7 Reasons to Abandon Sense

U

URI

IMU
Registered Senior Member
[Edited by Stryder]
The following are the DERAILED entries from the thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65151

Feel free to continue discussion here but future derailments to the initial thread will be outright deleted.
[/edit ends]

Great thread Andrewgray, great concepts, shame about the moderator !!!!!

LOL, I have seen many GREAT discussions (and that is what science is about... theoretical discussion) totally destroyed by ignorant moderation.

Keep up the good work.

Why is science allowed to be destroyed by IDIOTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I get time I will discuss some of your implications... yes, very exciting.

omegafour.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
URI said:
(and that is what science is about... theoretical discussion)
Click to expand...
I second that. Even a discussion that includes some flawed science can lead to a breakthrough or a new way of thinking. And if not, what is lost?

I don't have the skill to assess the quality of the mod's decision to move this thread. I've found both Pete and Andrewgray to be rational. The thread is still open for discussion--a lot of other sites block or lock anything that contradicts the status quo. I think the moderation here is better than anywhere else I've seen.
 
Taking this tread from science forum is silly, stupid and very un-scientific move!

Andrew may be not correct, but he is not spouting nonsense such as the Iders idea that all life was made on one day about 6000 years ago. \ For an example of a thread that should be moved to pesudo-science or religion see "Abiogenesis is the Scientific God" - it is nearing 500 posts in the science forum "science and society" section, with the IDers calling names and offering no evidence, and ignoring all posts the patiently do provide evidence.

To paraphrase a Senator speaking to Joe Macthary: "Have you no sense of judgment?"

Andrew is well read, presenting evidence for his POV. Frankly, although I frequently post to point out errors (even in super moderators like James R, when that rare opportunity presents itself), I have hesitated to say that Andrew is flat out wrong in all he is suggesting. (If forced to bet, that is where my money would be.) But this thread is devoid of: name calling, nonsense and stupidity, except for the moderator's move of it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete said:
Sorry Andrew, I'm no longer able to convince myself that this is good science. Pete
Click to expand...
I would agree with that as it is only an attempt to construct a new theory. "Good science" requires, IMHO, Experimental conformation that the new theory's ability to account for something better than the old theory (or in some cases, Like part of Maxwell's contribution, the ability to unify two previously thought to be separate fields into one logical structure.) Clearly Andrew’s efforts are a work in progress, too little advanced to make it into a reputable journal. One of the best things, IMHO, the science forums section can usefully do is to force him to change and adapt (or abandon) his “work in progress”
I feel the same way about Zankets’ “relativity” work in progress. Compared to the pure nonsense that often appears here these two should be encouraged and corrected, if that is possible. I would be trying to do more of the later for both, if I were not so lazy, and somewhat no longer very interested in physics.

I have not read all this thread, possibly less than half, and then with only a light skimming. Frankly, I have been somewhat intimidated and unwilling to spend the time required so have made few posts in it.

If you Pete, are the moderator who has moved it and thinks it not worth remaining in the science section, IMHO, this is one of the greatest errors you have made here. If not reversed, you will descend several notches in my opinion, unless you can provide some reason why the IDer's nonsense, in several different threads, remains "science" suitable for continuing in the science form but this thread does not.

Later by edit: After posting the above (and prior post) quicky in shock and anger, I went back to read a little more of thread. Stoped at post 85 where I found Andrew stating:
"I have changed my mind on Thermal (Blackbody) Radiation thanks to you (& others). ..."

This is exactly what I was stating above as the main utility for Andrew's thread to remain in the science section. Again, why do many threads remain here when the originators only resort to name calling and are with minds so closed that no amount of logic or facts will cause the change Andrew is obviously willing to consider and make sometimes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without pushing the barrow too much

>> these two should be encouraged and corrected >>

Yes that is the exciting thing about the Internet, and its mind to mind possibilities.

Scientific theories need OPEN discussion, they need an investigation into all strands of evidence, all options need to be highlighted and evaluated.

A theory borne from one mind may be revolutionary, but the add-ons that come from other minds are equally important.

I say let science be free, and if the subject is not your cup of tea, then go drink coffee.

As I am a scientist of long standing [ that has encountered this ridiculous Internet science forum practice where some MORON can declare a theory invalid, as seen on so many forums where degrading the poster in the process by encouraging lesser morons to poke fun and gloat seems to be a sport ] I have been banned from more forums than anyone.

