Free speech.

[Zedder]

Actually the proportion of empty space in all matter is much higher than 99%. That 60% water is also mostly empty space. Compared to the size of sub-atomic particles the space between them is ginormous.

Only if you take a schematic diagram of the Bohr model as the full answer.

[swbarnett]

Only if you take a schematic diagram of the Bohr model as the full answer.

I'll admit that we really don't know for sure exactly what's going on at that level.

[scumdog]

Exactly.

My fan club is trying to get the thread moved to PD.

Which is pretty much what the thread is about.

Maybe you could cut out the middle man by starting all your threads on PD?

[Zedder]

I'll admit that we really don't know for sure exactly what's going on at that level.

Heh, is that "we" as in you're a physicist?

[swbarnett]

Heh, is that "we" as in you're a physicist?

No, I just mean "humankind" (my wife has a masters in particle physics and keeps her finger casually on the pulse of things)

[bogan]

You probably need to read the post again. The first part answered your question, it was not my example. You are also using words I did not use nor even inferred. I did not say it was not possible to use experimental repetition nor did I say it was not an integral part of science, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was not the only way to produce scientific evidence.

The example I gave relating to Fenoterol was very clear. Overwhelming evidence was produced to show the drug was suspect and was in fact linked to a number of deaths. There were NO experiments involved in producing this evidence.

That'd be a great answer if I asked what you weren't on about. What you are on about, must have something to do with it being wrong to assert that the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions derived from repetitive experimentation is what makes science, science. But I'm failing to see how your examples showing consistent results derived from repeated experiments show otherwise?

In the Fenoterol example, the experiments were the uses of it (some of which resulted in death apparently), just because they did not follow a rigid scientific method, does not mean they cannot be learned from.

[Ulsterkiwi]

That'd be a great answer if I asked what you weren't on about. What you are on about, must have something to do with it being wrong to assert that the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions derived from repetitive experimentation is what makes science, science. But I'm failing to see how your examples showing consistent results derived from repeated experiments show otherwise?

In the Fenoterol example, the experiments were the uses of it (some of which resulted in death apparently), just because they did not follow a rigid scientific method, does not mean they cannot be learned from.

Ok, let me try again.

You said at some point millions of posts ago that the only experimental repetition was scientific. I said, repeatedly, that while experimental repetition is of course scientific, it is not the only way to produce evidence which has scientific merit. What makes science, science, as you put it, is the structure and the transparency of what is done and how it is reported. That way the investigation, be that observational, descriptive, narrative or experimental can be repeated and the new results compared to the original investigation or study. That is what makes science, science. Again, science is not a field but a way of thinking, a way to approach the problem of understanding the world around us.

In the Fenoterol example, which you clearly are not familiar with so its unfair of me to expect you to comment on with anything like an informed position, a drug which had been widely available and funded in the public system was established as being causally linked to a series of deaths. That link was NOT established with experiments but rather a case control series. A case control series is a well established scientific research methodology, widely used for studies published in scientific publications which drive medical practice. Case control series do not include the use of experimentation, repetitive or not.
I used this example as its a NZ one.

By looking further afield it is a relatively simple thing to see there are a plethora of scientific journals publishing scientific articles on a daily basis which report on findings influencing our lives whether we realise it (or even accept it) or not. For every article using experimental repetition there are just as many which do not.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that your understanding of what science is to be a bit limited. That's ok, you are perfectly entitled to persist with your view, not needing my or anyone else's permission to do so. All I have tried to do is point you in the direction of actual evidence that your definition while well intentioned and not wrong per se, is however incomplete.
Please note I did not direct you to a website or youtube video to try and convince you. I do however encourage you to seek out for yourself actual scientific journals which publish scientific articles and you will find that what I am saying is the case. Google Scholar is a decent albeit limited start.

[bogan]

Ok, let me try again.

