Forums > Social Discussion > Taking stuff as truth cos its in writing

Login/Join to Participate

ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
having just spent the last two days trying to work out why a proof to do with aligning imaginary multi dimensional spaces with the real world was wrong, I decided that instead of coding up each line of the proof (something I did in the derivation process only to spend 11 hours proving that 0 does in face equal 0) that I would verify all of my assumed numbers.

Imagine my surprise and ecstatic joy when I discovered that the horizontal field of view was 45 degrees and NOT 50 degrees and shown on the box, manual and manufacturers website. I swear if you haven't proved it yourself then its a LIE. /rant

It makes me wonder how much of the "science" and "facts" that we use in pop science discussions are based on the "truths" found in the written word and just what need an individual must have to challenge these "facts". I wonder if wikipedia where to become like an open peer reviewed journal where you had to submit all your data along with your findings, along with data/links to make changes if it would lead to an exponential leap in accurate knowledge. Thoughts?

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


willworkforfoodjnrSILVER Member
Hunting robot foxes
1,046 posts
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England (UK)


Posted:
Well my initial thought is that of realism. Obviously at some point you have to trust the word of others, as you can't be an expert in everything. But a good peer-review process can go a long way to helping you find this trust.

The downside is the amount of extra effort required in this. Maybe the ideal situation would be having wikipedia articles marked as "peer-reviewed" when the relevant checks had been passed? This would help you to know just how accurate the information is without stifling the ability of those without the means to perform a full data-collection process to pass on knowledge?

Working hard to be a wandering hippie layabout. Ten years down, five to go!


ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
 Written by :willworkforfoodjnr



Obviously at some point you have to trust the word of others, as you can't be an expert in everything.



Not really, it would be more like making science more like maths, where if you dont understand a "rule" you can look up the proof. If a proof can be shown to be untrue then it can be reviewed and all of the other literature that relies on that proof can also be reviewed.



If i hadnt set up an experiment to verify the properties of the camera and just taken the word of the people who supposedly ensured all the checks had been passed then I would be trying to find an error that didnt exist.



I dont think it would stifle anyone it would have something like



background



F = m * a



F = Force

m = mass

a = acceleration



links to relevant topics



link to experimental setup

link to experimental data



simply a new way of presenting data so that the collective user logic becomes the peer review system of a self referencing system

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


willworkforfoodjnrSILVER Member
Hunting robot foxes
1,046 posts
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England (UK)


Posted:
Thats fine to a point - but try applying that to the ("proven") rules of quantum physics - you may have to spend months learning before you get it - simply having the formula is not always enough.

To clarify - are you talking about facts in general, or more specifications of equipment/processes?

Working hard to be a wandering hippie layabout. Ten years down, five to go!


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
Ben - even maths is getting so complex in some areas that the 'proofs' are sometimes taking many years before being exposed as wrong. Thats where maths becomes science...and thats where we are at.

I understand where you are coming from tho smile

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


DentrassiGOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia


Posted:
truth? proof? facts? science?



how define what each of the above actually is?

how can conclusions conflict from 2 people looking at the same data?

how does it all relate without your brain exploding?



theres an entire field of study who look at all that - Philisophy/History of Science



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



its a pretty good overview - and covers a wide range of topics - theres some pretty epic theories regarding the relationship between science, truths, and facts.



just because a paper written and submitted to, and approved by a scientific journal doesnt necessarily mean its fault proof wink
EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1211335452)

"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.


BrettStarPLATINUM Member
old festy hand
765 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
also the per review process means that theories that disagree with your peers... or new ideas... to get through.... eg flat earrth etc...

ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
 Written by :Pyrolific


Ben - even maths is getting so complex in some areas that the 'proofs' are sometimes taking many years before being exposed as wrong.


See if the information where all interlinked it would be simple, with multimedia and animation being what it is it would be possible to explain "complex" theories visually (in how what the bleep makes the dual slit experiment available to everyone to understand, theres nothing difficult about the theory itself its just difficult to visualize). With the math on how the higher level rules come to be available it means that everyone can challenge it without having to redo everything from scratch.

 Written by :Dentrassi


just because a paper written and submitted to, and approved by a scientific journal doesnt necessarily mean its fault proof wink


exactly my point, most papers gloss over stuff at a high level (usually without saying very much) without getting into the nitty gritty which means reviewers just look at the results and as long as its not outrageous then it gets accepted. It would also serve to massively condense the body of knowledge.

 Written by :BrettStar


also the per review process means that theories that disagree with your peers... or new ideas... to get through.... eg flat earrth etc...


which is exactly why a wiki style body of knowledge would be awesome, you can present all of the information at different levels of abstraction which would mean that to reject a theory would require the error in the data and the conclusions drawn from it to be shown. Different theories would receive different ratings based on the amount of evidence for and against it.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


faith enfireBRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA


Posted:
That's a great thing, Scholarpedia, if it's as good as it says

I had a teacher who used to make things up and then not tell us till right before the test. He told us he wanted us to think about our history/econ lessons and not take everything as true just because he said it

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed


ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
thanks for the link it looks like it could evolve into a very interesting website

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


fanged_angelBRONZE Member
poiromaniac
162 posts
Location: liverpool, uk


Posted:
well to be fair, in reality trying to prove anything as fact is little more than an assumption made on random data, iv been doing alot of coursework lately for science subjects and you have to use a null hypothesis which you then aim to disprove and even then its pretty difficult all you can do is try to prove there is a significant difference in two samples.

....long story made short, question everything and welcome to the rabbit hole neo

EeraBRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia


Posted:
Taking stuff as a truth simply because it's in writing...

Like the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon..?

Oo, can of worms

There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.


jeff(fake)Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh


Posted:
The nature of scientific fact means that practically everything you read is potentially wrong. A lot of things I've read up on have turned out to be wrong in practice, and I have some grave suspicions about a lot of what I've read in ecological theory. Suspecting everything as wrong is just something a scientist has to learn to do, but it doesn't come naturally.
 Written by :ben-ja-men


Imagine my surprise and ecstatic joy when I discovered that the horizontal field of view was 45 degrees and NOT 50 degrees and shown on the box, manual and manufacturers website. I swear if you haven't proved it yourself then its a LIE. /rant



Out of idle interest, are you talking about a camera?
 Written by :ben-ja-men


It makes me wonder how much of the "science" and "facts" that we use in pop science discussions are based on the "truths" found in the written word and just what need an individual must have to challenge these "facts". I wonder if wikipedia where to become like an open peer reviewed journal where you had to submit all your data along with your findings, along with data/links to make changes if it would lead to an exponential leap in accurate knowledge. Thoughts?


Wikipedia needs to stay as conservative as possible to function at all, but there are collaborations involving the same software with your aims in mind. Uptake has been limited due to unease from older academics, but it might just take off for some things (like taxonomy, which is ridiculously unwieldy at the moment).

Things you might want to look at:
Encyclopedia of life
Scientific use of Wiki software
Copyrights issues

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...



Similar Topics

Using the keywords [stuff truth co * writing] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > Taking stuff as truth cos its in writing [14 replies]

      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...