blike Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 1. He considers himself a genius. 2. He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. 3. He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and best established theories. 4. He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. (note, this was not my list, i'll have to dig up where i got it) Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; © being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible. Just so we're clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Well said. Succinctly and in a nutshell. Common sense, reason, intelligence, and education. Thats a lot to expect but its right to expect. Thanks Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 22, 2002 Author Share Posted July 22, 2002 Check your PMs aman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 This is my new favorite thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenel Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Psue Psue Psuedio..... - Phil Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halogen Fisk Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 A lenghty but related cut & paste. I believe Carl Sagan was the author: A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstein", "Hawking" or "Feynman". 9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to university, as if this were evidence of sanity. 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at maths, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 17. 10 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20. 20 points for each favourable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his undergraduate physics textbooks.) 26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilisation (without good evidence). 28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, etc. 29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasising about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I scored 50. Did I win? Whel hell It was a bad idea anyway. So you win with a -4. Thanks Halogen Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 discounting these: 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. zarkov gets something in the region of 210 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I would then suggest that the more "radical" one scores then the more accepted science is in need of an overhaul. But let the sheep bleet, and Bar every new thought, without even knowing the first principles of science or it's methodology. Come and visit my corner of the forum sometime and judge for yourself if it is The Cutting Edge of Science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 it also could point to the fact that everything you say is wrong. were I to say the following: I have been studying the moon for many years, and have discovered that it is actually made of cheese, and it is actually the earth's repulsion to the smell that is holding it up, and hance Newton is completely wrong. If newton is wrong then Einstein must be wrong as well. NASA has never actually been there, and the US Government is supressing this information, as it would prove the existance of aliens since they are the only peple who could make such a large amount of cheese. I defy anyone to prove me wrong, and I would wager my life on it. this would score quite highly, but it doesn't exactly point to science needing an overhaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Yes Radical E, you hit the nail on the head. This example has evidence contrary to experience re cheese, smell etc. Now the rub....just because I do not agree with some accepted opinions (theories etc) does not make my science incorrect. I would be the first to complain about that aspect. I have laid out several new opinions, so??? I challenge people to show me the science is incorrect........and don't tell me it doesn't agree with such and such's opinion........ Speak the science not the theory, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halogen Fisk Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Hi Zarkov, first time I've spoken to you on this forum. How's the Tassie chill? Originally posted by Zarkov I challenge people to show me the science is incorrect. Again & again people on these forums will say: "The onus is on the author of the new theory to provide proof" otherwise we'd have to accept Radical Edward's Smelly repulsion theory until we could mount a "REAL" moon mission to prove him wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Hi Halogen, well then that could well be the case in that instan't, if that was his opinion. Except we could test some of the cheese theory here on rat infested Earth......reason why we don't have as much cheese here!!! Tassie.......... Cold, cold and more cold.....miserable being stuck indoors, but at least we got plenty of water, not like some of the poor USA citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I think all the people on the other side of the planet are upside down. Doesn't that get distracting? When the moon gets down below on the other side, just jump off the world head first and check it out. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Aman, they tell me jumping on your head down here prevents the Moon illusion near the horizon!!! Maybe you guys should do the same, Ha Ha. PS for your massive drought, install pyramid water, just give me a call!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 I think today is a good day for a bump here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 This thread is rather fine imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenel Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 Guess what I think? BUMP! :spam: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 I still like the test at the top. First post has a lot of validity Halogen Fisk has presented the near perfect way to determine ---->:bs:. I think if you don't get a decent score then it's psuedoscience. I've got a few ideas that score under zero and I love discussing them. It still is very hard to discuss serious subjects in a chat room. Scientists can still have a sense of humor and I'm glad you keep it balanced fafalone. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 Does rating work? [edit] Ah yes, i see it does [/edit] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 11, 2002 Share Posted August 11, 2002 BUMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 10, 2002 Share Posted September 10, 2002 can we get another bump here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael77 Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 BUMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 Science is the study of ideas, using ultimately reality as a deferred goal. How you guys, logic thinkers ever going to get ideas! You need creative thinkers, who couldn't give a rats about your logic!!! The concepts used at the start only help to bury logic heads deeper in the sand pit that they all play in................. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now