What are Scientists looking for ?

[m1469]

Are scientists ultimately looking for the science of Life ?  Like One Grand Science ?  he he...

I wonder how ludicrous that is... Science of Life  hmmmm....  is there such a thing ?


m1469

[Siberian Husky]

life on other planets..or life outside of our own planet earth...of course finding intelligent life is somewhat of a stretch, but still possible,...but think of it this way..what IF we find life on other planets..because where there is life..there is room for evolution..therefore making it possible for human-like entities to inhabit that particular planet..outruling all the diehard religious people...

[timothy42b]

There is no life on other planets.

Well, there could be, but we haven't come into contact yet, and won't survive it if we do.

This has been well thought out and debated, after the issue was raised by one of the leading SF authors.  Arthur C Clarke maybe.

The theory is simple.  Any life advanced enough to find us is advanced enough to wipe us out.  Any life concerned with its own survival, and having the capability, will wipe out any other life they come into contact with out of self preservation.  The few that don't, for some moral reason, are quickly wiped out themselves.

Therefore the fact we exist proves we have not been visited by little green men or Bug Eyed Monsters. 

[m1469]

life on other planets..or life outside of our own planet earth...of course finding intelligent life is somewhat of a stretch, but still possible,...but think of it this way..what IF we find life on other planets..because where there is life..there is room for evolution..therefore making it possible for human-like entities to inhabit that particular planet..outruling all the diehard religious people...

Well, okay, so say we do find them.  Then what ?  My original question still stands.    Also, I don't think that "little green men" are all that science is looking for.

and pssstt.... as Bernhard once mentioned, we are not green.  he he.

[donjuan]

Parallel universes are unlikely, but I really dont know if they are possible.

What are scientists looking for?  Well, thats obvious.  They want to find a way to turn dog sh*t into gold.

[xvimbi]

Scientists are looking for publications in journals that are perceived to be high-profile. That leads to grant money pouring in, so that they can hire more people and buy more expensive instruments, which will allow them to do "better" science, which will bring them even more publications...

That's the cynic answer to your question.

Scientists, like any other person in any other profession, want to be successful in what they are doing. Successful is defined as "being better" than other scientists (ego).

That's another cynic answer to your question.

Ultimately, scientists want to indeed understand how the Universe works in general. That's the analytical side of it. They would also like to apply what they have learned to every-day problems we humans are confronted with. That's the synthetic side of it.

I don't think anybody really expects a grand, unifying theory that explains everything. Although physicists are trying to find such a theory that describes all forces in nature, this will not be sufficient to explain everything else. Heisenberg did away with that hope with his uncertainty principle.

[thalbergmad]

A couple of years back I read an article that said scientists were looking for a theory that united Quantum Theory and Relativity. This new theory would explain everything and would take away the need for God.

Did they ever find it??

I am a non-scientist, so layman responses only please.

[xvimbi]

A couple of years back I read an article that said scientists were looking for a theory that united Quantum Theory and Relativity. This new theory would explain everything and would take away the need for God.

Did they ever find it??

I am a non-scientist, so layman responses only please.

No, not yet, but they are working hard.

However, even if such a theory was found, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle still leaves ample of room for God, until someone refutes it, that is.

[timothy42b]

Remember though that real working scientists are not spending any time seeking the Ultimate Answer.  Even quantum physicists aren't.

Each has a small area of specialization that they keep refining further and further. 

Then at the end of the day they go home and have a beer just like we do. 

[Bob]

I think scientists are looking for the theory of everything.  One idea that explains and unites everything and can explain and predict everything.

[shasta]

I am a scientist.

My questions are tiny and simple.  I want to understand more about the human heart: how the heart fails, and how the heart can recover with help from artificial heart devices and/or medicines.  Right now, I am looking at one tiny little protein that hangs out inside heart muscle cells.  The end.

Science is not glamorous.  We do not sit around pondering our existance or the afterlife or world domination.  I spend 99% of my 16-20 hr workdays reading and writing manuscripts, writing grants, attending/giving lectures, ordering reagents/supplies, fighting for funding and the right to keep my little 190 square feet of lab space, fighting departmental politics...  

Maybe 1% of my time is actually spent doing "science":

-Trying to figure out how to get a study up and running

-Trying to fix a broken piece of equipment (plugging it in often helps...)

-Performing experiments that often run well past midnight

-Generating data and crunching statistics

-Trying to figure out what the heck my data means (embarrassingly often, the data is artifact, nonsensical, or completely useless)

-Finding out that the data I got was crap... but hey look, what's THAT weird number mean...?  And then go off in THAT direction... except you now realize that you know NOTHING about THAT direction, so you spend the next week straight reading everything ever published previously about THAT.....

