New theories are trash ?????

[Bignose]

I will at this point ask if the Mathematical portion is so important then why....... are graphics used with virtually every new discovery to allow visualization of the subject matter ?

Are you assuming here that graphics aren't based on math? Because, if so, you are grossly mistaken.

 

From the whole post, I feel that you have not understood my lengthy posts above. I urge you to please re-read them. Note where I explicitly said that mathematics are not an absolute necessity, but demonstrate how they make objective, clear-cut, significant prediction and comparison with measurement supremely easier.

 

Basically, you may think that math is hard. But trying to express objective, clear-cut,. significant physics without math is even harder. Doing physics without math is 'hard mode'; why wouldn't you want to make it easier for everyone else to understand exactly what you are saying with the perfect-for-this-job tool of mathematics?

 

Shakespeare wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". It is beautiful poetic imagery. But it is not scientific. A scientist would need to quantify what are the units of sweetness? What are the controls? What are the ambient conditions? Shakespeare conveyed a powerful message using just words. But he didn't convey a scientific message.

 

If you want to convey a scientific message, then I cannot urge you enough to learn how to use math to help you do that.

 

Ultimately, it is your choice. And if you only want to do words, then that is fine. Just expect a lot of people not understanding what you mean, a lot of people reading into words differently than what you mean (Phi's reply above demonstrates this), and without specific testable predictions, a lot of people not being very interested. But, again, it is your choice.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Bignose

[swansont]

 

I did not come to this forum for my health. Nor did I come looking for Immediate acceptance . I expect ridicule and disbelief and criticism . As I said at the outset , I have taken a look at quite a few other forums where discussions concerning Physics and "how the universe works" was the Prime topic of discussion .

I did think that I would at least be able to present my belief in layman's terms and there would be Some degree of understanding within a group of individuals who are probably of the "upper crust " intellectually rather than of a more base nature and lacking in abilities to visualize concepts mentally.

I will at this point ask if the Mathematical portion is so important then why....... are graphics used with virtually every new discovery to allow visualization of the subject matter ?

Surely E=mc ^2 should be sufficient to explain that the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body comes from the energy of motion of the body—that is, its kinetic energy (E)—divided by the speed of light squared (c^2) without ever translating it into terms which could be expressed linguistically . Wouldn't ya think ??

So, at this point I am a little disappointed at the reception I have received and feel perhaps I should just start over . Possibly elsewhere,.... that remains to be seen.

 

Hello, my name .... doesn't matter , you can call me Mephestopheles ( misspelling IS intentional ) .

I am interested in presenting ideas to this group. Not necessarily for acceptance but rather to test the waters and see if the Ideas "float" or not .

​I will try to use mathematics where I can and where I can't I would beg your indulgence in trying to mentally visualize just what I am trying to say.

 

I hope you can forgive the cynicism, which my fellow posters might also share, but one of the problems with putting an idea into words is that it remains vague. There have been a number of people who have shown up with their descriptions of nature (invariably too wordy and making the wrong emphasis) and after some effort at understanding, it seems that it makes a prediction which doesn't hold true. But no, the author always seems to insist that the evidence supports his idea and laboriously explains why. Math, and the precision it affords, lacks this ambiguity. Thus a lack of math seems to correlate strongly with both lack of prediction — which is where real discussion comes in — and the poster's unwillingness to admit that the idea lacks merit.

 

There's a secondary indication that the longer the poster dances around the issue of actually posting the idea, the less substance there actually is to it. Post the damn thing already. I will pre-ask my question: what testable predictions can you make, i.e. how can it be falsified?

 

(P.S. if you wish to discuss the specifics of the flawed idea of relativistic mass and why what you posted above is wrong, feel free to open a thread on it)

[Strange]

Science is first and foremost about Ideas. DaVinci had an Idea, Lister had an Idea, Galileo had an Idea, Einstein had an Idea.

 

That may be true. But ideas are cheap. Anyone can have an idea. Billions of people have thousands of ideas (very few of them are new). Scientists have ideas. Artists have ideas.

