Faith in science

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 07, 2013 8:37 am

Another topic that didn't get any traction over at the other place--if you are not a scientist, should you put your FAITH in scientists? scratch

People who cannot follow scientific reasoning face a difficult conundrum. Neutral

When they are presented with what are represented as "scientific conclusions," should they believe them based on their "faith" in "science," which to them is mysterious and incomprehensible?

Could there by anything more unscientific than having "faith" in science?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Constance on Thu May 09, 2013 4:15 am

yesI place my faith in science.Read an article in yesterday's NYT about the Man. Who developed 40 vaccines including the MMR.The article said he had saved more lives than anyone inthe 20th century.

But in case any of the girls wants prayers and religion,I get the through first communion so they can attend Mass and receive the Eucharist. Julia just had her FirstCommunion last Sat. I like the sacraments but none of the church's stances on social issues.

Constance

Posts : 500
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 59
Location : New York City

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Thu May 09, 2013 1:42 pm

Constance wrote:yesI place my faith in science.Read an article in yesterday's NYT about the Man. Who developed 40 vaccines including the MMR.The article said he had saved more lives than anyone inthe 20th century.
When you can see the results, it lessens the need for faith.

But patients who agree to be the test subjects for untested vaccines must be people of faith, or else they're adventurers, or they have nothing to lose.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sun May 12, 2013 12:07 am

Let me rephrase.

Not everyone can specialize in a scientific field, many have to specialize in other things.

This means that the general public, who rely on the fruits of past scientific work everyday (antibiotics are a good example of this), can't competently critique the work that led up to the results (this doesn't mean the scientists are too smart for the rest of us--it just means not everyone can be a specialist in all fields).

Of course the public can critique tangible results--but what about work in progress?

So the general public is in the position of having to believe certain things on faith. Thus, science may become a system of beliefs for them--articles of faith.

So how does one react when someone (very often someone with scientific credentials) disagrees with their articles of faith? Often they accuse the dissenter of "denying the science," but in this context that's the same as screaming "heresy!"

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  capitán poo on Tue May 14, 2013 7:16 am

I think science gains its greatest respect with things like what Constance wrote, when it gives opportunity to people who would have been hopeless without it
and also for its awesome! creations
and it appears as the part of knowledge that can't just be made up- as the less human based human knowledge
but in the end it's faith in scientists (since they must be critical enough) and I don't think specialization can assure greater/cleaner thinkers- so we can just hope we'll hear them arguing if there's deviation

capitán poo

Posts : 15
Join date : 2013-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Tue May 14, 2013 7:51 am

capitán poo wrote: - so we can just hope we'll hear them arguing if there's deviation
Yes--and when we hear them argue, who do we believe?

One erroneous approach is to take a poll--as if a vote could determine what's right and what's wrong. Rolling Eyes

If a poll was taken on Copernicus' crazy idea, the "near consensus" of his scientific contemporaries would have flattened him.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  capitán poo on Fri May 17, 2013 9:54 pm

are you saying the debate on scientific matters has also been reduced to opinion as a last resort?
but
if some disagreement is presented in a valid (according to the scientific criterion) explanation about what's been assumed too promptly, what would make the great majority disregard it (these days)? (does these days mean little even for science?)


capitán poo

Posts : 15
Join date : 2013-05-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat May 18, 2013 7:37 am

user is an admirer of the scientific method, tho it is tru that "working theories" are often spoken of by scientist and public alike as if they were The New Gospel of The Secular Age.

all humans, even the clever ones, are only slightly ahead of monkeys who don't wear clothes and throw their poo at friend and foe alike.


Last edited by Yakima Canutt on Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 18, 2013 1:33 pm

capitán poo wrote:are you saying the debate on scientific matters has also been reduced to opinion as a last resort?
but
if some disagreement is presented in a valid (according to the scientific criterion) explanation about what's been assumed too promptly, what would make the great majority disregard it (these days)? (does these days mean little even for science?)
Here's the problem.

When scientists disagree, there are two ways to address the disagreement:

1. Examine both the evidence and the reasoning of the disputing parties. Look for faulty evidence and logical fallacies to determine which party is mistaken;

2. Vote on it--the majority must be right.

Non-scientists are unable to apply #1, so they resort to #2.

