Lawaranceville E-Newsletter

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:15 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Skipjack wrote: An engineer is looking for solutions, a scientist for answers.
Good one, but maybe an improvement:
An engineer is looking for any path to a solution, a scientist for is looking for a specific path to an answer.

An engineer is looking for any path to a specific answer (solution), while a scientist is looking for a specific path to any solution (answer).

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:32 am

I dont quite get the specific path to the answer thing for the scientist.
Scientist look for answers any which way, no?

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:48 am

krenshala wrote:An engineer is looking for any path to a specific answer (solution), while a scientist is looking for a specific path to any solution (answer).

Now could you define what is the way and what is the solution?
As returning to various fusion approaches: TOKAMAK, inertial confinement, plasma focus, etc. we should be agreed that all of them are based on well known principles (knowledge).
Researching of plasma's behavior at various conditions?
Are the scientists e.g. engineers of F-1 teams attempting that their engines would run more effectively than competitor's?
Do they not research behavior of gas, injection timing, etc.
Or behavior of metal parts at extremely conditions?
Why Pratt&Wittney or R&R avia-engines are more effective than e.g. Russian?
Or Mercedes, BMW, recall recent scandal in French company and Chinese spies.
Do you think that research of e.g. behavior of gas or metal is easier task than behavior of plasma?
Or if something making more significant impact on our life (fusion) its developer is scientist and developer of others - engineer?

I only would like to say that Focus Fusion people make very simple things exploiting very aged idea. Will they be successful? I do not know. I wish them all success.
But I do not see the scientific breakthrough in their activity.
But improvement of one part of machine - yes.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:01 pm

Skipjack wrote:I dont quite get the specific path to the answer thing for the scientist.
Scientist look for answers any which way, no?

My understanding of the scientific process includes development of a hypothesis regarding a theory and then doing SPECIFIC experiments SPECIFIC ways to DISPROVE the hypothesis. Failure to DISPROVE is evidence of correct theory. If an experiment CAN'T "disprove" the hypothesis, it is a waste of time other than as a random data collection exercise. That is called "Natural History", not "Science".

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:30 pm

I would add the thought that any science team that does not have a engineer works harder than one that does.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:56 pm

it is a waste of time other than as a random data collection exercise

So paleontology is not a science?
Astronomy is not a science?
I would be very careful with statements like these.
I am sure that a lot of people would object.
The gathering of data (observation) is also part of the scientific process.
You can not form a hypothesis without an observation to base it on.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:21 am

[/quote]

Skipjack wrote:
it is a waste of time other than as a random data collection exercise
So paleontology is not a science?

Random paleontological digs are natural history, not science. Inspecting the data, developing theories about said data, hypothsizing a state of affairs (conditions) that develop out of said theory that have a falsifyable state, and looking for data (digs, museums, coolections, etc) to falsify said hypothesis is paleontologic science.

Skipjack wrote: Astronomy is not a science?

Same statements writ cosmic.

Skipjack wrote: I would be very careful with statements like these.

Thank you, I believe I have been.

Skipjack wrote: I am sure that a lot of people would object.

Only those who don't read my statements well or don't know what science is.

Skipjack wrote: The gathering of data (observation) is also part of the scientific process.

"Data gathering" per se is NOT science, it is "natural history". Data gathering with a specific goal of falsifying a hypothesis is science.

Skipjack wrote: You can not form a hypothesis without an observation to base it on.

Natural history first, then science: theorization, hypothsis, experiment/ testing of hypothesis... Data supports, theory supported, data falsifies, rexamine theory. Random data gathering... back to natural history.

PS: One doesn't form a hypothesis based on observation, one forms a theory based on data from the available accumulation of past observation. One hypothesizes an outcome based on that theory and ...

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 12:55 am

"Data gathering" per se is NOT science, it is "natural history". Data gathering with a specific goal of falsifying a hypothesis is science.

This is total BS.
Observation (the collection of data from it, whatevery you want to call it) is of course part of the scientific process! Please Kite, I dont know where you get this thinking from!

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:07 am

Skipjack wrote:
"Data gathering" per se is NOT science, it is "natural history". Data gathering with a specific goal of falsifying a hypothesis is science.
This is total BS.
Observation (the collection of data from it, whatevery you want to call it) is of course part of the scientific process! Please Kite, I dont know where you get this thinking from!

You are mistaken, but unteachable here, so believe what you will.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:17 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:34 pm

Wiki is not all that often wrong, but they are as prone to repeat common mistakes as anyone.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 4:52 pm

Wiki is not all that often wrong, but they are as prone to repeat common mistakes as anyone.

Sigh...

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:58 am

Kite, I'm not sure why you think observation is not part of the scientific method, but here is another source that contradicts you and supports Skipjack. To quote the relevant part of this university professors description:

Steven D. Schafersman, Department of Geology, Miami University wrote:The Scientific Method in Practice

Now, we are ready to put the scientific method into action. Many books have been written about the scientific method, and it is a long and complex topic. Here I will only treat it briefly and superficially. The scientific method, as used in both scientific thinking and critical thinking, follows a number of steps.

1) One must ask a meaningful question or identify a significant problem ...

2) One must next gather relevant information to attempt to answer the question or solve the problem by making observations. The first observations could be data obtained from the library or information from your own experience. Another souce of observations could be from trial experiments or past experiments. These observations, and all that follow, must be empirical in nature--that is, they must be sensible, measurable, and repeatable, so that others can make the same observations. Great ingenuity and hard work on the part of the scientist is often necessary to make scientific observations. Furthermore, a great deal of training is necessary in order to learn the methods and techniques of gathering scientific data.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:19 am

krenshala wrote:Kite, I'm not sure why you think observation is not part of the scientific method,

I never said it wasn't. Mathematics is part of the scientific method too, but it is not science, it is mathematics. What I stated was that simple data gathering (not specifically aimed at falsifying a hypothesis) is natural history. Experimentation to falsify is science and includes data gathering.

The data gathered by natural historians will almost always lead to someone making theories to explain observed patterns in said data which IS science, but the simple act of gathering is not.

It is a subtle distinction but worth understanding.

My question is what upsets you all so much to have this pointed out to you?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:58 am

My question is what upsets you all so much to have this pointed out to you?

Because
1. Natural History is a science too
2. What you are saying is BS, period.
3. Observation of a phenomenon is part of science. Astronomy is mostly about observation. Heck it is called a fracking observatory for a fracking reason.
I am sure you would offend most of the astronomers out there if you told them that they were not scientists!
Geez, really, sometimes I have to wonder where people learn this sort of BS!