Difference between revisions of "Talk:3101: Good Science"
(Uses of pure rigour.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. --> | <!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. --> | ||
Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the ''essential'' part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC) | Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the ''essential'' part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm thinking that there are two uses for rigour without curiosity. The explanation covers the professional motive: to have a career in producing good-looking results. There is also a political motive: to block a line of research, to prevent its results from gaining traction. Table 1 of this: [http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Introduction.Going%20Public,%20Going%20Global.pdf] covers a variety of kinds of sociology, most of which could have opponents. | ||
| + | [[Special:Contributions/112.213.42.56|112.213.42.56]] 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:06, 12 June 2025
Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the essential part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) 92.23.2.228 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking that there are two uses for rigour without curiosity. The explanation covers the professional motive: to have a career in producing good-looking results. There is also a political motive: to block a line of research, to prevent its results from gaining traction. Table 1 of this: [1] covers a variety of kinds of sociology, most of which could have opponents. 112.213.42.56 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
