How Science Became A New Religion

Hi I'm John SkieSwanne, most people just call me Swan.

I'd like to introduce you to science's darker side.

As a man who studied and discusses physics as a hobby, I made many threads in the past about areas which I feel were left in silence, were "taboo", in physics. For instance: I've expressed the possibility that the stars in spiral galaxies (like ours) were maybe following more of a radial movement than previously thought (Kant's 1700s assumption that stars in our galaxies are in perfect orbit is still in effect today), and I've sited the evidences: the Sun's trajectory is at a 30° angle towards the Core instead of zero. And galactic observations show that older, elliptical galaxies have radial star motion. But a physicist came in and simply stated No, this isn't true. I asked him why. He basically said that there's no use, the astronomers already know everything. I said maybe astronomers aren't perfect, and physics is biased by the mainstream position. Thus other theories may be muted by mainstream to promote mainstream. He said, there's no such thing like "mainstream", in science everyone stood equal chances. I told him that as soon as science touched politics, science became polarized and biased, and this "equal chance for everyone" was desirable in modern physics, but sadly non-existent.

In this thread I'd like to present to you the Mainstream's existence, and its attitude toward other, new theories.

A couple of days ago I thought about signing up in a forum about physics discussion. I ended up not signing in, here's why:

Discussion Guidelines

Generally, in the forums we do not allow the following:

(...)

Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion

(...)

Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science

(...)

Links to web sites that fall in the categories listed above will be removed.

Source: www.physicsforums.com...

In other words, if a guy (or a woman) has an idea, he gotta keep it to himself (or herself). If a guy or a woman doesn't always agree with the Generally-Accepted theories, or found evidences which questions some aspects of mainstream physics he will be banned from discussion.

In catholicism religion, one of the commandments is "You shall have only one God - Yahweh". I see a disturbing parallel with today's science: "You shall have only one science - Mainstream".

I've looked a bit further. Apparently there's a rather large community of physicists who criticizes the Mainstream for its unfairness. A mainstream which, keep in mind, many mainstream physicists refuse to admit exists.

Here is the critics of some lesser-known physicists. I'll now be quoting from their paper which they published at www.uow.edu.au...

Challenging dominant physics paradigms

Published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 18, no. 3, Fall 2004, pp. 421-438. The version here differs from the published version in a few details.
Reprinted in Martin Lopez Corredoira and Carlos Castro Perelman (eds.), Against the tide: a critical review by scientists of how physics and astronomy get done (Universal Publishers, 2008), pp. 9-26. Download Against the Tide


by Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin

(...)

Abstract

There are many well-qualified scientists who question long-established physics theories even when paradigms are not in crisis. Challenging scientific orthodoxy is difficult because most scientists are educated and work within current paradigms and have little career incentive to examine unconventional ideas.

In other words, the mainstream system is protecting itself through education and funds.

Continued:

Physics could benefit from greater openness to challenges; one way to promote this is to expose students to unconventional views.



Physics has a reputation as one of the most highly developed and well established fields of science. Although there are many exotic-sounding theories at the research frontier involving strings, black holes and charm, the basic postulates of classic theories such as electrodynamics, relativity and quantum theory are seen as solidly established.

It is surprising to find, therefore, that there are many challengers to orthodox physics who offer critiques of conventional theories and present their own alternative formulations. Furthermore, many of these challengers are well qualified, with degrees, mainstream publications, positions at well-known universities and prizes including the Nobel Prize. Table 1 gives a few examples, listing only a selection of these particular challengers' achievements. This is not a ranking of dissidents; there are others with just as many accomplishments.

Table 1. A sample of well-qualified challengers to orthodox physics

Halton Arp is a professional astronomer who has worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. He has received the Helen B. Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. He has published a large amount of evidence that contradicts the big bang (Arp 1987, 1998).

Andre Assis is professor of physics at the University of Campinas, Brazil, is the author of several books and over 50 scholarly articles and is a leading authority on Weber's electrodynamics. He is a critic of relativity (Assis 1994, 1999).

Robert G. Jahn is professor of aerospace science and dean emeritus of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University and has received the Curtis W. McGraw Research Award of the American Society of Engineering Education. He researches mind-matter interactions.

Paul Marmet was professor of physics at Laval University, Québec, for over 20 years, is author of over 100 papers in electron microscopy, was president of the Canadian Association of Physicists and has received the Order of Canada. He is a critic of relativity.

Domina Eberle Spencer is professor of mathematics at the University of Connecticut and has published several books and over 200 scholarly articles. She supports an alternative theory of electrodynamics, in the Gaussian-Weberian-Ritzian tradition.

