New theories are trash ?????

[xyzt]

 

 

Even if nobody noticed, what I do here is defend my original idea about mass.

Yes, we also noticed that you try to hijack every thread with your same idea. You have a thread about "mass", stick to that thread, stop trying to hijack others.

 

 

 

Resisting to change, remember?

 

Yes, you are resiting the debunking of your claims.

[Le Repteux]

Yes, we also noticed that you try to hijack every thread with your same idea. You have a thread about "mass", stick to that thread, stop trying to hijack others.

Names. You don't hijack a subject when you add your personal opinion to it!

 

Yes, you are resiting the debunking of your claims.

Names again. Debunk has a negative meaning.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

You let the others do so

 

Nothing to do with me. Tell the moderators.

 

 

Even if nobody noticed, what I do here is defend my original idea about mass. Resisting to change, remember?

 

There is a big difference between a rational (and required) reluctance to accept changes to well-tested theory and refusing to acknowledge that your idea is baseless and wrong.

[Arete]

[swansont]

As Strange already said, there still is a doubt, nevertheless, the chance is taken, because there is benefit from taking chances, and it sort of creates pleasure in our minds, the pleasure to think that it will work. This is the pleasure that helps me to continue here, not the one that comes from being treated as a crackpot.

 

Not sure what this has to do with an engineer being/not being confident that their idea is sound. Engineers aren't being paid to be thrill seekers.

[cladking]

 

This has little or nothing to do with science. You are talking about religion or philosophy (or maybe pseudoscience).

 

 

It also requires evidence. There is no point expecting a "new perspective" when you have zero evidence beyond your own imagination. (Unless the new perspective is "believe this story I made up".)

 

This is exactly what I mean. I defined the true nature of science from a perspective outside modern language and you respond that it has nothing to do with science offerring no logic and no facts that support your contention. It's not possible for me to address your "concerns" except with irrelvancies or name calling.

 

Then to rub salt in the wound you believe you've made you say it concerns philosophy which I specifically already stated on at least two occasions couldn't make progress because its language is confused. Ask me what religion is sometime when it's actually relevant and you might be surprised.

 

All ideas are "made up". They are an event and better thinking results in a higher correlation with them being correct.

 

Why not make up some ideas that address the subject directly rather than simply reflect your own beliefs about what science is and isn't. I've studied metaphysics since I was quite small so would welcome such an exchange.

[swansont]

 

That scientists are better at seeing anomalous results doesn't change the fact that they still will usually see what they expect. At any given moment the brain is bombarded with all sorts of sensory input and there aren't enough hours in the day to sit down and analyze even one second of all this input. Seeing anomalies is often like finding a needle in a haystack. Scientists find more needles but they still see what they expect in between finding needles (or getting poked in my case).

 

You keep claiming this, but without any acknowledgement of how science actually works, which means it's a straw man. If some anomaly really is like a needle in a haystack then the anomaly is small. It will become obvious with more statistics and/or better experiments. Scientists are doing better experiments all the frikkin' time. I went to two conferences this summer where I saw talk after talk of this sort — pushing back the precision on experiments by factors of 2 or 10, in order to see if there's anything new there. Discussions about how the experiments can be improved even more to get better data, and every one of these scientists would be ecstatic to see something unexpected, that would point to some kind of new physics.

 

Your vision of how science/scientists work quite simply does not reflect the reality of how it actually happens.

Names again. Debunk has a negative meaning.

 

Debunk refers to an idea, not a person. Attacking ideas is expected. It's attacking people that's not allowed.

Even if nobody noticed, what I do here is defend my original idea about mass. Resisting to change, remember?

 

That discussion belongs in its own thread, but people aren't going to change and adopt a new idea until it's been shown to have merit — a model and evidence to support it, and better than what already exists. Not adopting it can't simply be written off as being resistant to change until you have cleared that hurdle.

[Le Repteux]

Nothing to do with me. Tell the moderators.

The last time I did that, I was banned. When you see an injustice, you turn your eyes?

 

There is a big difference between a rational (and required) reluctance to accept changes to well-tested theory and refusing to acknowledge that your idea is baseless and wrong.

There is indeed a big difference, but there is a big similitude too: both resistances are subconscious, in such a way that, if one of the sides points at it, the other side will never be able to recognize it, and vice-versa. Because of that, it takes a certain time to change an idea, and giving bad feelings to people cannot accelerate time.

Not sure what this has to do with an engineer being/not being confident that their idea is sound. Engineers aren't being paid to be thrill seekers.

Engineers are normal people: they use what they already know to build known structures, and they take risks if they build something new. The newer the structure, the more important the risks. Its the same for any new idea: if you don't like to take risks, you will never invent new things. We have to be careful with our new ideas though, because the success anticipated when we take a risk might kill us if we take a too big one.

[cladking]

Then you need to gather more evidence and/or stronger evidence and/or demonstrate that the existing evidence fits your idea better. If what you say above is true, then you just need to keep doing it.

 

 

Indeed. I've been doing this for years as well as pointing out that all the new discoveries are predicted by my theory and don't fit in the existing paradigm. The scientists do seem to be reacting a little to try to support the paradigm but they aren't running the simple tests and measurements that would prove they are wrong or that I am right. I'm stuck in a no man's land between a rock and a hard place. I find new support for my theory all the time (just as those with confirmation bias do), but none of it is conclusive. The chances of finding conclusive evidence within the existing data is not very high because this data is severely limited both by nature and by the establishment's refusal to do any testing. The last data gathered in 1987 are highly supportive of my theory and very little has been done since.

 

I'm patient and persistent. I probably should devote more time to study and less time to tryng to convince people but there are several practical problems associated with this. Chief among them is that pretty much all the evidence, especially the contradictory evidence, has been analyzed to death at this point. There's little farther I can take it at all without more evidence. Also the implications are staggering and hold far more interest to me. One man can't do all this work alone and it will require thouands of people for many years to work on it. Since there is some urgency it seems the best bet is to get people interested enough to explore it or to put pressure on those in charge to do the testing. Meanwhile talking about the implications and extrapolations seems a means to get people thinking enough that they might accept an idea that upsets so much basic "understanding".

 

 

Sure, it won't be easy, but in the end, evidence is what wins out.

 

 

I do believe patience and persistence will prevail because the evidence wins out and all the evidence is on my side. Of course practitioners have their own explanation for a lot of this evidence but their explanations don't hang together. I call them the "teflon paradigm" because no facts adhere to it.

 

 

 

Disparaging all scientists based on your lone experience here isn't going to win you over any friends, though.

 

I have never intended to disparage any scientists. I do take a lot of pot shots at this particular field but never individuals. I might say that such and such sounds "mystical" or the like but only as necessary to identify the specific mysticism. These people are experts and they did all the hard work that made it possible for me to stumble on the reality. My role in this is really not so great in field of giants. Even if I were important the fact is without their work and without language I could have done nothing.

 

When I talk about scientists I am talking about human nature and no offense of any sort is intended on their specialty or them individually. Most of what I'm ascribing to them does apply to each individually just as it applies to all people. We are a product of language just as science and scientists are a product of language. That we can't see this from our perspective diminishes our ability to see reality. It's seeing reality and nature that are the very reason science exists. By understanding reality, especially on a visceral level, we are able to discover processes and laws that make predictions and let us better control our enviroment. Without this understanding of reality and making accurate predictions we wouldn't engage in science at all. The fact that all animals are scientists just seems an interesting little tidbit that people don't see because they think science is an artefact of intelligence and human omniscience. From this perspective a rabbit scientist is an absurdity.

 

 

 

As you say yourself... it is all perspective. YOUR perspective is that scientists don't want to listen despite the evidence. But that doesn't ring true for all of us. I know and have known many very observant and very open to new evidence scientists. And, as swansont pointed out, the simple truth that science has continued to advance debunks your claims here.

 

Individuals certainly vary widely.

 

It's not quite so much that people don't listen as that they can't listen. Anything outside our own experiences tend to be invisible.

Its the same for any new idea: if you don't like to take risks, you will never invent new things. We have to be careful with our new ideas though, because the success anticipated when we take a risk might kill us if we take a too big one.

 

 

While taking a break I was thinking along these exact same lines. I've always had crackpot notions an am just as pleased when they don't pan out as when they do. Many very important people in commerce and industry have said things like "if don't go broke once in a while you aren't really trying or taking enough risks.". I realize taking risks is something most people don't want to do and in professional fields there are risks associated even with successful chance taking.

 

I guess most of we "crackpots" just don't mind being wrong as much as many people. I figure life is risk and you may as well try to make a mark even if it's just a splotch. Life is to enjoy yourself and leave the world better than you found it. I guess I enjoy risk as well.

