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

[Mordred]

Still no evidence are you even reading the comments and requests for such?

[Strange]

In these "struggles" to accept reality the group presenting the new ideas or facts always is very small

 

Is it? What evidence do you base that on?

 

but quantity is always a very bad measure of strength, this small group always had with them a powerful "weapon": the truth

 

Science doesn't deal in truth. That is for religion and, maybe, philosophy. (And crackpots.)

[ajb]

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.

But you have not given us clear examples of these "struggles".

 

In essence we don't disagree with you here. Some scientific/mathematical work is done, it is submitted for publication in a peer-review journal, it is accepted for publication (which means the work is up to the required standard and free of obvious errors) and then the author will try to publicise the work. Other scientists/mathematicians may then look at the work and see how they think it fits in with what they are doing. It may take a while for the significance of the work to be appreciated or in rare cases the significance can be see straight way and other then take up similar work trying to answer the questions that naturally follow.

 

This is the nature of scientific publications, or it should be anyway. The politics of 'publish or perish' are a subject for another thread.

[jeremyjr]

Even when the numeric superiority of the opposing group to the new ideas or facts could be overwhelming, that superiority is an illusion, only a small number of "key figures" are really important in that struggle, the rest are just "followers" people that will take on faith/on trust what these key figures may say or claim.

It will be enough that one or two of these key figures fall to the opposing side for the whole opposition to crumble.

 

And the reason for that is very simple: they lack the strength of conviction that give you knowing the truth by yourself, that strength is infinitely superior to any coming from somebody that think that they know the truth just by taking on trust what the key figures had claimed.

 

The Lavoisier opposition to the reality of meteorites is the standard case of an authority abusing its authority to impose their views, in the Lavoisier case he lacked the observational experience to back his claims, but he still made them and by doing that he slowed progress.

Today we have many Lavoisiers denying realities that they had not even tried to witness, history repeat itself and we are unable to learn from it.

[ajb]

The Lavoisier opposition to the reality of meteorites is the standard case of an authority abusing its authority to impose their views, in the Lavoisier case he lacked the observational experience to back his claims, but he still made them and by doing that he slowed progress.

Lavoisier 1743-1794. Okay you have a historical example. Or really you have a example of scepticism as there was a general lack of evidence that meteorites came from space at that time. The observations of a few laypeople was not enough.

 

Today we have many Lavoisiers denying realities that they had not even tried to witness, history repeat itself and we are unable to learn from it.

Examples please.

 

So far anything like suppression of scientific ideas that you hint at are very much like Lavoisier's dismissal. The evidence was not there for him, or for sure not enough to convince him. But that is how science works, a good dose of scepticism.

[jeremyjr]

The lack of self reflection is very common:

 

Scepticism is very important but many people are unable to apply scepticism to scepticism itself.

This section of the forum mention pseudo science, but the censors of this section are unable to spot it in "scientific arguments". But they abuse their authority in any possible opportunity: using pseudo science as an "argumentative" tool itself.

[ajb]

You seem to be just going round in circles with quite vague claims that seem to come from some bitterness on your part.

 

Unless you can give us some clear examples of this 'suppression' I cannot see this thread progressing.

 

And we do not have censors, only moderators who help ensure that the rules of this forum, the same rules you agreed to when you joined, are adhered to. They do not really have any scientific authority in a wider sense and are for sure not suppressing your ideas. They are suggesting that your ideas maybe better off posted elsewhere if they do not fit with the ethos and rules of this forum.

[jeremyjr]

Taking the "word" of "experts" on faith/on trust is perhaps the more damaging aspect of "modern science", that makes the group of experts and their "followers" dangerously close to a religious organization, dogmatism and complacency are a common ingredient on that setting and this very forum is an small sampling of that.

[Strange]

And the reason for that is very simple: they lack the strength of conviction that give you knowing the truth by yourself, that strength is infinitely superior to any coming from somebody that think that they know the truth just by taking on trust what the key figures had claimed.

 

Science is not about "truth", it is about evidence.

 

I would be very sceptical, of anyone claiming to know "the truth".

[jeremyjr]

"Experts" will always get entrenched in their "expertise" and always will tend to dismiss what is outside of their area of expertise.

New ideas or facts unknown to "experts" in a given area automatically will put in danger that "expert" status, these experts know that and their first reaction always will be rejection.

"Experts" always will be for the continuity of the "status kuo", they usually are an "anti-revolutionary" force.

[Phi for All]

I think we may sticky this thread. It will be invaluable in showing how hidebound and inflexible some people can be when it comes to science.

[Strange]

"Experts" always will be for the continuity of the "status kuo", they usually are an "anti-revolutionary" force.

 

I can't think of any paradigm shift in science that wasn't brought about by experts. So it appears that this claim is incorrect.

 

The closest thing I can think of is the Mpemba effect.

 

 

[experts] first reaction always will be rejection.

 

Clearly not true. For example, many experts championed Einstein's work on GR before it was finished, never mind tested.

 

And "please" stop "using" the irrelevant "scare quotes". It "is" unnecessary "and" annoying. It makes "you" look a little "bit", well, you know, "cranky"...

Edited June 18, 2015 by Strange

[jeremyjr]

I think we may sticky this thread. It will be invaluable in showing how hidebound and inflexible some people can be when it comes to science.

 

That will be "unexpected" coming from you, but I definitely welcome that. A "path" always is bidirectional and your intended goal could actually get transfixed in its opposite.

[swansont]

This section of the forum mention pseudo science, but the censors of this section are unable to spot it in "scientific arguments". But they abuse their authority in any possible opportunity: using pseudo science as an "argumentative" tool itself.

I think there are very few mentions of "pseudo science" in any official board classification. We don't really discuss it that much at all.

 

As far as abusing authority goes, are the board rules or speculations guidelines unclear? Because enforcing the rules is the normal and expected exercise of authority, not abuse of it.

[Strange]

That will be "unexpected" coming from you, but I definitely welcome that. A "path" always is bidirectional and your intended goal could actually get transfixed in its opposite.

 

I am glad you appreciate the "irony" of the suggestion.

[jeremyjr]

I think we may sticky this thread. It will be invaluable in showing how hidebound and inflexible some people can be when it comes to science.

 

If you do that you will definitely be working with me not against me. I challenge you to do it.

[Strange]

If you do that you will definitely be working with me not against me. I challenge you to do it.

 

Are you really that proud of your intransigence, worryingly repetitive behaviour, failure to provide evidence, refusal to admit when you are wrong and inability to answer questions?

 

Oh well, takes all sorts.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Strange

[Mordred]

If you do that you will definitely be working with me not against me. I challenge you to do it.

What would be the point. To advertise an example of someone namely you that is too foolish and hidebound to recognize the opportunity to learn and develop your knowledge?

 

Most posters come to physics forums to learn. They may go about it wrong at first. However when they receive sufficient materials showing their ideas and misconceptions are wrong. They learn through the experience.

 

You however is the breed that believes that just because we don't agree with you. We're the fools.

 

This is just plain stupid. The resident experts are selected for their knowledge, training and helpfulness.

Every forum expert has spent years studying their fields of interest. The majority are accredited experts outside of this forum as well.

 

Can you claim the same? I seriously doubt it.

 

This forum has rules, those rules are their as any forum gets its share of cranks.

As a member of numerous forums this site is far more relaxed and flexible than most.

 

On several forums you would already be banned and your threads locked. They don't allow any form of non peer reviewed speculation.

 

Only textbook answers.

 

This site grants that flexibility at the cost of a few guidelines. You choose to ignore that flexibility at their good graces and insult them for it.

 

You might stop and think about that before judging others who are here voluntarily. None of us get paid. We choose to help others less studied understand current science. We've taking the time and underwent the struggles to learn as best as possible the current models.

 

You would be wise to take advantage of the freely offered shortcut instead of being insulting and sniveling because we refuse to accept new models or ideas with zero evidence

[cladking]

 

Unless you can give us some clear examples of this 'suppression' I cannot see this thread progressing.

 

We all see what we believe. We can only see confirmation of our beliefs most of the time. Progress individually and collectively comes from seeing the anomalies but these tend to be invisible. "Suppression" isn't so much a collective event in science due to its nature. "Science" isn't founded on belief so scientists are more likely to see truth as it comes into the light. Science has tools like math for identifying truth which is merely logical statements about reality. But scientists are still human beings and still think like other human beings today. "Suppression" is the blindness imposed on al of us by our own beliefs and is mostly an individual thing in science. Whether you believe in one God or that two gods plus two gods equal four gods or even that two plus two equals four you are still a product of your beliefs and still see the world in terms of those beliefs. It is exceedingly difficult to see any sort of reality directly or to see anything that you don't already know. This is what observation is about; seeing what's there without preconceptions and without perspective.

[Mordred]

 

 

Has it not occurred to you that not a single other member on this forum expert. Moderator or member has agreed with you? You have received zero support from any member in agreement with your views on this thread.

 

You might stop and think about that, this thread has been read by far more members than Has posted. Yet no one has come in your defense.

 

I wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they all feel your wrong?

[Phi for All]

What would be the point. To advertise an example of someone namely you that is too foolish and hidebound to recognize the opportunity to learn and develop your knowledge?

 

Back in the 70s, Norman Lear was able to show TV audiences the absurdity of racism and prejudice by creating Archie Bunker, a character on Lear's show All in the Family. Archie Bunker was a prime example of the intolerance and bigotry that keeps a basically good person from interacting effectively with the rest of society.

 

Archie became the iconic bigot, and we all laughed at how he kept trying to show how right he was while the audience shook their heads and related to the more tolerant characters. Every episode, Archie would say the most outrageous things that everyone else knew to be completely false. Showing this hidebound perspective, which seemed outrageous except to those of us who knew a few real-life Archies, Lear was able to reach many more people with his message of tolerance.

 

This is why we may seem to let some of these types of conversations go on too long. Sometimes it's really effective to show how NOT to do things.

[Strange]

We all see what we believe.

 

Obviously not true.

 

"Science" isn't founded on belief so scientists are more likely to see truth as it comes into the light. Science has tools like math for identifying truth which is merely logical statements about reality.

 

Again (sigh) science does not deal in truth.

 

Whether you believe in one God or that two gods plus two gods equal four gods or even that two plus two equals four you are still a product of your beliefs and still see the world in terms of those beliefs.

 

Knowing that 2+2=4 is not belief.

[jeremyjr]

Science is not about "truth", it is about evidence.

 

I would be very sceptical, of anyone claiming to know "the truth".

Science in a certain sense is about evidence, that is true. But science is a human endeavor and as any human endeavor is entangled with "human nature". Nationalism had creep many times in "science", priority disputes always had a nationalist flavor, Newton-Leibniz comes to mind, many scientific discoveries made in one side of the iron-curtain during the cold war were ignored and/or attributed to scientists of the same side, etc.

[Mordred]

 

Back in the 70s, Norman Lear was able to show TV audiences the absurdity of racism and prejudice by creating Archie Bunker, a character on Lear's show All in the Family. Archie Bunker was a prime example of the intolerance and bigotry that keeps a basically good person from interacting effectively with the rest of society.

 

Archie became the iconic bigot, and we all laughed at how he kept trying to show how right he was while the audience shook their heads and related to the more tolerant characters. Every episode, Archie would say the most outrageous things that everyone else knew to be completely false. Showing this hidebound perspective, which seemed outrageous except to those of us who knew a few real-life Archies, Lear was able to reach many more people with his message of tolerance.

 

This is why we may seem to let some of these types of conversations go on too long. Sometimes it's really effective to show how NOT to do things.

Now what in the world does this have to do with Science?????

 

Absolutely nothing. What you feel we are being racist?

 

C'mon mate get your head together.

 

I'm positive you can come up with a better argument than the above statement.

[Phi for All]

 

Knowing that 2+2=4 is not belief.

 

Belief only affects that equation because we trust (a form of belief) that it's true everywhere. It's a measure we set up to describe the reality we know, so by definition there's really no other need for any kind of belief. It's a fact here, where we're discussing this.

 

Now what in the world does this have to do with Science?????

 

Absolutely nothing. What you feel we are being racist?

 

C'mon mate get your head together.

 

I'm positive you can come up with a better argument than the above statement.

 

Um, I was suggesting that by stickying this thread, it might serve as an anti-example for those interested in the scientific method. It might be effective by showing that if one wants to claim others are hidebound, they shouldn't act that way themselves.

 

It seems like I really didn't explain myself well if this is the impression you got. Sorry I wasn't clearer.