Tom Van Flandern has a PhD in astronomy from Yale University, became chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the US Naval Observatory and received a prize from the Gravity Research Foundation. He is critic of theories of the big bang, gravity and the solar system (Van Flandern 1993).

Why don't we see their opinions and theories being discussed in mainstream media? For the obvious reason that it would mean mainstream representatives to give up certain control over information and credit:

A proponent of an unorthodox idea is likely to encounter several types of difficulties. First, it is difficult to obtain funding: very few research grants are awarded for proposals to re-examine long accepted theories. Most funding agencies expect that proposals will build on existing science rather than challenge basic postulates. Second, it is difficult to publish in mainstream journals. Third, proponents of unorthodoxy may come under attack: their colleagues may shun them, they may be blocked from jobs or promotions, lab space may be withdrawn and malicious rumors spread about them. Even if they can overcome these problems, they have a hard time gaining attention.

Furthermore, about mainstream's attitude:

These conventional views were challenged by Thomas Kuhn (1970). Kuhn argued that scientists - and physicists in particular, since most of his historical examples were from physics - adhere to a paradigm, which is a set of assumptions and standard practices for undertaking research. If an experiment gives results contradictory to theory, then instead of rejecting the theory altogether, alternative responses include rejecting the experiment as untrustworthy and modifying the theory to account for the new results (Chia 1998; Chinn and Brewer 1993).

When anomalies accumulate, the paradigm can enter a state of crisis and be ripe for overthrow by a new paradigm. This process of scientific revolution does not proceed solely according to a rational procedure but involves social factors such as belief systems and political arrangements.

About the mainstream's attempts to avoid falsfication ("being busted", for those who don't know what "falsification" means):

Eminent philosopher of science Imre Lakatos says that research programs have a hard core set of fundamental principles surrounded by a set of subsidiary, less significant assumptions, called the protective belt. For the research program to advance, lesser assumptions can be tested and possibly modified, protecting the hard core from being falsified (Chalmers 1999, 130-136; Lakatos 1970).

How mainstream destroys other "lesser" alternatives:

Conventional science education helps to perpetuate current orthodoxy. Students are introduced to physics through textbooks that typically present current ideas as "the truth" and either ignore alternative ideas altogether or portray them as convincingly disproved by experiment. Students learn by solving problems, and the concepts and magnitudes used in these problems assume the validity of current theories. Only rarely are students presented with theories that don't work, and even in those cases, such as Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom, the intent is to show how researchers overcame problems. By and large, students are confronted only with success in science. Acceptance of received wisdom is deeper because orthodoxy is never discussed as orthodoxy: it is simply the truth. Students are also taught about the "scientific method" - observation, hypothesis formulation, testing, etc. - and hence come to believe that theories that have been tested by experiments are true, because the textbook scientific method is thought to be the way science actually operates. Views that science actually proceeds in a different fashion are seldom mentioned (Barnes 1974; Bauer 1992; Feyerabend 1975). Relevant here is a famous quote from Max Planck (1949, 33-34): "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Many times, physicists with alternative theories never get credit:

The system of examinations and degrees is a sorting process; the physics PhD screens out most of those who question orthodoxy (Schmidt 2000). Once students are committed to the basic principles of the field, then it is possible to begin research and to question, within implicit limits, prevailing ideas.

I'd like to end this thread with the psychological aspect behind mainstream representatives:

There is another obstacle facing challengers: the psychological commitment of scientists to current ideas, especially their own ideas and the dominant ideas. The usual image of the scientist is of a cool, calm, detached, objective observer, but the reality is quite different (Mahoney 1976; Mitroff 1974), as anyone who knows scientists is aware. The classic study of the psychology of scientists is Ian Mitroff's book The Subjective Side of Science, in which he revealed that Apollo moon scientists were strikingly committed to their ideas, so much so that contrary evidence seemed to have little influence on their views. As well, scientists express strong views, often quite derogatory, about other scientists. To expect every scientist to react coolly and objectively to a competitor's idea is wishful thinking, though there are some scientists who approach the ideal. Intriguingly, Mitroff found that it was often the top scientists who were the most strongly committed to their ideas.

