NASA engineers

[skepticalbip]

people who throw "open-mindedness" "argument" here need to watch this:

Indeed, a great video. You need to watch and understand it.

Open minded doesn't mean that you accept someone's explanation for an event but if you see evidence for the event to accept that the event is real even if you don't know how it happened. Open mindedness means to accept that there are things that you don't already know and that some of what you "know" is certainly wrong.

e.g.
1.
You see a light in the sky that appears to be moving in a manner that seems to defy your understanding. Is there something there that you don't have a ready explanation for? Yes. Is it a flying saucer from some alien planet as your mate claims? There is no reason to think so. Having a lack of a ready explanation doesn't mean that someone who offers one is right but not having a ready explanation is reason to investigate to find the real reason for the event.

2.
This doo-hicky that NASA tested appears, from the data, to generate thrust. Is the explanation of how it works by the guy who is promoting it true? Most likely not. However, if you accept that the data appears to show that it does generate thrust then it is reason to investigate rather than throw the test out simply because you don't have a ready explanation or it is contrary to your belief that there is nothing you don't know and that it defies what you "know to be true".

 

[barbos]

The point is, when someone is accusing someone else in "closed-mindedness" You can be almost certain that accuser is wrong and is actually closed-minded and more importantly ignorant himself.
Closed-mindedness is a standard accusation against real scientists from UFOlogists, parapsychologists and other crap like that.

 

[barbos]

This doo-hicky that NASA tested appears, from the data, to generate thrust. Is the explanation of how it works by the guy who is promoting it true? Most likely not. However, if you accept that the data appears to show that it does generate thrust then it is reason to investigate rather than throw the test out simply because you don't have a ready explanation or it is contrary to your belief that there is nothing you don't know and that it defies what you "know to be true".

I don't accept data presented without uncertainties, no physicist does.

 

[skepticalbip]

The point is, when someone is accusing someone else in "closed-mindedness" You can be almost certain that accuser is wrong and is actually closed-minded and more importantly ignorant himself.
Closed-mindedness is a standard accusation against real scientists from UFOlogists, parapsychologists and other crap like that.

Ah, the old logical fallacy of "arguing from the specific to the general"… “some nut cases accuse those who don’t accept their beliefs of being close minded so anyone who mentions close mindedness is a nut case.”

But to get to the OP (in case you actually bothered to read your own link), how do you explain the data? It is well above the noise level and well above the minimum resolution of the test equipment. So it seems that you have a few choices: 1) the data was faked, 2) a systemic error in the test set up, or 3) the data shows a real effect and we don’t have a good explanation of why.

In the first and second case, an independent test would resolve the issue.

In the third case, an independent test would give science a damned exciting effect to study and could possibly lead to a “new field of physics”.

And then we could take your “close minded” approach and ignore the test simply because you don’t have a ready explanation and think the guy is a twit. Personal attacks rather than addressing the data is always an option.

 

[barbos]

The point is, when someone is accusing someone else in "closed-mindedness" You can be almost certain that accuser is wrong and is actually closed-minded and more importantly ignorant himself.
Closed-mindedness is a standard accusation against real scientists from UFOlogists, parapsychologists and other crap like that.

Ah, the old logical fallacy of "arguing from the specific to the general"…

Stop making shit up.

“some nut cases accuse those who don’t accept their beliefs of being close minded so anyone who mentions close mindedness is a nut case.”

Just providing you statistics.

But to get to the OP (in case you actually bothered to read your own link), how do you explain the data?

Ironic, have you read my post?
There is no data, just garbage.

It is well above the noise level and well above the minimum resolution of the test equipment.

How the fuck do you know that?

So it seems that you have a few choices: 1) the data was faked, 2) a systemic error in the test set up, or 3) the data shows a real effect and we don’t have a good explanation of why.

You forgot 3) ghosts.

Systematic errors determination is part of every proper experiment.

In the first and second case, an independent test would resolve the issue.