 

The difference is that a scientists first thoughts are, "How can I test this? What might be wrong with it? What other ideas might explain the same thing? How can I distinguish them?"

 

They then look for data to answer these questions and test (disprove) their ideas; either from existing observations or by designing experiments to get the data.

 

But in order to use any such data the idea needs to be formalised to a hypothesis: a mathematical model which can make quantitative predictions to be compared with the data. If the hypothesis passes such initial testing it may be written up and published for others to attack (try and disprove). If it still isn't shown to be wrong, then it might be, provisionally, be accepted as a new theory.

 

But, in practice, I suspect that scientists drop 90% or more of their ideas after a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it to be implausible.

 

I wonder how far down this road you want to go?

 

Galileo and Einstein (we can ignore Da Vinci as he was not a scientist) also had great mathematical skills and used these to develop and test their initial rough ideas.

 

 

Here in a nutshell is the Idea of which I speak, disintegration. ...

 

So your idea is that things can be broken down into smaller constituents? If so this is neither novel nor, as far as we know, correct. There appear to be a number of fundamental particles which appear not to be made of any "smaller" constituents.

 

Your idea of "disintegration" seems too vague to be useful. Unless you can quantify it so that it can make some useful predictions ...

 

 

Out of this there are many different particles generated which make up a single proton. Among them a very special particle that at first was only Theorised and now is known to exist - the higgs boson .

 

There are only two types of particles that make up a proton: quarks and gluons.

 

I'm not sure why you think the Higgs boson is "very special". It is not the first particle to be theorised before it was detected; that is pretty common. And it is not part of the proton.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Strange

[Bignose]

I expect ridicule and disbelief and criticism.

I wanted to comment on this, too.

 

Maybe there has been a tiny bit of ridicule. I would call it more a little bit of cynicism because you are not the first person to log in, tell us you have the answer to unification, and then further tell us that we don't need math for it. I strongly suspect you won't be the last.

 

Maybe even more to the point here is that what you call 'ridicule' I'd call something different... because words are inexact, fungible, and open to interpretation depending on different points of view.

 

There is certainly disbelief. You are making extremely extraordinary claims without presenting extraordinary evidence. Of course we're going to start with disbelief. You'd start at disbelief if I claimed I had a trillion dollar bill, hit 5 grand slams in a baseball game, ran a pool table 28 consecutive times, fostered a baby stegosaurus in my basement, or I split an atom with the powers of daisies and daffodils. Science by its very nature is conservative. As I wrote above, please don't take it personally. Every single claim is treated with disbelief until a preponderance of evidence is presented to support it. This is what you're missing - evidence.

 

Lastly, you've gotten a lot of criticism. In my personal opinion, almost all of it is constructive. It is my sincere hope you take it to heart and try to address it. As swansont notes, this thread has gone on quite a while with very little actual discussion of your idea to date. The evidence of what you've posted so far seems you're more here itching for a fight to tell us how we won't understand your genius and we're a religion of math-wielding scientist that are trying to suppress the truth of the universe.

 

Look. We're open to new ideas. If we weren't, firstly, there wouldn't be any science at all. All of science progresses with new ideas. However, secondly, we only accept new ideas supported by evidence. It really is that simple. We're not going to accept your idea simply because it makes a lot of sense to you. It has to make sense to us too, and to do that you just need to show us a great deal of evidence so that it does.

[Phi for All]

It is my sincere hope you take it to heart and try to address it. As swansont notes, this thread has gone on quite a while with very little actual discussion of your idea to date.

 

Starting fresh would be a great idea. This thread started out with a different purpose. I'd like to see a brand new speculative thread to discuss the actual idea.

[swansont]

I agree - any presentation of the idea should be in its own thread.

[cladking]

Someone, Possibly a Moderator , please tell me why New thoughts and new ways of looking at things are "Trash" ?