Tom Van Flandern commented to us:

I have taken aside several colleagues whose pet theories are now mainstream doctrine, and asked quizzically what it would mean to them personally if an alternative idea ultimately prevailed. To my initial shock (I was naive enough that I did not see this coming), to a person, the individuals I asked said they would leave the field and do something else for a living. Their egos, the adulation they enjoy, and the satisfaction that they were doing something important with their lives, would be threatened by such a development. As I pondered this, it struck me that their vested interests ran even deeper than if they just had a financial stake in the outcome (which, of course, they do because of grants and promotions). So a challenger with a replacement idea would be naive to see the process as anything less than threatening the careers of some now-very-important people, who cannot be expected to welcome that development regardless of its merit. (1 August 2002)

In conclusion: What I critic is the fact that science was supposed to be the reverse of religion. An egalitarian think tank in which every scientists could contribute, as opposed to religion where everyone had to agree with the Vatican or something similar. Centuries later, here science is, now acting exactly as religion does, with a central power and with just about the same attitude toward unorthodox alternatives.

At Time's End,

Swan

reply to post by swanne


Are you saying because a forum wouldn't let you present your theory the way you wanted that all science is a religion?

Really a forums rules somewhere has that much power on the world?

That's because people remain PEOPLE; as Heinlein said, most scientists are just bottle washers and button sorters, who would have been among the most devout in the dark ages.

Science is however, the only belief system to incorporate and expect its core beliefs to be challenged day in and day out.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by swanne

 

Are you saying because a forum wouldn't let you present your theory the way you wanted that all science is a religion?

Really a forums rules somewhere has that much power on the world?

You should probably read the rest of my thread. You know, the one in which worldwide physicists expose the danger of a mainstream centralized power.

The system of examinations and degrees is a sorting process; the physics PhD screens out most of those who question orthodoxy

And many more in my OP.

We are talking about humans here. Humans are generally wired to think certain ways. It's not their fault.

Don't expect anything humans do to be perfect. The principles of science are inherently self-critical. I believe this is the key difference from Religion. The two are not opposites so it's probably not helping you to obsess on that.

Science and religion are two value systems imperfectly applied by humans. One is progressive and one is regressive. There's an infinite number of ways a human can interpret that so keep looking for a forum that values scientific method and has fewer filters.

Try ATS ---if you can drink from the fire hose.

Originally posted by setibuddies
Science is however, the only belief system to incorporate and expect its core beliefs to be challenged day in and day out.

Well as the author of the paper in my OP point out, even that is slowly starting to be untrue. A sort of mainstream, with a protective element, is forming to prevent those who hold all the credit to lose it. I agree with you, science was supposed to be challenged any day. But because money is involved, that's not what's happening.

Originally posted by setibuddies
That's because people remain PEOPLE; as Heinlein said, most scientists are just bottle washers and button sorters, who would have been among the most devout in the dark ages.

Science is however, the only belief system to incorporate and expect its core beliefs to be challenged day in and day out.

Not true from my point of view.



Seekers of the truth (What is) will always question everything including their own beliefs of what is no matter how strange the truth is(what is) when they really go deep down the rabbit whole. They will know they are wrong with much but will try to create an idol that is as good as possible. To know the truth about what is, is to know everything that is, including all views of what is. I have never met a person yet that I know really know the truth.

Originally posted by LittleByLittle
Seekers of the truth (What is) will always question everything including their own beliefs of what is no matter how strange the truth is(what is) when they really go deep down the rabbit whole.

Yes, and they gotta do it, but they are never taken seriously enough by mainstream to carry enough weight and bust the system. What's in the image link BTW? All I get is a page from ATS

reply to post by swanne


It just seems you are basing this off of a forums rules somewhere. Your theory may be sound I don't know I am not saying it is or isn't.

It just seems like they have set up filters as another said to keep out what some consider junk science. If you search ats for the phrase target foods or tooths folly you will see what I mean. I have never tried to submit a scientific theory to the world but I would think if I did I would need to have followed some rules to do so and presented some kind of imperial evidence to back it up for it to be considered by those in the field.

Consider the hoops Darwin had to jump through to be excepted. I don't think it is meant to be easy when challenging what is excepted.

I asked him why. He basically said that there's no use, the astronomers already know everything.

Really? He said that? If so he's foolish. Astronomers, and scientists in general, don't claim to know everything.

I've looked a bit further. Apparently there's a rather large community of physicists who criticizes the Mainstream for its unfairness. A mainstream which, keep in mind, many mainstream physicists refuse to admit exists.

I suppose you haven't been around many scientists, listening to them argue with each other can be pretty entertaining even if you don't understand most of what they are talking about.

What I critic is the fact that science was supposed to be the reverse of religion. An egalitarian think tank in which every scientists could contribute, as opposed to religion where everyone had to agree with the Vatican or something similar.

