Why many scientists are so ignorant

[river]

Again, the only pseudoscience I see is your faith in your ether paper, that languishes on oblivion.
And again since you seemed to have skipped over it: It is mentioned in the articles themselves by the proposers including Professor Krauss, that at this stage, what they are suggesting is still speculative.
At least though they are ideas from reputable mainstream sources, as opposed to the agenda laden alternative nonsense we sometimes get on this forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry.

As stated in the paper and the book, this exercise is rather speculative, but speculative from the point of view of a couple of professional experts, that have had various bouts of success and recognition in cosmology.
Again,


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

All Based on probability .

 

[paddoboy]

All Based on probability .

Whatever.......

 

[river]

Whatever.......

No not " whatever " Nature is beyond " probability " .

 

[paddoboy]

No not " whatever " Nature is beyond " probability " .

 

[river]

Ah...you get it.

 

[paddoboy]

What I do get, is the fact that science and the scientific method will remain supreme and adhered to as the best method we have.........
It adequately sorts the wheat from the chaff, and the science from the pseudoscience and supernatural crap.
And of course the trolls.

 

[river]

What I do get, is the fact that science and the scientific method will remain supreme and adhered to as the best method we have.........
It adequately sorts the wheat from the chaff, and the science from the pseudoscience and supernatural crap.
And of course the trolls.

The Universe is complex pad ; the Universe is not the Occam's razor.

Probability is simplicity; the Universe is far more complex than probability ; the reason probability exits in the first place is to simplify the complex.

river

 

[paddoboy]

The Universe is complex pad ; the Universe is not the Occam's razor.

Probability is simplicity; the Universe is far more complex than probability ; the reason probability exits in the first place is to simplify the complex.

river

Wow!!! Impressive....NOT.
I don't really remember anyone saying the Universe was not complex:
[another river red herring] Although that does not mean we will not understand it properly one day.
And we'll do that via the scientific method.

 

[river]

Wow!!! Impressive....NOT.
I don't really remember anyone saying the Universe was not complex:
[another river red herring] Although that does not mean we will not understand it properly one day.
And we'll do that via the scientific method.

Oh we will understand the Universe one day assuming of course that we will respect cultures ; races ; ideas ; thoughts ; our Planet ; ourselves ( Humans ) and life. And we have the want to survive; Humanity I mean; as a whole .

The scientific " method " will be expanded upon ; since new knowledge makes for better gathering of information ; hence information never gathered before or even thought to exist. Hence the wideing of parameters simply because the method has to to be realistic about what is actually " out there " . rather than our " absolute " thinking " as you do pad ; you think in such absolute terms sometimes ; such a simple mind .

Anyway scientists; on the whole ; are specialised thinkers nowadays. Except maybe for systems.

 

[paddoboy]

Oh we will understand the Universe one day assuming of course that we will respect cultures ; races ; ideas ; thoughts ; our Planet ; ourselves ( Humans ) and life. And we have the want to survive; Humanity I mean; as a whole .

The scientific " method " will be expanded upon ; since new knowledge makes for better gathering of information ; hence information never gathered before or even thought to exist. Hence the wideing of parameters simply because the method has to to be realistic about what is actually " out there " . rather than our " absolute " thinking " as you do pad ; you think in such absolute terms sometimes ; such a simple mind .

Anyway scientists; on the whole ; are specialised thinkers nowadays. Except maybe for systems.

Science will most certainly be expanded on, not the scientific method, and that will be by professional expert scientists, not cranks with an agenda or other malady.
The simple mind you mention of course is well evident on this forum, particularly by those pushing the unsupported, unevidenced, paranormal, pseudoscientific crank nonsense as some sort of fact, and which the scientific method so effectively weeds out from the sciences.

 

[river]

Science will most certainly be expanded on, not the scientific method, and that will be by professional expert scientists, not cranks with an agenda or other malady.
The simple mind you mention of course is well evident on this forum, particularly by those pushing the unsupported, unevidenced, paranormal, pseudoscientific crank nonsense as some sort of fact, and which the scientific method so effectively weeds out from the sciences.

Professional expert scientists , pad ? ......never mind .

pad; you are of simple mind .

I don't and never will respect you pad . you just blurt out ... Stuff.

 

[Schmelzer]

All Based on probability .

No. If based on probability, this would be something worth to be considered. What paddoboy presents as arguments is simply "the mainstream is always right" and "ignorance is an argument".

The paper itself is a normal theoretical paper, which proves some unimportant theorem, and the only reason to mention it in a popular forum is the worst thing in the paper, the misleading title. Misleading for laymen, because scientists understand that evolution from an unstable false vacuum is not "something from nothing", so that the title is a cheap joke to increase the interest in the paper.

 

[PhysBang]

What I do get, is the fact that science and the scientific method will remain supreme and adhered to as the best method we have.........
It adequately sorts the wheat from the chaff, and the science from the pseudoscience and supernatural crap.
And of course the trolls.

Well, historically, no. There have been many bad ideas that make their way into science. And while we might wait a long time for the pursuit of data to grind out these bad ideas, we can actively pursue an analysis of science that can work faster. This analysis can be sociological and it can be philosophical. See, for example, the work of Ben Goldacre in Bad Science and Bad Pharma.

 

[iceaura]

We have to stop somewhere where GR is yet reliable. That means, we cannot use the whole solution up to the singularity itself. It does not matter if you cut at Planck time or at 10−1000101000 Planck time, at any particular moment of cutting time the border where you cut is the same full three-dimensional universe

But not necessarily an infinite one, eh?

Also, since we have from current theory and observation that the separation of forces necessary to create the inhomogenieties of our "same, full, 3D universe" took place some time after the singularity event, that aspect of the assumption appears to be unlikely - do you have some reason we should make it?

