Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By Harold14370

Thread: Do you think we need a new feild of science? or scientific discipline...

  1. #1 Do you think we need a new feild of science? or scientific discipline... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    It occurs to me that sometimes a theory from one area of science will undermine several other theories in another feild... yet becuase scientist usually concentrate thier efforts into one feild, they may be oblivious to other laws and findings from other feilds.

    I liken science to a massive oil painting... many artists are working on different areas of the picture, going into as much detail as possible. But the canvass is divided up into many peices, and the artists don't usually know what the other artists are doing on the other canvasses. They don't even know where thier part of the canvass is going to be placed in relation to the rest once the bigger picture is ready to be pieced together.

    The aim should be to eventually create a master piece which shows the entire reality of life... My point is that unless there is enough planning and cohesion, then we will have a crazy murial that doesn't really work and isn't very pleasing to the eye.

    I think what we need is a team who will check up on everybodies individual efforts, compare them, see if they work together, and instruct everybody on what details need looking into in order to create a murial that actually gives us a clear picture reality, as quickly as possible.

    This team could be called something like 'scientific cohesion department', which de-partment-ises the feild of science into a whole.
    Maybe we all ready have something similar to this? maybe the 'scientific community, or organising body in science all ready takes care of this?

    Either way... I don't think the lay public gets to see enough of this great murial.
    When the murial is ready to be placed together to form the picture of reality... will it be on display for everybody to look at in wonder? or will it be hung on the wall of some private mansion or secret religious vault, hidden away by occultists?

    Anyway, what do you think or know about the way in which scientific knowledge is shared between disciplines in order to speed the progress of unravelling reality?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    I don't see many scientists ignoring discoveries in other fields. If some theory is undermined and proven incorrect, it is considered a good thing and we move from there. A scientist does not have one's head in the sand. If one does, he's a crappy scientist.


    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    I don't see many scientists ignoring discoveries in other fields. If some theory is undermined and proven incorrect, it is considered a good thing and we move from there. A scientist does not have one's head in the sand. If one does, he's a crappy scientist.
    Thats quite right, I agree.

    It's not that a scientist would want to ignore findings from another feild that affect his/her work... It is that a scientist would have to be an expert in every discipline in order to know what new discoveries afect his/her own feild of work.

    I think anybody in science will tell you they'r not experts in every feild... thats why I was thinking of a new branch of scientists that specifically deal with informing all scientists of new developments from other feilds.

    What do you think? Could this work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    That is what we have peer reviewed journals for. Any scientist could read any part of them and understand and also make sure the facts presented are legit since they are peer reviewed by scientists in the relevant fields. This way you do not have to be an expert in every field, and yet have access to the ability to make sure something is legit and what is going on in other fields.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    That is what we have peer reviewed journals for. Any scientist could read any part of them and understand and also make sure the facts presented are legit since they are peer reviewed by scientists in the relevant fields. This way you do not have to be an expert in every field, and yet have access to the ability to make sure something is legit and what is going on in other fields.
    I see.

    These journals are garenteed to be read by leading scientists in any rellevant feild, in what way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Anything that is worth publishing is published and peer reviewed. It is this way confirmed by the rest of the scientific community, or at least in that field, on its validity. And, yes, they are guaranteed to be reviewed by actual professional accredited scientists, for journals are a very formal thing. Not like just publishing something is a science magazine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-re...ntific_journal

    In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. There are thousands of scientific journals in publication, and many more have been published at various points in the past (see list of scientific journals). Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    25
    Also take in the practicality of such a grouping.
    Such grouping may only work with a handful of people who know what they are to achieve.
    Since you are talking about such a thing on such a large scale, and taking into point that there are uncertainties everywhere in the field of science, all you said above is not very convincing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Anything that is worth publishing is published and peer reviewed. It is this way confirmed by the rest of the scientific community, or at least in that field, on its validity. And, yes, they are guaranteed to be reviewed by actual professional accredited scientists, for journals are a very formal thing. Not like just publishing something is a science magazine.

    Scientific journal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. There are thousands of scientific journals in publication, and many more have been published at various points in the past (see list of scientific journals). Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.
    Yes I can see how this works... it does seem a bit disorganised though. How can scientists be expected to read or even browse through the titles of thousands of scientific journals? Maybe each lab or science comunity could have a person responsible for checking through all scientific journals and seeing which ones relate to the organisation they work for?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    How can scientists be expected to read or even browse through the titles of thousands of scientific journals?
    Well, they can do searches on things like Google Scholar and specific discipline information. Library and related support services can do some of this for you.

    Or you can try the total humiliation method - submit a paper that overlooks relevant scientific work and get it sent back with
    "How could you overlook Jemima Cleverface's classic work on this 5 years ago?! It has 50+ citations and you haven't even listed it in the bibliography. Redo the whole of sections 2 and 3 if you think you have anything original to add. Otherwise, forget it."
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNorthStar View Post
    Also take in the practicality of such a grouping.
    Such grouping may only work with a handful of people who know what they are to achieve.
    Since you are talking about such a thing on such a large scale, and taking into point that there are uncertainties everywhere in the field of science, all you said above is not very convincing.
    I wasn't really trying to convince you of anything, more get some opinions and info.

    It's just a matter of organising how new findings are shared with rellevant people. Obviously certainties need to be shared more than uncertaincies. Yet by sharing theories which are uncertain with other feilds, new work might be thought up in another feild, which can help to clear up any uncertainties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    How can scientists be expected to read or even browse through the titles of thousands of scientific journals?
    Well, they can do searches on things like Google Scholar and specific discipline information. Library and related support services can do some of this for you.

    Or you can try the total humiliation method - submit a paper that overlooks relevant scientific work and get it sent back with
    "How could you overlook Jemima Cleverface's classic work on this 5 years ago?! It has 50+ citations and you haven't even listed it in the bibliography. Redo the whole of sections 2 and 3 if you think you have anything original to add. Otherwise, forget it."
    Ouch...

    Ok, so who is it that one would submit a paper to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Submit a paper?

    Depends on your status. Maybe to your faculty head. Maybe to a journal.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    There are already multidisciplinary research projects (and a number of centres dedicated to such research). These bring together people who may have a new perspective or complementary knowledge to work on problems.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I read a book about Thomas Young called "The Last Person Who Knew Everything." The title refers to the fact that Thomas Young's time in the 19th century was the last time somebody could know just about all the scientific knowledge there was to be known. Now, there is just too much knowlege for any person to absorb.

    By knowing a bit about everything, Young, who was a physician and also a physicist, was able to figure out how the eye focused an image on the retina. Of course he accomplished many other things, too.

    Even though things tend to be more specialized, there still seem to be enough people who know a bit about more than one thing to do some amazing things. Somebody figured out that you could use nuclear magnetic resonance to find cancer tumors.

    I'm sure that the multi-disciplinary teams are very important, but I also think there just need to be people like Thomas Young who are versatile and curious enough to know something about everything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is Metaphysics as a physical discipline possible?
    By Prospero in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 9th, 2012, 12:43 AM
  2. Replies: 128
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 01:37 PM
  3. scientific wording V scientific equations
    By streamSystems in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: October 6th, 2007, 01:50 PM
  4. Science -logy or various scientific fields
    By saurabhstardom in forum Biology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 15th, 2007, 05:23 AM
  5. ISLAM FAILS SCIENCE, +50 SCIENTIFIC ERRORS IN ISLAM
    By FEARDEATH in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2007, 01:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •