New theories are trash ?????

[Strange]

Evidence of what? You want me to give examples of theories that I find evidently wrong? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean!

 

You have said that you think some (unspecified) theory is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then you should have some evidence that shows the theory is wrong. What is that evidence?

 

As this is yet another unsupported claim, and all your other unsupported claims appear to be false, I guess I can be confident that the theories you have doubts about are probably pretty solid.

[Le Repteux]

Are you accusing a member of the forum of being a sock-puppet? That is a pretty serious accusation (and should be done by a report to the moderators, rather than a post in the forum).

 

Or are you accusing someone of calling you names? If so, I cannot understand why. There is still no name calling.

My reasoning have been qualified of "so limited". What would you say at my place? Do you have a scientific response to that kind of personal attack?

[Strange]

My reasoning have been qualified of "so limited". What would you say at my place? Do you have a scientific response to that kind of personal attack?

 

It isn't a personal attack. It is a description of your style of argument.

 

You demand that others should consider your idea (despite the fact it is unsupported and is contradicted by evidence). But when someone asks you to consider their idea, you just say you can't be bothered.

[Le Repteux]

You have said that you think some (unspecified) theory is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then you should have some evidence that shows the theory is wrong. What is that evidence?

 

As this is yet another unsupported claim, and all your other unsupported claims appear to be false, I guess I can be confident that the theories you have doubts about are probably pretty solid.

You misinterpret my answers Strange, when I talk about fringe theories, I talk about theories that are not main stream. I do not believe in pushing gravity for instance, or in telepathy. You understand?

 

PS. Tell Physica that my head is in the sand and that I am suffocating.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[physica]

PS. Tell Physica that my head is in the sand and that I am suffocating.

Don't worry I can already see this... I think most people can considering that you're not willing to concede that most of your previous posts have been blown away by you exposing your own double standard.

[cladking]

No, the root is the lack of evidence they provide, or the lack of their acknowledgement that evidence that has already been collected is contrary to their idea. Strong evidence in science, statistically and objectively strong, is usually pretty language independent. I.e. if a ball takes 2.3 s to hit the ground, it doesn't really matter if you call it a ball, a bola, a bal, a μπάλα, a pila, or a castle.

 

If you're going to claim that language is limiting our ability to do science, then just like any other idea here, you're going to have to provide evidence of it. There was another member here who fervently believed that our use of the words 'theory' and 'law' were major determiners in the way they were used. He wasn't ever able to provide evidence for it. It is my hope that you can provide evidence you your idea (probably in a separate thread, this one is pretty cluttered as is).

 

Not every fringe theory will dispute the fact it takes 2.3 s for the object to hit the ground but this won't stop someone who doesn't understand the theory to say that it can't be right because it will take 2.3 s for the ball and ground to collide or that the ground is spinning at 1000 MPH so the fringe can't be right. Very often irrelevancies are brought up and repeated over and over as though they are evidence against the new idea. You can repeat until you grow blue in the face that the fact is irrelevant to the theory or is even predicted by the theory but it comes up over and over again as though it is somehow proof of the paradigm. Just because some objection is factual it is not automatically relevant. Some of these objections are simply ludicrous and a few I've adopted to rub in the faces of orthodox thinkers. I use their own irrelevancies against them. I'm not certain they appreciate the irony but they quit using it as an argument after a couple years.

 

I'm not sure of the degree that language interferes with the performance of good science. I'm sure it's a factor and I'm sure to date there is simply no alternative because to date there is no alternative to modern language. As I've said though, just recognizing the limitations of language would go a long way to mitigating the problems caused by language. Most of the damage is done through poor communication so if people sit down and define terms communication problems will be largely redressed. This is especially true in science where terms can be more closely defined.

 

This problem with language is likely to become more apparent with usage of the internet. People will see how two individuals using the same language are not communicating.

 

The fact that most speculative ideas, most new ideas, are wrong is simply irrelevant to the fact that none of them are very well refuted. Don't take me wrong here, a lot are obviously nonsense and don't require much refutation or attention but they are shunted aside on the basis of irrelevancies sometimes as well. This isn't to say that I understand all these hairbrained ideas or the sometimes well thought out refutations. I'm merely saying many posts don't appear to address the actual "theory" or anything predicted by it. A proper refutation must use math, facts, or logic, and it must address the theory and the differences in predictions between it and "established" theory or knowledge. I've seen well thought out and poorly thought out ideas alike tarred with the same brush in some places. Even poorly thought out ideas might have a kernal of truth.

wow you guys have some patience. Bignose and strange have repeated themselves a few times. It's a shame that the other two don't seem to be comprehending it. Anyhow this is a prime example of how good the science forum is at hearing people out.

 

 

 

I guess you overlooked the statement I specifically made that Strange has yet to address a single point of anything I said. If you had seen it I'm sure you would have refuted it and shown me where he did address my point.

 

Has it occurred to you that if he has failed to even respond to what I say that it doesn't matter how many times he says it because it still won't apply to what I'm saying? All I can do is repeat my contention and ask people to respond to it as several here are doing.

 

It does require patience and persistence by both sides but I am trying to respond to some of irrelevancies despite the fact they don't apply to what I'm saying. I'm trying to establish some common ground so we can communicate.

[Strange]

I guess you overlooked the statement I specifically made that Strange has yet to address a single point of anything I said.

 

Well, I certainly missed that.

 

Has it occurred to you that if he has failed to even respond to what I say that it doesn't matter how many times he says it because it still won't apply to what I'm saying?

 

 

What specifically have I not responded to?

 

I have repeatedly responded to your claims that people/scientists are unable to see new things. I have pointed out the obvious fallacies so many times that I have now given up repeating it.

 

But if you think there is something significant I haven't answered, let me know and I will give it some thought.

[cladking]

Need point out how poor the communication has become in this thread this evening?

 

I've actually overheard two people having two different conversations and not know it. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to these things than most people but you should see how startled they are when you give them a short synopsis of the two conversation; He's talking about Pontiacs and you're talking about Christmas.

 

This is very common, nearly typical.

[Strange]

Need point out how poor the communication has become in this thread this evening?

 

Several people have already made the same point. (Including me.)

Edited September 25, 2014 by Strange

[physica]

Some of these objections are simply ludicrous and a few I've adopted to rub in the faces of orthodox thinkers. I use their own irrelevancies against them. I'm not certain they appreciate the irony but they quit using it as an argument after a couple years.

Are you doing this now?...That would explain a lot.

 

 

I'm not sure of the degree that language interferes with the performance of good science.

This is very basic. If I say a box is heavy what does that mean? I could be really weak, I could be really strong. Words are subjective, that's why serious scientists have at least some form of mathematical ability.

 

 

is simply no alternative because to date there is no alternative to modern language

There is it's called math

 

I think the main problem is that you have a very poor waffle kind of style. I suggest bullet pointing, if your bullet points become too long you're drifting from the subject. We're having to try and work out what you say. When you get into academia it's considered skillful to sum things up in less words. Strange is very good at it. Some judges apologize for not having enough time to write a shorter judicial opinion.

[cladking]

 

Well, I certainly missed that.

 

 

 

What specifically have I not responded to?

 

I have repeatedly responded to your claims that people/scientists are unable to see new things. I have pointed out the obvious fallacies so many times that I have now given up repeating it.

 

But if you think there is something significant I haven't answered, let me know and I will give it some thought.

 

It's no big deal.

 

I know you believe you're addressing my points but from my perspective you aren't. This is what I mean by "irrelevancies".

 

I specifically defined "applied science" as a virtual null set because of the difficulty of building on philosophical constructs due to the confusion in language. I defined it as the integration of human needs with scientific knowledge. You are under no obligation to accept my defintion but if you don't like it curtesy would seem to indicate that you either redefine it or provide another term or phrase for my usage.

