The progress of science: How far have we really come?

[selfAdjoint]

Nereid, I don't think it was the state, but the community of academic scientists in "ivy covered halls", that was inhibiting the free spirits of unrestricted inquiry.

 

[Nereid]

SelfAdjoint, you may very well be right (let's see how/if notal33t responds).

If so, however, then her post has me even more confused; this community in their "ivy covered halls" surely has no power to stop notal33t from doing whatever she wants - scientific enquiry or anything else! - except maybe within those halls. And that includes calling herself a 'scientist, engaged in scientific enquiry'.

Perhaps though she wants creationism, UFOlogy, etc to be included as worthy objects of 'scientific inquiry' within the ivy covered halls (if so, why didn't she say so)? Then her question would have been better phrased as something like 'why is creationism not regarded as a valid area of study by those within ivy covered halls?', or perhaps 'how should science change - as an area of research - in order to incorporate creationism within its scope?'

Or maybe, just maybe, she simply doesn't understand what 'scientific inquiry' is?

 

[notal33t]

Heavens to Betsy!

This looks more at one's ability to present one's ideas and findings cogently, in a manner which invites attention; one's ability as a salesman ('salesperson', for US audiences ).

As I understood notal33t's post, she was stating that the state is restricting her freedom to conduct scientific inquiries, not complaining about her inability to market her ideas well!

=======
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were referring to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:

 

[russ_watters]

After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were referring to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:

Touche', Nereid! [/inside joke]

 

[Nereid]

=======
After having examined my "nether" region I would hope you were referring to the commenter on my previous post as I've come to the firm conclusion that my gender is of the masculine variety! :surprise:

Isn't English a wonderful language?! :tongue2: 'he' carries 'male' meanings, but is also 'neutral'. Then along came PC, in the US at least, and many people started using 'they' as the 'neutral' word, but causing confusion as the word also, in its 'normal' meaning, carries 'more than one person/thing' meanings.

And the internet just makes it worse; all we've got is vanilla words on a computer monitor (or similar); as the saying goes "http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html "

What did it feel like, to be 'mistaken for a she'?

 

[notal33t]

This old dog bites!

Isn't English a wonderful language?! :tongue2: 'he' carries 'male' meanings, but is also 'neutral'. Then along came PC, in the US at least, and many people started using 'they' as the 'neutral' word, but causing confusion as the word also, in its 'normal' meaning, carries 'more than one person/thing' meanings.

And the internet just makes it worse; all we've got is vanilla words on a computer monitor (or similar); as the saying goes "http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html "

What did it feel like, to be 'mistaken for a she'?

After many many years in irc chat rooms with a plethora of pseudonyms not all of the easily identifiable masculine variety aka 'Duquesne' I've become inured to gender bending and treat it in a light hearted manner. As to 'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog' ARF ARF
:tongue2: Even old dogs can bite!

As to the serious questions over my first rant I intend to post a "hopefully" lucid reply in the near future!

 

[Nereid]

As to the serious questions over my first rant I intend to post a "hopefully" lucid reply in the near future!

Good, I'm looking forward to it

 

[notal33t]

Cogent rant explanation

Nereid, I don't think it was the state, but the community of academic scientists in "ivy covered halls", that was inhibiting the free spirits of unrestricted inquiry.

========
The concept that unrestricted scientific investigation is accessible to all is IMHO fallacious, be it from inability to obtain a sufficiently recognized level of education to lack of funding, or peer disapproval, or even outright hostility to a hypothesis not generally accepted as main stream, in other words. ECONOMIC PRESSURE, STATE PRESSURE, PEER PRESSURE and, ad hominem RIDICULE!

Now to the the "final pressure"!

As a recipient of sticks and stones at the school fence in my early childhood for being "different", I can attest to that particular method of dissuasion personally, it's a most effective method of inhibiting "weird people", from attending school. I might add, that the trauma surrounding such events tends to dissuade a person from acquiring a unbiased view of "normal" folks. Follow that up with the not so obvious censure that occurs when a professor takes a dislike (for whatever reason) to a student, and the rather low level of marks that accompanies that, and the possibility for stellar achievement grows rather dim.
I guess the point of what I'm trying to get across is that no true unrestricted inquiry exists, we are all the product of a society that regards the "gifted" (and what they offer) as strange and threatening.

If what came across from me previously is a true rant then blame it on the large defensive shield forced on me by past circumstances.

 

[Nereid]

Intolerance, impatience, arrogance, mind-games ... it's sad but these negative human attitudes and qualities are to be found among scientists and educators, just as they among other folk. Too, the 'tall poppy syndrome' is unfortunately far from rare; yes, the actual day-to-day 'doing' of science is, in many ways, not so different from the life of 'corporation man', or 'salaryman', and so on.

When $$ becomes involved - as it must, few individuals are wealthy enough in their own right to fund the own scientific projects (there are, of course, notable exceptions, both individuals and good science projects that are very cheap) - especially taxpayer $$, then all the ugliness of politics and greed can enter too.

However, are these problems uniquely limitations of institutional science?

 

[yesicanread]

Is there a scale of the perspective of reality
that science is slowly moving forward and expanding on?

If so, how far to the end of this scale are we? More importantly, does my question make sense?

On my thread in theory development. I show how the perspective mankind has of asking ?'s, and not knowing the answers to every ?

Here's the theory.

1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite hight.
But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.

Here is Quantum mechanics in a few simple lines. Uncertainty principle intact.

I will explain QM Uncertainty.

1.) Three planar(on a plane), non-colinear(on a line) points, form a "Plane".

2.) The triangle has the triangle inequality theorem.

3.) This theorem is
Action < Reaction + Reaction

4.) My previous theory explained the use of two reactions to one action.

So for your first question. Is there a scale of the perspective of reality. There has to be. The triangle inequality theorem.

For your second question. how far to the end of this scale are we?
We are at the part of asking questions, and realizing that all the questions we ask ever will not ever be fully answered.