4 ms·

Engineering is great. I guess it just wasn’t clear to me that GP didn’t mean science older than 100 years or that physics and chemistry didn’t fully count as sc

by synu 4y ago

Engineering is great. I guess it just wasn’t clear to me that GP didn’t mean science older than 100 years or that physics and chemistry didn’t fully count as science when I replied to their blanket statement that 80% or 90% of science was wrong. If you define science to exclude anything that is in practical use by engineers and/or has become “settled” over time then the statement is less surprising (but also perhaps less provocative and interesting).

ncmncm 4y ago
Science is about discovering models that account for observed nature. Engineering is about making things that work. GPS is very firmly on the side of a thing that works. Likewise, rockets. People sometimes use those when doing science. So your trotting GPS out as an example of correct science did not in any way illustrate what you imagined.
- synu 4y ago
  I mentioned GPS because it depends on general relativity (or at least I believe it does). Are particle accelerators a better example for you, in that they wouldn’t actually work if 80-90% of science is wrong? Or is particle physics also actually engineering and nothing to do with science? Anyway, my guess at this point is that we both agree on lots of the same technologies that actually work, just not on if general relativity or physics or chemistry are technically science or engineering, and therefore whether they would fall under the “90% of science doesn’t work” statement. Its hard for me to imagine engineering without a dependency on scientific knowledge, but it’s interesting that that’s a valid point of view out there.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    GPS would, in fact, work totally fine if the effects of general relativity were exactly zero. The software does, however, need to apply adjustments to account for effects of GR, in order to produce precisely accurate results. A particle accelerator is a tool used for conducting science experiments. That they work, for that purpose, is purely a product of engineering. At issue is not "whether science works". It is, rather, what percentage of published papers in science journals are crap, and advance the field not at all. The people in the best position to know say they are appalled at how many are. Would they all say 80%+? Obviously not. Do any? Absolutely.
    - synu 4y ago
      The specific statement I was responding to was this: > I can say I believe 80% of science wrong AND not reproducible, 10% being an outright fraud (10% being legit). .. which I interpreted to be a statement on "whether science works." If we instead constrain that to 80% of science that was posted recently in journals, and mainly not in hard sciences, then I could totally get behind that. But I don't think that's what they said, and I think that's why I've been confused by this whole thread.

by synu 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago

Science is about discovering models that account for observed nature. Engineering is about making things that work. GPS is very firmly on the side of a thing that works. Likewise, rockets. People sometimes use those when doing science. So your trotting GPS out as an example of correct science did not in any way illustrate what you imagined.

synu 4y ago
I mentioned GPS because it depends on general relativity (or at least I believe it does). Are particle accelerators a better example for you, in that they wouldn’t actually work if 80-90% of science is wrong? Or is particle physics also actually engineering and nothing to do with science? Anyway, my guess at this point is that we both agree on lots of the same technologies that actually work, just not on if general relativity or physics or chemistry are technically science or engineering, and therefore whether they would fall under the “90% of science doesn’t work” statement. Its hard for me to imagine engineering without a dependency on scientific knowledge, but it’s interesting that that’s a valid point of view out there.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  GPS would, in fact, work totally fine if the effects of general relativity were exactly zero. The software does, however, need to apply adjustments to account for effects of GR, in order to produce precisely accurate results. A particle accelerator is a tool used for conducting science experiments. That they work, for that purpose, is purely a product of engineering. At issue is not "whether science works". It is, rather, what percentage of published papers in science journals are crap, and advance the field not at all. The people in the best position to know say they are appalled at how many are. Would they all say 80%+? Obviously not. Do any? Absolutely.
  - synu 4y ago
    The specific statement I was responding to was this: > I can say I believe 80% of science wrong AND not reproducible, 10% being an outright fraud (10% being legit). .. which I interpreted to be a statement on "whether science works." If we instead constrain that to 80% of science that was posted recently in journals, and mainly not in hard sciences, then I could totally get behind that. But I don't think that's what they said, and I think that's why I've been confused by this whole thread.