ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th August 2012, 07:57 AM   #121
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Why? Because the standard model is modified after the facts. A sound theory should be able to PREDICT the actual results, not be modified again and again to fit the facts.
modifying a theory makes it more sound.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 07:58 AM   #122
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
You never actually asked for that.
I asked for a mainstream scientist that has questioned Einstein's relativity. I didn't add that I meant after that theory had become mainstream, but that's what I meant.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:00 AM   #123
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
I'm tempted to start a thread entitled, "Is the Earth a Jelly Donut?" After all, the Earth is much more like a jelly donut than the Sun is like a black hole.
Good news - I performed an initial experiment over my lunch break.

Hypothesis: The earth is a jelly donut.

Method:
  1. Select a location near me on the Earth's surface and move my hand vertically downwards until it reaches a solid object
  2. Examine a sample from this location and determine if it has donut or jelly-like qualities
  3. Repeat with samples from the same location several times

Results: I encountered materials that resembled both donut and jelly over a very small vertical range. The material encountered below those was too strong to take samples from.

Conclusions: At least some percentage of the Earth is definitely a jelly donut. Given the variance over the small (sub-meter!) range and the temporal change of donut-like qualities at the measured location (with eventual disappearance of donut-like qualities entirely) I suggest that the Earth may be largely empty space with 'normal' donuts moving within it and perhaps one or more larger donuts at the center.

Alternatively a single planet-sized donut may have been well-mixed by billions of years of tectonic movement. This latter option allows for the possibility of a liquid jelly core remaining at the Earth's center, which may have been heated by pressure and friction to mouth-charring temperatures.

Suggestions for further experiments:
  • Try different locations, e.g. a local bakery
  • Include control samples, including but not limited to plain donuts and non-toroidal foodstuffs
  • Neither model explains the Earth's magnetic field, but I'm not aware of any measurements of the magnetism of donuts. Testing whether dough or jelly has a charge may be a way to determine which is correct (I suggest storing artificial jelly donuts inside a cooled metal container and placing a number of typical magnets on its surface, examining samples as necessary).
  • The hard material encountered may have been a very stale donut. Further investigation necessary!
uvar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:01 AM   #124
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,852
I mean really if you build a house and one shutter falls off improving the method you use to attach the shutters to the frame is just silly. Obviously completely throwing out the concept of a house as inherently flawed makes much more sense.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:01 AM   #125
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
modifying a theory makes it more sound.
Not necessarily. And in the case of the incredible mess of the standard theories in physics today I would say definitely not. As I said, a sound theory should PREDICT the facts, not be modified like some epicycle theory into ever more complicated special cases and add-ons.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:01 AM   #126
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,965
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Hold it right there. The material can come out of the vacuum of space! Imagine gravity pulling on the virtual particles in space. For objects with relative small mass, such as planets, the pull is not great enough to extract real particles, but above a certain mass, such as that of stars, the gravity is strong enough to pull virtual particles out of the vacuum and then accelerate them to a point where they emit energy.
Maybe you should do some thorough research.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:02 AM   #127
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I asked for a mainstream scientist that has questioned Einstein's relativity. I didn't add that I meant after that theory had become mainstream, but that's what I meant.
elements of Einstein's relativity are questioned all the time. Every scientist who built on Einstein's work did so by questioning it. That is how science works.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:03 AM   #128
BNRT
Muse
 
BNRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
And you have still not been able to produce any mainstream scientist who has questioned Einstein's relativity, after that theory became 'gospel' in the (public) scientific community.
Erik Verlinde came up with a radical (and difficult) theory about gravity.

Now, quit it.
BNRT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:05 AM   #129
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,852
Oh this has stopped boarding on silly and has now fully invaded silly and has set up a puppet government in silly's capital.

If we give him an example of someone challenging a well established theory he's just use that as proof that the theories are flawed. If we don't he'll use that as proof that "science" is resistant to change.

And thefore woo.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:05 AM   #130
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,690
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I think the basic Big Bang theory could be basically correct. So particles lumped together more and more, until protoplanets formed, then planets, and when the mass reaches a certain threshold a black hole is formed and: IGNITION! A star is born.
Can you explain why a star doesn't begin fusing hydrogen and light up long before it gets big enough to become a black hole?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:05 AM   #131
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
But it's easier to separate big lumps from soup than tiny crumbs which just stay in suspension. So shouldn't the most massive particles fall out first?

Where is this soup, by the way?

Adding 'probably' implies that you calculate your idea is more likely right than wrong. Please explain how you worked that out.
This is the 'soup': http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=78

And if it would have been easier to extract heavier particles, the scientists would have done that instead of extracting a photon from the vacuum (quantum soup), don't you think?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:07 AM   #132
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by GeneMachine View Post
And, one might add, that didn't proof Newton wrong - it just showed that Newton's theory of Gravity is incomplete and only works under certain boundary conditions, i.e. small masses, low velocities.
And that was sort of my point. GR describes things Newton could never dream existed and he was one of the most out of the box thinkers of his time. Now we are discovering Higgs Boson particles. dark energy streams etc etc. These things will either be accommodated by GR or used to fundamentally redraw our understanding of the universe.

