Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dailygalaxy.com

Wired Editor says scientific method is obsolete. Oh really?

dailygalaxy.com — The Internet has caused a lot of trouble. Now, according to Wired Magazine's editor, today's wealth of data has made the scientific method unnecessary. Others counter, saying the Internet is not the entire world, contrary to what Anderson may believe.

Bury

WriterSD 104 days ago, made popular 103 days ago

725 diggs
digg it

112 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

ColonelTribune, on 07/03/2008, -2/+64I like Wired, but Chris Anderson may have gone off the deep end here.
- mlwarrior, on 07/04/2008, -0/+15Exactly. So he's saying that everything that can ever be know is already on the internet.....ass.
  - norman619, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6The Internet is moments away from becoming self-aware. THE END IS NEAR!!! REPENT! REPENT!!!
  - sims5487, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4That's actually not the point he's trying to make. Anderson was saying that because of the wealth of data the computers are able to accumulate these days, scientific discoveries can come just as often from patterns in the data (previously undiscovered due to lack of computer power) as from coming up with a theory first and using the scientific method to verify it.
    
    It's just a poor title to a great article.
- norman619, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4May have? o_0
  - Drahkar, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I believe the right phrase is 'Definitely has'. The internet only has what we put there. If we don't know it then obviously the internet isn't going to have any information on it.
    
    What a certifiable moron. And to think he's in charge of what gets printed at Wired. No wonder I lost interest in reading them.
- punkcat, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7All things important things in life i've learned from Lolcats.
  - punkcat, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3learning to edit what i write is not one of them.
- clutchperformer, on 07/04/2008, -0/+16Newsflash. Now that we have calculators... math is obsolete. Now that we have GPS, geography is obsolete.
- mandraque, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6this writer has no clue. I didn't understand what was the wired editor's point or his point. It just sounded like useless garbage.
- PabloMac, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3This can't be happening. I still have nearly a year before my subscription to Wired runs out.
  - haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2If you are really that outraged, you *can* cancel it.
  - PabloMac, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I would, but I'm hooked on the smell of the binding glue.
- frelk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Either that or they've been biblical literalists all along. Trying to argue that dinosaur bones were planted by a mischievous god, evolution is malarky, etc. i.e. Scientific method is bad!!!
- jschrab, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The few remaining Wired RSS feeds that I have in my reader are now being deleted...
- SIRBERUS, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I read this article and found it very interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anywhere in the article where Wired tried to make it a matter of fact... rather, the article felt more like a thought experiment... or a "what if" kind of thing. (I.e. "could this happen?")
  
  It was pretty open ended and rather than push the idea that the scientific method is dead (which was its attention-grabbing-headline), just pointed out how much data we have, and how that may or may not affect the future of science.
AmyVernon, on 07/03/2008, -3/+41This is a great piece. My favorite line:
"Like finding your wife rubbing butter onto a naked clown shaving your dog, there's just so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to begin."
- SurRea1, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2I'm speechless haha
- kitsua, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1Dugg for that line alone.
- fas2, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5My favorite line:
  "Fish are really good at swimming because they live in the water - that doesn't mean a heart surgeon should shove his face into on open chest cavity and try to locomote forward by wiggling his body and gills."
hinutech, on 07/03/2008, -14/+4I haven't read the article yet, but I think that I am going to have to agree with ColonelTribune.
Orion1004, on 07/03/2008, -0/+11A GREAT piece! My favorite line: this attempt at beyond-the-curve controversy falls at the very first law of rubbish identification: "Does it start by saying that a widely held belief is wrong?" Oh yes it does, with Mr Anderson talking about the scientific maxim "Correlation is not causation" the same way you'd talk about how doctors used to put leeches on people.
CadMasterAdam, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9i don't think the Daily Galaxy is one to criticize. I've read articles from them that are way off the deep end.
bobbi21, on 07/03/2008, -3/+19Glad someone wrote something about that stupid article. Can't believe it got digged so much.
- haydesigner, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7Digged?
  Really... Digged? Did that even sound right in your head while you were typing it?
- lonelycanuck, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3I think he reached for "dugg" but came up short
- bobbi21, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1lol. oops. digg takes up a totally different part of my head than dig so the plurals don't associate in my head. Must try to look like less of an idiot.
coboman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+22Good article, it explained nicely the difference between science and other ways of thinking.
There is a very big misconception about what science is, and is not. And that lack of understanding is where everyone, from creationists to pseudoscientists (and even wired writers) can fool the people.
Science is about provable understanding of observable events.
This article is not only funny, it is important.
- EarlOfLade, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Now, if I could only find a way of making certain people understand what a scientific theory is, I would really be happy.
- Orchid64, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0You state the situation very well when you say that "science is about provable understanding of OBSERVABLE events." Scientists are responsible largely for the misunderstanding of what science is by attempting to use science to explain or "disprove" things which are not observable. By trying to spread the reach of what science should be attempting to validate, scientists give the impression that science can and should be a discipline which is applied to all aspects of life.
  
