Thread: More than 31,000 scientists don't buy it!!

Gugi, in that case, your point makes sense. My take on much of what she did (originally-she's progressed a long time since I was in the lab a few years ago) was a company (usually) would be interested in what effect X would have on Y, or some such; usually the *ideas* were achieved by a team effort, and the PhD was often assigned by the lab/company/school etc. to "manage" the project more so than to come up with the ideas him or herself. While the PhD is perfectly capable, the "grunt work" (ideas, problems solved, etc etc.) are often done by the team he or she is in charge of. 3 more years of school may or *may not* make a lot of difference when it comes down to who has the best idea. Of course such is the rule with everything. Perhaps in other environments the PhD does all the work and just has everyone else do the simple menial stuff ("Hey, throw this stuff in the centrifuge, then measure 2cc of..."blah blah blah you know what I mean), which is what it appears you are referencing. Not having a PhD or any such myself, I can only speculate. Got accepted to school but we were broke at the time. Times were better when my younger sis went up, and the rest is history. Of course, I'm still quite opinionated on many of the applicable topics, and do have a degree, but nothing so up there as hers, and I"m really proud of her.

John P.

HAHAHAHA, but Al Gore buys it!

I've gotta chime in here. For the Record, I have a B.S. in physics and an MS in Oceanography. I also spent about 18 months working as a research programmer at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

1) The difference between a Ph. D and an M.S. in most American schools is a matter of taking comprehensive exams and a longer thesis. Otherwise, the required classes are identical.

2) The daisyworld scenario was mentioned earlier was proposed as a thought experiment by James Lovelock in his book "The Gaia Hypothesis". Basically, he argued that the planet as a whole is a self-regulating system and will change itself to maintain a steady state. However, like any system, it is prone to oscillations.

3) Anyone who thinks someone with a BS working in a lab is just a button pushing monkey has never been a BS student working in a lab. I was asked to revise computer models of light interactions, engineer cryogenic control systems and find a way to recycle crystal substrates used to grow high temperature superconductors. On my easy days, I would do button pushing and writing/reading at the same time.

4) The popular media (both conservative and liberal) tend to exacerbate perceived discrepancies to suit their own agendas. This is generally facilitated by a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. A single peer-reviewed publication doesn't mean much by itself. All that says is the methodology is basically sound and the conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the evidence presented. Several peer reviewed papers saying the same thing is more meaningful.

5) The problem described in #4 is also exacerbated by the fact that the far right and far left tend to use the same tactics to discredit one another. Civility in political discourse is a thing of the past because now we can easily dismiss the other side's arguments as liberal (or conservative) crap. This pisses me off to no end and is why I have no political affiliations.

6) Now, down to the issue at hand. My opinion is we are seeing warming due to a combination of factors. We are in the middle of an interglacial period so some warming is expected. Also, humans have dumped carbon removed from the atmosphere over millions of years in a span of just over a century. That's a lot of carbon. Either by itself may not have major consequences but both at the same time might just create problems.

Originally Posted by gugi

...

Code:

$A \equiv advanced degree$
$B \equiv scientist$

My original statement is

Code:

$B \in A$

from which you correctly derived

Code:

$\not A \in \not B$

however it does not follow that

Code:

$A \in B$

, that you claim is my implication.
...

Someone uses LaTeX I see...

James.

Originally Posted by artilleryo

The daisyworld scenario was mentioned earlier was proposed as a thought experiment by James Lovelock in his book "The Gaia Hypothesis". Basically, he argued that the planet as a whole is a self-regulating system and will change itself to maintain a steady state. However, like any system, it is prone to oscillations.

Right, I apologize if I put it forth as anything other than a thought game. The thing is that in the process of self regulation some species either evolve or die out. I'd rather we not die out.

[quote=Jimbo;217388]

Originally Posted by gugi

...

Code:

$A \equiv advanced degree$
$B \equiv scientist$

My original statement is

Code:

$B \in A$

from which you correctly derived

Code:

$\not A \in \not B$

however it does not follow that

Code:

$A \in B$

, that you claim is my implication.
...
/QUOTE]

Someone uses LaTeX I see...

James.

Gold . . .

I've never been quite sure what to make of the Gaia Hypothesis. From a scientific perspective, it seems like a fascinating way of making a chaotic system a little easier to wrap your head around. I supposed I could even swallow the fact that the whole earth system has become so mutually dependant that it does tend toward a state of stasis.

However, I can't quite swallow the idea of the planet as a self-sustaining organism. Might be showing the limits of my imagination, but it's just a little too crunchy for me to swallow.

Originally Posted by artilleryo

However, I can't quite swallow the idea of the planet as a self-sustaining organism. Might be showing the limits of my imagination, but it's just a little too crunchy for me to swallow.

It certainly appears to have been self-sustaining for several billion years though

Sorry, chose the wrong phrase.

I guess the proper way to put it would have been I can't quite swallow the idea of the earth being a living organism.

Originally Posted by artilleryo

Sorry, chose the wrong phrase.

I guess the proper way to put it would have been I can't quite swallow the idea of the earth being a living organism.

I agree with you there