Are scientists arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?

[Phi for All]

Is there an age limit to the Field's? If so, I'm an wannabe 18 year old prodigy really that has lied about his age and puts up pictures of older people because I don't want the old uns to feel inferior in my presence.

 

Right, I know for a fact you're really silver screen legend Sean Bean (nobody's ever seen you both in the same room). I love your work, btw, and I'm sick of your characters getting killed off before all the good stuff happens.

[StringJunky]

Right, I know for a fact you're really silver screen legend Sean Bean (nobody's ever seen you both in the same room). I love your work, btw, and I'm sick of your characters getting killed off before all the good stuff happens.

Sshh!

 

Regards

 

W. Mitty aka Billy Liar

Edited August 3, 2016 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

"Are scientists arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?"

Well, those are pretty common human traits and scientists are human.

So, I'd say the answer is probably yes.

Another question would be what group of people can you not substitute for "scientists" in that question and not get the answer yes?

 

I guess

"Are scientists dead people arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?"might get an answer in the negative.

 

Perhaps an even better question yet would be

"Are scientists- or non scientists- more arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?"

[Strange]

"Are scientists arrogant, close-minded, and dismissive?"

Well, those are pretty common human traits and scientists are human.

So, I'd say the answer is probably yes.

 

I assume you mean, "yes, in some cases". (Otherwise I might have to dismiss your comment...)

 

Incidentally, I always assumed "close minded" was an error (for "closed minded") but apparently it is the more common spelling. The descriptivist in me is going to have a very hard time coming to terms with that. But I don't want to be closed-minded about it.

[John Cuthber]

 

I assume you mean, "yes, in some cases". (Otherwise I might have to dismiss your comment...)

 

Incidentally, I always assumed "close minded" was an error (for "closed minded") but apparently it is the more common spelling. The descriptivist in me is going to have a very hard time coming to terms with that. But I don't want to be closed-minded about it.

Strictly I meant a combination of all scientists sometimes are and some scientists often are...

"Close minded" might be common- but it's still wrong.

We are not talking about a mind that's nearby; we are talking about one that stopped being open.

[StringJunky]

"Close minded" might be common- but it's still wrong.

We are not talking about a mind that's nearby; we are talking about one that stopped being open.

But we don't say "Opened minded" do we?

[John Cuthber]

But we don't say "Opened minded" do we?

We don't; and it doesn't matter that we don't.

 

We say "the door is open" or the door is closed".

But we don't say "the door is close", unless we mean it is nearby (and we would pronounce it differently).

Edited August 4, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

Of course not! Well except maybe.. well you know.. John and Tom and Hmmm did I mention I have cheese nips?

[StringJunky]

We don't; and it doesn't matter that we don't.

 

We say "the door is open" or the door is closed".

But we don't say "the door is close", unless we mean it is nearby (and we would pronounce it differently).

True

[Strange]

Strictly I meant a combination of all scientists sometimes are and some scientists often are...

"Close minded" might be common- but it's still wrong.

We are not talking about a mind that's nearby; we are talking about one that stopped being open.

 

 

Apparently, the original meaning of "close minded" (15th C, if I remember correctly) was someone who kept things to themselves (i.e. kept their thoughts close).

[Phi for All]

Are fashion designers clothes-minded?

[John Cuthber]

People who are concerned about the thermal insulation of apparel are clos minded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_insulation#Units_and_measurement

[ajb]

Just thinking that quacks and crackpots seem to be the most closed minded.

 

I once read - for giggles - a paper in a predatory journal that discusses how David's slingshot must have accelerated the projectile to speeds greater than the speed of light if it were to kill Goliath! Well, the paper was rubbish and based simply on not understanding rotating objects in special relativity - it was a rehash of the old rotating arm faster than light thing.

 

Anyway, I was told about this paper by one of the authors - I cheated on science forums and used another forum, there is no need to bring this other forum into it. I regret it and now live in shame. - and amazingly he told me that the Bible is full of science and should be read as such!

 

No way to change his mind - I tried.

[Strange]

Just thinking that quacks and crackpots seem to be the most closed minded.

 

I once read - for giggles - a paper in a predatory journal that discusses how David's slingshot must have accelerated the projectile to speeds greater than the speed of light if it were to kill Goliath!

 

 

Even if it were "only" near the speed of light, it would have destroyed the whole Valley of Elah.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

[ajb]

Even if it were "only" near the speed of light, it would have destroyed the whole Valley of Elah.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

Something the 'referees' missed...

[michel123456]

 

 

Even if it were "only" near the speed of light, it would have destroyed the whole Valley of Elah.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

Doesn't the link also partly explain what happen in front of a meteorite before hitting the earth?

[ajb]

Doesn't the link also partly explain what happen in front of a meteorite before hitting the earth?

Yes, if the object is moving at speeds near the speed of light with respect to the Earth. But large objects in our Solar System don't move that fast.

[michel123456]

Yes, if the object is moving at speeds near the speed of light with respect to the Earth. But large objects in our Solar System don't move that fast.

Well I suppose the fire ball appears at much lower speeds. At the moment the air molecules cannot go round the object, something like the link must happen.

[ajb]

Well I suppose the fire ball appears at much lower speeds. At the moment the air molecules cannot go round the object, something like the link must happen.

Yes, friction creates fireballs.

[Phi for All]

Even if it were "only" near the speed of light, it would have destroyed the whole Valley of Elah.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/

 

This is exactly what I thought of when I read about the Goliath paper ajb mentioned. I love this analysis!

 

It's obviously an error in translation. They probably meant David's projectile broke the speed of sound. I'm pretty sure the Hebrew word for "sling" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "rail gun".

[ajb]

It's obviously an error in translation. They probably meant David's projectile broke the speed of sound. I'm pretty sure the Hebrew word for "sling" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "rail gun".

Physics at the time of writting of the old testament had no idea how fast light travels - if you could not see the projectile in flight then did it more faster than 'sight'?

 

Anyway, the paper is total trash in a really stupid journal. Publishing it was not fair on the guys who wrote it - they actually think they have done something meaningful.

 

Now, rejection I doubt would have changed their minds on this.

[EdEarl]

Meteor traveling faster than sound at altitude will compress air in front of it; thus, heating the air--heat in addition to friction. Of course, denser air causes more friction.

[Scotty99]

I don't know why my mind works this way but i value truths over anything, and i feel a lot of scientists dont work that way. Its all about following the method, even if it goes against their common senses (assuming they have any to begin with).

[dimreepr]

How do you establish the truth?

[Phi for All]

I don't know why my mind works this way but i value truths over anything,

 

This sounds good to people, so good that it often makes them stop thinking any farther. What could be better than the truth (or Truth)?

 

But truth is subjective. What's true for one person isn't universal to all. That's not the way reality works.

 

Science is interested in where the evidence leads, that's all. When evidence stacks up to support an idea, and nothing falsifies it, and no other explanations have as much support, we accept that explanation as our current best, subject to change if other evidence is presented. In this way, science continually improves its understanding.

 

Truth makes us think we've found the answer, and we stop looking.