Originally posted by Lethys
Scientific theories DO pass the rigors of the scientific method.
Ideally, yes but in practice not even close. I don't see why you wish to argue that 'scientific rigor' would allow for so many gross errors and if
you do i would ask what the point of such a process is?
The scientific method isn’t some unreasonable burden of proof that nothing can pass.
My point was that so much junk passes for 'science' that the burden of proof is not very high at all. This is what leads me to the conclusion that
many other principles should be discussed and since they are not it then stands to reason that the judges are hopelessly biased in favor of certain
All a theory has to do is agree with reality on experiments.
But that is engineering, not science. If something works it does not really matter if you understand the underlying truth or not but since science is
in fact about discovering underlying principles that's hardly a qualification for 'truth'. A theory can in most cases be adapted to describe
observation , and most are, but what makes a theory stand out is if it LOGICALLY predicts certain testable results. Even then it may not reveal
underlying principles but at least it's a useful theory that will for practical applications.
If a theory is based on reality, and those experiments are within our ability to perform, it can pass the rigors.
So if we can't test it yet it means it's not true? So powered flight is impossible because we couldn't do it until recently? The problem with the
majority of scientist is that they can't see much further than the end of their noses and just refuse to consider that they might in fact have wasted
their life by choosing a certain path of investigation over another. When that belief is applied to exclude consideration and peer review of those
types of theories it often results in good deductive reasoning , or scientific principles, being disregarded in favor of protecting one's own ass.
When science is as per grant you will get bad science as true discovery does not care for either budgets, time or what the grant giver has in mind.
Huh? What are you trying to say here?
That the average scientist is intelligent enough to find empirical data that agrees with his conclusion;' post hoc' reasoning comes standard with
human intellects and no amount of elitist education is going to prevent it when there is so much to gain from being 'succesful' by finding what you
were paid to look for.
Feynman’s point when he was talking about the Cargo cult was that while they were doing what superficially looked like they needed to get the
planes to come, they were missing the fundamental and most important parts. This is the same with pseudoscience, while it superficially looks like
science, they are missing the most important part, the scientific method.
And once again we have the rivals of a given theory claiming that those who object to their analysis are not good scientist? Would you trust a rival
in business to advise you about how good your theory is? Why is it always pseudoscience when it disagrees with established 'facts' and why does that
'pseudoscience' so often supplant the good science over a number of years? Why deny the fact that all new ideas , to say nothing of current
'facts' that allows for modern consumer appliances, would have been considered 'pseudoscience' two hundred years ago? Why was plate tectonics
laughed at for fifty years running? Why did Saturn have to be bombarded by a broken up comet before scientist started to admit that cataclysmic
asteroid impact happens often enough to be observed by intelligence? Why did they stupidly believe that impact craters are the basins of volcanoes of
times gone by? I could go on for pages and pages but you probably wont get the point that the majority of scientist have always tended to get it wrong
as they are human and despite the supposed 'rigors' can't seem to do anything other but worship one or another consensus as achieved by apparently
not so rigorous methods.
As for Feynman maybe you don't want to quote him given his analysis of just how full of holes quantum theory is?
If you think quantum theory is BS, then why are you using a computer, since if that were the case, your computer wouldn’t work
You are once again confusing engineering with science! You do NOT have to understand how a device 'physical' works to replicate it and make use of
it and the fact that quantum physics doesn't make sense goes a long way to pointing out how do not have to understand a device to make it work in
Here is a good summary of the foundation problems in quantum theory.
If quantum theory was wrong, semiconductors wouldn’t work.
Semiconductors work because they do; to use such as evidence for one theory or another patently ludicrous and not rigorous in the least. Are you now
going to argue that the ancient Babylonians knew about electricity, electrons and quantum theory because they managed to make batteries?
In just the same way we don't presume a 6 year old ( or for that matter a 70 year old) working on a computer to require any understanding of the
underlying physics, that makes it's functioning possible, we should not presume that the THEORIES derived , or presented as explanation, to have any
ultimate bearing towards determining ultimate objective truths. If you wish to do that your not approaching in a scientific fashion and since that
seems to be the way the majority of scientists do it we are left with the the conclusion that the majority of scientist arrives at their self serving
conclusions because they are not even following the few outlines normally agreed to represent the scientific method.
Even Quantum electrodynamics produces prediction that are about as accurate as getting the distance of L.A. and New York correct down to the
length of a human hair.
But how do we really know that? I mean to what are we comparing the result? Tape measures? So there are more than one way to determine that distance
down the length of a human hair?
Quantum electrodynamics ( don't even get me started on electrodynamics) is certainly USEFUL but since quantum theory is fundamentally absurd ( no
causality in evidence) it's clearly not meant to be a serious scientific theory and is best employed by engineers, not scientist. Engineers don't
care if it's 'the truth' , objective, clever, accurate or anything else as long as the bridge last a a thousand years or the pc works long enough
not to blow up ( or whatever) before it's replaced with a newer model. As you may surmise i have fare more respect for engineers who's beliefs about
reality are tested on a daily basis by those who employ their products.
Quantum physics is about the most well tested theory in the history of science.
Well i don't at all agree but if you were close to the truth that wouldn't say much about the history of science. In fact the history of science
more often than not shows that there isn't much good to be said for scientist and their 'methods'. Like all those 'well tested' theories before
it it will either be changed significantly or be thrown out entirely.
Scientists DO submit to peer review journals. Even after an article is published, researchers still analyze and critique it.
Scientist who want to get published try to have their worked peer reviewed but as they may or may not know you actually have to employ the same
reasoning and principles for your peers to understand what your saying. Much like a monkey inspecting the work of Tesla history has time and again
proved that geniuses are not well served by having those who adhere to consensus inspect their work. Who's work gets publishes and who's do not and
why were Wegener laughed out of the room if he was ultimately correct? Was his presentation bad and if so what's the point of the scientific method
if it can't pick ultimate winners over losers before it's patently obvious for everyone else to see? Isn't that more a question then of a decision
to sanction 'the truth' at some specific time when humanity most certainly don't need any more people who wish to tell us 'how things are' at any
given time? Where is the benefit to us?
Although sometimes scientists do lie, when they get caught, they get in serious trouble. Here are some examples:
Funnily both were considered to be 'good' scientist and both were published numerous times before they were caught. What does that say about
scientific rigour and what does it say about how often to better liars would be caught? Did you notice that both times they were caught by using the
same graphs ( the same pictures if you will ) in supposed different experiments? Is that how arrogantly stupid you have to be to get caught? Is that
the scale of the misconduct that is allowed before steps are taken? How can you on the one hand argue that the peer review process is both useful to
weed out non-sense/science and on the other admit that it can't even catch such obvious liars? Why have the vast majority of peer reviewed papers
published not been retracted or redacted as new information became available over the last few decades? Were they all right?