You keep claiming this, but without any acknowledgement of how science actually works, which means it's a straw man. If some anomaly really is like a needle in a haystack then the anomaly is small. It will become obvious with more statistics and/or better experiments. Scientists are doing better experiments all the frikkin' time. I went to two conferences this summer where I saw talk after talk of this sort — pushing back the precision on experiments by factors of 2 or 10, in order to see if there's anything new there. Discussions about how the experiments can be improved even more to get better data, and every one of these scientists would be ecstatic to see something unexpected, that would point to some kind of new physics.

 

Your vision of how science/scientists work quite simply does not reflect the reality of how it actually happens.

 

 

I believe my perspective of science most closely matches the reality of what it is. Of course everyone believes this about every concept. The difference is I can support my concept logically, definitionally, and metaphysically. The most important difference between your obviously appropriate definition of science and my definition has nothing to do with science itself and everything to do with language. We are, no doubt, in general agreement about the defining characteristics of science but not the semantics and the perspective from which to describe it.

 

As I've said before, my perspective is unique and is derived from knowledge of a pre-existing science, ancient science, that was based on observation and logic rather than observation and experiment. Ancient scientists didn't use experiment and instead relied on a naturally logical language which was metaphysical. This is a part of my discovery and my perspective is extrapolated from this. Nobody will agree with my overall definition though I can distill out only the part of the definition relevant to modern language speakers which is what I'm trying to do. I'm talking about language because it is still relevant since all scientists still think in language.

 

Language also applies to new ideas because they are expressed in language. They are seen from the perspectives imparted by language. Seeing the unexpected is difficult for people because of language. Patience and persstance can be critical because of this.

[Bignose]

Indeed. I've been doing this for years as well as pointing out that all the new discoveries are predicted by my theory and don't fit in the existing paradigm. The scientists do seem to be reacting a little to try to support the paradigm but they aren't running the simple tests and measurements that would prove they are wrong or that I am right. I'm stuck in a no man's land between a rock and a hard place. I find new support for my theory all the time (just as those with confirmation bias do), but none of it is conclusive. The chances of finding conclusive evidence within the existing data is not very high because this data is severely limited both by nature and by the establishment's refusal to do any testing. The last data gathered in 1987 are highly supportive of my theory and very little has been done since.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Resource acquisition is a challenge for almost everybody in science. The fact is that there are limited resources available, so it gets split up. But that fact that you can't afford resources to get more and/or more conclusive evidence is not evidence that all of science is blind to evidence. In fact, without knowing anything about what you're talking about here, the fact that you admit that you don't have any conclusive evidence means that any new idea is going to be tough to swallow. That doesn't make the people who don't accept it bad or wrong in anyway. Just skeptical and conservative. Not necessarily bad things.

 

Basically, if you want people to believe in it, you need to keep presenting evidence that supports your idea. If it is truly the best idea, eventually they will come around.

 

None of this supports the broad blanket statements about scientist's unwillingness to accept something you were making earlier, though. As swansont pointed out, you're extrapolating your experience and lumping all the scientists together. Your broad statements about the entire population of scientists isn't right as best evidenced by the fact that science find new things all the time and continues to progress.

[Strange]

 

This is exactly what I mean. I defined the true nature of science from a perspective outside modern language

 

You didn't define the "true nature of science". If you think you did then you obviously have no idea what science is or what it does.

 

 

All ideas are "made up". They are an event and better thinking results in a higher correlation with them being correct.

 

The difference is that some ideas are supported by evidence and some are just fantasy. There is no reason why "better thinking" (whatever that means) correlates with correctness. The only thing that determines correctness is testing against observation and measurement.

 

 

I've studied metaphysics since I was quite small so would welcome such an exchange.

 

I am an engineer and have no interest in metaphysics.

The last time I did that, I was banned.

 

I don't believe you.

 

When you see an injustice, you turn your eyes?

 

I haven't seen any name calling so what can I say.

 

There is indeed a big difference, but there is a big similitude too: both resistances are subconscious, in such a way that, if one of the sides points at it, the other side will never be able to recognize it, and vice-versa.

 

Wrong. In general, the scientific resistance to new ideas is a deliberate, planned, conscious part of the process. It is one of the reasons that science works.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

 

Engineers are normal people: they use what they already know to build known structures, and they take risks if they build something new. The newer the structure, the more important the risks. Its the same for any new idea: if you don't like to take risks, you will never invent new things. We have to be careful with our new ideas though, because the success anticipated when we take a risk might kill us if we take a too big one.

