Why this section [Speculations] should be banned...

[Scott Mayers]

I've previously re-introduced my participation in this forum under the philosophy section. (I'll edit later to link this here.)

 

My concern about this area is that it diminishes the intent of people's inquiry into ideas without granting "charity" to the poster regardless of their actual intents. I find that this section diminishes the sincerity of those who come here who actually have value but may simply need the reflective support of others here to help to take their ideas seriously with respect to their perspective. I recognize that some may actually be intending to act in purposeful means to defeat the integrity of science or this site, but believe that unless such sites as this attempt to treat others universally as being genuine up front, they risk the defeat of intellectual inquiry of those who come here with sincere volition to act, regardless of their actual intent.

 

In many cases, if people are coming here or to any site with an intent to disrupt, they usually have some uncertain reason to justify their behavior. But UNLESS they are merely some robotic non-human speaker, they actually have some internal justification to behave no matter how they appear to behave. To me, this indicates that we must default to treat everyone's concerns regardless of how they initially appear, with the charity we hope they'd have for ourselves. As such, this section diminishes the sincerity of the person speaking and automatically justifies their internal preconceptions coming in regardless of their intent.

 

I'll keep this at this to see how others respond before advancing as I see that this may help to proceed with my own perspective on this issue. I am hoping that what CAN come out of this is more productive in my own ways to help us all find a better means to find such online forums useful and functional to the goals we intend to advance in the best light.

 

Scott.

[Bignose]

My concern about this area is that it diminishes the intent of people's inquiry into ideas without granting "charity" to the poster regardless of their actual intents.

No diminishment occurs if the posters would actually attempt to follow some semblance of a scientific method. Namely: the creation of specific, testable predictions and the comparing those prediction to actual measurements. My guess as a several year member now: the number of threads in this section that have actually attempted to do that can be counted on 1 hand. I think the mods actually give a great deal of leeway trying to get people to understand that this is a science forum and that we kinda expect scientific discussions here.

 

But if someone just shows up, telling us the relativity is wrong (or quarks or quantum mechanics or many, many other things), and just expects us to accept that because they don't understand it and they have made up a story that they do understand... well, we're going to be naturally reticent. Especially if that person has no concept of comparing prediction to measurement. Especially if that person cannot address how their idea is at least as good as the current best models. Especially if that person has no idea of the current best model that has been the life's work of many intelligent and dedicated people.

 

Look. We know that a great deal of our current models are wrong, in at least as they are know to be incomplete. There is still many, many things to learn. But, we've developed a supremely successful method on how to proceed. The scientific method: make prediction, compare predictions to measurements, and repeat.

 

We used to judge models based on what king said them. Or what the church said. Or who the best speaker is. We've moved past all that. The model that makes predictions the closest to what is actually measured wins now. Nice, objective and doesn't rely on charisma, 'logic', or anything else. Objective differences between measurement and prediction.

 

And very simple to understand. If you want your model to become favored, simply demonstrate that is makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream models. If you can do that, it will receive a great deal of attention. The number of threads I've ever seen get to that point is literally 0.

 

That doesn't mean that that isn't the ultimate point of this section. This section exists to give people the chance to show that their model that is different from the mainstream can participate scientifically. Again, no model author on this forum has ever truly done that. Making me think that they have zero concept of actual practicing science. And, lastly, again, this is a science forum. Actual practicing science is what we're here for. Why is asking for some semblance of that not "charity". Despite what is claimed numerous times, there is no censorship here. Just asking people who post to follow the rules they agreed to when they joined.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Or perhaps you have simply misinterpreted the purpose of this section? We have plenty of threads and rules on the intent of the Speculations forum, many of which are pinned for easy finding.

[Phi for All]

My concern about this area is that it diminishes the intent of people's inquiry into ideas without granting "charity" to the poster regardless of their actual intents. I find that this section diminishes the sincerity of those who come here who actually have value but may simply need the reflective support of others here to help to take their ideas seriously with respect to their perspective.

 

You've chosen to redefine "charity" to mean "feel free to guess as wildly as you want". It's no wonder you want us to remove the section, since that's not its purpose, but you've failed to give any good reason why guessing is better than using the scientific method, especially on a science discussion forum.

[andrewcellini]

the rules are there so that topics are posted with rigor, or presumably enough rigor to be read and discussed on a discussion forum on the internet.

