Posts: 629
Threads: 38
Joined: April 12, 2012
Reputation:
13
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 12:53 am
what's so wrong with reading things on the web? i'd rather someone read SOMETHING and try to think thru a stance on a subject, rather than approaching it completely blind. of course, they'll have some good info and some bad too - that part should go without needing said. i see no wrong with google-bating someone on a subject that you want to learn something about. you act like you know something and have a stance and perhaps catch a quick lesson from one of our resident know-it-alls and take away something to read further on later, if you're lucky enough to get the debate with someone who isn't another google-bater and actually knows what they're speaking of.
pretention.
they can land a rover on mars, yet they still have to stick a human finger up my ass to do a prostate exam?! - ricky gervais
Posts: 1327
Threads: 37
Joined: January 15, 2012
Reputation:
15
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 9:27 am
(April 23, 2012 at 12:53 am)jackman Wrote: what's so wrong with reading things on the web? i'd rather someone read SOMETHING and try to think thru a stance on a subject, rather than approaching it completely blind. of course, they'll have some good info and some bad too - that part should go without needing said. i see no wrong with google-bating someone on a subject that you want to learn something about. you act like you know something and have a stance and perhaps catch a quick lesson from one of our resident know-it-alls and take away something to read further on later, if you're lucky enough to get the debate with someone who isn't another google-bater and actually knows what they're speaking of.
pretention. The name of the article and the thread subject is Google isn't science. If you want to understand that to mean you shouldn't read things on the web neither the article nor this thread holds any responsibility for your misunderstanding.
Posts: 12513
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 9:30 am
(April 23, 2012 at 12:53 am)jackman Wrote: what's so wrong with reading things on the web? i'd rather someone read SOMETHING and try to think thru a stance on a subject, rather than approaching it completely blind. of course, they'll have some good info and some bad too - that part should go without needing said. i see no wrong with google-bating someone on a subject that you want to learn something about. you act like you know something and have a stance and perhaps catch a quick lesson from one of our resident know-it-alls and take away something to read further on later, if you're lucky enough to get the debate with someone who isn't another google-bater and actually knows what they're speaking of.
pretention.
The intention here jackman is that one should NOT take the web as gospel and should investigate further in regards to science and it's discoveries and validity on any topic.
As for us who have limited degrees in the science fields the web is a bountiful place for subjects to interest us.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 629
Threads: 38
Joined: April 12, 2012
Reputation:
13
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 11:41 am
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2012 at 12:02 pm by jackman.)
(April 23, 2012 at 9:27 am)Phil Wrote: The name of the article and the thread subject is Google isn't science. If you want to understand that to mean you shouldn't read things on the web neither the article nor this thread holds any responsibility for your misunderstanding.
no misunderstanding. what i'm saying is some DO believe everything they read or hear (wrongly) and some are doing it on purpose to rile up people and learn. they shouldn't be knocked and name-called, they should be taught. that of course is my unwanted and unwarranted opinion. sorry that got past you.
(April 23, 2012 at 9:30 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: The intention here jackman is that one should NOT take the web as gospel and should investigate further in regards to science and it's discoveries and validity on any topic.
As for us who have limited degrees in the science fields the web is a bountiful place for subjects to interest us.
absolutely KichigaiNeko, i agree completely if they use it as "gospel", haha. i knew what it was about and it sounded to me like the thread started to take on an elitist vibe, which irritates me. lol. i'm not an astrophysicist nor biologist, no matter how much i've read and watched on different subjects that interest me. having said that, if posts were indirectly knocking me (since i can only speak for myself) using google as a starting point to investigate, then i don't agree. maybe i did mistake the vibe of the posts.
they can land a rover on mars, yet they still have to stick a human finger up my ass to do a prostate exam?! - ricky gervais
Posts: 66332
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 1:23 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
As far as science and google are related, if you know what you are looking for, it's great to have access to the archives of peer reviewed journals. I wish more of them were free of charge, but science (and publishing science) aint cheap. If at any point you feel that someone has google-bated you, you can always just copy paste their responses......into google. The source of information is irrelevant, it's the veracity of the information that counts.
(I share Phils frustration, but I do feel that it is completely the fault of the messenger when gaffs arise, and not whatever message may available in the hallowed halls of the interwebs)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Quote:I'd rather someone read SOMETHING and try to think thru a stance on a subject,
IF that's what they were doing that would be fine. What we see, just look at our current infestation of theistic morons as an example, is that they run around until they find a citation which confirms what they want to hear and then post it as if it is some kind of unassailable truth.
Idiots will always be idiots and jesus-freaks are the worst of the lot but the internet has given them fuel for their delusions.
Posts: 1327
Threads: 37
Joined: January 15, 2012
Reputation:
15
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 8:34 pm
See, a degreed scientist (geologist) who should have known better uses Google to come up with a wikipedia stub (and the claim thousands of universities disagree with me) to claim I don't understand beta decay since there are two types not three as I claimed. When he read a PDF from MIT claiming (and proving) otherwise, he suddenly claimed he forgot about the third type. See the danger of thinking Google is science?
Posts: 629
Threads: 38
Joined: April 12, 2012
Reputation:
13
RE: Google and Science
April 23, 2012 at 9:14 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2012 at 9:22 pm by jackman.)
(April 23, 2012 at 1:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If at any point you feel that someone has google-bated you, you can always just copy paste their responses......into google.
(I share Phils frustration, but I do feel that it is completely the fault of the messenger when gaffs arise, and not whatever message may available in the hallowed halls of the interwebs)
of course. tons of people quote the first thing that validates their belief. shame on them if they really buy it and have the nerve to try to defend an issue with it. my point was lost (therefore irrelevant to continue). so i won't continue to try to make it. i agree, in short.
(April 23, 2012 at 1:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote: IF that's what they were doing that would be fine. What we see, just look at our current infestation of theistic morons as an example, is that they run around until they find a citation which confirms what they want to hear and then post it as if it is some kind of unassailable truth.
Idiots will always be idiots and jesus-freaks are the worst of the lot but the internet has given them fuel for their delusions.
point taken.
(April 23, 2012 at 8:34 pm)Phil Wrote: See, a degreed scientist (geologist) who should have known better uses Google to come up with a wikipedia stub (and the claim thousands of universities disagree with me) to claim I don't understand beta decay since there are two types not three as I claimed. When he read a PDF from MIT claiming (and proving) otherwise, he suddenly claimed he forgot about the third type. See the danger of thinking Google is science?
you seem to have found a flaw in his argument, so kudos to you. as an engineer by education myself (albeit civil, lol), mit stands as a fairly credible source in my book. please tho, one last time, i do NOT think google is science - tho i feel you were just pointing out the purpose of your OP, more so than showing me the error of MY ways.
they can land a rover on mars, yet they still have to stick a human finger up my ass to do a prostate exam?! - ricky gervais
|
