[Merged] How Could Max Have Been So Wrong? - Page 2

Sideroxylon · 6th May 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

This friend from Brazil has seen this game before: you are another person who's not happy with science because scientists are not accepting one or more pieces of a given fringe subject lore. You belive you can show how flawed are science's ways and how close minded are mainstream scientist and skeptics. Once you managed to show these fatal flaws you will be able to champion your pet beliefs and win the game. Lets cut the parts where you again fail to back those points and the many flaws in your arguments are exposed. Just tell us what it is:
ID?
YEC?
UFOs?
Psi?
Something related to biorythms?
Expanding Earth?
Ghosts?
Velikovsky?
The universal flood?
Atlantis?
Ancient aliens?
Cryptozoology?

Such a motive or not, the OP raises an interesting question about how science progresses.

eijah · 6th May 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

This friend from Brazil has seen this game before: you are another person who's not happy with science because scientists are not accepting one or more pieces of a given fringe subject lore. You belive you can show how flawed are science's ways and how close minded are mainstream scientist and skeptics. Once you managed to show these fatal flaws you will be able to champion your pet beliefs and win the game. Lets cut the parts where you again fail to back those points and the many flaws in your arguments are exposed. Just tell us what it is:
ID?
YEC?
UFOs?
Psi?
Something related to biorythms?
Expanding Earth?
Ghosts?
Velikovsky?
The universal flood?
Atlantis?
Ancient aliens?
Cryptozoology?

I am not surprised that while accusing me of misdirection, you often seem to do that. And where on this thread or recent ones have I been proposing a crackpot theory of mine?

You keep accusing me of being anti-science, which I am not. I am, however, seemingly more capable than you of seeing instances of where scientists who one thinks should know better, have ignored and sometimes even sought to suppress the promising work of other scientists in the same field, which to an amateur like me seems to be very anti-science.

If you do not see it that way, let's just say that your professional view of professional science is worthy of the name, and my view of it is just one amateur's opinion of the practice of science not matching the profession of science's theory of science.

eijah · 6th May 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Such a motive or not, the OP raises an interesting question about how science progresses.

Thank you. BTW, are you a professional scientist -- or like Dancing David, just a fellow spouting comments about science (and my views about science and scientists) as if he is one?

Sideroxylon · 6th May 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by eijah

Thank you. BTW, are you a professional scientist -- or like Dancing David, just a fellow spouting comments about science (and my views about science and scientists) as if he is one?

No, just a keen reader on history of science and philosophy of science.

Correa Neto · 6th May 2012, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by eijah

I am not surprised that while accusing me of misdirection, you often seem to do that. And where on this thread or recent ones have I been proposing a crackpot theory of mine?

You keep accusing me of being anti-science, which I am not. I am, however, seemingly more capable than you of seeing instances of where scientists who one thinks should know better, have ignored and sometimes even sought to suppress the promising work of other scientists in the same field, which to an amateur like me seems to be very anti-science.

If you do not see it that way, let's just say that your professional view of professional science is worthy of the name, and my view of it is just one amateur's opinion of the practice of science not matching the profession of science's theory of science.

My conclusion about you having an anti-science agenda was based on your posts at this very thread and at this other (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235090). Its also based on seeing similar behavior from other posters with similar positions. Here are a few quotes of yours, some of the content over which I built my conclusions:

Originally Posted by eijah

I doubt if you or mostvother skeptics here speculate about God.

Originally Posted by eijah

Is that actually speculation? Or is it merely arguing with Christian believers, while throwing up?

Originally Posted by eijah

If someone offered to prove to you that something impossible happened by showing you evidence for it, I doubt that you would spend any time speculating about it.

Originally Posted by eijah

I believe that Planck was correct when he said...

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.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...ukuDrYBCY6q.99

I believe that Feigenbaum was giving an example of that when he gave an example of that per one of my posts above.