In the third case, an independent test would give science a damned exciting effect to study and could possibly lead to a “new field of physics”.

And then we could take your “close minded” approach and ignore the test simply because you don’t have a ready explanation and think the guy is a twit. Personal attacks rather than addressing the data is always an option.

OK, ghosts exist, NASA have the evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ah, the old logical fallacy of "arguing from the specific to the general"…

Stop making shit up.

It isn’t me making shit up. It was Aristotle that gave us an understanding of logic. Understanding logic and logical fallacies has been a quite important tool in science and in applying the scientific principle

“some nut cases accuse those who don’t accept their beliefs of being close minded so anyone who mentions close mindedness is a nut case.”

Just providing you statistics.
I see no statistics, only bias based on anecdotal stories.

But to get to the OP (in case you actually bothered to read your own link), how do you explain the data?

Ironic, have you read my post?
There is no data, just garbage.

Yes, I read your post. It was a rant.

It is well above the noise level and well above the minimum resolution of the test equipment.

How the fuck do you know that?
I read the test report that you linked.

So it seems that you have a few choices: 1) the data was faked, 2) a systemic error in the test set up, or 3) the data shows a real effect and we don’t have a good explanation of why.

You forgot 3) ghosts.

That is because I didn’t offer any explanation since there isn’t enough testing and data to offer a hypothesis of the physics involved.

Systematic errors determination is part of every proper experiment.

In the first and second case, an independent test would resolve the issue.

In the third case, an independent test would give science a damned exciting effect to study and could possibly lead to a “new field of physics”.

And then we could take your “close minded” approach and ignore the test simply because you don’t have a ready explanation and think the guy is a twit. Personal attacks rather than addressing the data is always an option.

OK, ghosts exist, NASA have the evidence.

A baseless assertion, unless you have a hell of a lot of data you are not sharing.

Personally, I lean toward a systemic problem with the test set up. But then there is no way to know without independent replication of the test.

 

[barbos]

Personally, I lean toward a systemic problem with the test set up. But then there is no way to know without independent replication of the test.

It's called "systematic" not "systemic".

 

[skepticalbip]

Personally, I lean toward a systemic problem with the test set up. But then there is no way to know without independent replication of the test.

It's called "systematic" not "systemic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem

A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system,[1][2] rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor.

 

[barbos]

It's called "systematic" not "systemic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem

A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system,[1][2] rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor.

Oh, you mean systemic problem of engineers being ignorant about science and experimenting?
Ok then, I agree about that too and this thread is really about that. So I am glad you finally agreed with me.
I was talking specifically about systematic errors not being estimated in their "tests" and they are called "systematic errors" not "systemic problems"

 

[skepticalbip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem

A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system,[1][2] rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor.

Oh, you mean systemic problem of engineers being ignorant about science and experimenting?
Ok then, I agree about that too and this thread is really about that. So I am glad you finally agreed with me.

Hardly. Engineers know quite a bit about science and the average engineer, in general, knows much more about setting up and conducting experiments than the average "scientist". After all, that is their job that they do every day. That airplane that you trust your life to when you fly was designed and tested by engineers. I would be damned reluctant to get on an airplane designed by a team of theoritical physicists and mathematicians.

I was talking specifically about systematic errors not being estimated in their "tests" and they are called "systematic errors" not "systemic problems"

Of course that is what a mathematician would consider.

ETA: This last post of yours seems to be a great example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[barbos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem

A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system,[1][2] rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor.

Oh, you mean systemic problem of engineers being ignorant about science and experimenting?
Ok then, I agree about that too and this thread is really about that. So I am glad you finally agreed with me.

Hardly. Engineers think they know quite a bit about science and the average engineer, in general, is convinced that he knows much more about setting up and conducting experiments than the average "scientist".

Fixed for you.

After all, that is their job that they do every day. That airplane that you trust your life to when you fly was designed and tested by engineers. I would be damned reluctant to get on an airplane designed by a theoritical physicist or mathematician.

