For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    I do not "have to say" anything!

    Yet, you, Aqueous Id, seem to "have to say" things! For example : why must you introduce words such as "fascist" and "hysterical" into a discussion on how "alternative theorists" present themselves or their theories?!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yes, you never say anything, quite true.

    And the hysterical comment seems to quite admirably fit the bill with regards to yourself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Quite logically the mainstream position is the default position, plus of course the validity of some theories such as the BB, SR/GR, are far closer to reality then others.
    You understand?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    Now that's even better presented then the OP!!!
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    Two very important points right there.
    The first one, mainstream is mainstream, because logically that is where the best evidence lies.
    eg: You are in a strange land: you are trying to find a particular town and come to a fork in the road: 100 people are sitting beside the road playing scrabble: You ask them the right way to get into town: 99 of them point one way, one lone person points the other way: Which way do you take?
    Yes, there is a non zero chance the lone person maybe correct.

    The second point I'm sure we can all relate to...speculation...nothing wrong with speculation/Imagination..great stuff!
    It's when those afflicted with delusions of grandeur or some fanatical anti science/mainstream bias, insist on claiming over riding rights over well supported incumbent theories.
    I speculate that the BB singularity, is the arse end of a BH from another universe...I speculate that BH singularities lead via wormholes/ERB's to out pourings into new Universes.
    But they remain speculative ideas of mine...certainly not any theory changing the course of 20/21st century cosmology.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    There are probably at least three threads of alternative stuff currently under discussion, that adhere to none of the 12 points.
    Cesspool material?
     
  10. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The 12 points are not a matter of opinion. That's part of your problem: you are unable to tell the difference between nonsense and logic, fraud and truth, opinion and fact.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    So are you bound by these same points then ?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    All alternative theories and theorists are bound by them.
    The incumbent theory logically though is the default position.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    9,793


    Hence the fundamental problem with a greater or a more advanced understanding in science , logically
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    There is no problem.
    If you have a better system, spill it out.
    Here's your chance!
     
  15. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    That isn't the issue that was on the table. The issue was that whether something adheres to those 12 points or not is not a matter of opinion: either it does or doesn't. Whether those 12 points are reasonable and should be adhered to is a separate question. Like I said: you have a lot of trouble with logical thought.

    But to answer your irrelevant question, yes, I do: it is a good description of how scientific thinkers should act.
    That's gibberish, but I think what you are trying to say is that the scientific way of thinking inhibits scientific advancement. That's a common complaint of crackpots, but it is just dead wrong. Scientific thinking - the scientific method - helps you focus on what is likely to yield the best results. It promotes advancement, it does not inhibit it. And that's not opinion, that's historical fact: no other way of figuring out how the natural world works has been anywhere close to as successful as the scientific method/process.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    How so ?

    But question is , do they , these scientific thinkers
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    So?
    Probably research being done into it with NASA already I suggest...
    What's the agenda you're pushing?
    Again, if you have a better system, spill it out.
    This cry of anguish from our anti everything brigade is certainly loud and boisterous even though in the minority.
    I suppose what they say about empty vessels making the most sound, does ring true.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Science isn't a form of government. It can't legislate, although it does record the laws of nature as revealed by something similar to forensics. The only offices it holds even loosely equivalent to an executive branch are research, education and of course all of the applied fields from engineering to medicine and so on. But there is a strong judiciary, operating under a single doctrine: the laws of nature can not be repealed. That makes science more like the supreme court of a country ruled by a tyrant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In this case, it is not a single body presiding over a few districts but rather a network of courts split into hundreds of jurisdictions by society and field.

    "Jury of peers" in the archaic sense is loosely the same, although "panel of judges" is closer. One of the central fallacies of pseudoscience is that it does not understand the difference between authority and power. The empaneled judges earn their authority to decide questions of natural law through demonstrated achievement. Here's where science exists as a democracy. Any person anywhere in the world, who has reasonable access to a good education, is free to ascend to a position of academic excellence. Behind the iron curtain of pseudoscience, the reverse is true. Any person who has earned that authority is either ridiculed and abused, or else they are redacted, quote mined and twisted in order to paint religion with that thin patina of authority that pseudoscience uses to seize control of vulnerable minds.