  Science should not be involved in anything that smacks of religion or the metaphysical. Sure, they can verify the history of the bible, but the antagonistic attitude taken toward issues of faith by science is what has fueled the American theocracy. Science has no business dealing with faith as issues of faith are not observable.
  
  I'm not a Christian, and I believe the bible is a book of fairy tales for the most part, but that doesn't mean I think it's my place to go around rubbing that in the face of those who believe otherwise. A lot of scientists are doing just that.
sgiffy, on 07/04/2008, -1/+16End of science, not a chance. The one things it has done though is helped make it easier, and therefore more common, to do Meta-analysis type work.
leontes, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8This type of headlining, page view grabbing tripe, is getting common for Wired, I mean, after all, this was the same organization that three weeks ago said that the Instinct gave the the iPhone a "run for its money". Next, they'll have a headline decrying "President Bush- Really not so bad, after all!", in a concerted attempt to drive up page views. Sure, it's a tough new media world out there, but let's try to be so blantantly provocative, shall we?
cyclades, on 07/04/2008, -10/+6Probably the dumbest thing I've read.
Rudegar, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2bah! 7 out of 10 people can make their own statistic everybody who confuse statistics with real science data have left the path of righteousness in my book
- ILikePants, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4..so what is "real science data" if not statistics?
  - Rudegar, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0any data you get from being able to perform an expierment in a controlled envioment and recieve the same data with go you have at it
Sheitfritter, on 07/04/2008, -6/+0I think someone has been having too much manwurst shoved in him.
rationalist, on 07/04/2008, -4/+50Scientific method shows Wired is obsolete.
vanleurth, on 07/04/2008, -6/+0I just wasted a minute and a half reading a bunch of nothing. They should stop smoking "greenies" at wired magazine.
http://www.cubiclehacks.com
mathwiz1991, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Having read the article in Wired, I believe that collecting large amounts of data is beneficial to science but isn't by a long shot replacing science because it makes it easier to see correlation but science truly is finding out the causation of the correlation and for the majority of people in the world, knowing the correlation is enough but for scientists, they want to know the why and not just the what.
DuffyDirect, on 07/04/2008, -9/+2What I don't understand is why science can't explain the whole "third eye" and aura thing. I've seen it myself with a guru in NYC and it was like he could sense every thought going on in my mind and life at the time. Supposedly they can stop their heart beat and float off the ground and all this amazing stuff. Why hasn't there been exhaustive research/observation of all this?
- svensko, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Because there are more interesting things to research and that's more superstition than science. He probably realized you were a bum because you wore the same clothes for a week, not because he can read your mind.
- inobla, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6There has been attempts. It's called paranormal research. Not taken very seriously by mainstream science.
- kingmanic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8It's very supposedly because for some reason their abilities cannot be observed by a scientific team. I'm not saying all these phenomenon are false (People can go into deep meditation and slow their metabolism or heart rate) but a lot are obviously fake (levitation, third eye, aura). People who claim to have these abilities are unable or unwilling to replicate their abilities in laboratory conditions. The reason why they have never been documented is because in most cases it's a con or wishful thinking.
  
  The situation you experienced is called "cold reading". I can do it too as a party trick as well as hypnotism. The key to cold reading is theatrics. play up your successes down play your failures and shotgun your observations, some of them will stick. Hypnotism plays on different effects and persuades people to do thing they want to do but need an excuse to do it.
  - DuffyDirect, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2What about the head of St. Catherine in Italy and others whose bodies never rotted? I know that there are ways to preserve/muffify and that sort of thing, but I know for sure that hers isn't in any kind of air conditioned thing or anything like that when I went to see it.
    
    I'm not trying to say that these things are unequivocally true like some of the more rude replies I got here seem to imply, but I'm more curious about the elements or bits of truth scattered about in these philosophies that could have scientific value to them. Things like the heart rate slow-down, for example, but also I wonder about the buddhist thing where certain parts of your body (I know the base of your spine and your spleen are a couple of them) have spiritual functions/values besides what we learn in biology class. To be more clear, what I'm talking about are some of these articles like I've seen on digg where someone gets an organ transplant or something and they start taking on characteristics of the donor (hobbies, mannerisms, etc.)
    
