History of science: A documentation of the struggle to "accept" reality.

[Strange]

The "suppression" of new ideas, facts, evidence supporting these new ideas or facts is a common trait o... blah blah blah

 

You keep saying this but have not produced a single example.

 

Given the lack of evidence, perhaps we can safely assume it isn't true.

[jeremyjr]

I am just an small element, on one side of the struggle to "accept" reality, the side that is introducing "new" facts, extraordinary facts, that side is always very small at the beginning, the opposing side, the losing side, is always overwhelming superior in number and "supporters", but they always will offer a defense in retreat, nothing can stop the acceptance of "reality".

It appears that almost all this forum members are in that losing side of this "struggle".

[Strange]

 

nothing can stop the acceptance of "reality".

 

Then you have nothing to worry about.

[ACG52]

Reality being of course whatever jeremyjr believes in.

[Phi for All]

I am just an small element, on one side of the struggle to "accept" reality, the side that is introducing "new" facts, extraordinary facts, that side is always very small at the beginning, the opposing side, the losing side, is always overwhelming superior in number and "supporters", but they always will offer a defense in retreat, nothing can stop the acceptance of "reality".

It appears that almost all this forum members are in that losing side of this "struggle".

 

You just keep claiming the same things, we keep asking you for examples to support what you're saying, and you just keep claiming the same things. When are you going to get that the quality of evidence you present for your arguments determines whether they're taken seriously or not? Whether you're talking about aliens, UFOs, or just trashing science in general, you need to support your claims, to the satisfaction of others, not just yourself.

[jeremyjr]

Even when the "side" opposing the new facts about reality could have an overwhelming support, that side will always "lose" because their position is based on false assumptions about reality, many times on incomplete knowledge about reality and or contradictory views of reality.

As any person that had worked on modeling knows, even if the tools and "language" used to describe a fixed model are different the end results, if done consistently, will be "isomorphic". Reality is the ultimate model that we all try to "model" hence any consistent descriptions of that model that is reality will tend to be "isomorphic", the new facts that the opposing side will try to suppress will appear even in many of the opposing side accepted facts or collected evidence, time is the ultimate equaliser and the losing side have always time against it.

[Mordred]

Do you even know what the term isomorphic means? The above word salad makes no sense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

 

You obviously are ignoring any other posters explaining how the scientific method really works. Models can and do change as new evidence presents itself.

 

Some models can change quickly others takes years of research to change.

 

no model changes without rigorously being examined.

When you post a idea or model on a physics forum. You should expect it to be examined and have holes punched into that idea or model.

 

If you can fill those holes the models gains strength. If not then it needs work.

[jeremyjr]

Valid ideas or facts on reality are very similar to extremely contagious germs: they spread in the minds of people very quickly, even in the minds of the people opposing these ideas and facts, once "inserted" it will stay there like an unwanted companion, and curiously some posts in this thread are a clear indication of that.

The "idea" already had been "inserted", even in a very small amount people where that "insertion" had already happened are more "ready" to accept the "new" reality.

[Phi for All]

I think he's saying, "Talk to the hand, the ears were never listening".

[Mordred]

I think he's saying, "Talk to the hand, the ears were never listening".

The hands are probably better conversionalists.

 

Obviously he's never studied models that have evolved in the last 100 years.

 

Prime example big bang to LCDM. Where the cosmological constant and dark matter were later added to fit observational evidence.

 

Second example quantum foam to LQC spin space.

 

Nor the improvements in particle physics. Where back in the 20's the atom didn't include the neutron. Also all the later added standard model particles and the Higgs field itself.

 

Science evolves as evidence is presented.

 

He chooses to ignore this fact

[Strange]

Valid ideas or facts on reality are very similar to extremely contagious germs: they spread in the minds of people very quickly, even in the minds of the people opposing these ideas and facts, once "inserted" it will stay there like an unwanted companion, and curiously some posts in this thread are a clear indication of that.