    It's pretty hard to imagine a scenario in which one theory could falsify another. More than likely some data point is collected which calls a particular theory into question. Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter completely unhinged the Geocentric Theory, yet it took about a lifetime for Newton to discover that gravity was the underlying cause.

    Special Relativity does expand on the Laws of Motion insofar as it informs us about contraction and dilation, which, although they have nothing to do with the Laws of Motion per se, they have everything lot to do with the effects of motion upon observation. You could also say that general relativity expands on the Law of Gravity, noting that motion is required to create the second reference frame (i.e, it has to physically depart from the observation frame). That, by the way, illustrates a connection between the Laws of Motion and the Law of Gravity, although strictly as it concerns observation.

    Once someone publishes something, whether it amounts to theory or not, that democracy you reject engages. Maybe we should call it a "democracy of opportunity". Anyone is free to argue for or against anything ever published. The only caveat is that it takes equal or better authority to overturn a matter of settled science. This is analagous to the way courts are very slow to overturn dicta--decisions considered settled law--such as whether minorities and women have the same rights as white males. In science we call these first principles. They simply can't be reversed due to the forward arrow of progress. But they remain equally falsifiable nonetheless. Like dicta, as the prevailing theory withstands the test of time, it sinks closer and closer to that bedrock we call "established science".

    That's the ticket.

    Ironically, evolution shows us how the defense mechanism passed from earlier primates to the religious ones who think that this is the way to protect their brood. See no evil, hear no evil . . .

    I don't see the connection there. The fact that a majority had adopted general relativity did not preclude the minority from insisting that the first GPS system allow for the possibility that GR may for some reason not apply. So they flew it with an insurance policy they never needed. I would have hated to have been on the losing team, but other than that I don't see how you connect these. There are some acclaimed scientists who sometimes report their concerns that the minority view isn't given a fair hearing. But stand outside of any courtroom and you'll hear the same thing any day they are in session.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    How so what?
    Yes. By definition.
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yes, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

    My posts are entirely voluntary.

    As I said:
     
  21. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I prefer "cargo-cult conspiracy".
     
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    So...Aqueous Id, why does it seem that you "have to introduce", on an "entirely voluntary" basis, words such as "fascist" and "hysterical" into a discussion on how "alternative theorists" present themselves or their "theories"?!


    As I now say:

    Goodbye, Aqueous Id!
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When I was a young engineer, I had access to plenty of resources within a complex of government funded facilities, which included a US National Lab. I had a fully stocked lab, a separate pilot plant area and access to any skilled craftsman and resource needed to build anything I could imagine and design. What I also had, was a back door to publishing. Anything that is done in such an environment is automatically published. In fact, publication was part of the job and done on a timely basis to make sure there is progress being made. Others need the data, and want to see it formally written up.

    Because I was innovative and could always generate new ideas and get results with my resources, I went on my own and naively assumed publication would be just as easy if you had good ideas. The opposite was true. A solo researcher, who was not hooked into a big organization, does not have the same back door access to publication. Someone on the outside, will have a much tougher uphill battle. I experienced both and came to realize one can stack the deck to form consensus but simply filling the back door with one side.

    What the ten steps to alternative theory does is add even more work to those who already have a disadvantage. Consensus is much easier, since it is not exactly based on equal access for all, or equal resources divided between the main alternatives, or equal back door to publication , or even equal peer pressure and mudslinging. Consensus is as much about strategy and politics as science. Aliterate theories can impact the political divide, by raising doubt that might level the playing field to new points of view.

    Let me give an example. Darwin formed his theory for evolution based on his trip to the Galapagos Islands. He drew the best curve through all the observed data, leading to a useful theory. Say Darwin, instead of Galapagos, had gone to Yellowstone National Park to gathers his thoughts. This is a totally different data field of life in flux of change. In Yellowstone, they had a huge million acres forest fire. Instead of a million years, in a few years it is now teaming with an entirely new distribution of flora and fauna. The best curve through this data field (fast change) is different from Galapagos (slow change).

    This is an alternative theory and shows how doing by the book science can change if we change the data field. Instead of a discussion, the ten rules is a way to add extra obstacles to avoid the discussion, since it might change things. The main goal of Darwin was a science based way to replace religion POV. The Yellowstone data field would have work to this ends, just as well. The consensus of today, sees this in a modern political way and will resist, with extra obstacles
     

Share This Page