Untouchable Science

ITT, techniques that scientists use as barriers to entry to keep the common man from understanding and/or evaluating their claims.

Pic VERY related:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4747/sciencelollq2.jpg

>>1
You don't understand how to insert numbers into variables and calculate?

>>2
Teh common man is lazy. Do the work for him.

What stupid cunt you are.

>>1
ITT, you are too stupid to understand the concept of formulas.  If you have a better way of representing complex mathematic relationships, go accept your Nobel prize.

>>1
if the "common man" would have an understanding of all that the sience-nerds(no offence, one myself) would have and see it as normal...the world would be a better place and things like hunger and war would have been stopped years ago, thus it is not cause we'll always have dumpasses or idiots who stop the rest from knowing or are to stupid to understand even the symplest of...lets see...einsteins theory?

I do have a better way of representing complex mathematic relationships. You explain what the variables mean simply and coherantly instead of just throwing out formulas that make no sense.

>>7
So, instead of researchers just doing research, we waste their time by making them write hundreds of pages of textbook material on each of their papers?  And how far do you go?  What if the reader never took a basic Calculus course?  Instead of short papers that are directed towards the appropriate audience, you'll end up with books that the "common man" would still be too stupid to understand unless he completely devoted several years of his life to learning it.  My guess is that you are a complete failure of life working at a fast food restaurant, and you are simply unable to grasp how complex scientific subjects can be and how much background knowledge they require.

>>8
This is why people will not believe scientists

>>9
Scientists claim that nuclear devices are possible.
Engineers design the devices.
The common man makes the device in a factory.
The dictator decides where the device will be used.

It never matters that the common man understand/believe scientists.  The dictators and engineers do, and that's all that matters.

This is why /sci/ will not recognize trolls.

I blame the media...

>>10
Proto-Fascism right thar.

>>1
Um, pic isn't related. It would take anyone at most a few days of 2 or 3 hours of study to understand that in it's entirety.

D-vId bye ZEEROH ploxz

>>14
2-3 hrs of study for 1 formula. In a report with hundreds of such.

HELLO I AM PROFESSOR STEPHEN HAWKING, FOUNDER AND CEO OF MODERN SCIENCE PERIOD I HAVE DECIDED THE UNIVERSE CAME TO EXIST FROM NOTHING COMMA BEFORE ETERNITY PERIOD EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT MOTHERFUCKERS PERIOD FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT H T T P COLON SLASH SLASH DIS DOT FOURCHAN DOT ORG SLASH PROG SLASH

>>1 are you stupid or are you a troll.  you can't tell with /sci/ sometimes.

Anyways, all of this shit  is just 1st/2nd year university math. The tools to evaluate the integrals are available in many AP calculus classrooms, and the tools to evaluate the integral are available in all high school math classes.

The common man doesn't want to know.

>>1

Secondly, wtf do you  know scientists?  All of them want to be renowned worldwide for their discoveries, because this leads to publicity and grants and more money, ad infinitum.

In addition, many professors are egoists whose sole purpose in life is to have a unit named after themselves.  Do you not think if a scientist were to discover some relation such as E = mc^2, or F = ma, easily evaluated by grade school students, that he would keep the equation in a horrendously long form so that only his colleagues would understand it?

<insert reference to nullity here>

>>19
So let's see, all scientists are just money- and fame-grabbing assholes, yet when they come up with what would be a genuinely important discovery, they purposely obfuscate it to keep the average person from understanding, thus obtaining far less fame than they would get from publishing the simple version. And, as nearly anyone can tell you, fame = money. If you're in time magazine for your startling new discovery, it will be a hell of a lot easier to get grant money than if no one has ever heard of you. Oops!

And, as >>18 said, all of the math in the OP's linked image is math that you should learn in your first or second year of university at the latest. So since you insist that everything can be expressed in a much easier manner, why aren't you doing so? Do you not care about it despite your post? Or are you, in truth, uneducated and pretty much unqualified to discuss any science?

Dude, I've taken calc, but who the fuck remembers how to do math a year after they stop doing it?

>>21
People who aren't fucking idiots?

>>22
Then everyones an idiot

math sux balls hard

and /b/.

>>23
Hardly. You guys do make up quite a large majority of the population, though.

>>8
Shut up.

>>7
Actually you have a very valid point there. Although it is something that has been argued for centuries. Basically there are two trains of thought in mathematics, formalism and intuitionism.