Edited October 4, 2015 by andrewcellini

[swansont]

I find that this section diminishes the sincerity of those who come here who actually have value but may simply need the reflective support of others here to help to take their ideas seriously with respect to their perspective.

I've found that very little matters in terms of the sincerity of those who come here. Many sincerely believe they are right, and think they have an idea of value. But this is a discussion site, not a blog, so they need to post enough in the way that they can get feedback.

 

If all one wants to do is preach, there are many sites that will host that. But this site doesn't belong to you, so you don't get to make decisions about the rules.

[cladking]

I think the mods actually give a great deal of leeway trying to get people to understand that this is a science forum and that we kinda expect scientific discussions here.

 

 

I'm assuming the prohibition against talking about the site is being waived for this thread.

 

I don't believe that moderation in this section is the problem per se. Much of the problem is the culture that has been generated that accepts all science as equally valid and all who doubt or reject the orthodox assumptions as lumbering fools. There's a "piling on" everytime a new subject comes up and negs fly no matter how logical and well evidenced a point happens to be. This isn't a failing of science or scientists but of this particular forum section.

 

When someone presents me with a speculation or new hypothesis I suspend disbelief until I've heard him out. Then I seek the illogic or lack of support for key points. I think most speculators here will feel driven off.

 

Lest someone think I don't like this forum, I really do. It has numerous good points as well including the many people who do understand the state of the art in many categories of modern science. While the tactics for winning arguments are beyond the pale the expertise is real and cogent.

 

And very simple to understand. If you want your model to become favored, simply demonstrate that is makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream models. If you can do that, it will receive a great deal of attention. The number of threads I've ever seen get to that point is literally 0.

 

 

 

In 10th grade I developed a ~64 step proof that any number divided by zero was infinity. It was a thing of beauty. No one had the least interest in it. At best they'd glance at the first and last steps and hand it back. I was about ready to send it off when I discovered the tiniest little flaw where I had assumed the conclusion. Of course it mushroomed and led inexhoribly to the conclusion.

 

Nothing has changed in the least. They are simply hoping some expert will tell them I'm right or I'll discover my error so they don't need to. I'm confident this applies to many people in this section. If their theories make better predictions it will simply be discounted.

[swansont]

I'm assuming the prohibition against talking about the site is being waived for this thread.

What prohibition? We have a whole section called suggestions, comments and support where people talk about the site. (This thread may end up there)

 

I don't believe that moderation in this section is the problem per se. Much of the problem is the culture that has been generated that accepts all science as equally valid and all who doubt or reject the orthodox assumptions as lumbering fools. There's a "piling on" everytime a new subject comes up and negs fly no matter how logical and well evidenced a point happens to be. This isn't a failing of science or scientists but of this particular forum section.

I don't know what you're talking about regarding a culture "that accepts all science as equally valid"

 

There's a "piling on" because there are typically several people familiar with the subject matter and only one proponent of the new idea.

[cladking]

 

What prohibition? We have a whole section called suggestions, comments and support where people talk about the site. (This thread may end up there)

 

I guess it's water under the bridge then.

 

I don't know what you're talking about regarding a culture "that accepts all science as equally valid"

 

 

It appears many of the individuals on this site accept expert opinion and assumptions on par with experimental results. If any of these opinions are challenged it is taken as a challenge to experiment and hence to science. If experimental interpretation is challenged it is taken as a challenge to science itself. If models are attacked or it's pointed out that models are not experiment it is taken as a challenge to science.

 

It's only natural for the status quo to be maintained but people should remember if the status quo always prevailed we'd still living in caves.

 

There's a "piling on" because there are typically several people familiar with the subject matter and only one proponent of the new idea.

 

 

Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

[studiot]

I was thinking about suggesting that the thread by Daedalus but held up an an example of good speculations practice and along comes this thread with a gripe.

 

So I say to the OP

 

Make your speculation half as good as this one and you will prosper.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58346-temporal-uniformity/

[Strange]

It appears many of the individuals on this site accept expert opinion and assumptions on par with experimental results.

 

Using expert opinion in place of evidence is the fallacy of argument from authority. Anyone trying that is likely to be called on it.

 

It's only natural for the status quo to be maintained

 

Science doesn't maintain the status quo.

 

Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

 

Ideally, those challenging established science would understand the theories they are challenging. And, of course, for scientists it is the case. Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people who post on science forums have no real understanding of the theories they challenge. They might have read a few news stories and watched some youtoob, but that's about it.

