I am often asked this question:  Will the world end?

 

My reply is always both nuanced and based on Science.

 

But, what about the Faith-Based view?

 

Or, is BOTH Science and Religion, not to mention the Philosophy of Science, all faith-based?

 

Here is a nice video from this German lady that speaks to these two important questions:

 

 

Also, a further consideration is the view that when the world ends for you, then it also ends for everyone.

 

What is your view?

Are you a scientist or a common person?

Are you a lay person?

 

And, does the world often seem to end, even though only momentarily, each time you experience an orgasm, which is a phenomenon that many have often reported.

 

Let's consider these questions carefully....

 

Regards, 

Gamma

 

No

Yes, maybe in a couple of billion years.

I don't think so. Science like any other human endeavour is based on rewards and punishments, how scientists advance in their careers and human tendencies like that. 

Climate science is like that, why bother being a climate scientist ion you can't get grants, and you can't get grants and get your work published unless you toe the line, and so you apply for grants to do experiments that will conform the narrative. MRNA vaccines were like this, you could not get papers peer reviewed that didn't tout the narrative that all should take vaccines. But it has been like this since the dawn of university science e departments. Prizes very rarely went to those who thought outside the box, but went to those who did safe experiments that bolstered the current narratives. Also you want to get grants as as a post-doc, get a teaching post, advance to senior lecturer, dept head, professor, well you better toe the line. So since is based on faith, but based on the faith of what is best for me.

 

What is often not spoken about is the scale of cheating. Making results up, casting out results that don't 'fit' and the like. I saw this a lot when I was studying for my PhD. At the time I could barely believe it....student presenting experimental results with perfectly straight lines showing the relationships they had discovered. Using the same spectrophotometers that I did, I knew the results were faked, invented, whatever. In my experience with research in Big Pharma, I had the same issues, namely patients were eliminated from the results if they died, developed massive problems, failed therapy etc. It was rampant in the 1980s and 90s, but FDA cleaned it up, or made it more difficult to cheat, let's say. But in those days if a negative study happened which it did, it simply was never submitted for publication. But FDA insisted from the mid 90s onward that all clinical studies were entered into a database and tracked so that all research had to be published. 

20 minutes ago, retarius said:

why bother being a climate scientist ion you can't get grants, and you can't get grants and get your work published unless you toe the line, and so you apply for grants to do experiments that will conform the narrative.

 

Have you been able to get funding for your grant proposals?

 

If yes, what was your secret sauce?

 

 

Science isn't based on anything.  It is empirical.  If you destroyed all the bibles and all the science books, in 10,000 years only the science books would be back again.  Water would still freeze at zero.

 

Yes the world will end because it will be too hot to sustain complex life as the sun reaches it's final stages.

30 minutes ago, retarius said:

Using the same spectrophotometers that I did, I knew the results were faked, invented, whatever.

 

Confirmation bias is a problem that all of us must guard against.

Confirmation bias infects us all, even HVAC technicians that come to our house to test for proper operation of AC equipment.

Confirmation bias is insidious and must be stamped out, as much as possible.

This can only happen through proper training and inoculation against such bias.

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Are you a scientist

Yep

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

What is your view?

Science is a process of discovery, observation and proving the observations.

 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Or, is BOTH Science and Religion, not to mention the Philosophy of Science, all faith-based?

Science should not be based on faith, but on the sum of provable observations. My philosophy is not to be persuaded by the norm forfeiting the focus and value of getting to the truth of an observation.

Religion, well that is a broad convoluted mess of the presumed belief in an idea whether it’s a god, political or philosophical being pushed and sold as truth, none of which should ever be allowed to influence science by the slightest. Therefore any so called science that has such influence is not science, its just another religion.

 

9 minutes ago, novacova said:

Science is a process of discovery, observation and proving the observations.

 

You forgot:

 

You must design experiments to TEST hypotheses....!!!!

 

And, we do NOT prove observations!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

21 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

You forgot:

 

You must design experiments to TEST hypotheses....!!!!

