The limitations of the scientific method and scientism

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 3, 2013.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    hee hee Do u think posting your own quote implying that is mine makes any difference to your reluctance to use the scientific method. ( re. challenger disaster
    ) and yeah and I know moderators can edit anyone's post any time they like.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2013
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Google is a beautiful thing. It lets people find things posted years ago. The thread/post where you said that is here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?102307-The-Photon-Challenge&p=2566327&viewfull=1#post2566327

    The title of this thread is also a clue. "Scientism" is not a word used by scientists, it is a word used to attack the scientific method and scientists by people who don't accept the scientific method as being useful and wish to denigrate it by comparing science to religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Used in context:
    and
    yes and I still stand by it. [it's a good thread if any one is interested go have a look for yourselves just remember it is 3 years ago].. the ramifications of maintaining and error in the interpretation of 'c' are absolutely huge. I was at the time referring to th eissue of missing mass energy and how this error and the need for dark energy and mass was caused by the mis-interpretion of the value of 'c'. [that it transits a vacuum]
    However Grumpy has straightened me out on one thing [re DM & DE] and that is the deductive observation of "something"



    Yes the term Scientism is often used as a pejorative...due to the fact that scientists are making claims they can't support properly. Like photons transiting space. and "if you can't prove it , it don't exist"
    In this thread I have been attacked from the outset by those whom due to their incredibly fearful and defensive behavior have behaved in a manner I would refer to as scientism.
    This thread is testimony to the term, where by a call to authority is presumed to be adequate for good science.

    You really don't want to deal with the photon transit issue do you?

    You are so busy doing a hyper defensive hopscotch around the actual issue that me having egg on my face is nothing compared to what you are trying to do here in your response to an obvious and simple oversight.
    And that is that apart from the "I can't think of any other way excuse" there is absolutely no evidence that a photon actually transits a vacuum
    and yet you believe it in the same way religious folk believe... and you claim to be a scientist following the scientific method.
    The term scientism could be used synonymously with "hypocricy"
    Science also missed another equally simple observation and that is the attraction paradox discussed here.
    and maybe you can explain how the hell did science miss such an incredibly vital factor in the way this universe functions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The fact that there is "deductive evidence" to support what you guys refer to as dark mass and energy is a real break through for me...and I thank you all for making it happen...[even if it was unintended [chuckle]
    just rereading the old photon challenge thread...and found this doozy! [talking about E=mc^2 and massless energy]
    so E=mc^2 and therefore all mass must =energy and all energy must = mass.....yes?

    And here we have massless energy in the form of a photon. Gotta be wrong surely!!:m:
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2013
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    So then that's a yes that you reject pretty much all of physics advancement over the last 100+ years?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    of course not!
    Why do you need to feel that that is the case?
    Explain why your paranoia has kicked in again...

    why do you can claim pride in such an irrational way?
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    No.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    yeah I know, the photon fudge factor has struck again....
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    @Billvon and others,
    according to the scientific method

    Given what you believe you know, how much mass less energy do you think is in transit at any given t=0 universally?

    Want to hazzard a guess?
     
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    So far, we have:
    1. Cosmology
    2. Relativity
    3. QM

    What else is there? What is there about the last 100 years of physics you do accept?
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    No, I don't.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    why not?
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    good question...
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    At any given t=0 [duration] what is the value of d [distance]?
    want to give an approximation to a fundamental axiomatic question?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    View attachment 6144
     
  18. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Doesn't seem useful or interesting to me. Can you say why you want to try to calculate it? What value it has?
    So I was right? You don't accept any modern physics?
    d= 5'8"

    Distance of what?
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well. When you are prepared to take you capacity to apply critical thinking free of scientific religious dogma then I will take your question as being more than an attempt to bait and switch.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    At any t=0 duration... doesn't matter what...what?

    The two questions asked are directly related and help explain the conundrum/paradox generated by granting a photon a transit capacity
    I am sure Russ that you are smart enough to work it out....
    If t= zero duration at any t=0 then how big is the universe at any t=0 duration point on a time line.

    How does that effect the answer to the first question?
    How much energy is in transit at any given t=0 duration point on a time line universally?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Letting go of dogma is not easy! Whether that be religious indoctrination, science indoctrination, commercial indoctrination or any other imposed system of thought, belief etc. There is no need to believe in any of it. You only have to believe in yourself. That is all there is to it.

    The rest of it is just "fluff and bubble" - just believe in yourself and your own capacity to think for yourself...and the world will get an opportunity to see just how smart you are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    image : St Kilda Beach, Melboure Australia New Years Eve with words added. ss-2011
    taken with a cheap Pentax SLR digital, with a crapped out zoom lens assembly.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    They say that this local guy is nuts... not bad for someone who made millions..

    [video=youtube;L3h6pyZi88w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3h6pyZi88w[/video]
     
  23. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    QQ - I think I'm reading that you say that photons exist at source and at end, but not in between. Regardless of what science says, why not cut to the chase and say what YOU think happens ?
     

Share This Page