[Phi for All]

Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

 

If they understood the current paradigm, why can't they explain where they think it fails, or where their new idea is better? It's almost always the same, they cling to ideas they can't support, while hollering about how right they know they are, despite a lack of any supportive evidence.

 

We provide a section where you can challenge mainstream science if you can show why your idea might have any merit. It's separate from the mainstream so as not to get students in trouble with teachers. You're supposed to show some rigor and provide some predictions your idea makes that can be tested against reality, but most people just post guesswork with no substance. This is a discussion site for science, we like our talks to be grounded in reality, and we prefer our speculations to at least be tethered somewhere in the vicinity, so they don't float away from us and get stuck in the crazy.

[Bignose]

Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

While this is technically true, is it rather astounding the number of people who show up, tell us their idea is right, but cannot answer simple inquiries like "can you please show us how your idea makes better predictions than the currently accepted idea?"

 

If someone truly believes in an idea, I will never understand why they aren't trying to voraciously take in as much knowledge about that idea as possible. In this taking in of knowledge, they should learn a great deal of why the mainstream is different from their idea and be able to answer direct inquiries therein.

[Phi for All]

If someone truly believes in an idea, I will never understand why they aren't trying to voraciously take in as much knowledge about that idea as possible.

 

In my experience, it seems they avoid learning too much about an idea because the more they do, the more that nagging voice of reason tells them they're probably wrong, and they don't like that. They're banking on other people coming up with solidity for their airy claims, and when no one does, it probably seems like they're some sort of underdog, and they need to fight the establishment no matter what.

[cladking]

 

Using expert opinion in place of evidence is the fallacy of argument from authority. Anyone trying that is likely to be called on it.

 

 

Most of what we believe is actually based on opinion. Science is based on axioms but these are expressed in language and most people have lost sight of the metaphysics anyway. Much of what we believe is passed down on our parents' knees while the language comes from our aunts and uncles. We learn a veritable wall of beliefs from teachers.

 

Persective is everything and we are wed to things like cartesian geometry as the foundation of reality itself or that in the beginning God created light. Many of the concepts that are so difficult to understand rewrite the axioms, definitions, or even language itself but few will respond in kind. They simply reiterate their axioms, definitions, and use the same language to say what is the prevailing opinion of the day; the opinion of experts. There is a knee jerk reaction to reject even the simplest concepts if they don't agree with the widely held belief that everything is already known, or at least, that the outline of reality is at our fingertips and is known as theory. Meanwhile people still don't notice that the simplest ideas like "gravity" are still not supported empircally. Measuring something is not the same as understanding it. We measure time but then experts tell us that one moment doesn't even follow another or that it isn't "linear".

 

Everytime anyone speaks he is referencing expert opinion.

 

Science doesn't maintain the status quo.

 

 

It's called theory and is (ideally) derived from experiment.

 

Obviously every scientist doesn't support the status quo but "science" does.

 

Ideally, those challenging established science would understand the theories they are challenging. And, of course, for scientists it is the case. Unfortunately, it seems that the vast majority of people who post on science forums have no real understanding of the theories they challenge. They might have read a few news stories and watched some youtoob, but that's about it.

 

 

I'm not competent to judge all these hypotheses bandied about here. Some seem to be obviously crackpots and the individual proposing them has little training or understanding of the subject. Many seem uninterested in learning.

 

The problem is that all are treated the same.

 

I'm beginning to believe that there is little chance of physics or cosmology discovering a unified field theory and that it will arise from philosophy or another branch of science. Perhaps it will look much different than anyone realizes. If it were posted here on this forum tonight I have little doubt it would be ripped to shreds. I've seen several ingenius attempts at it and for all I know maybe one is right.

 

There are several things we all believe that future scientists will probably find remarkably humorous about current science. Some things can't be seen because you're too close and some because you're too far away. And others are merely hidden to your view. I may not see reality but from my vantage is obvious others might not as well.

While this is technically true, is it rather astounding the number of people who show up, tell us their idea is right, but cannot answer simple inquiries like "can you please show us how your idea makes better predictions than the currently accepted idea?"

 

If someone truly believes in an idea, I will never understand why they aren't trying to voraciously take in as much knowledge about that idea as possible. In this taking in of knowledge, they should learn a great deal of why the mainstream is different from their idea and be able to answer direct inquiries therein.

