SteamyTea Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 9 minutes ago, SimonD said: just that you use a systematic process to gain knowledge and understanding. So faith healers, homeopathic and reiki practitioners are scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 25 minutes ago, SimonD said: ... I don't think that you have to have what you call 'proper' scientific training to be a scientist, just that you use a systematic process to gain knowledge and understanding. That specific process - i.e. inquiry method and methodology - will be defined by domain and context and its suitability to the question at hand. Thats right, the domain defines 'proper' . But Lordy, PhD Vivas are repleat with panels dancing on the heads of pins about the meaning of proper - or just as frequently what proper isn't. Mind you, if that dance can't be done there, where else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said: PhD Vivas are repleat with panels dancing on the heads of pins about the meaning of proper Well English Lit ones may be. My Viva wasn't. Was a (expletive deleted) of a lot of standing on shoulders though. So much so that my research became a minor part of the narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adsibob Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 5 hours ago, SteamyTea said: It is the language of science, but in itself, not science. The classic question is to describe a number. What is a 2, or a 23, show me 7, or 439? This starts to go into philosophy, and the problems really start to show then. We have Bertrand Russel to thank for all this. I think this takes a very narrow view of mathematics. If you attend a few university maths courses, you'll find that whilst language/terminology/nomenclature is very important, it is only equipping you with the basic fundamentals of mathematics. Take a Laplace transform for example. As seen from an engineering perspective, this is merely a tool to solve differential equations. In that sense, it is linguistic operator in the sense that it takes a complex differential equation that is hard/impossible to solve and translates it into a different presentation where it becomes solvable. But a mathematician will explore this tool from a purely algebraic viewpoint to understand WHY it works and PROVE that it works. In other words, if it wasn't for all the scientific discoveries that mathematicians have made over the centuries, most of engineering discoveries and physics discoveries could not have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 16 minutes ago, Adsibob said: Take a Laplace transform for example. Can I divide this thread by zero and get a real answer. Mathematics is just what mathematicians do, there is no consensus as to whether it is science or art. There is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adsibob Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 47 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: There is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. Given “peace” and “literature” are not sciences, and a Nobel prizes exists for those, this observation is irrelevant to the debate. And as for consensus, I note that Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine awards all of its maths graduates with an Associateship of the Royal College of Science (which is the college in which the Mathematics department sits). Whilst not the ultimate authority on the debate in question, Imperial is one of the most advanced centres for scientific study in the UK. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Adsibob said: Given “peace” and “literature” are not sciences, and a Nobel prizes exists for those, this observation is irrelevant to the debate. Yes, never really taken any notice of them. I think the difference between mathematics and science is that mathematics does not, in itself, describe reality, it is abstract, so falls out of the set of all sciences, to use a mathematics term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andehh Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 This must be the most surreal "off topic" derailment ever! From Gov funding on ASHP to debating fundamental of maths & science! ? Has anyone got any further info on whether the £5k grant is applicable to new builds vs direct boiler replacement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanR Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 It's just for replacing fossil fuel boilers, unfortunately not for new builds. The Boiler Upgrade Scheme (BUS) https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/boiler-upgrade-scheme-bus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andehh Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 (edited) Thanks Ian, any thoughts on what stops me fitting the gas boiler we had taken out (project is a demolition & new build replacement) ... Then replacing it with an ASHP weeks/months later? Builder suggests £3k saving if I drop the ashp (which he recommended) to fit a new gas boiler instead. Its really really tempting if no grant to help with the ASHP. Mains gas is just so flippin' cheap.... Edited November 20, 2021 by Andehh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 personally not 100% sold on the so called 'climate change' or weather as it should be called. I do believe moving on from oil and coal irrespective is the right idea but we should not be bankrupting the country at the same time and do it at the same pace as the biggest users say china or india. Phase out vehicle and mass transit use of oil in next 30 years and then the housing stock by turn of the century. Id also look at removing cyclists from the road network as they are a major cause of pollution by slowing down vehicles. Make dedicated paths for cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 22 minutes ago, Dave Jones said: I do believe moving on from oil and coal irrespective is the right idea but we should not be bankrupting the country at the same time and do it at the same pace as the biggest users say china or india. The “other” countries would say we started the industrial revolution and have been polluting