The first rule of science

[I less than three logic]

Someone around here uses a sig line that goes something like "Contrary to popular belief, Science has very few 'Eureka' moments. Instead, Science is dominate by moments of 'Hmm... that was wierd...'"

I'm inclined to believe this.

Looks like it might be a paraphrase of an Isaac Asimov's quote.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...' "

 

[Langis]

Oh I thought the First rule of science was going to be
"You don't talk about science!"

Actually, I was hoping that would be Rules 1 and 2.

You are my hero and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[wollery]

You are my hero and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

No problem. I run the Joobz newsletter.

Just wire $300 to my Swiss bank account and I'll get the newsletters delivered to you as soon as I can.

 

[John Hewitt]

"Question Everything?" Just a few changes needed here

1) Ask: What conclusion you want to draw.
2) Research: Gather as much supportive data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume that you are right.
4) Experiment and Observe: Then select the results you hoped for.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for clues, trends, and results you agree with.
6) Interpret: Decide that the experimental data supports your first hypothesis.
If not, then return to step 6.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review by any chemists, biologist, physicists et cetera who can be relied on to agree with you.

I think that this is also called the "how to work things in practise."

 

[wollery]

Still railing against the system that failed to recognize your brilliance John?

 

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

And what if we're both in free fall and I'm facing the opposite direction to you, and horizontal relative to your vertical? Which way is which then?

I don't know but that sounds like a very emberassing and uncomfortable position.

 

[John Hewitt]

Still railing against the system that failed to recognize your brilliance John?

Ah! but at least you recognize it, that's the important thing.

 

[fuelair]

So in free fall, what would you call the directions orthogonal to "left, right , back and forward" ?

At that point all location is either universally cartographed and agreed on or all direction is personal.

 

[wollery]

Ah! but at least you recognize it, that's the important thing.

I recognize something, but it sure as heck isn't brilliance.

 

[Deetee]

No problem. I run the Joobz newsletter.

Just wire $300 to my Swiss bank account and I'll get the newsletters delivered to you as soon as I can.

Dear Sir Wobberly,
You are indeed a godsend. I am just coming into significant funds from accountancy colleagues in Sierra Leone who have been unable to convert significant funds form US dollas into local pingo currency. If your Zurich account can be used for newsletter sources, then deposits can follow and you will gain 12.5% of the transactions. If you prefer you can give it to the Randy fellow or that rebecca bird you fancy, or just get her drunk with champayne which she likes. I know you are wise and trustworthy on account of your owl appearance.
Yours moist gratuitously,
Colonel Yofinga U'Pyoass
EMiail for conrespondence is 419isgreat@mercedesformee.con. Please append all account details and you will not be diasapppointing.

 

[John Hewitt]

I recognize something, but it sure as heck isn't brilliance.

You don't seem to recognize irony and I don't recognize serious content in your posts.

Most scientists assert that the scientific method involves respect for observational reality. You may not like my description, but it does reflect real observations of how scientists behave in practise.

 

[wollery]

You don't seem to recognize irony

Neither, apparently, do you.

and I don't recognize serious content in your posts.

I tried to address you with serious content in the past, and all I got in return was arrogant disdain. Why should I bother if you don't?

Most scientists assert that the scientific method involves respect for observational reality. You may not like my description, but it does reflect real observations of how scientists behave in practise.

How some scientists behave. In my experience a very small number.

 

[John Hewitt]

I tried to address you with serious content in the past, and all I got in return was arrogant disdain. Why should I bother if you don't?

How some scientists behave. In my experience a very small number.

You bother or not at your own whim but whim is all it is. I think that your empty, unsupported claims do not represent real science. My description of science is based on extensive knowledge of a field in which virtually every publication is a quality controlled, peer reviewed, lie. I see a field in which virtually every practitioner pretends to an inability to count to three. I also see that every protest is replied to with cheap, silly and sometimes abusive evasions.

 

[Mojo]

"Question Everything?" Just a few changes needed here

1) Ask: What conclusion you want to draw.
2) Research: Gather as much supportive data as possible.
3) Hypothesize: Assume that you are right.
4) Experiment and Observe: Then select the results you hoped for.
5) Analyze: Sift through the experimental data for clues, trends, and results you agree with.
6) Interpret: Decide that the experimental data supports your first hypothesis.
If not, then return to step 6.
7) Publish: Submit your results for peer-group review by any chemists, biologist, physicists et cetera who can be relied on to agree with you.

