Method for accepting science

[Radagast]

Very rarely do they not follow the scientific method...

All I'm saying is that it's helpful (particularly for professional scientists) to be a little sceptical. Replication is at the heart of science. If nobody can replicate it, it probably ain't so.

I'm thinking particularly of Blondlot, Pons, Fleischmann, Wakefield, and a few others.

But if we took that view to everything, you'd never go to a doctor or a dentist.

Because I take this view, I go to doctors and dentists, but not homoeopaths or astrologers.

 

[Nabobalis]

All I'm saying is that it's helpful (particularly for professional scientists) to be a little sceptical. Replication is at the heart of science. If nobody can replicate it, it probably ain't so.

I'm thinking particularly of Blondlot, Pons, Fleischmann, Wakefield, and a few others.

I agree but there are some safe guards in place to prevent abuse of the system. They don't always work as we can clearly see but they get found out.

Because I take this view, I go to doctors and dentists, but not homoeopaths or astrologers.

So you have blind faith in them?

 

[Radagast]

I agree but there are some safe guards in place to prevent abuse of the system. They don't always work as we can clearly see but they get found out.

They only get found out if people are sceptical and try to replicate the results.

So you have blind faith in them?

No, I look for evidence-based medicine. See my earlier 1-4 list (post #5).

 

[Nabobalis]

They only get found out if people are sceptical and try to replicate the results.

The scientific method in practice. But while we might not be in a position to always question those results, the other people in that field are and are willing to do repeat it those results.

 

[Radagast]

The scientific method in practice. But while we might not be in a position to always question those results, the other people in that field are and are willing to do repeat it those results.

I'm not sure what "in that field" means. Should I accept homoeopathy because "other people in that field" have given it the OK?

Perish the thought! I have enough expertise to decide that there's nothing in it. In the same way, I'll question anything that falls within my ability to verify.

I must say, I'm shocked at the kind of unscientific "take it on faith" attitudes I'm hearing here. It's a betrayal of the principles scientists have fought for since Galileo.

Time for me to bow out, I think.

 

[Nabobalis]

I'm not sure what "in that field" means. Should I accept homoeopathy because "other people in that field" have given it the OK?

Perish the thought! I have enough expertise to decide that there's nothing in it. In the same way, I'll question anything that falls within my ability to verify.

But it is in the overall field of medicine, where doctors can question it. You and me maybe be able to see nothing in it since we have that training (since the basic idea is physics related). But for people who are not scientists, they either don't want to or have the time to sit down and question it.

I must say, I'm shocked at the kind of unscientific "take it on faith" attitudes I'm hearing here. It's a betrayal of the principles scientists have fought for since Galileo.

What take it on faith? I don't need faith, when we have seen that science will eventually self-correct. Since the people who work in that field are always sceptical and more than happy to prove someone is wrong.

So I take it that you always read up on medical literature before you see a doctor.

 

[Michael]

Very rarely do they not follow the scientific method. All fields have to follow it, some maybe more than others.

That last part of 'some more than others' is highly important.

But if we took that view to everything, you'd never go to a doctor or a dentist.

On the contrary. Dentists touch real teeth on Earth every single day. Astronomers however can't even find any inflation or dark energy to play with on Earth in a lab, let alone gain any "hands on experience" over time. They certainly can't show me how to replicate a real effect on Earth using "dark energy".

 

[Michael]

The scientific method in practice. But while we might not be in a position to always question those results, the other people in that field are and are willing to do repeat it those results.

Like I said, that's FANTASTIC so long as one is actually 'repeating TANGIBLE results here on Earth. Astronomy doesn't work like that. They simply 'make up' sky entities in their head based on imagination or OUTRIGHT NEED, and THEN point at the sky and claim some observation is "proof" (I've seen them actually use that term in published papers by the way) for one of their mythical sky gods.

The only way to "repeat" the process is to repeat the very same claims verbatim, and apply the "sky math" exactly the same way. It's a pure ad hoc argument from the start. Guth didn't even have so much as a scientific precedent for 'inflation', and his version WAS FALSIFIED! The dogma however related to the dead inflation sky god lives on eternally, and now it comes in a dozen new metaphysical varieties to choose from.

 

[Elendur]

Like I said, that's FANTASTIC so long as one is actually 'repeating TANGIBLE results here on Earth. Astronomy doesn't work like that. They simply 'make up' sky entities in their head based on imagination or OUTRIGHT NEED, and THEN point at the sky and claim some observation is "proof" (I've seen them actually use that term in published papers by the way) for one of their mythical sky gods.

