Why do scientist "think" they know everything??

[CuriosOne]

In my years of study and questioning the ideas of science that effect our world, especially the environment I "always" come across scientist whom for "political reasoning" need to bash others with discriminate words and other "in-direct" or """passive""" insults that brake forum rules systamatically to "diverge" the very fact that scientist have not one clue of what they speak of when dealing with out of the box thinkers" and authentic reasoning...

There is no such thing as a dumb question as there is no such thing as absolute concepts..

So the saying goes, there will always be better thinkers as there will always be better mouse traps, as there will always be jealousy and haters....

Edited November 9, 2020 by CuriosOne

[MigL]

You must be talking about Swansont because I'm not a scientist 😄 .
But even I know that ignorant wild-ass guesses are not what people expect from 'out of the box' thinkers.
And I've yet to see any reasoning in your posts; never mind authentic ( ? ).

[Markus Hanke]

Thinking out of the box means you acknowledge that the box is there, and then you look for meaningful ways to extend its boundaries outwards. It does not mean you discard the box and replace it with some other random shape...that would be more like taking a shot in the dark, which is rarely successful, and sometimes disastrous.

[CuriosOne]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

You must be talking about Swansont because I'm not a scientist 😄 .
But even I know that ignorant wild-ass guesses are not what people expect from 'out of the box' thinkers.
And I've yet to see any reasoning in your posts; never mind authentic ( ? ).

You not being a scientist now makes sense....Opps My Bad!🤣🤣🤣

[MigL]

I just wish you would start making sense ... Woops, my bad 🤣🤣 .

[CuriosOne]

9 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Thinking out of the box means you acknowledge that the box is there, and then you look for meaningful ways to extend its boundaries outwards. It does not mean you discard the box and replace it with some other random shape...that would be more like taking a shot in the dark, which is rarely successful, and sometimes disastrous.

It's a Nobel approach that is worth traveling, it worked for Newton and Einstein..But both however were scrutinized and scandalized much like scientist do to each other today...Its Jelousy and it disturbs comfort zones to change when theories may be incorrect or start breaking down and need upgrades..

That's what Thinking out of the box is for, it should be inspired not ridiculed.

 

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I just wish you would start making sense ... Woops, my bad 🤣🤣 .

Me too "trust me."😎

[Markus Hanke]

8 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

But both however were scrutinized and scandalized much like scientist do to each other today

Yes, and I think that’s a really important part of the process. Novel ideas need to be scrutinised, tested and evaluated in great detail, since that is the only way to establish whether they are of any scientific value or not. This being said, this process needs to happen within reason - sometimes peer reviews read like personal vendettas, and to me that’s not ok. But that’s just human nature.

13 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

it disturbs comfort zones to change when theories may be incorrect or start breaking down and need upgrades

I disagree. Every single physicist I know wants to see new physics being discovered...simply because that’s where the excitement and gratification comes in. As scientists we are driven by one basic motivation - curiosity, a desire to know and discover. Discovering new physics would be the pinnacle of every scientist’s career, so no one feels “threatened” by this.
For example, my own area of expertise is General Relativity; I am perfectly aware that the model has limitations, and that it breaks down if you extend it too far. It’s evidently an effective theory that is the limit of some more fundamental model. I would love nothing more than to know what that underlying level of reality is...but that does not mean I would just blindly accept any old idea that someone puts forward to extend GR. I am very sceptical towards all new ideas, until such time when they have been thoroughly investigated and tested. That’s how science works.

People usually only see the one model that has been accepted into mainstream science, but they can’t see the 9999 other models that were also proposed, but ultimately turned out not to work.

[CuriosOne]

7 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, and I think that’s a really important part of the process. Novel ideas need to be scrutinised, tested and evaluated in great detail, since that is the only way to establish whether they are of any scientific value or not. This being said, this process needs to happen within reason - sometimes peer reviews read like personal vendettas, and to me that’s not ok. But that’s just human nature.

I disagree. Every single physicist I know wants to see new physics being discovered...simply because that’s where the excitement and gratification comes in. As scientists we are driven by one basic motivation - curiosity, a desire to know and discover. Discovering new physics would be the pinnacle of every scientist’s career, so no one feels “threatened” by this.
For example, my own area of expertise is General Relativity; I am perfectly aware that the model has limitations, and that it breaks down if you extend it too far. It’s evidently an effective theory that is the limit of some more fundamental model. I would love nothing more than to know what that underlying level of reality is...but that does not mean I would just blindly accept any old idea that someone puts forward to extend GR. I am very sceptical towards all new ideas, until such time when they have been thoroughly investigated and tested. That’s how science works.

People usually only see the one model that has been accepted into mainstream science, but they can’t see the 9999 other models that were also proposed, but ultimately turned out not to work.

Very well put...And thanxxx..I really want to get back into General Relativity, I miss seeing my wall to wall notes in front of my desk, it made the learning curve easier..

[swansont]

5 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

In my years of study and questioning the ideas of science that effect our world, especially the environment I "always" come across scientist whom for "political reasoning" need to bash others with discriminate words and other "in-direct" or """passive""" insults that brake forum rules systamatically to "diverge" the very fact that scientist have not one clue of what they speak of when dealing with out of the box thinkers" and authentic reasoning...

I don't care if the thinking is out of the box, but there has to be some physical basis for the ideas, and at the end of it all, a model has to be compared to experiment/observation.

 

5 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

There is no such thing as a dumb question as there is no such thing as absolute concepts..

OTOH, words have meaning, and concepts are laid out on some sort of framework. You can't make up new definitions on a whim, or whip up a concept out of thin air.

 

 

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

In my years of study and questioning the ideas of science that effect our world,

8 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

So the saying goes, there will always be better thinkers as there will always be better mouse traps, as there will always be jealousy and haters....

When I snip out the middle part of your OP, I think the answer to your title becomes more apparent.

You've spent "years of study", but you've always rejected mainstream explanations. Now you're YEARS down the line, sounding pretty bitter, arguing with people who make this stuff work every day, YET you somehow believe you're a "better thinker" thinking up "better mouse traps", and blame it all on jealousy and hate?! Does that sound reasonable? 

You have to know what's inside the box very well before you have the capacity to realize you need to think outside it. Maybe the confidence of having their explanations actually work makes it seem like scientists "think they know everything". Explanations that work, that give us the power to predict what will happen next, this is what's important. 

[John Cuthber]

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by John Cuthber

[CuriosOne]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

I was told posting videos was against Forum Rules, """my point exactly""" thnks for validating my point....

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't care if the thinking is out of the box, but there has to be some physical basis for the ideas, and at the end of it all, a model has to be compared to experiment/observation.

 

OTOH, words have meaning, and concepts are laid out on some sort of framework. You can't make up new definitions on a whim, or whip up a concept out of thin air.

 

 

My point exactly, thats why asking questions about a subject "even if the questions" don't fall into the category of science itself is important....Scientist make it as though speaking requires rules like mathematics.

[joigus]

I was going to say that from where you stand, you can't even see the box, but Hanke and Phi have read my mind. Get in the box as soon as you can, study it, and then learn how to open its doors/windows.

That's the last thing I can say, honestly. Life is too short.

[CuriosOne]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

When I snip out the middle part of your OP, I think the answer to your title becomes more apparent.

You've spent "years of study", but you've always rejected mainstream explanations. Now you're YEARS down the line, sounding pretty bitter, arguing with people who make this stuff work every day, YET you somehow believe you're a "better thinker" thinking up "better mouse traps", and blame it all on jealousy and hate?! Does that sound reasonable? 

You have to know what's inside the box very well before you have the capacity to realize you need to think outside it. Maybe the confidence of having their explanations actually work makes it seem like scientists "think they know everything". Explanations that work, that give us the power to predict what will happen next, this is what's important. 

I've known members here to be professionals in their field, and I do welcome anyone a challenge to prove my post have been either offensive or disrespectfull....

""Give respect to be respected. ""

One of my books say "You cannot devide By Zero" 

Another says y' = 2x 

How do we know if 2 is a natural number or a coefficient? And why not just say 2x^1 and is 1 a natural number or not..

This information "comes" from scientist not me..

 

And yet "yall" have a conversation on quantum foam, the Higgs field, Plank lenth and quarks, "without ever have seen these, and have somehow an issue with questions i ask?

Now that's funny....LMFAO..

[MigL]

Joigus says "get in the box" and study its contents.
Dara O'Briain says " get in the sack" and take your lumps.
The choice is up to you.

Sorry if I was somewhat abrupt ( possibly rude ) with you last night.
I was feeling 'testy' and you got on my nerves with what you call 'science' ( it isn't ).

13 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

"yall" have a conversation on quantum foam, the Higgs field, Plank lenth and quarks, "without ever have seen these

But we have seen their effects and consequences of their existence.
So even if some things ( Swansont likes to use 'phonons' ) aren't real, they are built into the model, or theory, to account for the effects which we observe.

 

18 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

One of my books say "You cannot devide By Zero" 
Another says y' = 2x 
How do we know if 2 is a natural number or a coefficient? And why not just say 2x^1

Division by zero is undefined.
You can certainly devide by zero, but don't expect it to mean anything.
Again, we look at effects, so you tell me, how is 2x different from 2x¹  ?
That is the self consistency of math, as opposed to words.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I've known members here to be professionals in their field, and I do welcome anyone a challenge to prove my post have been either offensive or disrespectfull....

I missed where anyone said this at all, and I certainly didn't mention it, so I don't know why you quoted me as if it's a response to what I said. Part of discussion is responding to what's actually been said, otherwise everybody but you is superfluous. 

12 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

""Give respect to be respected. ""

This actually isn't as important here as you think. Civility is what we want when it comes to personal behavior, but ideas should stand on their own merit (attack ideas, not people). I don't have to "respect" any idea, I just have to analyze it to see if it explains what it's supposed to. If it's a good idea, that becomes apparent when discussing it. 

18 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

One of my books say "You cannot devide By Zero" 

Another says y' = 2x 

How do we know if 2 is a natural number or a coefficient? And why not just say 2x^1 and is 1 a natural number or not..

This information "comes" from scientist not me..

If you hadn't made the decision long ago that science is wrong, the questions you ask would be different, and might help you solve your dilemma. You may have unintentionally blocked the path to learning by filtering out the explanations you didn't immediately understand. 

By way of analogy, it's like you're trying to drive to a certain city but you're convinced the GPS is lying to you, so you keep taking all kinds of shortcuts, going every way EXCEPT the way the navigation software advises. "Years of study" later, you're still nowhere near the city, and cursing the GPS device.

[CuriosOne]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Joigus says "get in the box" and study its contents.
Dara O'Briain says " get in the sack" and take your lumps.
The choice is up to you.

Sorry if I was somewhat abrupt ( possibly rude ) with you last night.
I was feeling 'testy' and you got on my nerves with what you call 'science' ( it isn't ).

But we have seen their effects and consequences of their existence.
So even if some things ( Swansont likes to use 'phonons' ) aren't real, they are built into the model, or theory, to account for the effects which we observe.

 

Division by zero is undefined.
You can certainly devide by zero, but don't expect it to mean anything.
Again, we look at effects, so you tell me, how is 2x different from 2x¹  ?
That is the self consistency of math, as opposed to words.

Thanks for acknowledging that..

I think I just need to accept that numbers on their own "act" independent from our math concepts just as a particle acts as a wave...

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I missed where anyone said this at all, and I certainly didn't mention it, so I don't know why you quoted me as if it's a response to what I said. Part of discussion is responding to what's actually been said, otherwise everybody but you is superfluous. 

This actually isn't as important here as you think. Civility is what we want when it comes to personal behavior, but ideas should stand on their own merit (attack ideas, not people). I don't have to "respect" any idea, I just have to analyze it to see if it explains what it's supposed to. If it's a good idea, that becomes apparent when discussing it. 

If you hadn't made the decision long ago that science is wrong, the questions you ask would be different, and might help you solve your dilemma. You may have unintentionally blocked the path to learning by filtering out the explanations you didn't immediately understand. 

By way of analogy, it's like you're trying to drive to a certain city but you're convinced the GPS is lying to you, so you keep taking all kinds of shortcuts, going every way EXCEPT the way the navigation software advises. "Years of study" later, you're still nowhere near the city, and cursing the GPS device.

I can agree, but im under impression that no one really knows what numbers "represent", I've read to treat pi as a number, then I read treat pi as an exponent, then I read pi really is base 10.. 

Distribution and Algebrea make it worse.

I'm sure other scientist had similar encounters with this situation..

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

I was told posting videos was against Forum Rules,

I'm willing to bet you were not, or, at least you were not told that by any competent authority.
BTW, the formatting seems a bit scrambled and my caption has gone missing somehow.
It said "One minute fifty seconds."

So, go on. Show us where you were told that.
Or... admit you can't even tell the truth.

5 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

then I read pi really is base 10.. 

Again; where did you read that?

Edited November 9, 2020 by John Cuthber

[CuriosOne]

40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm willing to bet you were not, or, at least you were not told that by any competent authority.
BTW, the formatting seems a bit scrambled and my caption has gone missing somehow.
It said "One minute fifty seconds."

So, go on. Show us where you were told that.
Or... admit you can't even tell the truth.

Again; where did you read that?

Here is the mod note that says placing videos is against forums rules...

Here is a snap shot photo

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by CuriosOne

[MigL]

Videos can be used to supplement ( or complement ) your argument.
Videos cannot be used as ( or instead of ) your argument.

Subtle difference in posting, but makes a big difference in discussion.

[CuriosOne]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Videos can be used to supplement ( or complement ) your argument.
Videos cannot be used as ( or instead of ) your argument.

Subtle difference in posting, but makes a big difference in discussion.

In other words "if your one of our buddies you can post videos"

[iNow]

Sigh. 

You can post a video. You need to summarize with words why you’re sharing it, how it’s relevant to the discussion, and ideally tell us what section of the video is most pertinent.

This isn’t exactly rocket science 

[CuriosOne]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sigh. 

You can post a video. You need to summarize with words why you’re sharing it, how it’s relevant to the discussion, and ideally tell us what section of the video is most pertinent.

This isn’t exactly rocket science 

I was told "directly that posting any videos" was against forum rules, so you validate the unfairness going on..ThnXxx

Here is the link:

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by CuriosOne

[Janus]

9 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I was told "directly that posting any videos" was against forum rules, so you validate the unfairness going on..ThnXxx

Here is the link:

 

 

No, you were not.  You were told that posting a video alone, so that someone has to watch the video in order to participate in the thread is against the rules, as stated in this quote from the rules.

"Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone."

You weren't told that you can't post any videos, just that that you didn't follow the proper rules for posting videos.

 

 

[CuriosOne]

19 minutes ago, Janus said:

No, you were not.  You were told that posting a video alone, so that someone has to watch the video in order to participate in the thread is against the rules, as stated in this quote from the rules.

"Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone."

You weren't told that you can't post any videos, just that that you didn't follow the proper rules for posting videos.

 

 

My video and post "both spoke about the "3rd dimension" here is a snap photo..You also just validated the unfairness here, so Thnxxx.

 

 

......

 

What does this video have to do with the OP???

 

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

What Does This Video Have To Do With My OP??? And Where Are The Moderators??

Edited November 10, 2020 by CuriosOne