You said at some point millions of posts ago that the only experimental repetition was scientific. I said, repeatedly, that while experimental repetition is of course scientific, it is not the only way to produce evidence which has scientific merit. What makes science, science, as you put it, is the structure and the transparency of what is done and how it is reported. That way the investigation, be that observational, descriptive, narrative or experimental can be repeated and the new results compared to the original investigation or study. That is what makes science, science. Again, science is not a field but a way of thinking, a way to approach the problem of understanding the world around us.

In the Fenoterol example, which you clearly are not familiar with so its unfair of me to expect you to comment on with anything like an informed position, a drug which had been widely available and funded in the public system was established as being causally linked to a series of deaths. That link was NOT established with experiments but rather a case control series. A case control series is a well established scientific research methodology, widely used for studies published in scientific publications which drive medical practice. Case control series do not include the use of experimentation, repetitive or not.
I used this example as its a NZ one.

By looking further afield it is a relatively simple thing to see there are a plethora of scientific journals publishing scientific articles on a daily basis which report on findings influencing our lives whether we realise it (or even accept it) or not. For every article using experimental repetition there are just as many which do not.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that your understanding of what science is to be a bit limited. That's ok, you are perfectly entitled to persist with your view, not needing my or anyone else's permission to do so. All I have tried to do is point you in the direction of actual evidence that your definition while well intentioned and not wrong per se, is however incomplete.
Please note I did not direct you to a website or youtube video to try and convince you. I do however encourage you to seek out for yourself actual scientific journals which publish scientific articles and you will find that what I am saying is the case. Google Scholar is a decent albeit limited start.

And you don't think giving people drugs, and recording if they died is experimental repetition? Science doesn't take place only in the labs mate, broaden your horizons, experiments are going on (and being repeated) every day, all around us, you just need to know where to look. The scientific method is useful in understanding these, but is not required to set them out and plan them, that is why despite the specifics of each patient not being tightly controlled and monitored, the Fenoterol example is still one based in science.

[Ulsterkiwi]

And you don't think giving people drugs, and recording if they died is experimental repetition? Science doesn't take place only in the labs mate, broaden your horizons, experiments are going on (and being repeated) every day, all around us, you just need to know where to look. The scientific method is useful in understanding these, but is not required to set them out and plan them, that is why despite the specifics of each patient not being tightly controlled and monitored, the Fenoterol example is still one based in science.

With respect I don't think I am the one resisting a broadening of horizons.

I am afraid you demonstrate a limited and simplistic understanding of the thing you are arguing for by insisting that the records of individuals prescribed Fenoteral constitute a scientific experiment. Scientific experimentation like any scientific methodology requires a consistent, structured approach to how data is collected with a view to addressing a specific question. When anyone was prescribed Fenoteral there wasn't a box to tick saying "did they die because we gave them this?" These were not experiments. I am not sure how much clearer I can say that.

A specific question was asked, that being is there a causal link between that drug and patient death? Data was collected in a structured, consistent manner which did not require experimental repetition. In fact the outcome was a scientifically valid one because the specifics of each patient were collated in a structured consistent manner, quite contrary to what you are saying. I know the outcome was based in science, that is what I have been explaining to you.

If you check back in my posts you will see I have stated previously that the laboratory is not the place for all scientific investigation. At no point have I said that it was.

Once again, experimental repetition is a huge part of science but it is just that, a part of it, not the whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

With respect I don't think I am the one resisting a broadening of horizons.

I am afraid you demonstrate a limited and simplistic understanding of the thing you are arguing for by insisting that the records of individuals prescribed Fenoteral constitute a scientific experiment. Scientific experimentation like any scientific methodology requires a consistent, structured approach to how data is collected with a view to addressing a specific question. When anyone was prescribed Fenoteral there wasn't a box to tick saying "did they die because we gave them this?" These were not experiments. I am not sure how much clearer I can say that.

A specific question was asked, that being is there a causal link between that drug and patient death? Data was collected in a structured, consistent manner which did not require experimental repetition. In fact the outcome was a scientifically valid one because the specifics of each patient were collated in a structured consistent manner, quite contrary to what you are saying. I know the outcome was based in science, that is what I have been explaining to you.

