The writing about the way to make science

The writing about the way to make science

I have seen many people during my life, who have very strong opinions about science. And the thing is those people are always somehow defending their opinions with some other method than using scientific facts. One of the worst ways to make science is the boxing fight, where people can see, who is right in any question. Those kind of things are really funny when they are seen on television, but that things are not probably the best way to make people like surgeons.

One other version is to make people choose, who is the best of scientists, or what theory is the best? The thing is that the elections and commands from the bosses or other rulers don't make theories true or false, even they are popular or unpopular. The thing that theory is popular doesn't make it true, as well as if the theory is against the own opinions that don't make it false.

Theories are theories until they are proven true or false by using observation, where the phenomenon is simultaneous could be done in the laboratories by using the same tools for repeating the test. And if the theory is proven wrong even the most popular position of that theory in the world doesn't make it true. And the unpopular theory can be true, even it feels uncomfortable, or the introducer uses running shoes with a suit.

The interesting thing about the ability to face different opinions, we might think about things like aggression what is caused a different kind of opinions, that kind of things is a really interesting way to earn publicity. When we are looking at people who are always giving commands to other people, and who would always need to have the last and greatest opinions of every question, but they are looking always people who would give them advice.

But when somebody is giving a piece of advice, what doesn't please that kind of people, they would start to yell shut up. The question is why those people are asking the advice if they start to yell to the advisor? When some person would come to position as an advisor, that kind of people have the right to expect, that their superiorities are listening to that advice. But if those instructions are not interested in the bosses, they might make their decisions without even asking about those things.

If we are thinking about the way to make the business the thing is that every company has their way to act in the field of business. And the ruling area of the bosses is limited to the companies, what they are leading. The thing is that in business life the profit is the thing, which means something. There is always some big leaders, who are always telling others, what they should do? And those people are always getting big publicity because many people want to believe those things.

We don't want to change our lifestyle for "saving the world" as somebody wants to say. If we are thinking about the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and its effect on the greenhouse effect, we might face people who would believe that the level of carbon dioxide does not affect, and then they are delivering that kind of information in every channel.

And then we are forgetting that the production of carbon dioxide is not a problem, the problem is that nature has a too-small capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Or otherwise, we might say that we are creating too much carbon dioxide. The thing is that people who are against the warming of our planet, have many times get very much publicity is very interesting and sad detail in the discussions of the environmental changes.

The question is that people who are thinking the same way with other people are giving very much support for their opinions, what is supporting own lifestyle. Sometimes I have thought that are those people always driving by using big cars and have money to do everything, what they want.

If we are thinking theories, what the greenhouse effect would cause, the extreme example of the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is planet Venus, where the surface temperature rises above 600 celsius. That means that carbon dioxide has a very big role in the warming of planet Earth. That means that those things are not theories any more.

Public opinions might be different from real opinions

Public opinions might be different from real opinions

When people are telling their opinions publically, the real opinion of that person might be different than they think in their mind, and that will be explained that we all have will to please the bosses and great audience. That means that we sometimes are talking things, what other people want to hear. Or otherwise, because of respect, we will let people have their wrong opinions or pseudoscientific arguments because we want to please them, and that's why we let them say things, what is wrong or even dangerous.

We The problems with metering are that some people are using different kind of tools than others and in those kinds of cases, the problem is how to make people understand, that something that they cannot see might be true anyway. Many times those people have made a long career in some respected areas. And that would make a little bit difficult to say against them.

Let's take one example of the things, where many people just believe something, but the research has shown things being a little bit different than people expect. That case is bitumen, the real thing is that this material is the most stiffed liquid in the world. That thing has been proven by putting a piece of bitumen in the funnel, and during tens of years, those bites just flew down the funnel.

The thing is meanless in normal life, but cases, when somebody will repair the vacuum tanks and space stations, would that thing be in the vital role. If the place what would be used to repair the hole would be sucked to the vacuum, the results would be devastating.

Respect is bad for research. And good researcher should respect nobody.

When somebody is collecting the statistics and asks people opinion of some questions, there have ever discussed things like the majority of the population might not have opinions at all, what consists some question. But they give answers anyway. And in some cases, people don't even listen to questions what the Gallup poll maker asks.

And in some cases, they would give the name of the politician, who has become in their mind. Or what would you think about the situation, that some bodybuilder with the political police branch will come to ask the opinion about the state leader's policy? In this case, the wise man will say "yes", because in that case, the wrong answer will cause a bad result.

And there are always people who, have 20 years of experience of something, but their roll meter would not meter something, and that makes things wrong. In the science metering, something would be happening by using special equipment, and those lasers and other things will give results, what are the size of a micrometer. In that case, respect would sometimes cause that nobody fixes the answer.

What do you think, should the researchers read texts, what are supporting their own opinions or texts, what is introducing the opponent opinion?

What do you think, should the researchers read texts, what are supporting their own opinions or texts, what is introducing the opponent opinion?

To be or not to be that's the question, what we might ask again and again. And the result is that we can think this question about comfortable texts, that researcher is working, while this inmate reads some texts and looks the videos for finding sources for their own texts. That means that if we are using that point of view in our work, we might face another thing, and that is the texts, what the researcher makes are not always please those professionals.

But the purpose of that kind of action is that the researcher would find out the reason, why somebody is against their opinion. That little bit uncomfortable way to act is also uncovering the agenda of the opposite side. If the agenda is that they simply don't like the researcher's personality, that thing might be not a very scientific way to knock out the results, what researchers have found out.

There are many actors in the field of justice and in the rule of government, who are telling people, that they are willing to make compromises and discuss things. But at the same time, those actors would put the conditions, what other people are not willing or they cannot accept. Sometimes in those cases, those actors are willing to discuss things only if they are above the opposite side.

There are two versions to put the scientific results in the garbage, and the first one is to make a very popular blog or something like that and then simply level those results by claiming that the researcher is a joker when everybody laughs. And the other way is to get the better results of the investigations by using more effective and more modern tools for getting that data.