nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Posting made up garbage does not qualify as "thinking out of the box". For people who are too comfy inside the box, it is obviously unsettling to see some out of box stuff. All I am suggesting is that some of the branches of science today have become 'unscientific'. Let's focus on this topic. If you have proof that can lead to validating or invalidating this idea, please post it here, otherwise just treat this topic as garbage and pass by. Edited January 12, 2015 by nobox
elfmotat Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 For people who are too comfy inside the box, it is obviously unsettling to see some out of box stuff. All I am suggesting is that some of the branches of science today have become 'unscientific'. Let's focus on this topic. If you have proof that can lead to validating or invalidating this idea, please post it here, otherwise just treat this topic as garbage and pass by. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Do you have any to support your claims or not? If not then there is no topic to focus on.
xyzt Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 For people who are too comfy inside the box, it is obviously unsettling to see some out of box stuff. Not at all. Your "outside the box" is pure horse manure. Stop deluding yourself claiming that it is science. All I am suggesting is that some of the branches of science today have become 'unscientific'. The standard ignorant crank claim: "I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong". Let's focus on this topic. If you have proof then present it here, Err, the burden of proof is on you. You made the BS claims.
Phi for All Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Thinking out of box is my job. This is one of the biggest mistakes you will EVER make, period. It seems like such a cool thing to say, makes you seem so smart. In reality, you may as well be saying, "I've never played poker before, but I'll bet I can beat a professional player, because I don't have all that relevant experience and knowledge to trip me up and hold me back." It will haunt you when you're older, and realize that you can't think outside of something you don't already know well. What you're doing isn't thinking outside the box, it's peeing all over the outside of the toilet, simply because it's too much work to aim at the insides. 2
xyzt Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 What you're doing isn't thinking outside the box, it's peeing all over the outside of the toilet, simply because it's too much work to aim at the insides. I will have to steal the above, it is a brilliant characterization.
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Good science starts that way, sometimes. i.e. it was started by 'ludicrous' idea and proved/disproved by people who had more time than what they know how to spend. I can't think of a single example. Can you? Or is this another empty claim? Thinking out of box is my job. Anyone can do that. That is the easy bit. So well done for picking the job that requires no knowledge, no intelligance, no effort and gets no results. For people who are too comfy inside the box, it is obviously unsettling to see some out of box stuff. No one is "unsettled" by the same idiotic claims we have seen hundreds of times from all those people who think it smart to "think out of the box" (aka "make crap up") instead of learning. All I am suggesting is that some of the branches of science today have become 'unscientific'. Let's focus on this topic. Yes, let's focus on the topic: YOU are the one who refuses to discuss it. Please provide some evidence that science today has become unscientific. Just one example. If you have proof that can lead to validating or invalidating this idea, please post it here, otherwise just treat this topic as garbage and pass by. It can be invalidated trivially: you made it up and it isn't true. It seems like such a cool thing to say, makes you seem so smart. In reality, you may as well be saying, "I've never played poker before, but I'll bet I can beat a professional player, because I don't have all that relevant experience and knowledge to trip me up and hold me back." "He has a face totally unmarked by the ravages of intelligence." Edited January 12, 2015 by Strange 1
Sensei Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I tend to think that the high-energy physics, and cosmology today are closer to scams than science. Build your own particle detector for $50, instruction is here: How to build cloud chamber particle detector You will be able to see traces leaved by high energy particles colliding with upper level atmosphere and secondary rays produced by them flying through detector. Here is example video: You can make your own highly accelerated particles, using high voltage generators, that will leave traces in detector.. Edited January 12, 2015 by Sensei 2
Phi for All Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Anyone can do that. That is the easy bit. So well done for picking the job that requires no knowledge, no intelligance, no effort and gets no results. This should be a very telling point. Everybody who claims to "think outside the box" assumes that lots of solutions happen when folks do this. It's almost a given from the phrase, like Begging the Question that thinking this way is the best. Can anyone give a specific example of successful, real life out-of-the-box thinking?
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Can anyone give a specific example of successful, real life out-of-the-box thinking? No. The out-of-the-boxers like to shout about how important it is to be lazy and ignorant, but never actually come up with anything useful, nor any examples of people like them who have come up with anything useful. On the other hand, intelligent, well-educated, hard-working and imaginative scientists or engineers? Thousands, maybe millions. And lots of practical results.
Sensei Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Can anyone give a specific example of successful, real life out-of-the-box thinking? Avogadro law: "The Avogadro constant is named after the early 19th century Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro, who in 1811 first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas." ?
Mordred Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 According to this memoir reprinted translation his work references work done by Dalton and M Gay Lussac http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/avogadro.html
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Avogadro law: "The Avogadro constant is named after the early 19th century Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro, who in 1811 first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas." ? So not really an example of someone who knows nothing about the subject, can't be bothered to learn anything but throws out random ideas that he hopes make sense and expects others to check.
nobox Posted January 12, 2015 Author Posted January 12, 2015 One of human's biggest pleasures is derived from knowing/feeling/showing the superiority over others. It is manifested very clearly here. Who cares if today's science has some rotten apples, or has pretty darn bad scams going on.... But scams will be exposed eventually. Evidence takes time and energy to glean. I am not a stakeholder so I am not going to do it. My post is just a reminder of the possibility. OK?