 

Not risk the way you were using it before. It's not for the sheer thrill of it, or doing something different for the sake of doing something different. An engineer that ignored safety margins, or the laws of structural integrity or circuit design would probably be fired for incompetence, and if their design somehow got approved, would likely be culpable for any damage caused. Any testing of new ideas would be done in a test situation, not some final product. Aeronautical engineers test new airplane designs, they don't send people up in them until they're convinced the design works and is safe.

 

I ask again, why would an engineer testing a new design that's based on valid engineering principles assume s/he is wrong? I can see it if the design is rectally retrieved, but that's not engineering, and in such a case, one should assume it doesn't work. In any event, testing is required: comparison of theory with actual data. That's always required.

[Strange]

I ask again, why would an engineer testing a new design that's based on valid engineering principles assume s/he is wrong?

 

The original suggestion was that an engineer would assume that a new idea is correct, otherwise they would not pursue it. I pointed out that that is a dangerous approach. You might hope that the new idea will work, but you should work on the assumption that it won't and start doing calculations, models, tests to disprove that assumption. I have worked with people who had a "no, I'm sure it will be OK" attitude. It never ended well. They ended up getting a lot further through the development process before finding the flaws, and hence wasting time and money.

 

It has turned into a bit of a distraction, I think...

[swansont]

 

 

I'm not competent to judge all of these ideas. All I can do is attempt to follow the logic and ask for explanation where I can identify an apparent inconsistency. Many crackpot ideas are simply and obviously wrong.

 

Hard evidence can be presented only in the hard sciences and only if there are observational, theoretical, or mathmatical support. The lack of such support does not necessarily deny the new idea but merely weakens it. If the new idea contradicts known science and no forthcoming explanation is available then it can be dismissed and is most probably wrong and isn't worthy of consideration even if it's right.

 

In other areas you'd be appalled to see what passes as evidence. Existing theory is founded on sand. The less support that exists for "theory" the more strongly it is defended.

 

 

So all of this is in an area other than physics/chemistry/biology/geology?

 

Well, pfft. You're complaining an apple isn't an orange as far as I'm concerned.

[Le Repteux]

Seeing the unexpected is difficult for people because of language. Patience and persistance can be critical because of this.

Seeing the unexpected is difficult for people certainly because of language, but also because the unexpected is about applying the past to the future, the known to the unknown. We may calculate that a new idea will work, but even if it would at the moment it is calculated, it might not work at the moment it is tested if it takes time to test it, because things change with time. I might calculate that I have time to cross at an intersection, but if I did not see a car coming, I might get hurt nevertheless. My new idea is about mass being caused by interactions not being instantaneous, and yours is about words not being understood the same with time and with the different people. The two ideas have something in common: time and resisting to change. I like your idea, and I wonder if you would like mine...

I ask again, why would an engineer testing a new design that's based on valid engineering principles assume s/he is wrong?

It is remarkable to see how people sometimes understand exactly the contrary to what was proposed by somebody else in a discussion. As Cladking was saying, most of the time, we see what we expect to see, and when the proposition is too strange, we cannot see it, so we see what we can see from our own information. I will repeat what I said, even if I expect almost no chance of getting anything new, its no big risk anyway: I said that we had to be optimistic to tell others about a new idea we have, to expect a positive response, otherwise it would be useless to talk about it. More precisely, since we are talking about intelligence, to learn something, we have to believe we will be able to, otherwise we don't even try. To do something new, we have to believe it will work. To build a bridge, people around will give their opinions and the decision may be taken altogether, but nevertheless, if somebody has a new idea, he has to believe in it to tell it.

[Strange]

As Cladking was saying, most of the time, we see what we expect to see, and when the proposition is too strange, we cannot see it

 

Both of you keep saying this, with no supporting evidence, despite being provided with evidence to the contrary. And you wonder why people treat you like crackpots.

 

I said that we had to be optimistic to tell others about a new idea we have, to expect a positive response, otherwise it would be useless to talk about it.

 

Actually, I don't think you ever said that.

 

Yes, you need confidence in your idea before discussing it more widely - to avoid embarrassing yourself.