How often is the majority right? Henrik Ibsen said that there are forces at work that always lead the majority to the wrong conclusion.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat May 18, 2013 7:20 pm

pinhedz wrote:A 19th century writer of fiction said that there are forces at work that always lead the majority to the wrong conclusion.

Chapter 1

The book begins with a series of examples of “crowd wisdom”, ranging from the TV show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” and its “ask the audience”, to the stock market indicating the company most likely to be at fault hours after the Challenger disaster. These cases all demonstrate the four conditions that comprise wise crowds - independence, diversity of opinion, decentralization, and a way to aggregate the results. Similar results are to be found in sports betting, and in Google’s results, determined by examining the number of links pointing to any given page. One way to take advantage of this wisdom of crowds is through the use of ”prediction markets”, such as the Iowa Electronic Markets, where people buy and sell probabilities as if they were stocks. In the right circumstances, prediction markets are an excellent way of turning the knowledge of many people into reasonably accurate predictions.
Chapter 2

The importance of diversity is covered in the second chapter. A crowd can’t be wise if everyone always picks the same answer as everyone else. Examples include product markets, where there is usually an initial wide range of different attempts in a new market, which is quickly winnowed down to the successful designs; and honey bees, which send out scouts in all directions, but only return to those areas where flowers have been found. Diversity is important to “wise crowds”, because it expands the range of possible solutions proposed. In large groups, diversity comes naturally, but in smaller groups, it’s necessary to support and actively encourage it, to avoid the dangers of “groupthink”. When people give in to their conformist tendencies, and are afraid to stick their necks out, the quality of decisions suffers.
Chapter 3

Independence of action and thought is important for the wisdom of crowds. If everyone thinks alike, then they’re less likely to arrive at a good answer to a given problem, because they’re less likely to fall into “groupthink”. “The more influence we exert on each other, the more likely it is that we will believe the same things and make the same mistakes”.

American Football coaching is cited an example of the “herd mentality”, based on the work of David Romer examining the “best 4th down strategy” (pdf). It turns out that statistically, most teams would be better off trying to make the touchdown or 1st down, rather than going for the field goal, in many cases. However, since the accepted wisdom is to kick, going against the grain of the relatively small pool of decision makers (professional football coaches) would not be an easy choice to make consistently, especially for the risk averse.

Herding behavior often occurs because people seek safety in numbers, but it can lead to problematic results when independence is required. “Information cascades” are what occurs when an initial decision is made by a few people, and then more or less accepted uncritically by more and more people. This isn’t necessarily a recipe for disaster, as we can’t all evaluate everything in our lives, but must trust others to come to good conclusions. However, at times, it can be disastrous when the original information and decisions were wrong, but continue to be accepted by an ever-wider circle. Luckily, for most people, the more important a decision is, the more likely they are to examine the facts themselves, rather than simply fall in line. Information cascades actually work reasonably well much of the time, but the basic problem is that they are a sequential, rather than parallel process. If you’re trying to harness the wisdom of crowds, you must attempt to have all decisions made at the same time, rather than one at a time.
Chapter 4

This chapter covers decentralization - where it works, where it doesn’t and what can go wrong. Decentralized, aggregate behavior is a key aspect of things like free market economies, flocks of birds, and is something that has been touted as a virtuous way of running a company as of late, with small, self-organizing teams. Decentralization allows people, or more generally, components of a system, to act freely and independently of one another, and still interact to produce coordinated results.

Linux is cited as an example of a decentralized system with a central aggregator - Linus Torvalds. As most people know by this point, Linux is worked on collaboratively by many programmers throughout the world, but often, different people come up with competing solutions to the same problem. This is good at finding and testing diverse approaches to see, in practice rather than in theory, which one actually works the best. Ultimately, however, the ‘best’ solutions are not selected by popular vote, but by Linus, who is responsible for taking the results of the decentralized development process, and aggregating them into something useful by selecting the ‘best’ bits and pieces.

Also discussed is the decentralization of the intelligence community, and the negatives involved in the difficulty of sharing information, cited as one factor in the failure of the intelligence community to predict and prevent the 9/11 attacks. The problem, however, was not decentralization, but decentralization with no way to aggregate the results into something useful.