I believe that those here who eagerly dismissed Feigenbaum's anecdotal, but of course quite verifiable, evidence were also giving examples of Planck's view of entrenched science's occasionally observed unscientific tendencies to not speculate on what many who are proud to call them scientists don't want to think about because what they already believe is too holy to risk toppling.

Originally Posted by eijah

Are you saying that Planck did not know what he was talking about, rather than giving his view of how science often tends to work when there are big changes in scientific thought occurring?

And are you saying that speculation is not needed before acceptance?

Originally Posted by eijah

The history of science as well as the history of mathematics bears the above out. Or so I think. If I am wrong about that, I look forward to you disabusing me of my admittedly rather skeptical view of the nature of science.

Not much space for the benefit of doubt after all of this IMHO. Yes, I may be wrong, but to me it seems your posts' contents indicate you are building generalisations regarding scientists ans skeptics, wich include a perceived excessive inertia or refusal to accept new ideas and certain bits of data you perceive as reliable but they disagree. I speculate, based on other posters' behavior, that some pet belief of yours is not well- accepted br most scientists and you are trying to use isolated examples of scientists' mistakes to build generalisations and open a crack that would, in your mind, open the doors for the acceptance of your pet belief.

Scientists being wrong? Oh, dear lord! How could that be? What a shame! Maybe its because we're all common humans and not a flawless pope or some self-proclaimed enlightened prophet/mystic/contactee/whatever? Scientists being imperfect humans that can make mistakes and science being a tool that can and will be improved, well these are not great news. Scientists can and must improve, science can and must be improved. I doubt a single scientist or skeptic would disagree on this. Now, care to show what and how you would improve it? Or care to show something that works better than science when it come down to probe reality?

eijah · 6th May 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Wow, first you have a hidden agenda and then you make a great and incorrect assumption about who I am and what I do. My profile and my posts state exactly what I do, rather foolish on your part. Your last statement seems even more childish again.

So what are these anomalies?

(My profile states:
-Grade School Computer Aide
in my posts you would know I had been a social worker for 15 years and that I did demographic research as part of that into homelessness and that I was a research assistant in undergrad school. Currently I am working to get a MS Server certificate. I have been a stargazer since the age of 12, I have been into butterfly gardening since 1986)

You have on this thread both disagreed with me when you thought I said X and also when you thought I said not x. And you criticize the way I think.

eijah · 6th May 2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

This friend from Brazil has seen this game before: you are another person who's not happy with science because scientists are not accepting one or more pieces of a given fringe subject lore. You belive you can show how flawed are science's ways and how close minded are mainstream scientist and skeptics. Once you managed to show these fatal flaws you will be able to champion your pet beliefs and win the game. Lets cut the parts where you again fail to back those points and the many flaws in your arguments are exposed. Just tell us what it is:
ID?
YEC?
UFOs?
Psi?
Something related to biorythms?
Expanding Earth?
Ghosts?
Velikovsky?
The universal flood?
Atlantis?
Ancient aliens?
Cryptozoology?

Are you saying Ohm's Law and entropy were fringe lore? Or are you saying that if you given inch, you will lose the game? If the latter, you are wrong.

Dancing David · 6th May 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by eijah

Thank you. BTW, are you a professional scientist -- or like Dancing David, just a fellow spouting comments about science (and my views about science and scientists) as if he is one?

Excuse, I did not spout comments as though I was a scientist, that was only in your imagination, I challenge you do you where I did. You are wrong about the history of QM and you would know it if you had studied it.

You are wrong about QM it was hotly debated and contested by many people, it was in fact the source of the story of Schroedinger's cat, which you would know if you actually studied the history QM. Why did Schroedinger make the story and then recant it much later? (He disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM).

I can comment upon the poor nature of your thoughts as expressed in your posts and your fallacious arguments with being a scientist. Is this some reverse appeal to authority to make your poorly constructed statement look better.

Dancing David · 6th May 2012, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by eijah

You have on this thread both disagreed with me when you thought I said X and also when you thought I said not x. And you criticize the way I think.