 

The way to achieve this confidence is not by "believing in it" or the usual crackpot strategy of "I thought of it so it must be right" but to take a scientific approach and TEST the idea first. About 99% of the so-called theories presented on science forums can be shown to be wrong with about 30 seconds work. Why is the proposer of the idea unable to do that initial calculation or comparison with evidence? Because they are convinced they are right. If they started out with a degree of proper scepticism and self-doubt then they could check their idea themselves (and save the embarrassment).

[Le Repteux]

I don't believe you.

Would you if I told you that it was a moderator that was calling me names?

 

I haven't seen any name calling so what can I say.

I believe you, so I withdraw what I said about you.

 

Wrong. In general, the scientific resistance to new ideas is a deliberate, planned, conscious part of the process. It is one of the reasons that science works.

This goes for planning a resistance, but what did you think when you said "wrong" at the beginning of your phrase; were you planning to resist or were you unconsciously preventing my future resistance?

[Strange]

what did you think when you said "wrong" at the beginning of your phrase; were you planning to resist or were you unconsciously preventing my future resistance?

 

I analysed your sentence and determined that (a) it appeared to be factually incorrect and (b) had no supporting evidence and © is contradicted by evidence. Therefore I explained to you that it was wrong and why it was wrong.

 

Your continual repetition of baseless assertions with no support, and which are contradicted by evidence, is getting rather tedious.

[xyzt]

 

About 99% of the so-called theories presented on science forums can be shown to be wrong with about 30 seconds work. Why is the proposer of the idea unable to do that initial calculation or comparison with evidence? Because they are convinced they are right. If they started out with a degree of proper scepticism and self-doubt then they could check their idea themselves (and save the embarrassment).

Too bad that I can only give you only one thumb up. All internet "scientists" should read the above and take heed (but it is not going to happen).

[cladking]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Resource acquisition is a challenge for almost everybody in science. The fact is that there are limited resources available, so it gets split up. But that fact that you can't afford resources to get more and/or more conclusive evidence is not evidence that all of science is blind to evidence. In fact, without knowing anything about what you're talking about here, the fact that you admit that you don't have any conclusive evidence means that any new idea is going to be tough to swallow. That doesn't make the people who don't accept it bad or wrong in anyway. Just skeptical and conservative. Not necessarily bad things.

 

Basically, if you want people to believe in it, you need to keep presenting evidence that supports your idea. If it is truly the best idea, eventually they will come around.

 

Incredibly the tests that need to be done are exceedingly inexpensive. One researcher has already offered to do the most important one with his own funding. and personal effort but they have refused to grant access. There are several I'd like done and would be willing to pay for a couple of them myself since they are so inexpensive. These would provide conclusive physical evidence to support the basis of the theory. One test that needs to be done would require significant effort but probably would cost less than $100,000. It's just a matter of rounding up the resources and expertise. Another would be exceedingly inexpensive but would require extensive effort. For the main part these are all gimmees that should have been done long ago but haven't because the results are predictable according to the paradigm or the results are expected. Rather than doing the actual science they are extrapolating from assumptions and deeming them unimportant. There are many such tests and the results from the inexpensive first ones will lead to knowing what to study next. Instead they are dragging their feet even after key assumptions have been debunked and others shown to be merely assumptions.

 

People dismiss the evidence because it is weak. It is far stronger than current beliefs but it is weak.

 

None of this supports the broad blanket statements about scientist's unwillingness to accept something you were making earlier, though. As swansont pointed out, you're extrapolating your experience and lumping all the scientists together. Your broad statements about the entire population of scientists isn't right as best evidenced by the fact that science find new things all the time and continues to progress.

 

 

All scientists think in modern language.

 

It's true that this statement is somewhat simplistic since I didn' think strictly in modern language even before I found these surprising new perspectives. But, all my thinking was founded in language and I merely used some short cuts to improve my intuition. No doubt everyone does this to a greater or lesser extent but it doesn't change the fact that people think in language and that this language is the primary determinant of much of their perspective. This applies to scientists as much as anyone.

 

Scientists suffer confirmation bias as much as anyone. They simply engage in it at a much higher level and on more complicated subjects. It doesn't mean they're wrong or stupid, it's just the way the brain works. Modern language exascerbates this phenomena. Scientists aren't unwilling to consider new ideas; everyone has difficulty considering new ideas.

 

 

 

I am an engineer and have no interest in metaphysics.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

I've been a proponent of emphasizing the teaching of metaphysics from kindergarten onward for many years. Without an understanding of metaphysics one can't understand the results or meaning of scientific discoveries and theory. Modern metaphysics is so simple most individuals, even scientists, lose sight of it altogether and don't integrate new learning into its metaphysics.

