Science and science methedology

[dumbest man on earth]

I'm confident that out there somewhere, sometime, a "Zefram Cochrane" will come to light, and show us the methodology of getting to the stars and beyond.

paddoboy, a quote from Seavy Harcasm from the Federation of Planets, Planet Iridium Delta 10 tango or ID10t : - quote - "...yep and Clark Kent and Lois Lane will break the whole story wide open on the pages of the Daily Planet with full color pictures by Peter Parker...and they will get a Pulitzer Prize presented by the Zig-Zag man with a tattoo of quarklet8 on his forearm...I can see it now...no, really I can...all I gotta do is close my mind, er, eyes and click my heels together...tee thrimes...theres snow place like Nome...theres snow place like Nome...theres snow place like Nome...yeah, thats the ticket! " - unquote -

 

[origin]

To begin, science needs less conformism and more cteativity.

The reason you believe this is because you are ignorant of science in general. Universities all over the earth are set up to teach young people to the level that they can go into post graduate programs and discover new things. Every PhD has discovered and defended a NEW discovery. This can only happen with intelligent creative individuals. Someone who is very good at remembering and reciting information but is not creative will never make it to the doctorial level.

Not only is your belief that science is not creative due to simple ignorance it is probably aslo due to the response you get to your goofy conjectures. The problem is that to anyone with even a basic physics educaton your ideas are just horribly gross simplifications or complete and utter misuderstandings of real concepts. To put it in terms you can get, it would be like someone telling you that a car engine is run by hamsters on wire wheels. The ideas are so wrong that that they are just dismissed out of hand.

 

[quarklet8]

Ignorant...

To say what I do and to continue nevertheless means I'm not only "ignorant" but insane! However, I shall be so responsibly, I promise. How we debate is more important: we may disagree but, if wrong, then I'm just a fool, not a threat and verbal abuse isn't necessary. Just because I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm "ignorant".

I think that the "world of the mind" has a mountain range we must climb to progress. I just want to show my "climbing techniques" to others. More later...

 

[Aqueous Id]

Just because I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm "ignorant".

As you might suspect the two go hand in hand. So far you have declared academia to be somehow broken, and at the same time you are applying stereotypes to science academics that are based on ignorance of who they are and how they think. Sounds pretty unscientific. But that's where your basic issue is, jumping to conclusions about people and the work they do. I mean tens of millions of people.

But ignorance is relative. You can pretty well get a baseline for scientific literacy by referring to some standard, such as college entrance exams or the curriculum in science for the average university. If you can't wade through a discussion at that level with some basic skills to cope with the various kinds of technical problems that come up, then you're no better off than someone who's never shaped and sweated pipe telling a plumber how to do his job. But then who does that? Surely plumbing is a lot easier to tackle than the huge scope of all of science. So why gravitate here? There's something wrong with this picture.

The reason I started this thread is that I have done my own research in Space science as well as in particle physics

That requires knowledge of first principles which you appear to be opposing in general. Why in the world would an outsider presume to grasp cosmology and particle physics? You are manifesting some of the classic symptoms of pseudo-science. But why? What's your game?

and have made "breakthroughs" in both areas.

Novices tend to find small factoids equivalent to breakthoughs. At best you've had a mild version of that.

Of course, I realize I'll be negated if I claim I'm right but I know what I did was worthwhile

You'll be negating yourself the minute you start drawing boundaries around academia.

and not "LOL", crank, quack or any of other "nicities". However, I'm interested in the logic of discovery as well because I see it as a skill anyone may have.

Once you've written off first principles and decided to set sail without rigging and a rudder, the best you can hope for is to be lost.

Also, I won't tolerate bullying in this thread...

And I won't tolerate self-appointed policing of anything. I guess that puts us on equal footing.

The thing that puts us at odds is that you evidently have no academic training in math and science and have come here to gripe about the folks who do. That just makes you sound like an ass. If you want help understanding high school or college level material, there are plenty of excellent folks here who can assist. Obviously you'll have to lose that chip on your shoulder to take advantage of it.

I've almost gotten to the point of asking every poster of this sort whether they are attacking science from the fundamentalist Christian position. It defies comprehension what other rationale motivates this kind of tack. I assume you don't go to plumbing sites and tell them how to do their job. How about farming? Or hotel management. I mean, get real: people do what they do and know what they know because they live in that occupation. Put a bunch of science types of that sort together and a university or a tech firm results. You evidently think they're systemically flawed, but then you exploit the benefits of science and technology all day long, do you not? So if it were broken none of those things would be working for you, would they. You see, you have a lot of hurdles to jump, all made of self-conflicting premises. Sounds like a mess more than a breakthrough.