Strange Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 One of human's biggest pleasures is derived from knowing/feeling/showing the superiority over others. Yes, like all those smug people who boast about how clever they are to "think out of the box" (but apparently not clever enough to learn anything about the subject). or has pretty darn bad scams going on.... But scams will be exposed eventually You keep saying this, but when challenged to provide an example or some evidence, you change the subject. Why is that? Evidence takes time and energy to glean. Oh, yes, that's right: you are lazy and don't know anything about science. If you are too lazy to support your own nonsense, why would anyone else do it? My post is just a reminder of the possibility. OK? No. Not OK.
elfmotat Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Evidence takes time and energy to glean. I am not a stakeholder so I am not going to do it. My post is just a reminder of the possibility. OK? So you're intentionally wasting people's time?
Bignose Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) But scams will be exposed eventually. Evidence takes time and energy to glean. I am not a stakeholder so I am not going to do it. My post is just a reminder of the possibility. OK? So, just like the sacred numbers thread, you're here to tell us that science sucks, tear down some walls, but not be bothered to help build them up in any meaningful way. What pleasure does this give you? You act like you care -- you cared enough to tell us the science is a scam -- but you don't care enough to actually show us any evidence of this scam or give any clues about anything actually specifically wrong. What use is this? If you are going to be this differential, why even bother? If this is going to be your contribution -- to just troll the forum -- just don't bother posting again. "Tsk, tsk" at us, shake your head, and feel sorry for us if you must, but if you're not going to contribute anything meaningful, just don't bother. If you're looking for a reaction from us, you got it. Huzzah. Edited January 12, 2015 by Bignose 1
Phi for All Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 One of human's biggest pleasures is derived from knowing/feeling/showing the superiority over others. Unless you understand science, or cooperation, or critical thought. Then you realize that superiority is contextual, and not an overall state. And ultimately meaningless. It is manifested very clearly here. Who cares if today's science has some rotten apples, or has pretty darn bad scams going on.... You never supported that argument. You don't get to keep making it without support, not here anyway. But scams will be exposed eventually. Evidence takes time and energy to glean. I am not a stakeholder so I am not going to do it. What kind of person accuses a whole group of people of fraud, and then refuses to say why? You became a stakeholder the moment you decided to start a discussion about it. My post is just a reminder of the possibility. OK? Your post is one of the reasons critical thinking should be more of a priority in education. If you leave here now, you're going to spin your wheels for a loooooooooong time with the mindset you have. You're going to keep rejecting mainstream knowledge in favor of your bitter resentment. If you stick around, you could learn from an amazing variety of people who all love science and can help you with the misconceptions you have. You're smart, that's obvious, but you've chosen to reject opportunities to actually learn about the subject you're deriding. Think about it, does that sound rational?
nobox Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 Maybe there is a cultural thing in this forum and I just realized its existence. I visited this forum the 1st time yesterday. Ask this: 1. Does a hypothesis have a chance to be proved or disproved? 2. Is there any gain during the process and/or from the conclusion? My initial post, as a hypothesis, gives 'yes' to both questions. Yes, I am short of evidence because I am not an expert of either cosmology or high energy physics. But does that deprive me of the right to express a hypothesis? BTW, Santa's underwear failed #2 test so it is purely a waste of time even mentioning it. Since science has become an institutionalized thing, there are many people's status, money and reputation at stake. Can science keep its objectivity and be held accountable, especially the domain knowledge has advanced far from an ordinary citizen's intellectual reach? Wherever there is power and monopoly of authority, there is a possibility of corruption and collusion. My hypothesis is not just about science, it is about ethics as well. I am not attacking science at all, in fact I am pointing to the possibility of abusing science at a massive scale.
Strange Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) 1. Does a hypothesis have a chance to be proved or disproved? Yes, by making predictions and comparing them against evidence. 2. Is there any gain during the process and/or from the conclusion? I'm not sure what that means. Yes, I am short of evidence because I am not an expert of either cosmology or high energy physics. But does that deprive me of the right to express a hypothesis? Yes, the lack of evidence means you have no hypothesis. A baseless opinion is not a hypothesis. A wild guess is not a hypothesis. Do you have the right to post opinions and wild guesses on this forum? Probably not. I am not attacking science at all, in fact I am pointing to the possibility of abusing science at a massive scale. And yet you have no basis for make such an attack on science. Would it be reasonable for someone to accuse you of, say, being a child molester? They have no evidence, they just think it is possible, so why shouldn't they make the accusation? It is not an attack, they are just pointing out the possibility. Edited January 13, 2015 by Strange
nobox Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 Mass abuse of science occurred in Nazi Germany, USSR, and China. Not to mention in the earlier eras. There are so many proclaimed sciences/truth/paradigms/you-name-it that eventually fell into dustbins.
Strange Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Mass abuse of science occurred in Nazi Germany, USSR, and China. Not to mention in the earlier eras. There are so many proclaimed sciences/truth/paradigms/you-name-it that eventually fell into dustbins. How is that relevant? Do you think that it would be acceptable in a murder trial to point out that Ghengis Khan killed lots of people and therefore the accused must be guilty? Maybe you need to take a short course in logic or critical thinking.
swansont Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Yes, I am short of evidence because I am not an expert of either cosmology or high energy physics. But does that deprive me of the right to express a hypothesis? ! Moderator Note Expressing it? No. But we are under no obligation to be your platform for baseless assertions — which you admit to making. Closed. Do not revisit the topic.
Recommended Posts