pseudoscience pool.
Bad, bad, move. We may be skeptical, but don't call us stupid.

I'm against it because I see marginal, at best, evidence that it has any value.

(The pseudoscientists apparently believe it causes brain damage, cancer, and god knows what else. I don't follow pseudoscience, so I don't know what else.)

This is probably the article John Oliver referred to on 538.

11 stars out of 10!

"How many statisticians does it take to ensure at least a 50 percent chance of a disagreement about p-values?"​

I found lots of funny anecdotes about p-values, in my research, once I found the "key-word".

xkcd

 

[BillTre]

Nice xkcd!

If you want to see more data on attendance and motivations, here is another news article from Science magazine about their own on-line survey about who went to Marches for Science and why.

 

[mheslep]

...That's a big deal. It's terrifying.

I think the finding by Ioannidis, across many fields of study, is the big deal:
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

 

[collinsmark]

I think the finding by Ioannidis, across many fields of study, is the big deal:
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

There are http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm.

But to reject science altogether -- not just a few individual studies, but the very foundation of scientific method and principles themselves -- due to a relatively minor, yet convenient, perceived discrepancy somewhere along the way is the biggest wrong of all.

 

[collinsmark]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Science, Abraham Lincoln, Immigrants, and the Fading of America

 

[mheslep]

NdGT: Cult of Science

 

[OmCheeto]

NdGT: Cult of Science

Fun to listen to at 1/2 speed.

Other than that: