How is science currently being done at the labs. Below is a list of how science is often done in many places but is it how it is done in the labs?
It is unscientific to disagree with the consensus
It is unscientific to agree with a majority of scientists
It is unscientific to say that something is likely or unlikely
A theory is unscientific if it says that a quantity is meaningless if or when it is not observed by a well-defined procedure
It is unscientific to use aesthetic criteria while picking a theory
A theory is unscientific if it agrees with an older theory and they cannot be distinguished in currently doable experiments
It is unscientific to reduce a scientific question to an elaborate calculation or a complex mathematical argument
It is unscientific to dismiss an experiment (and evidence building on it) as a fraud or bad science
It is unscientific to consider people's subjective preferences and/or money in the scientific selection of the best policy
It is unscientific to dismiss an observed pattern as a coincidence or a fluke
It is unscientific to conclude that an observed pattern is probably not a coincidence and there must be a more detailed explanation
It is unscientific to claim that there is positive evidence in favor of a theory
30 comments:
It is interesting that so many people even those with doctorates don't understand how science works. You see this in the public, certain aspects of universities and certainly in the mainstream media. It is odd when you hear celebrities say stuff like "listen to the scientists" while they completely misunderstand how science works or what it can and cannot say for certain.
An examples Covid-19, which it is pretty clear that we simply do not have as much information needed to make many definitive conclusions but people argue to "listen to the science" to make every possible claim. This is often the case with complex systems, in which detailed predictions are very difficult to make. It is not that different from economics and meteorology. Some trends or general features can be understood but it is not precises.
As for the labs, one thing I have noticed is that over the years there has been an increasing engineering or tech mindset to things that should be scientific,so that in the end for certain issues little actual progress gets made other than doing increasingly larger simulations and box checking. When one tries to explain why a scientific approach should be used or some questions as to why something is happening one gets black stares and comments like "well I just maintain code" or "we have a clear set of milestones that need to be meet and thats all I care about", and "why make more work for ourselves", "you can always ask about deeper understanding but it is not obvious why it would help so who cares", or "hey don't ask me I just work here". Other times it is just a not understanding that different things that might seem unrelated could have effects on each other or how things could change over time. It turns more into a precise set of boxes to check, an exact plan and so on. This makes sense for certain issues but not all issues.
I get it, it ain't science, rocket or otherwise.
5/01/2020 9:14 AM
You have made a start. But I wish this forum could support a broader and more intellectual pursuit of the points you make. It should be possible given the potential audience, but the tenor of most posts here shows much less interest in any serious debate on the subject than I would hope for.
5/01/2020 9:14 AM
You forgot "What, me worry?"
5/01/2020 6:06 PM
Does anyone really care anymore? It is just a job, and like most jobs that people don't have any real passion to do they will do the minimal required. In the old days the labs where not like this but it is what it is now.
Does anyone notice a trend? Maybe we should not let science in the US decay. I know many will say that "science" is not something the Labs do or ever should ever do but still this is something to think about.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01236-5
The 10 fastest risers in physical sciences.
University of Chines Academy of Sciences, China
University of Science and Technology, China
Tsinghua University China,
Huazhong University of Science China,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University China,'
Nanjing University of China,
Wuhan University, China,
Sun Yat-sen University, China
Nationa University of Singapore
5/01/2020 8:18 PM
If it is "just a job" to you, you are (a major part of) the problem. Please quit and give your job to someone who rally wants a career.
If it is "just a job" to you, you are (a major part of) the problem. Please quit and give your job to someone who rally wants a career.
Seep post 5.00PM, be happy that you have anyone.
In any case if China wants Trump gone that we should be on China's side. The Chinese are smart, educated and tolerant. We should follow their lead and the 4 year hellscape and 100k, 500k, 1M, 10m, 100m death rate under Trump will be gone.
Someday it may sink in to all of you sandbox "science" advocates that the mission of the Nuclear Weapon Laboratories (LANL, LLNL, and SNLA) is just that -- Nuclear Weapons. Anything else is just frosting on the cake, easily scraped off. And, if you really think that your arguments that "science" of everything is actually needed for nuclear weapon development, you better think again. It wasn't needed to get where we are, and it won't be needed to get where we're going.
"It wasn't needed to get where we are, and it won't be needed to get where we're going."
What on earth are you talking about? Do you seriously believe this or do you have no idea of the history of the labs? Wow just wow, we are doomed as a nation if you actually believe this.
5/02/2020 9:03 PM should actually learn a little about the applied physics of nuclear weapons before blathering on in ignorance. None the sandbox "science" presently sucking on the weapons teat at the labs was needed. By the way, I seriously doubt that what any one person believes will actually "doom the nation."
"None the sandbox "science" presently sucking on the weapons teat at the labs was needed"
Your statement is so far out there that it is laughable. There is no way you are a weapons scientists. I don't know who you are but I know that your statement is not something the weapons science believe or ever say. What gives you way is your statement on "sandbox" science, what on earth does that even mean.? You gave a very poor understanding of all the different science that had to be done and must be done for NW, issues such as aging, non-proliferation, waste, computation, materials science and so on . This is on top of the LANLs larger issues of national security. Again I doubt you work with weapons or ever had. I have only heard one ex LANL person ever say "sandbox" and that person was not held in very high regard anyone to understate it. I am not saying that is you but it does show a similar mindset,
"actually learn a little about the applied physics of nuclear weapons before blathering on in ignorance"
You are wrong. I know more than you.
In any case if China wants Trump gone that we should be on China's side. The Chinese are smart, educated and tolerant.
5/02/2020 6:47 PM
The Chinese are tolerant?? Of what, besides blind obedience to the Party? How "tolerant" were they of the doctor who tried to sound the alarm on the new coronavirus? This is sarcasm, right?
The Chinese are tolerant?? Of what, besides blind obedience to the Party? How "tolerant" were they of the doctor who tried to sound the alarm on the new coronavirus? This is sarcasm, right?
5/03/2020 5:31 PM
I am sure it is a joke, or perhaps a Chinese poster. I know people talked about the whole Russian collusion thing with Trump where Russain hackers would post on online forums. I never took it to seriously or the Russians where a bit more subtle at it. On the other hand when I go to online news sites like the Hill, Huff post, Real Clear politics there seems to be a barrage of pro China posts that are just over the top. Not only are they pro China but they are also anti-US. Now I suppose these could just be random pro China people on the internet but knowing that if you are in China you cannot even read the Huff post it seems rather odd.
5/03/2020 11:47 AM
Some examples of "Sandbox" science at the Lab = quantum dots, CINT @ Los Alamos (where you cannot even work with radiological materials, battery science, water electrolysis, biomass and biofuels, moon science, CO2 capture in the arctic, tree modeling, MaRIE, climate change, NSEC, and the cherry on top ... LDRD program which is mostly funded by the WP and tends to not fund weapons R&D, etc ....
LDRD is in the LANL contract with DOE/NNSA. So what? If they recognize the value, why don't you?
"Some examples of "Sandbox" science at the Lab = quantum dots, CINT @ Los Alamos (where you cannot even work with radiological materials, battery science, water electrolysis, biomass and biofuels, moon science, CO2 capture in the arctic, tree modeling, MaRIE, climate change, NSEC, and the cherry on top ... LDRD program which is mostly funded by the WP and tends to not fund weapons R&D, etc ...."
You sir are completely right but there is a couple of small points to correct in that every single point you raised is wrong.
Most of the work you pointed out is in fact not funded by LDRD but by DOE and WFO and so, particularly the quantum dot work which is at least 75-80% office of science work. Also you should include the recent work on Covid-19 that is being done. Totally useless I agree.
What does "sandbox" mean, every single one of these programs is either an NNSA, DOE or office of science priority, thrust are, or pushed as a national need. You know you can look this up.
Also there is the problem of all the people that came in under these programs that end up work in other parts of the lab including NW programs. I know you may not be aware that this is one of the arguments for some broader science at the labs and if you look at the top weapons scientists over the years you will find a large number came to the lab doing basic science. I assume that you do not know any people working in NW or else you would know this. We have gone over this before on this blog and even named names. Hint (look at some of the LANL medal winners and Fellows), just a small hint, it is not that hard.
Oh yes there is also the mandate that LANL is a national security lab not just solely NW labs and the projects you have mentioned are part of that broader mission. LANL has always had some component of basic science, in fact it probably had more in the past.
Hmm, what about all the LDRD which is 5% of the lab budget what percentage of that goes to work on shock waves, turbulence, computer modeling, materials like say actinides, detectors continuum dynamics. Trust me these are relevant, very relevant and make up at least half of LDRD. Oh and a small little factoid for you there are numerous LDRD projects that are for
particular mission science issues for NW including classified ones, I will not go into it, but there are number apparently you do not know this.