One such way of aggregating information was a proposed futures market based on potential events in the Middle East, and elsewhere, which was, however, not allowed to get off the ground due to squeamishness about the idea of buying and selling bets about, say, a leader’s chance of being assassinated in any particular year. This market could have been a useful tool, perhaps not in predicting precise events, but in collecting information about the general state of things in places where information is at times difficult to gather, and unfettered freedom of expression suppressed.
Chapter 5

This chapter covers what are known as “coordination problems”, which are defined as problems that don’t necessarily have an objectively “correct” answer, but which are framed in terms of coordinating actions with everyone else’s actions. For instance, driving on a freeway requires that you coordinate your speed and actions with those of other drivers, and possibly even the time of day when you drive in order to avoid getting stuck in traffic. Groups are not guaranteed to come up with optimal solutions, but often do.

One solution to coordination problems is central planning - having one omniscient authority that makes some calculations and tells everyone how to act as a consequence. This is, however, often not possible, feasible, or desirable.

Coordination problems are often quite difficult to solve, with one example being a bar, where, if it’s more than 60% full, no one enjoys themselves, but do if it’s under that capacity. Several computer models have been built with agents that follow simple strategies and do manage to coordinate well enough to keep the bar at around 60%.

In some cases, cultural references help us solve coordination problems, both by giving us reference points (ask two people to meet at a given time without communicating the time to one another, and they’ll likely pick 12 noon), or norms, such as “drive on the right”. Conventions also lower the amount of thinking you have to do about certain situations - it’s easier just to follow the rules or guidelines rather than make a conscious decision after weighing all the possibilities. This often frees us to think about more important things.

Corporations are supposed to operate in order to maximize profits, and should be immune to things like social conventions - yet it turns out that they’re not nearly as rational as might be imagined. One example cited is movie theaters, which charge the same price for the latest hit, as for flops that are on their way out. Charge too much for hits, and you risk losing out on concessions, where movie theaters actually make a lot of their money, but by that logic, lowering the price for less popular movies would get more people into the theater.

Markets can also be effective coordination mechanisms. Experiments conducted with students, who know only the maximum price they will pay, or minimum they will sell for, show prices rapidly converging on an optimal price, even though that price is higher than buyers would like, and lower than what sellers would prefer. Real markets often lack lots of information, and indeed the students found the experiment “chaotic and confusing” - and yet, the market worked. Markets aren’t perfect, of course, but they are often the best, if not perfect, way of coordinating disparate buyers and sellers.
Chapter 6

Cooperation problems are superficially similar to coordination problems, but with a key difference: coordination problems can be solved with all players acting in their own interests, whereas cooperation problems require players to “look at the bigger picture”, as part of an organization or society.

Behavioral studies have demonstrated that people will forego a reward in a simple game in order punish someone perceived to be playing unfairly, even when doing so does not benefit them at all. In other words, people, being social animals have a sense of ‘fairness’, even if this isn’t rational in economic terms. This extends to a sense that rewards should be correlated to efforts and accomplishments, and this sense is part of the reason why large organizations can exist in the first place.

Trust is often secondary to long term relationships in terms of promoting ‘fair’ behavior: if you know you’ll see someone again and again, you’re less likely to attempt to cheat them.

Capitalism works in part because it’s possible to trust those beyond an established circle of friends and family, and only works where there are institutions that promote this trust. When you are reasonably certain that you can buy a product and that it will work as advertised, you don’t need to inspect in detail each and every thing that you purchase. This makes the flow of goods and services, and increases the general welfare of a society.
Chapter 7

This chapter discusses the idea of ‘coordination problems’, using traffic as an example, beginning with a discussion of London’s “congestion pricing”. Because traffic was so bad, a market-based solution was found that pushed people to evaluate their access of downtown London via a car: during the day, it costs a certain amount of money to drive into central London. This accomplishes two things: rather than dictating to drivers what they can and cannot do, it leaves everyone free to do as they so choose, but puts a direct cost on accessing the downtown area during certain hours. People who really do need to go there at that time will pay the money, but find the roads less crowded. Other people, without such strong necessities, will take the time to walk, cycle or use public transportation. London is hardly alone in using such a system; Singapore has used congestion charges since the 1970ies, although clearly implementing that kind of unpopular policy is easy in an authoritarian country.