Formalism is the more widespread use of mathematics that you'll see in the world nowadays. It is the belief that mathematics should be entirely symbols and relationships (proofs). This often times causes problems as people tend to be able to do problems, but have no understanding of what they mean (just look at how many people have taken calculus, but never really understood it). On the other hand it is much easier to teach mathematics using a formalist approach to a much wider audience (using rote learning techniques).

Intuitionism isn't as common anymore, (at least not since the time when geometric proofs were widespread). It is the belief that mathematics should be built upon a series of concepts freed from symbols and even language (insights). This often times causes problems as people have trouble taking one concept in a certain train of thought and applying it to another train of thought (eg. an integral that creates a solid object compared to an integral for finding a speed from an acceleration). It is very easy to teach to one person and have them retain the knowledge (while maintaining a clear understanding of the concept), but when you try and teach it to too many people there will be many who will lose you have way through (and you'll lose the rest in going back).

Some people are just naturally formalists or naturally intuitionists. Although it is important not to bind yourself to only one, or you will never reach your full potential (be like Leonhard Euler and Bernhard Reimann, not like David Hilbert and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer). They are two halves of the same whole, the brain and heart of mathematics.

If you have trouble understanding the way things are expressed with these "meaningless" formulas then pick them apart, look at each piece and see what it means (harder in science than math since you generally aren't able to understand where the formulas you use currently came from until much later, if ever). Beware though, even if you have attained a clear understanding of why and how something works, it will not always be met with open arms by your pears. Too many people nowadays just "want to get through this shit and be done with it". They don't care why they work, they just want to get a job somewhere where they'll punch numbers into the formulas and get a nice big paycheck for it.

If you are truly interested in trying to understand science or math rather than just doing it, then look forward to a lot of independant study.

I think I'm proof that the private school systems are just as much of a failure as the public schools, since apparently, according to >>25, you're supposed to remember all the math you learned a few years ago and not forget the old stuff over the summer. If someone refreshed my memory, I could probably remember, but there's no way I remember more than the very general concepts of stuff like Calc at this point.

>>27
What makes you think schooling has anything to do with intelligence? Stupid people graduate from good schools all the time.

My old girlfriend from college used to fart when ever she felt like it. Even if we were in public, she'd just let one rip and not give a damn. She was kind of a tomboy, but only in her actions.

Anyway, this one time when we were having sex she farted so loud that she pooped on the bed sheets. She was so embarrassed and ending up crying... but the reason why she cried wasn't because she pooped on the sheets, it was because I couldn't stop laughing at her. In fact, I laughed to the point where I started to fart like a machine gun. I couldn't stop myself.

So, in the end, she broke up with me because she felt I wasn't "mature" enough to handle her "mature" farts.

>>28
Durrr. What makes you think memory has anything to do with intelligence?

>>30
What makes you think I think memory has anything to do with intelligence? If you actually had understood the math in the first place you wouldn't need to "remember" it any more than you "remember" how to tie your shoes or drive a car.

If you actually understood something, anything, then there is nothing to remember.

Do you honestly remeber every single nitpicky rule of English? I bet you don't. I bet you'd fail a 6th grade Grammar test if I gave you one. But you still understand English. Most can write up stuff with *mostly* correct grammar without actively thinking about syntax and tenses and the dozens upon dozens of grammatical rules.

Math and Science is the same way. Those who've mastered an understanding of it do not think about it in its fundamental concepts. All of those mathmatical formulae and whatnot exist only to try and relay information to those people who haven't yet mastered it.

If you cannot be assed into learning the basics of math and science... if you do not use it frequently and commonly enough so that it becomes second nature... then of course the higher level math/science material is going to seem like a whole bunch of non-sense jibberish.

You cannot hope to explain the elegance of classical English poetry to someone who has trouble reciting the alphabet. In much the same way, you cannot hope to explain the elegance of the advanced mathmatical and scientific formulae to someone who has trouble with the fundamentals of math and science.

Don't place the blame on others when it is you yourself who lack the capability to comprehend their works.

>If you actually understood something, anything, then there is nothing to remember.

Makes no sense.

>if you do not use it frequently and commonly enough so that it becomes second nature...

Who's going to waste time doing this unless its required at their job?

>Those who've mastered an understanding of it do not think about it in its fundamental concepts.

Then the schools are to blame for not teaching people in a way that will allow them to master understanding of it.

>Do you honestly remeber every single nitpicky rule of English?

Math and English are infinitely different things.

>Don't place the blame on others when it is you yourself who lack the capability to comprehend their works.

Does science exist for the people or for the ivory tower dwellers?

