The power of anomalies

[Beer w/Straw]

It was uncalled for. (But a great deal of 'humor' is socially-sanctioned sadism isn't it, when people laugh at other people rather than with them?)

MR posted some opinions about scientific anomalies written by a noted contemporary scientist. I don't think that's any occasion for ridicule. It's more of an occasion for saying something intelligent about anomalies.

Yet ridicule and insults is exactly how the thread developed from post #2 on. And you just added to the stupidity.

MR didn't post his opinions.

"from post #2" where I asked MR to post his opinions, what is wrong with that?


:EDIT:

Or, is it safe to say I don't appear smart enough to you? Would that be because I don't go and simply paste other peoples words?

 

[sculptor]

post 74 was about 2 scientists who discovered anomalies
and their struggles with their data

...............
no comment?

 

[James R]

post 74 was about 2 scientists who discovered anomalies
and their struggles with their data

...............
no comment?

There was no motivation in your post that would lead anybody to watch the videos. What are we supposed to take away from them? You haven't made them relevant.

 

[exchemist]

post 74 was about 2 scientists who discovered anomalies
and their struggles with their data

...............
no comment?

Watching these would take 45 minutes of my day I don't have for such trivia. What point is made?

 

[sculptor]

There was no motivation in your post that would lead anybody to watch the videos. What are we supposed to take away from them? You haven't made them relevant.

Ok and exchemist:
Point taken
Both videos were of scientists who found anomalies----game changers--- paradigm shifters.

The first video was of paleoclimatology, wherein the team led by Julie Brigham-Grette discovered superinterglacials. They became anxious that no current climate model could encompass their data... when your data does not conform to the current paradigm, it seems as though it is extraordinary proofs time.
Great stuff they found there---including the superinterglacial mis 11 which coincides with the time that south African heidelbergensis reached over 7 ft tall with 1800 cc cranial capacity. How nice to have a climate paradigm which fits an archaeological peculiarity. Meanwhile it took them about 2.5 years to gather enough outside agreement/support for their findings before they published.

and then
The second video is by and about Tom Dillehay who excavated monte verde in Chile which was a pre-Clovis site.
Once again a paradigm(Clovis first) was threatened. Despite gathering a team of experts supporting and corroborating the findings and associated dates, Tom suffered attacks from the Clovis first mob that lasted almost 20 years. On a good day, he was accused of sloppy workmanship, and on a bad day he was accused of fraud. Many have supposed that the reason he was doubted was because the find was in the southern hemisphere. There is and was a tendency in the sciences to ignore or disregard information derived from that hemisphere----this was evident in the slow time that it took to recognize continental drift. Meanwhile circa 1997 Professor Dillehay was finally vindicated.

Both linked showed the wonder and dangers of paradigm changers.
Both relate to my areas of interest.
How silly of me to assume that both were known to and appreciated by damned near everyone.
mea culpa

 

[river]

↑

what science is about , today is conformity of thought by those who control the funding of any research .

I doubt you're in any position to comment on what working scientists actually do or think.

Though many of the non-conformist scientists that I have read about , funding is given to those that tow the mainstream line . Conformity

Working scientists are part of the production line of a product , to sell .

 

[river]

↑

Science today is about memory not original ideas .

It's possible you think that because of how science was taught to you at school. The science presented in school textbooks tends to be the science that we are very confident about. The cutting edge stuff - the controversial stuff - doesn't make it into school textbooks.

Agreed

Also, if science is taught by teachers who regard science as a collection of facts to be memorised, then we should not be surprised if their students come out of their schooling thinking that science is "about memory".

Agreed

But when these students and those that question the present paradigm in any science , they become ridiculed and humiliated and/or ignored .

Hence memorization , conformity of what is taught is the paradigm of science in the main .

 

[river]

Thanks MR for posting this thread , to me it is one of the most important threads there has been on this site .

Because it is the anomalies of Nature in all its forms that challenges the current paradigm of understanding the Natural world .

What anomalies does is call out any theory on anything and says , " fit me into your current theories " on this or that in any ology . Because if you can't then the theory is incomplete .

 

[James R]

Human life experience is the best method we have for examining reality. Science is a an overintellectualized abstraction.

How naive of you.

It isn't human life experience that has given you all the technology you depend on in your daily life. Science did that. Without science, no amount of human life experience would have given us the ability to manipulate electricity in the many ways we do, to pick just one example out of a multitude.

But when these students and those that question the present paradigm in any science , they become ridiculed and humiliated and/or ignored .

School-level students often aren't equipped to question well-established paradigms in science. That typically requires a deep understanding and many years of learning. Of course, students at all levels should be encouraged to ask questions, and no student should be ridiculed or humiliated by a teacher.

Hence memorization , conformity of what is taught is the paradigm of science in the main .

All I can say about this is that it is the opposite of how I, personally, teach science.

 

[river]

How naive of you.

It isn't human life experience that has given you all the technology you depend on in your daily life. Science did that. Without science, no amount of human life experience would have given us the ability to manipulate electricity in the many ways we do, to pick just one example out of a multitude.


School-level students often aren't equipped to question well-established paradigms in science. That typically requires a deep understanding and many years of learning. Of course, students at all levels should be encouraged to ask questions, and no student should be ridiculed or humiliated by a teacher.


All I can say about this is that it is the opposite of how I, personally, teach science.

interesting

but the ability to manipulate electricity is not congruent with this this thread .

this thread is about anomalies , not that which conforms to everyday experiences .

so while your classes inform based on classical examples , the true challenge are examples that defy main thinking .

anomalies to any theory

 

[James R]

this thread is about anomalies , not that which conforms to everyday experiences .

so while your classes inform based on classical examples , the true challenge are examples that defy main thinking .

Most of modern science is based on what were considered "anomalies", that were carefully investigated by scientists.

For example, when Michael Faraday discovered that a moving magnet could cause an electrical current to flow, that was an "anomalous" idea that had never occurred to anybody before. Today, of course, it's part of "main thinking". Among other things, our major systems for generating electricity are entirely dependent on the effect.

If science really was an edifice in which "anomalous" or novel ideas were quashed by the establishment, most of the technology we use every day would not exist.

 

[river]

Most of modern science is based on what were considered "anomalies", that were carefully investigated by scientists.

For example, when Michael Faraday discovered that a moving magnet could cause an electrical current to flow, that was an "anomalous" idea that had never occurred to anybody before. Today, of course, it's part of "main thinking". Among other things, our major systems for generating electricity are entirely dependent on the effect.

If science really was an edifice in which "anomalous" or novel ideas were quashed by the establishment, most of the technology we use every day would not exist.

that was then , 100 yrs ago . And at that time in thinking , the anomalous was thinking outside the box , and encouraged .

in the year 2018 , we have become tight fisted . we have become , conformists , the main science that is .

James Clerk Maxwell had originally 20 equations , which included longitudinal waves , but were simplified to 4 equations by , Oliver Heaviside ( 1850-1925 ) , which did not include longitudinal waves .

and this is what we base our understanding of the Universe on , transverse wave , but not on longitudinal waves

 

[James R]

that was then , 100 yrs ago . And at that time in thinking , the anomalous was thinking outside the box , and encouraged .

in the year 2018 , we have become tight fisted . we have become , conformists , the main science that is .

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think you're in any position to comment on the state of modern scientific research. As far as I can tell, you have no connection to it. I think you're most likely making assumptions based on stuff you've read or heard from pseudoscientists.

I could give you many examples of areas of active scientific research, in which there are many mutually-incompatible competing theories (hypotheses). This is business as usual in research. The "main science" is always up for grabs at the boundaries of current knowledge. It is no different now than it was 100 years ago. Crazy ideas become the "main science" if they can be sufficiently verified. That's how science works. That's how it advances. It's not perfect, but in the long run our knowledge increases, as is amply evidenced by many things we take for granted that were at one time literally unthinkable (or at least unimagined).

James Clerk Maxwell had originally 20 equations , which included longitudinal waves , but were simplified to 4 equations by , Oliver Heaviside ( 1850-1925 ) , which did not include longitudinal waves .

For starters, those 4 equations are vector equations, which expand to 12 non-vectors equations that Maxwell wrote down. I'm not quite sure whether you're saying some of the others were tossed out when they shouldn't have been. You'd need to be specific. You mention longitudinal waves. Electromagnetic waves have been shown to be transverse waves. The logical possibility that they might be longitudinal was there, but it turned out to be incorrect. There are, of course, other types of waves that are longitudinal (sound waves being an obvious example).

...and this is what we base our understanding of the Universe on , transverse wave , but not on longitudinal waves

I don't know what you're talking about. If you're saying that we don't use longitudinal waves in physics now, you're 100% wrong. If you're saying there is a conspiracy of mainstream physics to suppress longitudinal waves, that's laughable.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
that was then , 100 yrs ago . And at that time in thinking , the anomalous was thinking outside the box , and encouraged .

in the year 2018 , we have become tight fisted . we have become , conformists , the main science that is .

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't think you're in any position to comment on the state of modern scientific research. As far as I can tell, you have no connection to it. I think you're most likely making assumptions based on stuff you've read or heard from pseudoscientists.

I could give you many examples of areas of active scientific research, in which there are many mutually-incompatible competing theories (hypotheses). This is business as usual in research. The "main science" is always up for grabs at the boundaries of current knowledge. It is no different now than it was 100 years ago. Crazy ideas become the "main science" if they can be sufficiently verified. That's how science works. That's how it advances. It's not perfect, but in the long run our knowledge increases, as is amply evidenced by many things we take for granted that were at one time literally unthinkable (or at least unimagined


really then where is Halton Arp theories then on the birth of galaxies .

 

[river]

I don't know what you're talking about. If you're saying that we don't use longitudinal waves in physics now, you're 100% wrong. If you're saying there is a conspiracy of mainstream physics to suppress longitudinal waves, that's laughable.

then show me where longitudinal waves are used in the present theory of cosmology

 

[James R]

river:

Your questions sound like topics for a different thread. Briefly:

really then where is Halton Arp theories then on the birth of galaxies .

I'm not familiar with those theories. Is it your assertion that they are correct but suppressed by mainstream science? If so, perhaps you should start a thread to explain how this has occurred, or why science should take more notice of those theories.

I am assuming that the theories have not been debunked already by scientists, of course.

then show me where longitudinal waves are used in the present theory of cosmology

I'm not a cosmologist, and it's a big field of study, so I can't immediately point you to anything.

Where do you think they should be used, but are not being used? Why do you think they are needed in cosmological theories? What kind of waves are you talking about? Waves of what?

Is it your contention that mainstream cosmology is suppressing the use of longitudinal waves? If so, perhaps you should start a thread to explain how this has occurred, or why science should take more notice of those theories.

Again, it sounds like a big topic, best suited to a different thread.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
really then where is Halton Arp theories then on the birth of galaxies .


I'm not familiar with those theories. Is it your assertion that they are correct but suppressed by mainstream science? If so, perhaps you should start a thread to explain how this has occurred, or why science should take more notice of those theories.

I am assuming that the theories have not been debunked already by scientists, of course.

well it doesn't surprise me that you are not familar with Halton Arps theories on galactic birth theories

I've noticed that I can not put a quote around a quote . which I assume is your doing James

 

[James R]

well it doesn't surprise me that you are not familar with Halton Arps theories on galactic birth theories

Why should I be?

I just looked him up. He died in 2014, and his last novel contribution to science was back in the 1970s. He was a critic of the big bang theory, basing his criticism on his hypothesis that the red-shifts of some distant galaxies (quasars) might have intrinsic causes, rather than being caused by the expansion of the universe. Fred Hoyle, of steady state theory fame, was apparently a bit of fan for while.

Arp was originally an astronomer, but over time he became more and more focussed on his single idea. His findings were initially peer-reviewed and discussed extensively at scientific conferences. When they did not find favour with his colleagues, he was not deterred, but continued to pursue the same research. As this was unproductive, his telescope time was reduced.After a while, he refused to submit the normal proposals for telescope observation time, then he chose to retire early. This was in the 1980s. Since then, our observational abilities have increased enormously, and there has been reams of evidence to show that the universe is expanding. At least one study tested Arp's theory and found that it didn't stack up, though one response argued that the study might actually have shown a small effect in the direction supporting Arp's views. As if often the case in pseudoscience, this borderline effect has been seized on by some who insist that it shows that Arp was right and most of modern astrophysics is wrong.

The claim that Arp's ideas were suppressed is nonsense, as they were initially treated with respect and re-examined in 2006. No doubt future observations will tend to either confirm or further refute Arp's theory. In other words, business as usual in science.

I've noticed that I can not put a quote around a quote . which I assume is your doing James

Not my doing. When you quote a post it does not include quoted material from that post, by default. You can still manually cut and paste, though.

 

[river]

Why should I be?

I just looked him up. He died in 2014, and his last novel contribution to science was back in the 1970s. He was a critic of the big bang theory, basing his criticism on his hypothesis that the red-shifts of some distant galaxies (quasars) might have intrinsic causes, rather than being caused by the expansion of the universe. Fred Hoyle, of steady state theory fame, was apparently a bit of fan for while.

Arp was originally an astronomer, but over time he became more and more focussed on his single idea. His findings were initially peer-reviewed and discussed extensively at scientific conferences. When they did not find favour with his colleagues, he was not deterred, but continued to pursue the same research. As this was unproductive, his telescope time was reduced.After a while, he refused to submit the normal proposals for telescope observation time, then he chose to retire early. This was in the 1980s. Since then, our observational abilities have increased enormously, and there has been reams of evidence to show that the universe is expanding. At least one study tested Arp's theory and found that it didn't stack up, though one response argued that the study might actually have shown a small effect in the direction supporting Arp's views. As if often the case in pseudoscience, this borderline effect has been seized on by some who insist that it shows that Arp was right and most of modern astrophysics is wrong.

The claim that Arp's ideas were suppressed is nonsense, as they were initially treated with respect and re-examined in 2006. No doubt future observations will tend to either confirm or further refute Arp's theory. In other words, business as usual in science.


Not my doing. When you quote a post it does not include quoted material from that post, by default. You can still manually cut and paste, though.

business as usual in science indeed

 

[James R]

river:

You give the impression that you think that Arp's work has been somehow suppressed by the mainstream astronomy community. Is that what you believe?

If that is what you think, can you suggest a motive for astronomers to suppress Arp? I mean, not just his colleagues in 1980, but the guys in 2006 who didn't even know him personally, for example.

Presumably, you think it's not about oppressing him (because his peers didn't like him, for instance), but about suppressing his ideas. If you're the usual kind of conspiracy theorist (and all indications are that you are), then you must have an idea about why his ideas would threaten the evil mainstream science juggernaut.

Is it because you think there's big money to be made in supporting the big bang theory? Do you think that astronomers would be damaging their gravy train if they admitted the "truth" that there was no big bang and the universe isn't really expanding after all? Or is there some other vested interest you believe is at work here?

Do you, personally, believe the big bang theory, or are you a steady stater?

I'm most interested in why you, as somebody uneducated in astronomy, would suddenly decide to hero-worship Arp. I doubt it's because you understand his ideas or what he did. My guess is that it must be because you see him as fighting the good fight against an evil establishment. Is it because you fear the authority of mainstream science, and you want to bring it down? Or something else?