All Activity

I didn't say that it didn't. It's just that science has to recognise when the lense through which it is looking is inadequate - which is part of the philosophy of science. Saying that reductionism always yields the truth ignores the fact that a single component can be quite different when it is viewed in isolation as a constituent part compared to when it is in dynamic relation to many other, different, dynamic constituent parts. Therefore, what you claim to be truth or even real, from one perspective isn't from the other.

I am going to have to get back later as we are opening early, and finishing late today. Something to do with a game. But just to say that reductionism works very well. When the unexpected happens, it is generally found what caused it by reducing the components even more.

🤦‍♀️

... the manifolds were first fitted on the wrong (as per the MandE drawings) wall and I got them moved. But they are still in the wrong place so the cold to the kitchen is now going to be doing its own thing 🤦‍♀️ There's no way the plumber is ever going to read the M and E specs 🤷‍♂️ (Although in fairness a bunch of stuff changed since the original M and E spec hence I'm to blame for not being too strict after the documents were issued)

If you have the top hats then use them they work. the problem is these things get designed on a computer by a bloke who wouldn’t know what end of a trowel to hold. on site you very rarely get perfect conditions as you have found out with the pipe collar being exactly where you need to seal it. so you will probably find you chuck a couple of top hats away and just use more tape. Hardly heath robinson this one, it’s just done, finished move on get the concrete on top and it will become a distant memory.

But the existence of Cargo Cult Science doesn't prove anything about environmental change, nor whether the science is right, or going in the right or wrong direction. Here's another physicist's perspective, which doesn't question the underlying science (but she does regularly question a lot about the current world of physics and science):

I'd say that comment is quite wrong about science, research and academia today. It is a highly competitive environment with much pressure to publish and be cited. Asia churns out PhDs by the million, and even in the UK 1st class degrees are handed out like confetti. And much pressure to obtain research funding. Funding which typically comes from funding bodies, or from industry. As far as publication is concerned there are a plethora of journals and the key to publication (as to winning funding) is often to produce work supporting the fashionable narratives of the time. There are masses of papers published that are complete garbage and have been generated using AI engines and the like. Many examples of the corruption of the peer review process, and the active censoring of 'inconvenient' papers by editors. If you read this you will understand what Cargo Cult Science actually refers to https://hackneybooks.co.uk/books/56/662/CargoCultScience.html It's practice certainly isn't limited to the social sciences. So called 'Climate science' is rife with examples. Many 'climate scientists' attracted to the field because of it's copious funding and the attraction of saving the world from the 'obvious evils of other men' practice Cargo Cult Science. They build and run climate models into which they programme quantified relationships between one factor and another, and various parameters. They then adjust their parameters until they get an output that matches their historical data series. Then they run the model on and proclaim they have done science and if we stop cows farting and shut down the oil industry the world will be saved. It is I am afraid as horseshit as Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models. Real science involves experiments. In experiments you isolate variables and remove confounders and very carefully test hypotheses, you make specific predictions and test them. It is pretty difficult to do that with climate, and largely people don't even try, yet they proclaim they know the impact of man made CO2 is the sole culprit in climate change. It is a good fear story - it appeals greatly to those of certain politics - and like the mass psychosis we saw during covid - works pretty well when repeated ad nausium through mass media. Anthropogenic climate change is just a theory, uncertain, doubtful - scientifically unproven.

Hi Iam looking for reccomendations for stair design apps, it is for a sawcut L shaped winder stairs, nothing fancy just functional. Thanks carl

No, it isn't. It's based in complexity, which physics seriously struggles with and the reductionist approach it has long held so dear really doesn't cope. This typical reductionism is exactly mirrored by your claim that it's based on basic physics and fundamental components - but the behaviours of the systems are based on their complex and dynamic relations. But, you've also kind of proved my point - you're making a statement that one small fraction of science is true science which indicates to me a misunderstanding of the scientific method and the philosophy of science itself. Science is actually about continually questioning whether what we think as true is really true and so moving forwards and that by definition this also involves questioning the basis upon which we think we know something. That is the scientific method.

Quite hard to answer that. I suppose critical thinking, and lots of reading about the subject, and the topic authors/institutions is all I can easily suggest at this stage. Yes and no. At the level of climate change, which is based on basic physics i.e. laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, atomic states, there is no need to get too deep into the philosophy. If you can imagine, experiment, observe/measure and test, most of the mystique is removed. No need to confuse it with Latin.

I think you're flying a bit close to the wind here. You said you studied the philosophy of science? This includes epistemology and ontology - there is not just one narrow fixed definition of these, which is what you seem to be suggesting. But also the philosophy of science is about exploring the relationship between science and what we consider to be truth, and certainly not anything like that certain sciences are real - which implies they have exclusivity over what is true, which of course they don't, it would be pretty naive and ignorant to suggest they did. 😉 I'd also suggest that being fixed about what is real, is pretty non-scientific to begin with and ignores the very important metaphysical component inherent the philosophy of science. 😉

To probe further, at what point are those of us without a scientific qualification allowed to access, interpret and comment on published science?

I am obviously overly complicating these things. It's not my intention, to but I spent nearly 2k on Visqueen membrane, pre formed corners and top hats as I thought it needs to be done with precision. I get the impression that it's a case of just do a Heath Robinson job on it. The PIR tip is useful and I naively thought it needed to be flat and smooth. Having been a furniture maker in a previous life, this hackery is not something I am used to.

You really are showing your ignorance now. He was highlighting the difference between real science (physics in his case) and social science, which tries to use scientific terms and techniques to give it credibility, but is not a science, it is opinions.

I think it does. It was not until my third year that we covered Philosophy of Science, even though we had it drummed into us that the data shows the results, even if you don't like them for the previous 2 years. Those two years were really leading up to how to design and manage good experiments that left little opportunity for error and ambiguity. All the theory, mathematics and statistics, previous research and, sometimes, unrelated topics (for a broader view) were just there to make our lives easier, though it did not seem it at the time. There are bad scientists, but they tend to be caught out early on, and very really get published. The ones that do slip though get caught out later. When it comes to Climate Change Science, the old trope about the planet going into a new Ice Age is usually dragged out from the coffin. What happened there is that rather than a binary, or absolute figure, bring out on an outcome, a number of scenarios are modelled, each scenario has a probability factor attached to it. The extremes, i.e. ice age, 12°C extra warming had very low probabilities, about 2.5% each, of happening. What then happens is that those extremes are highlighted as an example of science being fundamentally corrupt. The people that want to go along with that are called (expletive deleted).

The history of science is chock full of denial, resistance, and persecution of those that question the accepted narrative of the day. From heliocentrism, through antiseptic practices, and heliobacter pylori. Science advances one funeral at a time. Sadly climate 'science' is often what Feynman would have called 'cargo cult science'. Models only output what you input into them - a set of assumptions and assumed relationships in a highly complex multivariate system - very few of which have ever been experimentally examined, and whose relative importance is extremely poorly understood. Never underestimate the fear and resistance and lengths to which people can and do go to to protect their jobs, careers, and positions - rather than countenance what data and truth show. Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a very uncertain hypothesis but has now become a huge bandwagon with many people riding on it's back. The public perception of anthropomorphic climate change is based on propaganda media coverage and almost total underlying ignorance of the actual scientific uncertainty involved.

Stop trying to reinvent this job. sealing around the service pipes is easy. you do not try and cut a hole in the membrane and seal that to the pipe. cut a 300mm hole in the membrane, poke it over the pipe, then cut a 600 mm square of extra membrane, cut a 120 mm hole in the centre, poke it over the pipe and tape it up, then tape your patch down to the main sheet. easy, each pipe penetration will take 15 mins max. why buy two membranes to do one job. if your finish concrete is rough the pir insulation won’t give a monkeys it will just deform to the shape of the slab when it has 15 tonne of screed on top of it.

has your detail changed?

+1 for all comments. As a building virgin 4 years ago I can say there is a lot to understand about how building works, and that the project management is far more demanding than you might imagine, even if you have done project management in commercial business environments. Most independent trades people are small outfits, often one man bands, sometimes 2 or 3 working together. Your job is typically small beer to them - perhaps 2/3/4 weeks work. You are likely a one off customer. So you don't have much power over them turning up compared to a builder that may give them a steady stream of work year after year after year. Even if you stay on schedule they can say I can't come that week now, will have to be 3 weeks later. Can't come wife is ill, going on holiday, cut my hand, another job overrunning, got the flu, having a baby, etc. You mostly have to suck this up. A good builder will know multiple people in each trade and have some power - I give you £80k work every year - be there monday or else. So what you are doing is herding somewhat ferrel cats. No tradesperson will EVER phone you. They will NEVER call and say, 'just after an update - do you need me again next week', 'just thought I'd let you know going to be out of the country next month' etc. You have to call them, always, they may not respond - for days or even weeks. (It gets somewhat better as you move up the stack, finishing trades have to have customer relationship skills) There is stuff that crops up 'between trades'. Who is going to sort that threshold gap before the flooring people come ? Too small a job to interest any tradesperson - do it yourself or get stuck. A builder can usually call in a favour to get it done. You need to know what is right and what is not. Who you going to ask ? You need to be able to call an architect, or an SE, or BuildHub, or YouTube, or ChatGPT. A stitch in time saves ninety-nine. Stuff done wrong is disasterous. Now it has got to be undone, then redone right. Maybe pay twice over. Everyone frustrated. So you have to be eyes on - all the time, everyday - catch things straight away - that doorway needs to be 6 inches over - that alcove isn't deep enough for the kitchen units - that reveal is well out of plumb, those pipes are in the way, etc etc. Catch it early and one spoken sentence on the day fixes it. A lot depends how much quality/precisian you are after. As a self builder likely more than average. I had an architect tell me some builders in London were trying to write contract terms saying the building would be within 10% of drawing dimensions !!?! Good trades peole are good, good builders are good, but they are hard to find. Find a good builder early - check them out diligently. By far the most important thing is openness and honesty - stuff happens.

Does it require years in university to understand the scientific method? Being human they are not immune from bias. Even if personally incorruptible, scientists are subject to the whims of political and commercial funding. What results isn't necessarily bad science, but it does skew the volumes of papers and reports published on a particular topic leading to incorrect a public perception of its relative importance.

What you suggest can be done. It'll take 4 times a long as a main contractor unless you want a gash result.

Yet another building job limited my by my fundamental lack of arms. A water leak and the bean sprout might make itself known! In seriousness, one thing I would consider is buying a 110mm hole saw and making osb or Ply "gaskets" to slide on the waste pipes before plasterboard. Then secure them to the back to the plasterboard with a few screws through from the room side. You'll get a much more perfect air seal than anything you'll attempt with cutting a hole in a sheet of plasterboard and sliding it over the pipe.

That does seem like the logical approach. Do you know whether the SCC can be easily worked so it provides a suitable surface for Radon membrane / insulation. My concern is that the concrete slab is laid and the surface resembles the Alps and then needs remedial works to get it flat enough for PIR / Radon. My plan is to put the the Radon membrane on top of the slab and a sacrificial DPM below the slab. The utilities are quite high and if Radon membrane goes below the slab, it's going to be a hatchet job sealing around the pipes, due to the fact that at that level I am either on the start of the curve of the rest bend, or sat directly on the rest bend collar. Going above the slab puts me on the vertical and will mean I can use the top hats for sealing.

I think you should go the standard route. hardcore, concrete ,insulation , screed, finished floor. this method gives you the ability to juggle finished floor height. without wanting to sound like a wa##er you have had a few problems so far, if you get the concrete height wrong by 15mm when going for the final finish height this is going to totally bugger you up with door cill heights and all manner of other things. especially as you have finished brickwork outside. stick to putting a screed on top of the insulation so that level can be worked out at a later date when doors are in and you have a better idea on floor finishes. building 15mm up with self leveling compound over 100m will be a major ball ache if you change from tiles to LVT, but it’s easy to get the screeders to add another 15mm when they do their bit.

Agreed as above. All of it. Building is difficult. Someone with knowledge has to be in control. That has a cost. When you say 'planning' , what stage are you at? Presumably you have some set ideas on layout and budget. Underpinning! A horrible, messy, expensive job. Recently there have been some technical ways to support the building rather than the old ways, but I haven't researched it. You should do that and perhaps there is knowledge on here. Perhaps do the underpinning first and preserve the building before starting to knock holes in it and excavate around it. After that you'll know what budget remains and a bit more about your building. If you have pics or reports of the structural issues then we can maybe help.