 

You have everything working against you but this will be true no matter how or where you try to get a new idea across. People can't see what they don't expect and all new ideas are unexpected. This site is probably among the best sites for both finding expertise on most aspects of science as well as hearing out new ideas. That it does so poor a job at the latter is reflective of human nature and the inability to communicate well rather than the group of individual posters. The only tools to combat the "omniscience" that we all share are patience and persistence.

 

Having an active forum where speculative ideas are welcome is a large asset despite my inability to fully utilize it to date.

 

Hang tough. I might or might not follow your threads but I certainly think it's possible that consensus can be achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"edited" to add;

 

Math is the language of science. Or at least math is the most important part of the language of science.

 

Just as in everyday life reality exists even before it can be quantified and set to the music of math. Force equaled mass X acceleration long before Newton, and the sun "came up" every day even before men knew it was the same sun which appeared. Just because you can't set a concept to math doesn't mean that it can't or never will be.

 

Reality exists outside of the tool used to determine its nature. Even if no complicated language or math existed nature would still perform "infinite" calculations at every point in the universe for all time.

Edited September 23, 2014 by cladking

[physica]

This site is probably among the best sites for both finding expertise on most aspects of science as well as hearing out new ideas. That it does so poor a job at the latter is reflective of human nature and the inability to communicate well rather than the group of individual posters.

Show me evidence where this site does a poor job of hearing out a new idea.

[swansont]

Show me evidence where this site does a poor job of hearing out a new idea.

 

 

Seconded. I don't see this. Ideas are subject to scrutiny, as they should be. In fact, the scrutiny many ideas presented in speculations get should have been applied by the author, and the idea rejected — a lot of what we see lacks rigor and shows almost complete ignorance of the state of experimental evidence.

[cladking]

Show me evidence where this site does a poor job of hearing out a new idea.

 

Again, I specifically stated this is one of the best sites for hearing out a new idea.

 

That you think people are good at hearing out new ideas might be indicative of your beliefs closely matching the paradigms.

[swansont]

 

Again, I specifically stated this is one of the best sites for hearing out a new idea.

 

That you think people are good at hearing out new ideas might be indicative of your beliefs closely matching the paradigms.

 

 

Science ≠ beliefs, which may be part of the issue here.

[Phi for All]

 

Again, I specifically stated this is one of the best sites for hearing out a new idea.

 

We've held fast with the concept of giving people with new ideas a great deal of latitude, and arguably to our detriment. We've had many top-flight members leave because they disliked how long we allowed many speculative threads to explore ideas that were trivially falsified in the first couple of pages.

 

Once an idea fails the early tests, these threads are usually about teaching everyone except the original poster how the methodology needs to be addressed. The OP is usually still banging on a broken drum, but can be a valuable learning tool for others who follow that thread.

 

I don't think we do a poor job at hearing out new ideas. I think we try to draw a line between encouragement and viability. I don't think we do anyone any favors by encouraging a flawed idea, and most of the time I see people not only pointing out flaws, but offering ways to improve and shore up bad foundations. Certainly, we have members who have little patience for those who skip the basics, or don't listen to constructive criticism, but that's the fine line the staff has to be concerned with. We don't want to lose anybody who has a serious interest in learning.

[cladking]

 

 

Seconded. I don't see this. Ideas are subject to scrutiny, as they should be. In fact, the scrutiny many ideas presented in speculations get should have been applied by the author, and the idea rejected — a lot of what we see lacks rigor and shows almost complete ignorance of the state of experimental evidence.

 

You touch on one of the problems of modern science and the biggest problem with the way people understand science.

 

I agree that the lack of knowledge of current science can be appalling in some of the threads on this forum and I never imagined I could get so far out of the loop. Life just gets in the way of many things we'd like to do and priorities can change. But the point is that so long as the premises and logic are correct there is no justification to reject any hypothesis. We live in a world which many believe is merely one of an infinite number all containing pyramids built with ramps. All of theoretical science does not exist on the high ground. While logic is commonly dismissed as a means of doing much science other than hypothesis formation the fact is that nature seems to eventually come to be understood as being logical. Where it isn't logical it's usually primarily the result of incomplete knowledge and insufficient theory.

