[teestub]

I think there are very few things which we can claim to know with sufficient certainty to proclaim "case closed".

Well yes, this is the very basis of science compared to religion, that everything is a ‘best working theory’ rather than a set of beliefs.

[tomtom]

Problem is Dave - anyone can make up experiments and findings and make videos and post blogs about it. They can then appear to legitimise their research by referencing their own research (often self published) generating over time a body of apparent work supporting their theory/work.

So - research is typically published after peer review - that is imperfect but over time effective as a mediator and check on science.

So new research ain’t worth squat until it’s been reviewed, reproduced and accepted by people in the community/science field. Those questions you mention raised by the research are not questions - they’re total punts.

I’m coming in a bit hard here for a couple of reasons - first look at the Mmr / anti Vac movement that is completely built on fuck all. It’s all fabricated - but has really really important implications for people and their lives (and with vac deaths). Second - I set up and run a successful and reputable journal - and I’ve had to deal with nutjob bullshit research before and had to suffer their bullying shout loud tactics when their work was and is a sham.

But - if Someone has new findings - even if they contradict all before, if their work has a high rigor and can be reproduced, and can withstand being reviewed by their peers then great! Lets change what we think - but the above checks are important!!!

[petejh]

I've posted the video and links because of the new research, and not the "controversy" surrounding previous stories.

Those posting to cite previous attacks, scepticism, challenges, "debunking" etc of previous experiments, aren't adding anything to the questions raised by new research.

That's something which I do find interesting, and think that others may too.

I also think that people may hold up "The Scientific Method" as some form of absolute and infallible process, a certain reference point. It isn't. More to the point, it's often held up as something more akin to religious dogma, to protect the established "Churches" of science, than to facilitate further enquiry and allow the sort of challenges to our complacent beliefs, that we should welcome.

Also, the debate about previous experiments was far from one sided.

I find it exciting when new questions are raised by research into old problems.

I'd suggest that if there is anything which is appropriate for the "Science" thread, then it's discursive argument rather than polarised posturing.

I think there are very few things which we can claim to know with sufficient certainty to proclaim "case closed".

What is true and what isn't true, what has happened and what hasn't happened, is something which is hopefully always open to debate.

H.Pylori being a perfect example of what you're talking about Dave. But that's still the scientific method.

Roughly, that was an Australian who questioned the scientific status quo and experimented on himself by ingesting H Pylori bacteria to debunk dogmatic beliefs about the causes of stomach ulcers. But those dogmatic beliefs themselves were based on scientific method to hypothesise a plausible mechanism of action, even if they were eventually shown to be wrong.

[petejh]

Scientific method 101, including all the factors you're talking about, exemplified by the discovery of H Pylori:

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Sorry, but I don't think anyone has said anything that isn't in some way self evident.

String theory is a great example of what can get accepted without experimental rigor.

I completely stand by my posts, that this seems to be a very interesting area of research - the whole "water memory" and other questions.

One of the most important aspects of science is what amounts to pure speculation - "punts" if you like.

Too much free research is harmed because of the way that funding is directed towards projects that appear to represent a better bet in terms of return on investment.

I like to think about and consider, explore etc, what other people are thinking about too.

The so called "scientific method" is a label which is often applied after certain assumptions are made.

Regarding the basis of various hypotheses, I think people are very often deluded about the solidity of the foundations.

Many things appear true to us - certain even - because we've developed habits and attachments towards seeing things that way.

I like the way Penrose talks about science, highlighting the fallacy that science points directly at "reality", instead describing it as an attempt to develop tools for navigation.

It is precisely the "punts" that lead to areas of research being established. We have to be wary of what we hold dear, and why.

I think it would be constructive if people were to look at these new areas of research - how much, by whom, where etc.

Instead, it feels like groups of people clubbing together to say "That's a crock of shit", "Yay! We win you lose  "

I'm interested in the questions raised.

We are lucky, because some people are happy to ask questions, and invest their lives exploring, things that other people only want to laugh at.


Edit.

Pete, I really don't need you to educate me on what you proclaim about "The Scientific Method".

Two of my favourite books:

"What is this thing called science" (Chambers)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/137314.What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science_

"The trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin)

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/63092.Lee_Smolin

Hope the links work.

And my absolute all time, desert Island favourite:

Inventing Reality (Gregory)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Reality-Physics-Language-Editions/dp/0471524824

[teestub]

String theory is a great example of what can get accepted without experimental rigor.

String Theory is a great example of theoretical physics where the experiments needed to test it would be hugely expensive. This is not a lack of rigour but a lack of economically viable ways to test theories. Maybe in a few more decades we'll be in a place to bring over more of these ideas from theoretical to experimental physics, as computer power increases.  Not sure without looking how long it was between the theories of the Higgs Boson and the construction of the LHC and the good experimental data that confirmed the theory.

