Nate Nagel wrote:

> Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.

This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need to know what science is
and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually understanding how the world
around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions based on unbiased
observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that they are correct--nothing
can be learned that way, only proclaimed.

For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be to _find out_ how a
phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The observations must be made
with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis formed to explain the facts
that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the hypothesis. If successful
(or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication. Additionally, everything
must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology used for the experiments, so
the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be constructed so that it is
potentially falsifiable.

Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific process--verification, repeatability,
and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with access to similar equipment
so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process was somehow flawed (if
everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of the original researchers),
or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by additional variables not accounted
for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely important as well. The
hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing can be learned from the
research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to stand up to the most severe
criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific theories are designed so
that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with a better theory that can
stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way knowledge can really be
advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down other's ideas, with
_scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can be absolutely proved, but
here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the scientific community in general
can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are indeed correct in their
reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete theory or law is incorrect,
but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build things like internal
combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new information, which itself must pass
the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't worth worrying about. Only
the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it is not falsifiable it is
_not_ science.

The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer review, in order to have
that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased
as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods, theories, set on
by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career
can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is a
_group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists of being skeptical, and not
open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific as they may be, seem too
radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed
worth publishing.


What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story asserted to be true by its
author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of saying "because I said so, and
all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by attempting to "prove" just so
stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's particularly dishonest in
fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it needs if it is to be
discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science, nonetheless people who don't
know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed up to make people think it
_is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but to _discover_, to get as
close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.

If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary to, certain _established
facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either proved or disproved, nothing
can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because it simply is what you
decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else. This is not an attempt
to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of science), however a belief
cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it, no matter how competent
the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued or even rationally argued
against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.

--Aardwolf.

 

"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>
snip
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.

Very well explained, phrased, and accurate, which of course means you will
be vilified and flamed.
Dave
01 TJ

 

"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>
snip
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.

Very well explained, phrased, and accurate, which of course means you will
be vilified and flamed.
Dave
01 TJ

 

"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>
snip
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.

Very well explained, phrased, and accurate, which of course means you will
be vilified and flamed.
Dave
01 TJ

 

"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> > process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> > the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> > can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> > light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> > almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.
>
> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
to know what science is
> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
understanding how the world
> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
based on unbiased
> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
they are correct--nothing
> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>
> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
to _find out_ how a
> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
observations must be made
> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
formed to explain the facts
> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
hypothesis. If successful
> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
Additionally, everything
> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
used for the experiments, so
> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
constructed so that it is
> potentially falsifiable.
>
> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
process--verification, repeatability,
> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
access to similar equipment
> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
was somehow flawed (if
> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
the original researchers),
> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
additional variables not accounted
> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
important as well. The
> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
can be learned from the
> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
stand up to the most severe
> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
theories are designed so
> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
a better theory that can
> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
knowledge can really be
> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
other's ideas, with
> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
be absolutely proved, but
> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
scientific community in general
> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
indeed correct in their
> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
theory or law is incorrect,
> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
things like internal
> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
information, which itself must pass
> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
worth worrying about. Only
> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
is not falsifiable it is
> _not_ science.
>
> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
review, in order to have
> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
make sure it is as unbiased
> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
methods, theories, set on
> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
cherished work of a career
> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
that's why there is a
> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
of being skeptical, and not
> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
as they may be, seem too
> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
the work to be deemed
> worth publishing.
>
>
> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
asserted to be true by its
> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
saying "because I said so, and
> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
attempting to "prove" just so
> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
particularly dishonest in
> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
needs if it is to be
> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
nonetheless people who don't
> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
up to make people think it
> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
to _discover_, to get as
> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>

Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
fails on every level.

 

"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> > process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> > the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> > can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> > light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> > almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.
>
> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
to know what science is
> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
understanding how the world
> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
based on unbiased
> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
they are correct--nothing
> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>
> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
to _find out_ how a
> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
observations must be made
> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
formed to explain the facts
> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
hypothesis. If successful
> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
Additionally, everything
> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
used for the experiments, so
> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
constructed so that it is
> potentially falsifiable.
>
> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
process--verification, repeatability,
> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
access to similar equipment
> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
was somehow flawed (if
> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
the original researchers),
> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
additional variables not accounted
> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
important as well. The
> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
can be learned from the
> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
stand up to the most severe
> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
theories are designed so
> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
a better theory that can
> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
knowledge can really be
> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
other's ideas, with
> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
be absolutely proved, but
> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
scientific community in general
> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
indeed correct in their
> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
theory or law is incorrect,
> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
things like internal
> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
information, which itself must pass
> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
worth worrying about. Only
> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
is not falsifiable it is
> _not_ science.
>
> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
review, in order to have
> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
make sure it is as unbiased
> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
methods, theories, set on
> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
cherished work of a career
> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
that's why there is a
> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
of being skeptical, and not
> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
as they may be, seem too
> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
the work to be deemed
> worth publishing.
>
>
> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
asserted to be true by its
> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
saying "because I said so, and
> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
attempting to "prove" just so
> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
particularly dishonest in
> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
needs if it is to be
> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
nonetheless people who don't
> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
up to make people think it
> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
to _discover_, to get as
> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>

Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
fails on every level.

 

"Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com...
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Science is not a collection of facts to be parroted by rote, it is a
> > process by which we refine our understanding of how various aspects of
> > the Universe work. It's the height of arrogance to proclaim that one
> > can authoritatively state that something is the TRVTH especially in
> > light of the amazing changes that have come in our understanding of
> > almost every scientific field over only the last few centuries.
>
> This is the only post I will send out in this thread. However people need
to know what science is
> and what it is not. Science is the only tool we have for actually
understanding how the world
> around us works, because it is done by making rational, logical deductions
based on unbiased
> observations, _not_ by simply making up just-so stories and asserting that
they are correct--nothing
> can be learned that way, only proclaimed.
>
> For science to work, the intent behind the making of observations must be
to _find out_ how a
> phenomenon of nature works, _not_ to support a preconceived notion. The
observations must be made
> with an open mind. Only after the observations are done is a hypothesis
formed to explain the facts
> that these observations have yielded. Experiments are done to test the
hypothesis. If successful
> (or even if not) the results and conclusion are submitted for publication.
Additionally, everything
> must be documented--the initial observations, and the exact methodology
used for the experiments, so
> the work can be repeated by others to test it. Also the hypothesis must be
constructed so that it is
> potentially falsifiable.
>
> Those are the three most important aspects of the scientific
process--verification, repeatability,
> and falsifiability. The work must be able to be repeated by anyone with
access to similar equipment
> so that its honesty can be tested, as well as to find out if the process
was somehow flawed (if
> everyone else's results come out the same, but differently than those of
the original researchers),
> or if the hypothesis was too simple (differing results caused by
additional variables not accounted
> for by the original researchers), etc. Falsifiability is extremely
important as well. The
> hypothesis _must_ be potentially able to be disproved, otherwise nothing
can be learned from the
> research. In order for it to be regarded as correct, it must be able to
stand up to the most severe
> criticism that can be thrown at it, for as long as it exists. Scientific
theories are designed so
> that it is always possible for them to be proven wrong, and replaced with
a better theory that can
> stand up to the criticism that broke the older one. That is the only way
knowledge can really be
> advanced--by trying, and succeeding (or continually failing) to pull down
other's ideas, with
> _scientific_ work of your own. It also means that nothing in science can
be absolutely proved, but
> here's where a misunderstanding occurs: It doesn't mean that the
scientific community in general
> can't have a pretty good idea, maybe 99.9999999etc. %, that they are
indeed correct in their
> reasoning. There might always be a _chance_ that even the most concrete
theory or law is incorrect,
> but at some point the evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive (say,
the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics, and the ability to accurately predict (engineer) and build
things like internal
> combustion engines) that the chance of being wrong, sans any new
information, which itself must pass
> the same rigorous tests and inbuilt skepticism, becomes so small it isn't
worth worrying about. Only
> the best explanations survive, there is no room for the weak. And if it
is not falsifiable it is
> _not_ science.
>
> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to peer
review, in order to have
> that criticism thrown at it, so it has to stand up or fail, and also to
make sure it is as unbiased
> as humanly possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data,
methods, theories, set on
> by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't perfect, ego and the
cherished work of a career
> can get in the way of rational criticism--but that is poor science, and
that's why there is a
> _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse scientists
of being skeptical, and not
> open to alternate ideas or explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if
they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas, scientific
as they may be, seem too
> radical and are missed--for a time, until enough evidence is presented for
the work to be deemed
> worth publishing.
>
>
> What science is _NOT_ is an explanation in the form of a just-so story
asserted to be true by its
> author. Nothing can be learned from that, it's just a fancy way of
saying "because I said so, and
> all who disagree with me are wrong". Science is also _NOT_ done by
attempting to "prove" just so
> stories _OR_ preconceived notions by gathering supporting data. That's
particularly dishonest in
> fact, because it ignores all of the data that doesn't support it, which it
needs if it is to be
> discussed scientifically. That makes it the _opposite_ of science,
nonetheless people who don't
> know any better can't tell the difference, and it is deliberately dressed
up to make people think it
> _is_ scientific, where science is not a tool used to _prove_ anything, but
to _discover_, to get as
> close as _rationally_ possible to the truth of, what actually goes on.
>
> If you choose to accept an _idea_ over and above, if need be even contrary
to, certain _established
> facts_, than it is a belief, _not_ science. And it cannot be either
proved or disproved, nothing
> can be learned from it, and it can't be argued to any conclusion, because
it simply is what you
> decide it is, completely disconnected from the influence of anything else.
This is not an attempt
> to pass a moral judgment on it either (that also is outside the realm of
science), however a belief
> cannot be used to argue against science because no matter the truth of it,
no matter how competent
> the explanation it provides, it is designed so that it cannot be critiqued
or even rationally argued
> against, and thus nothing can be learned from it.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>