The only way to "repeat" the process is to repeat the very same claims verbatim, and apply the "sky math" exactly the same way. It's a pure ad hoc argument from the start. Guth didn't even have so much as a scientific precedent for 'inflation', and his version WAS FALSIFIED! The dogma however related to the dead inflation sky god lives on eternally, and now it comes in a dozen new metaphysical varieties to choose from.

Huh? Proof? RAAARGH! Term Hulk SMASH!
Puny humans don't know how to choose the correct words!


No but seriously care to share?

And by the way, calm down with the dark matter/energy thing, if it's that wrong they will correct it sooner or later. It's not like it's determining the fate of the earth tomorrow.

 

[Michael]

What take it on faith? I don't need faith, when we have seen that science will eventually self-correct.

Kristian Birkeland waited his whole life for astronomers to 'self correct' and accept the concept of electricity in space. They never did that in his lifetime. They FINALLY in the 70's figured out that this auroral theories were correct, yet most of them remain almost entirely ignorant of the electric fields that generate coronal loops, and flares and drive the solar wind process. It's far worse than a 'snails' pace, even WITH empirical experiments to back up one's claims. They don't seem real interested in empirical physics anymore. It's not glamorous enough for them.

Since the people who work in that field are always sceptical and more than happy to prove someone is wrong.

The problem is that they've adopted a "dark matter/energy of the gaps" argument for the past 20 years. Every idea put forth to plug those gaps is "gleefully shot down" and nothing useful is accomplished, EVER. 20 years have gone by and no progress AT ALL!

Like you alluded to earlier, the FIELD of science makes a huge difference.

 

[Michael]

Huh? Proof? RAAARGH! Term Hulk SMASH!
Puny humans don't know how to choose the correct words!


No but seriously care to share?

NASA - NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

The only thing they "proved" was that their galaxy mass estimation techniques aren't worth the paper that they are printed on!

And by the way, calm down with the dark matter/energy thing, if it's that wrong they will correct it sooner or later. It's not like it's determining the fate of the earth tomorrow.

I'm simply disgusted at the fact that astronomy as a field of science has literally actually moved BACKWARDS in terms of empirical physics during my lifetime and it has steadfastly remained in the metaphysical "dark" ages for more than 20 years without a single percentage improvement in all that time. Mainstream astronomers don't even WANT to find empirical solutions anymore. It's too embarrassing to admit they're nearly clueless about the universe we live in. Better than they INSIST that 95 percent of the universe is composed of stuff not found on Earth. That way they can slap on as many metaphysical qualities as they like and have something to do math with.

 

[Elendur]

NASA - NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

The only thing they "proved" was that their galaxy mass estimation techniques aren't worth the paper that they are printed on!

So they did use 'that word'... Though it was not in a study, that was a verbal quote.

That wasn't a paper

I'm simply disgusted at the fact that astronomy as a field of science has literally actually moved BACKWARDS in terms of empirical physics during my lifetime and it has steadfastly remained in the metaphysical "dark" ages for more than 20 years without a single percentage improvement in all that time. Mainstream astronomers don't even WANT to find empirical solutions anymore. It's too embarrassing to admit they're nearly clueless about the universe we live in. Better than they INSIST that 95 percent of the universe is composed of stuff not found on Earth. That way they can slap on as many metaphysical qualities as they like and have something to do math with.

I don't think it has moved backwards, if the theory is iffy then it's because they haven't found something less iffy yet.

I dunno if it's incorrect or not, but I think one can give them a bit of slack. If it is that incorrect they aren't using it as a definitive solution, guaranteed. Some patchwork may be needed to find new stuff.

(Btw, 95% isn't the correct number.)

 

[Michael]

So they did use 'that word'... Though it was not in a study, that was a verbal quote.

That wasn't a paper

[astro-ph/0608407] A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

I don't think astronomers even UNDERSTAND the "scientific method" based on the terms they use. They DEFINITELY don't understand the term "empirical", that's for darn sure. Dark matter is a complete empirical wimp.

I don't think it has moved backwards, if the theory is iffy then it's because they haven't found something less iffy yet.

They added 70 percent DARK stuff just 20 years ago. Now 95% of the universe amounts to a placeholder term for human ignorance. How much worse can it get? 4.6 percent?

I dunno if it's incorrect or not, but I think one can give them a bit of slack.

I know for a fact it's NOT correct and I have no intention of giving them more slack. They've had slack for 20 years almost, and nothing has changed.

(Btw, 95% isn't the correct number.)

Well, excuse me! Make that 95.4 percent metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and only 4.6 percent actual PHYSICS.
WMAP- Content of the Universe
http://www.christianforums.com/t7655153-6/#post60489393

 

[Elendur]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407I don't think astronomers even UNDERSTAND the "scientific method" based on the terms they use. They DEFINITELY don't understand the term "empirical", that's for darn sure. Dark matter is a complete empirical wimp.

