Please note that I understand that the following observations will not win me any popularity contests. But I feel that an open-minded discussion about the methods, and attitudes of science is necessary to keep scientific inquiry 'honest'. This is not meant to be argumentative, but rather should be taken as an opportunity to re-evaluate certain aspects of methodology, and revisit such antiquated terms as 'common sense', and 'deductive reasoning'.
I will admit to a certain bias, but I try very hard to keep my observations objective. One of the real problems with 'science' is that it has become so specialized that the typical scientist is required to completely immerse himself/herself in training that lasts many years. They simply don't have the time, or energy to keep abreast of current discoveries outside of their specific line that may relate to their field. From my personal experiences with scientists, I can state that the vast majority I have communicated with are typically several years behind the curve, if they are even aware there IS a curve.
There is a decided need for a 'clearing house' of current knowledge that can correlate the latest in experimental research, and observations. A group of retired scientists, or grad students working on their doctorates could volunteer their time to sift through papers submitted for peer-review, and send automated 5 minute drills at the end of each week, geared toward the specific field of any scientists signed up for the service.
I think this would be of great benefit to science, and the world at large.
That said ....
I am not a mathematician. I am not a physicist.
I am an OBSERVER with ( it would seem ) sufficient wattage between my ears to make rational, logical ( in most cases ) sense of my observations.
The following saying could not be more germane to the current state of science.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
I have read so many threads here, and it is astonishing how many 'experts' speak in 'absolutes'. NEVER. EVER. WILL ALWAYS.
The lessons of the past are so quickly forgotten. It seems they just can't learn from the mistakes of those who preceded them in the quest for answers to the questions of the universe.
These issues that the experts expound upon so authoritatively ... the structure, form, and functions of our universe are FAR from 'settled'.
One hundred years ago, we had good theoretical mathematical models of the universe.
However, the Universe didn't cooperate. Observations just didn't agree with the models.
So we ( eventually ) came up with NEW mathematical models. And for a few decades everything was 'cool'.
But then our observations, using better tools, began to contradict those models, too.
So we grudgingly created NEW mathematical models to try to agree with the observations.
Yet at each point in this cosmological history there were those who 'held fast' to the old thinking. History is littered with nameless ... and not so nameless scientists who ended up on the wrong side of the fence.
50 years ago ... it was the 'steady-state' universe. Famous scientists ... mainstream scientists went down in history as 'losers'.
At each new plateau, 'mainstream' scoffed at, and/or ignored evidence that contradicted their beliefs, or the theoretical mathematical models.
And at each point, they said ... "Ok. Well we may have been wrong in the past, but we are ( more ) RIGHT this time. And anyone who disagrees is a crank. Or a fool. They obviously don't know what they are talking about!"
Well, many of you may shudder at the thought, but the 'ever-expanding, heat-death' universe may also soon go down in history as another "Oooops!" There are more and more scientists who are finding reasons to question this 'accepted' assumption.
We are finding that the observations just in the last 5 years are casting serious doubt on the theoretical mathematical models once again. As I mentioned to someone else today ... If there is corroborating observational evidence to contradict current mathematical models, it's time to reassess the math. Not your eyes. ( Note the word ... corroborating )
Some facts about our universe ARE immutable. But there are a whole lot of 'assumptions' made here that have little backing from observational evidence.
Such as the validity of string theories. Or Hawking radiation.
If you want to repeat the mistakes of the 'losers' of the past, that's your business.
But I think now, more than ever, science needs to keep an open mind, rather than assume these issues are 'settled'.
I hope I have made my point clearly enough.
I look forward to any comments any of you may have. I trust you will not consider this an opportunity to vilify, demean, or discredit the observer.
I will admit to a certain bias, but I try very hard to keep my observations objective. One of the real problems with 'science' is that it has become so specialized that the typical scientist is required to completely immerse himself/herself in training that lasts many years. They simply don't have the time, or energy to keep abreast of current discoveries outside of their specific line that may relate to their field. From my personal experiences with scientists, I can state that the vast majority I have communicated with are typically several years behind the curve, if they are even aware there IS a curve.
There is a decided need for a 'clearing house' of current knowledge that can correlate the latest in experimental research, and observations. A group of retired scientists, or grad students working on their doctorates could volunteer their time to sift through papers submitted for peer-review, and send automated 5 minute drills at the end of each week, geared toward the specific field of any scientists signed up for the service.
I think this would be of great benefit to science, and the world at large.
That said ....
I am not a mathematician. I am not a physicist.
I am an OBSERVER with ( it would seem ) sufficient wattage between my ears to make rational, logical ( in most cases ) sense of my observations.
The following saying could not be more germane to the current state of science.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
I have read so many threads here, and it is astonishing how many 'experts' speak in 'absolutes'. NEVER. EVER. WILL ALWAYS.
The lessons of the past are so quickly forgotten. It seems they just can't learn from the mistakes of those who preceded them in the quest for answers to the questions of the universe.
These issues that the experts expound upon so authoritatively ... the structure, form, and functions of our universe are FAR from 'settled'.
One hundred years ago, we had good theoretical mathematical models of the universe.
However, the Universe didn't cooperate. Observations just didn't agree with the models.
So we ( eventually ) came up with NEW mathematical models. And for a few decades everything was 'cool'.
But then our observations, using better tools, began to contradict those models, too.
So we grudgingly created NEW mathematical models to try to agree with the observations.
Yet at each point in this cosmological history there were those who 'held fast' to the old thinking. History is littered with nameless ... and not so nameless scientists who ended up on the wrong side of the fence.
50 years ago ... it was the 'steady-state' universe. Famous scientists ... mainstream scientists went down in history as 'losers'.
At each new plateau, 'mainstream' scoffed at, and/or ignored evidence that contradicted their beliefs, or the theoretical mathematical models.
And at each point, they said ... "Ok. Well we may have been wrong in the past, but we are ( more ) RIGHT this time. And anyone who disagrees is a crank. Or a fool. They obviously don't know what they are talking about!"
Well, many of you may shudder at the thought, but the 'ever-expanding, heat-death' universe may also soon go down in history as another "Oooops!" There are more and more scientists who are finding reasons to question this 'accepted' assumption.
We are finding that the observations just in the last 5 years are casting serious doubt on the theoretical mathematical models once again. As I mentioned to someone else today ... If there is corroborating observational evidence to contradict current mathematical models, it's time to reassess the math. Not your eyes. ( Note the word ... corroborating )
Some facts about our universe ARE immutable. But there are a whole lot of 'assumptions' made here that have little backing from observational evidence.
Such as the validity of string theories. Or Hawking radiation.
If you want to repeat the mistakes of the 'losers' of the past, that's your business.
But I think now, more than ever, science needs to keep an open mind, rather than assume these issues are 'settled'.
I hope I have made my point clearly enough.
I look forward to any comments any of you may have. I trust you will not consider this an opportunity to vilify, demean, or discredit the observer.
Last edited: