The "idiot" scientists

[Spectral]

Well, if it happens there is a solution - get help from someone who can codify your idea in mathematical terms -
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...great-science/

This is exactly why I'm not too concerned. People that have any clue what they're doing generally are pretty good at consulting with experts once they start getting to the edges of their knowledge boundaries.

I feel like the OP's basically just whining that scientists are insufficiently polite to people that come up with off-the-wall ideas that have no supporting evidence and don't even make sense.

[Garnier Fructis]

Again though, the only "ordered" factor that entropy refers to is heat itself. Heat is 100% ordered in a system at equilibrium. It's all the same. It will never change.

The order interpretation of entropy doesn't come from the heat concept, but from statistical mechanics, where entropy is thought of as (roughly) the logarithm of the 'number of states' (i.e. configurations) which achieve that. Hence, the more ways you can achieve something, the higher the entropy. That's why Boltzmann attached the idea of disorder to it. Because there are less ways for the system to spell out "Thug Life" than for the system to just be a uniform soup, so for him "Thug Life" is much more ordered than equilibrium.

That being said, order and disorder are probably bad ways to describe entropy. If you have a deck or cards arranged by number and suit and you randomly switch 3 cards, did the system gain entropy? Well, the second configuration is certainly 'less ordered', but the entropy did not change because all that happened was one configuration was changed to another equally likely configuration.

[Slant]

As someone who reads a lot of science related articles and watches science shows and videos, I noticed that they usually use a lot of obscure formulas and fancy words to prove their point and also how most people dismiss all ideas when the person who comes up with them cant formulate them and just uses small words and illustrative descriptions. But does that mean they are automatically wrong?

For example, I guess you all know the third law of thermodynamics, that the universe always strives towards entropy. Well I googled about why life doesnt. Life gets more complex over time as opposed to more efficient (bacteria being far more efficient than large life forms). And guess what, a bunch of greek letter and numbers. Articles both proving its false and its true. Always those obscure formulas with greek letters and numbers. So it got me thinking. Our brains dont work using these formulas. We come up with abstract ideas and often the formulas come later. Say you wanted to move your leg. Do you think about how many voltages you feed into your muscles, the angles? Precise calculations maybe? No, you just move it and you walk.

Sooo, should we dismiss the ideas of people who arent educated enough or cba to put then into formulas off the bat? Or maybe there can be some truth in it if the logic holds otherwise?

Right. I think you're hitting a wall of understanding in modern science where maths is needed to overcome our mental limits. I'm sure you've often seen those gravity simulations? A rubber 2D plane on which a couple of metal balls revolve around each other? I always thought that's one heck of a nifty way to simulate gravity for the dumb dumbs like me.

And then I wondered... ok, but that's like 2D. How's it look like with a 3D "solid rubber" cube. You know, like the universe should be. I have actually no idea, and I tried coming up with a lot of imagery in my head how to envision it. If you can draw me any kind of picture you like, that's actually easy to understand, feel free to do so and I'll enjoy the fuck out of it. Because that's where my mind just stops and goes like this:



But this is actually the point where maths becomes super insanely useful. We know a lot of shit to be true that we intuitively don't understand. We don't know why shit works sometimes. We just know that it works, because the maths checks out. Well, scientists anyway. All I do is press a button and my smartphone tells me where I am. Thanks to Mr. Einstein and a dozen or so GPS satelites.

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly why I'm not too concerned. People that have any clue what they're doing generally are pretty good at consulting with experts once they start getting to the edges of their knowledge boundaries.

I feel like the OP's basically just whining that scientists are insufficiently polite to people that come up with off-the-wall ideas that have no supporting evidence and don't even make sense.

I can feel the OP. He sucks at maths, so do I. I wish I was better at maths, but I'm not. I can pretty much follow simple maths logic when someone walks me through it, no problem. But retaining that information in my head? No chance. If I can't instantly do the logic chain myself, I'll never learn it. I'm like that. Numbers scare me. And letters that pretend to be numbers are even worse. And when they are from a freaking different fucking alphabet... I CAN'T DEAL WITH THIS SHIT!

Sorry. Maths also makes me somewhat aggressive. Mostly because I can't do it.

[Gheld]

The order interpretation of entropy doesn't come from the heat concept, but from statistical mechanics, where entropy is thought of as (roughly) the logarithm of the 'number of states' (i.e. configurations) which achieve that. Hence, the more ways you can achieve something, the higher the entropy. That's why Boltzmann attached the idea of disorder to it. Because there are less ways for the system to spell out "Thug Life" than for the system to just be a uniform soup, so for him "Thug Life" is much more ordered than equilibrium.

That being said, order and disorder are probably bad ways to describe entropy. If you have a deck or cards arranged by number and suit and you randomly switch 3 cards, did the system gain entropy? Well, the second configuration is certainly 'less ordered', but the entropy did not change because all that happened was one configuration was changed to another equally likely configuration.

That's what I'm saying Homie shampoo person

[Garnier Fructis]

I think the point that he is trying to make is that it is pretty arrogant of people to dismiss any idea that they don't personally deem to be 'up to snuff' with their perception of their own intelligence.

The problem is that the OP thrown a lot of baggage in with this idea by associating this arrogance to mathematical formulation. Science requires a system of communication that 1) removes as much ambiguity as possible and 2) can be understood by anyone regardless of spoken language barriers.

That is mathematics and equations. People who can't be bothered to learn the mathematics to formulate their ideas are simply people who are not putting in the necessary legwork to be understood.

[hrugner]

As someone who reads a lot of science related articles and watches science shows and videos, I noticed that they usually use a lot of obscure formulas and fancy words to prove their point and also how most people dismiss all ideas when the person who comes up with them cant formulate them and just uses small words and illustrative descriptions. But does that mean they are automatically wrong?

It's best to think of those formulae as notes explaining how to put all involved theories together. They aren't really for lay people. If you can recognize the relationships in the equation you can then determine change rates and see if your data produces a change rate near enough to your theory to support that theory. You then test that equation's predictive capacity.

So in your case, by assuming low entropy and low complexity go hand in hand, you handicap your ability to interpret any involved theory as none of the equations will produce an expected change rate.

[Forogil]

That being said, order and disorder are probably bad ways to describe entropy. If you have a deck or cards arranged by number and suit and you randomly switch 3 cards, did the system gain entropy? Well, the second configuration is certainly 'less ordered', but the entropy did not change because all that happened was one configuration was changed to another equally likely configuration.

Well, it is not a perfect name, can you given another non-technical name? However there is a major difference between deck of cards and molecules: all hydrogen atoms (at least the of the same isotope) are the same - so it is as if you had a deck of cards without suits (so 4 aces - all the same).

[Garnier Fructis]

Well, it is not a perfect name, can you given another non-technical name? However there is a major difference between deck of cards and molecules: all hydrogen atoms (at least the of the same isotope) are the same - so it is as if you had a deck of cards without suits (so 4 aces - all the same).

No name can really do it justice. This conversation shows, ironically, why formulae are rather important. Because the mathematical formalization is not ambiguous.

[Fencers]

Is it though? Can pure math lead to any discoveries? If so, then how?

Yes, computational, through the application of previous abstract formulae.

Science and math are impartial, people however are not.

Again, that is entirely subjective. Meaning it is not in the purview of math and science. The 'idiot' and learned scientist is no better or worse in this regard; again, Faraday.

It was about those people who are adept at math at science who consider themselves superior and elite just because they can use the greek letters and formulate things and dismiss everyone who cant do the same off the bat.

Kind of a crazy assumption to apply to the millions of scientists and mathematicians... but okay, I suppose? It's your own perception and nothing more.

I meant the part thats done automatically, by the brain without you even knowing how its done, I did explain it though.

What is the brain doing automatically? This assertion does not make sense; nor is it in line with what we know of the brain's functions.

If you have explained your meaning previous and I missed it, apologies. I should like a link or a repeat of that explanation.

Actually no you cant.

What? Care to explain this?

The point I was trying to make there was that your brain does a lot of things automatically. Very complex things. Even a complete moron can do things that even the most sophisticated machines cant.

Machines are tools. We create them for purpose.

No human brain comes up with scientific conclusions automatically or in the background. Ambulatory functions are not the same brain functions as computation and reason. No brain could posit on it's own mathematical formula, language and demonstrable evidence by some "background process" like some device service running in Windows.

That is not how one comes to know the atomic mass of chlorine.

[EliWallach]

I know that!!!

But youre missing the point I think. Or well the point Im trying to make in any case. Math is dry. It leads nowhere. And imagination is just fairytales as you said.

Then again all ideas start as dreams, concepts, as the background processes of the brain and then the educated, real scientists use math to sort it out. Even the warp drive started out as a dream of a story writer. An idea not proven with zero math involved. But that doesnt mean its automatically wrong or invalid. In fact, theyre on the verge of building the thing.

If you can live without your smartphone then correct, you don't need math.

[Kuntantee]

Well, it leads to somewhere. Just because you might not like where it leads doesn't mean it leads to no where.

Both science with math and science without math (ie: philosophy as you put it) lead to answers for various questions, that each and every individual can either choose to accept or deny.

The former is product of science, the latter is just an assumption. Denying or accepting an assumption is denying or accepting an assumption, nothing more. Just do not try to service an assumptions as a symmetry in the universe, or in other words, a fact.

Ironically, philosophy is the only way to attempt to give ultimate meaning and/or ultimate purpose to that which isn't philosophical.

Not sure what is so ironic. I just don't know what happens when something has a "meaning" or "purpose". Why someone would consider a tool's (philosophy) ability to give meaning to stuff a merit. This whole "purpose", "meaning" bullshit is nothing more than a self-confirmation or a delusion.

[Forogil]

No name can really do it justice. This conversation shows, ironically, why formulae are rather important. Because the mathematical formalization is not ambiguous.

So, you (provisionally) accept that we don't have any better non-technical name than disorder for entropy?

However, the mathematical formulation isn't that straightforward and unambiguous either: we cannot (yet) compute the results for string-theory so we don't know if it is right or not, the nice concept of quantum-electro-dynamics had early on severe mathematical problems (infinite results) that it took some time to resolve, and even entropy started out with a different (less general) mathematical description than the current one.

Formulating the theory with words and similarities helps communicating and understanding the theory - but to actually get predictions to test the theory we need a mathematical description (and the mathematical know-how to produce the results from the theory).

- - - Updated - - -

No human brain comes up with scientific conclusions automatically or in the background. Ambulatory functions are not the same brain functions as computation and reason. No brain could posit on it's own mathematical formula, language and demonstrable evidence by some "background process" like some device service running in Windows.

Well, on the other hand we shouldn't just dismiss that - since there are probably some scientists that come up with conclusions in the background, even though the famous example of dancing monkeys for Benzene rings is likely fake.

But it requires that the brain actually has the knowledge to start a "background process", then process the result, and then check the predictions - otherwise it is just someone dreaming of dancing monkeys.

[Summer]

Richard Feynman on scientific method:



This should clear up any confusion over how it works.

Those greek symbols are needed to turn hunches into measurable predictions or comparable results. Without that nothing means anything.

[Deleted]

No its the opposite. Most people consider you automatically wrong if you dont use it. Thats the real issue.

Burden of proof is on you to prove things. That's the reason. Also scientists don't have to use terms so average human will understand it. That's not their job. Science isn;t for average people and I don't see why they should be bothered to do the explaining when there are other people who help translate their science-stuff to "normal" language.

It's simply inefficient for them to bother explaining stuff to people not in the know who will not have much out of this anyways. Better to focus their efforts elsewhere.

[Deleted]

As someone who reads a lot of science related articles and watches science shows and videos, I noticed that they usually use a lot of obscure formulas and fancy words to prove their point

Just take a look at your diagnosis paper the next time you visit a doctor. The words are not deliberately used to appear smart or obscure, but to describe the exact problem, and this information is for other doctors.

For example, I guess you all know the third law of thermodynamics, that the universe always strives towards entropy. Well I googled about why life doesnt. Life gets more complex over time as opposed to more efficient (bacteria being far more efficient than large life forms).

Do you think the birth of a star or a planet defies entropy? Your body is constantly battling entropy and tries to maintain homeostasis. Eventually the planet will break down back to "less complex structure," if that makes sense to you.

SEEE!! Actually I dont know. But this is what I meant. Just human errors, obscurity. Our brains arent designed to be very mathy I think but errors and not using the big words doesnt mean youre automatically completely wrong, does it?

Doesn't, but you often are wrong. You were evolved to throw harpoon points to lions, not to understand quantum mechanics. Those formulas are built over centuries, the knowledge passed on, to be advanced by the next generation. It's working, otherwise you wouldn't be able to read this message.

[Noradin]

As someone who reads a lot of science related articles and watches science shows and videos, I noticed that they usually use a lot of obscure formulas and fancy words to prove their point and also how most people dismiss all ideas when the person who comes up with them cant formulate them and just uses small words and illustrative descriptions. But does that mean they are automatically wrong?

For example, I guess you all know the third law of thermodynamics, that the universe always strives towards entropy. Well I googled about why life doesnt. Life gets more complex over time as opposed to more efficient (bacteria being far more efficient than large life forms). And guess what, a bunch of greek letter and numbers. Articles both proving its false and its true. Always those obscure formulas with greek letters and numbers. So it got me thinking. Our brains dont work using these formulas. We come up with abstract ideas and often the formulas come later. Say you wanted to move your leg. Do you think about how many voltages you feed into your muscles, the angles? Precise calculations maybe? No, you just move it and you walk.

Sooo, should we dismiss the ideas of people who arent educated enough or cba to put then into formulas off the bat? Or maybe there can be some truth in it if the logic holds otherwise?

And you just demonstrated why they get dismissed most of the time:
They didn't research enough and didn't understand what others have already demonstrated, because they didn't understand the defnintions of the words used in those demonstrations. Often what they try to tell you is incomplete or old news. That is why they are dismissed. The language they use is only a side effect that often conincides with this.
You just assume they get dismissed for the words they use when it is really what they say that gets them disregarded.

In your example the way you misapply the third law of thermodynamics in regards to "life getting more complex over time" is such a mess that I do not even want to touch it, because setting you right will most likely take way to much of my time and I suspect you wouldn't even thank us for it.

There is one case where people might get dismissed for using to many small words despite being factually correct and having something interesting to say: If their choice of words makes the explanation so longwinded nobody can concentrate long neough to follow them.

[Dezerte]

I guess youre missing the "OT" a bit but since I find it really interesting I thought I should add my 2 cents anyway. So in in any case, I was curious about evolution. Entropy strives towards uniformity and simplicity. Life on the other hand towards complexity. Why is that? Assume life just happens. Why does it evolve towards complexity then? Bacteria are far more efficient and spend less energy than multi-cellular organisms. So instead of humans, why dont we have really efficient, almost inert passive bacteria now?

So I saw this today which might shed some light on the question.

[Dsonsion]

I wanted to help with some explanations from my modest knowledge, but to me it seems the subject raised by the OP has already been well covered in the thread. I know this isn't proof of anything, but I wanted to remark what Einstein himself said about Thermodynamics and its laws:

“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. It (Thermodynamics) is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”