    I can also say from first hand experience that acupuncture for chronic back pain helped me a lot (my doctor was also a regular degreed practitioner of medicine, but used eastern methods too), and I have also experienced very strange things in my forays into meditation. One time I meditated and I really felt some kind of ... I guess angry or evil presence in me, and then I started GROWLING and feeling like I was losing control of my body. I snapped out of it, and I haven't meditated ever since because I'm scared of that happening again.
    
    I'm not like a superstitious wacko or anything like that, I'm a western-style university graduate student, I'm not in a bohemian lifestyle or anything like that, I understand general conventional aspects of knowledge and learning, but I'm just really curious about deeper realms of the imagination that science really doesn't seem to address if you ask me.
    
    I won't go into anymore detail about the guru experience, since its kind of personal, but I can tell you that it was much different than dealing with hypnotists or psychics or that sort of thing. It was more like talking to a genuinely kind-hearted priest or a professor/mentor. A real priest, like one you would find working with the poor who puts off a clearly holy vibe, you know?
  - kingmanic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3DuffyDirect - The problem is your lumping in things that have on going research and real statistically significant results (Acupuncture, how the mind works, ) with debunked and provably false things (third eye, aura). Science does delve into the ones with some validity and generally the ones that are invalid get debunked early.
    
    The examples you provided (Guru cold calling, meditation) are subjective experiences. Science strives to removes the subjective from it's measure. So if I was interacting with the Guru I would analyze the situations surround the interaction. The number of accuracy of the responses and any information I may be telling him explicitly and implicitly. He may not be a Con but simply developed cold reading skills on his own for benevolent purposes but a study of his abilities would likely say he's a good "therapist" with very good "cold reading" skills and nothing more. For meditation, the mental process is complex and studies are on going but I'd imagine your sub conscious had some random latent ideas which the suppression of your conscious mind brought to the fore. But it's subjective.
    
    the romanticism that runs rampant in world of arts majors, which crave a more than a scientifically explainable world is appealing because some individuals require the world to have some mystery. I don't' really have much to say about it, but I hold a different philosophy and thus far mine seems more useful then yours. Science does try to study these things but has traditionally found most of it to be ***** (homeopathy, auras, third eye, mind reading, psycho kinetics, etc..) with a few notable exceptions (Acupuncture, meditation, hypnosis, etc...).
  - DuffyDirect, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The Romantics were enticed by the ideals of the French Revolution, not mysteries of psycho kinetics...
  - kingmanic, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1ro·man·tic
    Audio Help /roʊˈmæntɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[roh-man-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of romance; characteristic or suggestive of the world of romance: a romantic adventure.
    2. fanciful; impractical; unrealistic: romantic ideas.
    3. imbued with or dominated by idealism, a desire for adventure, chivalry, etc.
    4. characterized by a preoccupation with love or by the idealizing of love or one's beloved.
    5. displaying or expressing love or strong affection.
    6. ardent; passionate; fervent.
    7. (usually initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a style of literature and art that subordinates form to content, encourages freedom of treatment, emphasizes imagination, emotion, and introspection, and often celebrates nature, the ordinary person, and freedom of the spirit (contrasted with classical).
    8. of or pertaining to a musical style characteristic chiefly of the 19th century and marked by the free expression of imagination and emotion, virtuosic display, experimentation with form, and the adventurous development of orchestral and piano music and opera.
    9. imaginary, fictitious, or fabulous.
    10. noting, of, or pertaining to the role of a suitor or lover in a play about love: the romantic lead.
    –noun
    11. a romantic person.
    12. a romanticist.
    13. romantics, romantic ideas, ways, etc.
    
    Obviously it's 2, 3 and 9 not 8. Or did they skip definitions when you were attaining your undergrad?
- Murdats, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5he could tell what you were thinking because you are not very smart and thus dont think much at all.
- wilhoitm, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Because it is not on the Internet! ;-)
- nycmac247, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Everyone calls this stuff BS until they experience it for themselves.
  
  Try listening to Coast To Coast AM?
  