Do you think Einsteins work was instantly and universally accepted in the world of physics? Not quite. But when the predictions which were part of his theory were demonstrated to be correct, guess what? This single instance demonstrates that your assessment is wrong. There are many more.

Just because someone thinks they are right, doesn't mean the are. Science is about finding out which ones are right. If a theory makes claims but offers no way of verifying those claims, it isn't a scientific theory. Science has no use for such theories, it can't do anything with them.

reply to post by swanne


How something could be the opposite of religion is beyond me. If I love someone else. They have become a deity I worship. If I love the earth or nature it has become a deity. Experts,Scientists, Professionals they become deities. Anything that has to do with putting trust in something or someone else is ultimately a religion based on faith.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by LittleByLittle
Seekers of the truth (What is) will always question everything including their own beliefs of what is no matter how strange the truth is(what is) when they really go deep down the rabbit whole.

Yes, and they gotta do it, but they are never taken seriously enough by mainstream to carry enough weight and bust the system. What's in the image link BTW? All I get is a page from ATS

edit on 7-6-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)

The picture
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong the Buddhism will have to change.

I think a quote from Robbie Williams is best here about the system not changing.
Robbie Williams - Tripping

First they ignore you
Then laugh at you and hate you
Then they fight you
Then you win

When the truth dies very bad things happen

You are a perfect example that people are questioning the systems that are around us be it science or religion or political systems.

reply to post by swanne


This entire post resonates perfectly with the first chapter in a book I read last night, "New Light on Space and Time" by Dewey Larson. I'll leave it up to you to check it out for yourself, but it is well worth the read as it challenges mainstream theories about the space-time continuum, and alludes to the fact that Newton's and Einstein's theories themselves were postulated on the basis of questioning conventional "mainstream" science of their time, and how they looked at things from a completely different perspective to solve something. Achieving something by going for its opposite even...His theory on space time is called the Reciprocal System Theory.

Originally posted by Phage
Really? He said that? If so he's foolish. Astronomers, and scientists in general, don't claim to know everything.

That's what I told him. I admit I did called him a bit "naive". Mind you, he was a physicist. That's what mind-fuc*ed me.

suppose you haven't been around many scientists, listening to them argue with each other can be pretty entertaining even if you don't understand most of what they are talking about.

Yeah, actually I did. It is indeed entertaining. I visit alot of discussion forums - well, actually I sometime feel they should be called war forums.

Do you think Einsteins work was instantly and universally accepted in the world of physics? Not quite. But when the predictions which were part of his theory were demonstrated to be correct, guess what? This single instance demonstrates that your assessment is wrong. There are many more.

That was true almost a century ago, when science wasn't crystallized into a "mainstream" dogma yet. The atom was yet to be understood. But today everything is assumed to be understood. As this paper in my OP points out:

Conventional science education helps to perpetuate current orthodoxy. Students are introduced to physics through textbooks that typically present current ideas as "the truth" and either ignore alternative ideas altogether or portray them as convincingly disproved by experiment. Students learn by solving problems, and the concepts and magnitudes used in these problems assume the validity of current theories. Only rarely are students presented with theories that don't work, and even in those cases, such as Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom, the intent is to show how researchers overcame problems. By and large, students are confronted only with success in science. Acceptance of received wisdom is deeper because orthodoxy is never discussed as orthodoxy: it is simply the truth. Students are also taught about the "scientific method" - observation, hypothesis formulation, testing, etc. - and hence come to believe that theories that have been tested by experiments are true, because the textbook scientific method is thought to be the way science actually operates. Views that science actually proceeds in a different fashion are seldom mentioned (Barnes 1974; Bauer 1992; Feyerabend 1975). Relevant here is a famous quote from Max Planck (1949, 33-34): "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

and

I have taken aside several colleagues whose pet theories are now mainstream doctrine, and asked quizzically what it would mean to them personally if an alternative idea ultimately prevailed. To my initial shock (I was naive enough that I did not see this coming), to a person, the individuals I asked said they would leave the field and do something else for a living. Their egos, the adulation they enjoy, and the satisfaction that they were doing something important with their lives, would be threatened by such a development. As I pondered this, it struck me that their vested interests ran even deeper than if they just had a financial stake in the outcome (which, of course, they do because of grants and promotions). So a challenger with a replacement idea would be naive to see the process as anything less than threatening the careers of some now-very-important people, who cannot be expected to welcome that development regardless of its merit.

Again, the source: www.uow.edu.au...

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by swanne

 

It just seems you are basing this off of a forums rules somewhere. Your theory may be sound I don't know I am not saying it is or isn't.

