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

[jeremyjr]

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.

 

Bravo!!

 

Exactly: perception is projection.

Edited June 18, 2015 by jeremyjr

[Mordred]

 

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.

 

 

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.

Actually I'm trying to get the OP to post better and related examples of what he considers suppression as opposed to the scientific method. Somehow an argument based on racism didn't fit the criteria.

 

I'm hoping that the OP can provide more relevant examples to enhance the discussion. Thus far he's named a couple of older examples one being alchemy, the other on meteorites prior to them being understand.

 

I'm sure he can come up with some current examples. We all know they exist. However I would rather see the OP present them to clarify his position.

I guess what I'm hoping for is a logical rationale argument as opposed to what I perceive as being primarily an emotional based rant.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mordred

[jeremyjr]

Actually I'm trying to get the OP to post better and related examples of what he considers suppression as opposed to the scientific method. Somehow an argument based on racism didn't fit the criteria.

I'm hoping that the OP can provide more relevant examples to enhance the discussion. Thus far he's named a couple of older examples one being alchemy, the other on meteorites prior to them being understand.

I'm sure he can come up with some current examples. We all know they exist. However I would rather see the OP present them to clarify his position.

I guess what I'm hoping for is a logical rationale argument as opposed to what I perceive as being primarily an emotional based rant.

I had mentioned before that in any post that I ever made in this forum only one topic will be explicit or implicit, in this case is implicit but it had creep in some posts that contradictory were trying to preempt it, the censors of this forum are really in a bin in that regard.

 

The denial of the reality of meteorites by Lavoisier was based essentially in ignorance and preconceptions on his part, now you can replace "meteorites" by the implicit topic and Lavoisier by any known scientist today, or opposing poster of this forum to that reality and you will get a valid statement. That is the more relevant and current example that I can provide because I am personally involved in that.

[Strange]

I had mentioned before that in any post that I ever made in this forum only one topic will be explicit or implicit, in this case is implicit but it had creep in some posts that contradictory were trying to preempt it, the censors of this forum are really in a bin in that regard.

 

The denial of the reality of meteorites by Lavoisier was based essentially in ignorance and preconceptions on his part, now you can replace "meteorites" by the implicit topic and Lavoisier by any known scientist today, or opposing poster of this forum to that reality and you will get a valid statement. That is the more relevant and current example that I can provide because I am personally involved in that.

 

As already pointed out, it was entirely reasonable for Lavoisier to deny that meteorites came from space as there was no evidence for that.

 

Similarly, your plasma ameoboid aliens can be denied because their is, as yet, no evidence for them. (There is no point being coy about it, we all know what this and all your other threads are about. You show the monomania typical of all psychoceramicists.)

 

You have still not provided any evidence at all to support your repeated claims that science is unable to progress because, even in the face of evidence, experts refuse to accept new ideas.

 

You have also failed to address all the counter examples that have been provided. For example, that all (?) new paradigm shifting ideas are produced by experts.

 

Talk about stubborn and closed minded.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Strange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Thread Locked

 

jeremyjr

 

You were given multiple opportunities to provide evidence to back up the claims made in the OP - you failed to do so.

 

It should be noted that this is not the first time one of your threads has been locked for failure to provide any evidence. Please take a moment to re-read the rules of the forum and the guidelines for speculations; if you want to blog then find a blog-host but at SF.n we require a modicum of evidence and we will continue to lock threads that we suspect of being vehicles for soap-boxing.