The discussion continues, touching on the subject of traffic flow, and the ideal conditions that produce, a smooth, steady flow, rather than traffic jams, or erratic start and stop conditions. Surprisingly, having just the right amount of cars on the freeway is important: two many creates obvious problems, but two few causes problems as well; with two few cars, people tend to speed up and slow down more erratically than with a steady stream of traffic.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sat May 18, 2013 11:17 pm

Surowiecki argued that in some circumstances, large groups exhibit more intelligence than smaller, more elite groups, and that collective intelligence shapes business, economies, societies and nations.

I suspect that Surowiecki's "some-circumstances" qualifier was possibly intended to exclude things like scientific controversies, and include things like choices in the market place.

A poll of scientific experts is, of course, limited to an "elite" group. But as long as they're voting instead of reasoning, they'll still get it wrong.


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  e.g. on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:22 pm

I just read
when a book titled 100 Authors Against Einstein was released, Einstein said "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." bounce

e.g.

Posts : 32
Join date : 2013-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:26 pm

moderately lumpy wrote:Against Einstein


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:16 am

especially grumpy wrote:I just read
when a book titled 100 Authors Against Einstein was released, Einstein said "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." bounce
The old guy hit the nail on the head.

I'm often told that 90% or 94% or 97% of "climate scientists" have reached a "near consensus." Rolling Eyes

I always ask "Is it too much to ask for one of them--I only need one--to present an argument that holds water?"

And Albert makes the point that if they had any cards in their hand, they wouldn't be taking a poll. Razz 

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  blue moon on Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:35 pm


blue moon

Posts : 709
Join date : 2012-08-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat May 24, 2014 8:55 am

in which Scientest, Dr. Ray Wagner, expounds on Sciense

Before I dive into a discussion of the science in the latest Star Trek film, I’d like to take a moment to prevail upon why we should be doing this in the first place. I’ve found that this sort of thing touches a lot of nerves, and it’s easy to come off as a smartypants taking potshots at a summer popcorn flick that, quite honestly, never asked for that level of scrutiny. I’d probably never attempt this exercise with anything Star Wars or any of the Marvel Universe pictures, but I maintain that Star Trek is a different beast entirely. I’ll try to explain that myself below, but first, let me submit a recent quote from Trek writer/producer Damon Lindelof:

   "I do think what's cool about Trek is it's not scifi fantasy. We view it as closer to hardcore scifi. So you want there to be some sort of technological explanation behind everything."

So, we can all agree that we’re in a safe space here, and that Lindelof is inviting this kind of discussion. Right?  Good.

The quote touches on what, I believe, really sets Trek apart from other popular film franchises. The original Star Trek series launched during the middle of the Apollo program and, taking its cues from the popular energy propelling the moon shot, it postulated an upbeat vision of a future we could achieve if we could just get our collective act together. This wasn’t a galaxy and time far, far away - it was our future, storyboarded and there for us to build, if only we had the good sense to do so.

The creators concocted a few devices more or less rooted in the theoretical physics of the time -  warp drive, transporters, subspace radios, etc. - but even these had their rules and limits, and they only took the Enterprise crew so far. Both the astronauts of the day and the Enterprise crew of the future were on the edge of what was possible, and we could see our struggles to leave Earth mirrored in theirs to explore the galaxy. And for all the inspiration it drew from the space program, Star Trek returned the favor in spades, inspiring subsequent generations of scientists and engineers (myself included) to work on the building blocks of that vision. And for that reason, I think it’s important that Trek continue to be grounded in reality.

So, how exactly does Star Trek Into Darkness*, from writers Lindelof, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman, hold up to this kind of scrutiny? Honestly, better than I first thought. I will say this upfront: as a dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie, I’m not a fan of Into Darkness as a Star Trek film. For reasons I won’t belabor, since they’ve been covered better by other authors on this site, I found it a disappointing rehash of a story told with far greater impact the first time. And on my first (and second) viewing, my kneejerk reaction was to dismiss the science as uniformly sloppy. The great thing about the scientific process, though, is that it demands we check our preconceptions at the door and engage a topic dispassionately. And in researching my objections in greater depth, damn if I didn’t prove myself wrong and find in the authors’ favor on one major point. That isn’t to say that Into Darkness gets its science mostly right - there’s still a fair amount to object to here -  but it’s definitely more of a mixed bag than I first thought.