They added 70 percent DARK stuff just 20 years ago. Now 95% of the universe amounts to a placeholder term for human ignorance. How much worse can it get? 4.6 percent?

I know for a fact it's NOT correct and I have no intention of giving them more slack. They've had slack for 20 years almost, and nothing has changed.

Well, excuse me! Make that 95.4 percent metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and only 4.6 percent actual PHYSICS.

At least they're honest about what they don't know but you know, if you're so strongly convinced it's wrong, and against it, why don't you write a paper yourself? Or present your findings to someone who's more qualified if you're not up to the task?
(Saying this with a mild tone, just enough to be a little annoying )

 

[Naraoia]

No one said it wasn't a direct falsification. However, the measurement needs to be repeated first of all. Then once verified, theorists will come up with new models. Then either evidence for or against will emerge and then the cycle continues. Science works like this. It isn't glamorous, nor fast but it will self correct.

That. Good science takes time, okay?

While my field isn't exactly maths-heavy, I'm pretty sure that changing a model to both throw out the predictions that were proven wrong and still be consistent with all previous observations is not a trivial task. Math seems to have this tendency to do completely unexpected things when you tweak it just a little. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I was a creationist for a few weeks until I found it hypocritical.

A few weeks? How did that happen?

 

[Nabobalis]

That. Good science takes time, okay?

While my field isn't exactly maths-heavy, I'm pretty sure that changing a model to both throw out the predictions that were proven wrong and still be consistent with all previous observations is not a trivial task. Math seems to have this tendency to do completely unexpected things when you tweak it just a little. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, one person that I work with has spent nearly two years working through the MHD equations which are used to describe flux tubes and the waves that propagate on them in order just to get his first paper out.

I've already spent a month on working on a different problem with those equations. It is so slow its depressing, I so much prefer data taking and processing. Fingers crossed for La Palma in the summer

 

[Michael]

At least they're honest about what they don't know

Actually that's not even true. If they were HONEST about it, they'd admit that they don't actually know what 'dark matter' is, nor what it is not (normal matter). Since they keep INSISTING that it's NOT normal matter, they haven't been honest about their ignorance at all. In fact they keep INSISTING that their galaxy mass estimation models are correct, even though such models have been shot down at least 4 times in the last 4 years. They don't care one iota about 'truth' or they'd just admit PURE ignorance of the nature of DM.

but you know, if you're so strongly convinced it's wrong, and against it, why don't you write a paper yourself? Or present your findings to someone who's more qualified if you're not up to the task?
(Saying this with a mild tone, just enough to be a little annoying )

I've already seen how the mainstream treated Peratt's galaxy modelling and Lerner's "bang' theory. They mainstream really isn't interested in listening to anything related to plasma physics. It's all a big dark sky religion from their perspective. I've also seen how they've reacted to the materials that I have published (not on this particular topic).

 

[Paradoxum]

A few weeks? How did that happen?

Was a few years ago. Read an apologetics book for the existence of God and some of it was anti-evolution. I sort of assumed they wouldn't lie and were misguided. Was almost about to complain to our Christian biology teacher about teaching evolution... glad I didn't XD

Strangely enough that helped lead to doubt of all of Christianity. Funny how things happen.

 

[Michael]

Strangely enough that helped lead to doubt of all of Christianity. Funny how things happen.

FYI, I had a similar experience over the concept of eternal torment (hell). That doubt led to a stint with atheism in my case. My return to theism eventually led me to study early "Christian" dogma, which led me to the teachings of Origen and eventually back to "Christianity". Admittedly the "Christianity" I believe in today is quite a different sort of "Christianity" than I believed in as a child.

Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jazer]

FYI, I had a similar experience over the concept of eternal torment (hell).

I confronted a pastor that loves to preach hell fire and brimstone at funerals. He could only give me one scripture to back up his teaching. For me only one scripture is a red flag. I can give you perhaps 3,000 scriptures that talk about God's love. His passage was that their "worm does not die and their fire is not quenched". I said wonderful, would you like to talk about that passage in Isaiah 66;24. He was not prepared to talk about the passage. The first half of that passage is: ""And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me".

I did a study in the Bible and found around 50 or 60 passages that talk about Annihilation or total destruction. "like the beasts that perish". It all comes down to just what is the second death? Of course I would like to be a universalist and believe everyone gets saved. But I just do not see that teaching in the Bible. Perhaps Dante's Inferno book had quite an impact.

Of course some version of annihilationism is very popular among unsaved people.