Most abused word in Science?

  • Thread starter dipole
  • Start date
  • #26
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
712
nano - <ANYTHING>
Yes, yes a billion times yes.
 
  • #27
chiro
Science Advisor
4,790
132
Any abuse of all the above words and more for purposes of establishing false credibility.

Science, it's practitioners (scientists, engineers, and so on), and its reputation tend to always fall victim to bastardization of its use to establish twisted or blatantly false credibility for something.

Trust is a sacred thing, and for something like science, you do not want to turn science into something that people don't respect just for the sake of a nice promotion or a quick buck.

It's like everybody one day not trusting money: the chaos that ensues from this is the kind of thing that will happen if people stop believing in science, and it's a lot better to just stick to things that are genuine and credible so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.
 
  • #28
Trust is a sacred thing, and for something like science, you do not want to turn science into something that people don't respect just for the sake of a nice promotion or a quick buck.
I heard a guy, when I was waiting at a bus stop, talking with his friend about how science is a load of rubbish and how anyone can sit on their.. bottoms.. all day and come up with stupid theories.
I've heard this kind of thing before too so I don't think distrust in 'science' is as scarce as you think it is :frown:
 
  • #29
chiro
Science Advisor
4,790
132
I heard a guy, when I was waiting at a bus stop, talking with his friend about how science is a load of rubbish and how anyone can sit on their.. bottoms.. all day and come up with stupid theories.
I've heard this kind of thing before too so I don't think distrust in 'science' is as scarce as you think it is :frown:
You'll get people who say that because they don't understand it, are ignorant, or choose to want to believe something even with enough evidence for it to be worth considering (doesn't mean it's "right", nothing is "certain" in an absolute way) in which they are just stupid. These people will always be like this and no-one should care about them because they are their own worst enemy.

It's the people that don't want to be ignorant or stupid, but yet don't have the understanding and would like some of that so that they can choose where to go from there.

For these people, it's important that in the same way that a proper journalist has a responsibility of telling people what is really going on and being a force that challenges the official account given by people who may have incentives contrary to those of the public, the scientist also has the same job in that their public role is not abuse their position by using their situation to deceive the public for someones gain (their own in the end, but might be who they work for, who signs their paycheck, their political or other affiliations and so on).

When you get a breakdown for something like this you get chaos, and chaos is the stuff that we had when we had idiots fighting wars over this and that because they couldn't think straight, and because they were all looking for a cause to believe in because they couldn't use their own brain and initiative to think for themselves.

So for the people like the one you spoke to, don't try and think that its a bad thing when you get people that think like that: if they choose not to consider there everyday experiences of cause and effect, and even just a second opinion of any kind, let them be in their own ignorance. Trying to help people like this is like trying to start a fire using wet wood: it's a waste of precious energy and it won't work unless the wood dries.

They have the right, as funny and as ridiculous as it is to believe whatever the hell they want to believe, but if they want to become less ignorant, they will eventually like everybody else who changes their perspective end up in a situation where they can see a new perspective.

The other thing is that we don't know their background. If you get people who are brainwashed into a particular paradigm regardless of what it is, then who are we to know what it's like to be fed this crap for the moment they were born. This is another reason to understand why people need to come to their own conclusions because we just don't know the kind of crap that they have been dealt in the past.

But I wouldn't worry: you have a lot of like minded people right here on these forums with very good intentions for the internal and even the external community at large, so it's not by any means a lost cause :)
 
  • #30
197
17
'correlate'
 
  • #31
But I wouldn't worry: you have a lot of like minded people right here on these forums with very good intentions for the internal and even the external community at large, so it's not by any means a lost cause :)
Oh you lil' cutie making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :blushing:

Although I think the reason I've heard so much of that kinda stuff is just because where I live most people are either older and don't talk so loudly at eachother or are 'old enough to know better' delinquents, I've never really heard anything along those lines in other places I have visited.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
1,592
3,457
At the moment: "quantum". I'm sick of it, truly sick of reading that word (even tho' I'm very interested in quantum mechanics). Whatever I'm looking at, it's quantum this and quantum that. :zzz:
 
  • #33
Curious3141
Homework Helper
2,843
87
Ironically enough, I think the word "God" is the most misused when lay people or the popular press refer to scientific discoveries.

I can't tell you how much these phrases grate on me:

"Playing God",

"The face of God",

"God particle",

etc.

Well, even the venerable Einstein was sorta guilty of this with his famous pronouncement: "God does not play dice."

Invoking "God" does nothing to add impact to those who actually care about the science, but does a lot to alienate those already antipathetic toward science to begin with.
 
  • #34
chiro
Science Advisor
4,790
132
The movie Angels and Demons probably helped out a bit as well...
 
  • #35
376
1
I can think of a timeline of this thing
super -> energy -> quantum -> nano
 
  • #36
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
712
I can think of a timeline of this thing
super -> energy -> quantum -> nano
You forgot "atomic" and "digital".
 
  • #37
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
Finding the God particle is proof of my nano quantum energy theory!

*watches heads explode*
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Most abused word in Science?

Replies
8
Views
809
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
57
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
19K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
485
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
Top