The "idea" already had been "inserted", even in a very small amount people where that "insertion" had already happened are more "ready" to accept the "new" reality.

 

So, I "assume" you are "not" going to "provide" any "evidence" to support your "many" ludicrous claims then.

 

Sad.

[jeremyjr]

Observational claims/facts can not be "explained away" they have to be independently verified and understood. That kind of "new" facts will never be resolved from a keyboard or a blackboard, these facts are the domain of people that "do" and are foreign to people that just "talk".

 

Am I gloating? That is a real possibility, having so many "bright" opponents and knowing that no amount of cunning "arguments" will ever make them right, I know by heart, without a shade of doubt that they are wrong because I have first hand multiple confirmations of that "new" reality as recent as yesterday and evidence of that reality continues to grow worldwide.

It is really amazing how people that supposedly should be "informed" are really completely "out of the loop".

[Strange]

Still "no" evidence "then"?

[Mordred]

Observational claims/facts can not be "explained away" they have to be independently verified and understood. That kind of "new" facts will never be resolved from a keyboard or a blackboard, these facts are the domain of people that "do" and are foreign to people that just "talk".

 

Am I gloating? That is a real possibility, having so many "bright" opponents and knowing that no amount of cunning "arguments" will ever make them right, I know by heart, without a shade of doubt that they are wrong because I have first hand multiple confirmations of that "new" reality as recent as yesterday and evidence of that reality continues to grow worldwide.

It is really amazing how people that supposedly should be "informed" are really completely "out of the loop".

Gloat all ya want the rest of us will continue to laugh at your foolishness. We've provided examples where science evolves.

 

You've provided zero zip evidence.

 

Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

 

 

It's obvious you have no interest in learning. So why are you even here posting on a physics forum?

[Phi for All]

Still "no" evidence "then"?

 

Historically, this is the part where Galileo purposely gets his thread shut down so he can claim oppression. Curse you, Cardinals!

 

My prediction, based on a growing mountain of evidence, is that he'll just keep making claims with no substance, so he'll eventually get himself banned and claim it's all our fault for being hidebound scientists. It would be too difficult to stay here and actually do some science after all these unsubstantiated claims.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

jeremyjr - last chance to pony up some evidence of the struggle of science to accept reality! In your next post please provide an up to date example of the scientific establishment dogmatically refusing to accept a novel but correct idea.

 

"As in many other cases you are wrong"

"Suppression of new ideas in the scientific community is a well documented occurrence."

"there is plenty of cases documenting that."

"that had already happened multiple times and that will happen again and again."

"Suppression to new ideas and facts is the norm not the exception"

"Suppression of new ideas or facts is a common occurrence in many human groups."

"that reaction is pervasive everywhere"

"The world is literally full of cardinals"

You have told us ad nauseam how commonplace this pernicious practice is - so provide a few juicy examples. A refusal (it surely cannot be an inability) to provide a few decent citations will be seen as a deliberate breach of the rules

 

 

edit

[ot] By a matter of seconds I just made Phi into a prophet [/ot]

[jeremyjr]

Science is done in spite of "Official Science" and the many examples mentioned clearly show that.

 

But today again, a new science is in the making also in spite of Official Science, with very modest first steps but with very solid grounds and very concrete "subjects of interest", the systematic observation of these subjects of interest will reveal new details and information that will allow to start generating general principles or classifications, exactly as it happened in Biology or other fields with concrete "subjects of interest".

As it happened in Alchemy before Chemistry, today there is an amalgamation of myths with facts, but the systematic study of these very concrete subjects of interest will allow to separate the myths from the facts.

Maybe in the future, in books about this new science this period will not even be mentioned as Alchemy is rarely mentioned in any Chemistry book.

[Mordred]

I'll stick to real science. I know it works you can study your fairy land science.

[Klaynos]

And still no evidence. Great.

[Mordred]

And still no evidence. Great.