It just seems like they have set up filters

It's not just about the forum mate. It's about mainstream science in general. The forum is just an example amongst so many. The rest of my OP is filled with physicists who feel mainstream is getting too set, is becoming a dogma. It's happening everywhere, even to nobel prize winners. Their theories all have evidences yet they are never heard because Mainstream mutes them out.

From the paper in my OP:

Eminent philosopher of science Imre Lakatos says that research programs have a hard core set of fundamental principles surrounded by a set of subsidiary, less significant assumptions, called the protective belt. For the research program to advance, lesser assumptions can be tested and possibly modified, protecting the hard core from being falsified (Chalmers 1999, 130-136; Lakatos 1970).

The mainstream cores now avoids being busted ("falsified") by setting a variable perimeter.

reply to post by swanne

That was true almost a century ago, when science wasn't crystallized into a "mainstream" dogma yet. The atom was yet to be understood.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. Einstein was not well received at first.

But today everything is assumed to be understood. As this paper in my OP points out:

You seem to be misunderstanding that paper. I don't think it says anything like that. It says that getting truly new ideas accepted is difficult. This has always been the case with science. It certainly doesn't claim that scientists assume everything to be understood.

Science is not a religion. It accepts nothing on faith alone.

Originally posted by Kody27
reply to post by swanne

 

This entire post resonates perfectly with the first chapter in a book I read last night, "New Light on Space and Time" by Dewey Larson. I'll leave it up to you to check it out for yourself, but it is well worth the read as it challenges mainstream theories about the space-time continuum, and alludes to the fact that Newton's and Einstein's theories themselves were postulated on the basis of questioning conventional "mainstream" science of their time, and how they looked at things from a completely different perspective to solve something.

Important note. "Solve something".

There's also the issue of not getting stuff we know works wrong.

Achieving something by going for its opposite even...His theory on space time is called the Reciprocal System Theory.

Yeah, I googled it. Lots and lots and lots of words. What I didn't notice. Examples of solving simple Newtonian freshman physics problems.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by swanne

 

It just seems you are basing this off of a forums rules somewhere. Your theory may be sound I don't know I am not saying it is or isn't.

I have never tried to submit a scientific theory to the world but I would think if I did I would need to have followed some rules to do so and presented some kind of imperial evidence to back it up for it to be considered by those in the field.

Consider the hoops Darwin had to jump through to be excepted. I don't think it is meant to be easy when challenging what is excepted.

edit on 7-6-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I think you meant to say "empirical" not "imperial."

Definition of IMPERIAL
1
a : of, relating to, befitting, or suggestive of an empire or an emperor
b (1) : of or relating to the United Kingdom as distinguished from the constituent parts (2) : of or relating to the Commonwealth of Nations and British Empire
2
a : sovereign
b : regal, imperious
3
: of superior or unusual size or excellence
4
: belonging to the official British series of weights and measures

FYI Darwin's theory is still just a theory with data that can be interpreted to support his theory to varying degrees.

Yet here you are calling it a fact of life.

There is so much in science that cannot be proofed but is still accepted as fact because perceived reality tends to trend in that direction.

There is a reason every single scientific theory has been overturned and replaced by another.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Instead of trying to correct others spelling I think you should read up on what scientific theories actually mean. I am sure at some point or another you have read where it was pointed out that just because the word theory is in it does not mean it hasn’t been proven.

Sort of like the Theory of relativity or theory of gravity or maybe you don’t believe gravity hasn’t been proven.

Seriously if you are going to correct someone try to not follow that with such an egregious mistake.



Unless you are saying you failed to grasp the point I was making because I didn’t proofread after spellchecking but somehow I think you were able to grasp the point which means you were just being a….. Never mind. Anyway I don’t feel like debating creationist misconceptions here.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Instead of trying to correct others spelling I think you should read up on what scientific theories actually mean. I am sure at some point or another you have read where it was pointed out that just because the word theory is in it does not mean it hasn’t been proven.

Sort of like the Theory of relativity or theory of gravity or maybe you don’t believe gravity hasn’t been proven.

Seriously if you are going to correct someone try to not follow that with such an egregious mistake.

Unless you are saying you failed to grasp the point I was making because I didn’t proofread after spellchecking but somehow I think you were able to grasp the point which means you were just being a….. Never mind. Anyway I don’t feel like debating creationist misconceptions here.

I suggest you learn the difference between a "theory" and a "law."


Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
Learn the Language of Science

By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
chemistry.about.com...

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Can you say something is true if you cannot devise a means with which to explain its cause and effect?


EDIT
Cure emoticons big guy