 

I also defined technology as a by-product of experimental science. There are reasons I define it this way. Primarily it's because observational science generates just as much learning and far more visceral knowledge. There is a tendency for people to believe that if the technology is lacking then the sophistication and extent of knowledge must be missing as well and this is obscured by modern language. We all share a perspective (in basic things) but use numerous definitions (even when both parties are using words properly).

 

After all this effort you equated technology with applied science without comment, refutation, or definition of terms. Your statement was perhaps true or perhaps the least confused way of seeing reality but it was wholly irrelevant to anything I said. It wouldn't matter how many times you say it since it doesn't apply to what I'm saying. You consider it a refutation but it has no meaning to me except to show me your definition and that you didn't comment on my point directly.

 

This is typical and it's the way almost everything that lies outside our experience tends to be addressed. We don't see what we don't expect and understand. We see what we do expect so rather than argue my point you state your's. You are intimately fanmiliar with your points and your perspectives but what I say must be wrong because it's outside your experience. It's perfectly normal. And it's completely frustrating. I am patient and persistent and I'm most probably right. Even though many people believe they've shown me to be wrong many times and cited the same irelevancies, there's a very good chance I'm right.

 

Until some simple science is done to prove me wrong the evidence all agrees with me even though it is fantastic. Reality is rather fantastic so no one should be surprised when any given fact is surprising or has strange ramifications.

We're having to try and work out what you say.

 

 

 

This is a problem for a lot of people.

 

I mean exactly what I say, everything I say, and exactly as I say it. It is intended literally and comprehensively so if I don't say it there's a good chance it is the same as saying it doesn't exist or doesn't apply.

 

I try to make literary device use obvious to avoid confusion.

 

In very real ways I am using an updated free flowing form of ancient thought expressed in modern language. I try to be very careful to use the same definition for each word each time unless the secondary definition in the usage is highly apparent. Some people actually get used to it believe it or not.

[Strange]

 

I specifically defined "applied science" as a virtual null set because of the difficulty of building on philosophical constructs due to the confusion in language. I defined it as the integration of human needs with scientific knowledge. You are under no obligation to accept my defintion but if you don't like it curtesy would seem to indicate that you either redefine it or provide another term or phrase for my usage.

 

You introduced your definition in response to me defining technology as applied science. This is a common definition of technology not one I made up. I pointed out that your definition appeared to be equivalent to "philosophy" and therefore nothing to do with science.

 

As you are simply making up new definitions for words in order to confuse things, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

I also defined technology as a by-product of experimental science. There are reasons I define it this way. Primarily it's because observational science generates just as much learning and far more visceral knowledge.

 

"Visceral knowledge" is another of your made up terms which you have failed to define, despite repeated requests. I have nothing further tio say on the matter.

 

As you seem determined to persist in this deliberate obscurantism -- defining new meanings for existing terms and invoking ad-hoc terminology without defining it -- then there is no point continuing the discussion.

 

This is typical and it's the way almost everything that lies outside our experience tends to be addressed. We don't see what we don't expect and understand.

 

So you keep saying. Yet you provide no evidence to support it. Counter evidence has been provided by several people.

 

You are intimately fanmiliar with your points and your perspectives but what I say must be wrong because it's outside your experience.

 

It is nothing to do with being outside my experience. The evidence shows that your assertions are incorrect. Your smug repetitions of your "unique insight" will not change that

 

I am patient and persistent and I'm most probably right.

 

You have been shown to be wrong multiple times. Like all cranks you refuse to acknowledge it or dismiss it as "irrelevant". You are treading a well-worn and very sad path here.

 

Until some simple science is done to prove me wrong the evidence all agrees with me

 

And now you have gone Full Crackpot with the battle cry of "Prove me Wrong!!"

[Le Repteux]

This langage is exactly what I mean by name calling Strange! Maybe I should say "crackpot" calling?

Edited September 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Bignose]

I'm sure it's a factor and I'm sure to date there is simply no alternative because to date there is no alternative to modern language.

I am patient and persistent and I'm most probably right.

So, to sum up. You are quite sure you're right, but there have been no tests to confirm or deny it because there is no alternative.