Next quantum dots which like to pick on so much, do in fact have several applications directly relevant for the mission to say the least, along with nanoscience and fabrication. Think about it and I will leave at that. MaRIE is directly relevant to the mission you obviously have no idea what it or else you would not make such a naive statement. Water electrolysis, yes for waste disposal. Battery science, yes for detectors, you know we like to detect stuff, part of the mission, same with biofules. Tree modeling is related to the NM environment, the lab has some interactions with that environment so we might need to know a few things...(think about). Moon science, (detection sciences).
Climate change, is not only part of the broader mission but is highly relevant for some other reasons, in case you may not know climate science and many other sciences use large scale simulations, the lab likes large scale simulation. There is a reason to have state of the art large scale computations at the labs. Also bringing in postdocs and staff who are experts in large scale simulations study say climate science leads to expertise in large scale simulations of other things. CO2 capture, well we need some experts in certain environmental things.
In summary you have no idea of even what the lab does, why we have these programs, what actually funds these programs, or how these are beneficial to LANL. You also seem to be utterly unaware of the funding profiles at LANL or LANL's actual mission. I doubt you ever worked in a LANL weapon program and you certainly do not work at LANL right now or have in some time.
Dear 10:29AM
Have you ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect. Here it is
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task or weak understanding of a field overestimate their ability or knowledge. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability or knowledge.
I say this because you seem to know a little, for example you have heard of quantum dots and LDRD but you don't really know what these are, yet you think you are expert what the lab does and make sweeping claims, which are clearly false. You also use the term "sandbox" but you never define it, as no one is doing "sandbox" science at the labs. For example DOE which funds a large portion of the quantum dot effort has specific things, results and directions they want, else they do not fund it anymore, the same is true of most of the things you put on the list. The items you put on that list are not funded directly or even inderectly from any tax on weapons as it is easy to confirm that the funding comes directly from DOE and other sources and adds more money to the lab and uses. It is rather stunning that you did not know this. You do not even understand the mission of the lab which is "national security" which all you have to do is go to the homepage.
Los Alamos having some impact on Covid-19 studies is in the news.
https://news.yahoo.com/mutant-coronavirus-emerged-even-more-110046843.html
If 10:29AM had his way LANL should never be doing any of this because it is somehow sandbox science. By the way the particular group that does this work is funded by NIH and the Gates foundation.
5/04/2020 8:51 PM
Very good post, good points, but you really, REALLY, need to proofread before you publish. Otherwise you come of as half a crackpot if people don't really understand the subject (i.e., most). Too many missing words, grammar mistakes, etc. You are obviously highly intelligent and knowledgeable, just slow down a bit.
I doubt you ever worked in a LANL weapon program and you certainly do not work at LANL right now or have in some time.
= perfect example of mazerunning labrat arrogance.
= perfect example of mazerunning labrat arrogance.
5/05/2020 10:46 PM
How does that even mean? The poster gave a list showing you where wrong about the way certain science is funded at LANL and how almost all of it is in fact relevant to what the NNSA and DOE state are the science goals of the lab. You also do not understand how science is used in the NW stockpile stewardship.
Your lack of knowledge would indicate that you are not familiar with the lab or do not work at the lab. This is not arrogance but merely a logical inference. Your comment about mazerunning is rather telling about you but not the lab.
to 5/06/2020 2:55 PM ; Learn the difference between "what" and "how." Learn the difference between "were" and "where." Then you can rattle on about someone's "lack of knowledge."
to 5/06/2020 2:55 PM ; Learn the difference between "what" and "how." Learn the difference between "were" and "where." Then you can rattle on about someone's "lack of knowledge."
5/09/2020 3:31 PM
That is not a valid response to the points that were raised. Again what is the evidence that 10:46 PM works at LANL or ever has worked at LANL? They appear to lack knowledge of NNSA and DOE and how science is funded at the labs or how science is used in NW stockpile stewardship.
I was wondering when the grammar cop was going to show back up. Welcome back.
Inadequate education is a (different) pandemic in American society. Sloppy speech (or writing) indicates sloppy thought, indicates inadequate education. Welcome to the US public school system.
5/10/2020 5:20 PM
I think this argument is called deflection. Try addressing the issue next time.
Inadequate education is a (different) pandemic in American society. Sloppy speech (or writing) indicates sloppy thought, indicates inadequate education. Welcome to the US public school system.
5/10/2020 5:20 PM
I think this argument is called deflection. Try addressing the issue next time.
5/10/2020 11:07 PM
OK --It is unscientific to dismiss an observed pattern as a coincidence or a fluke
Post a Comment