  They also have a lot of BS but with some good stuff thrown in there, too.
  
  http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
- ragingflamerboy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1It is studied, but people who can do all these magic things apparently can't do them when you observe them. Especially with an instrument you can record the event with.
ndseifi, on 07/04/2008, -6/+0Paradigm shift.
- norman619, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Stupidity shift would be more accurate.
axiomflash, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Splenda invented, sugar now obsolete!
- wilhoitm, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Except Splenda causes cancer!
  - nycmac247, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World
    
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170 ...
BaronSamedi242, on 07/04/2008, -6/+0Well of course the scientific method is finished... I mean, look at "global warming".

Empirical evidence? Nope. A COMPUTER GAME.

I don't mean temps... I mean the theory we are to blame.
- kingmanic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5"Like finding your wife rubbing butter onto a naked clown shaving your dog, there's just so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to begin."
  
  That just about sums you up. The conclusion of those models and theories may be wrong but it doesn't invalidate the scientific method as the method is constructed to weed out wrong ideas as more info comes to light. Few scientists will say that a particular conclusion is 100% correct but most it will say it's very probable given the evidence. As science doesn't deal with certainties, instead it deals with the most probable explanations. The correlation of CO2 levels to temperature has more proof then computer models as the models were derived from data collected in numerous ways and other causes have been ruled out as their correlation isn't strong or does not exist. It's still a question to be researched but your uneducated and unintelligent view is certainly one of the problems with laymen perception of science.
  - EarlOfLade, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Bravo! Well said!
    Nothing irks me more than a high school drop-out invalidating decades of research and data collection done by thousands of scientists and only based on religion/ideology and nothing else.
  - BaronSamedi242, on 07/04/2008, -4/+0FAIL...
    
    Science does not refuse to publish its methods, saying "look at my data set, that is sufficient" and when you ask questions, you get all ad hominem and label someone a "denier".
  - kingmanic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5BaronSamedi242: Have you ever read a scientific journal? As part of every paper a "methods" section is published. I don't see you asking questions, I see you making assertions. What questions do you have? A forum such as digg is not science, we'll call you an idiot not as scientists but as abrasive net citizens. If you spoke up during a seminar on atmospheric science a student or professor will attempt to explain the model to you. Doing so on the internet has a 90% chance of random people calling you out as a moron.
    
    The conclusion CO2 causes global warming derives from studies on the behavior of gases, the chemistry of ice formation, spectral analysis, atmospheric correlation studies, computer models derived from this research, etc... the most recent consensus is that we are shifting the equilibrium of CO2 production and sinking, leading to higher CO2 concentrations and amplifying the green house effect. Other factors have been ruled out to an extent but work is on going. It may very well be that a regular variance in solar energy output is contributing to some complex interaction and man made CO2 isn't the exclusive culprit but it does in no way invalidate the method and the statement only invalidates your opinion. You may be right in the final conclusion but the conclusion does not follow your argument. Thus you are un-convincing. Come back with a ream of data on solar energy output with corresponding methodology and reproducible results and we'd take you more seriously.
    
    But a simple
    "duh science is wrong, duh I'm a ***** retard, duh why you all hate on me." -BaronSamedi242
    Will get you the derision you deserve.
    
    My personal take given the information I have is that we are shifting the world wide weather patterns and it will have a economic impact but there may be other things going on and I think more study into the topic is good. I think the whole "carbon" foot print ***** is ridiculous but reducing energy use and encouraging efficiency is necessary for a huge variety of reasons. Global warming won't end the world but it will have significant economic impacts either way.
- Murdats, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4the universe is wrong not you? is that what you are trying to say.
  - BaronSamedi242, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0COMPREHENSION FAIL
    
    I said science doesn't work by writing a one-sided computer game and declaring yourself the winner.
    
    Nice way to ad hominem, the pair of you. FAIL.
neodude237, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4ORLY
johndi, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7As long as it has that ring of truthiness who cares about the method.
vofuse, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3You all got trolled.
dadavexx, on 07/04/2008, -3/+7Poor ol' Chris sound like a creationist some how. That's the most evil thing that I can think of this morning. It kinda points to 80% of Americans believing in magic. Now that's really evil.
norman619, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14News Flash!!!! Wired Editor is a cluless fool.
biznatch11, on 07/04/2008, -11/+23………………………………….__,,,,,,,---,,,,,,_……………………………………………
………………………_,,,--~’’¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’-,,_………………………………………
………………….,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’~,_…………………………………
………………,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,……………………………
…………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _,,_ ; ; ;¯’-,…………………………
………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’_ ¯’-, ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………
………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-~’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘;;;’, : :||; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………
…….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘/ :,-~’’~, : ‘,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,-‘ : // ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
…..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,| : ‘-,;;;;,-‘ : /’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,……………………
….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,,___,,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,……………………
….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,;;’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-……………………
…,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |……………………
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘,;;;;|’’-~ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………
....| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;---,,,,,,,_,,,,-~’’, ‘-,;;;| ,,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………………
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’~-,,,_ , , , , , , ‘,;,’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;…………………
…| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,~-,, , ,,’’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………………
…’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,¯’’;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………………
….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,_,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………
….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………………
…..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; …………………
…… ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………
…….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|………………
……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………
……..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,--~~--,, ; ; ; ; ;,--------,, ; ,--~, ; ; ,,-~, ; ;,--,,;,,-~~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ;’,…………
………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ . ,,--,, . ‘-, ; ; ; ;| . ,-,, . ‘, | . . | ; ;’-, . .,,/ . ./’-,,--, . ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………
………| ; ; ; ; ; ; | . .,’ ; ; ;’, . .| ; ; ; | . .’-‘ . ,-‘ | . . | ; ; ; ‘-, . . .,-‘ ; ;,-‘ . ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………
………’, ; ; ; ; ; ;’, . ‘-,__,-‘ . ,’ ; ; ; | . .| . . . | . . |___ ; ;} . . / ; ; ;’----‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,……
..…….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ . ._,,-‘ ; ; ; |__| .__ ;|_____/ ; ;/__/ ; ; ; ; (¯) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,……
….......’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,……
………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,,_..
………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
mikesoba, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4First, we had the "End of History" with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Then the resurrection of History (apparently History existed only in tandem with fear and violence). And now the end of Science.
There is no "end" to anything.
- tony23, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Damn, I knew I missed something. I thought the credits meant the movie was over.
megadan76, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5What the hell is he on about?
I honestly have no idea what he is trying to say. What does google have to do with the scientific method?
- FearlessFreep, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Nothing...and neither did the original Wired article
tfirma2000, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8As a WSJ article recently pointed out, many Wired articles follow the template of taking a partly true, modestly interesting, tech-friendly idea and puffing it up to "Internet as Second Coming" proportions... like the now partly-debunked "Long Tail" theory.
- kingmanic, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Haven't heard anything about it being debunked although several studies show it's not as important as wired played it up to be.
zippy757, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4Those that can, do, those that can't, are editors.
welliwonder, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1wired sucks, I bury every wired article I see, it's usually advertisements in the guise of a story.
dailybeans, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3The internet does not equal Earth
scabbers, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7OH foolish internets... the dude has a new book coming out soon. He's tossed a grenade to get publicity and you all fell for it.
brucebleroy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The Planetary Computer is here to stay.

Ask anybody in the Linux community
- ragingflamerboy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1all 4 of you?
FearlessFreep, on 07/04/2008, -8/+3Buried for inaccurate

The original article wasn't about the end of the scientific method, it was just pointing out that given enough data and the tools to analyze that data, that certain kinds of theory's are not needed (you don't have to theorize about what might be the case when you have enough data to analyze what the case really is). Mildly interesting, debatable, but not that big a deal.

The dailygalaxy guy just takes that out of context, sensationalizes it, and then criticisizes the false conclusion for his ownattempt to make controversy
FearlessFreep, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2--
danharlow, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8WIRED has editors?
pegothejerk, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Hypothesis: That the Scientific Method is Obsolete

Method: Inserted Cranial Region into largest accessible cavity on body to search for something newsworthy to say, found this hypothesis. Thankfully no testing is required.
eliot2000, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2The internet is not the entire world?
salomejones, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2And still others counter that the author does not know that the term "scientific method" actually refers to a very specific thing that he never once mentions, confirming that his own science education ended in fourth grade.
nadalle, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Wired is obsolete. The magazine hasn't had a clue for 10 years.
alpha94, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2I was at a conference last month where Chris Anderson was the keynote speaker. I have to say that a lot of what he said was completely unfounded and uneducated. He was the worst part of the conference. I enjoyed the other speakers though.

His new thing is that everything should be "free". In a one line statement that come across as open source related, but trust me, it has nothing to do with it. When questioned about it from people in the audience he had horrible answers that really disappointed people.
SabrinaHeaven, on 07/04/2008, -5/+2Read between the lines. Wired is an extremely leftwing organization; this is about discrediting the forces of reason and "differentiation" or "categorization" or JUDGMENT. This is about making everything relative--discrediting all existing institutions--so that the left has free reign to impose its moral agenda. It's about proving EVERYONE wrong so only they can be right. It's essentially KNEECAPPING the human race by disabling its most powerful tool: the reasoning mind, which is best utilized via the scientific method.
- Blg7, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Read between the lines. SabrinaHeaven is a wingnut willing to use any excuse to slander the left. Trying to link the left with discrediting the forces of reason is laughable. What about Evolution? What about the Young Earth Theory? What about Global Warming? Your argument just doesn't hold water. It is the right that tries to dictate reality. Reading one misguided article on the internet and claiming the left is discrediting the forces of reason is comical. If you really believe that arguing against the reasoning mind and the scientific method is kneecapping a person's most powerful tool, then what does that say about the beliefs above?
- SabrinaHeaven, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1"It is the right that tries to dictate reality."
  
  DICTATE reality. That's a key phrase. The left (relativism, postmodernism) believes reality cannot be dictated, because it is either in a state of constant change or is entirely subjective. The "right" believes in the power of reason and the scientific method, humanity's most powerful tool for interpreting reality and drawing sound conclusions.
  
  "Reading one misguided article on the internet and claiming the left is discrediting the forces of reason is comical."
  
  No, I drew that conclusion LONG, long ago.
  
  "If you really believe that arguing against the reasoning mind and the scientific method is kneecapping a person's most powerful tool, then what does that say about the beliefs above?"
  
  It says that you are conflating UNRELATED phenomena. I haven't written anything about religious (or "faith-based") nonsense. I have defended REASON.
  - Blg7, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2You are right that the left believes you can not dictate reality.
    
    Dictate: to prescribe or lay down authoritatively or peremptorily; command unconditionally: to dictate peace terms to a conquered enemy.
    
    The scientific method is about hypothesis and observation. By experimentation a scientist can match theory with reality in an effort to model the world around us. You don't dictate a scientific conclusion and then search for facts to support it. I would be careful about comparing the scientific method to philosophical concepts like postmodernism or relativism because they are not in and of themselves scientific ideas.
    
    I think we disagree on the meaning of 'dictate' which is a silly semantic argument but fundamentally we both support the scientific method so in the end I will just agree with you that "the power of reason and the scientific method is humanity's most powerful tool for interpreting reality and drawing sound conclusions."
DrSnugglebunny, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8I am a scientist and my hypothesis is that the Wired editor is full of *****.
Upon collecting data from the editorial, I have failed to falsify my hypothesis.
- JorgeGT, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3I peer-approve.
chopstick2000, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0"...falls at the very first law of rubbish identification: 'Does it start by saying that a widely held belief is wrong?' "
a little later he says, "This combines with his second error..."

well, i wouldnt say that saying a widely held belief is an 'error', even though it may be cause to raise red flags. after all, going against widely held beliefs is the way many things get done in this world, no?

one fault to an otherwise great article.
xenlab, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2Actually that's not what Anderson said at all. He was saying how large amounts of data are obsoleting hypothetical models (which are not ever that accurate anyway).

Buried for inaccuracy.
thuimeeha, on 07/04/2008, -2/+0http://tinyurl.com/5z85hd
PhilMoskowitz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Anything to sell issues. I'm amazed that old rag hasn't closed up shop yet.
nycmac247, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Interesting to see Wired's take on technology and miracles around every corner when oil is $250 / barrel / gas is $15 a gallon.

Most of the time I like Wired but sometimes they really do have their head up their ass. For example, instead of championing public transit they often champion hydrogen cars, etc. which actually would require more oil to build and switch to a hydrogen distribution system than to just modify existing vehicles or ... yes... encourage more and better public transit. Of course, in their fantasy world it appears that everyone is a dot com millionaire waiting to happen and that huge info revolutions are just around the corner that will make us all happy. Yes, I know I am a little bitter but at a certain point when putting down the magazine and looking around at what _actually_ happening in my real community I am thinking WTF are they thinking - that the economy is great, the food is great and everyone has a good paying job? I'm sorry, but as the economy continues to implode it these types of writers - that most likely don't even live in the real world - that will look like the biggest assholes of the recent past.
libkarl2, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0That was a major shark jump! Anderson needs to step out of his meta-micro-chasm and get some fresh air.
bshock, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1"Wired" itself has been obsolete for some years now.
As for the editor who wrote this, well, he's just a fool. Unfortunately, this sort of person never seems to go out of style.
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Wired Editor says scientific method is obsolete. Oh really?

Login or register to add a comment