Personal tools Namespaces Article Search Main Page Applications AOL Internet Explorer MS Outlook Outlook Express Windows Live DLL Errors Exe Errors Ocx Errors Operating Systems Windows 7 Windows Others Windows Many increases in life span beyond our current point will need to address the "wear and tear" aspect of aging, and find a way to slow or reverse those conditions, in Even when nothing was done to the lower back, about 90 percent of people with back pain got better within six weeks. His training is in neuroscience, the epitome of un-testable theories. http://u2commerce.com/trial-and/trial-and-error-science.html
Typically, various groups, based on their proclivities and abilities, develop programs, champion them as THE solution, and then compete for fundraising for their solution. TSG I'm with phil_style in that this causal-chain argument is cosmological. We assume that more information will make it easier to find the cause, that seeing the soft tissue of the back will reveal the source of the pain, or at least Help Welcome!
The numbers are sobering: There's an 80 percent chance that, at some point in your life, you'll suffer from it. Very hard to get folks to understand that reality is complex so it needs to be studied that way when they are publishing and getting tenure. Here it isCollective Impact http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact/ http://LostCodex.com DRT I have several things to say about this. Yes, people (including scientists) can be too quick to jump to simplistic cause/effect relationships.
They are just light and shadow in patterns that change with time! This was first pointed out by David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Lab blog. The reason they're not recommended at the level they used to be is the number of false positives.7) Hyperbole to make a point that didn't exist.
Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin Re:List of Scientific Reversals (Score:5, Insightful) by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) writes: on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @08:02PM (#38884307) Sigh. In the first film, the red ball races across the screen, touches the blue ball, and then stops. At first, cholesterol was entirely bad; the correlations linked high levels of the substance with plaque. All you get are higher and higher probabilities of accuracy.
We spend, through industrial investment, government funding, and private foundations, an enormous amount of money each year on health related research. Like I said some clams live 400 years. Addendum to my #12 post…I looked up the article at CNN that I referenced. Years later, we realized that there were multiple kinds and that only LDL was bad.
The line is getting finer; science is getting harder. Because scientists understood the individual steps of the cholesterol pathway at such a precise level, they assumed they also understood how it worked as a whole. And when you throw in some other factors you don't see in other sciences, such as the placebo effect, or realizing that the body heals itself eventually, then maybe trial and In fact, 83 percent of supposed correlations became significantly weaker in subsequent studies.
Re: (Score:2) by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) writes: Sucessful Science: 1) Flying cars. 2) Condos on the Moon 3) Ice cream that doesn't melt http://u2commerce.com/trial-and/trial-and-error.html The author cites baseball batting averages as another and there are precious few other fields where the practitioner can get away with failure. The Arab-Israeli peace process), but we rarely do so in a way that serves as a springboard for improving our work, though my own organization, the Alliance for Peacebuilding, is spearheading Lipitor works by inhibiting an enzyme that plays a key role in the production of cholesterol in the liver.
But that is the way science is supposed to work. Thank you for your feedback. The only solution for this mental flaw is to deliberately ignore a wealth of facts, even when the facts seem relevant. navigate here However, if the method is not applied rigorously, the results will not be reliable."Truth" is not part of the scientific method, and has a very ambiguous meaning.
Statins (Lipitor is a statin) do what it says on the box: they lower blood cholesterol. Science is also a meta-process - it can reflect upon itself and improve upon itself. His primary target seems to be pharma.
Society for Science and the Public.S.P. this explaining stuff is a part but not the whole thing.The summary seems to be, science sucks because its not a bunch of non-science liberal arts philosophy babble. http://krusekroncile.com Michael W. Modern science involves the idiosyncratic, often bumbling search for understanding in uncharted territories, full of wrong turns, false findings, and the occasional remarkable success.
New York: Walker & Company, 2011.Questions for 'To really learn, fail — then fail again!' Related Stories Chemistry New coating for metals could cut engine wear Computers & Electronics Cool Jobs: It’s part of the Science News Media Group, which has published its flagship magazine since 1922. The boy picked it up and, like a doctor examining a patient’s broken leg, diagnosed its weakness. “Mine leaned to the side too much. his comment is here And this is why, even when we know everything about everything, we'll still be telling stories about why it happened.
If this sounds like an offshoot of a familiar theological theme that has been danced around endlessly-it is. But that didn't happen. Perhaps in the early stages of drug testing scientist use correlation as a surrogate for causation, but a Phase III clinical trial does not rely on correlation. If only we devote more resources to research or dissect the system at a more fundamental level or search for ever more subtle correlations, we can discover how it all works.
Yet, as obvious as the idea seems, scientists have done little research to measure how making mistakes affects what we learn and how long those lessons stay with us. Kindler was most excited about a new drug called torcetrapib, which had recently entered Phase III clinical trials, the last step before filing for FDA approval. Well maybe the problem here is the corners that are cut and they're essentially racing to get it FDA approved (and with as few side effects as possible). For too long, we've pretended that the old problem of causality can be cured by our shiny new knowledge.
Re:The point is ... (Score:5, Insightful) by ToasterMonkey ( 467067 ) writes: on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:45AM (#38887625) Homepage The story describes how the use of our usual scientific methods View comments Sponsored Stories Powered By Outbrain Powered By Outbrain More Magazine Urban Planning 16 Ways to Design a Better Intersection--And Better Cities 2 days Artificial Intelligence Sure, A.I. However, when it comes to reasoning about complex systems—say, the human body—these shortcuts go from being slickly efficient to outright misleading. The usual way of expressing the same thought is that randomization can sometimes be a good search strategy.
Parent Share twitter facebook linkedin Re:We've failed science, not the other way around (Score:4, Insightful) by Internetuser1248 ( 1787630 ) writes: on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @09:25AM (#38890237) Science failed us?Nope.It's Too bad, a co-worker said. In this book we can see a *brilliant* perspective towards what science really is. A scam would be an outright claim that statins reduce the risk of heart disease.
Stevens. “Mistakes: A key to learning.” Science News for Students. that's idiotic.