[petejh]

Dave, I'm not 'proclaiming' anything - merely highlighting that what you describe in your post as scepticism towards dogmatic views in 'science' is in fact a perfect illustration of the scientific process in action. Ironically all you're describing in your post above is perfectly describing the scientific method!
It's clear you don't like anything that smacks to you as authority, or institution, or anything that resembles a status quo. But that doesn't mean that you're opposed to the scientific method - you're probably more aligned with it than many people   

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Hi Pete, yes, in many ways, I probably am - but in terms of how to review things, rather than deriving them.

What I've been trying to point out is the degree of faith that many people put in the so called scientific method - as though it is some sort of rigid, objective way of getting from A-B.

I like this comment referencing Crick/Watson and the difference between their academic papers, and the book "The Double Helix":

 ‘scientific method’ may more usefully be thought of as a way of writing up research rather than as a way of carrying it out.

https://www.ielts-mentor.com/reading-sample/academic-reading/37-ielts-academic-reading-sample-12-the-scientific-method

I'm reminded of the number of times I've explored a sequence on a problem, with great expectation, just because it feels familiar. My hypothesis is pretty darn solid, until I find out it's a blind alley just two moves before the finishing jug!

I digress.

More importantly, how much is my climbing harmed by the desire to believe that it is in fact a worthy goal to climb 9a and run a sub 2:30 marathon. I seem to be getting a few false infinities at the moment 

I digress further!

[JamieG]

Interesting discussion Pete and Dave.

I work in bio-mechanics, and occasionally dabble in palaeontology and anthropology, and over time you can become slightly dismissive to ideas outside of the norm. But this is partly self-preservation, since the number of 'bat shit' hypotheses and ideas in some of these fields is high, so if you spent all your time taking them seriously and trying to debunk them you wouldn't actually get much other work done. Admittedly sometimes this means you overlook interesting new ideas, but the onus has to be on the team suggesting the idea to make the case. This is usually through the scientific method which although not perfect usually gets there in the end and is the best system we currently have. Also it helps to protect against scientific fraud which unfortunately is more common than we'd like and can have dire consequences.

Likewise in climbing i guess the reason you tend explore a familiar sequence is precisely because it usually does work >90% of the time. You only tend to notice when it doesn't and it stands out. Therefore, when someone suggests weird beta on a problem and I'm struggling to make it work. I usually ask them to 'show me' how they do it, otherwise they might just be sandbagging you. ( Carrington I know you can see this :-) )

[Oldmanmatt]

Interesting discussion Pete and Dave.

I work in bio-mechanics, and occasionally dabble in palaeontology and anthropology, and over time you can become slightly dismissive to ideas outside of the norm. But this is partly self-preservation, since the number of 'bat shit' hypotheses and ideas in some of these fields is high, so if you spent all your time taking them seriously and trying to debunk them you wouldn't actually get much other work done. Admittedly sometimes this means you overlook interesting new ideas, but the onus has to be on the team suggesting the idea to make the case. This is usually through the scientific method which although not perfect usually gets there in the end and is the best system we currently have. Also it helps to protect against scientific fraud which unfortunately is more common than we'd like and can have dire consequences.

Likewise in climbing i guess the reason you tend explore a familiar sequence is precisely because it usually does work >90% of the time. You only tend to notice when it doesn't and it stands out. Therefore, when someone suggests weird beta on a problem and I'm struggling to make it work. I usually ask them to 'show me' how they do it, otherwise they might just be sandbagging you. ( Carrington I know you can see this :-) )

Extraordinary claims require...

Author: E. Verybody, Et al.

[Oldmanmatt]

On a more amusing note.

When you subscribe to certain science magazines and periodicals, you don’t half get some odd headlines appear in your inbox:

https://www.sciencealert.com/fungal-hallucinogens-cause-cicadas-to-go-on-sex-binges-after-they-lose-their-genitals?&tb_cb=1

Actually, moderately alarming, in as much as it seems probable that, should Madam Evolution have her way, the future o life on earth is Fungal (or at least, fungal controlled).

[Oldmanmatt]

Lightsaber anyone?
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-re-one-step-closer-to-healing-wounds-with-tiny-light-sabres?&tb_cb=1

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Jamie G:

I like the balance and context there. However, I still contest that we over-egg the "getting there" of the "SM". We like to reassure ourselves that something "works", and referencing some "method" in that way, I tend to think is probably closer to a bit of comforting "post hock (or Bordeaux)".

OMM:

Extraordinary claims.. etc.

I try to steer clear of quoting Armstrong, but I still find his efforts inspiring 

[JamieG]

I think you’re probably right it’s healthy to be sceptical of the ‘method’. Although in my experience very few studies actually strictly follow the scientific method. Usually all phases are happening at once. Data collection, analysis, literature review, hypothesis testing. Only the write ups made it look like we knew what we were doing. 