Spoilers follow, so be warned.

There’s a difference between movie science that violates real-world principles and movie science that violates story-world principles. As I said earlier, the creators get to decide how they want to fudge things in the conceptual stage, and for well-executed science fiction those altered rules are held in as much reverence as the real-world ones that still apply. Now, levying criticisms here is something of a Pandora’s box of nerdery, as Devin and I found out last year by dismissing the underwater Enterprise in the Into Darkness trailer. It’s even worse when counter-critics can mine nearly 50 years of franchise material chock full of its own inconsistencies to cite in their dismissals. But I’d hope that a reboot gets us back to the point that we’re still skewing pretty closely to the old (new) rules after only two movies. And on this point, I find that Into Darkness largely fails. I still maintain that Kirk hiding the Enterprise underwater on Nibiru makes absolutely no sense, but that argument is rooted in the fact that an Enterprise that can pop down to a planet’s surface with ease is fundamentally contrary to the notion of how starships work in Trek.

It’s fair to answer that, according to the new rules of the reboot, this is how starships work now in Star Trek. But if that’s the case, we have absolutely no need for a spacedock orbiting the Earth, since any purpose it serves could be far more easily accomplished planetside. And yet both Star Trek Into Darkness and the 2009 reboot have showed us an impressive orbital complex servicing starships. A fundamental rule of spaceflight is that you don’t do anything on orbit that you can more cheaply or easily do on Earth, so the space dock just doesn’t square with an atmospherically operated Enterprise.

There are a number of other such inconsistencies**, but they’re mostly in the realm of story-world science. So how does the real stuff fare? As I mentioned earlier, a couple of points caught my attention, and I was convinced that the writers had dropped the ball on both. But I was pleasantly surprised when I put pen to paper on the first. They both involve the sequence after the Vengeance knocks the Enterprise out of warp on its way back to Earth. The two ships are hanging above the Moon with the Enterprise badly damaged. After the Enterprise bests its rival, it begins to fall back to Earth, caught in the planet’s gravity.

Since the Moon sits far more prominently in the shot than does the Earth, I assumed this was the first major mistake. Surely the ship would start falling toward the Moon, since it’s obvious that the Earth is much farther away. A line of dialogue seems to confirm this, with Sulu reporting that the Enterprise has come out of warp 237,000 km from Earth, and a quick check will reveal that the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,400 km, so the case seems closed. But distance, as it turns out, isn’t the whole story. Gravitational forces in a two-body system are influenced by both the planets’ masses and their relative distances from any point between them, and this leads to a number of libration (or LaGrange) points where the gravitational forces of the two bodies cancel each other out. To one side of the libration point you’re pulled toward one body, and to the other you’re pulled toward its mate. And right at the libration point you’re perfectly balanced, and it takes absolutely no energy to remain there once you’ve situated yourself - a fact the soon-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope will be exploiting by hanging out at an Earth-Sun libration point. So, to figure out which way the Enterprise will be falling, we really need to work out where the libration point between the Earth and the Moon lies. Thanks to a little arithmetic and our friends at the European Space Agency, we have the answer:  approximately 326,000 km from the Earth.  So, according to the dialogue, the Enterprise is actually inside the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, and it will indeed begin falling toward the Earth.