 

I very much agree.

 

 

 

 

But sometimes these new ideas rewrite everything so the proponent simply has less interest in trying to understand current thought. Some of these folks lack the math skills to understand the state of the art and this is especially true in physics.

 

If they understood the current paradigm, why can't they explain where they think it fails, or where their new idea is better? It's almost always the same, they cling to ideas they can't support, while hollering about how right they know they are, despite a lack of any supportive evidence.

 

We provide a section where you can challenge mainstream science if you can show why your idea might have any merit. It's separate from the mainstream so as not to get students in trouble with teachers. You're supposed to show some rigor and provide some predictions your idea makes that can be tested against reality, but most people just post guesswork with no substance. This is a discussion site for science, we like our talks to be grounded in reality, and we prefer our speculations to at least be tethered somewhere in the vicinity, so they don't float away from us and get stuck in the crazy.

 

I sympathize with your viewpoint but from personal experience I know that in some fields expert opinion can be formed with virtually no data at all. How does one challenge expert opinion when that opinion is mere assumption? Not every field of science is as cut and dried as the behavior of a diode or how a geode is formed. Some areas are more about assumption and deconstruction.

 

I guess I must stop here or go off topic.

[Scott Mayers]

 

No diminishment occurs if the posters would actually attempt to follow some semblance of a scientific method. Namely: the creation of specific, testable predictions and the comparing those prediction to actual measurements. My guess as a several year member now: the number of threads in this section that have actually attempted to do that can be counted on 1 hand. I think the mods actually give a great deal of leeway trying to get people to understand that this is a science forum and that we kinda expect scientific discussions here.

But if someone just shows up, telling us the relativity is wrong (or quarks or quantum mechanics or many, many other things), and just expects us to accept that because they don't understand it and they have made up a story that they do understand... well, we're going to be naturally reticent. Especially if that person has no concept of comparing prediction to measurement. Especially if that person cannot address how their idea is at least as good as the current best models. Especially if that person has no idea of the current best model that has been the life's work of many intelligent and dedicated people.

Look. We know that a great deal of our current models are wrong, in at least as they are know to be incomplete. There is still many, many things to learn. But, we've developed a supremely successful method on how to proceed. The scientific method: make prediction, compare predictions to measurements, and repeat.

We used to judge models based on what king said them. Or what the church said. Or who the best speaker is. We've moved past all that. The model that makes predictions the closest to what is actually measured wins now. Nice, objective and doesn't rely on charisma, 'logic', or anything else. Objective differences between measurement and prediction.

And very simple to understand. If you want your model to become favored, simply demonstrate that is makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream models. If you can do that, it will receive a great deal of attention. The number of threads I've ever seen get to that point is literally 0.

That doesn't mean that that isn't the ultimate point of this section. This section exists to give people the chance to show that their model that is different from the mainstream can participate scientifically. Again, no model author on this forum has ever truly done that. Making me think that they have zero concept of actual practicing science. And, lastly, again, this is a science forum. Actual practicing science is what we're here for. Why is asking for some semblance of that not "charity". Despite what is claimed numerous times, there is no censorship here. Just asking people who post to follow the rules they agreed to when they joined.

 

"No diminishment occurs if the posters would actually attempt to follow some semblance of a scientific method. Namely: the creation of specific, testable predictions and the comparing those prediction to actual measurements."

 

I have a contention with what is "testable" as an example of what you refer to as essential. For example, I'm targeting the specific areas of physics of Cosmology and Atomic physics. For the Cosmology, what we 'observe' of phenomena is NOT even "testable". That is, for distant objects that appear relatively fixed, what happens is that the initial scientists who 'observe' get the freedom to claim their interpretation upon it even though the interpretation itself is at fault. As such, when we require questioning certain theories based on interpretation, you cannot find a 'new' but different phenomena to test. And we are left to question the logic of the interpretation. This is what I initiated in the thread that I originally proposed on Einstein. I wasn't in disagreement of his logic based on what he was thinking and it 'fits' with the appropriate math. What I question, for instance, is to how he assumed that time itself alters in different frames of reference. This interpretation is in error as it is not 'time' itself that alters, but rather the matter with respect to a real background that limits how an entity, like a human, might perceive time in that frame only. As you can see, you can't actually argue a new interpretation using any regular process of science but rather to attend to it in logic and the process of intellectual dialect. Also, even while I might propose another interpretation, this doesn't invalidate the math or practicality of the results either way. However, by correcting interpretation, it also fixes other conflicts from other areas of physics.

