Global Conflict Discussion (Part 3): Scientific Process

X Discussion Points

0 - introduction

1 - wars/disasters destroy

2 - disaster/future prep

3 - scientific process

4 - trickle down hoarders

5 - austerity and great recession

6 - 21st century class system

7 - greedy kids = greedy adults

8 - no justice, just retribution

9 - pointless abstract war

3.) Scientific Process: a potential solution for fixing some of our problems, but not all.

The scientific process includes peer-review as a corrective measure. Peer review means that people of similar background (i.e., peers) examine each other's work (i.e., scientific processes) for errors and discoveries; then if possible, they repeat the work to verify the results. If the repeated work has repeated similar results, then the work is said to have passed peer-review. However, if the repeated work has vastly different results (or unobtainable results), then the work is said to have failed peer-review. Below are the steps involved in the Scientific Process, these steps are cyclic in that scientists repeat and refine based on prior results.

Scientific Method
1.) Observe / Question

2.) Research / Interview

3.) Hypothesize / Refine Question

4.) Test / Experiment

5.) Analyze / Conclude

6.) Communicate (w/methods stated) / Present
7.) Peer Review / Duplicate

Historically speaking, governments, businesses, religions, and insanely egotistical wealthy individuals have been known to interfere in the peer-review process. Reasons differ, but it all amounts to squashing knowledge while encouraging ignorance in the name of profit-seeking. Scientists work from the shared knowledge accumulated by human beings who experimented within the fluctuating world of their own conflicted centuries. In other words, scientists only work with knowledge that has been officially released (or leaked) for peer-review. At the same time, the masses (the people) only work with the knowledge that has been peer-reviewed and accepted (or, leaked and denied) because that is all that is released by the scientific community and approved by education boards. Is this type of shit-rolls-downhill knowledge filtering what they mean by "trickle-down"?

Then, I think about today's scientists. And, today's amatuers. I think of the collabrative nature of the internet. I think of the open source and maker movements as proof that ingenuity and innovation come from attempting to answer tough questions. The scientific process and peer-review on the global scale afford the opportunity for improvement. Therein lies the risk, any opportunity for improvement must also be an opportunity for destruction. Perhaps, information trickle is important for minimizing the risk of destruction. For instance, instructions for DIY nukes need NOT be readily downloadable.

Pax et Poema.
Nihil Nukes!  
Vale,
Monique