Is Mindlessly Repeating Scientific Dogma Dangerous?

[ice109]

i hear and read everyone and their mother repeating the same things over and over
nothing can exceed c, energy/momentum/mass is always conserved, etc. yes i know all these things are experimentally supported but c'mon this seems like parroting to me. this kind of stuff is dangerous just like the Ptolemaic universe was dangerous and Galilean relativity (as opposed to general) was dangerous.

on the other hand if these things are axioms i see i no problem in parroting them.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is it dogmatic if there is a mountain of evidence to support the claim? Doesn't that just make it a sound theory?

Or look at it from the other side: Why would it make sense to say objects with mass may be able to travel faster than C when all evidence we have says they can't?

And there was nothing dangerous about Galilean relativity. That was also sound theory and a necessary step toward Einstein's relativity. It was used at the time because it worked and was the best (only viable) explanation available. And it is still used today because it still works in a large number of situations.

 

[Kurdt]

I think the fact we moved from Galilean to Einstein's relativity is proof that these things are not dogmatic. They are the best we have to work with at the minute and if someone does an experiment which shows differently they will evolve.

 

[Moridin]

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html

What do we mean by "scientists believe that . . ."? Typically it is something like "Most scientists agree that the preponderance of the evidence favors the interpretation that . . ., and furthermore, there is no evidence that directly contradicts that interpretation." Clumsy language perhaps, but it would behoove us to say something like it more often. If we need a shorthand version, we can replace it by "Scientific evidence supports the conclusion that . . .." Sometimes we should just say "We know that . . .." In other words, we need to articulate more precisely the state of our knowledge—its authority or uncertainty.

Science can clearly say that it knows that v < c and that mass-energy is conserved. It is important to notice that everything in science is approximations that gets better and better as more data is coming in.

 

[jostpuur]

ice109, you gave bad examples. There are some things that some physicists keep repeating perhaps too fanatically, but postulates of relativity and conservation laws are not the biggest concern because they are backed up well.

"There's no spin in classical theory." "There's no magnetic monopoles." "There's no relativity in special or general relativity." "There's no centrifugal force."

These are examples of claims that are not solid scientifical truths, but are sometimes in authoritative manner claimed to be.

(notice however: I don't believe that magnetic monopoles exist)

 

[ZapperZ]

i hear and read everyone and their mother repeating the same things over and over
nothing can exceed c, energy/momentum/mass is always conserved, etc. yes i know all these things are experimentally supported but c'mon this seems like parroting to me. this kind of stuff is dangerous just like the Ptolemaic universe was dangerous and Galilean relativity (as opposed to general) was dangerous.

on the other hand if these things are axioms i see i no problem in parroting them.

Er.. you seem to be missing one very important aspect to all this. While we consider those things to be valid, we CONTINUE TO TEST THEM, and test them with even better accuracy. Have you ever ventured into the Recent Noteworthy Papers in the General Physics forums? There are plenty of evidence there that while physicists do accept many of these things to be valid, we continue to test them and see if they start to deviate from what we know - this is the sign of new physics that we haven't discovered.

Now is this what you call a "dogma"?

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

It would probably be tough for science to go dogmatic right now, with modern communication putting everyone in touch with each other more often and so quickly.

I could see the possibility maybe a couple hundred years ago, when the English were the only ones able to publish, or earlier when there wasn't much collaboration between different societies versions of science.

Fortunately, the numbers of skeptics out there waiting to prove creative scientists wrong keep us in check. (Note, these aren't two separate types of scientists, but two different state-of-minds for a scientist, individual scientists may have different combinations of either at different stages in their life).

But since everything is filed and recorded (to the best of some people's abilities), there's always eventually going to be someone to prove a falsifiable theory wrong (or right). This isn't to say that bad papers don't get through, but they're not paid much attention to unless they've been verified (or you're the one verifying it).

Sometimes you'll see little anecdotal assumptions propagate through 80 years of papers without ever being experimentally verified, but eventually, someone will be in the right place at the right time.

 

[rewebster]

i hear and read everyone and their mother repeating the same things over and over
nothing can exceed c, energy/momentum/mass is always conserved, etc. yes i know all these things are experimentally supported but c'mon this seems like parroting to me. this kind of stuff is dangerous just like the Ptolemaic universe was dangerous and Galilean relativity (as opposed to general) was dangerous.

on the other hand if these things are axioms i see i no problem in parroting them.

I don't want to see anyone driving on the road with having some driver's education classes.


Can you built a new type of house without at least knowing how to build a 'safe' conventional one first?

 

[Chi Meson]

"Parroting" is never a good educational method. On the other hand, if certain things have repeatedly been shown to be valid (such as the primary conservation laws), they will be mentioned often.

But that does not make them "dogmatic," just "highly valid."

Interestingly, the law of conservation of energy has exceptions (quantum fluctuations), and the law of conservation of mass is not at all a law anymore. So where's the dogma?

A more valid law than those two is the law of conservation of electric charge which, in conjunction with momentum, led to the assumed existence of the neutrino decades before it was detected. Quite valid, I'd say.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Parroting" is never a good educational method.