Anyway, what's the point of vicariously living science as an antagonist when there are so many excellent universities to actually make it happen for you?

And what other than fundamentalism draws the flies to the feast - which is why I ask: what exactly is your game, pard?

 

[origin]

How we debate is more important: we may disagree but, if wrong, then I'm just a fool, not a threat and verbal abuse isn't necessary. Just because I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm "ignorant"

I chose the word ignorant quite deliberately. You are disparaging science in a very negative manner and so I chose to use the term ignorant instead of uniformed. Both terms apply to your analysis; the term ignorant is correct but more forceful than uniformed. Being wrong is not ignorant - you can make a mistake and therefore be wrong without being ignorant. Ignorant is when you are not aware of something. You are clearly ignorant (or unaware, or uniformed) about how science and how the science community operates. The term ignorant is applicable because even though you do not have knowledge about science you go ahead and mke inaccurate assessments anyway.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, a quote from Seavy Harcasm from the Federation of Planets, Planet Iridium Delta 10 tango or ID10t : - quote - "...yep and Clark Kent and Lois Lane will break the whole story wide open on the pages of the Daily Planet with full color pictures by Peter Parker...and they will get a Pulitzer Prize presented by the Zig-Zag man with a tattoo of quarklet8 on his forearm...I can see it now...no, really I can...all I gotta do is close my mind, er, eyes and click my heels together...tee thrimes...theres snow place like Nome...theres snow place like Nome...theres snow place like Nome...yeah, thats the ticket! " - unquote -

You don't believe we will get to the stars?
Lord Kelvin was wrong also....
I also believe we will, given time, achieve most of which is allowed by the laws of physics and GR.

Note:
Please do not take "Imaginitive predictions" to the ridiculous extreme. I'm not talking of fairies and/or goblins at the bottom of the garden, nor am I suggesting that Elephants can hang over a cliff with their tails tied to Dandelions.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

the thing is that you rarely see new science being put forward by amateurs on science forums. most do not know the basics of the theory they are trying to either change or disprove. of course science progresses by the input of novel ideas, that really goes without saying. also if you can't handle the criticism then you probably don't know your theory well enough to argue in a logical fashion for its acceptance. do you think real scientists are kind to their peers when it comes to their new theories? science isn't a good old boys club where everyone sits around being nice and agreeing with each other. a good example is the so called "Hubble Wars" between alan sandage and his opponents regarding the Hubble constant. posters on science forums get of lightly in comparison.

I get frustrated with this argument because it works both ways. People who are indoctrinated with the mainstream math based models can't see the wood for the trees. When I explain that Newton's simplistic equation of universal gravitational attraction excludes the possibility of 'exotic matter' existing within the center of the earth, moon and sun i.e. something different to everyday material found on the Earth's surface, they have a mind-blank and refuse to contemplate this possibility. The very basis of all mainstream physics is based on this idea imv, which is so entrenched in the math, that Standard Model devotees can't see beyond it.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You don't believe we will get to the stars?
Lord Kelvin was wrong also....
I also believe we will, given time, achieve most of which is allowed by the laws of physics and GR.

Note:
Please do not take "Imaginitive predictions" to the ridiculous extreme. I'm not talking of fairies and/or goblins at the bottom of the garden, nor am I suggesting that Elephants can hang over a cliff with their tails tied to Dandelions.

paddoboy, humankind may get to the stars. However it will be through REAL SCIENCE and not through a fictional character created by Gene Roddenberry.
There are indeed future Albert Einsteins coming along but their Science will be built upon hard work, a devotion to study and an intensive work ethic. Even then, their success can only be hoped for by standing on the shoulders of those of the same mold who went before them.

paddoboy, Lord Kelvin may have been wrong about some things - but he is remembered more for the things he was right about - do you know of any of those things?

You tell me to "not take "Imaginitive predictions" to the ridiculous extreme" - so...would it be wrong of me to point out your misspelling of the word "imaginative" ? If you were to make such a simple mistake in a differential equation and destroy a multi- trillion dollar "starship" by sending it at "warp speed" into the heart of a singularity - would you just shake you head and say, Hey it was only one little mistake?

There can be no shortcuts in the kind of science you are imagining, learn and completely understand the fundamentals, only then can you ever hope to "...go where no man has gone before." !!!

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, humankind may get to the stars. However it will be through REAL SCIENCE and not through a fictional character created by Gene Roddenberry.
There are indeed future Albert Einsteins coming along but their Science will be built upon hard work, a devotion to study and an intensive work ethic. Even then, their success can only be hoped for by standing on the shoulders of those of the same mold who went before them.

Given time, human kind will get to the stars.....The fictional character I used was a combination of humour and a metaphoric analogy....sheeesh!
Of course it will take hard work!...hard work, Imagination, Innovation, and plenty of application, by scientists who will most likely need to step outside the box in that endeavour.

paddoboy, Lord Kelvin may have been wrong about some things - but he is remembered more for the things he was right about - do you know of any of those things? !

If you care to check my posts, you will find somewhere I have referred to him as one of the greats, and probably used the word reputable also....But just like the greatest [Einstein] on an occasion, he let the established status quo get in the way of Imagination and his effort to support the mainstream.
Needless to say, it is those that are prepared to step outside the mainstream, that will make worthwhile discoveries....not all the time, but enough to realise that sometimes to further science and technology, it is necessary.

You tell me to "not take "Imaginitive predictions" to the ridiculous extreme" - so...would it be wrong of me to point out your misspelling of the word "imaginative" ? If you were to make such a simple mistake in a differential equation and destroy a multi- trillion dollar "starship" by sending it at "warp speed" into the heart of a singularity - would you just shake you head and say, Hey it was only one little mistake?!

If you feel like pointing out my spelling mistakes and/or punctuation mistakes, be my guest!
But please...try and refrain from being silly about it!

There can be no shortcuts in the kind of science you are imagining, learn and completely understand the fundamentals, only then can you ever hope to "...go where no man has gone before." !!!

Yep, I agree entirely!
As I have said, it takes the knowledge of great men, coupled with Imagination, some Innovation, and the desire to learn more.......





ps: Whatever spelling mistakes I make, gives good reason why I don't participating in a spelling B/forum!

 

[ash64449]

Physics is the study of the wondrous phenomena that are taking place in nature.

We,humans think that all the events that takes place in nature are according to some basic laws. Revealing these basic laws from the observed event is physics

Feynman has given a wonderful example of what it meant by "understanding the nature". Suppose we don't know the rules of the chess game. But we are given the authority to watch the moves of the players.So we may watch for long time, frame some rules to explain why player is making that move.

Sometime we may frame some wrong rule by partially watching the game. experienced player might put into use a new rule and the observer will get surprised. He will replace the old rule and frame some new rules.

Physics also goes the same way. Large events are taking place in nature. scientists try to discover the rules that are operating in nature. So they may guess the rule. And if the rules that they guessed couldn't make or cannot explain new events taking place in nature,they may have to replace them.

See, Physics is study of nature. It is real. So No one has the authority to make rules for nature. They must discover the rules by experimenting providing various evidences in support of it.

Sometimes there may be two proposals for explaining the same events. So Theories must make predictions so that we can distinguish conflicting theories. And we need to experiment those predictions.

So we can clearly understand that the definition of physics itself can help us to understand the importance of experiments and theories making their predictions and why Theories and Experimental predictions must go hand in hand.

I am not saying that we shouldn't guess the rules. You can guess different rules as you like. But Your Theories must make predictions different from the other theories and you must experiment it for its verification. We cannot simply accept theories because it is elegant or "sounds" good.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@paddoboy
"If you feel like pointing out my spelling mistakes and/or punctuation mistakes, be my guest!
But please...try and refrain from being silly about it!"
"ps: Whatever spelling mistakes I make, gives good reason why I don't participating in a spelling B/forum!"


So...if in a "spelling B/forum" - and if you were given the word - antidisestablishmentarianismist - to spell, would or should or could it be possible, in this day and age, to misspell the word?

So... would the immediately ^^above^^ be an example of taking - " "Imaginitive predictions" to the ridiculous extreme", or just "silly" - ?

I am just wondering because in the higher mathematics and physics you seem to be Posting about, the computational equivalent of "spell checking" is a fundamental prerequisite before the "established status quo" or "mainstream" would give you any credence.

However, you would not be held to the same minimum standard in publishing a work of "imaginitive" or speculative fiction.

Hope I am not just being "silly" - believe me, my Professors were a lot worse in their methods of instilling the disciplines required in this field of study.

p.s. my professors would use my errors to point out my errors to me - so your spelling is being used - when pertinent.

 

[quarklet8]

This is a good debate by all and I've been pelted with last month's food. As the saying goes, I think the "academics" have too narrow a definition of scientific method, that they are too close to the trees to see the trees- I mean the forest! I appreciate the rebuttals I've received and will respond Sunday when I'm not working. I respect academia but think that they confuse skepticism with objectivity. I don't think talking to those one disagrees with hurts but both should listen to each other. The Unknown still exists and I only want to offer some proposals to know it by broadening scientific method. Again, I want to thank SF for allowing me to debate in this their home! I come in peace ...

