Gravity 2: Evoking the Moderator’s wrath

[Anilkumar]

In a mainstream section of the Forum. Only mainstream answers should be given.

 

 

Even if they are wrong?

 

I think this canon needs to be debated.

 

 

Not here. Being wrong is not against the rules (unless you take to the extreme of soapboxing). Hijacking threads is.

 

. . . It is inappropriate to complain or question that in a thread dedicated to some other topic . . .

 

Of course, I would not do it there. I was just indicating it is necessary. Whatever I said in the thread I did it to show what is necessary. I was not going discuss there, why & how it is necessary. I was indicating the necessity where the necessity arose.

 

 

The rules of the forum dictate that answers to inquiries be mainstream science, and that non-mainstream discussions happen in the appropriate place.

 

When the inconsistencies in a Mainstream theory are made obvious by an offbeat thought isn't it appropriate to appraise the inquirer of it. If not done, would it not amount to concealing the Truth in order to protect the Mainstream theory, and eventually be injustice meted out to the inquirer?

 

There is nobody here that can make the determination that mainstream science is wrong; that's a matter of scientific consensus.

 

How I love your honesty, Swansont. You are a sweetest guy I have met in my life.

 

But,

 

Won't the world come to know a Truth, when someone braves to say it?

 

Is scientific consensus a better evidence for the Truth than the Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence made available by an offbeat idea?

 

Historically, have we not come through instances where we witnessed that the consensus theory was wrong and the offbeat theory Right, and the intellectual brave started speaking for it and eventually a new consensus is reached?

 

It is by the brave that the world comes to know about the Truth.

 

When we say Consensus should be preferred in place of Truth, isn't it dogmatic and so Unscientific?

 

Are we propagating Scientific Truth or Unscientific dogma?

 

Moreover my demand is not for making the determination that a mainstream theory is wrong, but instead the demand is for a mention of the 'genuine criticism of the theory that has made the inconsistencies obvious & given Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence' along, while mentioning the mainstream theory. While mentioning the mainstream theory, if we do not mention the 'genuine criticism which made the inconsistencies obvious along & gave Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence', are we not doing injustice to the inquirer, to science and to humanity as a whole?

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I would like to propose the introduction of another sub forum for the Critical learners who make inquiries to learn critically and Explore Truth, and where both the mainstream & offbeat thoughts are critically discussed and they try each other out, sweat it out and if the Mainstream theory convinces everyone it shines with brilliance. If there is place for correction, it could happen. IMHO The current Rules are not efficient because when a critical learner posts inquiries in the main forum, she would never come in touch with the offbeat thoughts that has addressed genuinely the inconsistencies in the mainstream theory by giving Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence, due to prohibition of offbeat thoughts there. Firstly, let there be the Mainstream forum where the inviolability of the mainstream theories is maintained [i don't know for what! God help this world. While Science questions the 'holiness' of God, WE want to make scientific theories Holy]. Secondly, let there be the place for scrutinizing the offbeat ideas. And thirdly, let there also be a Hybrid of these two, where a critical learner poses a question with the intention of Exploring/Re-exploring Truth and both mainstream & Offbeat views sweat it out & try each other out, and in the process, the intricacies of a theory/phenomenon are dissected and examined intently and ultimately when the Truth triumphs [Even if it is mostly the Mainstream view], the learner has a great experience along with everybody else. And here, in the third Hybrid forum; let the Truth triumph on its own strength and the world will see Truth.

 

Otherwise, when the inconsistencies in a mainstream theory are genuinely brought out & given solutions by someone's offbeat ideas, but are prohibited from keeping them before the critical learner it will eventually culminate;

 

Mainstream forum into a place where you are not allowed to speak the Truth.

 

Mainstream forum into a place where Speaking Truth amounts to Breaking rules.

 

Mainstream forum into a place where you are forced to amuse yourself with Falsehood.

 

Mainstream forum into a place where, the Unscientific practice of upholding Consensus is practiced.

 

Therefore, let there be a forum where the consensus view is orated.

 

Let there be a forum where the Truth is Explored.

 

And let there be a forum where the offbeat ideas are scrutinized.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Swansont,

 

I don't understand why there is readiness to stand for something that is widely accepted.

 

I don't understand why there is no readiness to stand for something that is True.

 

If everyone says 'I am not doing it', then should Truth be left unauthenticated by the world, until the Brave & Wise arrive and dare to authenticate it?

 

It is a mystery that there is such apathy towards Truth while the world sustains on Truth.

 

Why do the Brave & Wise become famous?

 

Because, the cowards & unwise make them famous by looking at them with their jaws wide open, wondering & asking themselves, 'how could they do, that we couldn't do? and bring us Truth.'

Edited October 9, 2012 by Anilkumar

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's really very simple. We have the mainstream science forums, where questions and threads are to be responded to using mainstream and accepted science. For everything else, there's the Speculations forum.

 

We're not trying to censor anyone who genuinely wants to discuss alternate hypotheses to whatever, but we do want to try and keep this place a little more streamlined and less confusing for new-comers.

[ajb]

There is a fine line here between scientifically based speculation and "pulling stuff out of thin air".

 

Mainstream science needs people to find the holes and gaps in our understanding. People then attempt to fill these gaps, which can involve a lot of initial speculation and creativity. The point is that this will be based on current scientific thinking and constructed using the right language, which for physics will inevitably be mathematics.