 

Of course a lot of threads are exceedingly informal, light hearted, or poorly researched but the authors usually abandon these as they are intended as trial balloons or skeet.

 

I think some of the issues people have with the threads here is that they expect any new idea to be wrapped up in a nice neat bow with all the math complete and ready for publication. Of course such things aren't going to appear on a speculations board except rarely. What are likely to appear is various ideas that rearrange the facts by which we interpret reality. They will be ideas that reinterpret the facts known by the poster. Some are too far over my head to state an opinion and some are obviously wrong because they have the facts or logic wrong.

 

It's not my contention thjat any thread ever begun on this forum was necessarily right. It's my contention that a paradigm rewriting correct idea that appears on any forum or in any venue will usually be dismissed because people already have the answer and that answer has always been the paradigm. The paradigm has always been amended and rewritten but it takes time and patience to rewrite it. People do not readily change their minds because we see what we expect. We are constantly bombarded with confirmation of all our beliefs. In the face of such overwhelming evidence most individuals will go totheir graves with essentially the same beliefs their whole lives. And these "beliefs" certainly include all the paradigms created by language and experimental science.

 

I think the scrutiny here is very good as well as the fair consideration of new ideas. It's just that you can't go anywhere at all and expect people to be able to be able to consider paradigm upsetting ideas. Ideas that build on existing scientific paradigms are expected to be presented with math even though the math might be over the head of the presenter.

[Strange]

 

I think some of the issues people have with the threads here is that they expect any new idea to be wrapped up in a nice neat bow with all the math complete and ready for publication.

 

This is a very common strawman argument.

 

NO ONE expects that of a new idea.

 

What they do expect is some mathematics (for the obvious reason that a new theory cannot be tested without it), some supporting evidence (otherwise why should I take any more notice of it than I would Bignose's baby stegosaurus), some knowledge of current science, some attempt at rational argument and critical thinking, etc.

 

 

It's my contention that a paradigm rewriting correct idea that appears on any forum or in any venue will usually be dismissed because people already have the answer and that answer has always been the paradigm.

 

The evidence would appear to contradict this. When potentially paradigm-shifting new ideas are presented that do have some support then people will engage with them as exciting possibilities, rather than dismissing them.

 

Perhaps sadly, pretty much all such new ideas are those reported from mainstream science. This is because real scientists know that a new idea needs (some) mathematics and needs (some) evidence before it will be considered.

 

 

It's just that you can't go anywhere at all and expect people to be able to be able to consider paradigm upsetting ideas.

 

If that were true, science would never advance. Therefore it is clearly not true.

[cladking]

 

 

Science ≠ beliefs, which may be part of the issue here.

 

Yes and no.

 

Certainly I strongly believe that most of what people hold true as "science" is primarily belief. I also hold a unique to me opinion that modern experimental science is only one kind of science that can be used to discover reality. As such it is merely a tool and the job it does in learning about reality are determined by the nature of the toool. Modern science is a sort of prism for seeing nature but there is far more to nature than only the rainbow we see. We then have grave difficulty reintegrating this spectrum into human life and making it relevant to individuals. Most people see the rainbow and the prism to the exclusion of everything else and believe it's all that exists or they never learn about science at all and merely reap the "benefits" of the technology that is cast off of experimental science. I believe humans used to use an animal science that automatically integrated all learning to all individuals in the form of a metaphysical language.

 

Real science is actually somewhat "hollow" because our ignorance is still so vast it has little applicability to the real world except to the degree knowledge manifests in technology and machines. It can't at this time provide a blueprint for living and every philosopher almost has to start at the beginning because concepts are so difficult to communicate. Applied science which might integrate science, technology, and a way to live is far behind the times. People walking around like web connected zombies is not the sort of integration to which I refer. People need to be able to think in scientific concepts (theory) and to understand the metaphysical bases for these theories. But instead there is a strong tendency to see things in terms of the paradigm. People see the rainbow instead of the prism.

