Debate?

[Architeuthus]

Are there branches of science that don't produce any tangible goods?

Presumably he means, say, quantum theory (which has led to the manufacture of all kinds of technology) as opposed to recent cosmology (which has as yet produced no tangible products).

 

[Architeuthus]

Are there branches of science that don't produce any tangible goods?

Presumably he means, say, quantum theory (which has led to the manufacture of all kinds of technology) as opposed to recent cosmology (which has as yet produced no tangible products).

 

[morningstar2651]

Presumably he means, say, quantum theory (which has led to the manufacture of all kinds of technology) as opposed to recent cosmology (which has as yet produced no tangible products).

He seems obsessively focused on cosmology. I'm not so sure that was his intent.

 

[Michael]

I'm not an expert in this field, are you?

How can anyone be called an "expert" on a topic like "dark energy"? Nobody in the entire industry can even name so much as a single *source* of "dark energy', let alone demonstrate it has any tangible effect on a photon in a lab. Expert? Who is an 'expert' in this field in your opinion, and what exactly makes them an 'expert' anyway?

Perhaps there is a reason the experts have a consensus - what you call "popular opinion"?

What reason might that be other than a pure 'act of faith' on the part of the 'believer"?

Are there branches of science that don't produce any tangible goods?

Sure. Lambda-CDM hasn't produced anything useful *ever*! On the other hand, I greatly value my cell phone, my computer and all the marvelous benefits of electrical engineering.

 

[Michael]

Presumably he means, say, quantum theory (which has led to the manufacture of all kinds of technology) as opposed to recent cosmology (which has as yet produced no tangible products).

Exactly.

 

[morningstar2651]

What reason might that be other than a pure 'act of faith' on the part of the 'believer"?

The analysis of evidence by an expert in the field of physics.

Are you an expert in the field of physics? You avoided my earlier question by stating that nobody was an expert in the non-existent field dark energy.

I'd also like to point out that Lambda-CDM is not a field of science either. Do you understand what a field is? Here are some examples: physics, chemistry, ecology, oceanography, geology, meteorology, biology, zoology, and botany.

It should also be pointed out that electrical engineering is a field of engineering, not of science.

 

[Michael]

The analysis of evidence by an expert in the field of physics.

Are you an expert in the field of physics? You avoided my earlier question by stating that nobody was an expert in the non-existent field dark energy.

I'd also like to point out that Lambda-CDM is not a field of science either. Do you understand what a field is? Here are some examples: physics, chemistry, ecology, oceanography, geology, meteorology, biology, zoology, and botany.

It should also be pointed out that electrical engineering is a field of engineering, not of science.

My friend posted this on Facebook yesterday, and it seems rather appropriate:

Overheard this morning on the internet: "If you believe "science" is already determined, and is merely about majority consensus, you are actually referring to religion.

If you believe a potential finding in scientific studies, or hypotheses presented by scientists are unquestionably true, you are actually talking beliefs.

If you believe in this concept of science above all else, and cannot consider criticism or permit this science to be challenged or questioned, then you are following dogma.

If you believe all people must follow this science without doubting or searching for more answers, you are demanding an act of faith.

If you believe that the amount of science you have at your hands right now is the ultimate knowledge, and that all people must be compelled through peer pressure or laws to follow this science, you are attempting to make our country a theocracy."

I'm not sure what you believe makes someone an "expert" on the topic of physics. I have in fact *published* several papers on the topic of astronomy, so does that make me an 'expert' somehow? What kind of "expert" can't even name so much as a single source of "dark energy"? If they're experts on "dark matter", how come they came up empty at LUX, LHC, the electron roundness tests, and PandaX? What exactly makes anyone an "expert' on such topics?

 

[Michael]

The analysis of evidence by an expert in the field of physics.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...ath-knell-for-bicep2-gravitational-wave-claim

Since its public announcement in March 2014, the BICEP2 team has been criticized by some physicists for prematurely claiming to have found the first "smoking gun" evidence for inflation. Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics in Canada, who had been an early critic of the BICEP2 results, now points out that the latest joint analysis has shied away from making a clear comparison of the data against the most basic models of inflation. "These data imply that the simplest inflation models are now ruled out with 95% confidence," he says, explaining that, while this is not yet conclusive, it may just be just a matter of time thanks to a host of experiments that are currently gathering new and better data on the B-modes.

Emphasis mine. Your so called "experts" recently (last year) claimed to have found evidence of inflation with *7 Sigma confidence* no less. All of those grandiose claims later turned to *dust* in mere months. You therefore need to demonstrate that your experts are actually "experts" for us. I don't see any evidence of that at all. They can't even name a single source of dark energy, and every 'experiment' and claim related to dark matter came up empty.

 

[Michael]

I'd also like to point out that Lambda-CDM is not a field of science either. Do you understand what a field is? Here are some examples: physics, chemistry, ecology, oceanography, geology, meteorology, biology, zoology, and botany.

Astronomy is a 'field of science", specifically a subset of physics. It's filled with *tons* of concept and claims about evidence that have been *later falsified*. 'Scientists' are not immune from criticism simply due to their degree.

It should also be pointed out that electrical engineering is a field of engineering, not of science.

FYI, that's just a goofy argument IMO. Electrical 'theories' have improved to the point that they've moved beyond simply theory, and into the realm of real life empirical application. That's true for some areas of biology as well. It's irrational to suggest that my computer isn't a product of 'science' simply because it's also a product of 'engineering'.

 

[lesliedellow]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

It makes sense in fields where there isn't an objective right answer. We can discuss and debate philosophy, politics, and religion... but science?

There is nothing certain about science. If you could look at the original blueprint of the universe, so to speak, there wouldn't be any Newtonian Mechanics in it, and quite likely there wouldn't be any General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics either.