What? This is a critical thinking forum, you made some really poorly phrased and constructed statements and presented ideas that were poorly stated and constructed. I do not have to be a scientist to provide criticism of your fallacies and strawmen.

The statement which I called one of the dumbest I has read in a while is a huge strawman on your part, you present no evidence of your criticism of science: it was a classic strawman defense of a foolish position.

You have not presented said suppression or behavior at all , and made sweeping over generalizations.

Dancing David · 6th May 2012, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by eijah

Are you saying Ohm's Law and entropy were fringe lore? Or are you saying that if you given inch, you will lose the game? If the latter, you are wrong.

What is this cryptic phrase supposed to mean "Ohm's law and entropy".

epepke · 6th May 2012, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by eijah

Indeed, a point does not make a data set. And that is my entire point!

So a question for you and all of you other professional scientists here

Not a professional scientist any more. Was for 13 years until I moved into industry.

What you do is you publish the hell out of it. If you don't, and you're found out, you are drummed out and wind up becoming a spokesperson for the Creation Institute.

Now, a friend of mine has pointed to some research showing that some research groups are hiding data, which is a Bad Thing™. But certainly in the 1990s, all you had to do was ask, and you would get all the raw data, free of charge. In the pre-internet days, sometimes you had to send them a tape to fill or replace the one they sent you, but that's it. In fact, though you may believe otherwise, the World-Wide Web was invented specifically to fix this problem.

Correa Neto · 7th May 2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by eijah

Are you saying Ohm's Law and entropy were fringe lore? Or are you saying that if you given inch, you will lose the game? If the latter, you are wrong.

Where in the seven hells of oblivion could you reach such a conclusion based on my posts?

And if you wonder about what science does with anomalous data points, here are two examples:

Faster-than-light neutrinos
The Pioneer anomaly

A quick google or the use of the "search" function at this very forum will provide lots of information.

6th May 2012, 08:37 AM	#41
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,628	Originally Posted by Correa Neto This friend from Brazil has seen this game before: you are another person who's not happy with science because scientists are not accepting one or more pieces of a given fringe subject lore. You belive you can show how flawed are science's ways and how close minded are mainstream scientist and skeptics. Once you managed to show these fatal flaws you will be able to champion your pet beliefs and win the game. Lets cut the parts where you again fail to back those points and the many flaws in your arguments are exposed. Just tell us what it is: ID? YEC? UFOs? Psi? Something related to biorythms? Expanding Earth? Ghosts? Velikovsky? The universal flood? Atlantis? Ancient aliens? Cryptozoology? Such a motive or not, the OP raises an interesting question about how science progresses.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

6th May 2012, 08:43 AM	#42
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Correa Neto This friend from Brazil has seen this game before: you are another person who's not happy with science because scientists are not accepting one or more pieces of a given fringe subject lore. You belive you can show how flawed are science's ways and how close minded are mainstream scientist and skeptics. Once you managed to show these fatal flaws you will be able to champion your pet beliefs and win the game. Lets cut the parts where you again fail to back those points and the many flaws in your arguments are exposed. Just tell us what it is: ID? YEC? UFOs? Psi? Something related to biorythms? Expanding Earth? Ghosts? Velikovsky? The universal flood? Atlantis? Ancient aliens? Cryptozoology? I am not surprised that while accusing me of misdirection, you often seem to do that. And where on this thread or recent ones have I been proposing a crackpot theory of mine? You keep accusing me of being anti-science, which I am not. I am, however, seemingly more capable than you of seeing instances of where scientists who one thinks should know better, have ignored and sometimes even sought to suppress the promising work of other scientists in the same field, which to an amateur like me seems to be very anti-science. If you do not see it that way, let's just say that your professional view of professional science is worthy of the name, and my view of it is just one amateur's opinion of the practice of science not matching the profession of science's theory of science.
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535	Last edited by eijah; 6th May 2012 at 08:51 AM.

