What is science?
Can you tell me?
Albert Einstein once said: “Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought.”
Arthur C Clark famously said: “Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic”
But my favorite quote is this one: Henri Poincaré: “Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.”
I have my own thoughts on what science is:
Science is the systematic, empirical pursuit of understanding the natural world. It explores and explains phenomena through evidence-based methods, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. While the scientific method often begins with observations or questions leading to hypotheses tested via experiments, simulations, and models, science also uses varied approaches to minimize bias. It is a self-correcting process, refining theories and models through empirical evidence.
Note the use of “empirical” and “evidence based”. I think Neil De Grasse Tyson once said that true scientists don’t work off of a belief, they work off of a theory and that theory is always being challenged.
One of my employees gave me this coffee mug for Christmas a few years ago. It’s become a cherish item on my desk and keeps me grounded. 
3 Likes
Thank you Olias. Now I wonder, how scientists (real ones) are biased.
I have tin foil if needed.
Old saying “You will wonder, wonder, wonder, until the crows build a nest in your butt. Then you will wonder how the sticks got there.” Seriously? How can “scientists” be biased? You are really asking that? Last time I checked, “scientists” were just like all the rest of us. “Scientists” have been wrong about many things throughout history. That would lead me to believe that they are not infallible.
Who in the world said science was inflalable? Lol, I think you’re confused about how science, and scientists actually work.
This is the scientific method. Been around for a bit.
This is what keeps bias out of science, if used. Most scientists will not look at anything as scientific fact if it does not pass this method.
Following this method removes all bias.
The scientific method is a systematic process for acquiring knowledge through observation, experimentation, and analysis:
- Observe: Make an observation about the world around you
- Ask questions: Formulate a question about what you observed
- Form a hypothesis: Propose a tentative explanation for your observation
- Test the hypothesis: Conduct an experiment or make more observations to test your hypothesis
- Analyze the results: Use what you learned to guide further investigation
- Share your results: Present your findings
The scientific method has been used to advance science since at least the 17th century. It’s based on the idea that careful observation and skepticism are necessary to avoid cognitive assumptions that could distort the interpretation of observations.
The problem is, people who do NOT apply the method, or deviate from it then pronounce their findings a FACT, and when it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny stand firm and cry foul. I.E. Goverment controls weather. Earth is flat.
Research to support a hypothesis isn’t a Google search or a YouTube video. I’m gonna stop there on that. Think it says it all.
I really, really, can’t fathom why you used this. Without going to the lilbrary I’m forced to use the internet to find it. I can’t. Possibly becasue I don’t know where this saying was used. I will say that wondering is one of the building blocks of science.
Doesn’t matter whether you can “fathom” why I used that saying. Does not matter that you cannot find it on the internet either. You bloviated on and on about scientific method. I am telling you flat out that scientists can be biased, and often are. Maybe you should apply the scientific method to that piece of information and see where it leads you. Beware of the sticks.
I’ve typed 3 responses.
I realize none will matter because you seem like an angry man who has set his mind to something. In my experience there’s no need to try and communicate with someone like that, they feel they’re right and that’s that. If I misunderstand you then, well I apologize. I doubt I’m wrong though. This isn’t the place or time though.
Have a happy life. If you can.
LOL, you got all that from reading a few short messages on a forum? Ok, Johnny, if you say so.
1 Like
Lol, no.
Just ignore him. There’s nothing that can be said that will refute his opinion. In the end that’s all it is.
1 Like
So about that rice… 
3 Likes
I prefer experts. Drips under pressure.
I`d assume wrapping the rice in a thin cloth/material may lead to there being less repercussions , rather than just sprinkling it everwhere , something to assist with absorption, if a less chemically minded solution is what you are looking for
I think we both know there is only one man who can answer that… @Han… no he’s problaby busy I’m not going to bother him.
But back to the topic, it looks like you guys have the “rice as a desiccant” part of the experiment covered, I’ll test the inverse and see if desiccant makes a good rice. I have a 5lb jug of the orange Dry&Dry and I’ll make a nice risotto tonight and report back my findings!
2 Likes
Watch it now. #please
Already know how to charge rice.
No, I will use a dehydrator that i Have. Much more efficient than an oven.
Will not spread it only on a baking tray as I have several flour sifters of different screen grades that will allow better air circulation. Look like pie pans with a screened bottom. However, was planning on using a baking sheet too, so I could see if it made a difference.
Yes you seal it immediately. I bought four of the little hygrometers Bambu sells. Will seal the rice by itself first to see what the readings stabilize at inside the bags. Rice will be dried at different temps and on a pan or in a sifter. Hence the multiple bags.
Will compare the readings on them before using in this experiment with the calibrated hygrometer I use for work and create correction tables for them. This ensures consistent and accurate readings. Most cheap hygrometers are +/- 4% to 5% accuracy, so I cannot assume they will all read exactly the same in the same humidity / temperature environment.
BTW, humidity is the least accurate measurement to be made. The best ones out there run several hundred to a thousand dollars or more and have an accuracy of +/- 1 %. Compare that to other readings for flow, press, and depending on the technology temperature and mass that can go anywhere from 0.001% to 0.1%
1 Like
When I stop laughing I’ll keep typing.
Have 2 friends that are PhDs who have explained to me how “Peer” review works and how biased it actually is. Long story short, you can submit a paper for peer review and if it goes against or questions the current “accepted” dogma, good luck getting it reviewed or published.
Also know of at least 3 other cases where the paper was refused simply because it pointed out flaws in a standing ideology. They weren’t refused on any sound basis like methodology, simply because of the subject.
As the PhD in chemistry put it. Peer review is as much about scientific political correctness as it is about actual science.
Let us know if it has a citrus flavor. Maybe the blue tastes like blueberry and can be used in muffins? 
Ok, got the insertion probe humidity sensor and reader. Now to calibrate it against standards and start the whole experiment.
You started saying they were Ph.D. In chemistry friends and I’m also a chemistry Ph.D. who has both written and reviewed papers. Your friends’ take is a bit cynical but personality conflicts do happen and breakthrough papers can see some early resistance.
But there are checks and balances. It’s not a one and done. Authors and reviewers communicate through the editor. If any reviewers feel a paper needs more work or is just wrong, there are requests for more explanation or suggestions for more work. Some papers are rejected but it’s usually by agreement from reviewers and editor. Editors can override reviewers. Authors can even rebutt reviewers and the editor arbitrates. That’s why papers carry received and accepted dates. The process takes time but those dates establish who got where first.
The papers that challenge/overturn/revolutionize accepted theories are rare. And as the saying goes, extraordinary claims take extraordinary proof (or something like that). Without a doubt Einstein’s work was challenged, there was all sorts of bean genetics work done in Russia that was squashed because it went against communist party doctrine, etc. That stuff is more rare these days but another saying is truth will out. Science results in things anyone can duplicate and see for themselves (with appropriate equipment, skill, training). Even if someone’s revolutionary idea gets discarded as junk by ignorant reviewers, eventually they will buttress their work with more results that address questions/doubts.
Science isn’t perfect because humans are involved, but your friends’ take is overly cynical. Generally when papers are rejected it’s because the researchers missed something or just didn’t write a paper properly. Some is just too trivial. But most work is incremental and doesn’t revolutionize anything. To those in that area, the work and conclusions will just make sense and off the paper goes.
But even if a paper is rejected by one journal, another may accept it. It’s not mysterious, nefarious, or even that big of a hurdle. Reviewers tend to be more helpful than obstructionist and again, there’s checks and balances.
3 Likes