 

Science is not belief but much of the way people understand science much of the time is belief. Most people and especially those with less scientific education virtually hold science as a religion and worship at the altar of technology.

[Strange]

Certainly I strongly believe that most of what people hold true as "science" is primarily belief.

 

Then your "strong belief" is obviously wrong.

 

I also hold a unique to me opinion that modern experimental science is only one kind of science that can be used to discover reality.

 

Firstly, the purpose of science is not to "discover reality". That is the job of religion or philosophy (or maybe art).

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us as what alternative techniques are as productive as the scientific reliance on objective evidence?

 

Most people and especially those with less scientific education virtually hold science as a religion and worship at the altar of technology

 

Bollocks. (I can't think of any more appropriate response.)

[cladking]

 

We've held fast with the concept of giving people with new ideas a great deal of latitude, and arguably to our detriment. We've had many top-flight members leave because they disliked how long we allowed many speculative threads to explore ideas that were trivially falsified in the first couple of pages.

 

Once an idea fails the early tests, these threads are usually about teaching everyone except the original poster how the methodology needs to be addressed. The OP is usually still banging on a broken drum, but can be a valuable learning tool for others who follow that thread.

 

I don't think we do a poor job at hearing out new ideas. I think we try to draw a line between encouragement and viability. I don't think we do anyone any favors by encouraging a flawed idea, and most of the time I see people not only pointing out flaws, but offering ways to improve and shore up bad foundations. Certainly, we have members who have little patience for those who skip the basics, or don't listen to constructive criticism, but that's the fine line the staff has to be concerned with. We don't want to lose anybody who has a serious interest in learning.

 

I wasn't aware that there was such a fine line the moderators have to walk. I'm obviously aware of the sensitivity to drifting off topic or "soapboxing".

 

I've seen far more encouragement for new ideas here than anywhere else. I could tell stories of how on some sites everyone bends over backward to withhold not only encouragement but even facts that strongly support a new idea. So many of these new ideas here fall squarely into a hard science so they can be looked at more objectively which is likely the reason new ideas get a better hearing here than most sites.

 

But the fact remains that people in general have a very difficult time looking at things that overturn their beliefs. Swansont pointed out that science is not belief but the fact is that all real knowledge is visceral knowledge. Science creates knowledge but until you know something is real, until you have experience in a reality then it has more characteristics of belief to an individual than fact. In the 1940's the crust of the earth was solid then it started moving. People didn't see the movement until it was shown. In the 1850's surgeons didn't have time to wash their hands before trying to save a life in an operation and most patients died of the resulting infections. Now we see the cause.

 

People have always scoffed at new ideas and the fact is that most new ideas aren't new, aren't true, or have highly limited applicability. It's natural to discount new ideas. But all ideas result from the cleverness of the individual who dreamed them up. Without new ideas we'd still be living in caves and digging for grubs. That they are better heard here than other places is why I read and post here.

[Strange]

But the fact remains that people in general have a very difficult time looking at things that overturn their beliefs.

 

Are we talking about the beliefs of people in general? Or are we talking about science? I assumed the latter.

 

 

Swansont pointed out that science is not belief but the fact is that all real knowledge is visceral knowledge.

 

I don't really know what you mean by "real knowledge" or "visceral knowledge". Again, neither seems to have much to do with science.

 

Science creates knowledge but until you know something is real, until you have experience in a reality then it has more characteristics of belief to an individual than fact.

 

I would suggest that "knowledge" based on personal experience is a belief that may or may not have any basis in reality.

 

Scientific knowledge is supported by well-tested evidence and therefore has a higher level of confidence.

 

In the 1940's the crust of the earth was solid then it started moving.

 

Nonsense.

