Post by nomuse on Oct 1, 2005 16:33:29 GMT -4
Maybe this is a feeble insight. It seems to me that the claims of the hoax believers are an opportunity for some of us to practice part of the basic scientific method. To wit: they bring us an observation. We try to fit that observation into known theory, or failing that, modify the theory.
And it is a game all of the participants on the board can play. Because, not to put too fine a point on it, even though there are many like me with only college-level general science (if that), we still come ahead of the majority of the hoax believers in scientific education. So the argument does not need to be held at a technical, professional level, and conversation does not need to be punctuated with calculus. The "junior scientists" here can actually make some progress on their own.
This board is dominated by an engineering perspective (it would be hard not to be, anywhere in the orbit of Jay's strong personality!) I think that cuts to the heart of the kind of questions we face faster than another approach would. A purely scientific stream would try to break down every behavior into quantifiable factors, and calculate. An engineer recognizes that real objects in the real world are complex systems, and that models can only be successively closer approximations. I've been on other boards, and watched the death spiral of over-simplified models as they compete, each spitting out less and less believable numbers. I think we manage to mostly avoid that pitfall here. And I think this board benefits enormously by having several participants who have solid professional skills in the field. That cuts through the empty theorizing quickly.
And it is a game all of the participants on the board can play. Because, not to put too fine a point on it, even though there are many like me with only college-level general science (if that), we still come ahead of the majority of the hoax believers in scientific education. So the argument does not need to be held at a technical, professional level, and conversation does not need to be punctuated with calculus. The "junior scientists" here can actually make some progress on their own.
This board is dominated by an engineering perspective (it would be hard not to be, anywhere in the orbit of Jay's strong personality!) I think that cuts to the heart of the kind of questions we face faster than another approach would. A purely scientific stream would try to break down every behavior into quantifiable factors, and calculate. An engineer recognizes that real objects in the real world are complex systems, and that models can only be successively closer approximations. I've been on other boards, and watched the death spiral of over-simplified models as they compete, each spitting out less and less believable numbers. I think we manage to mostly avoid that pitfall here. And I think this board benefits enormously by having several participants who have solid professional skills in the field. That cuts through the empty theorizing quickly.