At the end of the day, I grab dinner and beer(s) with my science or non-science friends, go out on dates, practice the piano, ski, roadtrip with friends, paint, clean my house, pay my bills....  typical life of someone in science.

[xvimbi]

I think scientists are looking for the theory of everything.  One idea that explains and unites everything and can explain and predict everything.

There is only a handful of people doing that. The rest is completely absorbed in much smaller aspects like those Shasta described. We are still in a hunting and gathering stage, now much more so than 50 years ago. There is practically no time to step back and try to make sense of all the data. In 100 years, somone might be able to see the larger patterns, perhaps.

[Dazzer]

There is no life on other planets.

Well, there could be, but we haven't come into contact yet, and won't survive it if we do.

This has been well thought out and debated, after the issue was raised by one of the leading SF authors.  Arthur C Clarke maybe.

The theory is simple.  Any life advanced enough to find us is advanced enough to wipe us out.  Any life concerned with its own survival, and having the capability, will wipe out any other life they come into contact with out of self preservation.  The few that don't, for some moral reason, are quickly wiped out themselves.

Therefore the fact we exist proves we have not been visited by little green men or Bug Eyed Monsters. 

there is a "theory" that humans are simply a slave species created by a higher race of species put on this planet simply to mine resources.

[Kassaa]

there is a "theory" that humans are simply a slave species created by a higher race of species put on this planet simply to mine resources.

There's also a theory that Mr. Kennedy lives with Janis Joplin in Scotland.

[thalbergmad]

There's also a theory that Mr. Kennedy lives with Janis Joplin in Scotland.

I saw them both coming out of a McDonalds in Perth.

[pianohopper]

scientists are still looking for intelligent life in the White House.

[rimv2]

scientists are still looking for intelligent life in the White House.

Good one


Scientist are assholes.

Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Hawking.... All assholes. Einstein in particular.

Why?

Because the release knowledge onto a world not yet ready.

Einstein (with reservation): Here is zee nuke. What to do with eet, aye leave to you.

 

[shasta]

Scientist are assholes.

Rimv2

You can thank the scientists (physicists, engineers, acoustic technicians) for designing the piano that you play on.  You can also thank the scientists (immunologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, physicians) for your immunization against polio, measles, diphtheria, and HepB for the fact that you are alive to play said piano.

Regards
-Shasta

[rimv2]

Rimv2

You can thank the scientists (physicists, engineers, acoustic technicians) for designing the piano that you play on.  You can also thank the scientists (immunologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, physicians) for your immunization against polio, measles, diphtheria, and HepB for the fact that you are alive to play said piano.

Regards
-Shasta

Piano? Ah dont use a piano

Ah can also thank them for guns, anthwax, biowarfare, grenade lauchers, missles, guided missles, heat seaking missiles, high impact bombs, timed bombs, remote controlled detonated bombs, proximity alert bombs, trip wire bombs, laser trip bombs, everyone's favorite mines, shrapnel mines, morters, S2A's, S2S's, A2A's, A2S's, IBCM's, SLBM's, IRBM's, ULMS's but those four are too general so let meh delve deeper.

Snark SM-62, Navaho SM-64, Goose SM-73, Atlas SM-65, Titan I SM-68,Titan II SM-68B, Minuteman I SM-80, Minuteman II LGM-30F, A1 A2 A3 and B3 - Polaris, C3 Poseiden, C4 Trident

and lets not forget... The killer

Television Advertising

[Dazzer]

There's also a theory that Mr. Kennedy lives with Janis Joplin in Scotland.

really?

[Dazzer]

Piano? Ah dont use a piano

Ah can also thank them for guns, anthwax, biowarfare, grenade lauchers, missles, guided missles, heat seaking missiles, high impact bombs, timed bombs, remote controlled detonated bombs, proximity alert bombs, trip wire bombs, laser trip bombs, everyone's favorite mines, shrapnel mines, morters, S2A's, S2S's, A2A's, A2S's, IBCM's, SLBM's, IRBM's, ULMS's but those four are too general so let meh delve deeper.

Snark SM-62, Navaho SM-64, Goose SM-73, Atlas SM-65, Titan I SM-68,Titan II SM-68B, Minuteman I SM-80, Minuteman II LGM-30F, A1 A2 A3 and B3 - Polaris, C3 Poseiden, C4 Trident

and lets not forget... The killer

Television Advertising

dude... if you want to put it that way... the first scientists were the ones who discovered that by hitting someone in the head with a rock they could kill them.

[timothy42b]

Ah, you blame science for the world's ills.

The theory that knowledge will bring utopia is sometimes called science.

The theory that ignorance will bring utopia is sometimes called religion.

