Well, then you'll be in for a most disconcerting ride if you choose to study physics in any depth at all . For example, what does the 'colour' force have to do with colour? Why is Pluto called a planet and not just the largest plutino?TheAntiRelative said:Lol, we are definately speaking a different language or something. "Higher frequencies (blue) are deminished." That's sifting out higher frequencies to me. Perhaps you are thinking of keeping what is "Sifted-out" instead of throwing it away. :)
And neither would I, ZapperZ, Russ, ... or Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, ... if they were alive!I'm just saying that if significant observational results that were contrary to QM and GR I would have no qualms about throwing out QM and GR for the new model that would have to be constructed...
And I think you have a far too narrow view of both scientists and human nature. For starters, AFAIK, physicists have the same range of personalities as Joe Sixpack and Joan G&T - some are arrogant, some humble; some courageous, some timid; some foolhardy, some cautious; goodness, some may even be saints, and some knaves! Perhaps if you got out more, and actually went to *meet* some of these folk, you might be a little more, shall we say, mature.One thing I would add is that results like that (if they exist) would not all appear at once against such tested and so far reliable theories. They would trickle in one small item at a time. My question is this. If small contrary results begin to trickle in, will they be labeled correctly or will they be brushed off as small anamolies that are more than likely just experimenter effect or other false data? I believe human nature will lead to the more arrogant approach.
Also, you might like to read some real papers ... they're full of gaps, unknowns, questions, ... I think you'll find the certainty reserved for nonsense - lots of scientists do not suffer crackpot fools gladly.
Yes ... and no. As I said above, scientists are human, just like you and me - some have been known to stoop to quite underhand and dishonest means to maintain the positions of power and authority; but equally, some have been known to stick tenaciously to their guns, even dig in further despite (because of?) derision and rejection. However, I think you'll find - overwhelmingly (but NOT absolutely) - that good experimental or observational results are held in respect.However, I'm sure that you will argue that the scientific method and scientists themselves are always looking for the truth and accept evidence as it comes. You'll also argue that any scientist would leap at the opportunity to make a name for themself by disproving a "pillar of science" theory.
So, what of the 40-year history of hunting down the 'solar neutrino problem'? It was certainly an anomaly, it was most definitely a very small signal, and some scientists did 'gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence' :surprised . Also, what of the iconoclasts who have made it to the top? What of those who are at the top who are genuinely delighted to foster new ideas and new ways of looking at old things? You might want to read some biographies ... you could be in for quite a shock (of course, we both know that Overdose wouldn't even consider doing such a thing - he might find his dogma severely challenged).I will then counter that few and far between are those willing to gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence. Most humans will doubt themselves when faced with: If this is true then everyone other than me is wrong and I'm the only one that is right.
Again, you're making it far too black & white ... the circumstances and individuals have far, far more diversity and richness than your narrow caricature.You will then say that just posing a theory that is counter to mainstream will not cause a respected scientist to suddenly be labeled a quack. Just look at Einstein.
Well, I'll give you a better one - Wegener; and closer to physics, Chandrasekhar (hint: read up on the limit named after him, and his teacher). But so what? Were you expecting that scientists suddenly became angels when they got their PhDs? And as for your human behaviour, I could ask you to take a look at any large observatory - ground or space-based. You'll find most have something called 'Director's discretionary time' - the Director has a certain amount of time for observations using these immensely expensive instruments, to use as (s)he sees fit, no questions asked. Now, what the Directors actually *do* with that time is almost always described in the annual reports of those observatories - take a look sometime, it makes of interesting reading.And I'll say, just look at Nikola Tesla. (to which you'll think... He wasn't really a scientist though, he's just an inventor that went off the deep end)
And then I'll run out of references even though I've watched the same behavior happen in every group of humans from all walks of life about a variety of subjects.
Well it seems that we do If I may generalise, you expect all scientists to be saints and not human (or completely cynical and hypocritical), and I claim that a detailed examination of what scientists (collectively and individually) actually *do* shows them to be neither angels nor lying politicians.And we'll eventually come the the point at which I believe we just have completely different views of human nature and you believe that I could use a few visits with a qualified professional to deal with my paraniod delusions.