6th May 2012, 08:46 AM	#43
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Such a motive or not, the OP raises an interesting question about how science progresses. Thank you. BTW, are you a professional scientist -- or like Dancing David, just a fellow spouting comments about science (and my views about science and scientists) as if he is one?
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535

6th May 2012, 09:32 AM	#44
Sideroxylon Gavagai! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Turkey Posts: 10,628	Originally Posted by eijah Thank you. BTW, are you a professional scientist -- or like Dancing David, just a fellow spouting comments about science (and my views about science and scientists) as if he is one? No, just a keen reader on history of science and philosophy of science.
	__________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

6th May 2012, 12:03 PM	#45
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,176	Originally Posted by eijah I am not surprised that while accusing me of misdirection, you often seem to do that. And where on this thread or recent ones have I been proposing a crackpot theory of mine? You keep accusing me of being anti-science, which I am not. I am, however, seemingly more capable than you of seeing instances of where scientists who one thinks should know better, have ignored and sometimes even sought to suppress the promising work of other scientists in the same field, which to an amateur like me seems to be very anti-science. If you do not see it that way, let's just say that your professional view of professional science is worthy of the name, and my view of it is just one amateur's opinion of the practice of science not matching the profession of science's theory of science. My conclusion about you having an anti-science agenda was based on your posts at this very thread and at this other (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=235090). Its also based on seeing similar behavior from other posters with similar positions. Here are a few quotes of yours, some of the content over which I built my conclusions: Originally Posted by eijah I doubt if you or mostvother skeptics here speculate about God. Originally Posted by eijah Is that actually speculation? Or is it merely arguing with Christian believers, while throwing up? Originally Posted by eijah If someone offered to prove to you that something impossible happened by showing you evidence for it, I doubt that you would spend any time speculating about it. Originally Posted by eijah I believe that Planck was correct when he said... 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. Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...ukuDrYBCY6q.99 I believe that Feigenbaum was giving an example of that when he gave an example of that per one of my posts above. I believe that those here who eagerly dismissed Feigenbaum's anecdotal, but of course quite verifiable, evidence were also giving examples of Planck's view of entrenched science's occasionally observed unscientific tendencies to not speculate on what many who are proud to call them scientists don't want to think about because what they already believe is too holy to risk toppling. Originally Posted by eijah Are you saying that Planck did not know what he was talking about, rather than giving his view of how science often tends to work when there are big changes in scientific thought occurring? And are you saying that speculation is not needed before acceptance? Originally Posted by eijah The history of science as well as the history of mathematics bears the above out. Or so I think. If I am wrong about that, I look forward to you disabusing me of my admittedly rather skeptical view of the nature of science. Not much space for the benefit of doubt after all of this IMHO. Yes, I may be wrong, but to me it seems your posts' contents indicate you are building generalisations regarding scientists ans skeptics, wich include a perceived excessive inertia or refusal to accept new ideas and certain bits of data you perceive as reliable but they disagree. I speculate, based on other posters' behavior, that some pet belief of yours is not well- accepted br most scientists and you are trying to use isolated examples of scientists' mistakes to build generalisations and open a crack that would, in your mind, open the doors for the acceptance of your pet belief. Scientists being wrong? Oh, dear lord! How could that be? What a shame! Maybe its because we're all common humans and not a flawless pope or some self-proclaimed enlightened prophet/mystic/contactee/whatever? Scientists being imperfect humans that can make mistakes and science being a tool that can and will be improved, well these are not great news. Scientists can and must improve, science can and must be improved. I doubt a single scientist or skeptic would disagree on this. Now, care to show what and how you would improve it? Or care to show something that works better than science when it come down to probe reality?
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

6th May 2012, 01:23 PM	#46
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Dancing David Wow, first you have a hidden agenda and then you make a great and incorrect assumption about who I am and what I do. My profile and my posts state exactly what I do, rather foolish on your part. Your last statement seems even more childish again. So what are these anomalies? (My profile states: -Grade School Computer Aide in my posts you would know I had been a social worker for 15 years and that I did demographic research as part of that into homelessness and that I was a research assistant in undergrad school. Currently I am working to get a MS Server certificate. I have been a stargazer since the age of 12, I have been into butterfly gardening since 1986) You have on this thread both disagreed with me when you thought I said X and also when you thought I said not x. And you criticize the way I think.
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535