[cladking]

What they do expect is some mathematics (for the obvious reason that a new theory cannot be tested without it), some supporting evidence (otherwise why should I take any more notice of it than I would Bignose's baby stegosaurus), some knowledge of current science, some attempt at rational argument and critical thinking, etc.

 

 

Are you suggesting then that if someone came up with the unified field theory it should be ignored unless it has some math?

 

Perhaps sadly, pretty much all such new ideas are those reported from mainstream science. This is because real scientists know that a new idea needs (some) mathematics and needs (some) evidence before it will be considered.

 

 

Ideas that significantly change paradigms are few and far between. Most new ideas are simply building on the existing understanding.

Quote

 

It's just that you can't go anywhere at all and expect people to be able to be able to consider paradigm upsetting ideas.

 

If that were true, science would never advance. Therefore it is clearly not true.

 

 

It requires patience and persistence to change peoples' beliefs. Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted overnight and many scientists and geologists never did accept it. Paradigm changes are often demographic in nature.

[Strange]

Are you suggesting then that if someone came up with the unified field theory it should be ignored unless it has some math?

 

Of course it should be. How could anyone even formulate a unified field theory without math?

 

Ideas that significantly change paradigms are few and far between. Most new ideas are simply building on the existing understanding.

 

True. (But not very interesting.)

 

It requires patience and persistence to change peoples' beliefs.

 

And, as I think has already been said, the fact that science is conservative is a good thing; that is why science works.

 

Plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted overnight and many scientists and geologists never did accept it.

 

Really? Can you provide a reference to geologists who do not accept plate tectonics?

 

Paradigm changes are often demographic in nature.

 

I don't know what that means.

[Phi for All]

But the fact remains that people in general have a very difficult time looking at things that overturn their beliefs.

 

I have a very hard time with the concept of science as a simple belief. To me, belief is a variable state, with supportive evidence as the critical factor. I believe there may be some spark of consciousness that lives on after we die, but I have nothing to support that belief, so I don't find it very trustworthy. On the other hand, I believe evolution is happening all around us, and is one of the best supported theories around. I believe in evolution, but more than that, I trust it a great deal as an explanation for all the diverse life we see on our planet.

 

The interesting part is, you could probably never convince me NOT to believe in consciousness after brain death, even though I don't believe strongly in it. It truly is just "belief", or more accurately "hope" or "wishful thinking", and not based on anything that could be supported or refuted. On the other hand, show me evidence that outweighs the evidence that supports evolution, and I'll wholeheartedly consider it as a better explanation. I find that the mechanism for looking rationally at an explanation is crucial to whether or not you'll have trouble looking critically at something that overturns your beliefs. If you arrived at your belief without using reason, it's doubtful reason will ever persuade you off of it.

[swansont]

 

You touch on one of the problems of modern science and the biggest problem with the way people understand science.

 

I agree that the lack of knowledge of current science can be appalling in some of the threads on this forum and I never imagined I could get so far out of the loop. Life just gets in the way of many things we'd like to do and priorities can change. But the point is that so long as the premises and logic are correct there is no justification to reject any hypothesis.

 

Sure there is, because you're omitting one huge part of the puzzle: the models of science must agree with observation. Any model that's offered up that disagrees with experiment can be rejected out of hand. And model that does not allow for comparison with nature can be immediately returned to sender as being insufficient.

 

Yes and no.

 

Certainly I strongly believe that most of what people hold true as "science" is primarily belief.

 

…

 

Science is not belief but much of the way people understand science much of the time is belief. Most people and especially those with less scientific education virtually hold science as a religion and worship at the altar of technology.

 

True for scientists in some cases on a microscopic scale, but not on a larger scale. The truth wins out against individual biases, which is one of the reasons the system is the way it is. Discussion of those with little or no scientific background is outside the scope of what we were talking about.

[cladking]

I don't really know what you mean by "real knowledge" or "visceral knowledge". Again, neither seems to have much to do with science.

 

I would suggest that "knowledge" based on personal experience is a belief that may or may not have any basis in reality.

 

 

It's not my contention that scientific knowledge isn't real knowledge. It is my contention that the interpretation of data and experiment that defines the paradigm. Theory, data, and experiment define knowledge and anyone might have visceral knowledge of any of this because it is established fact. At the risk of opening up a discussion in epistomology which might not even be relevant to this thread the fact is that visceral knowledge is the only kind of knowledge which is repeatable. One can know in "theory" how to hammer in a nail but if you've never done it you might find you can't do it. One can know in "theory" that 2 + 2 = 4 but if your experience says this isn't always true then you know that all things aren't applicable all the time. Two bananas purchased a month ago plus two bananas purchased today do nort make four bananas. The fact that something is true and scientifically correct does not mean that it is the kind of knowledge that one can use to live his life or to manipulate his enviroment. The fact that you can do the math doesn't mean your equation applies to anything in the real world and if does apply it only becomes repeatable after it becomes visceral.

 

Without scientific knowledge most of our visceral knowledge would be involved with how to dig grubs or make caves more comfortable. And this is the part that's invisible to all people using modern language and modern science but this another subject.

 

Scientific knowledge is supported by well-tested evidence and therefore has a higher level of confidence.

 

 

Most of what we call "knowledge" isn't so much knowledge as it is interpretation of evidence. This interpretation can become "visceral" with enough supporting evidence from enough perspectives. Until accurate and repeatable predictions can be made by an individual it is not visceral knowledge. It can still be true and a lot of what people believe is true and this especially applies to scientists. A lot of what they believe is truly "knowledge" but it is not necessarily of real value to the individiual. This might be too fine a distinction for some things but the point is this non-visceral knowledge still affects our perspective and how we see reality. We still see this reality wherever we look. We still have confirmation for this knowledge even though some of it is unusable, can't make predictions, or is unrepeatable. It depends on what we have learned from others rather than what we ourselves have learned. It may have great value in many ways but it is often dependent on premises, axioms, and definitions that we don't understand. Visceral knowledge is real and there is reason to trust most of its components and premises. We could misunderstand how to drive a nail but odds are if you can do it then you understand the physics well enough; at least well enough to drive a nail.

 

I have a very hard time with the concept of science as a simple belief. To me, belief is a variable state, with supportive evidence as the critical factor. I believe there may be some spark of consciousness that lives on after we die, but I have nothing to support that belief, so I don't find it very trustworthy. On the other hand, I believe evolution is happening all around us, and is one of the best supported theories around. I believe in evolution, but more than that, I trust it a great deal as an explanation for all the diverse life we see on our planet.

 

The interesting part is, you could probably never convince me NOT to believe in consciousness after brain death, even though I don't believe strongly in it. It truly is just "belief", or more accurately "hope" or "wishful thinking", and not based on anything that could be supported or refuted. On the other hand, show me evidence that outweighs the evidence that supports evolution, and I'll wholeheartedly consider it as a better explanation. I find that the mechanism for looking rationally at an explanation is crucial to whether or not you'll have trouble looking critically at something that overturns your beliefs. If you arrived at your belief without using reason, it's doubtful reason will ever persuade you off of it.

 

Life is funny.

 

Ironically, I don't really believe in evolution as it is commonly presented. We'll have to talk about it sometime. I tend to agree there may be a spark that outlives us though the rational side of me suspects this spark lives on in others.

 

The root of the problem is language. People can't see that it is language which created humanity by allowing knowledge to be passed from generation to generation. They can't see it because modern language takes a perspective from infinite distance. We can't see that the biggest cause of miscommunication is that perspectives still vary even though it is defined as it is. People have different experiences which lead to different perspectives despite the nature of modern language. We can't see language as the root of human progress because we thought ourselves into existence. "I think therefore I am"! From this perspective it's thought that precedes all rather than the language in which thought occurs. This underpins language and science though, obviously, science goes on to define basic axioms and terms so it actually works.

 

This perspective is unique to modern man. The paradigm works well to promote science but it works extremely poorly to differentiate good new ideas from bad ones. We communicate in one language and perform science in another.

 

 

And, as I think has already been said, the fact that science is conservative is a good thing; that is why science works.

 

 

 

Lol.

 

It's not that you are wrong so much as the perspective is "funny". I understand the perspective and mostly shared it at one time. You believe humans are intelligent and can work together cooperatively to promote the common good and human progress.

 

I don't believe any of these concepts are rooted in the real world. It is language that underlies human progress because it is language which allows us to learn enough to come up with new ideas. There's no such thing as intelligence at all (as people define it) and it is cleverness born of language which manifests as ideas. Cleverness is as much an event, as ideas, rather than a state. To some extent there is a correlation between what people call "intelligence" and the ability to learn but people read far more into the abilty to learn than what exists. Almost anyone can learn and some people merely require more time. "Intelligence" per se isn't something real. There is very little difference between man and other animals on this parameter.

 

Science works not because people cooperate. Science is driven by new ideas and always has been and this applies to all of God's creatures rather than only men. Some of the most important ideas since the dawn of time are the ability to have an idea of how to devise experiment or how to make an observation to confirm theory. The latter is how ancient man and animals progressed.

 

Nothing new can happen without a new idea. Even serendipity is dependent on the observer recognizing an event for its underlying cause: He must have an idea of what caused a thing or event. This is based on his knowledge which he acquired through language.

Sure there is, because you're omitting one huge part of the puzzle: the models of science must agree with observation. Any model that's offered up that disagrees with experiment can be rejected out of hand. And model that does not allow for comparison with nature can be immediately returned to sender as being insufficient.

 

I certainly agree. This would fall under the umbrella of "factual and logical". If an idea or any of its premises are not consistyent with theory and observation then it's not logical or it's not factual or neither. This doesn't mean evidence can't be interpreted in another way but theory and observation can't be reinterpreted.

 

I tend to think any model can be compared with nature and math though some are far more difficult than others. If the presenter could do this himself it seems unlikely he'd post on this forum at all. One of the reasons I post here is that I can't yet prove there are no worlds with pyramids built with ramps and hope to get other peoples' ideas of how to prove it. The model can't be tested in the real world because conservative scientists refuse to perform the tests and restrict access to all outsiders.

 

True for scientists in some cases on a microscopic scale, but not on a larger scale. The truth wins out against individual biases, which is one of the reasons the system is the way it is. Discussion of those with little or no scientific background is outside the scope of what we were talking about.

 

 

I'd agree that human progress is real. But I tend to believe that even after the truth wins out there is a tendency for new people to simply have new biases founded on the new truth. We still will see what we expect until we learn ways not to and there's hardly a mad rush to study the issue.

 

I've always thought that science is mistaught and should be more widely understood. The average person should have a better education in science. Most scientists make absurd and unsupported statements or conjectures from time to time. Some of it is simply caused by language but there is indication that some do not understand metaphysics or the nature of scientific knowledge. There is a tendency even among the best educated and the keenest observers to see the expected. Where most people will see such things as human nature I believe it is an artefact of modern language. "Human nature" is almost infinitely flexible but we have become accustomed to infinite perspective and the idea that we exist because we think. We act on beliefs and see what we expect even if we are trained scientists with lots of ideas.

[Le Repteux]

"We still will see what we expect until we learn ways not to and there's hardly a mad rush to study the issue."

 

Hi Cladking,

 

I agee with that. We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time. We expect no change until it hurts. So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists, and that it will not change, but for eternity, so I expect no harm from this idea. Is it a law of nature? And if so, why all that change around us? Why so much resistance, and so much change? Is it also a law?

[Strange]

 

We are on the automatic pilot almost all the time.

 

Then perhaps it is a good job we have scientists and engineers who are trained and paid to create and test new ideas.

 

 

So I expect that it is probably the same for scientists

 

Obviously not. Otherwise science would not have progressed as rapidly as it has.