Both are mistaken.  Science is merely the most reliable method of discovering reality.  All other approaches are also attempts to discover reality, but without the reliability of science.

It is what it is.  Be a grownup and accept responsibility. 

[asyncopated]

Back to the original question.

I can't say what other scientists are looking for, but I can tell you what I'm looking. 

Actually, I'm a (theoretical) physicist disguised as a biologist, so right now I'm working on breast cancer.  We have a theory that says that grade 1 breast cancer is very different from grade 3 even on the genomic level, i.e the fundamental processes of how cells works is very different in either type of cancer, although they are both cancers that develop in breast tissue.

There are many things about cancers that are extremely heterogeneous.  That's partly makes that such interesting objects to study.  (Really, saving lives is secondary.)

In particular, this week I'm looking at correlations in the expression profiles of genes.  Roughly, I try to figure out if one gene affects (or is affected by another).  I have a theory that goes like something like that:  there are two (topologically) different types of correlation networks in cells (at least cancerous cells), with a single parameter (the number of transcripts) that tell what regime you are in.  One topology probably corresponded to a regulatory type phase and the other to a response/house-keeping type phase.  I'm trying to verify this hypothesis.

So now you know, that's what I am looking for a scientist.

In general, my goal is to look for something interesting to say about the world.  Get that published and recognized.  Become famous.  Get hated by every high school student in the country.  In the process, perhaps do some good for mankind, like play the piano.



al.

[shasta]

Actually, I'm a (theoretical) physicist disguised as a biologist

*applauds*

Glad to have another scientist in here!   

[rimv2]

It is what it is.  Be a grownup and accept responsibility.

Tell that Hitler, Stalin, Musolini, Bin Landen, and the host of others not willing.

*applauds*

Glad to have another scientist in here!

Ah is a scientist as well, but ah still believe they is ash-holes

[donjuan]

Ah, you blame science for the world's ills.

The theory that knowledge will bring utopia is sometimes called science.

The theory that ignorance will bring utopia is sometimes called religion.

Both are mistaken.  Science is merely the most reliable method of discovering reality.  All other approaches are also attempts to discover reality, but without the reliability of science.

It is what it is.  Be a grownup and accept responsibility. 

ahh, touche'!  "My neck is sore from agreeing so much!" (Lenny, from The Simpsons)
I like your view!

[leahcim]

Ah, you blame science for the world's ills.

Apparantly not.

[lau]

Everything is composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Inside of protons are strings of energy. If the proton was blown up to th size of the whole universe, the string of energy would only be the size of a tree. Dang.

Best Wishes,

Lau

[donjuan]

Everything is composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Inside of protons are strings of energy. If the proton was blown up to th size of the whole universe, the string of energy would only be the size of a tree. Dang.

Best Wishes,

Lau

questions: how big is the universe??  admit it, you dont know, do you?  It could be infinite

Also, energy is a result of the electrons, not protons!  What kind of scientist are you, anyway?? 

[rimv2]

questions: how big is the universe??  admit it, you dont know, do you?  It could be infinite

Also, energy is a result of the electrons, not protons!  What kind of scientist are you, anyway?? 

If the universe were infinite, life would not exist as we know it, or it would exist exactly as it does now

[m1469]

What IS Science ?

How does Science differ from art ?

How are they related ?



 

[rimv2]

What IS Science ?

How does Science differ from art ?

How are they related ?



 

Art is what is. Science is to understand it.

[m1469]

Art is what is. Science is to understand it.

hmmm.... okay.  I kinda like that. 

[asyncopated]

m1469, you ask difficult questions!

In the spirit of categorizing things, the question you ask actually falls under modern day philosophy. 

I will try to present my view of things, but this is by no means definitive.

Firstly, what is art or science perhaps is problem of categorization. 
Take this as an example...

In old times, there was this guy who used to paint the human form.  He is an ARTIST.  In pursuit of this work, he started studying the structure of the human body closely, and with skilled hands, dissected cadavers.  With this knowledge his paintings have a depth like no other.  The ART he created was spectacular.  One day he meets a sick man.  The man seems to have a growth in his body.  He seemed to remember from all his work on dissection, a similar condition.  The sick man was in great pain, and seeing so the ARTIST decided to help.  With this knowledge of the human anatomy, he successfully slices the sick man open and removes the growth. With this the man lives.  The man in studying the body understood SCIENTIFIC principles of how the human body works.  Thus he was after all doing SCIENCE.

What I'm trying to say is that what is art and science depends very much on context.  You first need to ask yourself, what do I really want answered?  What is the purpose of the question?  Is such a question useful or even relevant?

I will not touch on art, but I can tell you a bit about the scientific method.