 

And, we do NOT prove observations!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Do you want schooling? Then go hit the books. Otherwise…question observation research hypotheses experiment testing analyze conclusion, respectively. It’s a work in progress given that many conclusions have been proven erroneous. If you can proceed without outside influence, then I commend you.

 

"My reply is always both nuanced and based on Science."

 

Oh please do tell us what it is.

 

 

2 hours ago, novacova said:

Do you want schooling? Then go hit the books. Otherwise…question observation research hypotheses experiment testing analyze conclusion, respectively. It’s a work in progress given that many conclusions have been proven erroneous. If you can proceed without outside influence, then I commend you.

 

Again, I will respectfully remind you:  The Scientific Method relies on the DESIGN of experiments which are able to test hypotheses.

 

First one observes.

Then forms an hypothesis based on ones best assumptions.

Then one must devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. 

 

Let's not forget this last important step I have just listed, PLEASE....!

 

Thank you!

 

 

19 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Again, I will respectfully remind you:  The Scientific Method relies on the DESIGN of experiments which are able to test hypotheses.

 

First one observes.

Then forms an hypothesis based on ones best assumptions.

Then one must devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. 

 

Let's not forget this last important step I have just listed, PLEASE....!

 

Thank you!

 

 

As predicted, pun intended. Though you forgot theory and law. Hypothesis cannot be proven or disproven, therefore supported as a testable value. Theory is based on facts and observations tested against evidence confirmed and conducted by several independent experiments, though not as certain as scientific laws, such as the flawed hypothesis and theories of layman beliefs that the Sun rises from the east which defies the laws of physics. There’s a lot more to this story than you’ve prepared for. Anyway, enjoy your studies of science 101.

14 minutes ago, novacova said:

As predicted, pun intended. Though you forgot theory and law. Hypothesis cannot be proven or disproven, therefore supported as a testable value. Theory is based on facts and observations tested against evidence confirmed and conducted by several independent experiments, though not as certain as scientific laws, such as the flawed hypothesis and theories of layman beliefs that the Sun rises from the east which defies the laws of physics. There’s a lot more to this story than you’ve prepared for. Anyway, enjoy your studies of science 101.

 

The problem is that you are speaking from a computer science perspective, which is indeed flawed.

And I am approaching from a Natural Science perspective.

And you should realize that computer science is NOT Science, and neither are the Social Sciences science.

 

As to whether the Sun rises, it does, at least in Spain.

 

It amazes me just how many computer guys are here on TV.

They seem to come out of the woodwork when you least expect.

 

 

 

On 1/18/2024 at 3:51 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, maybe in a couple of billion years.

I hate to disagree with you.

The world is destroyed  every zeptosecond and a new, almost identical to the old  one is immediately created,

only slightly to the left of the old one. 

 

To me, science is based on discovery. New materials, new relationships which shed more light on the world we live in.

Without discovery, science would be as sterile as a eunuch.

One of the problems science has is that there are a lot more people getting educated in belief than there are in science.

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

The problem is that you are speaking from a computer science perspective, which is indeed flawed.

And I am approaching from a Natural Science perspective.

And you should realize that computer science is NOT Science, and neither are the Social Sciences science.

 

As to whether the Sun rises, it does, at least in Spain.

 

It amazes me just how many computer guys are here on TV.

They seem to come out of the woodwork when you least expect.

 

 

 

Wouldn’t expect anything different from a bandwidth wasting trollbait poster

8 minutes ago, novacova said:

Wouldn’t expect anything different from a bandwidth wasting trollbait poster

 

In fact, this is my best example of Culture Shock that one might experience when returning to one's Home Country after an extended stay abroad.

 

You see, I left America before the 1980s, and then returned briefly in 1990, only to hear this grating phrase.

 

So I left before the end of that year and haven't returned since, and no wonder.

 

I have read some strange expressions on TV during my time here, mostly in comments made by those from the UK.

 

But certainly, not even a Bricky from Lancashire would utter such a foolish phrase, repeatedly, without first thinking about it.