 

This is called faith. Not science. You believe something without evidence for it, ergo faith. When you can present evidence for it, bring it to a scientist. But science is not interested in your faith.

 

Until some simple science is done to prove me wrong the evidence all agrees with me even though it is fantastic.

Wait, what? You just told me there wasn't any evidence. And, you've completely misunderstood science. Science doesn't have to prove you wrong. (Farcical example: "I have an invisible dinosaur I keep as a pet in my garage. Prove me wrong!") You have to provide a preponderance of clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence to support your idea.

 

So, which is it? There is no evidence because "there is no alternative to modern language", or "the evidence all agrees with me" in which case, it should be easy to provide clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence.

[Le Repteux]

Everybody talks about evidence. Does the name "evidence" mean "data" for a scientific? To me, the word evidence means that it does not have to be proven since it is so evident, like the idea that god is only an idea for instance.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

To me, the word evidence means that it does not have to be proven since it is so evident, like the idea that god is only an idea for instance.

You are wrong.

[Bignose]

Everybody talks about evidence. Does the name "evidence" mean "data" for a scientific? To me, the word evidence means that it does not have to be proven since it is so evident, like the idea that god is an idea for instance.

Wow, (please don't take this as name calling...)

 

you are lecturing us about how science should work in your mind, but you don't even know what evidence is? I'm rather flabbergasted at this.

 

In short, evidence is measurements that agree with the predictions made by someone. Strong evidence agrees very closely to predictions. Weak evidence doesn't agree very closely. Good evidence is clear-cut, objective, and statistically significant when measured.

[Le Repteux]

In short, evidence is measurements that agree with the predictions made by someone. Strong evidence agrees very closely to predictions. Weak evidence doesn't agree very closely. Good evidence is clear-cut, objective, and statistically significant when measured.

OK, its about data then! Thank's!

The Higgs data were what kind of evidence, as an example?

 

Hey xyzt, I bet your keyboard keys corresponding to the five letters w r o n g are completely worn out!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

OK, its about data then! Thank's!

 

Hey xyzt, I bet your keyboard keys corresponding to the five letters w r o n g are completely worned out!

Well, you seem unable to get anything right <shrug>.

[Strange]

Everybody talks about evidence. Does the name "evidence" mean "data" for a scientific? To me, the word evidence means that it does not have to be proven since it is so evident, like the idea that god is only an idea for instance.

 

Ah. That explains your odd use of "evidently" earlier.

 

No, that is not what "evidence" means. It means objective experimental or observation data which can be used to test the predictions of a model.

This langage is exactly what I mean by name calling Strange! Maybe I should say "crackpot" calling?

 

It was deliberate and carefully considered. I do not think it is name called.

 

If someone shows that they have very little knowledge about a subject, it is not name calling to label them "ignorant". Ignorant (when acknowledged) is a good thing: it is an opportunity to learn.

 

When someone repeatedly makes the same unsupported assertions and totally denies that any counter-evidence has been presented (even though any reasonable person could go through the thread and list the posts where the evidence was provided) then they are behaving like a typical crank. When someone behave exactly like a crank or crackpot, then it seems reasonable to use that term to describe them.

 

It is not name calling, it is an assessment and description of their behaviour (based on evidence).

Really?!? I sure missed that contrary evidence!

 

A couple of examples, both of which have been repeated multiple times:

 

Cladking: People can't see new things.

Various People: Science progresses therefore they obviously can.

 

C: There have been no [recent] paradigm shifts.

VP: examples of paradigm shifts in recent decades provided.

 

Anyone in the universe (with the apparent exception of yourself) could browse the thread and find the many posts where these exchnages have occurred (which is why this thread has reached 9 pages).

 

Some of this repetition may be due to your inability to communicate clearly.

[swansont]

 

Are you accusing a member of the forum of being a sock-puppet? That is a pretty serious accusation (and should be done by a report to the moderators, rather than a post in the forum).

 

Or are you accusing someone of calling you names? If so, I cannot understand why. There is still no name calling.

 

Seconded.