Actually I think it is the education system's fault. Kids in gradeschool/highschool for the most part hate doing word problems, and aren't required to do many - certainly not for every topic they cover in a math/algebra class. However, they probably don't even realize it, but the reason they don't like word problems is because it adds another layer of obfuscation to the process of doing the problem - the math problem itself is now not clearly presented, and some actual logic must be used and understanding of the concepts must be demonstrated in order to pull the problem out of the situation that the word problem describes.

However, so many of the teachers completely throw out the learning of the concepts behind the actual calculation process - what will let the student remember what he or she has learned months or years down the line - in order to cover more material in less time.

Instead, they turn the students into little calculating machines, having them memorize how to respond to what a particular problem looks like with a set of mathematical transformations that will allow them to derive the correct answer without ever thinking logically about what it is they're doing - thus they will forget it soon after the test, because the average human mind cannot recall such a detailed and irrational set of movements unless it sees the logic behind it.

>>34
>Instead, they turn the students into little calculating machines, having them memorize how to respond to what a particular problem looks like with a set of mathematical transformations that will allow them to derive the correct answer without ever thinking logically about what it is they're doing - thus they will forget it soon after the test, because the average human mind cannot recall such a detailed and irrational set of movements unless it sees the logic behind it.

You've hit the nail on the head right there. Unfortunately it's simply easier to "teach" using that method. Not to mention the fact that most people don't care to understand it since they are just going to be punching numbers in when they get into their respective careers. Although if you truly want to learn and understand the science you're pretty much fucked unless you want to pick up a bunch of books and teach yourself.

If they're going to be taught in a way that they'll just forget in a year or less, what's the sense of even teaching it in the first place?

>>36
I don't get it either. I remember a bunch of chicks who wanted to be nurses or doctors or something (don't quite remember I guess) and had to take calculus. The reason for was being able to calculate blood flow for stuff like how long it would take a drug to distribute through the body and into what amounts. It seemed reasonable, but most of them were just planning on getting a passing grade and weren't really worried about learning and understanding the material. I was later told by another classmate that it didn't really matter for them because they would just be entering the values into a machine to find the stuff out.

Can't touch this

>>38
HAMMA TIME BITCHES!

>>37
The purpose of requiring calculus courses is not just for its utility on the job.

Anyone who doesn't have sufficient working synapses to do the abstract reasoning involved in learning calculus has NO FUCKING BUSINESS being in any position where lives may depend on their ability to think.  Think of it as a bozo filter.

>>40
But as we've discussed in this thread, a large number of students don't actually come out of a calculus class understanding calculus. Rather, they merely memorize what it is they have to do when they see a problem and then just do that on tests and score decently, without having to learn or grasp any of the fundamental concepts.

>>41,40
The conclusion is therefore, that calculus weeds out people who fails to either a) memorize everything, or b) be capable of abstract reasoning.

>>42
You get it.  It weeds out people who shouldn't be holding other people's lives in their hands.  Even if they're only doing it via rote memorization.

Oh, and PROTIP:  rote memorization and parroting back what the professor says will get you by in a bullshit class in a bullshit field like English Lit or sociology or art history or political science or Womyn's Studies (I use the term "bullshit" to describe any field where everything and its opposite are true and there are no objective standards) but you can't solve calc problems without doing some logical manipulation of abstract symbols.  If it's possible to pass a calc course without learning the material, the prof needs to redesign the curriculum.

>>43

The symbols aren't abstract, the applications are (you abstract the calculus in order to apply it). I've seen many people who can do a calc problem even some word problems, but can't tell you why the derivative or the integrals are found the way they are, or even what they mean (these people generally quit right after calc 2 and go into their respective fields). Rote learning will actually get you through a lot more than one would think. As long as the person has "good study skills" (flash cards, a lot of practice with the same types of problems (so that they memorize the procedure and technique, and not the necessarilly the logic), good notes [or lots of notes], cheat sheet, etc...) they can memorize anything. They only stumble if a question is asked in an unfamiliar way, or if a conceptual question relies on a good understanding of several other concepts, or some similar situation (even then though, they'd all throw a fit about how the teacher didn't tell them they had to know that or something). They probably won't do as well on tests as a student who actually knows the material, but they will ace the homework (where as the student who understands the material will probably put off doing it), overall they'll get a passing grade (which for them is acceptable).

heres a hint: hardly anyone is in the b camp.

>>45
What?

>>46
>>42

The unfortunate thing is that people slip up before they even hit the really abstract shit like real analysis (metric topology, blah blah).

My study skills are pretty crappy... I just remeber a few important concepts, and pull the math/physics out of my ass/cheatsheet during the exams.

SSSSSCCCCCIIIIIEEEEENNNNNCCCCCCEEEEEE