On conspiracies and alternative theories

[swansont]

Noam Chomsky schools a 9/11 conspiracy theorist

 

http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/noam-chomsky-derides-911-truthers.html

 

 

The specific subject in the video is 9/11 and the collapse of building 7, but that's not the intended topic of the thread, it's just an example — this applies to a wider spectrum of discussion. The focus here are the points in Chomsky's response — mainly that there is a proper method of getting the word out if you think you've made a legitimate scientific discovery. (Posting to discussion groups is not it.)

 

 

[CharonY]

This also nicely illustrates the point of scientific publications. It is not about making yourself known (if your discovery is significant it will do that over time, though), but to give the community the opportunity to scrutinize and also criticize your results and provide a broader context.

Quite some people (also on this board) seem not to understand that part.

[cladking]

(Posting to discussion groups is not it.)

 

 

 

 

I don't agree with Mr Chomsky on several particulars but do tend to agree with his conclusion(s). It's great to see him looking so healthy especially since until recently I had thought he died back in the 1960's.

 

I strongly disagree with your extrapolation of the point, or perhaps, primarily with the definitions. Yes, new ideas in "science" in most cases need to be brought to the attention of scientists. Even if the new idea changes the axioms or definitions they are best analyzed by scientists rather than people in chat rooms. But, much of what we call "science" now days has very little rlationship to empirical data or experimentation. It has little to do with the scientific method and is more a construct based on assumption as viewed (ideally) through a scientific perspective. Certainly almost all archaeology concerning times from before 2000 BC falls under these parameters. There is a virtual vacuum of evidence so things that are known from later times are projected back to fill the void. There are endless assumptions that since later people were superstitious than the more ancient ones were as well. This applies to a greater or lesser extent to ALL of the "soft" sciences. They are necessarily founded on beliefs and assumptions and if any of these are challenged then the current practitioners are not even capable of rendering an opinion. An expert simply can't competently render an opinion on an idea outside of his axioms and assumptions. Strange ideas are forever cropping up in these quasi-scientific areanas and can last almost indefinitely with much of the reason being that outsiders don't realize how much is based on opinion and assumption. Experts are no idiots and have reasons for what they believe and most can "talk a good game". They can cite endless books of endless opinion to support their own opinion but they are still opinions based on a construct. You can't even get a new idea in front of them for peer review because it will be tossed out as nonsense. If your mind is made up then new evidence and new ideas are simply confusing.

 

In my case I've contacted numerous real scientists for opinions on various subjects by eMail and by posts in forums. All of them have been answered with the lone exception of a question on a seldom used message board. It was a highly esoteric question and was probably seen by fewer than a dozen people. No Egyptologist has ever responded to one of my eMails and few of my posts are answered unless the responder believes the answer is detrimental to my theory.

 

Actually, I believe some of the most important things to human beings are really questions that must be addressed by the soft "sciences" and that message boards and the internet might be the ONLY way to get them considered. I believe we don't even understand the nature of humanity and that this is much of the confusion. It's why people think planes can't take off from a moving surface or things fall faster than 32' /s/s.

I might also point out that a significant amount of the real scientific opinion that has been given to me has been utter rubbish. They frequently contain factual errors that a student would note. This is the real scientists mind you. I don't want to be specific because I greatly value scientists who answer eMail even when they make errors. Everyone's a specialist and if you ask a question that doesn't fall squarely within the specialty there will be errors oftimes. Even when they fall within the specialty if it's a seldom studied phenomenon or only indirectly related to their current work it might be misunderstood or unknown.

 

Most people are so wrapped up in their own expertise (which can be considerable) that they just don't notice.

 

I can only imagine how much worse it is in the "sortta sciences" (and they won't even respond).