 

This is important, in my opinion. It is the root cause of the silly science that runs rampant today. Science is not flavor of the day or politically correct and it's not a religion but explaining this to the average man or politician is impossible.

[swansont]

Would you if I told you that it was a moderator that was calling me names?

 

 

If you told me, I might observe that accusations require evidence. Without them, such accusations are dismissed. provide links to the instances, and use the report post function. Otherwise this is just OT nonsense.

 

If this is more about someone saying they have debunked your ideas, or similar, I will reiterate that attacking and idea and attacking a person are wholly different.

[cladking]

 

So all of this is in an area other than physics/chemistry/biology/geology?

 

Well, pfft. You're complaining an apple isn't an orange as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm really not trying to demean anyone. I confess I sometimes have to work to avoid demeaning some of the soft sciences but it's not because soft scientists are soft in the head but because I believe they are wrong and don't mind being wrong so long as they have good company. They do have good company.

 

Everyone is just trying to do what they think is right. I have no problem with this. I hope it never stops.

 

I'm complaining that roosters are sitting on an apple and have waited 150 years for it to hatch. It's unnatural.

[swansont]

 

I've been a proponent of emphasizing the teaching of metaphysics from kindergarten onward for many years. Without an understanding of metaphysics one can't understand the results or meaning of scientific discoveries and theory. Modern metaphysics is so simple most individuals, even scientists, lose sight of it altogether and don't integrate new learning into its metaphysics.

 

This is important, in my opinion. It is the root cause of the silly science that runs rampant today. Science is not flavor of the day or politically correct and it's not a religion but explaining this to the average man or politician is impossible.

 

I've heard this claim before, and yet in these cases nobody making it has ever been able to come up with a concrete example of how not investigating or appreciating metaphysics has held back scientific discovery.

[Le Repteux]

Both of you keep saying this, with no supporting evidence, despite being provided with evidence to the contrary. And you wonder why people treat you like crackpots.

To me, it is evident that god is only an idea, but many scientists think that I am wrong. Does that mean that they have evidence that I am wrong? That evidence argument is a lure. I also find that some theories are evidently wrong, but I am not telling it that way. What's the use of being so rude?

 

Actually, I don't think you ever said that.

I did, but with other words. I repeat with different manners in case it would be better understood.

 

Yes, you need confidence in your idea before discussing it more widely - to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Some might be afraid of that, I am not. My pride is somewhere else. When I am confident in an idea, I try it in case it would work, thats all.

 

The way to achieve this confidence is not by "believing in it" or the usual crackpot strategy of "I thought of it so it must be right" but to take a scientific approach and TEST the idea first.

This is what I did, but you don't believe me, or you don't believe in my capacity to recognize what is scientific or not.

 

About 99% of the so-called theories presented on science forums can be shown to be wrong with about 30 seconds work. Why is the proposer of the idea unable to do that initial calculation or comparison with evidence? Because they are convinced they are right. If they started out with a degree of proper skepticism and self-doubt then they could check their idea themselves (and save the embarrassment).

 

When people call me names, I don't feel embarrassed, I just want to kill them. I agree with you though that it must be frustrating to have to answer so many people presenting unscientific ideas on a scientific forum, and not being able to help them because they do not understand the principles, or not being able to convince them either that they are wrong because they love their idea. I guess it would take an angel to do that job, but a scientific one of course. Maybe someday there will be a team dedicated to that, one that would be more comprehensive with people, and more convincing too because more recognized, as with the AA organization for instance. Scientific Anonymous, here we are, and our motto is: ???.

[swansont]

 

I'm really not trying to demean anyone. I confess I sometimes have to work to avoid demeaning some of the soft sciences but it's not because soft scientists are soft in the head but because I believe they are wrong and don't mind being wrong so long as they have good company. They do have good company.

 

Everyone is just trying to do what they think is right. I have no problem with this. I hope it never stops.

 

I'm complaining that roosters are sitting on an apple and have waited 150 years for it to hatch. It's unnatural.

 

I meant that you're complaining in general about science based on areas of study that don't (or can't) adhere to the same levels of rigor as the hard sciences. Why that is the case is a discussion in itself, but the complaint hardly applies to the bulk of what we discuss (or try to discuss) on this site. So what's the point?

 

When people call me names

 

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.