Greg what's going on? Censorship?

[ZapperZ]

I don't know whether or not you caught this, but the point I was trying to make was that much of what we accept as credible knowledge was once how I'd define a pseudo-science. I used quantum chromodynamics as an example. We knew from particle accelerator tests that baryons are made of 3 pieces surrounded by a unique force field, but we could not detect how these pieces now known as quarks interact with each other and their gluons because they were on too small a scale and no particle accelerator we could ever make would be strong enough to isolate a single quark for any length of time. Thus out of our ignorance of the laws of quarks, we decided to make up the 6 "color charges" and "create" 8 gluons to make the math surrounding the charges work out, and our math matches reality. The history of chromodynamics was a history of making pokes in the dark, and if someone were to ask me to define pseudo-science, I would say it's a field in which you poke in the dark.

To sum it up, I believe pseudo-sciences can have the potential to shed light in various fields of science, and we should keep our minds open to them but at the same time remaining vigilant for frivolous theories. If that is what is done here, I don't see a problem.

Then you have just made up your own definition of what a "pseudo-science" is. I believe, if you read, for example, Bob Park's book, this is NOT what is most generally accepted as pseudoscience.

Regardless of what it is called, do you honestly think that what we have in the TD section, and the quackeries found elsewhere on the 'net, have the same shape, appearence, smell, etc. with what YOU defined to be "pseudoscience"? Really now! You want a comparison or criteria? How many of the advancement in QCD, for instance, made it into peer-reviewed journals? And now, compare this to the other pseudoscience and quackeries on here.

You still do not see the difference?

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Glenn:
Have you bothered to look at what you may find in TD?
These examples represent the norm of the threads (i.e, the vast majority of TD threads are of this type):
1) Organic numbers
2) 0.999 recurring does not equal 1
3) Newton is wrong, the "law of the lever" rules.
4) Relativity is wrong&absolute motion is a meaningful concept.
5) Speed has direction

Good riddance to all of this crap.

 

[Galileo]

Just to add my 2 cents about pseudo-science, I believe that not everything that exists in this universe is tangible or measurable with conventional equipment, and that that doesn't mean it isn't real. I have an open mind to all pseudo-science that doesn't contradict itself. Also, there is much we have to infer rather than measure with the scientific method that could be considered pseudo-science anywhere outside theoretical physics such as the color charges of quarks and gluons. I prefer to use mathematics as the test. If there is something causing an anomaly in the universe and we don't know what it is, but someone can make something up, describe it in a way that the math matches reality, than this thing may as well exist.

Glenn, one important thing that must be realized is: If something cannot be measured, then it isn't physical and exists therefore outside the realm of physics.
The question whether something that isn't measurable is at all real is metaphysical and doesn't belong in TD. I may as well argue that there's a green leprechaun dancing on your shoulder and peeing against your head.
No, you can't see it. And you can't feel it. Actually you can't measure it with physical equipment, but I can derive in a logically consistent way, (it doesn't contradict itself), that it is responsible for many physical phenomona.
If I were to hold on to this view, I`m not surprised to be called a crackpot and the reason is not that the idea sounds ridiculous, but that it is an unscientific and unphysical explanation/description of the universe.

A physical theory must be quantitative. You mustn't explain what happens in a qualitative way, you must explain/describe what we can measure in a detailed and unambiguous way. That's the sole reason why QM is widely accepted: The results are in agreement with every measurement we have made.

Quantitative results and predictions are what crackpot theories are generally missing.

 

[BobG]

What you are forgetting that physicists look at mathematical descriptions the way musicians look at musical notes. They don't just look at the notes on the paper, but rather "hear" the music that those notes represent. The mathematics represents the conceptual idea, it does NOT represent just mathematical symbols on paper! It is the MOST concise and accurate way to represent physical ideas devoid of social, cultural, and linguistic connotations that ordinary languages have.

Zz.

Very well put.

Too many think a formula is just something you have to memorize and miss its meaning completely.

 

[Glenn the Great]

Glenn:
Have you bothered to look at what you may find in TD?
These examples represent the norm of the threads (i.e, the vast majority of TD threads are of this type):
1) Organic numbers
2) 0.999 recurring does not equal 1
3) Newton is wrong, the "law of the lever" rules.
4) Relativity is wrong&absolute motion is a meaningful concept.
5) Speed has direction

Good riddance to all of this crap.

I agree with that. Those are some examples of the frivolous theories I had warned against. I believe that what I'm saying is valid. All I'm saying is that throughout history there have been breakthroughs with hard numbers backing them up that most people considered frivolous. It's just like that leprechaun theory, you can make it up and play with the numbers so it matches reality.

When this happens, whether or not the theory will be accepted lies in subjectiveness. I'm not trying to say that what's going on here is wrong. With what I've seen it appears that things are working well. I've only been here for a matter of days so I don't have the full picture but I think it is being handled well. I'm just voicing my viewpoint.

 

[Arctic Fox]

It's like I'm back in the dark ages! Next you'll be telling us that certain science theories are really the work of the devil.

Next comes the burning courts... again!

I like this quote best and I think it should serve here:
“We won't be suppressing any views today, Dr Arrowway.” - Contact

 

[Nereid]

It's like I'm back in the dark ages! Next you'll be telling us that certain science theories are really the work of the devil.

Next comes the burning courts... again!

I like this quote best and I think it should serve here:
“We won't be suppressing any views today, Dr Arrowway.” - Contact

I must be in the slow class today Arctic Fox (or perhaps from Missouri? is that the right state??), in what way do you feel you are back in the dark ages? How does any of the discussion above lead you to conclude that [you - who?] will 'be telling [me] that certain science theories are really the work of the devil'?

 

[tfleming]

the trouble with all this is that people who venture into your 'lion's den' finds that you all are sitting there waiting...waiting...waiting...like caged beasts, waiting for some poor little shrinking violet... mmmm sounds like me I'm talking about there! seems as long as we try to 'teach' you people something, even when we really aren't trying to, you take umbrage, spit the dummy, and roll out your spleens while you try and learn how to debate! and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs! you guys may be young but you haven't got experience on your side; some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

 

[graphic7]

the trouble with all this is that people who venture into your 'lion's den' finds that you all are sitting there waiting...waiting...waiting...like caged beasts, waiting for some poor little shrinking violet... mmmm sounds like me I'm talking about there! seems as long as we try to 'teach' you people something, even when we really aren't trying to, you take umbrage, spit the dummy, and roll out your spleens while you try and learn how to debate! and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs! you guys may be young but you haven't got experience on your side; some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

I don't remember seeing you on the 'Funnest PF Member' ballot. Maybe you should try contacting the admins on your addition to the ballot.

 

[Arctic Fox]

poor little shrinking violet

Uhmm... what are you saying?

 

[russ_watters]

... you guys may be young but you haven't got experience on your side; some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

If you'd read the profiles of the mentors, you'll find that we have fairly wide demographics - yes, some have "been around" quite a while.

And while its tough to prove that we don't think alike because Greg choose people who think alike, its been my (admittedly limited) experience that the scientific mindset is a common trait among scientists and engineers.

 

[ZapperZ]

some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

Then what are you whinning about? This then should feel very familiar to you!

Zz.