for a lot longer than they have so we should start before them, plus “mostly” these others countries are poorer so less able to afford to change from fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, joe90 said: The “other” countries would say we started the industrial revolution and have been polluting for a lot longer than they have so we should start before them, plus “mostly” these others countries are poorer so less able to afford to change from fossil fuels. ah the sins of the father approach. very woke. maybe worth looking at the GDP of india and China if you think they are poor lol. Edited November 21, 2021 by Dave Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamieled Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 26 minutes ago, Dave Jones said: Id also look at removing cyclists from the road network as they are a major cause of pollution by slowing down vehicles. Make dedicated paths for cycles. Cyclists are not a major cause of pollution. Cars are. I'd bet that the majority of vehicle emissions are in no way impacted by cyclists. Keen for the bike lanes though. 27 minutes ago, Dave Jones said: personally not 100% sold on the so called 'climate change' or weather as it should be called. There's a fundamental difference between weather and climate so no, they should not be called the same thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, jamieled said: Keen for the bike lanes though sadly the data from London shows they have increased emissions and reduced the average speeds of vehicles … if they could have taken up some of the significant pavements etc to put lanes in then it would have worked, but the cycle super highway projects are pretty much a failure. As a cyclist though I agree, they need to do something ..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 15 minutes ago, PeterW said: sadly the data from London shows they have increased emissions and reduced the average speeds of vehicles … if they could have taken up some of the significant pavements etc to put lanes in then it would have worked, but the cycle super highway projects are pretty much a failure. As a cyclist though I agree, they need to do something ..! Here they have a "sustrans" (Sustainable Transport) thing that creates cycle lanes alongside some roads. The trouble is, to fit a cycle lane alongside a road without too much cost, it follows the terrain, and goes up and down slopes to follow the contours. Most cyclists prefer not to keep cycling up hill so just use the much straighter and flatter road and avoid the cycle route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Dave Jones said: personally not 100% sold on the so called 'climate change' or weather as it should be called They have different words because they are different things. If you think they are the same thing, come down to Cornwall, with its very mild climate, lay on the beach, while enjoy the effects of a gentle force 10 storm. You will be washed away fairly fast, but no worry, we will not have to listen to you say 'climate and weather are the same thing'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, jamieled said: Cyclists are not a major cause of pollution. Cars are. Not for too much longer, we are electrifying our personal transport. Going to be fun watching a cyclist try and out accelerate someone in a second hand Model 3. I am all for separating cyclists, scooter users and pedestrians from the main part of a road. Seems they are as well, why they use footpaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Dave Jones said: maybe worth looking at the GDP of india and China if you think they are poor lol. Post it up then, make sure you compare them fairly though. Needs to be PPP per person. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 5 hours ago, Dave Jones said: so called 'climate change' or weather as it should be called. A wind-up I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 minute ago, saveasteading said: A wind-up I hope. Sadly not, there are a few on here that struggle to understand it. (and yes, I do see the pun) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: there are a few on here that struggle to understand it. I did some reading on climate change denial, because it was beyond my understanding. It was thought that it is linked to other denials and to conspiracy theories. The reason most people are into it is that 1. They do not want to believe that we cannot control climate, war, poverty etc so it is easier to assume that some conspiracy is going on, that perhaps could be thwarted. 2. Do not want to think about it or change their behaviour. The latter is understandable to some extent. For people struggling to get through the day or week there are other priorities. But for people who want to actively campaign against climate change, well I just really don't understand, and would be interested to hear. I also have to remind myself that most (?) people don't understand "Science" and many think it is some sort of organisation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 21 minutes ago, saveasteading said: people don't understand "Science" Too true, they think it is a 'religion' and all disciplines are basically the same. Good example of a scientist arguing back on this weeks Now Show. 6 minutes and 8 seconds in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 21 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: Too true, they think it is a 'religion' and all disciplines are basically the same.... because 50 minutes ago, saveasteading said: ... 2 [They] . Do not want to think about it or change their behaviour. T.... For people struggling to get through the day or week there are other priorities. ... I can just about get my head round the fridge in reverse explanation of a heat pump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said: because I can just about get my head round the fridge in reverse explanation of a heat pump. Well don't, because it is a misleading description. It works just like a fridge, except the cold part is 'the outside' and the warm part 'is the back'. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now