Faith and the scientific method

Moderator note: This thread has been split from the following thread:

Black holes may not exist!

----

Hmmmm, I'm adding to my knowledge everyday!
Thanks for that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I Do have the utmost faith in True Science - but I could possibly get "banned" for stating that, so...:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'
Max Planck:


In essence, the methodolgy of anti mainsreamers, is to make baseless assumptions on anyone that accepts the most logical position, which in most cases, is the mainstream position...afterall, logically, that is why it is mainstream.

On the other hand, to accept some anti mainstream or alternative position, solely for the exersise of "perceiving to be able to think for oneself, is not really desirable.

That is why the mainstream accepted scientific method and peer review exist....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many times does it have to be said that PRE-peer-review DISCUSSION is an inescapable requirement of r refining all views/ideas into formalisms/understandings that can be used to either advance the science or make it more reality explicable. You go straight for the peer-review DEMAND while ignoring the discussion phase here and elsewhere long before the new ideas are sufficiently 'distilled' enough for peer reviewers to bother to read them.

Did you read where some organization TESTED the peer review system with computer generated gobbledegook, and it passed peer review? Do you know why? Either the reviewers didn't understand but were not sufficiently diligent to check so it was 'peer-approved' for publication! Then there is the peer review by JEALOUS/BIASED reviewers who control the gateway to publications such that if THEY cannot steal/plagiarize' the new ideas presented for peer-review, then they will NOT approve-for publication. The history of science and scientific literature/publication 'incidents' of all kinds demonstrates the truth that one should always be careful NOT to be beholden of captive to the 'publish or perish' imperative OR the 'appease peer-review if you want to get published' sell-out....and hence merely repeat what the peer-reviewer wants to hear rather than the new discovery which threatens the peers' status/position/income etc.

Take care at all times/stages.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To argue against peer review and the scientific method as our alternative theorist friends so often do, is to align with the arguments and debating style of conspiracy pushers of 9/11 and Faked Moon Landings rubbish.
A simple cop out is all it is, and at least three anti mainstreamers in this thread, have used it.

 

The Theory of Relativity
(Links | Questions)
In the early decades of the 20th century, a young Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein published the theory of relativity and changed the face of physics and astronomy forever.

The theory of relativity is perhaps the most successful development in the history of science in terms of its agreement with experimental results and its ability to predict new phenomena - only quantum mechanics can claim to compete with its success. Einstein's theory immediately explained some of the major problems in the physics and astronomy of his day, and it has continued to explain new developments that were not even hinted at 90 years ago, including the existence of black holes and recent observations in cosmology.

Yet, accepting the theory of relativity requires us to throw out almost all of our previous notions about the universe, as well as most of what we would call "common sense." Space and time, which to humans locked on planet Earth appear to be a fixed, unchanging background upon which the events of the cosmos play out, are in fact anything but. Empty space can contract, expand, or curve depending on how close you are to a massive object, and the rate at which time passes can change as well. Space and time can even change depending on who is measuring them; the hands on a clock will look smaller and tick slower the faster the clock is moving with respect to you.


Applications of Relativity

more at.....
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php

 

That scurrilous generalization post has been reported, paddo.

Please apologize immediately for that uncalled for unwarranted and unsupportable innuendo and characterization of me and anyone who is not of your 'view' as 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theorists.

The record of my OPPOSITION to and DEBUNKING of such 'conspiracy theorist' claims re 9/11 and moon landings is second to none, here and elsewhere on the net, complete with pointing out where their conspiracies fall down on the objective evidence and logics.

See? This is what happens when you once start on your road of 'personal beliefs without understanding or evidence', paddo. Please apologize for that and we'll say no more about it. Thanks.

 

Now you are just getting silly. There was absolutely no need to post the entire article (with inadequate attribution by the way) when a link and short description would do.

 

I'm sure you'll see longer articles then that from others.
And probably not as reputable.
But why did you see the need to reply with the whole quote? Rather extraordinary decision I would think.

 

OK, you have edited it...thank you.

 

Your further patent falsehood etc has been reported, paddo. That is NOT TRUE insofar as I am concerned with that 'take' of yours. It's your wrong 'personal take', nothing more, paddo.

I am not there defending conspiracy theorists, I have many times rebutted them; so right there your 'personal take' is disastrously and pigheadedly WRONG and UNJUSTIFIABLE in at least MY case.