I say what right has ANYONE to pass judgment upon a trained and practiced scientist's opinion on scientific matters. If a scientist holds a theory then they must have thought it through to their ability and evaluated the data they have at hand, and usually they welcome constructive criticism and extra data to expand their mental horizons.

Scientific history is just chock full of "popes" who burn scientists at the stake.
Censorship and personal censure are totally rife.

The Internet has a fantastic potential for the advancement of science.

I call for a scientific revolution on the net. At present scientific discussion is totally muzzled, and mind to mind exchanges are limited by an ignorant and close minded Pope. For popes, science is a fixed in stone religion. SHAMEFUL

omegafour.com
 
Hi Billy,
Namecalling, nonsense, and stupidity aren't reasons to move things to Pseudoscience. If this thread was full of namecaling, nonsense, and stupidity, I'd move it to the Cesspool.

I agree that there are threads in the science forums that do not belong, but my jurisdiction is limited to Physics and Maths.

I also agree that Andrew is well read, articulate, and intelligent... but I try to judge ideas on their merits, not on who presents them.

So... why move it to pseudoscience?
James has written an article describing [enc]Science[/enc], as opposed to pseudoscience. In my opinion, Andrew's presentation of his model does not stand up to the tests of what Science is. Primarily, it seems to me that he hasn't shown sufficient understanding of the models that he's trying to replace.

It's a difficult call for me, because I'm not an expert in the field of QM... but I have sought advice from others who are experts, and I can read Andrew's responses to objections in the thread.

Basically, I'm not convinced that Andrew knows what he is talking about when he says that current quantum physics theory contains paradoxes, and I think that his attitude to his model is not sufficiently critical. I think he's looking at it through rose-colored glasses, and not willing to test it rigorously for flaws. It's an understandable attitude - he's spent a lot of time on it, and is understandably proud of it - but it's not scientific.

What would be scientific would be a discussion based on challenging the consistency of the current model - a thread about what Andrew sees as paradoxes. Or even better, one thread for each alleged paradox.
 
Last edited:
Pete said:
Basically, I'm not convinced that Andrew knows what he is talking about when he says that current quantum physics theory contains paradoxes, and I think that his attitude to his model is not sufficiently critical. I think he's looking at it through rose-colored glasses, and not willing to test it rigorously for flaws.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example?
 
Look at the discussion we had about blackbody radiation.
Andrew's errors in his interpretation and his "facts" were pointed out by politely by several intelligent and helpful people... but rather than seriously consider that he could be mistaken, Andrew wasted time hunting down shakier and shakier foundations to prop up his faith in his ideas.

Finally, when he did commendably acknowledge a mistake, he still didn't take the opportunity to reconsider his understanding of the mainstream theory, but promptly reinterpreted his own idea to match the "new" data.
 
URI said:
Scientific theories need OPEN discussion, they need an investigation into all strands of evidence, all options need to be highlighted and evaluated.
Click to expand...
Too bad you're in the tiny minority on that one.

A theory borne from one mind may be revolutionary, but the add-ons that come from other minds are equally important.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear. That's why I think places like sciforums have the potential to be revolutionary to science. The "popes" will gleefully point out that no groundbreaking idea has come from an Internet forum, even as they take every measure to prevent that from happening.

(Not passing judgement on Pete, esp. since I haven't followed this thread. I'm thinking more of physicsforums and their ilk.)
 
zanket said:
Too bad you're in the tiny minority on that one.
Click to expand...
He's certainly in a tiny minority, but not on the idea that scientific theories need open discussion.

The problem is that many of the things that many netizens want to discuss are just not interesting in a science context... so many of these discussions were made by much brighter minds than ours decades or centuries ago.

To take an extreme example, a serious discussion on whether Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the fundamental elements was good science once... but not any more. It still might be fun and interesting to talk about it, but only from a historical perspective.
 
Pete said:
The problem is that many of the things that many netizens want to discuss are just not interesting in a science context... so many of these discussions were made by much brighter minds than ours decades or centuries ago.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm thinking of new theories. I think today's scientific methodology is a little silly in light of the potential of the internet to vastly improve it. Scientists publish papers in a virtual vacuum, when they could get a much more thorough vetting beforehand and not just by amateurs. I think revolutions done in isolation are less likely than the odds of that happening through the power of multiple minds competing in a public forum. I could not have improved my own ideas to the extent I think I have without butting heads with others. Yet the status quo says that I or a group should develop complete works in private.
 
