Should we trust science?

[Zoii]

she was criticizing the circular reciprocal reviewing in the small tight knit community, where one reviews another, and the other reviews the one

they're scratching each other's backs

it's not unbiased anonymous reviewing from a large pool of possible reviewers

Ah - I know when it comes to journal submissions, the journal calls for experts in their relative fields and sub-specialities. The journal then goes to that pool of experts.

So - the professor's recommendation to improve reviewing and selection of research topics..... what was the point you were attempting to make?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Backreaction: The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal
...

You should have quoted the start of the article for a better context, Erik Nelson.

Nothing is moving in the foundations of physics. One experiment after the other is returning null results: No new particles, no new dimensions, no new symmetries. Sure, there are some anomalies in the data here and there, and maybe one of them will turn out to be real news. But experimentalists are just poking in the dark. They have no clue where new physics may be to find. And their colleagues in theory development are of no help.
...
The problem is also not that we lack data. We have data in abundance. But all the data are well explained by the existing theories – the standard model of particle physics and the cosmological concordance model. Still, we know that’s not it. The current theories are incomplete.

The physics being discussed here is new physics beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model is odd. It is self-consistent and works extremely well but has up to 26 parameters and a few gaps. Physicists would like to plug the gaps and reduce the number of parameters. So they try to break the Standard Model in experiments to find an underlying theory.

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist stating what is rather well known. It is a problem that we are getting null results from the experiments. This is because she and her colleagues have models that extend the Standard Model but the data does not support those models. Thus the "stagnation".

 

[RealityCheck01]

So you consider scripture to be historically accurate then.

My post was about what scripture states: Cain is stated to be a farmer not a scientist.

A collection of written down oral stories (much of the Old Testament) should not be considered historically accurate without any additional, independent evidence.
Homo sapiens has existed for ~315,000 but agriculture has only existed for maybe 10,000 years.
This is the history of agriculture

The history of agriculture records the domestication of plants and animals and the development and dissemination of techniques for raising them productively. Agriculture began independently in different parts of the globe, and included a diverse range of taxa. At least eleven separate regions of the Old and New World were involved as independent centers of origin.

 

[RealityCheck01]

agriculture
[ag-ri-kuhl-cher]

1. The science, art, or occupation concerned with cultivating land, raising crops, and feeding, breeding, andraising livestock; farming.
2. the production of crops, livestock, or poultry.
3. agronomy.

Thank you for showing that even the science part of agriculture does not apply (my post was about the science part of an modern agriculturist).

 

[RealityCheck01]

So - the professor's recommendation to improve reviewing and selection of research topics..... what was the point you were attempting to make?

Unfortunately Erik Nelson also left out the preceding parageaph in the quote, Zoii
Backreaction: The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal

Developing new methodologies is harder than inventing new particles in the dozens, which is why they don’t like to hear my conclusions. Any change will reduce the paper output, and they don’t want this. It’s not institutional pressure that creates this resistance, it’s that scientists themselves don’t want to move their butts.

How long can they go on with this, you ask? How long can they keep on spinning theory-tales?

I am afraid there is nothing that can stop them. They review each other’s papers. They review each other’s grant proposals. And they constantly tell each other that what they are doing is good science. Why should they stop? For them, all is going well. They hold conferences, they publish papers, they discuss their great new ideas. From the inside, it looks like business as usual, just that nothing comes out of it.

This is not a problem that will go away by itself.

She is complaining (with no solution) that new methodologies are hard to develop so scientists do the easier "inventing new particles in the dozens".

 

[Zoii]

Unfortunately Erik Nelson also left out the preceding parageaph in the quote, Zoii
Backreaction: The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal

She is complaining (with no solution) that new methodologies are hard to develop so scientists do the easier "inventing new particles in the dozens".

Im actually doing science at university - I am aware of this author and respect her. I have no qualms about the critical value of science to our society.

On the other hand I dismay at the adversarial approach of our religion to science to the extent it will even refute that which has solid scientific evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

Should we trust science?

For what?

 

[Tom 1]

For what?

Hello, this thread was just a joke initially, a funny comic from New Scientist.