Science - a symposium. (Feat. SMBP) - Page 4

Professor Smarmiarty · 01-10-2012, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arhra

When the false vacuum collapses, its possible that all matter in the universe will instantaneously cease to exist.

The only way that would happen is if someone created a bubble of lower energy space. And what kind of crazy man would do something like that.

The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk · 01-10-2012, 07:25 AM

Wellllll... I have been working on this thing called the Super Entropy Acceleration Drive...

Osterbaum · 01-10-2012, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McTahr

Clean coal research. Specifically the storage of greenhouse gases in various geological formations through various means.

That doesn�t seem so boring. I mean I�m sure the everyday work is kinda monotone, but like the ultimate goal of the research seems interesting.

Sithdarth · 01-10-2012, 09:05 AM

The thing is that it's very rare for any research scientist to ever actually achieve their stated goal. They spend their entire careers doing incremental research laying the ground work for engineers to actually achieve the stated goal some point in the future. Like when I did my thesis proposal I was all like "I'm going to save the world from the end of Moore's Law, solve it's energy problems, and/or just find some really awesome new materials properties that could be used to build novel electronic devices."

In reality, I'm going to spend my career laying down materials characterization ground work that some electrical engineer in the future might use to do some of those things I mentioned. Basically the stated goal of research tends to be grandiose and exists more to attract grant money than to be an actual research goal. That is not to say research can't be fun. I get to travel to synchrotron light sources and stay up for several days at a time playing with multimillion dollar pieces of equipment. So far it seems like I'll be taking a trip to Berkley around twice a year. There is also talk about a possible trip to Australia and I think it was Taiwan to use light sources there. So at least for my research I get compensated for not getting to achieve the big stated goals by loads of travel to awesome places.

Osterbaum · 01-10-2012, 09:20 AM

I for one will solve all the worlds problems that are related to the environmental physiology of animals.

Amake · 01-10-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregness

So anyways, as I said psychology is out of my depth so I'm interested in what you guys think of this.

I think we're still pretty far from being able to say to someone "You are this way as a person because you have a penis" or anything along those lines. It seems the purpose of the study is to measure the degree to which a given sex as a whole tends towards living up to its associated stereotypes which as far as I can see doesn't help actual members of either sex in any way.

Determining exactly to which degree your generalizations apply doesn't really justify making generalizations about people. Although I'm sure it's going to be a big help to someone who want to say things like "63% of all women are very likely to have sex with more than two partners in a year; statistically speaking women are whores, and you are a whore because you are a woman".

Aerozord · 01-11-2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

The thing is that it's very rare for any research scientist to ever actually achieve their stated goal. They spend their entire careers doing incremental research laying the ground work for engineers to actually achieve the stated goal some point in the future. Like when I did my thesis proposal I was all like "I'm going to save the world from the end of Moore's Law, solve it's energy problems, and/or just find some really awesome new materials properties that could be used to build novel electronic devices."

Reminds me of that episode of Futurama when the scientists did achieve their goal and solved all the mysterious of the universe. Then learned that as scientists having nothing new to study was akin to a horrific living death.

Though yes, most people dont realize scientists do not directly solve anything. Do not get me wrong, they are vital to the process, but scientists just work on the hows and why's. Engineers do the actual problem solving.

But I think thats why, on paper scientists seem to work on cooler stuff. Engineers work on cutting edge new technologies, but scientists are always a step ahead working on theoretical studies for technology that will be 20 years off if we are lucky.

Engineers are just now getting their hands on nanotech but scientists have been messing with it for 10 years and working on the theories behind it for even longer

phil_ · 01-11-2012, 09:38 PM

Ok, Gregness, let me try this again. The metaphor doesn't describe what they're getting at, so forget it.

Normal personality research separates personalities into several personality traits. Normal comparative studies between men and women average men's and women's traits along all these traits into a single number each, then compare them. This produces results that ignore differences between men and women on specific personality traits.

Except that's all untrue. Your source is a bunch of assholes that misrepresent the research of others to get in the newspaper. I tried to write up an explanation of all this stuff last night, but this is all you have to know. They are frauds, they are trying to make a profit off of modern American distrust of science, THE END.

Continue to discuss real science.

Osterbaum · 01-11-2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

distrust of science

Ugh, I vince every time I hear the argument of "but then science is just like a religion to you, you just blindly believe in it!".

Aerozord · 01-11-2012, 11:38 PM

any true scientist should remember, always the chance you are right, and always the chance you are wrong. You should never discount something simply because it goes against the currently accepted theory.

To be fair scientists are still human, and once you believe certain things to be true its hard to remove that belief, and its equally as bad to simply latch onto whatever the latest theory is. Its hard to be subjective. Especially when we are rather limited in our ability to observe reality and process information. Leaving us with clues and approximations more often then cold hard absolutes

01-10-2012, 09:20 AM	#35
Osterbaum The revolution will be memed! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: FIN Posts: 5,967	I for one will solve all the worlds problems that are related to the environmental physiology of animals. __________________ D is for Dirty Commie!

01-11-2012, 09:38 PM	#38
phil_ Just sleeping Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: At home, probably in bed. Posts: 6,482	Ok, Gregness, let me try this again. The metaphor doesn't describe what they're getting at, so forget it. Normal personality research separates personalities into several personality traits. Normal comparative studies between men and women average men's and women's traits along all these traits into a single number each, then compare them. This produces results that ignore differences between men and women on specific personality traits. Except that's all untrue. Your source is a bunch of assholes that misrepresent the research of others to get in the newspaper. I tried to write up an explanation of all this stuff last night, but this is all you have to know. They are frauds, they are trying to make a profit off of modern American distrust of science, THE END. Continue to discuss real science. __________________ Be T-Rexcellent to each other, tako.

01-11-2012, 11:38 PM	#40
Aerozord So we are clear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Former murder capital of the world Posts: 13,824	any true scientist should remember, always the chance you are right, and always the chance you are wrong. You should never discount something simply because it goes against the currently accepted theory. To be fair scientists are still human, and once you believe certain things to be true its hard to remove that belief, and its equally as bad to simply latch onto whatever the latest theory is. Its hard to be subjective. Especially when we are rather limited in our ability to observe reality and process information. Leaving us with clues and approximations more often then cold hard absolutes __________________ "don't hate me for being a heterosexual white guy disparaging slacktivism, hate me for all those murders I've done."

01-10-2012, 09:05 AM	#34
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	The thing is that it's very rare for any research scientist to ever actually achieve their stated goal. They spend their entire careers doing incremental research laying the ground work for engineers to actually achieve the stated goal some point in the future. Like when I did my thesis proposal I was all like "I'm going to save the world from the end of Moore's Law, solve it's energy problems, and/or just find some really awesome new materials properties that could be used to build novel electronic devices." In reality, I'm going to spend my career laying down materials characterization ground work that some electrical engineer in the future might use to do some of those things I mentioned. Basically the stated goal of research tends to be grandiose and exists more to attract grant money than to be an actual research goal. That is not to say research can't be fun. I get to travel to synchrotron light sources and stay up for several days at a time playing with multimillion dollar pieces of equipment. So far it seems like I'll be taking a trip to Berkley around twice a year. There is also talk about a possible trip to Australia and I think it was Taiwan to use light sources there. So at least for my research I get compensated for not getting to achieve the big stated goals by loads of travel to awesome places.