If you check back in my posts you will see I have stated previously that the laboratory is not the place for all scientific investigation. At no point have I said that it was.

Once again, experimental repetition is a huge part of science but it is just that, a part of it, not the whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it constitutes experimental repetition, you're the one attaching the word 'scientific' to that; in fact the original term was mechanical and repetitive (with that data collection certainly was). You think the scope of an experiment only extends to something that is designed that way, fine, I can understand that, but that is where we differ. Isolating that point of disagreement is consistent with the scientific method, while blowing it out of proportion to say one of us demonstrates a limited and simplistic understanding is certainly not a conclusion backed by robust evidence. For shame, Ulsterkiwi.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I think it constitutes experimental repetition, you're the one attaching the word 'scientific' to that; in fact the original term was mechanical and repetitive (with that data collection certainly was). You think the scope of an experiment only extends to something that is designed that way, fine, I can understand that, but that is where we differ. Isolating that point of disagreement is consistent with the scientific method, while blowing it out of proportion to say one of us demonstrates a limited and simplistic understanding is certainly not a conclusion backed by robust evidence. For shame, Ulsterkiwi.

Well apart from the fact the context was a demonstrated limited and simplistic understanding of a particular thing and not a wholesale limited and limited understanding as a person that is a "shame" I can live with.
I am sorry you considered my remarks out of proportion, hopefully you won't ever have to engage in debate or rebuttal as part of a scientific meeting or peer review process, that will make me seem quite gentle by comparison.

Why would you have a problem with attaching the word scientific? Surely we have been debating what constitutes scientific investigation?

All I know is I operate in the scientific community and the definitions and ideas I have been using are the ones they have taught me. Perhaps they are all wrong?

In any event, at least we can exercise our right to freedom of speech on this forum eh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Well apart from the fact the context was a demonstrated limited and simplistic understanding of a particular thing and not a wholesale limited and limited understanding as a person that is a "shame" I can live with.
I am sorry you considered my remarks out of proportion, hopefully you won't ever have to engage in debate or rebuttal as part of a scientific meeting or peer review process, that will make me seem quite gentle by comparison.

Why would you have a problem with attaching the word scientific? Surely we have been debating what constitutes scientific investigation?

All I know is I operate in the scientific community and the definitions and ideas I have been using are the ones they have taught me. Perhaps they are all wrong?

In any event, at least we can exercise our right to freedom of speech on this forum eh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't part of the scientific method to address the content, not the author? Again, for shame, Ulsterkiwi.

I had thought we were debating if repetition of result was an integral part of science, as a whole; that is what my first post on the subject (which you disagreed with) was about; perhaps go back and do a lit review...

[Ulsterkiwi]

Isn't part of the scientific method to address the content, not the author? Again, for shame, Ulsterkiwi.

I had thought we were debating if repetition of result was an integral part of science, as a whole; that is what my first post on the subject (which you disagreed with) was about; perhaps go back and do a lit review...

I didn't address the author, I addressed the idea held by the author. I made no comment on you as person.

Repetition of experiment and the need for experiment to produce evidence was what you seemed to be taking about most. I have been saying observation, narrative and description also provide scientific evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

I didn't address the author, I addressed the idea held by the author. I made no comment on you as person.

Repetition of experiment and the need for experiment to produce evidence was what you seemed to be taking about most. I have been saying observation, narrative and description also provide scientific evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were claims I demonstrate a simplistic and limited understanding, surely that is addressing the author, not the content. Then the obfuscation instead of drilling down to the core disagreement, about what constitutes an experiment; this too, seems unscientific.

The repetition of experiment and result is indeed what I consider to be a core part of science, but I also consider everyday events to simply be unplanned experiments which is what you consider to be observation, so given that, what do we actually disagree on?

[Katman]

There were claims I demonstrate a simplistic and limited understanding, surely that is addressing the author, not the content.

It could have been worse.

I'd have called you shitforbrains by now.