[Stu Littlefair]

I think it’s key to remember that the power of Science doesn’t lie in the “method”. The classic idea of proposing and testing hypotheses through falsification is an ideal that is rarely achieved, but that misses the point.

The key to the success of science is that no idea survives prolonged conflict with experiment or data. Thus it is a self-correcting method that eventually converges on truth.

However, this convergence is often slow and messy with several wrong turns; the scientific consensus is always wrong, even if the errors are very minor.

Faced with imperfection in the practice of science, and the obvious fact that the scientific consensus is wrong today as it was in the past, it is sometimes tempting for people to accept any alternative idea, particularly if it fits with their world view.

But there are two types of open mindedness; one is the acceptance of ideas that are plausible though poorly tested - eg a willingness to accept string theory.

The second is the consideration of ideas that are poorly thought through, and that conflict with extremely well tested scientific theories with an enormous evidence base.

The memory of water falls into the latter category. The idea is in serious conflict with thermodynamics and quantum mechanics; two of the best tested scientific theories that exist.

To flirt with this idea due to some valid but irrelevant concerns about the scientific method is not just throwing the baby out with the bath water, but is akin to chucking the baby, the bath water and the entire bathroom off the top of El Cap.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Stu, constructive of you to add some possible reasoning - re the thermodynamics - but I'd want to see that thought through rather more fully.

Re, "scientific method", bringing that into the debate was a red herring - as is the "convergence on truth" of course.

Who is doing this?:

"To flirt with this idea due to some valid but irrelevant concerns about the scientific method.."

I'm not.

I think I'd make some of your points less defined, and more contingent.

It would be good to look at some of the challenges to the idea, and other areas of research into water atm.

You may be more familiar with the ideas, but I'll certainly look at the things you've raised - which is the sort of response which is helpful to anything posted as an apparently interesting area of research.

"Plausibility" is a really odd one. The utility of truth - the apparent usefulness of a theory - is something that acknowledges/allows for (?) bias in all it's forms rather more.

[tomtom]

As a welcome break from Brexit stuff I saw this today...

https://geoffboeing.com/2019/09/urban-street-network-orientation/

Great rose diagrams of city street orientations. Feed your inner 🤓 geek.

[petejh]

Great article. First glance, I assume some of the US cities with 'old quarters' - relatively speaking - show up as the small, slightly more haphazard pattern in the centre of diagrams among a sea of American uniformity.

[bigironhorse]

Its interesting that so many of the grid system cities are aligned N-S and E-W rather any other orientation. I can't think why this orientation is superior, maybe because of the sun?

[Oldmanmatt]

Its interesting that so many of the grid system cities are aligned N-S and E-W rather any other orientation. I can't think why this orientation is superior, maybe because of the sun?

Surely that would be correlated with latitude?

Only skimmed the article, but I have at this point assumed that the more densely and completely packed cities are more “chaotic”. I was struck that it didn’t seem immediately to correlate with the age or the city, which I would have assumed to have been a proportional relationship.

I guess geography plays hell with the best laid city planners of mice and men...

[tomtom]

You can force a grid structure on almost any topography - so i suspect it reflects both the level of planning in the city and how organised/fast it developed.

Eg cities that have spread steadily over say 500 years are unlikely to have a consistent strategy in planning.

Whereas somewhere like Vegas (not checked it on the diagram so I may be wrong!!) id expect to be more ordered as it’s grown very rapidly according to (some sort) of plan.

Many cities have evolved through many little plans bolted together. Whereas some have expanded according to a grand plan!

My historical geographer colleagues would love this.

[Oldmanmatt]

Wouldn’t many communities have spread out along lines of communication from nexus points and therefore been constrained, not so much by local topography, but by a much larger scale, less obvious, geography?
Those can appear at any point in time. I remember some very modern examples around the middle east.

I mean the “hamlet on the crossroads” type thing.
Things that grow into towns and cities, almost unnoticed, let alone planned.

Something other than communities that exist because of local topography, like natural harbours or defensible hill formations etc.

[tomtom]

If you dump 100k people in an empty space they’ll build a very different city than if you dump 100k people on a widely spaced network of roads (and pipes/sewers/power) etc...

My US colleagues are interested that Charlottesville is very different from most US cities... I’m guessing it’s quite different? Never been there!!

[SA Chris]

Eg cities that have spread steadily over say 500 years are unlikely to have a consistent strategy in planning.

But it says;

Note that these are cities proper (municipalities), not wider metro areas or urban agglomerations.

Charlotte is strange to be such an outlier in the US. At first glance there appears to be no geographical reason for it, like Manhattan's orientation being due to the shape of the island.

[tomtom]

The article is written by a network analyst ( I think) whereas a social scientist might have quite different explanations