Very good explanation. It is also the reason I say Lloyd is no scientist, he
fails on every level.

 

In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:

> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
> publishing.

You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
a career, etc etc.

It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
followed, etc and so forth.

It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
of the titatic.

Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
for so many things.

 

In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:

> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
> publishing.

You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
a career, etc etc.

It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
followed, etc and so forth.

It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
of the titatic.

Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
for so many things.

 

In article <3F9DC2CD.B6BD80CF@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:

> The work is published in scientific journals so that it is subject to
> peer review, in order to have that criticism thrown at it, so it has
> to stand up or fail, and also to make sure it is as unbiased as humanly
> possible--the only way to do that is to have everything--data, methods,
> theories, set on by a trained group of skeptical scientists. It isn't
> perfect, ego and the cherished work of a career can get in the way of
> rational criticism--but that is poor science, and that's why there is
> a _group_ of peers to review the published work. People accuse
> scientists of being skeptical, and not open to alternate ideas or
> explanations. They _have_ to be skeptics, if they weren't they wouldn't
> be scientists. Again they aren't perfect; sometimes new ideas,
> scientific as they may be, seem too radical and are missed--for a time,
> until enough evidence is presented for the work to be deemed worth
> publishing.

You make several good points. However the problem with peer review by
the group is that group mentality sets in where someone must believe
X Y and Z or he isn't part of the group. And if you aren't part of the
group you don't get published, if you don't get published you don't
get research money, if you don't get research money you don't have
a career, etc etc.

It does lead to a church-like rigid belief system that makes it very
difficult to get supportable radical thought heard and investigated
by others. Evidence that indicates something other than the mainstream
group belief gets tossed aside and ignored. Paths of investigation aren't
followed, etc and so forth.

It's something I've noticed in one area of science that I do follow
and have had my long held theories based on the evidence. Slowly but
surely the non-conventional evidence is piling up. Hopefully it will
get to be so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. But finding
the smoking gun will be expensive, but hopefully it will be found and
shown to the point where it is as undeniable in existance as the wreck
of the titatic.

Many lloyds of the world have alot of power in the world science, each
one in their own little areas they have replaced the church. Their
careers are invested in the belief that things are a certain way, as
hard as fact. Evidence that points otherwise is unwelcome. Sad but true
for so many things.