Is there a place for woo in science?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Aug 17, 2014.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Einstein did indeed have theories that were well received in the scientific community. As a physics professor he had learned a fair amount about the scientific method and the importance of publication for peer review.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So, essentially, what you're saying is: you can't back up your claims.
    Got it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    actually what I'm saying is that you have NO clue about Einstein's biography , at all

    surprised
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    NOT initially
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Yes, initially. His earliest papers (papers that even Einstein characterized as 'worthless') garnered no special condemnations; they were just accepted as papers, peer-reviewed and published as valid, if unexciting, works of science. The papers from his "miracle year" were both well received and pivotal for him; from that point on he had no problems attaining teaching and research positions, and he began lecture tours due to the desire within the scientific community to hear more of him.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Very few , at the time , really understood , what he was saying

    And that is what I'm saying or getting to others theories

    Unless YOU READ THEIR THEORIES , you really have NO idea what they are trying to get across to us all

    Thinking evolves
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That's pretty accurate. A few people understood what he was talking about, and realized what a huge advance it was. Other physicists had a glimmer of what it might mean, and were also excited if not 100% sure what the implications were. Hence his extensive lecture tours on the subject and (eventual) Nobel orize.
    Definitely true - although it's pretty easy to separate woo from science after a short read.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Sure I do. SR was accepted within reasonable time frame as was all his other papers.
    But what has any of this to do with the scientific method and peer review, except of course to illustrate your own love of woo and pseudo rubbish, like ghosts, goblins, giants, anal probing Aliens etc.

    The scientific method and peer review work and is why we are what we are today.
    WOO and pseudo took us nowhere.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Sometimes and sometimes after a long read

    And sometimes they are worth consideration
     
  13. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Some of them. :-(
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    It seems to me that science has become like religion

    A bunch of people that have a perspective on the way this world works , simple people , because certainly they don't have the intellectual capacity of those who have put forward their theory

    A bunch of techs who could not imagine anything more than what they are taught by wrote
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Yes of course. Science is full of stupid people with no imagination, that must be true. Obviously.

    P.S. Wrote is the past tense of write. But then, only stupid people with no imagination can spell properly.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Oh, it's river doing vague generalised personal attacks again.
    As opposed to actually supporting his own claims.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Ah so you don't personally attack people , and others as well , you have many times

    The support means nothing to you and never will

    You are a simple tech. With no capacity or more importantly , no curiosity to actually READ any book that expands on any theory , at all

    All you do is to discredit the authors because others do
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Learn to read.
    I attack individuals - I've never denied that.
    I do, however, try to not make generalised attacks. Particularly inanely stupid ones.

    Yeah.
    Your "point" here falls down due to the unfortunate (for you) fact that I've read (and have shown that I've read) more woo books on more woo subjects than you have.

    And wrong again...
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    What amuses me in this thread is our friend accusing others of not having read about Einstein's life, when it is he who is ignorant of the fact that Einstein's ideas were accepted right from the start by the science community.

    There is this silly mythology, put about by believers in woo, that Einstein had the same treatment from science that Galileo had from the Catholic Church. It's complete cock of course, but it would be so convenient if it were true that they choose to believe it nevertheless.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    mention some
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    We've been through this.
    More than once.
    Von Daniken.
    Zecharia Sitchin.
    Tim Good.
    Nick Cook.
    Joseph P. Farrell.
    David Icke.
    Helena Blavatsky.
    Michael H. Schratt.
    Henry Stevens.
    W. A. Harbinson.
    Ted Roach.
    Etc.
    Etc.

    (Plus the list already given here).
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Now give reasons why YOU disagree with joseph farrell
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    This is entirely the wrong thread, and it would be too long.
    Unless you have specific points then I'm not going to use my time doing so.
    (And you are aware [sup]1[/sup] that Farrell is entirely unqualified to make the claims he does).

    By the way: nice diversion. I didn't notice at all that you're trying to switch topic AND avoid the actual subject of discussion.

    1 I know that you're aware, because I've pointed it out before.
     

Share This Page