Anders however wants to mix apples and oranges. He is calling our theories of stellar evolution into question, not cutting edge astrophysics concepts. With SE we have millions of data points, and the stars that dont fit the model are intensively studied to try an understand the mechanisms in evidence.

If Anders theory about science was correct these exceptions to the rule would be swept under the carpet, not the subject of numerous scientific papers trying to figure the situation.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:07 AM   #133
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. A model that explains the way things are is more sound than a model that does not.

Quote:
And in the case of the incredible mess of the standard theories in physics today I would say definitely not.
Sound is not the same as simple.

Quote:
As I said, a sound theory should PREDICT the facts
Which the standard model does the vast majority of the time. The exceptions are most apparent because there are so few of them.

Quote:
, not be modified like some epicycle theory into ever more complicated special cases and add-ons.
why should a theory not be modified to take account of reality?
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:07 AM   #134
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,690
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This is the 'soup': http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=78

And if it would have been easier to extract heavier particles, the scientists would have done that instead of extracting a photon from the vacuum (quantum soup), don't you think?
Maybe their apparatus acted like a sieve.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:08 AM   #135
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Maybe you should do some thorough research.
I admit I'm basically just pulling information from the Internet, but to me that's effective enough.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:09 AM   #136
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I think the basic Big Bang theory could be basically correct. So particles lumped together more and more, until protoplanets formed, then planets, and when the mass reaches a certain threshold a black hole is formed and: IGNITION! A star is born.
But where did the matter for these proto planets etc formed. We basically have only hydrogen and helium to work with. We need a mechanism for a black hole to first convert these elements, then recycle them through the universe.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:10 AM   #137
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,449
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I admit I'm basically just pulling information from the Internet
The problem is not where you're pulling the information from, but where you're pulling your interpretations of it from.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:10 AM   #138
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I admit I'm basically just pulling information from the Internet, but to me that's effective enough.
The fact that you think it is effective enough is in and of itself evidence of how little you currently know.

Do me a favour:

1) write down your current ideas about the sun being a black hole, in all the detail you can
2) seal your writings in an envelope and put them in a desk drawer.
3) take one year of a physics degree
4) open the envelope again. Record your reaction when you read what you had written.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:11 AM   #139
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I admit I'm basically just pulling information from the Internet, but to me that's effective enough.
I suppose if you lower your standards enough, any theory becomes possible
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:12 AM   #140
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
Yes, necessarily. A model that explains the way things are is more sound than a model that does not.



Sound is not the same as simple.



Which the standard model does the vast majority of the time. The exceptions are most apparent because there are so few of them.



why should a theory not be modified to take account of reality?
Nope. Compare with the epicycle theories again. They became more and more messy and sure enough, they became more accurate, but alas, they were based on the false assumption that Earth was stationary and everything else orbiting around it in ever more complicated special cases of epicycles.

If the exceptions are so few, then why did the standard model start so simple and today is such a colossal monstrosity?

Last edited by Anders Lindman; 7th August 2012 at 08:13 AM.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:17 AM   #141
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Nope. Compare with the epicycle theories again. They became more and more messy and sure enough, they became more accurate, but alas, they were based on the false assumption that Earth was stationary and everything else orbiting around it in ever more complicated special cases of epicycles.

If the exceptions are so few, then why did the standard model start so simple and today is such a colossal monstrosity?
Again you are mixing apples and oranges. That theory's job was to explain when a point of light would be near other significant point of light. Not how the universe was meant to work
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:18 AM   #142
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
But where did the matter for these proto planets etc formed. We basically have only hydrogen and helium to work with. We need a mechanism for a black hole to first convert these elements, then recycle them through the universe.
My idea was that black holes can be formed out of all kinds of matter, including out of hydrogen and helium. Have I missed something that makes that impossible?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:20 AM   #143
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
The fact that you think it is effective enough is in and of itself evidence of how little you currently know.

Do me a favour:

1) write down your current ideas about the sun being a black hole, in all the detail you can
2) seal your writings in an envelope and put them in a desk drawer.
3) take one year of a physics degree
4) open the envelope again. Record your reaction when you read what you had written.
This isn't the 19th century! Today we have the Internet. The most powerful tool humanity has ever created.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:21 AM   #144
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
My idea was that black holes can be formed out of all kinds of matter, including out of hydrogen and helium. Have I missed something that makes that impossible?
You have to explain how other elements besides hydrogen and helium entered the universe. Where did the water carbon etc come from to create planets such as Earth?
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:25 AM   #145
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,852
Access to information without a very good sense of critical thinking and the scientific process is literally worse then useless.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:25 AM   #146
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
This isn't the 19th century! Today we have the Internet. The most powerful tool humanity has ever created.
Did you just declare that the Internet has made education obsolete?
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:26 AM   #147
BNRT
Muse
 
BNRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
Did you just declare that the Internet has made education obsolete?
I thought he was talking about himself.
BNRT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:27 AM   #148
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by MG1962 View Post
You have to explain how other elements besides hydrogen and helium entered the universe. Where did the water carbon etc come from to create planets such as Earth?
That is explained here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=92
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:27 AM   #149
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,865
Anders, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that scientists resist changes to theories, reject new theories that contradict their old theories and have certainty in their theories and models.