 

The problem with open forums is that people can present their ideas, well founded or not, as if they were scientifically accepted. Those of us that are educated in science can usually spot such posts, usually the language is just wrong. I imagine for the layperson this cannot be so easy.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

My own opinion is that well founded speculation and even "what if" questions (as long as they are posed to gain deeper understanding) should be placed in the standard forums. Discussing fringe ideas is a tricky one to place. Unless the theory has been totally debunked I would rather see it in the main forums, provided that the subject has had some scientific attention. By this I mean that a paper on the subject has been published, or at least an arXiv preprint has been submitted. If the idea has not appeared in the scientific literature then you should be prepared for a harsh critic and not take this personally. *

 

Even debunked theories can be interesting and understanding why they fail can be important. So again, I would welcome a thread on some theory now known to be wrong in order to understand why it is wrong. For example, a scientific discussion of the aether is possible, but all too often the aim of such threads is to reassert that it does exist.

 

*Much like arguing with the referees for a journal submission, arguing with the moderators here is unlikely to help your case.

[swansont]

My own opinion is that well founded speculation and even "what if" questions (as long as they are posed to gain deeper understanding) should be placed in the standard forums.

The guideline I try to apply is that if the person is asking a question, it generally stays in the mainstream forum. If the person is proposing an alternative, it goes into speculations. If we ever get a well-founded speculation that is the latter, then we'll see. What we usually get is a mishmash of misused terminology and hand-waving, narrowly focused on one small area of science, with a dash (or more) of megalomania which manifests itself as "This is all true because I'm right, dammit!" or some similar attitude. What we don't get is anything resembling a model, with testable predictions and a way to potentially falsify it, that fits in with the breadth and depth of existing evidence.

[Ophiolite]

Anilkumar, you keep going on about the "Truth". (I have to continually fight down images of Jack Nicholson when anyone mentions a capitalised truth, but that's my cross.) You believe, passionately it would seem, that you have the Truth, or at least a small part of it as it concerns certain current mainstream theories. That's wonderful and you may be right.

 

You think this Truth should be obvious to anyone who takes the time and trouble to consider the facts. The interesting thing is that hundreds, probably thousands of people have done exactly that and they have not seen what you have seen. This does not make you wrong and them right, but it increases the probability that you do not have the Truth.

 

Further, every years scores, even hundreds of persons come onto internet forums claiming that they have some special version of the Truth. What would be the effect of allowing all of them to post that Truth in any thread just so they could make people aware of an alternative view? You seem to think your Truth is so much more compelling that all the other Truth's people wish to promote. A skeptical audience says so far it does not seem that way - and the skeptical audience is employing the same scientific method you seem to applaud.

 

So you nee to take your Truth and argue for it in the appropriate sub-forum. If it is the Truth it will eventually win out - good luck with that. But please stop gumming up the discussions of mainstream science and misleading lurkers and neophytes as to the current understanding of truth, Truth and the scientific method.

[swansont]

Historically, have we not come through instances where we witnessed that the consensus theory was wrong and the offbeat theory Right, and the intellectual brave started speaking for it and eventually a new consensus is reached?

Have we? Do you have some examples in mind? How did those situations go? Were these new offbeat theories presented as conjecture, or were they models presented with evidence that made predictions and could be falsified? Did the theories they supplanted make incorrect predictions, or did they merely offend the sensibilities of their detractors?

[Anilkumar]

It's really very simple. We have the mainstream science forums, where questions and threads are to be responded to using mainstream and accepted science. For everything else, there's the Speculations forum.

 

We're not trying to censor anyone who genuinely wants to discuss alternate hypotheses to whatever, but we do want to try and keep this place a little more streamlined and less confusing for new-comers.

 

That was really a very simple, short, up to the mark, sweet, nicely put and perfectly correct description of the motto of the mainstream science forum. However, it doesn't completely give a description of the motto of SFN. Please give a similarly very simple, short, up to the mark, sweet, nicely put and perfectly correct description of the motto of the Speculation forum to complete it. Saying 'everything else' doesn't much give a description of the motto of the Speculation forum.

 

Having said that;

 

Which one would you choose, when suppose you face the dilemma of selecting between a mainstream Untruth and an offbeat Truth?

 

And if I ask you to help me choose, what would be your advice? So in that sense;

 

Is Science mainstream or offbeat?

 

Does some idea become mainstream all of a sudden, or gradually from its initial stage of when it was offbeat once? So in that sense,

 

Is Science Really mainstream or offbeat?

 

Or; is it that;

 

when something becomes mainstream it becomes Science? And so all that is non-mainstream is not Science? Ether was once Science & GR was once offbeat. So in that sense;

 

Is Science mainstream or offbeat?

 

Does the value of any Truth increase, by any amount, when it becomes mainstream? Does the value of any Truth decrease, by any amount, because it is offbeat?

 

What makes an offbeat thought mainstream?

 

Don't; 'Scrutiny', and then if found well-substantiated, 'Consideration', and then 'Verification', take an offbeat Truth on the journey to become Mainstream? So it is Scrutiny, Consideration, Verification that generate Scientific Truths. Guarding the mainstream theories doesn't create Science and isn't Science. In that sense;

 

Is Science mainstream or offbeat?

 

Isn't promoting and guarding a theory because it is mainstream even when an offbeat thought stringently disproves it, using the scientific method, a social dogma but not a scientific procedure?

 

Whether an idea should be expressed in the mainstream forum, should not be decided by the criteria that whether it is Mainstream or Offbeat but it should be decided on the fact whether it is scientific or not. In that sense;

 

Is Science mainstream or offbeat? And in every other sense;

 

Is Science mainstream or offbeat?