Real science doesn't work in the way you seem to think.

Development of ideas is thrashed around at conferences, colloquia, and in mailing lists. There are online conferences as well as face-to-face conferences.

Take a look here, for example: KITP Conferences and Miniprograms Online
 
Pete said:
Real science doesn't work in the way you seem to think.

Development of ideas is thrashed around at conferences, colloquia, and in mailing lists. There are online conferences as well as face-to-face conferences.

Take a look here, for example: KITP Conferences and Miniprograms Online
Click to expand...

Real science can be anything it chooses to be as i see it, noone owns it, its just a web of communication and information exchange.
I mean yes forums can simply be denizens of established fact and theory, if thats the direction the majority want to go in. Although from my perspective it seems quite pointless.
You end up with forums as little more than consensus nodes to anchor pre-established theories and facts. They become little more than web-churches to say your prayers.

In any case seeing how people/mods/members react to people like andrew is infinitely interesting, it tells you so much about human behaviour, its quite fascinating to watch.
 
>> Real science doesn't work in the way you seem to think. .>

Oh you are a poor man, Pete. You REALLY has no idea at all.

Keep it up, trash science all you like... you will never keep it down
Really pathetic approach.
 
Andrew
I'm afraid I'm not going to move your thread from the pseudoscience section, the reason why isn't anything personal however I believe that you will find holes within your theory and in finding holes it will obviously require constant alteration on your part.

This is of course the main problem with any documentation during it's continued development phase and the reason many publicists don't want to publish documents until they have a "Final Draft".

This of course brings up the point of peer review. It's all very well submitting your theories or your take on theories on the internet, however doing so isn't going to be greated with people that necessarily know the depth of subject matter and who are more than likely going to be hostile because of the types of people they deal with or supportive because their own fatally flawed logic needs someone that seems intelligent to "be on their side".

You aren't the only man alive that has a Superstring Theory or in fact a "theory on everything", and you surely won't be the last.

What could seperate you from them however is of course if you take it upon yourself to follow the correct avenues of peer review. Forget publishing in magazines, as I mentioned previously they want finished products not partially complete ideas that evolve from one minute to the next. If you want to evolve a theory then I suggest you look at the lecture circuit, however I wouldn't suggest that you lecture you own pet theories straight away, look towards lecturing known physics to new students.

Ask questions and ponder theoretical experiments and of course pay close attention to the end of lecture Q&A ;). If you prove you can handle the lecture role, you might be able to move up to actually dealing with experimentation.

However please realize that no matter how profound your findings are to you, others will see them in a different light without necessarily the same awe as yourself.

This is human nature, after all being told how something itself isn't as rewarding as finding out for yourself.

URI
Your take on Science is different from the "Profession" Science. Where you probably are not even an undergraduate and have no expectations of attending a University or ever gaining a degree, you try to compensate with what you can work out from the internet and a search engine.

The problem with this is it doesn't cover the basic training to establish good communication with other scholars but in fact allows the trend of alienation between yourself and others in established professional fields to increase in size.

If you truly want to commit to science, step back from your self inflated view of what you "Think" is right and look into re-enrolling to get an education in a field you lack, of course you have to commit to understanding some of the thing you know are wrong otherwise the healing can't commence.
 
>>> Your take on Science is different from the "Profession" Science. Where you probably are not even an undergraduate >>

All I have got for you Mr Stryder is LOL

You have no idea.
 
Rather than Derail this thread any further than it already has been, could you please take it up in PM with me. As I probably have more of an idea than you can imagine.
 
Thanks, but maybe a public discussion on this matter may be a better idea, as IMO the attitude displayed by the management here, and elsewhere is anti-science.

Wiki is all anyone would want if they want "professional" science, or Ask a Scientist !

However I really am not interested in some type of farcical non professional, non scientific "child minding" discussion.

I am really appalled at the state of science on the web. I have my own site
omegafour.com
and there I would welcome what y'all call controversial pseudoscience, for from these humble ramblings future science grows... WE DO NOT NEED A POPE !!!
Thanks for your time.... I would like to know the foundations of the "consensual science logic" the Internet seems to follow; maybe I might join in a discussion.

I was just appalled that such a magnificent attempt was degraded, the poster degraded and science BURIED in shit by moderators.

I have taken this to the "About Members" thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top