 

"I think the mods actually give a great deal of leeway..."

When I posted with the title "Einstein was wrong", I was clearly discriminated against based on that title alone without the moderator actually reading the content. His mere prejudice to transfer what I placed in the physics section to the dunce section was a clear means to politically bias me arrogantly in a disdain for the title alone. I also received blowback from another site to which one of the administrators literally participated in what others would clearly recognize as "trolling" when I opened the same thread there. And why? Because just as you might interpret before appropriate consideration, you deem that any appearance of dissent of someone so famous as Einstein is an act of disrespect to one's "hero" worship of them. I'm definitely not against Einstein but was 'testing' how logically astute those of these sites can relate. I was only proven that you have to tip-toe around questioning past authorities.

 

This is also why even where new discoveries occur in present science that go against past ones, they are forced to have to create false new terms that attempt to hide the literal semantic equivalence of an old one that is contradicted.

 

"Look. We know that a great deal of our current models are wrong, in at least as they are know to be incomplete. There is still many, many things to learn. But, we've developed a supremely successful method on how to proceed. The scientific method: make prediction, compare predictions to measurements, and repeat."

 

I understand and agree to this in part. But what occurs is that the method only concerns practice, not theory. While experiments do contribute to providing justification of theory, it is not always the case nor is always needed. I've already pointed out that we cannot 're-examine' certain observations that have been interpreted in one specific way. Once we find that the author of such efforts has proven functional, we lock their interpretation of them like a copyright that cannot be challenged. This is NOT an appropriate means to continue because what happens is that the whole set of theories based upon them afterwards also have to be preserved in the same way.

 

As an example, what happens is akin to observing a distant town you want to get to. Everyone might agree that to the observation but if one finds a unique pathway to that town, even if it winds in an unusually long route, the ones who created that path want to preserve it and prevent others from trying to find any other shorter route as they've built up a set of towns all along that first route to which a new route threatens the real economy of those owning parts of that route. The same occurs with institutions as we advance to discover a different route. We are discouraged from being allowed to because the great investments in the standard routes are risked should a new route be reconstructed.

 

Now you might say, well then why not predict the new route and then test, right? To which I respond that this IS precisely what I'm doing but with respect to others, they simply don't care whether an alternate route exists and so wouldn't even waste the time to even invest in trying. This was like how the moderator dismissed my post on Einstein based on the label alone! Do you get this?

 

And so,

"And very simple to understand. If you want your model to become favored, simply demonstrate that is makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream models. If you can do that, it will receive a great deal of attention. The number of threads I've ever seen get to that point is literally 0."

 

I am unable to get a foot forward if what you expect should be a prediction is a new but different town that may not even be perceived at this vantage point and is irrelevant because it is the route that I'm questioning. And I'm burdened to be forced to take the same route you or others have experienced in order to prove what? ...that it could possibly prove that my own route is better? Not likely. All that would occur is that I'd understand the status route to the town. And the greater investment that I'd have to make along your path would then also only force me to justify the route's efforts.

 

This is why I say it is about politics too. With regards to remote observations in things like space, we aren't even able to 'get' to those "towns" and so much of what we presume about routes, meaning interpretation and argument in theory, cannot even be realized to show that my own route is 'shorter'.

 

"This section exists to give people the chance to show that their model that is different from the mainstream can participate scientifically."

False. Since the derogatory subtitle of this section is called, "Trash", it connotes a clear discrimination of the authorities imposing a purposeful label upon others with disgrace. And, by contrast, it also alerts others who are favored by the moderators to evade even remotely to support anyone's ideas there by default. It is a form of online bullying as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether many belong there or not. I certainly have less faith in a teacher who would place a dunce-cap on my head to humiliate me of my peers.

[Strange]

The problem is that all are treated the same.

 

That isn't true. See post #10.

 

The vast majority are treated the same, because they exhibit the same lack of knowledge of existing science and lack of support for their ideas. I don't think you can blame other members of the forum for that.

[Scott Mayers]

 

You've chosen to redefine "charity" to mean "feel free to guess as wildly as you want". It's no wonder you want us to remove the section, since that's not its purpose, but you've failed to give any good reason why guessing is better than using the scientific method, especially on a science discussion forum.