Looks like Phi is a prophet after all lol. I didn't expect any evidence.

[ajb]

Science is done in spite of "Official Science" and the many examples mentioned clearly show that.

What do you mean by "Official Science"? That what can be found in textbooks and monographs? Or do you just mean study that follows the scientific method (or something close to it)?

 

What examples are you referring to? Ufology and cryptozoology? Both of these can be approached scientifically and when they are very little is usually found. Well, to me the most amazing thing about these subjects, along with 'ghost hunting' is how they really reflect the human mind and our own fears, hopes and dreams. The human brain can play some amazing tricks.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Science is done in spite of "Official Science" and the many examples mentioned clearly show that.

But today again, a new science is in the making also in spite of Official Science, with very modest first steps but with very solid grounds and very concrete "subjects of interest", the systematic observation of these subjects of interest will reveal new details and information that will allow to start generating general principles or classifications, exactly as it happened in Biology or other fields with concrete "subjects of interest".

As it happened in Alchemy before Chemistry, today there is an amalgamation of myths with facts, but the systematic study of these very concrete subjects of interest will allow to separate the myths from the facts.

Maybe in the future, in books about this new science this period will not even be mentioned as Alchemy is rarely mentioned in any Chemistry book.

.

.

I think there is an involved issue with new ideas, as with tasting new foods.

 

Am I going to like this?

Is this going to poison me?

Why don't I just, eat what I know and like , and not bother with this completely unknown food.

 

We cannot exist without ingesting many things,

 

New sounds, new words, new air, new touch, as well as the similar things we do know. We have protective mechanisms at every interface on our bodies to filter out the unknown or unwanted.

By default we often opt for the " better safe than sorry " and reject things we do not know.

 

Hence or similarly " the body science " responds in a similar way to new ideas, paradigm shifts, etc

However if the body science is to break new ground it needs the new ideas. If they are new ideas , there is almost certain to be a sprinkling of speculation about !

 

Mike

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

However if the body science is to break new ground it needs the new ideas.

Indeed. But the problem isn't coming up with new ideas; there are millions of those - anyone can come up with a new idea. The hard part is formalising the idea, working out how it fits with everything else we know, testing the idea, etc. (After that, persuading others becomes trivial.)

 

Actually, for some people it seems that the hard part is giving up the idea when it doesn't work...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Indeed. But the problem isn't coming up with new ideas; there are millions of those - anyone can come up with a new idea. The hard part is formalising the idea, working out how it fits with everything else we know, testing the idea, etc. (After that, persuading others becomes trivial.)

 

Actually, for some people it seems that the hard part is giving up the idea when it doesn't work...

Quite! I thought this through ,once with the idea of having a computer generation of " monkeys sitting at a keyboard, typing out random junk . Sooner or later , they would produce something ' profound' . The problem was , having some way of sifting all the humungous amount of junk to notice that " one " gem of new idea. That after 597 hours 4 minutes ant 23 seconds ,or 20,000,000,000 years . Then the monkey typed it , then it was gone !

 

The solution that I thought would work would be .......THE UNIVERSE ......,

But then I thought , that's a lot of monkey time , just wasting away typing for 20 billion years . So why don't the monkeys and everybody else and everything ,do interesting, enjoyable things , while waiting for the 'profound comment to be typed , and hope upon hope the universe does find it profound. ( when it comes ) .

 

So that is about how it is! We and everything is just beavering about doing things ! Some enjoyable , some just counting time. The universe is testing things out all the time , some works , some doesn't work so well.

 

Just waiting for that profound idea , to be 'typed' figuratively. Hope someone is watching at the time and can recognise its ' profundity '

 

Mike

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[jeremyjr]

In these "struggles" to accept reality the group presenting the new ideas or facts always is very small, but quantity is always a very bad measure of strength, this small group always had with them a powerful "weapon": the truth, that give them a force of conviction that the almost absolute majority opposing them lack.