 

(And as a moderator, endorsed. For the record, no. Those two don't even post from the same country let alone the same time zone)

[Le Repteux]

It was deliberate and carefully considered. I do not think it is name called.

 

If someone shows that they have very little knowledge about a subject, it is not name calling to label them "ignorant". Ignorant (when acknowledged) is a good thing: it is an opportunity to learn.

 

When someone repeatedly makes the same unsupported assertions and totally denies that any counter-evidence has been presented (even though any reasonable person could go through the thread and list the posts where the evidence was provided) then they are behaving like a typical crank. When someone behave exactly like a crank or crackpot, then it seems reasonable to use that term to describe them.

 

It is not name calling, it is an assessment and description of their behavior (based on evidence).

OK strange, I acknowledge that calling somebody a crackpot to discredit him is not name calling to you (or to Swansont by the way), but you will have to acknowledge that it is precisely my definition of name calling, and I shall continue remembering it to you when you do (but not to Swansont, of course).

No, that is not what "evidence" means. It means objective experimental or observation data which can be used to test the predictions of a model.

It is interesting to note that scientists has taken as an evidence that the word evidence could be used to say the contrary it usually meant. For me, an evidence is about something that does not have to be proven, and for them, it is the contrary. What's the use of misdirecting us like that. Do they think the usual meaning the plebe is using will change to coincide with their meaning with time? Couldn't they have used the world "data" instead?

[Strange]

OK strange, I acknowledge that calling somebody a crackpot to discredit him is not name calling to you (or to Swansont by the way), but you will have to acknowledge that it is precisely my definition of name calling, and I shall continue remembering it to you when you do (but not to Swansont, of course).

 

I did not do it to discredit him (he doesn't need my help with that ) but to characterise his behaviour.

 

If you behave like X and therefore someone says, "you are behaving like X", then if you think that X is a Bad Thing, then you have two choices: get offended because your behaviour has been identified or adjust your behaviour. Your choice.

 

It is interesting to note that scientists has taken as an evidence that the word evidence could be used to say the contrary it usually meant. For me, an evidence is about something that does not have to be proven, and for them, it is the contrary. What's the use of misdirecting us like that. Do they think the usual meaning the plebe is using will change to coincide with their meaning with time? Couldn't they have used the world "data" instead?

 

Is English a second language? (*) Maybe you need a better dictionary. Courts, scientists, engineers and, I suspect, most people use evidence to mean facts that support an idea.

 

(*) Edit: some people take that question as insulting. I'm not sure why.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Strange

[Phi for All]

For me, an evidence is about something that does not have to be proven, and for them, it is the contrary.

 

Somewhere along the line in your education, you got the mistaken impression that science needs to "prove" things. This is not true at all. Scientific method isn't concerned with proofs; that's actually for maths, but I know you don't want to hear that.

 

We use theory, because a theory is never "proven". One of the greatest values of a theory is that we always look at the evidence in favor and judge the theory trustworthy based on that. So a counter theory with more evidence in its favor will be accepted as the mainstream explanation. If we thought our theories were "proven", we'd stop looking for better answers.

 

Do you realize that your definition of evidence is dogmatic and hidebound compared to ours? If we used your definition of evidence, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The fact that science works with theory has given you this opportunity to question those theories. But you need to work within the method, and present evidence that supports your conjectures and assertions, and answer any arguments that refute it.

 

Seriously, you have a LOT of misconceptions about science, consistent with not being able to generate the math that might help you easily verify the viability of an idea. I would encourage you to learn a bit more about those things you criticize most. Does it really seem realistic that you have it right and all the professionals are wrong?

[swansont]

It is interesting to note that scientists has taken as an evidence that the word evidence could be used to say the contrary it usually meant.

 

 

Science is rife with terms that have a very narrow meaning as compared to the lay definitions, and sometimes used in opposite connotation. "Coincidence" is one example. In lay use, a coincidence is an episode of chance while in physics it is decidedly not. This is a reason you might see the phrase "the dictionary is not a technical reference" littered about the forum.

 

You're using evident/evidence to mean obvious, and that's not how science uses it.