This is an example of the pre-discriminate behavior that lacks the actual meaning of "charity" I'm referring to. You presumed me as a deviant nut case who lacks sufficient education on science and methodology. Thank you.

 

 

Just because someone doesn't support the current paradigm it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the current paradigm.

Yes, this is another good point.

By the way, am I allowed to smoke in this section?

[swansont]

"I think the mods actually give a great deal of leeway..."

When I posted with the title "Einstein was wrong", I was clearly discriminated against based on that title alone without the moderator actually reading the content. His mere prejudice to transfer what I placed in the physics section to the dunce section was a clear means to politically bias me arrogantly in a disdain for the title alone. I also received blowback from another site to which one of the administrators literally participated in what others would clearly recognize as "trolling" when I opened the same thread there. And why? Because just as you might interpret before appropriate consideration, you deem that any appearance of dissent of someone so famous as Einstein is an act of disrespect to one's "hero" worship of them. I'm definitely not against Einstein but was 'testing' how logically astute those of these sites can relate. I was only proven that you have to tip-toe around questioning past authorities.

 

That was more than two years ago, so I have no recollection of the order of events, but as I posted moderator notes it's likely that I moved the thread. It's clearly not in agreement with relativity, as it challenges the invariance of c, and as such it belongs in speculations. That's a well-established bit of physics. It has nothing to do with disrespecting Einstein or any other such claptrap.

 

Your argument was pretty thoroughly dismantled by Janus and also uncool. But you seemed more interested in complaining about the file structure of the site and how it was bruising your fragile ego. When pressed to respond to them, you opted for thread closure.

 

Since the derogatory subtitle of this section is called, "Trash", it connotes a clear discrimination of the authorities imposing a purposeful label upon others with disgrace. And, by contrast, it also alerts others who are favored by the moderators to evade even remotely to support anyone's ideas there by default. It is a form of online bullying as far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether many belong there or not. I certainly have less faith in a teacher who would place a dunce-cap on my head to humiliate me of my peers.[/size]

 

Your objection to our file structure is noted. Is it safe to assume you have no trash cans in your dwelling, since you find proximity to them so odious?

 

Frankly, I have never understood this, except in the possible context of outsized egos and persecution complexes, but I don't like to assume what motivates others, and as far as I can recall nobody complaining has ever detailed exactly why they are so offended. But the correlation with people who appear to be personally invested in their ideas seems pretty strong, with all that that entails. Personally, I use the "recent posts" view, and often miss which section any particular post is in. If I'm reading a thread I usually have to scroll to the top or bottom and check, if I have a suspicion that the post might be in the wrong section.

[Strange]

"This section exists to give people the chance to show that their model that is different from the mainstream can participate scientifically."

False. Since the derogatory subtitle of this section is called, "Trash",

 

Note that "Trash" is not a subtitle, derogatory or otherwise. It is a separate section of the forum. It happens to be located under the Speculations section of the forum, but so what. Everything has to be somewhere.

This is an example of the pre-discriminate behavior that lacks the actual meaning of "charity" I'm referring to.

 

Then perhaps you need to explain yourself more clearly. It certainly sounds as if you are saying that we shouldn't criticise people's pet theories however wild and unsupported they are (as long as they are "sincere").

 

Instead, we should charitably tell them that it is very sweet that they have come up with their own clever idea, and ignore the fact that it is plainly contradicted by evidence. What happened to your support for scientific rigour, in the meantime?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Strange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I understand why this thread was placed here - but the Suggestions, Comments, and Support thread is its more natural home.

 

Thread moved.

 

 

Title modified to make sense now that I have moved it

[Greg H.]

Everytime anyone speaks he is referencing expert opinion.

 

And yet that does not mean that the person speaking has committed a logical fallacy. The fallacy depends upon the context and on the "expert" being referenced.

 

For example, if I post a thread here and Mr. Swanson calls me on my understanding of the science involved, I tend to listen because he is a practicing scientist. If I find that he is correct is his view of what I posted, I try to incorporate that into my thread so that my nonsensical ramblings become less nonsensical. If on the other hand, he tries to correct me on, for example, a medical scenario (not that he ever has, but consider the example), I have every right to be extremely skeptical of his statements, since he's not a medical doctor and not an actual authority on the subject.