Now, when the Enterprise begins to feel the effect of the Earth’s gravity, it REALLY begins to feel it. In reality, it would likely take months to years for the dead-stopped Enterprise to begin reentering the Earth’s atmosphere from that distance. So the script gets no points here, although this should probably be filed under its larger tendency to compress the times/distances between plot points (e.g., Earth to Qo’noS in about five minutes at warp). Furthermore, the way the crew behaves as the ship plummets to Earth is a troublesome, if not uncommon, abuse of physics in movies. The Enterprise will be in a state of free fall before it hits Earth’s atmosphere. As such, the crew members inside the ship will experience zero gravity, exactly like the astronauts on the International Space Station - orbiting is, in fact, free falling without end. This is also the same thing that the lucky passengers of Vomit Comit flights experience at the peak of the plane’s parabolic flight path. In the absence of artificial gravity deck plating, the Enterprise crew would likely be suspended as their ship fish-tails and barrel-rolls around them, occasionally bouncing off walls and ceilings that rotate into their flight paths.  And should the artificial gravity still be working, they will be glued to the ship’s “down” direction even as that direction spins relative to the Earth’s gravity. With their feet anchored to the deck plating, they’d probably look a lot like those wavy inflatable men that tend to decorate used car lots and fire sales. What they would most certainly NOT be doing is running through their ship, standing on whichever floor, wall or ceiling happened to be pointed down toward the Earth. That is, unless every possible interior surface has artificial gravity plating adjusted in real-time by the ship as it spins to its death. But I think we can all agree to be adults here, right?

So, given all that, Star Trek Into Darkness clearly isn’t a perfect movie, scientifically speaking, but it’s also not an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps I’m reading too much into the line referencing the distance from Earth, but I’ll choose to give the Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof (or their script advisors) the benefit of the doubt.  At the very least, I hope they realize what a debt we, as a spacefaring species, owe to Star Trek, and what an important job they’ve been given.

At the end of the day, I came into this new Trek movie review loaded for bear, and I ended up eating a little bit of crow. But, hey - that’s science!

*Ye gods, my kingdom for a colon!

**The less said about the new transporter technology, the better...

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Jun 06, 2014 5:49 pm


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:50 am

Nonspecialists have no choice but to believe the findings of leading specialists in a scientific field. I just inherited a very fine 42-volume set of scientific works from the Yale University Press. With so many illustrious scholars citing exhaustive research work, I'm sure that no one would doubt these findings:

A Chronicle of Aboriginal America
Dr. Ellsworth Huntington, PhD
Yale University Press
1919

"The Indian, the European, and the Negro apparently differ not only in outward appearance but in the much more important matter of mentality. According to Brinton [ref: D.G. Brinton The American Race], the average brain capacity of Parisians, including adults of both sexes, is 1448 cubic centimeters. That of the American Indian is 1376, and that of the negro 1344 cubic centimeters. With difference in size there appears to be a corresponding difference in function. Thus far not enough tests have been made upon Indians to enable us to draw reliable conclusions. The Negro, however, has been tested on an extensive scale. The results seem to leave little doubt that there are real and measurable differences in the mental powers of races, just as we know to be the case among individuals. …"

"Numerous tests indicate that in the lower mental powers there is no great difference between the black and the white. In physical reactions one is as quick as the other. In the capacity of the senses and in the power to perceive and discriminate between different kinds of objects there is also practical equality. When it comes to the higher faculties, however, such as judgment, inventiveness, and the power of organization, a difference begins to be apparent. These, as Ferguson says [ref: G.O. Ferguson The Psychology of the Negro, New York, 1916], are the traits that "divide mankind into the able and the mediocre, the brilliant and the dull, and they determine the progress of civilization more directly than do the simple fundamental powers which man has in common with the lower animals." On the basis of the most exhaustive study yet made, Ferguson believes that, apart from all differences due to home training and environment, the average intellectual power of the colored people of this country is only about three-fourths as great as that of white persons of the same amount of training. He believes it probable, indeed, that the estimate is two high rather than too low. … "

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:01 pm


study   monkey

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:49 am

^
Only deniers would doubt The Science! 

But of course The Yale University Press has even more academic cred than Leo. study

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:08 pm


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Thu May 14, 2015 11:27 pm

Harry Truman over at ER is all in a Huff because he thinks the pinhed is making fun of him here (who knew ATU had a readership? ).

Harry--If you're reading this, I recommend this thread as a more edifying one than the "Physics for Poets" thread.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  pinhedz on Sat Apr 23, 2016 1:31 pm

“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”

— Goethe

... pretty harsh. Shocked

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:15 pm


as per the earlier reference to the guy and his book



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8348
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Faith in science

Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:58 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum