7 Reasons to Abandon Sense

[heliocentric]

What definition of 'pseudo-science' are people at sciforums actually working off? is there any sort of actual criteria or is a kind of call-it-as-you-see it affair?

I would have thought pseudo-science would be a type of cargo science which alludes to a process that doesnt really exist, or invokes supernatual faiths to fill in the gaps.
I cant say i really see any of this atall in Andrew's works, theres holes in there definitely, and most of it is untested buts nothing to do with something not being 'real' science, if thats the criteria id like to see superstring theory in this section also - at least to have a little consistancy.

 

[URI]

Tis an Internet wide mystery mate, there is no understanding.

IMO I think it is ego, like, "yeah I know it all and unless you agree with me then you are totaled... and hey I HAVE the power", LOL

 

[Billy T]

...James has written an article describing [enc]Science[/enc], as opposed to pseudoscience. In my opinion, Andrew's presentation of his model does not stand up to the tests of what Science is. Primarily, it seems to me that he hasn't shown sufficient understanding of the models that he's trying to replace.

It's a difficult call for me, because I'm not an expert in the field of QM... but I have sought advice from others who are experts, ...

Basically, I'm not convinced that Andrew knows what he is talking about when he says that current quantum physics theory contains paradoxes,...

What would be scientific would be a discussion based on challenging the consistency of the current model - a thread about what Andrew sees as paradoxes. Or even better, one thread for each alleged paradox.

Working on battery so Have not read Jame's paper on science/pseudo distinction.

As far as consulting experts, I am sure you know what Thomas Kuhn would predict their comments would be.

I have not read carefully enough or thought much about any "paradoxes of QM" I personally only know of one. The logical problem of "observation" being something outside of QM which is essential for QM to be applied, at least in the Copenhagen POV of QM.

I do agree that it would be wise to have separate threads on each of these "paradoxes" Andrew sees - to show they are false or better define the essence of the paradox, as the case may be. There is much too much content in this thread.

I must disagree with "he hasn't shown sufficient understanding of the models that he's trying to replace" Certainly Andrew has considerable knowledge of the conventional POV, although quite possibly is not an expert* in most of it.
-------------------------------
*To be an "expert" he would need to be a Ph.D. and have been "brain washed" for years and active in some much more narrow field. Any radical suggestion for a remake of the basic structure will definitely not come from an "expert." In some sense, it will always as Kuhn states, come from outside the established POV and appear to be "pseudo-science." Clearly, he is not an "expert" and no reputable journal will let him publish. Sciforums is a good alternative. I rarely look at the pseudo-science forums. I am sure others who have been adequately "brain washed" in physics also do not go there. Thus I still feel strongly Andrew's ideas belong here.

 

[Stryder]

Tis an Internet wide mystery mate, there is no understanding.

IMO I think it is ego, like, "yeah I know it all and unless you agree with me then you are totaled... and hey I HAVE the power", LOL

Rubbish.

There is an understanding to what pseudoscience is, There is "Pseudoscience" which is Fake sciences which are usually applied in the creation of science fiction films to make the "Science" used more plausible to an audience. Such fake sciences would be for instance the rantings of David Icke.

There is then "Protoscience" where a particular theory is just being put forwards but tested, should the Protoscience withstand the scrutiny of a peer review and of course give the results required from experimentation it then becomes a science, however should it fail *both* of those it will find itself defined as Pseudoscience.

Currently Sciforums doesn't contain a Protoscience forum where people can forward their theories, so their protoscience is often submitted into Pseudoscience. It's up to them however to prove not to this forum but main stream science through the use of real peer review (This means proper publications of *final* papers as apposed to continually changing resubmissions and of course taking the protoscience before a lecture circuit for Q&A) and experimentation for it to be moved somewhere as mainstream.

The true power of decision making is in the hands of those that choose to make their theory in the first place, it's up to them to keep it a theory and have it addressed as Pseudoscience or to work that little bit harder towards their goal to either establish it as real science or document their failure. (Just please be prepared for failure, as every failure needs to be documented just as well as a success so others don't necessarily follow the same flawed logic that got them there)

 

[Pete]

*To be an "expert" he would need to be a Ph.D. and have been "brain washed" for years and active in some much more narrow field. Any radical suggestion for a remake of the basic structure will definitely not come from an "expert."

This is something I disagree with pretty strongly. I work in academia, and I've seen the fights and heard the discussions of surprisingly wild ideas.
The difference with experts is that they have the skills, tools, and attitude that enables them to follow through in probing the weak points of these ideas. Most ideas are demolished very quickly.

You won't see the discussion of many wild ideas in journals, but that's because most don't survive the gauntlet of coffee table talk, BOTE calcs, mailing lists, and conferences.

The reason that the "establishment" of physics models is so robust and hard to break is precisely because experts are so bloodthirsty in their desire to probe and find weak points in new ideas... and remember that every idea was once completely new, and that every idea is new at least once for every individual. So any idea that remains standing for any length of time has to be pretty solid.

The weakness of Andrew's stuff isn't that it won't get published in a journal... it's that it hasn't survived the coffee table round.

 

[MetaKron]

The trouble with "demolishing" ideas is that it's not a level playing field. It works a lot more by authority and a lot less by actual scientific fact. I haven't yet seen anyone who argues against the AIDS dissident case here who listens to the facts at all, or provides a factual argument against the case, but they sure accept the authority of a medical researcher who was already discredited before he came up with the HIV theory.

 

[URI]

Ok I understand your flawed logic.

Please PROVE to me something to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, anything at all, Thanks. (no mathematical or linguistic tautologies allowed)

It seems y'all are deluded in thinking y'all know something, simply because y'all agree.

Classic BS.

 

[zanket]

This is something I disagree with pretty strongly. I work in academia, and I've seen the fights and heard the discussions of surprisingly wild ideas.
The difference with experts is that they have the skills, tools, and attitude that enables them to follow through in probing the weak points of these ideas. Most ideas are demolished very quickly.

Billy T’s profile says he worked in academia for 30 years. So maybe you’re both right.

You won't see the discussion of many wild ideas in journals, but that's because most don't survive the gauntlet of coffee table talk, BOTE calcs, mailing lists, and conferences.

I think there’s a lot more to it than that. You also won't see the discussion of many wild ideas in journals simply because they won’t consider them, valid or not. For example, Annalen der Physik, which originally published special relativity, today by policy does not consider any paper that challenges Einstein. They are the rule, not the exception.

 

[Farsight]

I think 7 reasons to abandon Sci-forums is more apt. Commiserations Andrew.

 

[BenTheMan]

Real science can be anything it chooses to be as i see it, noone owns it, its just a web of communication and information exchange.

I am quite amused that someone with a name "heliocentric" has such views. How aproporos.

 

[Farsight]

Last one out turn out the lights.

 

[Pete]

I think there’s a lot more to it than that. You also won't see the discussion of many wild ideas in journals simply because they won’t consider them, valid or not. For example, Annalen der Physik, which originally published special relativity, today by policy does not consider any paper that challenges Einstein. They are the rule, not the exception.

If such a paper survived the gauntlet, then the policy would change.
Journals simply won't consider wild ideas that come out of the blue... if they haven't successfully run the gauntlet, it's wasting the journal's space.