 

[ash64449]

This is a good debate by all and I've been pelted with last month's food. As the saying goes, I think the "academics" have too narrow a definition of scientific method, that they are too close to the trees to see the trees- I mean the forest! I appreciate the rebuttals I've received and will respond Sunday when I'm not working. I respect academia but think that they confuse skepticism with objectivity. I don't think talking to those one disagrees with hurts but both should listen to each other. The Unknown still exists and I only want to offer some proposals to know it by broadening scientific method. Again, I want to thank SF for allowing me to debate in this their home! I come in peace ...

I think there is no problem in exhibiting your "hypothesis" over here. We would accept it and hold meaningful discussions. After that you can try and experiment it for your theory for verification. Only thing is that In a Scientific Community, Theories are only accepted only if you theory has an experimental evidence and make unique predictions..

 

[Boris2]

I respect academia but think that they confuse skepticism with objectivity.

what, all of them? really, these broad statements are ridiculous. if you look at some of the new science that has occurred in the last 100 years how can you possibly support the quote?

 

[paddoboy]

@paddoboy
"If you feel like pointing out my spelling mistakes and/or punctuation mistakes, be my guest!
But please...try and refrain from being silly about it!"
"ps: Whatever spelling mistakes I make, gives good reason why I don't participating in a spelling B/forum!"


So...if in a "spelling B/forum" - and if you were given the word - antidisestablishmentarianismist - to spell, would or should or could it be possible, in this day and age, to misspell the word?

So... would the immediately ^^above^^ be an example of taking - " "Imaginitive predictions" to the ridiculous extreme", or just "silly" - ?

I am just wondering because in the higher mathematics and physics you seem to be Posting about, the computational equivalent of "spell checking" is a fundamental prerequisite before the "established status quo" or "mainstream" would give you any credence.

However, you would not be held to the same minimum standard in publishing a work of "imaginitive" or speculative fiction.

Hope I am not just being "silly" - believe me, my Professors were a lot worse in their methods of instilling the disciplines required in this field of study.

p.s. my professors would use my errors to point out my errors to me - so your spelling is being used - when pertinent.

If you really feel like dealing in pedant as opposed to the real substance of a post, I'm inclined to believe you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and don't really have an argument at all.
But hey!...Go right ahead, be my guest!
Like I said, this aint a spelling B, so I'll just keep on keeping on.


NOTE: SPELL CHECK NOR MANUAL CHECK NOT USED:

 

[dumbest man on earth]

paddoboy, try learning this stuff at a university. Believe it or not there was a very deep meaning in that Post!

 

[river]

paddoboy, try learning this stuff at a university. Believe it or not there was a very deep meaning in that Post!

Sure , I've been to University too

But we are discussing methodology

 

[Aqueous Id]

This is a good debate by all and I've been pelted with last month's food.

I see no debate to my earlier post, so from a debate perspective we have to assume that you accede to my carving your position into mulch.

As the saying goes, I think the "academics" have too narrow a definition of scientific method,

That's asinine. You sound like several other cranks that have some axe to grind with academia. By all evidence, they never got very far with their own education and harbor some kind of spiteful envy over the folks who applied themselves and got somewhere with it. If you think you can generalize to a stereotype then go study some sociology and get back with us. If you think you understand the scientific method or how it's used to explain the technology that defines the world you live in, then you're clearly in denial.

that they are too close to the trees to see the trees- I mean the forest!

Who? The folks that did the genome projects? How about the ones that are finding oil deposits so you can drive your car next month? Or maybe the medics resuscitating some unfortunate patient right now in your local hospital? Come on, we can create endless lists of people working in fields of science that are producing stuff that you benefit from daily. So what in the world are you railing about?

I appreciate the rebuttals I've received and will respond Sunday when I'm not working. I respect academia but think that they confuse skepticism with objectivity.

There is nothing respectable about not respecting academia. If you had an ounce of sense you would engage in some night classes to try to repair your idiotic view that education is somehow harmful. It doesn't even have to be science, since it obviously is one of your weak points. I would suggest a class in literature or history. You sound like your lacking in your knowledge of the humanities more than anything.

I don't think talking to those one disagrees with hurts but both should listen to each other.

Why listen to trash? Better is to dispose of the trash and move on with the awesome stuff this board has to offer.

The Unknown still exists and I only want to offer some proposals to know it by broadening scientific method.

That sounds like an allusion to God. If you're a fundamentalist, please give us one ounce of honesty by declaring it now, and let's move on. BTW God is not an unknown. It's a very well known artifact from ancient mythology.

Again, I want to thank SF for allowing me to debate in this their home! I come in peace ...

I doubt it. I think you're either a covert fundamentalist, trying to keep that pressure on the science boards For the Honor And Glory of God, or else you're up to something else. Whatever it is, it has no sense of peace to it, but of some internal war you are waging against the world for reasons you have not yet disclosed. Want to find peace? Get a college education. That's about as good as it gets as far as advocating for peace. Make peace in your own head so that you may see to remove the olive branches from mine. Hell, just give us an ounce of common sense and logic. Until then, you're just a hawk in dove's clothing. Glorifying ignorance on top of that. But to what end?

 

[paddoboy]

Sure , I've been to University too

But we are discussing methodology

Yep, sure are!
The scientific methodology and the peer review system is the best we can do but it isn't perfect.
All of us I would imagine. are curtailed somewhat by the era we live in, and the boundaries of what mainstream science sees as valid.

Einstein said 'Imagination is more important then knowledge" and he was wrong of course.
But he was trying to make a valid point, and that being that Imagination along with speculation go hand in hand with the knowledge we absorb by standing on the shoulders of giants.

I maybe wrong, but as I have stated many times, I believe mankind will achieve all that is allowed by the laws of physics and GR given time.
Yes, sure warping/manipulating space/time to achieve a perception of FTL starships, will take extraordinary amounts of energy, but as I love to remind the more pessimistic souls amongst us, other greats of the past also underestimated the advancements of technology and science....Lord Kelvin....We will never fly!....Lord Rutherford....No useful power from the atom!, and probably many more.


In summing, and in my opinion, I see the scientific method as the best there is, as long as we maintain a reasonably open mind to Imaginative and speculative ideas...For without Imagination and speculation we would probably still be swinging in the trees....and we would probably be tied to this fart arse little blue orb with stellar travel remaining an impossible dream.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

If you really feel like dealing in pedant as opposed to the real substance of a post, I'm inclined to believe you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and don't really have an argument at all.
But hey!...Go right ahead, be my guest!
Like I said, this aint a spelling B, so I'll just keep on keeping on.


NOTE: SPELL CHECK NOR MANUAL CHECK NOT USED:

paddoboy, I have never entirely disagreed with any of what you have Posted.

Also, as river pointed out, we are discussing methodology ( or possibly Methedology? OP Title!)) here.

paddoboy, there are indeed quite a few problems with current mainstream science, and sincerely, only a few of them have been touched upon in this Thread.
However, when, if and how that ever gets back on track, one thing must remain as it has always been, preciseness and attention to the smallest of details...especially in the types of science methodology being discussed in this Thread.

paddoboy, do you remember this:

Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error
October 01, 1999|ROBERT LEE HOTZ | TIMES SCIENCE WRITER
NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

A navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory used the metric system of millimeters and meters in its calculations, while Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, which designed and built the spacecraft, provided crucial acceleration data in the English system of inches, feet and pounds.
from link : http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/01/news/mn-17288

paddoboy, in Post #10 you stated : "...out there somewhere, sometime, a "Zefram Cochrane" will come to light...".

I then, in my Post #21 said "...a quote from Seavy Harcasm from the Federation of Planets...".
..."from S eavy H arcasm" - humor...wordplay...pun on Heavy Sarcasm...

paddoboy, in Post #29 you stated : "Given time, human kind will get to the stars.....The fictional character I used was a combination of humour and a metaphoric analogy....sheeesh!"

paddoboy, when I joined this thread, I was not attacking you, I was trying to point out, with humor, that indeed there was problems with Science Methodology - including mixing fiction with fact and attention to detail - along with the myriad of other problems that seemed to have "jumped on the Train since Politics and Capitalism took over the jobs of Engineer and Conductor".

paddoboy, you do not in any way seem to be anything less than intelligent and insightful.

I, dmoe, can only claim, myself to suffer delusions of adequacy when it comes to - on my best days - my mental ability.

paddoboy, please understand, I may have used a different type of humor, so you may feel that I was "...dealing in pedant as opposed to the real substance" and you may be "...inclined to believe...(that I,dmoe, am)... scraping the bottom of the barrel and don't really have an argument at all."

You are partially correct - I have no argument with you - but...pedant...scraping...?

I hope the points - I'm not arguing with you, and be precise and detailed in your Scientific Methodology - can be understood.