The thing is, physicist knows that he can't and should not in general be allowed to design a plane, whereas engineers think they can do what scientists do just fine.
You display profound misunderstanding about what scientists as opposed to engineers do.
Scientists concern themselves with discovering and learning how and why stuff works. Engineers build stuff, very often without deeper understanding how and why it works. In this particular case engineers tried to do scientist's job and failed miserably, illustrating their inherent deficiencies in that area.
As for scientists, then most scientists are perfectly capable to do engineering or at least understand it well to consciously follow. Most of the experimenting in physics at least involves quite a bit of engineering. As for theorists, you will be surprised how sharp most of them are when it comes to engineering. They may not do it everyday but they will smell BS much faster than your typical engineer.

I was talking specifically about systematic errors not being estimated in their "tests" and they are called "systematic errors" not "systemic problems"

Of course that is what a mathematician would consider.

No, that's what real scientists would consider.

 

[skepticalbip]

 

[steve_bnk]

Engineers and scientists are similar.

In industry it all depends on your experience, knowledge base, and what interests you. Some with a science degree or an engineering degree may ed up doing quality control statistics and never do any creative work. Some not all do creative work.

The cosmology and particle physics popularized in the media and shows like NOVA is really a very small part of all that is encompassed by the term science.

The level of science required in both engineering and science functions depends on the task. A physicist designing lasers is doing engineering. Categorically an engineer researching materials for integrated circuits is doing science.

To say engineers 'make things' is like saying an artist 'paints things'. In industry scientists and engineers both 'makes things'.

Both engineers and scientists doing development work need to be experimentalists.

I worked in an electro-optics group. I was the electrical engineer, along with a physicist, a chemist, and a materials engineer.

 

[barbos]

Speaking like a true engineer.

 

[barbos]

Engineers and scientists are similar.

That's because it became popular to blur the line between them.
That's why they invented such things as "computer scientists", "material scientists".
I understand why it's happening and some of them are actually scientists but when a trained dentist calls himself a material scientist and starts developing capacitors then it becomes stupid and ridiculous. Or when electrical engineer who seems to be confused about inductance and switching power supplies starts talking about quantum mechanics.

This stupid story is another case of this stupid trend. I would have been probably less pissed off if these engineers had not tried to make a conclusion about something they can't possibly have any idea about - "virtual plasma". I am sick and tired of such nonsense coming from engineers.

 

[skepticalbip]

Speaking like a true engineer.

Actually I am a physics major but have worked with quite a few engineers over my working career. On the other hand, you don't seem to have a clue what engineering is about or the educational background required of engineers. Plus, I see little in your posts to indicate that you know what science is.

 

[barbos]

Speaking like a true engineer.

Actually I am a physics major but have worked with quite a few engineers over my working career. On the other hand, you don't seem to have a clue what engineering is about or the educational background required of engineers. Plus, I see little in your posts to indicate that you know what science is.

Physics major!=physicist or even scientist.
And it is you who don't have a clue about engineers or scientists.
You are exact illustration to what I am talking about.

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually I am a physics major but have worked with quite a few engineers over my working career. On the other hand, you don't seem to have a clue what engineering is about or the educational background required of engineers. Plus, I see little in your posts to indicate that you know what science is.

Physics major!=physicist or even scientist.

True, but my work made me a physicist.

And it is you who don't have a clue about engineers or scientists.
You are exact illustration to what I am talking about.

You mean like a mathematician calling themselves an experimental physicist?

 

[barbos]

Physics major!=physicist or even scientist.

True, but my work made me a physicist.

In your mind only.

And it is you who don't have a clue about engineers or scientists.
You are exact illustration to what I am talking about.

You mean like a mathematician calling themselves an experimental physicist?

No, that's not what I was/am talking about.
I am talking about engineers calling themselves scientists.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[skepticalbip]