6th May 2012, 03:54 PM	#47
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by Correa Neto This friend from Brazil has seen this game before: you are another person who's not happy with science because scientists are not accepting one or more pieces of a given fringe subject lore. You belive you can show how flawed are science's ways and how close minded are mainstream scientist and skeptics. Once you managed to show these fatal flaws you will be able to champion your pet beliefs and win the game. Lets cut the parts where you again fail to back those points and the many flaws in your arguments are exposed. Just tell us what it is: ID? YEC? UFOs? Psi? Something related to biorythms? Expanding Earth? Ghosts? Velikovsky? The universal flood? Atlantis? Ancient aliens? Cryptozoology? Are you saying Ohm's Law and entropy were fringe lore? Or are you saying that if you given inch, you will lose the game? If the latter, you are wrong.
eijah Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 535

6th May 2012, 04:09 PM	#48
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by eijah Thank you. BTW, are you a professional scientist -- or like Dancing David, just a fellow spouting comments about science (and my views about science and scientists) as if he is one? Excuse, I did not spout comments as though I was a scientist, that was only in your imagination, I challenge you do you where I did. You are wrong about the history of QM and you would know it if you had studied it. You are wrong about QM it was hotly debated and contested by many people, it was in fact the source of the story of Schroedinger's cat, which you would know if you actually studied the history QM. Why did Schroedinger make the story and then recant it much later? (He disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM). I can comment upon the poor nature of your thoughts as expressed in your posts and your fallacious arguments with being a scientist. Is this some reverse appeal to authority to make your poorly constructed statement look better.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th May 2012, 04:13 PM	#49
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by eijah You have on this thread both disagreed with me when you thought I said X and also when you thought I said not x. And you criticize the way I think. What? This is a critical thinking forum, you made some really poorly phrased and constructed statements and presented ideas that were poorly stated and constructed. I do not have to be a scientist to provide criticism of your fallacies and strawmen. The statement which I called one of the dumbest I has read in a while is a huge strawman on your part, you present no evidence of your criticism of science: it was a classic strawman defense of a foolish position. You have not presented said suppression or behavior at all , and made sweeping over generalizations.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Last edited by Dancing David; 6th May 2012 at 04:15 PM.

6th May 2012, 04:17 PM	#50
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by eijah Are you saying Ohm's Law and entropy were fringe lore? Or are you saying that if you given inch, you will lose the game? If the latter, you are wrong. What is this cryptic phrase supposed to mean "Ohm's law and entropy".
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th May 2012, 05:31 PM	#51
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Originally Posted by eijah Indeed, a point does not make a data set. And that is my entire point! So a question for you and all of you other professional scientists here Not a professional scientist any more. Was for 13 years until I moved into industry. What you do is you publish the hell out of it. If you don't, and you're found out, you are drummed out and wind up becoming a spokesperson for the Creation Institute. Now, a friend of mine has pointed to some research showing that some research groups are hiding data, which is a Bad Thing™. But certainly in the 1990s, all you had to do was ask, and you would get all the raw data, free of charge. In the pre-internet days, sometimes you had to send them a tape to fill or replace the one they sent you, but that's it. In fact, though you may believe otherwise, the World-Wide Web was invented specifically to fix this problem.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

7th May 2012, 11:34 AM	#52
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,176	Originally Posted by eijah Are you saying Ohm's Law and entropy were fringe lore? Or are you saying that if you given inch, you will lose the game? If the latter, you are wrong. Where in the seven hells of oblivion could you reach such a conclusion based on my posts? And if you wonder about what science does with anomalous data points, here are two examples: Faster-than-light neutrinos The Pioneer anomaly A quick google or the use of the "search" function at this very forum will provide lots of information.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too… Last edited by Correa Neto; 7th May 2012 at 11:36 AM.