This is the point of the OP, as I understood it. There are, indeed, people who acquire and repeat good information without much understanding what it means. It strikes me as more depressing than dangerous, I guess.

 

[Thrice]

The only complaint I have is how passionate people seem to be over some interpretation of QM to the exclusion of all others. Why does it matter, if they give the exact same answers to practical questions?

 

[zoobyshoe]

The only complaint I have is how passionate people seem to be over some interpretation of QM to the exclusion of all others. Why does it matter, if they give the exact same answers to practical questions?

"Quantum" = magic!

One of the most exciting discoveries of Quantum Physics, is the whole concept that it is our thoughts, and not just our actions that create our reality. Even though most people believe that it is what they DO or do not do that is creating their reality, quantum physics has actually revealed that it is the thoughts of our subconscious mind that is creating our experience of life. There have been numerous books written about how we live in a field of infinite possibilities that is essentially waiting for you to decide what you want to create in that field. In the meantime, your subconscious mind is deciding for you and since over 85% of your thoughts are coming from your subconscious mind instead of your conscious mind, your subconscious mind is really running the show in your lives most of the time!

http://www.magicaltransformations.com/quantumphysics.htm

 

[ice109]

"Quantum" = magic!



http://www.magicaltransformations.com/quantumphysics.htm

that's such ****

i'm reading a book, i'll come back to this topic once I've finished it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

that's such ****

What the bleep do you know, dogmatic QM fascist!

I'm going to sit here and softly chant the word "quantum" until you disappear.

 

[Thrice]

"Quantum" = magic!



http://www.magicaltransformations.com/quantumphysics.htm

ggggggaaasdfdfs

 

[Gza]

"Quantum" = magic!



http://www.magicaltransformations.com/quantumphysics.htm

kwantum fizzicks is fun and ez!111

 

[Kurdt]

Those into Solipsism have really latched onto that interpretation of QM for their own ends.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the speed of light, note that this is no longer considered to be an absolute limit; at least, inflation theory makes it possible that distant objects can move at speeds greater than C. So I think the op wins on that point. For years scientists have said that nothing can travel faster than C, and now we don't.

 

[George Jones]

Regarding the speed of light, note that this is no longer considered to be an absolute limit; at least, inflation theory makes it possible that distant objects can move at speeds greater than C. So I think the op wins on that point. For years scientists have said that nothing can travel faster than C, and now we don't.

Yes, we still do. In general relativity, the speed of light is a local speed limit, i.e., no observer can see anything rushing by with a speed greater than that of light. In general relativity there isn't (and never has been) a barrier for speeds of objects through extended coordinate systems.

This no more and no less true during periods of extreme inflation than it is during periods when there is no inflation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The expansion of space between us and distant objects means that distant, ordinary objects may exceed the speed of light from our frame of reference. Correct?

 

[Thrice]

Just do a search for "speed" in the S&GR forum. It's been done so many times I feel like writing an article on it & telling them to sticky it.

 

[russ_watters]

The expansion of space between us and distant objects means that distant, ordinary objects may exceed the speed of light from our frame of reference. Correct?

Yes, but only insofar as the space between them is literally expanding. That isn't the same type of motion, so no, the OP doesn't "win" on this one. There are no implications for SR with that. It's a bit like claiming you drive a supersonic car.

 

[ice109]

i wasn't trying to prove anything. just be a little polemic

 

[Thrice]

While we're complaining about the scientific community, I wish more of you would take a Dawkins-esque position regarding religions or really any irrational ideas. I think it's short sighted to talk about it only if it's in schools or if it's affecting your budget. Given the staggering amount of money/time people spend on pure nonsense, I'm surprised you're not affected more. Consider the Bush administration a wake-up call.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

While we're complaining about the scientific community, I wish more of you would take a Dawkins-esque position regarding religions or really any irrational ideas. I think it's short sighted to talk about it only if it's in schools or if it's affecting your budget. Given the staggering amount of money/time people spend on pure nonsense, I'm surprised you're not affected more. Consider the Bush administration a wake-up call.

Ho ho ho.. just because some biologist thinks religions or nonsense, they don't become nonsense. people lacking education in a particular field often take highly specialized facts as nonsense.

Religions are pathways to spiritual wisdom and knowledge. Those who have achieved the highest promise of religion say so. They are like scientists of their field (taking science as meaning knowledge). They have their own terminology, their own way of depicting experiences (experiences cannot be described unless another has a similar experience.. it can only be depicted), their own vocabulary, their own specializations and methodologies.

There are a number of mystics, and there have been many through out the history, across religions, across times and geographical spans, who expressed their experiences in similar manner. Unless one traverses the path shown, unless one experiments with the meditational methods prescribed, one is not qualified to call it nonsense.

Much of what is paraded as religion today is nonsense though. I agree with Dawkins there. But there is a part of religion, something truly spiritual, that can be glimpsed through a minority of people. I have been studying that line, and I know that they validate true religion and true spirituality.

So, religion is not bad. Only the popularized, money-making, people-faking machinary that parades itself as religion is bad. True religion is spiritual at heart, and at that level, all religions become different parts to the same truth, different ways of expressing the same truth and different ways of reaching it.

DJ