But even if it was allowed that the truth of scientific theories was beyond question, the implications of those theories, and their impact on the rest of life, would still be wide open for discussion.

 

[morningstar2651]

Astronomy is a 'field of science", specifically a subset of physics. It's filled with *tons* of concept and claims about evidence that have been *later falsified*. 'Scientists' are not immune from criticism simply due to their degree.

FYI, that's just a goofy argument IMO. Electrical 'theories' have improved to the point that they've moved beyond simply theory, and into the realm of real life empirical application. That's true for some areas of biology as well. It's irrational to suggest that my computer isn't a product of 'science' simply because it's also a product of 'engineering'.

Having a conversation with you is difficult when you keep putting words in my mouth and fail to read the words I've actually posted.

If we want to talk about goofy arguments, how about we bring it back to you claiming to know better than physicists and astronomers. What are your qualifications? Why should I read anything you have to say about science?

You have no qualifications. I have no reason to listen to you. You are not qualified to "debate" gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does anyone else find it odd that Physical & Life Sciences is under the category of Discussion and Debate?

Ever heard of peer review?

 

[Michael]

Having a conversation with you is difficult when you keep putting words in my mouth and fail to read the words I've actually posted.

I certainly wasn't trying to do that.

If we want to talk about goofy arguments, how about we bring it back to you claiming to know better than physicists and astronomers.

Know more about what? I probably know more about programming than most of them. I don't have to "know" much at all about their "dark matter" claims to see that they came up completely empty at LUX, LHC, PandaX, etc. What do they actually even "know" about "dark energy" if they can't even name a single source? How much did they "know" about actual "astronomy' when they wrote that BICEP2 fiasco paper? Knowledge? What actual "knowledge" do they have? All their so called "knowledge' about inflation theory turned out to be caused by ordinary dust!

What are your qualifications?

I already explained that I have published papers on the topic of astronomy. Do I need "special" qualifications simply to reject claims that lack any sort of empirical support? Why?

Why should I read anything you have to say about science?

Why should I believe anything an atheist has to say about God or religion?

You have no qualifications.

So basically your entire argument is an appeal to authority fallacy. Got it.

I have no reason to listen to you. You are not qualified to "debate" gravity.

I typically don't debate "gravity" by the way, just grandiose inflation claims, half baked dark energy claims, and exotic matter claims. Gravity works just fine, and GR theory is fine without any of those ridiculous claims.

 

[Michael]

You have no qualifications. I have no reason to listen to you. You are not qualified to "debate" gravity.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansi...s-challenges-our-most-cosmic-of-expectations/

FYI, the universe itself really doesn't care much about all their so called "qualifications". It's constantly defying their so called "predictions" and expectations.

 

[morningstar2651]

FYI, the universe itself really doesn't care much about all their so called "qualifications".

I care about your lack of qualifications.

I wouldn't get heart surgery from someone who read a blog about it once. Would you?

I wouldn't hire as my attorney someone who watches a lot of Law and Order but never attended law school. Would you?

Why should I listen to what you believe about science when the people who have done the work and earned the degrees disagree with your claims?

 

[morningstar2651]

Ever heard of peer review?

Thank you for strengthening my case. There is a pretty big difference between peer review and public debate.

• This is a public debate forum. Anyone can debate the claims of the author regardless of their lack of expertise.
• Peer review is where an article is reviewed by other experts in the field.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for strengthening my case. There is a pretty big difference between peer review and public debate.

• This is a public debate forum. Anyone can debate the claims of the author regardless of their lack of expertise.
• Peer review is where an article is reviewed by other experts in the field.

Then why are you perplexed that P&LS is under Discussion and Debate?

 

[morningstar2651]

Then why are you perplexed that P&LS is under Discussion and Debate?

Science uses peer review, not public debate, to scrutinize articles before publication.

It sounds like you might be confused on the difference between a peer review and a public debate. How can I help you understand the difference?

• Do you see the difference between experts and laymen?
• Do you see the difference between review and debate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science uses peer review, not public debate, to scrutinize articles before publication.

It sounds like you might be confused on the difference between a peer review and a public debate. How can I help you understand the difference?

• Do you see the difference between experts and laymen?
• Do you see the difference between review and debate?

So you think CF should have a subforum call PEER REVIEW?

I'm not clear on what your gripe is.

 

[Michael]

I care about your lack of qualifications.

What lack of qualifications? Have you published any papers on the topic of astronomy in your lifetime? What "qualifications" do I need to notice that they botched their stellar mass estimates, and came up empty in every "test" they've ever done at LHC, LUX, etc?

I wouldn't get heart surgery from someone who read a blog about it once. Would you?

You wouldn't get heart surgery from someone that claimed "dark voodoo" was the real "cause" of your heart condition would you?

Why should I listen to what you believe about science when the people who have done the work and earned the degrees disagree with your claims?

Well, for starters you might begin by noting that they *seriously botched* every stellar mass estimate of galaxies that they ever made, they botched the BICEP2 to the point of pure ridiculousness, and they came up empty at LHC, LUX, PandaX and the electron roundness "tests" of their claims, all in the past few years. What kind of "experts" are they if they can't even name so much as a single source of 'dark energy'? What good were all those degrees with respect to what they *didn't* find at LHC at LUX, at PandaX, etc? What difference did those degrees make with respect to their botched galaxy mass estimates?

Your *entire* argument appears to be based on a *fallacy*, specifically an appeal to authority fallacy. Worse yet, their so called 'authority' is undermined by everything they've "tested" over the past 5 years! Every single "test" has been a complete and utter failure. So much for their 'expertise".