Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:24 In article <db6dnYRkTNUz7KbYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ehfn55$8qk_011(a)s799.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <JaednSrRmpdFE6fYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>news:Qmu_g.14851$GR.13390(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ehd5rn$8qk_009(a)s884.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> I don't know it's wrong. I do know enough that bad data will >>>>> never show any statistical significance. >>>> >>>> Don't you think *they* are in a better position to judge the quality of >>>> their data than *you* are, since your understanding of statistics is >>>> essentially non-existent? And don't you think that the peers who >>>> reviewed >>>> the article and allowed it to be published might also be just a tiny tad >>>> more knowledgeable of statistics than you are? >>> >>>When BAH posted this, it struck me as a massive example of how really >>>closed >>>minded some people can be. She hasn't read the data, she has no idea about >>>the methods, she doesn't know who reviewed it (etc), yet she does know >>>that >>>bad data will spoil stats (which is true). She has taken the one thing she >>>does know and assumed it to be the case because the answer is not one she >>>wants. >>> >>>Amazing that BAH claims to have any scientific background at all. >> >> I don't. Biology and math were my majors; chemistry was my minor. > >All three are sciences. > >> I didn't work in the science field. I thought I made that clear. > >IT and computers are a science field. Oh, good grief. It is not. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:27 In article <98ef$453cbdfb$4fe708e$25125(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:453C4494.53C1529(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>>IT and computers are a science field. >>>> >>>>Only as a misnomer. >>> >>>Since when was electronics not a field of science ? >> >> >> It's a fairly subtle difference, but an important one as regards such things >> as approach and mindset. Science is the field of using the scientific >> method (you know, hypothesize, test, repeat) to try to discover thruths >> about the universe. Electronics in the sense of designing and building >> electronic devices like computers is more a field of engineering than >> science--i.e., it's a field that uses the results of science to do and make >> cool things that people want. Electronics in this sense does use the >> results of the sciences of solid state physics, chemistry, etc., and there >> can be use of the scientific method involved in designing electronic >> circuits (hypothesize, build, test, repeat), but it's really more an >> engineering mindset. > >Failure to understand the differences between science and >technology is a problem prevalent on usenet and in American >society in general. Unfortunately, and disasterously, this is also happening in the universities, too. I've been trying to fight that battle, too. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:32 In article <csSdnSsIJpDCmqDYRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:a4ioj2hb7thtg4gl99sh7mas1fnmddbt6i(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:27:01 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>> T Wake wrote: >>>> > >>>> > IT and computers are a science field. >>>> >>>> Only as a misnomer. >>> >>>Since when was electronics not a field of science ? >>> >>>Graham >>> >> >> Electronics is a technology. Electrical engineers build things, they >> don't research the workings of nature. Some academic EEs pretend to be >> scientists. >> >> Almost all the sciences use electronics to manage, measure, and record >> experiments. It's remarkable how little science can now be done >> without electronics, the exception being theoretical work, but even >> that is tested and validated - or not - with electronics. Electronics >> has become an indispensable tool of science, like mathematics. >> Strange. > >Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical >implementation of science. Why force them into different categories? Because there exist computer science major programs that do not require its students to take any, and I mean ANY, other science course. The logic behind this says, "If computer science degree has "science" in its name, then the studies do not have to include real science." There are teachers out there who actively discourage CS types from taking physics. Now how in the world are we going to breed kids to develop and improve technologies if they have absolutely no knowledge about the limits of the physical universe? An example is that the speed of EMF not in a vacuum is slow. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:36 In article <eR8%g.666$s6.362(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:e75qj2h3p4vlor2q6425thuf5t0d1h46os(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:18:06 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:a4ioj2hb7thtg4gl99sh7mas1fnmddbt6i(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> Almost all the sciences use electronics to manage, measure, and record >>>> experiments. It's remarkable how little science can now be done >>>> without electronics, the exception being theoretical work, but even >>>> that is tested and validated - or not - with electronics. Electronics >>>> has become an indispensable tool of science, like mathematics. >>>> Strange. >>> >>>Not strange. Separating them is (IMHO) strange. Electronics is a practical >>>implementation of science. Why force them into different categories? >> >> What's strange is how pervasive it is. > >Why? We've been in a situation for almost 60 years, that electronics can do >many things much faster and more accurately/precisely than humans. Beyond >this, we've gotten to the place that we're interested in measuring things >that would be inaccessible to the un-electronic lab. It would only be >strange, as TWake points out, if we *didn't* rely on electronics to help us >measure thing almost everything in science. A side effect is that old knowledge is forgotten. Even new knowledge is lost; think about all the magnetic tapes that are now unreadable but contained data of an event that can never be repeated. We've been worrying about this alot. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Oct 2006 06:40
In article <hn6nj2pjie3hj1brbcv6om2b34sq9cdeeq(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:27:05 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >> >>IT and computers are a science field. >> > >What does programming have to do with science? In order to write code that works, a modified form of the Scientific Method has to be used. The difference is that this use of the SM is produce an expected result rather than using the method to find out what may happen. This is a huge difference but I've never able to describe it well. /BAH |