Slashdot Mirror

Uh, computer scientists aren't scientists...

(Source: Am a computer scientist.)

Scientific Method
1) Ask a Question: Will this program I just wrote compile?
2) Background Research:
2.1) Previous experience with programming language
2.2) Previous experience with type of problem
2,3) Quality of Understanding of CS concepts
3) Form a hypothesis: First time to compile: no. Estimate X syntax errors and Z semantic errors per Y lines of code.
4) Experiment: Perform compile.
5) Analyze Results
6) Iterate on Experiment. (Fix errors, refine understanding.)
7) Present findings (Boss, it's going to be another 3 days for thorough testing)

The scientific investigation in Computer Science is on many fronts, but the most empirical aspect of science is the study of how well you, the programmer, understand the problem at hand and the tools you have for tackling it.

Perhaps you don't understand the Science aspect of Computer Science: The ongoing effort to refine our models of understanding about the world.

And by the way, with regard to your other post that you directed me to - scientists and engineers do not use the same methods. Engineering is not working at discovering facts of nature, like how a particular transcription factor works in conjunction with other proteins to enhance transcription of a particular gene, or how a protein complex at synapses regulates neurotransmission by altering dopamine uptake. You build and test things. That is quite different.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/...

Difference being that relativity was mathematically deduced from a simple set of hypotheses.

Are you saying that archeologists don't follow scientific method? Because that is not how I have experienced archeology. Archeologist have to construct hypotheses based on certain evidence and then set out to prove them like everybody else. Of course you can't obtain your proof sitting on your ass in an air conditioned office deducing mathematical formulae, you have to go out and dig around in the dirt to find you proof. If an archeologist finds marble sheets in Roman ruins around Europe and the the Middle East bearing clear saw marks he can go with conventional wisdom which for a long time would have had us believe these slabs were produced by slaves using bronze hand-saws in painstaking and wasteful manual labour. However, an archeologist, with a bit of imagination might note that the slabs are a bit too uniformly sawed to have been produced by hand and he might also recall from conversations with his colleagues in the department of history that there are plenty of accounts in ancient sources pointing to sophisticated machinery being used in ancient times even though these accounts are often dismissed as fantasy or written off as references to grain mills etc. So taking the risk of applying a bit of imagination to the scientific process the archeologist could perhaps hypothesise that the Romans weren't stupid and that it is likely they developed the process of sawing stone to a high degree of technological sophistication. He could then go and try to confirm that hypothesis by looking for remains of stone processing facilities like, say the stone saw mill at Gerasa in Jordan where large blocks of half sawed marble blocks have been found with several parallels saw marks in them. This site and others like it demonstrates conclusively that the stone was being mechanically sawed into sheets of marble using water wheels at least some 1300 years before the industrial revolution. While I'm sure that mathematics is more logical, rigorous and absolute than many other disciplines of science I'm pretty sure that Einstein in particular with his numerous and fascinating thought experiments found plenty of room for imagination in his work.

No, you don't understand how real research and statistics work, try reading these: https://explorable.com/statist... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... http://stats.stackexchange.com... http://www.sciencebuddies.org/... It's obvious Bennett has no academic credentials beyond a bachelor's degree or maybe even High School Diploma given his drivel above.

then you may want to experiment with constrained layer damping

You'll need to find some clear viscoelastic adhesive in tape or sheet form - something similar to the stuff used to stick credit cards to the paper info sheets they're affixed to when they're mailed out. Then have a sheet of glass cut to the size of a window pane. Cover the window pane with the viscoelastic layer, (complete coverage with no gaps is required), and then apply the sheet of glass.(Clear sheet plastic may also work, but AFAIK optimum results are obtained when the constraining layers have similar properties). You may want to attach pull-tabs of fibreglas tape at the edges of the glass to make it easier to remove them if necessary.

The experiment shouldn't cost too much to try on one window. It should be immediately obvious whether or not it's worth doing the rest of the windows. After treatment you won't be able to see clearly through the windows, but at least they'll still allow the light in.

As I've explained in a post above, science does not work by directly observing phenomena. Science works by examining evidence and seeing if it is consistent with a hypothesis. The big bang hypothesis makes certain predictions about the cosmic background radiation and the distribution of matter in the universe. If our observations are consistent with what the big bang hypothesis predicts, the observations confirm the hypothesis. This simple explanation is the basis of all scientific experimentation. You can read more about the scientific method.

Everything is just a matter of time. After all Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin got, or should of gotten, Nobel prizes for extracting DNA. Now you can do that at home.
The problem for this would be getting access to a database with the info, so it would probably be easier to punch the person in the nose to get a blood sample and duplicate the DNA from that.

Yeah, I noticed that... seems to be a common tactic in such arguments.

The very first thing I can remember learning in any science class is the "Scientific Method", which makes no statements about right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but does require that one collect and examine all relevant evidence (not just carefully selected evidence), without preconception or bias. It was taught akin to what's presented here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Of course, when all your evidence is hearsay that's been through multiple sessions of Chinese Whispers, it's a little hard to get it to pass muster for the Scientific Method ;)

for the first part,
according to wikipedia, "the highest confirmed spectroscopic redshift of a galaxy is ... z = 6.96.", and if i interpret the formulas there correctly, emittedWavelength = observedWavelength / (z + 1), so if this thing has the maximum known redshift and the observed wavelength is say 550nm, then the emitted wavelength would be about 70nm or 7e-6cm, so pretty well in the UV.

for the second part, atoms emit across a wide range of wavelengths.
so it's more a matter of how much energy is driving the emission.