-cvj

The “ice cream” (in quotes because this product does not meet the standard of identity for ice cream) was chilled faster, capitalizing on fundamental scientific knowledge. As quoted in the article…

She [the MIT graduate student] was seeking a project involving thermodynamics, the science of converting heat into other forms of energy, which is exactly what happens when liquid ice cream mix solidifies.

The associate professor and his graduate student developed the method in MIT’s Cryogenic Engineering Laboratory, which is usually to generate ultra-low temps in investigating superconductivity. What is of interest to ice cream maunufacturers, besides a novel tactile experience, is the saving of energy, thus reducing costs in ice cream production. Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.boston.com/ae/food/articles/2005/08/28/mit_crew_churns_out_ice_cream_with_sizzle/?page=2

Now, where is that darned hand crank ice cream freezer?

Historically, how about the simple valuation of potatoes chips that are now used with refridgeration technology.:) I am thinking of McCains rise. While the etiquette of the dinner table might be fast foodand junk food junkies, still they converse heartfelt about the technological wonders.

Physiological extensions of robot arms? Silicon valley, and the transitor?

I remember how proud my brother was when he held his ipod boom box on his shoulder:) Or how 1 and zero’s were punch cards, and vast rooms of reel tape.:)

of course you are right that in the long run the bad papers are forgotten (since nobody can reproduce the results) and the good ones survive. This is the beauty of science.

But your topic was political and fiscal support for (fundamental) science and thus short term decisions. e.g. When it comes to global warming, many findings are labeld “junk science” and
it is easy for politicians to dismiss scientists using the argument that we do not know for sure
if the majority view is correct. The finding (if it is correct!) that a majority of scientific papers is
flawed will not help in this situation.

99% of published papers are either wrong one way or another, or outright worthless, that in itself is not surprising and not that big a deal, because we know 99% of people in the research community really do not have the wisdom of a science researcher, and they are just in this massive modern industry to make a living.

But the troubling fact is knowing full well 99% of papers could be wrong, yet few people ever demonstrated a healthy skepticism. They have totally lost their own ability of independent thinking, and their selection criteria boils down to a simple rule that if it is accepted by main stream, then it must be correct, and vise versa.

Take this as an example. The one single strongest evidence that the universe is \”accelerating\”, is composed of data compiled from no more than a few dozen photons, collected from 10 billion light years way, and those few dozen photons are even mixed in a whole bag of a couple thousand other photons, from the sam remote galaxy and indistinguisable. And it is one sole data set, not reproduced by any one else, and there is no other similar observations of similar events to back it up.

And yet no one ever questioned the validity of such un-repeated observational data. The original author claimed it was none-repeatable because it was rare to observe a supernova that far away. That\’s nonsense. If you are talking about observing 10 billion light years away, the universe is so huge, containing trillions of galaxies, each galaxy containging trillions of stars, if you calculate the odd you look at any part of the sky, and some where 10 billion light years away there happen to be one or two supernovaes just happen to be exploded right at the moment. Such odd is virtually 100%.

And there is no indication any one still has any decent wisdom at all. I provided this link which paints a groomy picture of an imminent oil crisis which could be a complete catastropy to human civilization. I thought if one has a function brain, he/she could either agree or disagree with the opinion. Either way it\’s OK. We can at least discuss why we agree or why we disagree, and find out which opinion is right and which is wrong. But no one said anything. It\’s like your brains simply become numb and stop functioning altogether. Why? Where is independent thinking?

Quantoken

Of course, there are well known examples of flawed “science” (which might have been written up into papers) being used to justify evil political aims, but that is a different matter, no?

-cvj

By the way what is a reasonable estimate for wrong papers in physics, e.g. as stored on arXiv ?

-cvj

Clifford, I can give you a “dinner factoid” to start — it is the one of the most well-known products and became famous by its association with astronauts, but moreover, its inventor just recently passed away. And so, in memoriam…

Father of Tang, USU Professor Dies
The inventor of Tang and a Utah State University emeritus professor in the Nutrition and Food Science and Technology Department died Monday at the age of 79. Dr. D.K. “Chip” Salunkhe, pioneering food scientist and founding member of USU’s Nutrition and Food Science and Technology Department, became a professor of food science at the university in 1962. However, he and other faculty members had been toiling with food science research since 1952. … Chip Salunkhe took part in developing some of the “first meals in a tube” by using food paste that was dispensed like toothpaste. Dr. Kirti Salunkhe, Salunkhe’s daughter, was one of the first to try the new food paste and said it had a unique flavor. “It was always interesting living with my father,” Kirti Salunkhe said. “You never knew what you would get.” (Herald Journal, 8/9/05)

Your second paragraph intrigues me. Could you give us some specific examples? Potential useful dinner-party factoids here…..

-cvj

But if ever there was an area in which fundamental scientific research has benefited the well being of the population(US in this case initially) it is in the food industry. Space flight required a great deal of incidental funding to facilitate the capacity for humans to live and work in space. While the propulsion systems, and advanced avionics through computer development, were certainly important, astronauts needed food and hygiene. Today most of our kitchens and lunch rooms are crammed with technological descendents of those important research efforts. And not only the technologies but many of the food products themselves have been developed from those efforts. We have been blessed.

It seems that, as usual, Edison won the credit because of better US-based PR…

-cvj

-cvj

-cvj

I was glad to read this, as people usually ask me what good the answer will be to whatever problem I am working on at the time. I’ll make sure to mention these examples, though I usually use the example of William Harvey, who discovered the circulation of blood. As far as I know, he never saved anyone’s life with this knowledge, and bloodletting continured to be used long after his death, but we would have pretty poor medicine today if we still thought that different types of blood were produced in the heart and the liver.