On Skeptics and Science

[MightyB]

Why'd you close Bawang's thread on the main forum? It was finally getting somewhere and was a great Allegory for TCMAs belief system. One where a challenge to a held belief is met with hostility.

This is for Taai and Wenshu - it's an example from physics of how theory can become dogma and the difficulties faced by challengers of the system:

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/04jse.html
If you decide to question a widely accepted theory, or to present data that is anomalous in terms of current understandings, it can be difficult to gain a hearing. Although the essence of scientific advance is going beyond current knowledge or offering a new way of understanding data, questioning fundamentals is seldom welcome. Some types of challenge, such as perpetual motion machines or causality violation, are automatically rejected. Others, such as cold fusion, are openly considered and tested but then, if they do not measure up, henceforth rejected by mainstream science.

I believe Physicist and Astronomers are among the most open-minded scientists... ever since my first Astronomy lecture in college. The professor held up the book and said, "Everything in this book could change tomorrow, but it's the best available knowledge we have today." And then he slammed the book down and started his lecture.

All kinds of articles and papers here. (http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html)



really, u don't get this at all, right? if there is an article in a scientific magazine about things like dogma, bias, etc., don't u realize that this is the community "policing" itself? meaning that, like ANY human endeavor, there will b personal, subjective bias / political motivation; however, the very fact that it gets noticed and pointed out by the community indicates that it is not the norm, but rather that the community actively tries to counteract this sort of thing;

here, for example, r two recent instances of how, in the face of new evidence that appears to invalidate long-held beliefs (dogma), the scientific community, instead of rejecting it because it doesn't gel w established knowledge, looks at it objectively:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730

what u have here are excellent examples of scientists grappling with how to reconcile new data with established theories; if they were so close-minded, they would dismiss out of hand the new data in favor of their established belief system;

[sanjuro_ronin]

The issue is not science but scientists and yes, where ever man is involved things can become dogmatic.
It is human nature.
There is also something that needs to be said and that is:
Just because SOME science, like Physics, is remakrable accurate and consistent, doesn't mean that OTHER sciences can "ride their coat tails".

[ShaolinDan]

You guys here about those subatomic particles they clocked at faster than light speed? Physics is about to go through some major revising...

[sanjuro_ronin]

You guys here about those subatomic particles they clocked at faster than light speed? Physics is about to go through some major revising...

It hasn't been confirmed that the neutrinos did indeed do that or if it was an error, but even if they did, it won't change things that much because Einstein postulated that nothing OF MASS could go faster than light.

Here:
Heinrich Päs, theoretical physicist of the Technical University Dortmund in Germany:

"It seems that the experimentalists were very careful, but this is really BIG news....

There are certain misunderstandings with people who are very cynical now: Even if true, this result neither proves Einstein wrong nor implies that causality has to be violated and time travel is possible. Things can move faster than the speed of light without violating Einstein if either the speed of light is not the limiting velocity as one can observe it for light propagation in media such as, for example, water. This can be modeled with background fields in the vacuum as has been proposed by [Indiana University physicist] Alan Kostelecky.

Or spacetime could be warped in a way so that neutrinos can take a shortcut without really being faster than the speed of light. As our three space plus one time dimensions look pretty flat, this would require an extra dimension (as proposed by [University of Hawaii at Manoa physicist] Sandip Pakvasa, [Vanderbilt University physicist] Tom Weiler and myself).

On the other hand, if something moves faster than the speed of light, causality violations—aka time travel—may be a possibility (for example, in models with two warped extra dimensions as proposed by [Vanderbilt physicist] James Dent, Pakvasa, Weiler and myself). And that, of course, would have really crazy and mind-boggling consequences, but even there can [there] be scenarios which are contradictory.

So, in short, this is really exciting. But since it is so exciting, I'm not sure whether one should be too optimistic that it will survive the tests of other experiments."

[Syn7]

The issue is not science but scientists and yes, where ever man is involved things can become dogmatic.
It is human nature.
There is also something that needs to be said and that is:
Just because SOME science, like Physics, is remakrable accurate and consistent, doesn't mean that OTHER sciences can "ride their coat tails".

no doubt... and vice versa... just because something is far outside the mainstream peer reviewed community doesnt mean its wrong and not worth looking at...


to me physics is the begining and the end. i didnt see all the parallels between science and religion until i was like 20.

[Syn7]

It hasn't been confirmed that the neutrinos did indeed do that or if it was an error, but even if they did, it won't change things that much because Einstein postulated that nothing OF MASS could go faster than light.

Here:
Heinrich Päs, theoretical physicist of the Technical University Dortmund in Germany:

"It seems that the experimentalists were very careful, but this is really BIG news....

There are certain misunderstandings with people who are very cynical now: Even if true, this result neither proves Einstein wrong nor implies that causality has to be violated and time travel is possible. Things can move faster than the speed of light without violating Einstein if either the speed of light is not the limiting velocity as one can observe it for light propagation in media such as, for example, water. This can be modeled with background fields in the vacuum as has been proposed by [Indiana University physicist] Alan Kostelecky.

Or spacetime could be warped in a way so that neutrinos can take a shortcut without really being faster than the speed of light. As our three space plus one time dimensions look pretty flat, this would require an extra dimension (as proposed by [University of Hawaii at Manoa physicist] Sandip Pakvasa, [Vanderbilt University physicist] Tom Weiler and myself).

On the other hand, if something moves faster than the speed of light, causality violations—aka time travel—may be a possibility (for example, in models with two warped extra dimensions as proposed by [Vanderbilt physicist] James Dent, Pakvasa, Weiler and myself). And that, of course, would have really crazy and mind-boggling consequences, but even there can [there] be scenarios which are contradictory.

So, in short, this is really exciting. But since it is so exciting, I'm not sure whether one should be too optimistic that it will survive the tests of other experiments."

neutrinos are non zero mass elementray subatomic particles. so im not sure what you meant by:

Einstein postulated that nothing OF MASS could go faster than light.

but I do like the part about the "shortcut" theory. very much worth looking at. If indeed space does fold in on itself and any particle ends up far away, it doesnt actually mean that said particle actually travelled that distance. but it's still a stretch, no pun intended:p... we know very little about warping time-space. Also I'm just not sure what would be between geneva and gran sasso that would have the force needed to actually warp space-time.

[Lee Chiang Po]

In order to be a good physicist one must also develop a little lunacy. Neither time nor space can actually be warped. And as for the speed of light, it don't matter if it is not the fastest thing in the universe, we can still not achieve that speed, and if we did, we could not achieve time travel. Time does not exist except in the minds of men. It is an invention that gauges the lapse between two events. In a sense, it is merely words uttered from ones mouth. And space only exists because it doesn't exist. An empty void can not be warped, only things that may exist inside it. And if it is empty, that is not an issue. No gentlemen. Albert Einstein was insane.

[David Jamieson]

Most human scientific discoveries occur wholly by accident and not often by design.
The important part is people are trying to figure stuff out!

[SoCo KungFu]

Most human scientific discoveries occur wholly by accident and not often by design.
The important part is people are trying to figure stuff out!

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemistry/67853

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=18253.php

[SoCo KungFu]

In order to be a good physicist one must also develop a little lunacy. Neither time nor space can actually be warped. And as for the speed of light, it don't matter if it is not the fastest thing in the universe, we can still not achieve that speed, and if we did, we could not achieve time travel. Time does not exist except in the minds of men. It is an invention that gauges the lapse between two events. In a sense, it is merely words uttered from ones mouth. And space only exists because it doesn't exist. An empty void can not be warped, only things that may exist inside it. And if it is empty, that is not an issue. No gentlemen. Albert Einstein was insane.

Why does a baseball bat exhibit so much force on a ball?

Go dive headfirst from a 30ft board into a pool. Then go do the same from a 30 ft building. If you survive, come back and let us know if time is still "merely words uttered from ones mouth." (as if that statement even has a rational meaning...)

Guess what the difference is? It comes down to time.

...More pseudo-philosophy destroying logical thought...

[Lee Chiang Po]

Time has nothing to do with it. Speed due to gravity is the offending factor. And time has nothing to do with the difference in water and solid ground. I think you will have to explain that point to me.

[SoCo KungFu]

Time has nothing to do with it. Speed due to gravity is the offending factor. And time has nothing to do with the difference in water and solid ground. I think you will have to explain that point to me.

Incorrect. Acceleration is the offending factor.

F = ma

a = (Vf-Vi)/t

The difference in solid vs liquid is the TIME it takes to change velocity, decreased (negative) acceleration.