This was probably fairly true about 100 years ago (just read any scientific text from the late 19th century), but modern science has learned from the mistakes of the past. The vast majority of modern scientists understand that theories are provisional, models include assumptions that may be wrong, and that certainty is utterly ridiculous. In fact, most modern scientists spend their lives looking to knock down the existing theories, and they love to debate out-of-the-box ideas.

There is no greater target for a scientist than to knock over an existing, established theory.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:28 AM   #150
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I admit I'm basically just pulling information from the Internet, but to me that's effective enough.
.
.
No, that's not where you pull it from.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:28 AM   #151
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
Did you just declare that the Internet has made education obsolete?
No, but with the Internet it's possible to pull out all kinds of information within minutes!
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:29 AM   #152
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Anders, think of a subject that you actually know an awful lot about. This isn't an insult, think of whichever subject you know best.

Now imagine I come up to you and tell you that even though I know next to nothing about your subject, everything you know is wrong. I then proceed to explain why you are wrong in a way that includes an awful lot of misconceptions and is based on the idea that if you don't know everything then you can't say I'm wrong about everything.

Which of these would you think I was?

a) a visionary genius here to overturn the foundations of knowledge
b) an idiot
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:31 AM   #153
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No, but with the Internet it's possible to pull out all kinds of information within minutes!
If you know what you're looking for. And understand what you find.

Also, education isn't just the transmission of information, it's the impartation of knowledge. I can look up whole medical textbooks online, but that doesn't make me a doctor.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:31 AM   #154
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Anders, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that scientists resist changes to theories, reject new theories that contradict their old theories and have certainty in their theories and models.

This was probably fairly true about 100 years ago (just read any scientific text from the late 19th century), but modern science has learned from the mistakes of the past. The vast majority of modern scientists understand that theories are provisional, models include assumptions that may be wrong, and that certainty is utterly ridiculous. In fact, most modern scientists spend their lives looking to knock down the existing theories, and they love to debate out-of-the-box ideas.

There is no greater target for a scientist than to knock over an existing, established theory.
No, I didn't say (or at least didn't mean) that scientists reject new theories. It's the lock-in into possibly false theories I see as the danger. What if Einstein's relativity is a hoax? And mainstream science just keeps on going down the wrong path!?
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:33 AM   #155
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,852
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
No, but with the Internet it's possible to pull out all kinds of information within minutes!
Think about that for a second. Just really think about that.

"All kinds of information." Including wrong, outdated, badly worded, out of context information as well as information that you just don't understand.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:34 AM   #156
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,852
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
What if Einstein's relativity is a hoax? And mainstream science just keeps on going down the wrong path!?
And what you are just breathtakingly refusing to get is that the entire point of science is self correction to prevent that from happening.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:34 AM   #157
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
Anders, think of a subject that you actually know an awful lot about. This isn't an insult, think of whichever subject you know best.

Now imagine I come up to you and tell you that even though I know next to nothing about your subject, everything you know is wrong. I then proceed to explain why you are wrong in a way that includes an awful lot of misconceptions and is based on the idea that if you don't know everything then you can't say I'm wrong about everything.

Which of these would you think I was?

a) a visionary genius here to overturn the foundations of knowledge
b) an idiot
Neither a nor b. I would be interested in hearing about what I was wrong about. At least I would start from an unbiased position and listen to it.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:34 AM   #158
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
If the sun were a quasar we'd already be dead and most of the planets would have been destroyed.

If the sun were a black hole it would look like a distorted mess of blackness with the stars behind it looking like they're in all the wrong places.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:37 AM   #159
MG1962
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,252
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Word salad, you have to describe the mechanism that does this. If current atomic theory was wrong, nuclear reactors would not work.
MG1962 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2012, 08:38 AM   #160
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
And what you are just breathtakingly refusing to get is that the entire point of science is self correction to prevent that from happening.
The point yes, but what is the situation in reality? What if some gatekeeper scientists (in what Richard Dolan calls the breakaway civilization) hide the real science (in black op projects etc) and give the public community false science to chew on endlessly?

Knowledge is power, and if a group can mislead the public community to pursue false science in key areas the group can maintain and keep great power to themselves.
Anders Lindman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.