 

(Which doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, it just means accepting the information at face value, without doing additional research, is probably a bad idea).

[cladking]

 

By the way, am I allowed to smoke in this section?

 

No one will know you're smoking if you just blow the smoke out the windows.

 

Virtual smoke doesn't cause cancer so few will care if they notice.

 

Coffee and doughnuts are only served early though.

[swansont]

In regard to the title of the thread, consider that if we banned the Speculations section, we would not tolerate much in the way of discussion of new ideas at all. Given our perspective of wanting an average member, not expert in a field, to be assured they are getting sound answers to their inquiries, we would have to be even more restrictive with regard to posts that went away from the mainstream. (It's hard enough sometimes winnowing out the mistaken responses of accepted science without having to sort out untested hypotheses or out-and-out crackpottery) So there's a choice between "Have a new idea to post? Sorry, that's not what we do." and "Have a new idea to post? Put it in Speculations and follow the guidelines". But realistically, for a science site, those are the only two options I can see.

 

If you want a third option, you'd have to come up with a site with a very different charter. Feel free to start that up. Run an ad with Ray, Peter and Egon saying "We're ready to believe you!"

[cladking]

 

And yet that does not mean that the person speaking has committed a logical fallacy. The fallacy depends upon the context and on the "expert" being referenced.

 

 

 

It's impossible in modern language to express any complex thought and to be entirely correct in every aspect. Even the simplest thoughts expressed in modern language are open to deconstruction and misinterpretation. "I have one red apple" can have a virtually infinite number of meanings and it's worse if you consider homonyms. The point at which a green apple becomes a red apple during its life is not defined and, of course, all apples never become "red" in anyone's perception. The color "red" is a specific spectra of visible light but we take it as a given from language that all individuals percieve the same "red". Never mind that some people due to genetic or "traumatic" reasons hear the color red or smell it. Calling it an "apple" at all is a sort of appeal to authority since no apples are identical. One can own an apple (and access the net) or one can merely be holding an apple. Every means of having an apple has degrees. If you had an apple after dinner last night it becomes almost impossible to have it taken. No red apple is red on the inside nor are the stems and seeds red. The tree it grew (groes) on is probably never very red. Its roots are not red. The apple probably began its life as a white flower. The apple might be used to begin an apple orchard which would make it a very different apple than the one which rotted and spoiled a bushel.

 

Since we're all wrong all the time and so very little is known we should be seeking the ideas which hold reality together in our minds but the concept of "reality" is excluded from modern science's metaphysics. The idea that reality was determined by perception resulted in an intentional exclusion of perceptions and reality. "Reality" affects science only through its effect on experiment. We build models as a mnemonic to remember these experiments and then tend to accept the models as reality itself. We see and understand the world as these models and see only what we expect and are blind to what we don't expect. We speak and understand in such terms. Effectively we can't speak without appealing to authority and we are necessarily misunderstood as the thoughts we try to express become more complicated.

 

Experts are simply on the cutting edge of the state of the art. They always try to use the same language whether the subject is cosmology or art history. If you are outside this circle or use words that are not current you are marked as being wrong and being a crackpot from the moment you speak.

 

Human knowledge has been divided into countless thousands of specialties but reality is never divided at all. We try to isolate variable for experiment but the real world simply doesn't work this way. Each specialist usually has extensive training in some small aspect of human knowledge and we believe this training reflects reality while, in fact it really just represents an aspect of our model of experiment. Nature has repeating processes that extend throughout its range. Math and its logic is merely an example of an aspect of reality. Since this repetition repeats it's only natural that someone treained in chemistry might have an insight that applies to factory construction or cosmology. A factory sweeper might have an insight that applies to all human existence or the nature of language.

 

Dividing knowledge into specialties is unnatural so it's hardly surprising that it might be noticed.

 

Specialization is necessary due to the huge extent of human knowledge but this specialization has teamed with technology, modelling, and language to cause people to believe they know almost everything. It has caused people to believe that nature behaves laws and that we understand some of these laws.

 

It has caused people to see only what they know and to be blind to everything else. Since we each see only what we know we mistakingly believe we know far far more than we actually do. We each look and see a red apple but we don't realize that a red apple means something very different to different people.

 

I'll probably abandon this thread due to its new location. I do tend to try to support points already made however, so will probably be back iff challenged.

Edited October 5, 2015 by cladking