 

Is Truth mainstream or offbeat?

 

Science is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Science is scientific.

 

Truth is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Truth is Truthful.

 

Dogmas are either Mainstream or Offbeat. They are not Science. They are not Truth.

 

The Maxi was Mainstream once. However, the Mini was offbeat then.

 

The Mini is Mainstream now. The Maxi is offbeat now. [i don't know exactly but we would have to ask the Fashion designers. That was just an analogy.]

 

Dogmas are not Truths. They are just Trends; Personal Likings.

 

To believe that space-time curves is just a Trend. A personal liking for the popular thought, without any scientific base. It is traditionally being followed & carried on, due to the lack of something to assign the Curvature to. The Curvature, a Physical characteristic or a Structural attribute has been laden/assigned to the Non-physical, the Non-structural entities, the Space & Time. All the interactions of the Universe are done through the Physical structures and the Forces. Space & Time have neither Structure nor Force, with them to interact with those who have it. This is a very simple, Truth. No Dogma, Personal liking, Popular belief, or Trend can have the ability to deny it.

 

Thank you, for your kind interaction.

 

 

 

My own opinion is that well founded speculation and even "what if" questions (as long as they are posed to gain deeper understanding) should be placed in the standard forums. Discussing fringe ideas is a tricky one to place. Unless the theory has been totally debunked I would rather see it in the main forums, provided that the subject has had some scientific attention. By this I mean that a paper on the subject has been published, or at least an arXiv preprint has been submitted. If the idea has not appeared in the scientific literature then you should be prepared for a harsh critic and not take this personally. *

 

Even debunked theories can be interesting and understanding why they fail can be important. So again, I would welcome a thread on some theory now known to be wrong in order to understand why it is wrong. For example, a scientific discussion of the aether is possible, but all too often the aim of such threads is to reassert that it does exist.

 

*Much like arguing with the referees for a journal submission, arguing with the moderators here is unlikely to help your case.

 

How is an argument on an offbeat theory with the proficient on the forum, different from the argument with the referees for a journal submission?

Thanks Ajb, for the interaction.

 

The guideline I try to apply is that if the person is asking a question, it generally stays in the mainstream forum. If the person is proposing an alternative, it goes into speculations.

 

 

That is well-founded.

 

If we ever get a well-founded speculation that is the latter, then we'll see.

 

 

That's gallant.

 

The world is indebted to the Gallant. It is because of the Righteousness of the Gallant, that the world lives happily, if it does. And it is because of the Fear of the Coward and the Rudeness of the Greedy that the world lives in sorrow, if it does. It is the Gallant who fight the Coward & the Rude to establish Truth, so that They & All else live happily. So nothing can repay what the Gallant & Righteous do to this world.

 

 

There is a fine line here between scientifically based speculation and "pulling stuff out of thin air".

 

Mainstream science needs people to find the holes and gaps in our understanding. People then attempt to fill these gaps, which can involve a lot of initial speculation and creativity. The point is that this will be based on current scientific thinking and constructed using the right language, which for physics will inevitably be mathematics.

 

The problem with open forums is that people can present their ideas, well founded or not, as if they were scientifically accepted. Those of us that are educated in science can usually spot such posts, usually the language is just wrong. I imagine for the layperson this cannot be so easy.

 

 

What we usually get is a mishmash of misused terminology and hand-waving, narrowly focused on one small area of science, with a dash (or more) of megalomania which manifests itself as "This is all true because I'm right, dammit!" or some similar attitude. What we don't get is anything resembling a model, with testable predictions and a way to potentially falsify it, that fits in with the breadth and depth of existing evidence.

 

Have we? Do you have some examples in mind? How did those situations go? Were these new offbeat theories presented as conjecture, or were they models presented with evidence that made predictions and could be falsified? Did the theories they supplanted make incorrect predictions, or did they merely offend the sensibilities of their detractors?

 

I have placed well-founded, Logical, ways to potentially falsify, Model with testable predictions and indisputable evidence based on current scientific thinking that pinpoint the holes and gaps in our understanding of the space-time curvature hypothesis. Example here, on the relevant post.

 

 

 

Anilkumar, you keep going on about the "Truth". (I have to continually fight down images of Jack Nicholson when anyone mentions a capitalised truth, but that's my cross.)

 

 

We all sustain on one thing, it's not Petrol, Money, Military power etc but it is Truth. Our Machines Run not on Petrol, but on the Truth we know about Petrol that it burns. When we buy something, we don't buy it with the money in our possession, but with the Truth we abide by & that we have attached to the currency bill that says, 'this bill will not fail to give the possessor the promised worth conferred by us on this bill'. We wage wars not with the help of the soldiers, but with the Truth that the soldiers abide by, True-fully, to die for their nation. When someone utters the word 'Truth', whether capitalized or not, this face of Truth comes to my mind; not Jack Nicholson's. And Logic is the thing that holds my hand and helps me differentiate between Truth & Truth-like.

 

 

 

You believe, passionately it would seem, that you have the Truth,

 

 

No power in this Universe can HAVE Truth. All one can do is, pitifully abide by it, to exist, after seeing it. It is something like Oxygen for the Living. You go in search of it from, a place where there is Lack of it, to, a place where it is Available, to exist. And I consider this Forum/Discussion, a Vehicle to search for it. I don't believe I HAVE Truth. I want this Vehicle to take me there, where it exists. And all else. Here, the Righteous and the Courageous would be of great help in the search.

 

 

You think this Truth should be obvious to anyone who takes the time and trouble to consider the facts. The interesting thing is that hundreds, probably thousands of people have done exactly that and they have not seen what you have seen.

 

 

Everybody feels that they have seen the Truth. However, Truth can only be seen when we have three main things with us among others, and those are; one is the Humility that 'I could be wrong' and the other is the Courage to say it if Right & face it if Wrong and the third is the Restraint from the temporary pleasure one may get by fanatically maintaining that theirs is the Truth. If we have these things with us, our search would become Truth-full and lead to Rational thought & Righteous discussion, and then we can rest assured that we will see Truth, the tools of search being Rational thought & Discussion.

 

 

This does not make you wrong and them right, but it increases the probability that you do not have the Truth.

 

No, it does not increase or decrease the probability. Thousands of people saw that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or that there is Ether, but that did not increase the probability of them being the truths, a bit.

 

 

Further, every years scores, even hundreds of persons come onto internet forums claiming that they have some special version of the Truth. What would be the effect of allowing all of them to post that Truth in any thread just so they could make people aware of an alternative view?

 

 

Though everyone thinks, they have seen the Truth; Truth is only one. We can arrive at it by Rational discussion. I am not advocating the posting of every thought in every thread. I have already mentioned that a new idea should be presented in the speculations forum for scrutiny first. Then if it is well-founded, it should be allowed to be mentioned as an offbeat alternative thought in the mainstream forum. That is the service we can do to Science & Truth and ultimately help ourselves and society.

 

You seem to think your Truth is so much more compelling that all the other Truth's people wish to promote. A skeptical audience says so far it does not seem that way - and the skeptical audience is employing the same scientific method you seem to applaud.

 

 

Truth is not established by promoting it. It is established by the Truth contained in it and that in turn is established by the scientific methods.

 

I have resolved all the Skeptical questions raised. However, the Skepitical questions raised by me have been eluded. This SURELY increases the Probability that what I have seen, could be the Truth.

 

 

So you nee to take your Truth and argue for it in the appropriate sub-forum. If it is the Truth it will eventually win out - good luck with that.

 

 

I have done it. Thank you for your wishes. Good luck to us, all. When a person's opinion is found to be true, that person is not the sole beneficiary, we all are benefited. We all benefit from Truth. But if it is rejected on some dogmatic ground then all are deprived of the benefit.

 

 

But please stop gumming up the discussions of mainstream science and misleading lurkers and neophytes as to the current understanding of truth, Truth and the scientific method.

 

 

As to Gumming up; While I am gumming the discussions of mainstream Science, and I am Rightly doing it, with the Truth found by scientific methods, the mainstream thought is gumming up Science itself, and Wrongly doing it, by eluding a Truth established by scientific methods and promoting an Illicit, False Assumption, misleading the world.

 

Thank you Ophiolite, for your interaction, thank you all.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Ophiolite]

OK. I'll switch to plan B. It's more aggressive, but it's shorter.

 

Anilkumar, if you had a picogram of humility you would stop screwing up the forum with your delusional notions of truth.

[Anilkumar]

OK. I'll switch to plan B. It's more aggressive, but it's shorter.

 

Anilkumar, if you had a picogram of humility you would stop screwing up the forum with your delusional notions of truth.

 

“It is pitiful to see, when some respond with pain, when they face the Truth” -Robert Kennedy.

 

The signs of the emergence of Truth appear when the other side runs out of Reasons and it has Emerged completely when Aggression appears.

 

Prove that what I have said are delusions. Come up with Objections if you have.

 

I have seen Humility demanding for Humility. But,

 

Aggression demanding Humility !!!!!!!!!!

 

Note - Don’t come up with such bad-tempered plans or shift to Plan C, D, E, F . . . as the previous fail to tackle Reasoning, because I will not be responding to such.

 

I will make that Unsubstantiated accusation & waste Aggression of yours bite the dust and save this Forum from belligerent Aggressors like you from screwing it. Come up with Objections if you have.

 

Make yourself aware that you are on a Science discussion Forum, come out of the delusion that aggression can take you wherever you want, and stop playing such tetchy games. Aggression is not your own sole property. Anybody can become aggressive.

 

You give argument. I give argument. The life becomes a get-together.

 

You spit venom. I spit venom. The life becomes poisonous.

 

You started with Jack Nicholson, changed plan to Aggressiveness, concluded with ‘Screwing'.

 

 

[swansont]

I have seen Humility demanding for Humility. But,

 

Aggression demanding Humility !!!!!!!!!!

The former hasn't yet worked, so are you really all that surprised that the latter was eventually attempted?

[Ophiolite]

Anilkumar the aggression here comes from you.

 

You attack good sense.

You attack the scientific method.

You attack the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer.

You attack established science with unfounded assertions.

You attack logic with waffle.

 

You offend science, scientists and this forum. I attempted to reason and advise you at the outset. I complimented you on your passion. Yet you arrogantly disregarded this advice and continued with your campaign of nonsense. I'm done with you.

[Anilkumar]

Anilkumar the aggression here comes from you.

 

The list you have given are mere accusations. Present the instances.

 

You attack good sense.

 

For instance?

 

I have to continually fight down images of Jack Nicholson

gumming up the discussions

misleading lurkers and neophytes

if you had a picogram of humility

stop screwing up the forum

your delusional notions of truth.

Is this good sense?

 

You attack the scientific method.

 

I have attacked what is wrong and have substantiated with testimonies, which have not been challenged but the wrong ones are repeated. Is that scientific method?

 

You attack the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer.

 

I have demonstrated. Give your requisition to show where I haven't and show that this accusation of yours is not false.

 

You attack established science with unfounded assertions.

 

Please give the unfounded assertion that I have attacked with.

 

You attack logic with waffle.

 

Show which waffle have I attacked Logic with.

 

You offend science . . .

 

Example?

 

You offend . . . scientists and this forum.

Show one instance, where I have done it, without the other person doing it to me first.

 

I attempted to reason and advise you at the outset.

 

If everyone stuck to just that, this forum would be on cloud nine. We would not be doing this unconcerned quarrel.

 

 

I complimented you on your passion.

 

Thank you for your wishes.

 

I thanked you.

 

campaign of nonsense.

 

Instead of showing your feelings, if you could establish your accusation, what you said would not become a nonsense.

 

I'm done with you.

 

I would always welcome you, when you change your mind, because there is a part of you that I have liked. Emperor Akbar the great, always wore a ring, on which was inscribed, 'These days will be gone' and he looked at it in sorrow & happiness. I like to follow that. I will look forward to the day when you will come back, to welcome you happily.

Here is a news for you, that you already know but pretend not know. What I have said is logical, and so cannot be countered. So you lost that battle [debate/argument] and since you did not have a valid counter argument, you blasted me with that statement as a retreating tactic. You should have gracefully stayed away instead, respecting the Truth and Truthful discussion, though accepting it, would have been the better & Righteous option. You just can't hit & run, on a Science forum.

I have no hard feelings that you have punished me with an aggressive statement. I understand it is part of the business. However, is not the right form of business.

 

The former hasn't yet worked

This is a surprise from you. Did you enjoy the aggression on me, really? [i am asking, not accusing. Really, I want to come out of my surprise.]

Isn't placing arguments and not coercion by being aggressive, the Right option?

Arguments were placed to the OP and I placed my counter arguments. Instead of disapproving my counter arguments with valid arguments, I was blasted with aggressive statement. You endorse that?

 

The former hasn't yet worked, so are you really all that surprised that the latter was eventually attempted?

 

What is my charge? OR What am I being personally attacked for? OR Why does the Aggression on me become justified? Can Aggression do what Worthy Arguments cannot do? I thought Aggression is political coercion! Not the tool of the knowledgeable, whose tool is valid arguments.

 

so are you really all that surprised

 

Aggression demanding Humility.

Isn't that an irony, so a surprise?

 

In a nutshell the argument that took place on the main topic was;

 

 

Besides this, other off topic issues were discussed.

Now which of my above arguments are wrong/illogical or are such that, you find that [as said by you] 'Humility did not work. So eventually Aggression was attempted'.

How Ophiolite is justified in saying this [below] for the above arguments;

 

Anilkumar the aggression here comes from you.

 

You attack good sense.

You attack the scientific method.

You attack the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer.

You attack established science with unfounded assertions.

You attack logic with waffle.

 

You offend science, scientists and this forum. I attempted to reason and advise you at the outset. I complimented you on your passion. Yet you arrogantly disregarded this advice and continued with your campaign of nonsense. I'm done with you.

 

Where in the above there is attack on the good sense, on the scientific method, on the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer, on the established science with unfounded assertions, on the logic with waffle.

These are baseless spill of anger, supplemented to fill the absence of logical arguments.

 

Let us put a hold on this for a moment and take time-out. I plead for Poise/holding in suspension these aggressive discussions, for the moment. They could be taken up later if necessary.

 

 

 

Why the following arguments are wrong?

1. Going by Consensus is Unscientific. Science is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Science is scientific. So, allow whatever is scientific, either Mainstream or Offbeat. Allow the mention of the 'genuine criticism which made the inconsistencies obvious & gave Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence', along with the mainstream theory and do justice to the inquirer, science and humanity.
2. Thousands of people saw that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or that there is Ether, but that did not increase the probability of them being the truths, a bit. So numbers does not substantiate anything in Science.
3. An argument on an offbeat theory with the proficient on the forum, is not different from the argument with the referees for a journal submission.
4. Once the alternative thought stands up against the scrutiny in the speculation forum, it should be considered an Alternative thought and mentioned along with the mainstream theory. [What is wrong in doing it?]
5. Not allowing genuine criticisms which were scrutinized in the speculations forum to be mentioned along with the mainstream theory, amounts to misleading and keeping the inquirer in dark. Mentioning it as an alternative thought is Righteous and being sincere to the scientific spirit.
6. If we get a well-founded speculation, it could be mentioned as an alternative thought along with the mainstream theory.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Ringer]

Why the following arguments are wrong?

1. Going by Consensus is Unscientific. Science is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Science is scientific. So, allow whatever is scientific, either Mainstream or Offbeat. Allow the mention of the 'genuine criticism which made the inconsistencies obvious & gave Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence', along with the mainstream theory and do justice to the inquirer, science and humanity.
2. Thousands of people saw that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or that there is Ether, but that did not increase the probability of them being the truths, a bit. So numbers does not substantiate anything in Science.
3. An argument on an offbeat theory with the proficient on the forum, is not different from the argument with the referees for a journal submission.
4. Once the alternative thought stands up against the scrutiny in the speculation forum, it should be considered an Alternative thought and mentioned along with the mainstream theory. [What is wrong in doing it?]
5. Not allowing genuine criticisms which were scrutinized in the speculations forum to be mentioned along with the mainstream theory, amounts to misleading and keeping the inquirer in dark. Mentioning it as an alternative thought is Righteous and being sincere to the scientific spirit.
6. If we get a well-founded speculation, it could be mentioned as an alternative thought along with the mainstream theory.

 

1.) When someone is asking about an idea, it is probably best they learn the idea with the most evidence before they can judge the merits for counter ideas.

2.) No idea what this has to do with anything

3.) But an idea that is wrong put forth as right cannot be judged by people unfamiliar with the area

4.) Example?

5.) again, example.

6.) That is for the science community. And if you mean within the forum I must ask for yet another example.

 

 

[Anilkumar]

Ringer,

 

Sorry, for the delayed reply.

 

1.) When someone is asking about an idea, it is probably best they learn the idea with the most evidence before they can judge the merits for counter ideas.

2.) No idea what this has to do with anything

3.) But an idea that is wrong put forth as right cannot be judged by people unfamiliar with the area

4.) Example?

5.) again, example.

6.) That is for the science community. And if you mean within the forum I must ask for yet another example.

 

 

1. When someone does not have counter ideas to find & pinpoint the errors in the criticism, of the idea with the most evidence, they ask the critic to go and learn the idea in the way they learnt it.
   Such unscientific & vacuous tactical arguments do not prove or disprove anything. And are helpful to none.
2. You need to read the previous posts to get the idea.
3. Unfamiliar with basic Science/Physics? [Moreover, there is contradiction in this statement. You judge the idea as 'wrong put forth as right' and at the same time say, 'it cannot be judged by people unfamiliar with the area'.] This is another unscientific & vacuous tactical argument, that does not analyze the wrongs of the criticism and clearly shows the lack of scientific arguments to counter the criticism and so the correctness of the criticism.
4. 5, and 6:- I have given it umpteen times now and one will not find it, if one is not willing to see. You need to go to the relevant threads [you know which; while this thread is about that example itself] and put forth your scientific analysis [many honorable people have done it] but not unscientific & vacuous tactical arguments and try to prove it wrong scientifically, I assure, you have all the possibility of getting an appropriate example. Repeatedly asking for example, doesn't shroud the existence of the example.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Anilkumar

[Mellinia]

Anilkumar the aggression here comes from you.

 

You attack good sense.

You attack the scientific method.

You attack the principle that responsibility for demonstrating a case lies with the proposer.

You attack established science with unfounded assertions.

You attack logic with waffle.

 

You offend science, scientists and this forum. I attempted to reason and advise you at the outset. I complimented you on your passion. Yet you arrogantly disregarded this advice and continued with your campaign of nonsense. I'm done with you.

 

You know what, guys? I would really really love to see this guy debate with illusio over their theories. Wouldn't that be both fun and educational?

Note: Illusio is the guy who proposed the other Truth: GR is wrong and his theory of partial dragging, particle produced ether is right.

So....I guess you can pm this guy and give it a go.

Note: He's as adamant as you are.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Mellinia

[Ringer]

You know what, guys? I would really really love to see this guy debate with illusio over their theories. Wouldn't that be both fun and educational?

Note: Illusio is the guy who proposed the other Truth: GR is wrong and his theory of partial dragging, particle produced ether is right.

So....I guess you can pm this guy and give it a go.

Note: He's as adamant as you are.

 

Entertaining maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would be educational.

[Mellinia]

Entertaining maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would be educational.

 

Yeah, not much but then again both of them will learn lots.

[Anilkumar]

Being Logical ≠ Being Adamant.

When those who don't have Logical Arguments but still stick to their stand, are defined as Adamant.

This is an old Trick:

"When you run out of Arguments; Start Ridiculing by, Chatting among Yourselves."

You have any Logical arguments to support? Bring them. No amount of Tricking is going to save that space-time curvature hypothesis. Soon you will run out of these Tricks too.

 

Do you Respect Logic? Do you Respect Science?

Do you belong to Science? [Don't show me your certificates. Tricksters get hold of them first, somehow. Give logical arguments, not ridicule. The fact that you use Ridicule for scientific discussions, shows you don't belong to Science.]

Are you on the Science Forum or on the streets?

Do you have basic decency?

If yes, then act like you are on the Science forum and bring logical arguments; don't chat among yourselves by ridiculing.

Do you remember what lovers of Science do when they face criticism of scientific ideas? They argue scientifically. They don't stoop to ridicule the critic. Ridicule is the trick of Tricksters & lovers of street chat. Science did not come into existence by the tricks & chats. Tricks & chats don't belong to Science. Science came into existence by scientific arguments, not ridicule & chat.

 

Note: I am on the SFN to discuss my scientific thoughts and so are the other people; Not to entertain you guys by indulging into arguments with anyone you ask and on any subject you say. Find someone else, like yourselves and better, some other forum for such things. This forum is not meant for such wasteful activities. This forum is for those, who know its importance and maintain its sanctity. Science is being done here.

Do you know that to deny a statement you need logical arguments; and that no amount of ridicule can deny that statement? Deny the statements with Logical arguments, if you have. You don't do that and you want to entertain yourselves by utilizing me. Do you know that you have entertained everyone, by now with your trivial act?

Hope you stop clowning around. One need to concern themselves, with what they got to learn first, before concerning themselves about what others have to learn.

 

If you have objections, raise them. This is a forum for raising scientific objections and placing scientific arguments. Not for tomfoolery.

 

It was nice of Ophiolite, not to have participated in this spite, despite getting incited.

 

Thank you.

[Phi for All]

The guideline I try to apply is that if the person is asking a question, it generally stays in the mainstream forum. If the person is proposing an alternative, it goes into speculations. If we ever get a well-founded speculation that is the latter, then we'll see. What we usually get is a mishmash of misused terminology and hand-waving, narrowly focused on one small area of science, with a dash (or more) of megalomania which manifests itself as "This is all true because I'm right, dammit!" or some similar attitude. What we don't get is anything resembling a model, with testable predictions and a way to potentially falsify it, that fits in with the breadth and depth of existing evidence.

I use this guideline as well. We get so many students that come to discuss science and the last thing we'd want to do is mess up their grades by having explanations that are outside accepted science in the main fora, where they expect to find mainstream answers. When they check out Speculations, they know they shouldn't be using any of the answers there on next week's test.

[swansont]

Why the following arguments are wrong?

1. Going by Consensus is Unscientific. Science is neither Mainstream nor Offbeat. Science is scientific. So, allow whatever is scientific, either Mainstream or Offbeat. Allow the mention of the 'genuine criticism which made the inconsistencies obvious & gave Logical, Falsifiable, Experimental evidence', along with the mainstream theory and do justice to the inquirer, science and humanity.
2. Thousands of people saw that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, or that there is Ether, but that did not increase the probability of them being the truths, a bit. So numbers does not substantiate anything in Science.
3. An argument on an offbeat theory with the proficient on the forum, is not different from the argument with the referees for a journal submission.
4. Once the alternative thought stands up against the scrutiny in the speculation forum, it should be considered an Alternative thought and mentioned along with the mainstream theory. [What is wrong in doing it?]
5. Not allowing genuine criticisms which were scrutinized in the speculations forum to be mentioned along with the mainstream theory, amounts to misleading and keeping the inquirer in dark. Mentioning it as an alternative thought is Righteous and being sincere to the scientific spirit.
6. If we get a well-founded speculation, it could be mentioned as an alternative thought along with the mainstream theory.

The claim that consensus is unscientific is wrong because science is inductive. Consensus is not the same as popularity because this is not a random sampling of opinion, it is very weighted toward people with expertise and the evidence that exists to support an idea, but they have to agree on this.

 

For most of the rest it's not a matter of being right or wrong, but a matter of how we run this forum. Your position has been noted, and rejected.

[Anilkumar]

Phi for All,

 

Thank you for coming.

 

I use this guideline as well. We get so many students that come to discuss science and the last thing we'd want to do is mess up their grades by having explanations that are outside accepted science in the main fora, where they expect to find mainstream answers. When they check out Speculations, they know they shouldn't be using any of the answers there on next week's test.

I did not say we should be having explanations that are outside accepted science in the main forum. That is why I said we should have an additional sub forum. I suggested as below;

 

The mainstream forums: For the student seeking better grades.

The hybrid [or the explorer's forum]: For the person who has her reservations regarding a mainstream theory and would like to critically learn & check with other alternatives and new ideas, which have gone through the scrutiny on the speculations forum. Where both mainstream & new ideas sweat it out.

The Speculations forum: For proposing and getting scrutinized a new idea.

 

 

Your position has been noted, and rejected.

Thank you for taking note.

 

 

Your position has been noted, and rejected.

No regrets. I bow down to the decision of the moderators. I have promised to abide by the rules of the forum, and I shall stand by my word.

 

 

The claim that consensus is unscientific is wrong because science is inductive. Consensus is not the same as popularity because this is not a random sampling of opinion, it is very weighted toward people with expertise and the evidence that exists to support an idea, but they have to agree on this.

 

I would like to quote here, an old Indian logical theory.

 

There are a few blind men. They are asked to describe an Elephant. Each of them gets access to touch and feel the Elephant. They touch the Elephant and give their descriptions. The one who touched the leg said, 'it's like the trunk of a tree'. Another one who touched the trunk [nose], said 'it's like a big snake'. Another one who touched the ear said 'it's like a big hand-fan'. Another one who touched the tail said 'it's like rope with a hairy tip'. Another one who touched the abdomen said 'it's like big rock'. They try to reach to a consensus. However, their consensus view will not be the real picture. To come to the real picture, the exploration should continue, and additional views are to be taken into consideration, and then tested again. Well-founded additional views cannot be neglected.

 

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." -Werner Heisenberg

 

Each blind man's conclusion of the Truth, is a subjective perception of the Truth. Therefore, to arrive at the actual Truth they have to arrive at a Consensus. However, that Consensus is not the Ultimate Truth. It still may not be the complete Truth. So then, what we must do is, keep the final Consensus version of the Truth, open to correction. And as & when new perceptions arrive which are well-founded they must be incorporated into the final Consensus version.

 

Moreover, here the consensus view that 'space-time curves' is unable to answer the objections raised. It sure shows that it is defective. In addition, the view expressed by me is scientifically well supported and also makes the defects in the consensus view, absolutely clear. This is a grave situation. We need to change our Perceptions. No Consensus view is Final. No Consensus view can neglect the well-founded objections raised and well-founded remedies presented. It must be corrected when inconsistencies are made obvious and new well-founded perceptions/opinions arrive. To disregard well-founded objections and well-founded alternate opinions by saying that a Consensus view cannot be wrong, is Unscientific. It is in this context, I said that, rigidly sticking to the view that Consensus view is the Final, is Unscientific. The claim that a Consensus view is final is Unscientific. We can't afford to disregard well-founded objections & alternative opinions.

 

Shouldn't we be, responsible towards what our knowledge of the world should be? We certainly cannot continue with a defective knowledge.

 

Science is not about sticking to Consensus views. It is about refining the Consensus view with any well-founded additional views. Science cannot disregard well-founded additional views. It is not the way, we do Science.

 

 

it's not a matter of being right or wrong, but a matter of how we run this forum

 

The matter of being right or wrong cannot be disregarded for the sake of anything. This implies helplessness. Being right, abandoned! For the sake of some constraints? Out of helplessness?! Instead of abandoning the Right, the correct approach should be to device new & better ways, I suppose. Is the forum being run for the propagation of the mainstream theories alone?

 

Are we intending to make this forum an alternate/Extra Text book, an alternate/Extra Encyclopedia, an alternate/Extra Teacher. I don't think so. You have the Speculations section. I don't think you have created the Speculations section for merely making fun of the speculators, and thumping the seal of the mainstream science world on their foreheads, showing that the mainstream Science triumphed over the rebels and shoved its flag and established its institutional supremacy. We certainly don't consider Science a kingdom and the mainstream Scientists its Rulers. I suppose you created this Forum with the great intention of giving a place to express the Reservations regarding the mainstream theory and presenting innovative ideas and scrutinize them so that people learn if they are wrong and if there is a good idea further it. What is the motto of the Speculations section? What are we going to do with those ideas which genuinely bring out the inconsistencies in the mainstream theories and suggest an innovative idea? Dump them? I think we are all responsible Science/Truth Lovers. Aren't we going to give encouragement to the ideas, which genuinely bring out the inconsistencies in the mainstream theories and suggest a well-founded innovative thought? Are we doing here a propaganda of the mainstream ideas? Aren't we discussing Science here seriously, critically, earnestly & honestly? Are we not interested in doing Science and only interested in upholding what is Mainstream? Aren't the Schools sufficient along with our own mainstream forum for teaching the mainstream ideas? Or do we [the forum] intend to become the flag bearers of the Mainstream Ideas, whatever they are, however they are? Shall we not create a Great place for the Quest for Truth? Shall we not become the flag bearers of the Quest of Truth? I am not against the Mainstream Science. I am aware that there is less room for correction in them. They are well tested and well-founded. But certainly there is room for improvisation. And Innovation is the only answer. Sticking whatever is Mainstream is not Science. You have taken the great step of giving a place to the Innovations. Why make that place merely a chamber where the adamant rebels are beaten and made to accept the mainstream convictions or run away dejected so that they know shockingly that, if at all there is a place in this world, it is for the Mainstream convictions and any Innovators 'mind it', they will be beaten and condemned to death? Are the Mainstream Scientists saying that "Look, we have taken a lot of pains to learn it. We are holding this Flag, since long. We have put a lot of efforts and made it our domain. How dare you say we are wrong? How dare you try to dislodge us from our domain?" However, we all certainly don't want to make 'Untruth', our domain. We certainly want to make 'Truth' our domain, because 'Untruth' however well guarded is not going to help anybody. Why not love Innovation, and make it your Domain? It too needs Expertise, badly. In addition, it leads us to Truth. Yes, Innovation and its strict Scrutiny lead us to the ever-Prevalent Truth. And that is what is called as doing Science, not the upholding of what is Mainstream. Why don't you see yourselves instead of, as the flag bearers of the mainstream convictions, the strict scrutinizers of the innovative ideas and gallant promoters of well-founded new ideas? You have it in you. Who else can do it? In the domain of the scrutiny of the innovative ideas and the gallant promotion of new ideas; the Expert is the Absolute King/Queen, if one wants to be that. Moreover, there, in that domain, the King/Queen has the holy duty of promoting the new 'well-founded-but-yet-un-accepted-recommended-for-wider-scrutiny' idea. He/She doesn't have to keep guarding what are widespread convictions even if they are wrong. And I will respect my King/Queen sincerely with love, like he/she is god, because he/she is the one who would lead me to the Truth. And I promise you, under any condition, I am not going to consider the Ruler of any Crap Conviction respectable. I am going to hate him, and I am going fight him. Nothing, not even the Mainstream reputation can influence me to think unscientifically or illogically. I am going to dissent and I am going to argue, all the while abiding by the rules I have agreed to keep, and all the while being logical. But I will promise you, I will not consider what I found as the Truth; until you, my King/Queen, the Expert, Concurs. Only you people, the experts, can correct me, can lead me to Truth. However, Logical Reasoning, would be the only means, by which you can correct me, and no other tactic can convince me.

 

I appeal humbly before you to, please reconsider your decision. It's not about how we run the Forum. It's about Knowing what is Correct. It's not about knowing what is Mainstream. It's about knowing what is the Truth. A consensus view is not the Ultimate Truth. When inconsistencies in it are made obvious & well-founded opinions are given, they need to be heeded. It is necessary that you and the rest of us, build Science. It is not necessary to protect Mainstream convictions. Truth needs no protection. It can protect itself and also be helpful to everyone. It is only necessary that one keep adherence to a set of Methods and a set of Principles to meet the ever-prevalent Truth. It is Falsehood that needs protection, but always helpful to none.

 

I thank you immensely for giving me the opportunity to place my views.

 

I thank everybody who took pains to place their valuable views in this discussion.

 

Thank you. Good wishes & god bless us all.