Additionally, why do we have to stop somewhere our theory remains reliable, if we are evaluating the applicability of our theory?

 

[Schmelzer]

But not necessarily an infinite one, eh?

Yes, in the case of a closed universe this would be a finite three-dimensional sphere. But not a point, nothing one would reasonably name "nothing".

Also, since we have from current theory and observation that the separation of forces necessary to create the inhomogenieties of our "same, full, 3D universe" took place some time after the singularity event, that aspect of the assumption appears to be unlikely - do you have some reason we should make it?

Once we start at some finite time after the singularity (because, before, GR is unreliable) we will have to start with an already inhomogeneous universe.

Additionally, why do we have to stop somewhere our theory remains reliable, if we are evaluating the applicability of our theory?

First, we simply think about the question of the boundaries of applicability. Then we conclude, that near the singularity the theory is unreliable. Then we make some arbitrary cut so that nothing in what remains is immediately near the singularity.

 

[paddoboy]

Well, historically, no. There have been many bad ideas that make their way into science. And while we might wait a long time for the pursuit of data to grind out these bad ideas, we can actively pursue an analysis of science that can work faster. This analysis can be sociological and it can be philosophical. See, for example, the work of Ben Goldacre in Bad Science and Bad Pharma.

Of course there have been bad ideas...scientists are only human, as well as philosophers: But as per the BICEP2 error, it is the scientists themselves that reveal and/or continue to research to modify or even change previous errors.
The scientific method is not perfect: nothing is: But it is the best available and while some tinkering at the edges could improve, the basic foundation will always remain.

 

[paddoboy]

Professional expert scientists , pad ? ......never mind .

pad; you are of simple mind .

I don't and never will respect you pad . you just blurt out ... Stuff.

Yes, professional experts my boy, that unlike you follow the scientific method and peer review, and reject the aspects of supernatural/paranormal and Aliens flittering in and out for the nonsensical crank nonsense that they are.

Then you infer me as of "simple mind" and you have no respect?
Oh such ironic hypocrisy is enough to make a grown man cry.
I realise that your personal insults directed at me are a result of a tough few days you have had, particularly being caught out trying to skirt around moderation, and the fact that your continued fantasies of ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, and Aliens etc, are shown as the real reason you disrespect real science and the scientific method so fanatically: Afterall, like the need for a deity, your fantasies have been continually shown by science and the scientific method to be just that...fantasies.

 

[paddoboy]

No. If based on probability, this would be something worth to be considered. What paddoboy presents as arguments is simply "the mainstream is always right" and "ignorance is an argument".

The paper itself is a normal theoretical paper, which proves some unimportant theorem, and the only reason to mention it in a popular forum is the worst thing in the paper, the misleading title. Misleading for laymen, because scientists understand that evolution from an unstable false vacuum is not "something from nothing", so that the title is a cheap joke to increase the interest in the paper.

So says our Maverick scientist and all round political philosopher who has a paper on the ether languishing without citations in oblivion and who casts doubt on the Holocaust.
Let me tell you in no uncertain terms Schmelzer, "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is."
And as a scientist, that must be terribly disconcerting for you.
The Darwin's, Einstein's, Feynman's Bohr's, Hawking's and Krauss's etc,proceed on as per normal.
Let me quote from another from another thread for you, as obviously it applies to you as well.....

these science sites are nothing more than cesspools--every single one of them. they do not pertain to the actual work in the science sectors. they do not contribute anything too actual science. they are simply places for the want-to-bes and the mentally disable to play at(while endlessly insulting actual scientist and science within the same moment), nothing more.

ps: As a footnote Schmelzer, it actually shows how desperate you have become, probably due to the hidings you have copped for your rather insane political views, but no, I have never claimed mainstream is always right....so that's a porky pie on your part.
I claim that mainstream and the scientific method is self correcting as was shown by BICEP2, and will continue to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Certainly mainstream is not always right, but even more certainly, they are far more right, on far more occasions, then those "would be's if they could be's" that sit outside, picking at the edges trying their hardest from forums such as this, open to all Tom's, Dick's and Harry's.

 

[birch]

The problem with scientists is they only understand how things operate on one level like an equation. They tend to believe its impossible for events to occur outside of this strict non-adherence. This is why they tend to over-step and deny any other possibility when nature is so crazy and constantly mutating. If its not already nailed down in their mind, anything else is impossible.

 

[birch]

For instance, the case of doris bither, Dr. Taff surmised that the subconscious was creating poltergeists. Not imagining, actually creating.

The problem with scientists currently is their non-contextual understanding or dismissal of cause and effect if its not reduced to inanimate interpretation which is impractical in some cases. Just as there are rare and obscure diseases that arent denied, its much harder to evaluate rare occurences that arent hardcore physically. This is the blindspot of most scientists which is okay as everyone specializes in different areas and their expertise is different among different specialization. Its when they cross what they dont understand and rule it out as impossible.

I can take the case of bither one step further. He was referring to her subconscious but just as well another can be affected by the poltergeists another has created or sprang from their subconscious and latch onto you, good or ill. There was someone in my home who was extremely aggressive, full of hate and very intensely dangerous. Very unusually that just about everyone felt ill around him.

Ive seen them in three-dimensional form in a home of extreme violence. People underestimate what people are capable of or even themselves. They were not random shadows but with intent and energy. Separate and existing on their own but its nature reflective of who it came from in thought and energy wise. I know for a fact that if i had not experienced it, i would also probably be dismissive. This is a very strange world capable of out of ordinary occurrences.

And if anyone is tempted to use an excuse that i have a mental problem, you can cut that bullshit as ive already been evaluated and i am as lucid as anyone.