Science is very much like fortune telling.  One of the key aims is to be able to predict the future.   To predict where the stars will be, how high the tides are, if it will rain tomorrow.  Science can be further categories into two types -- qualitative and quantitative.  Qualitative meaning that you describe a trend -- if you cool water, it will become ice -- this is the trend.  Quantitative science will put numbers to it -- if you cool water with purity of 99%, it will become ice at 0 degrees Celsius.   

Unlike fortune telling, two key aspects of science are reproducibility and accuracy.  One must independently be able to recreate the effects of a claim.

So how does one do science?  How does one obtain predictive powers? 

Here is the recipe (roughly)

1. Observe the universe/system you are studying and look for trends (artist do this too)
2. Make a model/hypothesis
3. Validate the model and the extent to which it is correct/useful
4. Develop an understanding of why the model works (assuming it does)
5. Use the predictive powers that you have found

So now you have it.  The art of science.

al.
 

[m1469]

m1469, you ask difficult questions!

In the spirit of categorizing things, the question you ask actually falls under modern day philosophy. 

I will try to present my view of things, but this is by no means definitive.

Firstly, what is art or science perhaps is problem of categorization. 
Take this as an example...

In old times, there was this guy who used to paint the human form.  He is an ARTIST.  In pursuit of this work, he started studying the structure of the human body closely, and with skilled hands, dissected cadavers.  With this knowledge his paintings have a depth like no other.  The ART he created was spectacular.  One day he meets a sick man.  The man seems to have a growth in his body.  He seemed to remember from all his work on dissection, a similar condition.  The sick man was in great pain, and seeing so the ARTIST decided to help.  With this knowledge of the human anatomy, he successfully slices the sick man open and removes the growth. With this the man lives.  The man in studying the body understood SCIENTIFIC principles of how the human body works.  Thus he was after all doing SCIENCE.

What I'm trying to say is that what is art and science depends very much on context.  You first need to ask yourself, what do I really want answered?  What is the purpose of the question?  Is such a question useful or even relevant?

I will not touch on art, but I can tell you a bit about the scientific method.

Science is very much like fortune telling.  One of the key aims is to be able to predict the future.   To predict where the stars will be, how high the tides are, if it will rain tomorrow.  Science can be further categories into two types -- qualitative and quantitative.  Qualitative meaning that you describe a trend -- if you cool water, it will become ice -- this is the trend.  Quantitative science will put numbers to it -- if you cool water with purity of 99%, it will become ice at 0 degrees Celsius.   

Unlike fortune telling, two key aspects of science are reproducibility and accuracy.  One must independently be able to recreate the effects of a claim.

So how does one do science?  How does one obtain predictive powers? 

Here is the recipe (roughly)

1. Observe the universe/system you are studying and look for trends (artist do this too)
2. Make a model/hypothesis
3. Validate the model and the extent to which it is correct/useful
4. Develop an understanding of why the model works (assuming it does)
5. Use the predictive powers that you have found

So now you have it.  The art of science.

al.

asyncopated, I would just like to thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.  I have been thinking about this post of yours and have tucked it away into my little head.   

[lau]

donjuan, I mean't the galaxy, and I mean't electron. I wasn't thinking correctly. And a string of energy inside of an electron is only a theory

[donjuan]

And a string of energy inside of an electron is only a theory

"string of energy"?? haven't heard of any such theory..

[maul]

It's called String Theory, and it's the latest thing to try and bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together. The "theory of everything". The theory is that below the atomic level there are ultra-tiny strings of energy. The way these strings move and undulate determine the properties of matter.

[donjuan]

It's called String Theory, and it's the latest thing to try and bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together. The "theory of everything". The theory is that below the atomic level there are ultra-tiny strings of energy. The way these strings move and undulate determine the properties of matter.

Thanks!
google search, here I come

[prometheus]

All string Theories, including it's most important flavor; M-theory, are 'just' mathematical models, that were supposed to end up as 'theory-over-everyhing'-s.

But no one has been able to come up with experiments that can test these models as theories. Some argue this is because of the nature of these models. So this is more mathematical philosophy than science.

But its not just something. It seems that M-theory is a possible 'theory-of-everyhing', eventhough there is no observeble evidence. We assume the chance is small that a mathematical model can be made up that would desribe a 'theory-of-everything' that doesn't actually exist. M-theory fits very elegantly in the math. If M-theory doesn't apply to this world some people will argue that we have the better model.
We assume only one theory will match the math. But we cannot be sure about this.

Some people believe strings exist but that they can never be observed and that strings are beyond the limit of science. In the model strings are much much much smaller than particles, so we cannot observe strings by looking at how they influence particles.