Do you understand the GRAVITY of what you have just done, in terms of ethics, fair play and LEGAL/LIBEL considerations?

Stop and THINK carefully before you even are tempted to make any more such posts, paddo. That is advice for your benefit as much as for the greater good of both science and humanity discourse.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ Post #899

Awesome copy/paste job!

Reminded me of something from the following Link : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=33

 

Just hit that nail fair square on the bloody head!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

People only get rewarded in science for pertaining to the view of the standard model. Not heard many rewards for peoplr going against the standard model. Take the expansion of spacetime, and the red shift. This gave someone the nobel prize a few weeks ago, however, by changing the maths to the other way around, and not pertaining to the standard model you can get a red shift from contraction too. So somebody got a nobel prize for a 50/50 guess. They got that prize because it was sent to the science bishops who proclaimed... "It is a miracle!" And science is worse than Christianity, because science proclaims a false method to get to the truth. The scientific method is flawed, and gets you 50/50 proofs, and then gives them a billion to one probability of the 50/50 proofs being wrong. That's worse than faith, that is a business of tomfoolery.

And the faithful shout "How can contraction cause red shift?"

Simple... you aren't living on a balloon. From the centre of a balloon with a black hole in it everything would be stretched the other way. Towards the black hole. Which we just happen to live by. Funny huh? You put another black hole far, far away, and everything is moving towards that hole too. Two holes, two directions stretching the space between them. The middle part has virtual particles popping out of it.

The red shift is relativity in action. We are relative to the other end of the red shift. Not the out side of a balloon. The inside of a web. Now where's my nobel prize? Oh yeah, it doesn't count... not the standard model.

 

I sure am glad that you are completely wrong or we would be in real trouble. If all this science is just guessing and our math is backwards you must find it mind boggeling that we accidently stumbled into developing the computer that you are typing on.

You are apparently just a troll (not a very good one) based on your inflammatory dismissal of science on a science site. However, your arguments are just so disjointed and silly it is hard to get upset.

 

My computer was hauled in by science from a creative mind. They are also trying to haul Da Vinci in too. But scientists are generally not interested in creative minds.

 

Hhhmmm... Maybe that's why I'm an intermittent believer in letting others (who are long since dead by now) sometimes be the "fall guys"...

Percy Bridgman:"It seems to me that there is a good deal of ballyhoo about scientific method. I venture to think that the people who talk most about it are the people who do least about it. Scientific method is what working scientists do, not what other people or even they themselves may say about it. No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method. When the scientist ventures to criticize the work of his fellow scientist, as is not uncommon, he does not base his criticism on such glittering generalities as failure to follow the "scientific method," but his criticism is specific, based on some feature characteristic of the particular situation. The working scientist is always too much concerned with getting down to brass tacks to be willing to spend his time on generalities.

[...] What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists." --Reflections of a Physicist

Peter Medawar: "Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed, because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare. [...] If the purpose of scientific methodology is to prescribe or expound a system of enquiry or even a code of practice for scientific behavior, then scientists seem to be able to get on very well without it. Most scientists receive no tuition in scientific method, but those who have been instructed perform no better as scientists than those who have not. Of what other branch of learning can it be said that it gives its proficients no advantage; that it need not be taught or, if taught, need not be learned?" --Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought​

 

The scientific method is just a process of common sense and logic, and is unknowingly adhered to in every day life.
Some variations have evolved over the ages, but the basic foundation remains as is.

To be a scientist [as opposed to a pseudoscientist or conspiracy theorist adherent] is to follow the path of logic and common sense.
I don't believe anyone needs to be taught specifically the scientific method. To most of us, it just comes naturally.

 

The scientific method is a false prophet. It hinges mainly on Gravity being a pull force, because all of the maths uses mass, and force towards mass. Gravity is not a pull force, there is no such thing as a pull force. You cannot even pull your trousers up, it's impossible. Because of that, the scientific method has failed for hundreds of years, which proves that it is a false prophet. It also includes other impossibilities like the 4 states of energy. there are not 4 states of energy, there is just 1.. the bump force. To move into the area of least resistance. There is no elasticity force. There is no electromagnetic force. There is no gravity force. They are all the same thing. Particles all moving into the area of least resistance. The reason that science doesn't know this is because scientists have a pull force, and that was just words spoken by Newton.

"Hey guys, there's a pull force!"

That's a great scientific method. The method of opening your mouth.