I think that this is also called the "how to work things in practise."

Alternatively:

1) Hypothesize.
2) ???
3) Conspiracy!

 

[joobz]

You bother or not at your own whim but whim is all it is. I think that your empty, unsupported claims do not represent real science. My description of science is based on extensive knowledge of a field in which virtually every publication is a quality controlled, peer reviewed, lie. I see a field in which virtually every practitioner pretends to an inability to count to three. I also see that every protest is replied to with cheap, silly and sometimes abusive evasions.

I feel like I should take some offense to this. Being a member of the scientific community, I strive very hard to be as open and honest about my work. Being found to be wrong is both my greatest fear and biggest motivator. I do not want to be wrong. But if I am, I want it corrected ASAP to avoid being wrong in the future.

I think most scientists are in the same ilk. I do agree that peer review can be political, but that is human nature. This is definitely part of the game, and something I've been encountering, but I do not believe it to be such a plague in the system that it prevents good work.

Also, I do not know what you mean by "pretends to an inability to count to three". I'm not "pretending" not to know, I truly don't understand this comment.

 

[joobz]

No problem. I run the Joobz newsletter.

Just wire $300 to my Swiss bank account and I'll get the newsletters delivered to you as soon as I can.

There is no paper version of the news letter, avoid any such scams. My message is sent to your mind directly through tachyon emissions....

 

[John Hewitt]

I feel like I should take some offense to this. Being a member of the scientific community, I strive very hard to be as open and honest about my work. Being found to be wrong is both my greatest fear and biggest motivator. I do not want to be wrong. But if I am, I want it corrected ASAP to avoid being wrong in the future.

I think most scientists are in the same ilk. I do agree that peer review can be political, but that is human nature. This is definitely part of the game, and something I've been encountering, but I do not believe it to be such a plague in the system that it prevents good work.

Also, I do not know what you mean by "pretends to an inability to count to three". I'm not "pretending" not to know, I truly don't understand this comment.

My comments were not aimed at you - they refer to the field described in web site linked to in my signature.

My arrogant disdain, to which Wollery refers, may be a reference to previous exchanges between us. I am, I hope, and barring occasional lapses of temper on my part, unwilling to discuss it in the form of some proxy replacing the actual subject. In the past, I may well have taken that line with him.

 

[wollery]

My comments were not aimed at you - they refer to the field described in web site linked to in my signature.

Then don't use the blanket term scientists to describe a tiny fraction of the people that term covers. Say Cell Motility Researchers, because that's who you're referring to. When you use the term scientists you are referring to me, Joobz, and many others who strive to be open and honest, and, unsurprisingly, we take offense at being called liars and cheats.

My arrogant disdain, to which Wollery refers, may be a reference to previous exchanges between us. I am, I hope, and barring occasional lapses of temper on my part, unwilling to discuss it in the form of some proxy replacing the actual subject. In the past, I may well have taken that line with him.

Well, my respect for you just went back up a notch.

 

[Cuddles]

Uh, without gravity, there is no up or down. That is a gravity based concept.

Exactly. Without gravity things would not fall down. And according to the OP, since I am absolutely certain of this I must have been paid to say it, so somebody had better give me some money.

So in free fall, what would you call the directions orthogonal to "left, right , back and forward" ?

And what if we're both in free fall and I'm facing the opposite direction to you, and horizontal relative to your vertical? Which way is which then?

Free fall happens in a gravitational field, so down is exactly the same as if you weren't in free fall. Your questions are only relevant in zero-G, which only occurs at an infinite distance from any mass, and therefore doesn't actually exist. If it did exist, the answer would quite obviously be "gerald".

 

[wollery]

Exactly. Without gravity things would not fall down. And according to the OP, since I am absolutely certain of this I must have been paid to say it, so somebody had better give me some money.

In an electrostatic field things will fall down or up depending on their residual charge.

Free fall happens in a gravitational field, so down is exactly the same as if you weren't in free fall. Your questions are only relevant in zero-G, which only occurs at an infinite distance from any mass, and therefore doesn't actually exist. If it did exist, the answer would quite obviously be "gerald".

Pedant!